1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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, MAY 3, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1303 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings

Community of Property Act (Bill 39) Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading — 1303

Statement

Increase in ferry rates. Hon. Mr. Davis — 1303

Mr. King — 1304

Mr. Gibson — 1304

Mr. Wallace — 1305

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Job losses due to ferry fare increases. Mr. King — 1306

Fringe benefits for ferry employees. Mr. Wallace — 1306

B.C. Hydro proposal to Seattle City Light. Mr. Gibson — 1306

Effect of ferry rate increases on tourist industry. Mr. Cocke —

NDP advice to ferry union. Mr. Bawlf — 1307

Cost of living increases to higher ferry rates. Mr. Lockstead —

Effect of increased ferry rates on Vancouver Island agriculture. Mrs. Wallace

— 1308

Discussions with other carriers on increased rates. Mr. Lea — 1308

Notice of increased rates by CPR. Mr. Lauk — 1308

Motion

Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of public importance.

Mr. Gibson — 1308

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1309

Mr. Wallace — 1309

Mr. Speaker — 1310

Mr. King — 1311

Mr. Speaker — 1311

Statement

Situation at Vancouver General Hospital. Hon. Mr. Williams — 1311

Mr. King — 1312

Mr. Gibson — 1312

Mr. Wallace — 1313

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates.

On vote 10.

Mr. Macdonald — 1315

Mrs. Wallace — 1316

Mrs. Jordan — 1317

Ms. Brown — 1318

Mrs. Jordan — 1323

Ms. Sanford — 1324

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1326

Mr. Rogers — 1327

Mr. Lauk — 1328

Mr. Chabot — 1332

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1333

Mr. Loewen — 1334

Mr. Wallace — 1335

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1336

Mr. Wallace — 1337

Point of order

Clarification of format for ministerial statements. Mr. Nicolson —

Mr. Speaker — 1338

Appendix — 1339

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery

today is a group of students from the high school in Summerland, in the

heart of the Okanagan in that famous constituency of South Okanagan.

These students are chaperoned by their principal, Mr. Robert Tait, who

in turn is chaperond by his wife, Mrs. Joanne Tait. I would ask the

House to bid them welcome.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today

we have a group of students who have come all the way from Oak Bay to

watch the Legislature in action. I'd like the House to welcome students

from Glenlyon School for Boys.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, we have with us in the

gallery today from the constituency of Omineca Mr. and Mrs. John

Kasdorf. I had the pleasure of being associated with Mr. Kasdorf for

many years in the forest industry in the north. I would ask that the

House join me in welcoming them

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact

that the priest who led us in prayers this afternoon is a constituent,

the Reverend Bill Mundy, very well known in Saanich and the Islands and

greater Victoria. His church is St. Peter's, Lakehill. Would the House

welcome him?

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to ask the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Bill Price, who is

visiting from Omineca, in the gallery today,

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker,

in the House today is a prominent lawyer from my constituency of

Kamloops, and also the president of the Social Credit Party

constituency organization in Kamloops, Mr. David Rogers. I ask the

House to bid him welcome.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, may I draw your

attention to three executive members of the Fraser Valley Regional

Library, Mrs. Pretty, Mr. Overand and Mr. Perry, and I request the

House to give them a welcome, please.

Introduction of bills.

COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY ACT

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill 39, Community of Property Act,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

INCREASE IN FERRY RATES

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I am announcing today that most

British Columbia ferry rates will double on June 1, 1976. Hon. members

should note, however, that the so-called increase in income will not be

enough to cover all B.C. ferry costs. An annual subsidy in the order of

$25 million will be necessary to bridge the continuing gap between

income and expenses.

Last year users paid about one-third of the total capital and

operating costs of B.C. Ferries. After June 1, with the doubling of the

fares, they will be paying roughly two-thirds. The remaining one-third

is a continuing subsidy. It will be paid by taxpayers all over the

province and regardless of their level of income. So it puts the users

of the B.C. ferries on the same basis as those who use our toll-free

highways and roads in B.C.

Specifically, on the main crossings from the lower mainland to

Vancouver Island, the charge for individual drivers and passengers will

rise from $2 to $4; for vehicles under 6 ft. 5 in. the increase will be

from $5 to $10.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Does that take in Cadillacs?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Senior citizens and children five and under

will travel free from now on; children six to 14 years of age and those

who are permanently handicapped will travel at half fare. Groups of 25

or more travelling on foot or in a bus will receive a discount of 25

per cent. Trailers and other over-height vehicles will be in a new

category. They will pay $15 on the main routes. Bicycles will continue

to be free; motorcycles, on the other hand, will face a doubling in

rates on most routes. Commercial vehicles like large trailer trucks

will pay competitive rates. These are roughly one-third above those

presently charged by B.C. Ferries.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to underline the fact that

wage rates have trebled and fuel costs have more than quadrupled since

1960 when B.C. Ferries first began operating, using the

[ Page 1304 ]

rates that are in effect now. This approximate

doubling in fares should be judged, then, in the context of rising

costs. We are determined to bring future cost increases under control.

If we can do this, we will be able to maintain our ferry rates at or

about the levels which I am announcing today. Of course, we will

continue to press the federal government for a contribution to the B.C.

ferry subsidy.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the

official opposition regrets the statement that has just been made by

the Minister of Transport and Communications. The doubling of ferry

fares at this particular time, in conjunction with other increases that

have been already introduced by the government, is in our view

extremely punitive and certainly adds to the high cost of living that

the citizens of British Columbia are labouring under at the moment. The

announced policy, Mr. Speaker, in the view of the official opposition,

flies directly in the face of the fight on inflation which the

provincial government and the federal government are asking the

citizens of this nation and this province to cooperate in. I think it's

extremely regrettable and reprehensible that these kinds of punitive

rates have been visited upon the people of British Columbia at this

time, Mr. Speaker.

I note that the one positive element of the programme — and it's

only marginally positive — is the announcement of free passage for

senior citizens as pedestrians. But I note, Mr. Speaker, that senior

citizens who are operating automobiles will be subject to the same

doubling of rates incident to their vehicle as any other citizen in the

province. So the benefits there, indeed, are very marginal.

I note also; Mr. Speaker, that the cost of two Volkswagens will be

double the cost of one Cadillac, despite the fact that the space

occupied by two Volkswagens is approximately the same as that occupied

by a Cadillac. I think it's regrettable that the government did not

move to direct some of the burden against the rich as well as directing

it all against the poor, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor on his statement.

MR. KING: I decry in the strongest possible terms, Mr.

Speaker, the threat to employment that is generated as, a result of

this new policy by the government, the threat to employment directly to

those employees employed in the ferry....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, the purpose of a reply to a statement by a minister....

MR. LEA: ...is to agree or shut up. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member for Prince Rupert withdraw that remark — an unqualified withdrawal! I heard the remark.

MR. LEA: Just before I do, Mr. Speaker — and I'm quite willing to, if it's unparliamentary — what inference do you draw from it?

MR. SPEAKER: You do not have possession of the floor. You throw it out as an insinuation which must be withdrawn.

MR. LEA: I withdraw for speaking when I didn't have the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: As I was about to say, hon. Leader of the

Opposition, it's not a matter of now engaging in a full-scale debate,

as you properly know; it's a matter of replying to the statement made

by the minister. I'm prepared to allow a certain amount of latitude

because it is difficult at times to determine what is allowable in a

situation like this and what is not, but I suggest to you that you

cannot become argumentative in the remarks which you make at this time.

There'll be a proper time and period for that to happen.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'll just point out that the minister

in making his statement attempted to provide justification for the

increases, which I don't believe is customary either. I'm going to be

very brief, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to take advantage of your good

grace in allowing some flexibility on this very important matter.

I just want to point out that the opposition is genuinely, extremely

concerned regarding the threat to those people involved in the ferry

service. We are extremely concerned with respect to the threat to the

employment of people in the private sector on Vancouver Island as a

result of what will undoubtedly be a spectacular increase in freight

costs. It will mean possible curtailment of small industry on the

Island.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we are extremely concerned and can only

categorize the rate increases as absolutely punitive when they

certainly threaten one of the basic industries of the Vancouver Island

area, namely the tourist industry, which undoubtedly and as a direct

consequence of these unconscionable increases can only suffer in very,

very dramatic form.

The people of all Vancouver Island will be the losers over the coming year, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker,

responding to the minister's statement, I appreciate the need for more

revenue for the ferry system, but I would suggest that the rate

increases we

[ Page 1305 ]

have today are pretty rough and the details are importantly incorrect.

The minister is well aware, I think, that the capacity on the ferry

system is what costs the money — the enormous underutilization of the

system in the winter, or the overutilization in the summer, whichever

way you might want to look at it. The people who travel on the system

all year around are the ones who provide the bread and butter — the

ongoing revenue of the system. Therefore it seems to me that either

there should have been a system of peak period pricing introduced, or

else a continuation and extension of the commuter ticket system which

had been evolved on some routes.

Secondly, I very much deplore the increase in passenger prices. We

should be trying to encourage people to travel as foot passengers, get

into car pools and so on, rather than simply raising those prices along

with everything else.

Finally, I naturally support the minister in his continuing quest

for a federal subsidy for this system. I want to suggest a very

specific way and means of doing that. The fact is that the citizens of

British Columbia naturally subsidize every car that goes across there,

so every British Columbia licence plate has that privilege but every

licence plate that goes on that system without a British Columbia

licence plate hasn't contributed to the subsidy, as they should be

doing, through the federal government. Therefore what the minister

should do is institute a little system whereby we charge

out-of-British-Columbia licence plates the extra for the full cost,

give them a little brochure and say we're sorry. Until the federal

government sees fit to pay this proper subsidy to British Columbia

which they pay to other parts of the country, we have to charge them

the extra that's already being charged to British Columbia. That might

bring them around fairly quickly, Mr. Minister.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of federal subsidy,

which is really the reason why the problem is so acute, I acknowledge

and support the concept that the rest of the province can't go on

subsidizing the ferries to this present degree. The purpose of an

increase, I thought, was to provide a disincentive to cars and an

incentive to people. I'm not sure that that has been achieved.

Regardless of the amount of diminished use by motor vehicles, I can

certainly see a drastic need for more parking at terminal facilities if

there is to be any reduction in the number of cars going on the ferry.

That involves expenditure, and perhaps in debate we'll get into that

later.

I think it's regrettable also that the minister has made no mention

in his statement of one of the other serious problems, namely the fact

that all the workers, it seems, are working overtime, and, as a result,

this has led to another crisis in the system, which is not referrable

to debate today. But if the minister had suggested making some serious

attempt to get back to a regular working day for each member who's

employed by the ferry system, this would have reduced the cost of

operation and would also help the unemployment that is a problem.

I feel, as the Liberal leader does, that there should be some

mechanism to provide some measure of preference to Vancouver Island

residents. As the official opposition have pointed out, it will be an

economic hardship and there will be real danger that the tourist season

will be affected, and a great deal of our economy on this island

depends on tourism.

The good point, of course, is free travel for senior citizens, but I

think that in face of inflation and high unemployment this summer the

minister might have given consideration to students, to give either a

reduced fare or a free fare as an acknowledgement of their particular

situation at this time.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order:

when the official Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) was making his

reply to the statement made by the Hon. Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis), you interrupted him at one point in

order to take to task the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) with

respect to a comment he made across the House. His comment related to,

"You either agree or you shut up," if I recall the words. I would like

to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that at that point the Minister of

Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) shouted back across the floor "Well

then, shut up!" I feel that you should also ask for a retraction from

the Hon. Minister of Consumer Services.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order raised by the

hon. member for Comox, I must say to you that I did not hear such a

remark, but if that is in fact the case, that that remark went across

the floor of the House, would the Hon. Minister of Consumer Services

withdraw any such imputation?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker,

I'll make it easier for you and plead guilty. However, my remark was

based on the propriety of the hon. member's remark; you've already

ruled that it was not a proper remark. However, rather than get in a

legal hassle, I will withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Minister.

Oral questions.

[ Page 1306 ]

JOB LOSSES DUE TO

FERRY FARE INCREASES

MR. KING: A question to the Minister of Labour: I would like

to ask whether he of his own volition, or at the request of the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis), has embarked

on a study to assess the possible impact of job loss to the Ferry

Authority employees as a result of the announced rate increases and the

announced cut-back in staff, and also whether he has conducted any

research analysis on the impact of job loss in the private sector as a

result of the ferry rate increases.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): The answer is no.

MR. KING: Completely ad hoc, eh!

FRINGE BENEFITS FOR FERRY EMPLOYEES

MR. WALLACE: I would also like to ask the Minister of

Transport and Communications a question with regard to B.C. Ferry

salaries and fringe benefits. Is the reported statement of the minister

correct, quoted over the weekend, that fringe benefits for ferry

employees include free passage for their families on the ferries and

reduced menu prices for food?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, that is a factual statement.

MR. WALLACE: Could I also ask if retired civil servants continue to hold free passes on the ferries?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the conditions of employment under the current agreements.

MR. WALLACE: Could I finally ask if former cabinet ministers continue to hold passes on the ferries?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I don't think so, Mr. Speaker, but I'll check as to the fact.

B.C. HYDRO PROPOSAL TO

SEATTLE CITY LIGHT

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Transport and Communications in his capacity of being responsible for

B.C. Hydro. Could the minister tell us whether it is correct that B.C.

Hydro is currently preparing a formal proposal to Seattle City Light on

the matter of the Skagit Valley? Is it also correct that it has been

informally communicated to that group that the new government thinks

the proposal of the former government was not fair?

HON. MR. DAVIS: As to the first part of that question, Mr.

Speaker, B.C. Hydro is advising ministers of this government in respect

to a possible approach to Seattle City Light, but B.C. Hydro itself is

not directly involved in any negotiation with that utility in respect

to the Skagit River.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: the minister

didn't comment on the second part of my question, but I would like to

go on and ask him if he would give this House a firm policy undertaking

of the government that the Skagit will not be flooded under any

circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the question you have just posed to

the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications is certainly one of

broad policy of the government, and the minister certainly is not

obligated to reply to that question.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate that he's not obligated, Mr. Speaker; I just wanted to give him that opportunity.

EFFECT OF FERRY RATE

INCREASES ON TOURIST INDUSTRY

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Minister of Travel Industry, also Provincial Secretary. I'd like to

ask the Minister of Travel Industry whether or not her department,

during the discussions around ferry rate increases, has done any

research on what these increases will do to the travel industry and the

secondary industries around the travel industry on Vancouver Island.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry):

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member for New Westminster, I would

like to share with him some of the statistics that have come to the

government by way of planning to increase the ferry service rates and

the effect that it would have on the travel industry in this province.

First of all, between 1960 and 1972 the ferry service in this

province showed in the aggregate an $18 million profit, and from 1972

until March of this year it showed a $72.4 million loss. In respect to

that incredible loss situation, it has been necessary for the minister

to announce rate increases today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you please relate your reply to the question that was asked?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes. The member is

[ Page 1307 ]

requesting information regarding the travel industry impact.

From the travel industry represented in greater Vancouver and

greater Victoria, from the Hotels Association, which is very much

affected, and from various other travel industries people, I have had

representation which showed conclusively that the last strike that

was...

MR. KING: Order!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...undertaken by the ferry service so influenced the travel industry that they are still suffering today.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, that is an example of how

the travel industry is very much affected. I would like further to say

that the effect of this....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. As the minister knows, in

question period you cannot expand beyond the question that was raised

to you, Hon. Minister. Now would you please confine your reply to the

question?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the member for New

Westminster can be assured that the Travel Industry department does

have statistics on the impact.

MR. COCKE: Since the answer to this question was a simple no,

obviously no research has been done. I would wonder, Mr. Speaker, why

it was that the Minister of Travel Industry didn't stand up and give us

highway statistics as to what it costs the province in subsidy.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon.

Provincial Secretary. Is she aware that between the years 1963 and

1966, under the previous Social Credit government, there were $107

million from consolidated revenue that went in as a subsidy to B.C.

ferries? Were you aware of that, Madam Minister?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I don't know whether that is a proper question, but I would be pleased to check your figures, Mr. Member.

NDP ADVICE TO FERRY UNION

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a

question of the Leader of the Opposition. Following a meeting between

the representative of the B.C. Government Employees' Union — Mr.

Thornber — and the opposition caucus, is it true that the opposition

caucus advised the ferry union to run advertisements throughout North

America saying that the B.C. ferries are unsafe?

MR. SPEAKER: Before the hon. Leader of the Opposition

replies, as long as the question is directed to the Leader of the

Opposition or any other party leader in the House, with respect to

their responsibilities as leader, it is in order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer that question.

No, that is absolutely, patently untrue. Mr. Speaker, we are concerned

in the official opposition about the tourist industry in this province,

and certainly would do nothing to injure that industry. It is the

province's second-largest industry, and that is why we are so extremely

concerned, Mr. Speaker, that the present exorbitant, punitive,

unconscionable rate increase by that government is going to do a more

adequate job, a more devastating job, of curtailing and injuring the

tourist industry than anything negotiations with the trade union may do.

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I might ask then if the Leader of the

Opposition would be planning to make a statement to clarify the

earlier, apparently erroneous statements reported in the newspapers in

this city to this effect.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen any statement in the

newspapers to that effect, and I'm hardly responsible for what the

newspaper people write. If the member would care to....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: If the member would care to provide me with a copy

of the article, I'd be interested in seeing it. But I want to tell the

House, Mr. Speaker, that the official opposition is never reticent in

terms of articulating our position and our policy in this House, as I

have done on this occasion and as we have done in the past. But if the

member would like to draw it to my attention I'll certainly answer the

question for him, without even taking it as notice, as the ministers in

his own government do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

COST-OF-LIVING INCREASES

DUE TO HIGHER FERRY RATES

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Consumer

[ Page 1308 ]

Services. I would like to ask the minister if he

has had any studies done to find out how much the cost of living will

be increased to residents of Vancouver Island and theSun shine Coast

due to the announced increase in commercial rates on the B.C. Ferries,

and if this is his idea of "another kick in the rear to the people of

this province."

HON. MR. MAIR: In answer to the member, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not an answer.

EFFECT OF INCREASED FERRY RATES

ON VANCOUVER ISLAND AGRICULTURE

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Minister of Agriculture, and I would ask for an answer, yes or no. Has

his department undertaken any studies to ascertain the effect of the

increased ferry freight rates on the agricultural community of

Vancouver Island?

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

I've been informed by the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis), in my

concern about the agricultural industry on Vancouver Island, that the

majority of merchandise which travels to and from the Island is by

commercial, other than the B.C. Ferries. Very little of the truck

transport is actually carried by the ferries, and it will have very,

very little effect on the great agricultural industry.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if you want to go a little

further, it will probably have very little effect on the actual cost of

any foodstuffs, whether it be agricultural or not, because the bulk is

carried by other carriers.

MRS. WALLACE: A supplemental. I would ask the minister what

alternate carriers he is speaking about, and whether or not he is aware

that their rates are also going to be increased as a result of the B.C.

Ferries increase.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the

member that I appreciate her questions. I am very concerned about it,

but if she did a little study she would realize that the bulk of cargo

between the mainland and Vancouver Island is by train and barge and

that our new rates will still be below those charged by the CPR, for

instance.

I was very concerned about this. We checked it out, and I was happy

to be able to report to the House that it won't have any great effect.

DISCUSSIONS WITH OTHER

CARRIERS ON INCREASED RATES

MR. LEA: Supplementary question to the Premier: has the

government had any talks with CPR and the commercial carriers, and have

they informed you of putting their rates up, after these B.C. Ferry

rates? Have you had discussions with CPR or other commercial carriers

about their rates going up?

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. First of all, that is not a

supplemental question if it is directed to another minister. But I will

take it as a question by itself,

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the member for Prince

Rupert: no, the government does not fix prices with private concerns;

at least, the new government doesn't. We have had no discussions with

the CPR or any other carrier. The rates, as presented by the Minister

of Transport, were done strictly on a basis of economics and government

subsidy which, in effect, is calculated similarly to the subsidy that

goes to all highways in British Columbia, to keep the ferries on the

same subsidy basis as major transportation routes in the province.

This government had never even entertained the idea that it should,

in fact, try and discuss rates with private carriers, and we never will.

NOTICE OF INCREASED RATES BY CPR

MR, G.V. LAUX (Vancouver Centre): To the Premier: has he, or

his government, received any notice from CPR that their rates for

commercial transport to the Island will be increased?

HON. MR. BENNETT: To the second member for Vancouver Centre:

I have not been contacted or advised, but you might direct your

question to the Minister of Transport and Communications, under whose

department comes the agency that controls rate applications in the

province.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. The question period was interrupted by the bell. The question period is now over.

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents the first annual report of the Legal Services Commission.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 35 to

ask leave to move a motion for the adjournment of the House to discuss

a matter of definite public importance. I have reason to believe that

the hon. Conservative leader would have suggested the same basic matter

had he been recognized at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member wish to

[ Page 1309 ]

yield to the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: No, I just wanted to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the idea had double front-bench merit.

If I may briefly state the matter:

whereas difficulties concerning

the employment of summer students by the government — difficulties

between individual government agencies and with the B.C. Government

Employees' Union — threaten the employment prospects of several

thousand students, and

whereas other difficulties between the hospitals

and hospital workers of British Columbia are causing immediate and

serious disruption in health services, this House should immediately

debate the general subject matter of public sector employment, with

particular emphasis to the enumerated areas and the activities of the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) in this regard.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member. One moment, please.

MR. GIBSON: I would be prepared to speak to the question of urgency if Your Honour wishes.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you please resume your seat for a few moments, Hon. Member?

Hon. members, in replying to the matter raised by the hon. member

for North Vancouver-Capilano, with respect to placing before the House

a motion to debate a matter of urgent public importance under standing

order 35, in reading the statement which you prepared and handed to me,

Hon. Member, I would draw your attention to several matters.

First of all, you contemplate several propositions within the one

statement. You might argue that, even though you have several

propositions which would ordinarily rule your request out of order,

they can constitute the one subject because, in fact, they do deal with

the matter of unemployment. But in dealing with that, and assuming that

even though there are several subject matters within the one statement

and that you are speaking rather in broad terms about unemployment, I

would draw to your attention that it is a matter of unemployment, which

is one of a continuing nature which has been with us. One moment,

please.

I would also draw your attention to the fact that you suggest that

because of these problems there is a possibility of disruption of

health services. I would therefore also draw to your attention a

statement that was made in an earlier meeting of this Legislature, but

not many days ago, by the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon., Mr. Williams)

indicating that this whole matter and the disruption of services, if

that were to take place, would be dealt with according to the statutes

and the law of this province.

Finally, I would draw to your attention page 371 of Sir Erskine May,

the 16th edition, and suggest to you that a motion has been refused

when an ordinary parliamentary opportunity will occur shortly or in

time. There is no question about the fact that an opportunity will

occur whenever we debate the estimates of the minister involved. While

I cannot anticipate the day that that will be raised on the floor of

the House, it will be, as suggested by Sir Erskine May, a matter which

will properly be under discussion and may be raised for debate when

those estimates are before the members of this House.

I must say to you now that in taking all of these matters into

consideration I cannot see where your motion qualifies for a matter of

urgent public debate as provided for under standing order 35 of this

House. Therefore I must rule your motion out of order.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, and without

wishing to question Your Honour's ruling, I would like to suggest a

possible way out of this, because, in fact, patients are being moved

out of Vancouver General Hospital today and students are reporting for

work without knowing what they are going to be paid or if they have a

job. The way out, I would suggest, is to suggest to the government

House Leader (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) that we might perhaps immediately

call the estimates of the Minister of Labour and on which ministerial

vote we could talk about all of these things to the satisfaction of the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: The order of business, as you know, is a matter

that the House Leader decides. We have a minister's estimates before

the House....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not for the Speaker to

determine the order of business or the minister's estimates that will

be called before this House on any particular occasion. Even at that, I

have given you my reasons for ruling your particular motion out of

order, and I have so ruled, Hon. Member.

MR. GIBSON: What does the government say?

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your clarification

because under standing order 35, as you are probably well aware, 6(

a) states that no more than one such motion can be made at the same

sitting. While I wish very much to adhere to the rules

[ Page 1310 ]

of the House, my intended material was more specifically directed towards the problems of the students in the province.

Hopefully, I had not included propositions in my statement.

According to standing order 35, paragraph 1, the member simply states

the matter and asks leave to move a motion — not actually asking to

move the motion, but simply asking leave of the House, on the basis of

the material in the statement, to then ask to move a motion. So

actually the preliminary matter that has to be decided by Mr. Speaker,

according to subsection 1 of standing order 35, is to consider the

content of the material presented by the member in asking leave to move

the motion, not to actually move the motion....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. I think there is a general

misunderstanding among the hon. members of this House as to the

procedure that we take and the procedure that must be observed by the

Speaker of the House in determining whether a motion is in order or out

of order.

The procedure is that the member wishing to move a motion states the

matter and hands a statement of that to the Speaker. The written

statement is then looked at by the Speaker. If the Speaker thinks it is

in order, then he proceeds to ask leave of the House. But in this case,

Hon. Member, as has happened in many cases in the past and probably

will in the future, I determine, on the basis of the evidence before

me, whether I consider this to be a matter of urgent public importance

for debate at this particular time.

I have done exactly as I should do, as I understand my role in this

House. I've determined whether the matter was in order to be debated;

I've suggested to the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.

Gibson) why it was not in order; and I so ruled. Beyond that point,

there is no reason or no way in which I see the House should ask for

leave.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Now if you are, in fact, dealing with different

subject matter, then I must listen to your request for an emergency

debate under

section 35 of our standing orders. If, however, you are

dealing with the same subject matter as we have already dealt with,

then it is clearly out of order, Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I have no wish to

fight or to try and get around the rules of the House. I am saying that

the statement I had prepared was more specific and related to the fact

that while, as you've pointed out, unemployment is an ongoing problem,

the urgency of this particular situation is that the people concerned

have a strictly limited number of weeks in which they can work in the

year. My statement touches upon this very central aspect of the matter,

and I would ask if I might....

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps, Hon. Member, in order to clarify it and

for me to listen to the statement to determine whether it's on the same

subject matter or not, you would read the statement.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a motion for

the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite

matter of urgent public business, In accordance with standing order 35,

I wish to state the issue. The matter concerns phase two of the student

employment programme. Reports over the weekend and inquiries made by my

office confirm that there is an impasse over the hiring of students for

summer employment between the government and the BCGEU.

The Victoria Times on

Friday afternoon reported the issue as a major story on the front page,

quoting the union secretary that the union has rejected government

employment proposals for students in some jobs at rates of pay below

the level stipulated in the collective agreement. My inquiries this

morning confirm the accuracy of these statements. The evidence shows

that, indeed, an impasse has been reached with severe and immediate

impact on many students seeking government employment.

According to Canada Manpower, in Victoria alone 5,000 young people

will apply for 1,400 jobs. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams),

in a press release of April 21, confirmed that termination of the

federal Opportunities For Youth programme has eliminated 2,700 student

jobs this summer. In the same release, the minister predicted an

unemployment rate among students in excess of 18 per cent this summer.

The provincial government, the minister stated, would be providing

jobs for at least 4,600 students in various departments of government,

and he said that the B.C. government is the largest single employer in

the province.

These facts, together with the impasse over the rates for summer

employment for students, Mr. Speaker, emphasize the urgent nature of

the crisis facing many students in the province, particularly those who

were expecting to return to government jobs which they have filled

during previous summers.

Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence and students have a limited

number of weeks in which to earn enough money to finance their return

to university in September. It is for these clearly defined and

urgently pressing reasons that I seek leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in dealing with the matter just

raised by the hon. member for Oak Bay, with respect, I must say to you

that it does deal

[ Page 1311 ]

with relatively the same subject matter as the

previous motion dealt with. I have given you my reasons for ruling the

motion out of order on a matter of public urgency at this time. I

therefore must apply the same rule evenly with other motions on the

same matter. I must suggest to you now that your motion is as much out

of order as the other one was which I have so ruled upon.

MR. KING: I appreciate your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if

I may be allowed to ask for the unanimous leave of the House, as I

understand that is always in order, to discuss the matter raised by the

Conservative leader.

MR. SPEAKER: There's nothing to prevent a member of the House

from asking for unanimous leave to discuss a matter. You're asking that

that question be put?

MR. KING: Yes.

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the two matters

which were raised by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano and the

member for Oak Bay....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I wish to make a statement. May I have leave to make a statement?

Leave not granted.

MR. KING: On a point of order, am I to assume, then, that unanimous leave of the House was granted to discuss this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: No, unanimous leave was denied. I have no idea

or no way of knowing, Hon. Leader of the Opposition, what the Minister

of Labour was about to raise in the matter of business of this House

until he stood on his feet. If you will recall, when he stood on his

feet and suggested that he was raising the same matter, I was about to

tell him it couldn't be raised at this particular time without leave.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now we have dealt with the matter of debating the matter with leave. Is the hon. minister asking leave to make a statement?

MR. KING: He was denied it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I was denied leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed with the statement.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the situation

that obtains at Vancouver General Hospital, while I would appreciate

the members' urgency to debate the matter, I think I am sure that on

reconsideration they would recognize the sensitivity that surrounds

that particular dispute would be such that it would be inappropriately

served by having any debate in this House.

I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that as of Friday of last week I was

advised by telegram from the Vancouver General Hospital of its receipt

of strike notice, and, based upon the contingency plans of that

hospital, certain steps were then put into motion: admissions to the

hospital were to be stopped; outpatient service was closed; evacuation

of patients was planned to reduce the inpatient population to 450

within 72 hours, the then population of the hospital being

approximately 1,400, and to a minimum within seven days. Only

life-saving services would be maintained until such time as those

patients could be transferred safely.

As a result of actions which I announced to this House last week,

notice to the Labour Relations Board for the purpose of designating

essential service was given to all parties late Thursday afternoon,

April 20. Initial preparatory meetings were held on Friday morning and

lengthy hearings were held with the board all day Saturday and Sunday.

As a result, the following decisions have been made by the Labour

Relations Board regarding the designation of essential services at the

Vancouver General Hospital: (1) the board determined the number of beds

that must be maintained in the hospital by taking into account the

hospital's recommendations of those who had to be in a hospital; 1,000

beds have been designated at the Vancouver General hospital for that

purpose. In making this decision, the board considered that a further

350 patients could be served in other hospitals in the lower mainland.

(2) The board has determined how minimal care will be exercised

in the VGH. For this purpose it required that 100 employees, who are members

of the Hospital Employees Union, must continue to work during any strike. The

board based its decision on the fact that other elements in the work force will

be required to perform necessary work of those

[ Page 1312 ]

members of the Hospital Employees Union who are

absent. This includes excluded management, supervisory staff, other

unions, students, doctors and volunteers.

(3) The board has required that essential deliveries will

continue. Arrangements have been worked out to ensure that ambulance service,

blood supplies, medical supplies and oxygen supplies will be allowed to cross

picket lines; also essential fresh food will be permitted into the hospital.

It will be necessary for some supplies such as mail to be brought to the hospital

by supervisory staff.

(4) In order to ensure continuous monitoring of the board's

decision to provide immediate resolution of disputes and to take account of

any changing circumstances, a team of industrial relations officers of the Department

of Labour will be stationed at the Vancouver General Hospital on a 24-hour basis.

This will allow the board to be current at all times and to allow it to reanalyze

the decision that has been made and if necessary to designate additional beds

or additional employees who may be required in order to ensure that the essentiality

of the service at VGH is continued.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I would like

some clarification of proceedings in this House. I didn't hear any

"noes" when the official opposition asked leave for unanimous agreement

of the House to discuss the matter of unemployment in the hospital

industry issue. Apparently Mr. Speaker did. I definitely did hear a

"no" when the Minister of Labour requested unanimous support of the

House to discuss the same matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

MR. KING: In that instance it was ignored and then the minister was allowed to proceed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, would you just take your seat for a

moment? First of all, it's what I hear — or if I haven't heard it, I

presume that someone could have drawn it to my attention. But remember

that I definitely heard a "no" when I refused leave. I did not hear a

"no", and if I didn't, I cannot report or act upon something I have not

heard, Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Following that part of the proceedings, the hon. Minister of Labour

asked leave to make a ministerial statement to the House. At that

point, if someone denied it, I'm sorry I did not hear that and I

allowed it to proceed. I've not asked for leave for you to make a

statement because I understand that to be a ministerial statement made

to the House, and in the order of the tradition of this House the

Leader of the Opposition and other leaders of other parties in the

House have always had the prerogative of giving a reply to a

ministerial statement. That is what I assume you're on right now.

MR. KING: It is indeed, Mr. Speaker, but I think perhaps it

is a commentary on the sense of some fair play and respect for the

opposition one can expect from the government that when leave was asked

to discuss this matter, then the minister has the gall to come along

behind and ask for unanimous consent of the House.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the minister's statement a number of

questions occur to me. In outlining the action he's taken to deal with

the maintenance of life-supporting services in the Vancouver General

Hospital, he indicates that he has directed to the Labour Relations

Board the function of designating those services and he is appointing a

team of industrial relations officers to maintain a presence in that

hospital. He indicated also that the hospital administration is

transferring patients.

I understand there are a number of strike votes taken in various

hospitals around the lower mainland and I wonder how adequate the staff

of the Department of Labour is to accommodate the maintenance of new

officers — new component's in each and every hospital — as the

threatened strike votes and the threatened strike action hits the other

hospitals in the lower mainland.

I'm wondering what plans the Minister of Labour has to facilitate

the transfer of patients from Vancouver General to other hospitals

which are then subsequently served with strike notice also. There seems

to me a limitation on that kind of activity, and I'm sorry that the

Minister of Labour gave no indication whatsoever as to what action,

what policy, what strategy he and the Department of Labour are taking

to bring about a solution to the dispute, rather than ad hoc

interventions which give no assurance to the House whatsoever regarding

the duration of the dispute we're looking at, regarding the

consequences of elective surgery being put off for a projected period

of time.

I'm surprised the minister directed all of his comments just to the

dispute at Vancouver General rather than to some positive plan and some

positive direction in providing a resolution to the dispute in that

industry. I regret that and find it very surprising, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I wish that the minister had elected

to give his statement somewhat earlier on in the day because it was the

most eloquent statement I can imagine as to the urgency of debate on

this matter.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: The government in any debate of

[ Page 1313 ]

this kind, Mr. Speaker...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: ...can keep its counsel to whatever extent it

requires, but the people of British Columbia are entitled through the

opposition to express some of the concern that they feel about people

being moved out of hospitals and admissions denied, a difference of

opinion between the Labour Relations Board and the hospital

administration as to what, in actual fact, constitutes an appropriate

number of beds to be remaining open in that hospital, an opportunity to

question the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) to the extent

that his department has been involved in that assessment, the fact that

VGH is going to have 1,000 beds left out of about 1,800 — and the

transfers obviously cannot continue, Mr. Speaker, to other hospitals

around this province if the strike spreads — 100 hospital workers left

out of 2,500 on the job at VGH. Mr. Speaker, to me it's an absolute

indication of the necessity for some debate of this kind, and the

government, as I say, may...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: ...keep its counsel and not interfere with any sensitivities, but the opposition has the right to speak up.

MR. WALLACE: My reaction to the minister's statement is that

he is certainly making strenuous efforts to solve a problem. But

perhaps in his endeavour to be fair to both sides of the argument, with

the greatest of respect I suggest that he's losing sight of the fact

that human lives are involved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not at all; just the opposite.

MR. WALLACE: The minister's interjecting that this isn't the

case at all. But, Mr. Speaker, my position on this issue is very plain,

and that is that you can go through all the manoeuvres and all the

readjustments and all the designations and all these other

administrative procedures, but I ask anybody in this chamber: how would

you like to be one of the patients remaining in that hospital under

these very harassed and difficult and obviously inefficient

circumstances? Medical-care standards cannot be maintained under these

circumstances.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It has nothing to do with medical staff.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: I'm not talking about medical staff. You're not even listening to what I'm saying.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Medical standards, you said. It has nothing to do with medical standards.

MR. WALLACE: I'm saying that under these circumstances,

despite all the adjustments and compromises and the very sincere effort

which the minister is making to try and be fair to both parties in the

dispute, the person in the middle, namely the sick person, is the one

who is being compromised. While this may be all right for one day or

two days, or maybe three days, all these other circumstances that have

been discussed about the fact that there is a real likelihood of the

strike spreading and the 350 patients who will be moved to some other

hospital.... When the other hospitals go on strike and start moving

patients, the whole situation very early becomes a farce. That's all

I'm trying to say.

The fact is that in this kind of strike there is a much greater

demand on the part of the minister concerned to act not only in the

interests of fairness to both parties but in fairness to the third

party. While today the standard may be maintained, or even tomorrow,

the kind of statements the minister has made and the action, again, of

conscientious members of the Department of Labour in making decisions

about what is essential or what isn't essential or to what degree the

circumstances are deteriorating — I just think it cannot work beyond a

very short period of time. I just want to end on that note, Mr.

Speaker, and I appreciate the privilege of making this statement. I

just want to say that my plea with the minister would be to ensure that

almost from hour to hour the person foremost in his mind — and I'm sure

it will be — is the patient.

MR. SPEAKER: That, hon. members, concludes any remarks by any of the hon. members of this House....

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Closure!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: It's obvious that there's a great deal of misunderstanding....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I said, order, Hon. Member.

Interjection.

[ Page 1314 ]

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: It's very obvious that there's a great deal of

misunderstanding among the members of this House about the courtesies

and the way we extend them to hon. members in this House as a matter of

tradition.

Order, I said, order, Hon. Member.

The courtesy is this: that in ministerial statements it's a matter

of long standing in this House that if a minister rises in his place to

make a ministerial statement, leave is granted. By the same traditions

and by the same courtesies, after a ministerial statement I allow, by

the traditions of this House, which I think are understandable and good

traditions, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal

Party, the leader of the Conservative Party, to reply to that

statement. That's a courtesy and a tradition of this House which I

intend to maintain for the benefit of all the members in this House.

But once that courtesy has been extended, that ends the discussion and

the debate upon that matter.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Prince Rupert, on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the minister's statement,

I would move that you endeavour to try and get unanimous consent of

this House to discuss the statement made by the hon. minister.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That's out of order, as a point of order, Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: I didn't rise on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: What other purpose have you on your feet, Hon. Member?

MR. LEA: I'm asking about the leave...that unanimous leave....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you rose on a point of order and I acknowledged you on a point of order.

MR. LEA: That was when I rose before. I didn't say anything this time. You just recognized me.

MR. SPEAKER: The record will show, Hon. Member, that you rose on a point of order, and I acknowledged you on that basis.

MR. LEA: No, it won't show that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, be seated.

MR. LEA: I'll follow your direction, but you're mistaken.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, you've referred to traditions of the House, and if I was to search Hansard

and come up with evidence that other persons, upon a ministerial

statement being made, were allowed to make statements following the

party leaders, would you be prepared to reconsider your statement?

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker's prepared to consider the matters

within the House at any time. If you have information or evidence at

some time, at your pleasure, bring it to my attention, please.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that you finally got an opportunity to recognize me.

On a point of order, I would like to say that I think it really is

very unfair that we are attacking the Minister of Labour on this issue

when really it is....

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. That's not a point of order.

MS. BROWN: ...the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland).

We wouldn't be having this kind of situation at VGH that we have if the

Minister of Health....

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Please be seated. Hon. Member, will you be seated?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Be seated, Hon. Member. There seems to be a

tendency among members on both sides of the House to abuse the

privileges of the House by raising on fictitious points of order things

that are not points of order at all.

In that respect, I would caution all the members of the House to use

discretion because once a point of order is raised, the Speaker is

obligated to listen at least to the start of that point of order to

determine if, in fact, a point of order is being raised in the House. I

extend that courtesy to the members of the House and I would hope that

when they rise on a point of order it is a legitimate matter to be

considered.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

[ Page 1315 ]

MS. BROWN: A point of personal privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, there's no such thing as a point of personal privilege. A point of privilege?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am the representative for the

constituency in which the Vancouver General Hospital is located and I

may just say that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is running

interference for the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) who is

responsible.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! This is not a matter of privilege, as you well know. That is not a matter of privilege. Please be seated.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Please be seated, Hon. Member.

Interjections.

Orders of the day.

The House in committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 10: Minister's office, $88,952 — continued.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver-East): Mr. Chairman, I want to

raise two matters, and I'll try to be reasonably brief with them. One

affects a few people, but it's a subject of great anguish, and that's

the question of children abducted across provincial boundaries and

outside of Canada — the question is called childnapping — away from

their mothers.

By my account, in terms of the cases that have been brought to my

attention since 1974, there have been 13 children of British Columbia

who have been abducted, usually by the father, not always the legal

father, and most of those children have been abducted out of Canada.

Some have been abducted to other provinces.

There is sometimes a custody order involved giving the mother

custody. There is sometimes no custody ordered and the father, or

whoever has abducted the children, has simple acted to thwart the

courts and to deny the mother any real means of getting back those

children.

The questions I put to the Attorney-General and the suggestions I make on the

subject are these: there should, of course, be an amendment to the Criminal

Code

section where it is very difficult to prove the abduction under the Criminal

Code because the element of intent is very difficult to establish in a criminal

court. But, of course, the Criminal Code doesn't bring back the children.

The second thing I say that the Attorney-General should do is to

bring into this House without delay legislation — and I think it can be

quickly prepared because I think it is somewhere in his office, Mr.

Chairman — for the reciprocal enforcement of custody orders across

Canada. The Province of Manitoba has such a statute, and when we go in

these very anguished cases — and they certainly are for the mothers

concerned, and I'm sure probably these things have come to the

attention of the Attorney-General already.... But when we go to the

Department of External Affairs in Canada and we say: "Will you use your

diplomatic good offices to try to secure the return of the children?",

then they say: "You have not, even as a province, passed your own

reciprocal enforcement of custody orders legislation." Until we take

that initial step, our case is weaker in seeking relief at the federal

level.

The third thing, I think, Mr. Chairman, that should be done is that

there should be — and I think there has been in one or two cases —

legal assistance. I'm talking about legal aid given to those mothers

who cannot possibly chase their children to, say, Portugal, where some

of them have been abducted, or to the Philippines, where others have

been abducted, and there engage in a costly litigation process to try

to secure in the courts of that land custody of their own children.

These are usually children of tender age.

There are also cases, of course, where even after the mother tries

through these avenues to secure return of her children in one country,

the abductor then takes the children to some other country before those

court proceedings are completed. But the initial steps in the provision

of legal aid — notwithstanding the budget difficulties which we have,

of course, criticized — those steps should be taken at once. I hope

that, as we had planned to do, quite frankly, in the NDP at this

session of parliament....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, there's no question on that, Mr. Premier. The legislation — we've looked at it and we were doing it.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: That's true, we were. But I would ask the

Attorney-General whether he will at this session of the Legislature

bring in a reciprocal enforcement of custody Act.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I hope

[ Page 1316 ]

so.

MR. MACDONALD: The answer is that you hope so. I don't think it is a difficult thing, because you have the Manitoba legislation.

And I would ask whether in these cases, which entail so much anguish

to the mothers, you will do your best to ensure that legal aid and

legal assistance is extended to them if they have to carry on a custody

battle for their own children in some other jurisdiction.

At this time there are many subjects that can come up, so I'll be

brief because I know some of our other members want to ask you

questions. I am changing the subject, but the Attorney-General as the

chief law officer of the Crown has the main charge, I would expect, in

terms of patriation of our constitution. Documents were tabled in the

House. I'd be glad to ask the Premier this too, but I would think it

should go to the chief law officer of the Crown. There will be a

conference, I think, this week, or very soon, on that subject, among

the premiers of Canada.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, there was a visit by Gordon Robertson at

the official level, but soon there will surely be a meeting of the

first ministers and the Attorneys-General in June on this subject.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): No, it's not on the agenda.

MR. MACDONALD: I just want to express one or two concerns.

The first concern I can state very quickly: that we don't have the

process of amending our constitution brought back to Canada in such a

way that it becomes difficult or almost impossible to secure the

amendments that are necessary to affect social change in this country.

It would be very easy to adopt a formula just for the sake of

patriation which would lead to deadlocks every time an amendment was

sought to the constitution.

The proposal that any province, for example, with 25 per cent of the

population of Canada should consent to amendments affecting all of

Canada — such as the UIC one that passed with difficulty, but under the

kind of vague terms we have had in the past — that kind of proposal

gives a veto power over constitutional amendment to Quebec and Ontario.

I think that should be a matter of concern to this House and to the

Attorney-General.

The second thing that I think should give us real concern in this

land of Canada is the constitutional guarantees that have been brought

into this process of patriation as a bargaining lever by the province

of Quebec. I am not in any sense against the expansion of French

culture and French language promotion in this country. I don't go along

with those people who oppose, say, a French TV station in British

Columbia. I think dollars should be spent to promote the language. But

at the same time we have to remember that this country is a

multicultural country. While there are some language rights, of course,

embedded in the constitution, are we now, at the behest of one

province, using this situation where we all so earnestly desire to get

our own constitution amendment procedure brought home...using that

situation to insert into our constitution, in an embedded way, the

promotion of the cultural rights of our French-language minority?

I think that is something that I hope the Attorney-General, when he

attends these conferences, will view with considerable concern, bearing

in mind, as I said, that Canada has and must remain a multicultural

nation, where people from all of the lands of the world have come to

Canada and should have the opportunity to retain their mother cultures

and their mother languages — be they Ukrainian, be they Chinese, be

these cultures, and that's what makes Canada an exciting place.

I have real misgivings that we should see, as part of the patriation

process, this kind of extraneous subject brought in and that we should

find embedded in our constitution particular cultural promotion on

behalf of one of the groups in Canada, as much as I respect and like

that particular group. So I express that as a concern. I would hope

that the Attorney-General would have something to say about it.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, I want to

turn to another facet of the Attorney-General's department today,

relative to the Real Estate Act, particularly in regard to the multiple

listings. I believe that the matter of commissions, as established when

multiple listings came into effect, is under consideration by the

Rosenbluth commission that is looking into this question. But I think

there are other aspects of the multiple-listing service that may not

have been as much in evidence as that particular facet.

I would suggest to the Attorney-General that the multiple-listing

service has had a very great influence on the inflated values that are

being placed on property here in British Columbia. I base my claim on

several sheets of documentation that I have here relative to the Duncan

area from the multiple-listing service catalogue.

I would suggest, Mr. Attorney-General, that the multiple-listing

service has encouraged salesmen and real estate firms to obtain

listings at any cost, as it were, or at any price, because the firm who

has the listing, once that property is sold, receives half of the

commission. So it becomes a battle to see which local firm, and which

salesman, will get the listing, and the

[ Page 1317 ]

price at which the property is listed becomes a secondary consideration.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry, I missed your point there. What becomes a secondary consideration?

MRS. WALLACE: The price that it is listed at becomes a

secondary consideration. They want to list it at any price. I have

these examples here. For example, a piece of property — I won't bore

the House with the legal description, but I have the information if the

Attorney-General wants it — listed at $26,000 sold at $20,000. Another

one, in the same area, listed at $26,000 — actual selling price $20,000.

Here is an outstanding one — this is just a piece of acreage, a lot,

lot 3, 1.68 acres — listed, Mr. Chairman, at $23,000 and sold at

$6,000. Another one listed at $31,500 sold at $27,000. One listed at

$37,900 sold at $32,000. Another listed at $35,500 sold at $32,500.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are those all in one area?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, these are all from Duncan. Incidentally,

Mr. Attorney-General, at the time the multiple-listing service was

initiated in 1962, there were in Duncan 16 salesmen; today there are

130. In the Vancouver Island area — the Vancouver Island real estate

board — there are 350 salesmen. The total salesmen for Vancouver Island

is one for every 300 persons living on Vancouver Island — one real

estate salesman. In my opinion, the multiple-listing service is one of

the things that has caused this kind of development.

These go on, Mr. Attorney-General, and if you'd like to see them I

can certainly send you copies. The point is that in order to obtain

these Sunflight tours and all these other gimmicks that are being

handed out by real estate companies to salesmen who list.... The secret

is to list. Once you list it, whatever it's sold at, you get half the

commission. That is causing really an inflationary trend in real estate

generally. It's adding greatly to that because the prices we see in the

press, as we read these ads, are the list prices. We don't hear so much

about the actual selling price.

Occasionally, Mr. Chairman, we have people from Toronto or Vancouver

moving to Vancouver Island. The real estate prices in those areas are

notably higher than they are on Vancouver Island, so occasionally

somebody actually sells a house at the list price. When that happens,

this again is a very inflationary effect on the whole real estate

business. I would urge the Attorney-General to have a good look at this

multiple-listing situation and see if we can't get real estate back on

a more equitable basis where we're not simply building up a false

premise as to the price or the value of that real estate, and

succeeding in lining the pockets of the real estate companies and the

salesmen involved.

I read in the press the other day...Block Bros., for example, their

profits had increased 162 per cent last year. This is in an area when

we're trying to control inflation, Mr. Chairman. I would urge upon the

Attorney-General to look at this particular factor of multiple-listing,

and I shall see that he gets copies of these examples.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, it is not my

intention to prolong this debate, but I would like to just call to the

Attorney-General's attention a matter of some serious concern, and

also some complexity, in the relationships between husband and wife in

relation to community property or so-called community property.

I do realize that the law was not able to adopt a position in

relation to the two reports that have come forth on this subject — both

the federal report on law reform and the Berger commission report in

British Columbia — and I would like to feel that this inability to come

to a consensus of principle was because they, as lawyers, are very much

aware of the serious complexity of trying to enact this type of

legislation, and I don't want to discount those. But I would hope that

we as a government and the Attorney-General in particular would adopt

this principle in thought and make every effort to try and achieve a

situation where this right could be enjoyed as a matter of law rather

than a matter of agreement.

It's not my intention to relate before this House the number of

cases where there has been gross injustice in Canada. They're well

known, and I think we all know them. I would like to point out to the

Attorney-General that in seeking this type of principle and eventual

evolution of legislation I believe that women would be quite willing to

accept a situation where any assets brought to the marriage by either

party would, in fact, remain the property of that individual should

there be a dissolution of the marriage. But any assets accrued as a

benefit of those properties brought to the marriage would then, in

fact, be considered community property. This type of agreement should

be a matter of course within our laws, but we should not preclude the

right — should any couple entering into marriage wish not to have this

arrangement — that they could not be able to, in fact, draw up a legal

agreement to the contrary.

I would think, when you get on the more emotional basis, that any

young lady who was so much in love that she had to sit down and sign a

legal document which would in essence point out to her that her husband

was somewhat mercenary in his attitudes towards assets and money might

not stop and think twice before entering into this marriage.

I feel many women feel, and many men — and I've

[ Page 1318 ]

discussed this with many men who are not in favour of liberation of

either side, but in favour of equal opportunity — that if you had this

feeling of joint accumulation of assets, we would then be recognizing

that a woman, or a man, who chooses to stay in the home environment for

their occupation, in fact, are contributing to the assets that are

accrued in that marriage.

If a woman is running a home and raising the children, or if a man

is, they are contributing as much to that marriage and the assets

accrued in that marriage as the partner who is gainfully employed in

the work force or in their own business. If one does not run smoothly,

then the other is not.

I might interject a personal note. I remember my father telling me

on the eve of my own wedding that if a man is not happy at home he's

not going to be happy at work, and it he's not happy at work he's not

going to be happy at home. I think that applies whether it is the male

who is working or the female or both. One of the points of dissention

in many marriages is this whole matter of money management and asset

management.

If the homemaker could in fact feel that their contribution in the

home is contributing to the home benefits, the assets, and their own

personal security — should that home be dissolved — I think that it

would have a much more beneficial effect in terms of family unity.

To have it otherwise in today's society I believe is to have society

instigating a divisive factor within the home. We all know, because of

gift taxes and income taxes, that where there are two partners working

to any degree you have to sit down if you're going to protect the unit

from estate taxes and decide who pays for what, and a record has to be

kept of this transaction. This introduces into the marriage on a

monetary basis a his-and-hers approach which I feel is emotionally

detrimental to a solid relationship and may well spark the beginning of

a problem that would not otherwise be there.

Again, it's quite common knowledge that many of those who choose to

be the homemaker — and in most instances it's women — will after a

number of years of marriage seek gainful employment for no greater

reason than that they fear for their own security if the marriage is

showing signs of strain. Also, I think in many good marriages this can

be a pervading thought as time goes on. Many women do want to seek

employment for self-fulfilment, but we should not add to the problems

the fact that the woman should seek employment to assure her own

security within the marriage, or should the marriage break up

financially.

As the situation exists now — and I realize that it's a common

statement from both the judiciary and the legal fraternity — there is

ample provision within the current law to allow the judge to make a

fair and equitable decision

I wouldn't in any way wish to cast aspersions upon the judicial

fraternity or the judiciary of our country or this province, but I

would say without hesitation that this

interpretation is open too much

to the personal prejudices of that particular judge, to his own

personal philosophy, and to the articulateness and persuasiveness of

the individual lawyers. Too often the courts through pressure, through

the previously mentioned reasons, do not fully investigate the assets

of a dissolving marriage.

It's for these reasons that I would ask the Attorney-General to

assure this House and the people of British Columbia that while we

recognize the severe complexities of trying to introduce this type of

legislation, he as an individual and we as a government do support the

principle of equity in property of marriage, which is commonly known as

community property.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, the

Attorney-General has heard it now from both sides of the House. I

raised the issue on Friday, the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)

raises it today, and in both instances we agreed completely with the

recommendations which were brought down by the Attorney-General's own

royal commission on the family — the Berger report. No. 6 of the Berger

report came out very clearly with the recommendations just articulated

by the hon. member for North Okanagan and by myself on Friday when I

discussed this issue. I am sure the Attorney-General has received a

large number of letters from various groups and individuals around the

province also in support of the recommendations brought down in No. 6

of the Berger report.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, he supports it, as the present Deputy

Attorney-General does too, I am sure. I know also that the present

Attorney-General was visited on March 22, Mr. Chairman, by a group of

women who were here for a rally on that day, and they spoke out very

strongly in support of the recommendations brought down by the sixth

report.

On Friday when I spoke I suggested to the Attorney-General that I

would be very happy to help by drafting legislation which would deal

with this very topic. In the House today I introduced this legislation,

which means that I can no longer discuss it. So I won't discuss it any

more except to say that I hope that when the Attorney-General rises to

his feet to answer the other questions which I am about to place before

him he will deal with the recommendation of the member for North

Okanagan as well as of a lot of other people around the province that

the recommendations in No. 6 of the Berger

[ Page 1319 ]

report dealing with community of property be implemented with all deliberate speed.

One of the other things which I raised on Friday had to do with the

landlord and tenant legislation. We were a bit pressed for time, and

the Attorney-General did not get an opportunity to answer the questions

which I raised at that time, so I am hoping that he will be able to

deal with those questions today. If he has mislaid the notes which he

made on Friday, I will be very happy to raise the questions again. I

have the Blues here, so I will just repeat them.

Today I want to raise a couple of other questions, and one has to do

with the whole issue of legal aid. I know it has been canvassed quite

extensively, but more needs to be said about it. The decision to deal

with it simply in terms of dollars and cents, and how expensive it is,

really just isn't good enough at this time. I accept the statements

made by the Attorney-General that last year over $1 million was spent

on legal aid and that, in fact, the service has $2 million — a very

large figure, anyway — and that the service has become just too rich.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's $3.7 million.

MS. BROWN: Fine. But I want to bring another perspective to

bear on this. I am not a legal person myself, and I think that probably

sometimes hearing from non-legal people who have a different

perspective might be of value. In fact, I am going to use a lot of the

arguments used by an economist, a Mr. David Ross, who attended a

conference on legal aid in Quebec in 1974. I know that we had some

people at that conference.

At the time Mr. Ross raised the whole philosophy that really legal

aid has become a very integral part of our whole social security

system, almost as important as such programmes as income maintenance,

Manpower, health, education, day care and these kinds of things. The

reason he put it that way, as he pointed out to us at the conference,

was that the law was now so involved in every aspect of our lives that

it had moved from the point where people needed a legal opinion on

things to where they really need legal information just to enable us to

survive in the kind of complicated society in which we live.

He also pointed out at that time that in fact this kind of information presently

is only accessible to people who can afford to pay. As a result of this, there

are all kinds of disparities exacerbated in the system as a result of the fact

that all of us are affected by the law. Yet only those of us who can afford

to pay for legal opinions, advice or information really get the full benefits

of the law. I know that as the chief law enforcement officer in the land and

protector of justice for all of us, the Attorney-General will accept that it

is a fact that there is a benefit to everyone to be able to have information

— legal information and legal advice — much more so than just a legal opinion

in order to function in society as a whole.

So what Mr. David Ross suggested, and what I'm going to suggest —

and certainly a position which I support and I hope the

Attorney-General supports, too — is that we have to look at legal aid

now in

much broader terms; we have to look at it in terms of being a complete

and integral part of the entire social and economic fabric of this

society in which we live. We cannot any longer see it as gaps or

plugging the holes left by the system.

It's not just a matter of rushing in to use legal aid when one has a

particular case and no money to deal with it. In fact, just in order to

survive in the system we have to have legal information, every single

one of us. So what we have to start doing is looking at the delivery of

this information. Really, to look at it or to deal with it in terms as

just a legal-aid structure is no longer good enough; we have to look at

alternatives. We have to look in terms of a much broader base.

Some of the suggestions made by Mr. Ross at that time had to do with

legal education in the school system, in the same way that we came to a

realization of how important nutrition was to us, and nutrition became

incorporated in the school system to a very great extent. Not as an

alternative or an elective but as a compulsory course, some basic kind

of legal education has to be dealt with in the formal school system as

it exists.

Also there's going to be a need for more para-professionals in the

field. There are all kinds of community groups growing in the community

in which we live and operating as an adversary on behalf of people. I

know, for example, that such a group as the Women's Legal Aid Clinic —

which deals almost exclusively, again, with domestic problems, family

problems, deals almost exclusively, again, with people who have no

money — is certainly in our community and the community wants this

group.

It talks about a "law for the layman" programme. Here again we're

very fortunate in Vancouver, very fortunate in British Columbia, that

the community has responded in a variety of ways. Here we have the

Vancouver People's Law School which is trying to meet this need, which

is not considered "legal aid" as such, but really is part of this

broader kind of system which has to be developed in the community if

the information, which we all need in order to not break the law or

even to function completely as total human beings, is going to be dealt

with.

He also talked about reform, simplification, demystification of the

law — how that is ever going to be possible, quite frankly, I don't

know.

Listening to the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) give

a simple reply as to why he would not withdraw a statement — and as you

know

[ Page 1320 ]

the minister is a lawyer — needed a legal

interpretation. Just a matter of

saying "I will not withdraw," which you and I would have said, took

him an hour and a half, and I'm still not clear whether he withdrew the

statement which he was I supposed to withdraw or not. So certainly we have to

deal with the whole business of the language. We also have to deal with the

whole concept of the law being so complicated and so strange in the way in

which it operates that only the most learned can understand it — the whole

mystification process. And that's part of the legal aid system too, Mr.

Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Doctors and lawyers.

MS. BROWN: And the business of access to legal services....

AN HON. MEMBER: They all speak in Latin.

MS. BROWN: Yes. The former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) talked about our being a multicultural society and

that people of all languages should be able to exist in this country

— maybe Latin too — or else the law is going to have to speak in the language that the rest of us speak.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're existing pretty well under this system.

MS. BROWN: No, I'm not; I'm fighting, Mr. Attorney-General,

through you, Mr. Chairman. I really am fighting under the system for....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I'm losing weight — all kinds of terrible things

are happening to me. However, they are trying....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I beg your pardon!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On vote 10, please.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, they're trying

to distract me and I wish you would call them to order.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Okay. I really want to talk about access to legal

advice and, certainly, access to the law. Here again I think we're

very, very fortunate that in Vancouver we have groups like VCLAS; that

we have groups like the People's Law School; the Community Action

League which operates as an adversary system for people under community

services; the Women's Legal Aid Clinic — all of these groups as well as

the legal aid system.

What I would like the Attorney-General to do really is to start

taking a broader vision of legal aid, look at the funding of these

community groups, look at the whole business of legal education right

through the school system, look at the whole concept of access for

everyone in the community in terms of part of the legal aid system. When

you do that, then a budget of $3 million really doesn't seem to be that

much out of line.

You know, there was a time — and I don't want to repeat myself — but there

was a time when it wasn't necessary to know the law and to understand the

law, but those times have changed. Now you really do have to know and you really

do have to understand, which brings me to my point, which is that I really am

very, very sorry to find that the Attorney-General's department has not

been increasing the funding for these very vital community services which are

part of the legal aid fabric of the community, that in fact VCLAS is in danger

of going under — the Vancouver community legal assistance service, or whatever

it's called. The Women's Legal Aid Clinic is desperate for funds. They're

fishing round out there all over the place trying to cover the most tiny of

budgets. It's not as though they're asking for large sums of money.

Again the People's Law School does such a magnificent job. I know

that the deputy minister knows about the work of the Vancouver People's

Law School, the fact that they run courses free of cost for anyone who

wants to take a course in real estate, in property law, in divorce,

whatever it is...and they go even further than that in terms of their

publications. There are all kinds of publications, Mr. Chairman. The youth and the law, women and the law, divorce law,

property law, all of these things, through their publications, they

have put in language which ordinary people can understand. They have

managed to demystify the law for a lot of people, and they really are

very worthy of a great deal of support from the Attorney-General's

department.

Now I know that the Attorney-General — again I repeat — as the chief

law-enforcement officer of this province wants to see to it that the

kind of justice is done and the protection of everyone in the province is

made possible. When the community itself gives rise to these kinds of

services, surely it's an indication that the community has recognized

the need for them, and surely one of the rules of the Attorney-General's

department is to ensure that these groups thrive and flourish, not just

in Vancouver but throughout the rest of the province.

If anything, the Attorney-General should be

[ Page 1321 ]

looking at the whole concept of expanding this

section of the budget

so the people on Vancouver Island, Prince George and the Peace River

country, and in other parts of the province too, would have the benefit

of groups like the People's Law School and the Women's Legal Aid Clinic

and certainly VCLAS. They would have to change their name once they got

into the interior.

Okay, on to another topic, Mr. Attorney-General, if you are making

notes. I guess as a result of legislation introduced in the United

States in the late 1960s, something known as affirmative action was

introduced as one way of dealing with disparities between people either

as a result of their race or as a result of sex differences — dealing

with discrimination. The concept was that first you have human rights

legislation which said: "Stop, don't do this." Then you followed that

up with support in having affirmative action, legislation which said:

"These are the positive things that you can do to ensure that the gaps

are closed." Various departments and various groups throughout the

community for a long time monitored the system as it was in existence

in the United States, where it was introduced specifically to deal with

racial disparities, and found that in fact it did have merit and in

this country introduced it in terms of discrimination against women.

Now one of the things I did two years ago, and again last year, was

to introduce into this House a piece of legislation dealing with

affirmative action. At that time, my request to the then government was

that this is where it should start, in government, that government

should set the example. Government should be the model employer and

lead the way so that the private sector would have a chance to monitor

the government programme and see how effective it was and then be able,

certainly, to follow their example without actually needing legislation

being introduced at that time.

As a result of this a couple of things happened. Surely one of the

most exciting things that happened happened in the Department of the

Attorney-General, because in the Department of the Attorney-General a

task force was struck to look at the whole concept of an

equal-opportunities programme for women in the Attorney-General's

department. It is a superb report that that task force presented as a

document to the Attorney-General's department for discussion, a jumping

off point to go from there.

Now this particular report, Mr. Chairman, is so good that I have

used it in a number of parts of this country, not just in British

Columbia alone, because, in fact, what it does is to spell out in

detail how such a system would be set up to ensure that a very limited

period of time there was true utilization of all kinds of skills and

talent that the women in that department have and can contribute to the

department.

The proposal itself put forward the philosophy that, in fact, not to

have an equal opportunities concept in the department was to do the

department a disservice, because that would mean that the department

was not utilizing the assets and the benefits and the skills and the

expertise that was available in that department to its fullest. It also

pointed out that failure to do so would mean the Attorney-General's

department, which is a truly representative department of government

and, specifically as a department of justice and the one that should

set the example, was, in fact, not setting the kind of example that it

should set.

The programme went into great detail. It did an analysis. It

established targets and spelled it right out in great detail as to

exactly how the assessments should be done and how it should be set up,

and then made five recommendations to the Attorney-General. Really what

I want to find out from the Attorney-General is precisely what has

happened to those five recommendations because, in fact, this task

force made their report in January of this year. We are now nearly five

months later; it is May. I want to know whether the recommendations in

the task force for discussion by the management committee, for the

budget.... It quite clearly states here that included in the

Attorney-General's budget there should be funding to hire a manager to

set up this equal opportunities division and to set up the whole

division of it to inform all of the employees of the acceptance of this

report by April 1. Now I had hoped to ask this question on May1 but

the House was not in session on May 1. So you have had your 30 days.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General has had his 30 days

past the time that this report asked that everyone in the department be

informed about it and that all of these copies of the report should be

made accessible to everyone in the department.

Now I believe, certainly that the copies have been made available,

because I have found it extremely difficult to get additional copies of

the report. Because wherever I go and take the report with me — it's a

superb report, excellent, and I use the report — whoever I discuss it

with takes away my copy of the report. So I have to come rushing back

here to try and get another copy of the report. Finally I found that

there were not more copies of the report. This is a report which is in

very great demand. I cannot get any additional copies of the report.

They need them desperately in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova

Scotia, Ontario. Everywhere I go I take this report because it really

is the best thing I've seen done in terms of the Canadian experience of

how to set up equal opportunities organization in a department

efficiently, effectively, cleanly and quickly and get it to work. It's

a good report, yes.

[ Page 1322 ]

One of the things that really is good about the report is that the

people who put it together seem to be so tremendously efficient and did

such an excellent job — so much so that they included an appendix at

the back which should be required reading, quite frankly, for every

department. For every other minister whose estimates come before us, I

am going to get it and talk to them about this report done for the

Attorney-General's department and ask why a similar report has not been

done for their department and why they have not followed the really

magnificent example set by the Attorney-General's department in setting

up this task force.

Having said that, what's happened? What has happened? I am still

waiting to hear whether any of the five recommendations made in this

report have been implemented, It is a matter of crucial importance that

before I go around recommending to the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Curtis), and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and

Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) and other ministers, I be able to say

to them: "Look at what your Attorney-General has done!" I see what the

Attorney-General's department has written; what I want to see is what

the Attorney-General's department has done as far as this report is

concerned.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Okay, I am really glad that the deputy minister is

here because he is a real freedom fighter for women, Mr. Chairman. We

are really, really pleased to have him on our side. Okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: He better look out for his job.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I hope not, Mr. Attorney-General, through you. Yes, okay.

I just have two very brief things I want to raise before my 40

minutes are up. The Attorney-General's department commissioned a study

on prostitution. I was really pleased.... Yes, you did, Mr.

Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman. I was really pleased to

read about the fact that such a study was being done, because it was an

indication to me that the Attorney-General's department was going to

deal once and for all with the whole issue of

an act involving two

people of which only one person was always considered to be the guilty

party under the law — another reason why we need legal aid services.

To me the indication of the study was that this was the beginning of

something. That was a very quick study. I don't want to say it was

superficial, but it only included 100 prostitutes, and dealt with

things such as how they became prostitutes, how they were treated under

the law, and so forth. I recognize also that a lot of thanks must go

again to Dr. John Hogarth who, I think, was responsible for the

funding. I hope he's still with the department because he took care of

rape, and he's certainly taken care of prostitution too.

What's happened to that study? It was a good report. I don't know

whether we've all received it, but we've had a chance to read something

about the report because it was certainly dealt with in the Vancouver

newspapers to a large extent, but there hasn't been any kind of

follow-up from the Attorney-General's department that we are aware of.

Maybe there has been, and maybe there is draft legislation dealing with

this area. Maybe the law is going to begin to look at both people

involved in the act of prostitution, rather than just the one. Maybe

the law is going to look at the way a prostitute is treated before the

courts but, if so, the Attorney-General's department is keeping this a

secret. What I want to ask the Attorney-General's department to do is

to share with us, because I certainly accept that report as a

preliminary, as a beginning; it certainly wasn't the end, and we're

waiting to see what happens now.

The other thing I'm going to ask, to do with this particular issue

of prostitution, is that the Attorney-General's department not act in

isolation. There are a lot of people who have input that they would

like to make into this very crucial topic, and I ask that the

Attorney-General tap these resources.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: You will? Okay.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Who?

MS. BROWN: All of the women's groups; certainly I hope you're

listening to some of the police groups; you're listening to the

hospital groups; the social workers' group, the psychologists. It's an

area that touches on a lot of different disciplines. All I'm saying is

that I hope that any decision being made isn't going to be just an

internal one, in terms of your department alone, but that you will ask

for some input from the rest of the community as well. Certainly I know

that the women's groups want to have some kind of input into it. It's a

problem that we are wrestling with. There is not a question that there

isn't a hard and fast position among the people involved in women's

groups as to the way in which to accept the whole concept of

prostitution.

In the United States prostitutes have formed a union and are

fighting for the right to be regarded as a legal profession. There is

the other side of the coin, too, where there are a number of people who

believe that the act of prostitution itself is

an act of selling

[ Page 1323 ]

one's body and certainly is not something that should be legalized.

So before you make any decision at all about legislation, let's have

some kind of discourse about it and listen to some ideas on this other

than your own.

I want to talk about juvenile alcoholism. There's absolutely no way

that I can talk about juvenile alcoholism in two minutes, so I'm going

to sit down and I'll get up again and do my 40 minutes on juvenile

alcoholism.

MRS. JORDAN: I won't take more than a couple of minutes. I think I can say what I have to say in two minutes.

Two points were raised by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard

(Ms. Brown). I would like to say how pleased I am that she does

support community property, and it's nice to be working in a common

cause. I will, without any malice, advise you that I started speaking

on this subject in this House in 1967, and I am pleased that the

current Attorney-General is more responsive than your Attorney-General

was, and it is on that matter that I would also like to address myself

for just a moment.

The member talked about the need for information on women and the

law. I quite agree, and I would draw to the House's attention that

under the former Social Credit administration the minister without

portfolio, the Member for North Okanagan, in conjunction with a member

from the Attorney-General's department and the head of the women's

bureau of the Department of Labour, worked many, many months and went

through many hurdles in order to publish a book called Women and the

Law in British Columbia . I have a copy of it here.

The idea of the book came about because of the fact that we are

entwined in so many regulations and laws in our everyday existence,

whether we're men, women or children. One of the problems that I found

when I first entered government was that I simply couldn't understand

the statutes, no matter how simple they seemed to be. As I couldn't

understand them after many nights of studying them, I wondered how on

earth the average person could understand them. For months — in fact,

two years — I carried home the revised statutes every night from this

session to try and put in my own words an

interpretation of that

statute without in any way making an inference as to what the law was

in terms of any deviation, It was impossible, and it was with the help

of those two people that we spent several months and did put into what

we considered a simple understandable form the most common statutes

that we felt the average family ran into in British Columbia and should

know about.

One of the severe problems we face is that people get into

difficulty quite innocently because they're not aware of their rights,

or they can't understand the statutes, or they're not aware that it

exists. I found in attending many women's group's meetings, as a member

of government, that they were frequently working very vigorously on an

amendment to the law which in fact had already taken place, and they

weren't aware of it.

One of the objections to the publication of the book was that it

would be misleading to the public, and this did not prove so. In fact,

it proved to be very helpful to the public in that they could, as a

matter of routine, we thought, go to a court house or anywhere to get

some basic reading — that it could be used in the schools, that it

could be used at colleges, and it was.

The second objection that was thought to be a matter of concern was

that the legal profession would object to this type of publication, and

I'm pleased to say that that was not the case. In fact they couldn't

endorse it, but they praised it, wanted more copies made, and, I'm

told, many of them kept it in their drawer for their own reference.

We printed 20,000 copies — there was no advertising. I would just

say that Andy Stephen gave us two announcements of it, one at 6 o'clock

and one at midnight on the news, and within two months from the result

of that publicity, 20,000 copies — our total publication — was gone.

Certainly it's diminishing now, but by the time we left government,

I had no less than seven major cardboard boxes of requests from people

in British Columbia and other provinces who wanted a copy of this book.

This spurred us on to revise the book — which we did after much effort

— and it was in its completed state of revision when there was a change

of government in 1972. I spoke to the then Attorney-General (Mr.

Macdonald), and asked — whatever name it came under I cared not — that

this revised edition be published.

I regret to advise the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms.

Brown) that the Attorney-General absolutely refused to, and her

government did, and I felt that this was a very blind attitude to take.

I would hope that the Attorney-General of today would consider, very

seriously, this very inadequate copy that now exists of the original

publication. If the revised edition exists still in the Labour

department or the Attorney-General's department, I suggest that we

review all the current legislation and put into publication a book

"Family Law in British Columbia," and that this be in a booklet form

of a very simple nature, but that it have three loose-leaf holes in it

so that anyone who is interested in cataloguing it can break it down

into a loose-leaf book; and then, anytime there's a change in

legislation, they could get that page in its simplified form.

This would save a major republication for many years. I believe that it would have the endorsation of

[ Page 1324 ]

the Law Society of British Columbia, and I'm sure it would have the

appreciation of many, many citizens and that there might then not be

such a need to call upon the various aid societies that the hon. member

mentioned.

I'm sure they still need to exist, but I think this would help

foster general knowledge and independence. It should be in all our

schools, all our regional colleges, our student nursing training

programmes and available to the public free of charge.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, I would like to

congratulate the Attorney-General on the Police Commission and their

very willing approach to the job that they're doing. They've come into

my riding on several occasions in response to requests and have been

willing to travel over to Quadra Island to meet with concerned

residents there and, on the whole, have accounted for themselves very

well within my own constituency. I think they deserve a lot of credit

for it.

Mr. Attorney-General, I know that communities throughout the

province are seeking additional police, and I know that this is a

common request which comes to you. I know it's also very difficult for

you to try to meet all of those requests. The federal government is

also wanting to cut back on the cost-sharing of police costs, and this

is going to add further difficulties to the provincial government in

trying to meet the requests of communities throughout the province.

I also know that in the years prior to 1972, the provincial

government did not obtain its quota that it was entitled to under the

federal-provincial government sharing programme. I have a clipping here

dated April 15,1975, from The Vancouver Sun , in which the

Solicitor-General, Warren Allmand, was commenting to people here in

B.C. that the strength of the RCMP forces here in B.C. had been allowed

to lag below proper levels during the previous Social Credit provincial

government.

"Allmand said the NDP government has been more

amenable to increasing police strength to match increasing population.

As a result of the previous provincial government policies, B.C. fell

way behind to catch up. It means we are adding more men in one year

than we ever did before, and far more facilities are needed."

Now I'm appealing to you, Mr. Attorney-General, because of various

situations in my own riding, that you do meet this year the full

commitment in terms of acquiring the number of police officers that are

available under this federal-provincial cost-sharing plan.

The police commission, when it was in Campbell River in response to

a request from the council there, prepared for the information of

council and myself and the RCMP a very comprehensive report. Again, I

want to compliment them on the work that they did as a result of the

meeting in Campbell River. There are some interesting points that are

made in this report which apply specifically to Campbell River and area

which I would like to draw to your attention.

Campbell River municipality itself in 1975 had a population of

14,500 people. Its police strength is 16, which means that there is a

ratio of one policeman to every 906 people. In the unorganized

territory surrounding Campbell River there is a population of 8,000 but

there are only five policemen, which is one for 1,600 persons. The

report prepared by the police commission then goes on to make some

comparisons with other similar communities.

For instance, in Campbell River where there is one for every 906

people, the number of cases per police is 129. In Cranbrook, which has

a similar population of just over 15,000, they have 19 police — one for

every 794 — and 111 cases per police instead of 129. Port Moody,

which has a population of 13,000, somewhat below that of Campbell

River, has 19 on its police force; that's one to every 684 people

instead of one to over every 900 people. Comparisons are made with

Dawson Creek, Kitimat, Terrace, White Rock, Powell River and, in each

and every case, it points out that, per population, Campbell River is

really very understaffed. They have not had an increase since 1970, and

the population increase in Campbell River has been phenomenal; it's one

of the fastest growing areas in all of the province.

The police study goes on to look at the whole operation of the

police in Vancouver, and indicates that they are having problems in

providing sufficient manpower for busy periods. Now that's not unusual,

but the report says that the staff-sergeant in charge of Campbell River

has maintained monthly charts which depict the day, the month and the

neighbourhood which generates the greatest number of calls for police

service. Based on this analysis, manpower is deployed in an organized

manner. This results in the best possible use of resources, so there is

no indication here that the staff-sergeant in charge up there is doing

anything other than an excellent job in working with the number of

police that he has.

The report also says: "Police productivity within the limits of

resources available seems to be as high in Campbell River as in any

other comparable detachment."

Mr. Attorney-General, there is also a recommendation in here that

one policeman be located on Quadra Island. Quadra Island has a

substantial population of close to 2,000 now, or at least in the

summertime it's close to 2,000; and the report recommends that a

permanent policeman be located on Quadra Island. Now there has been an

agreement that one resident policeman be located on

[ Page 1325 ]

Quadra for the summer. I'm appealing, on behalf of the residents of Quadra Island, that he be left there on a permanent basis.

One of the problems that the people on Quadra find is that once the

last ferry has sailed, the residents on Quadra know that the police

have gone home. As a result, many problems on the island occur after

the last sailing because they know very well there is no resident

policeman and all is clear for them to raise a ruckus or whatever.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What's its population?

MS. SANFORD: It's almost 2,000 in the summer. Now I think

there is a figure in here which gives the actual population. I'll see

if I can find it, according to the police report.

But the other point is that the most accepted.... There's really no

agreed level of policing per population, but the police report says

that the most accepted minimum standard is one policeman for every 750

citizens in a city, and one for every 1,000 persons in a rural area.

These are minimum standards. So, based on that standard, Campbell River

should have 19 members in the municipality and eight in the unorganized

territory; right now they have only 16 and five.

I am just seeing if I can locate the

section which gives the

population for Quadra. All right. The police right now cover both

Quadra and Cortes. Cortes is the much smaller island and has a

population which is much, much smaller than that of Quadra. The report

says: "I understand there is a total population of approximately 3,000

persons living on the island." So that'll give you an indication; I

think it is close to 2,000 on a permanent basis.

So I am requesting on behalf of Quadra that the policeman who is

going to be there for the summer be there on a permanent basis. I know

the ratepayers' association has had many meetings on this; they asked

that the police commission come and talk to them about it, and are most

concerned. They are grateful that they're going to have one there for

the summer, but they are now hoping that will be extended to be on a

permanent basis.

I would like to raise another item at this stage, Mr. Minister, and

that relates to a letter I wrote to you some time ago, which you were

kind enough to answer, and on which you have since spoken to me about

on a personal basis. This relates to the fact that people who have

asked to have homes built in the Courtenay area have found that

contractors are not always reliable.

As you suggested in your letter to the particular constituent who

raised this problem, everyone who goes to a contractor should make the

effort and take the time to check out the background, the reputation

and reliability of that particular contractor.

Unfortunately, not everybody knows that. As a result, as happened to

this particular constituent, he paid out some $15,250 to a contractor

and ended up losing his home.

I realize this is a very difficult area for you to come up with any

sensible legislation, but I'm asking that you do consider some sort of

licensing for contractors, or some sort of bonding for contractors. The

only thing that's happened here is that the contractor apparently

accepted the money as payment, even though he had not fulfilled his

obligation of the contract, went off to Hawaii, spent the money, came

back and declared bankruptcy. Now there's really very little that my

constituent can do in terms of reclaiming his money or getting a house

for his family.

What suggestions you can come up with I'm not sure because I realize

it is a difficult area. But it seems to me that some sort of licensing

or bonding for contractors, particularly those that are building new

homes.... I know that the whole area of house repairs comes into this,

but for those who are building new homes there should be some better

protection for persons like this one who lost his home as a result of a

contractor that declared bankruptcy. The next issue I would like to

raise with you, Mr. Attorney-General, relates to the provincial coat of

arms, which is

chapter 305 of the revised statutes.

I have a publication, which is a partisan political publication, on

which appears the provincial coat of arms. I'm somewhat concerned about

this and would really like you to speak on this when you're answering

in the House later this afternoon. The provincial coat of arms is very

clear. I would just like to read one section,

section 2:

"No persons shall assume or use in the course of his

trade, occupation or calling or otherwise howsoever the provincial coat

of arms as in use in the various executive departments of the

provincial government, or any design and imitation of the same, or

calculated to deceive by its resemblance thereto, or any paper or other

material on which the same or any design or imitation thereof or

calculated to deceive as aforesaid is stamped, engraved, printed or

otherwise marked, but nothing herein shall effect the accustomed use of

the same by the Members of the Legislative Assembly, or by duly

authorized officers of the provincial government."

Now this is the same legalese we were making reference to earlier in

the House, but to me it's very clear that the provincial coat of arms

has a very limited use and that any person who attempts to deceive by

using that provincial coat of arms is, in fact, acting in opposition to

the particular statute I referred to.

What I think I will do, Mr. Attorney-General, is

[ Page 1326 ]

send you over this particular pamphlet, and point out to you that

the coat-of-arms appears very clearly on the front of the publication.

There also appears the signature of J.R. Nicholson, Lieutenant-Governor

at that time. I think it's deceptive, because it looks like an official

publication; not only that, but the publication starts out with the

words "Dear Friends" at the top, and then immediately following that

appears the Lieutenant-Governor's signature. I think that this is in

direct contravention of

chapter 305, the Provincial Coat of Arms Act,

and I would ask you to comment on it when you make your comments later.

The fourth item that I would like to raise today relates to the Land

Registry Act. Following an amendment to the Land Registry Act in the

spring of 1974 requiring that purchasers of land in B.C. state their

citizenship, I asked the then Attorney-General to carry out a study on

the results of that amendment to try to determine how extensive the

purchase of land in British Columbia was by non-citizens, and how much

of a problem it was.

At that time, the study was done for a three-month period, from the

beginning of August through to the end of October, and I think some

very interesting results were revealed at that time. I do have the

report which was prepared as a result of that research, and if the

Attorney-General does not have it then I'd be happy to make that

available to him. I think this is a significant issue, and I think, Mr.

Attorney-General, that it's time we did some additional research now,

through the land registry office, to see what has been happening with

respect to the sale of B.C. lands to absentee foreigners since the

original research was done in 1974.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: It is important, Mr. Attorney-General, because

it ties in with the whole question of foreign ownership in this

country. I think that if we in Canada are going to do anything about

foreign ownership, then certainly land is one of the areas with which

we can deal provincially.

When you look at the figures with respect to foreign ownership in

this country, it becomes increasingly clear that we must become alarmed

about what is happening with respect to the sale of our B.C. land. In

the manufacturing industries, for instance, there is 56.7 per cent

foreign ownership; mining industry, 60 per cent foreign ownership; oil

and gas wells, 82.6 per cent foreign ownership; petroleum refineries,

99.9 per cent foreign ownership; motor vehicles and parts, 95.6 per

cent; industrial electrical equipment, 89.6 per cent foreign owned;

rubber products, 82.9. per cent foreign owned; synthetic textiles, 7

1.5 per cent; industrial chemicals, 58.9 per cent.

Most people are concerned about this kind of foreign ownership. I

know that the people in my constituency are very concerned about

foreign ownership of land, and I'm asking at this time that you

consider doing additional research in the land registry office with

respect to the purchase of land by absentee foreigners.

The recent court case in Prince Edward Island ruled in favour of

Prince Edward Island. P.E.I. had brought in legislation which

prohibited foreigners and non-residents of P.E.I. from purchasing land

in that province. They were concerned about the foreign ownership, but

they recognized that they had to bring in their legislation in such a

way that it would apply to non-residents of P.E.I. — meaning other

Canadians —