1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8387 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading –– 8387

Division

Oral Questions

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

Dentistry and podiatry payments. Mr. Cocke –– 8388

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

Ministers' expenses. Mr. Macdonald –– 8389

Northeast coal. Mr. Leggatt –– 8389

Ministerial statement re electoral redistribution.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 8392

Mrs. Dailly –– 8392

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

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 8393

Mr. D'Arcy –– 8393

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 8393

Division –– 8394

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

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

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Davis

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Hall

Mr. Macdonald

On the amendment to vote 10 –– 8408

Division

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

Division

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

Division

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

Introduction and first reading –– 8409

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to apprise the House.... The member I was going to address these

remarks to is not here, and I prefer to wait. I yield the floor.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House today my mother,

Mrs. Kent, who is attending with a friend of hers from Victoria, Mrs.

Peggy Shield. I hope that the House will welcome my mother.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, there are a group of adult students who are studying

their teacher, Mrs. Grace Joe. They're from south Burnaby and I hope

the House will join me in bidding them welcome.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police awards a

long-service medal to outstanding police in Canada. This medal for 25

years of long service in the police force went to the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) yesterday. I think it's important

for the House to know that members come from all walks of life. Being a

police officer in today's world is difficult enough, but 25 years of

exemplary service should be mentioned in this House, particularly with

such an award being received by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. I'd ask the House to show its appreciation.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are a group of elementary

students from Quadra Elementary School on Quadra Island, and I'd like

the House to bid them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Election Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 13 introduced and read a first time.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 13 be placed on orders of the day for

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

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 51

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

Brummet

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 1

Lea

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

MR. HOWARD:

I rise on a point of order that relates to standing order 8, which

says: "Every member is bound to attend the service of the House, unless

leave of absence has been given him by the House." I want to draw Your

Honour's attention to the fact that the Premier is not here, and leave

for him to be absent has not been given.

MR. SPEAKER:

I think all members are aware of the practice of this House: that is,

although members may not be present in the chamber itself, they are

deemed to be present if they are in the precinct. I would be happy to

be guided in that by the House; any change would have to be suggested

by the House itself.

MR. HOWARD: We need to challenge that decision.

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. He wants to challenge the decision that the decision is

not challengeable. Before we entertain the challenge, the point of

order of the member who was on his feet, the Minister of Universities.

HON. MR. McGEER:

On a point of order, persistent absenteeism in the House is a major

problem which impairs the proper functioning. My question on this point

of order, Mr. Speaker, is that when members, as some we could name in

the opposition, are present for less than 60 percent of the divisions

of this House, would that not be taken as evidence that they are absent

from the precincts.

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

[ Page 8388 ]

MR. LEA:

On the same point of order, the hon. government Whip, the member for

Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), has brought to our attention many times in the

last week or two that there is a problem with the division bells.

Because of that, I would ask that we send one of the Pages to the

Premier's office to ensure that the bell in the Premier's office is

working, because I am sure that he would want to be here for question

period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Hon.

members, the decision that the ruling of the Chair that a decision is

not challengeable was challenged. Shall the decision of the Chair be

sustained?

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

YEAS — 30

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Hall

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Levi

Leggatt

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

Oral Questions

MINISTER'S STATEMENTS ON HEALTH CARE

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The Minister

of Energy and former Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), when

under attack for excessive spending on photographs, was quoted as

saying: "Our hospitals are falling to pieces." Does the Minister of

Health agree with his colleague's statement on health care?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I'll have to accept the member's word that my colleague

made that statement. My colleague is in error, and I do not agree with

him.

MR. COCKE: The hospitals unanimously endorse the

position of the former Minister of Health. I would like to ask the

present Minister of Health if he will finally admit the seriousness of

the situation, and decide to restore to hospitals funding at a safe

level?

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I again say that I'll accept the member's word that my colleague made

such a statement. If indeed that statement was made, it was in error.

No, I do not agree that the hospital system is falling apart, and

further, I seriously question when the hospitals have unanimously

agreed on anything.

DENTISTRY AND PODIATRY PAYMENTS

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I guess the minister and I will go on discussing this

question. However, there's another question I'd like to bring to his

attention.

We all know that the dental plan is not paying

the patients — that's on the record — because of the fact that somehow

or other the telephone between the minister's office and Treasury Board

doesn't seem to be working. Now I'm given to understand that all the

podiatrists in the province have not been paid; yet they have signed an

agreement. Will the minister do something about Treasury Board

honouring commitments made last April I?

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

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

MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS

AT KITIMAT GENERAL HOSPITAL

MR. HOWARD: I too would

like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. Because of the

limitation controls relating to hospitals, the Kitimat General Hospital

finds itself in an untenable position with respect to equipment

purchases and maintenance. In that regard, I'd like to ask the minister

if he will arrange to contact the Kitimat General Hospital to deal with

two very dangerous situations. One is that severe cracks exist in the

brick lining of the hospital's 25-year old smokestack, and the other is

that the water-level control valve on one of the hospital's two boilers

is defective, thus leaving the hospital at the mercy of only one boiler.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER:

We have an increasing number of questions asking whether the minister

will do certain things, and those questions are unacceptable. However,

the member for Skeena may well wish to rephrase his question.

MR. HOWARD: Has he decided to do that?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I'll be pleased to contact someone within the ministry and

have them contact the officials at Kitimat General Hospital as soon as

possible this afternoon to try to resolve their problems.

[ Page 8389 ]

MINISTERS' EXPENSES

MR. MACDONALD:

My question is to the Premier, and it relates to the Minister of

Consumer of Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman). On April 3, 1978, in

what he called a grave statement to the Legislature, announcing the

resignation of the minister who is now the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), the Premier said this:

was advised last weekend of an investigation touching upon the member.

Accordingly, at the first opportunity, I met with the member. Under

these circumstances....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a

point of order, is the member for Vancouver East making a statement?

The member to whom he has addressed his question is not in the House,

and I'm not sure that statements are allowed in question period.

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

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

Under

these circumstances, I requested the resignation of the member from the

executive council. This action is not a prejudgment of the matter by

me, nor is to be taken as an admission of any matter by the member. It

is, however....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of

order, Mr. Speaker, could I have a ruling from you on whether questions

to members who are not in the House are in order?

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, questions which are directed to ministers who are not

present can be directed to a minister acting for the minister not

present. The Chair has not been advised who is the acting minister;

therefore my hands are tied.

However, hon. members, the

question period is not a forum in which statements are made, and I must

now ask the member for Vancouver East to ask his question.

MR. MACDONALD:

I'll proceed to the question. The Premier, having said that this was in

accordance with the requirements for membership on the executive

council.... My question to the Premier is....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you've ruled that questions can be

addressed to acting ministers. That question is not addressed to an

acting minister; it's addressed to a member of this House who is not in

the Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in the

absence of any direction to the Chair of an acting member, upon the

completion of the question it would be the responsibility of the House

Leader to either redirect the question or to take the question on

notice on behalf of an absent minister. I would be willing to abide by

the wishes of the House in this regard. The hon. second member for

Vancouver East now asks the question.

MR. MACDONALD:

Since the situation that faces the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs at the present time is precisely that described within those

words of the Premier, I ask the Premier what the distinction is between

the two cases? Why is preferential treatment being extended in this

case that was not accorded to the hon. member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) when he was a minister?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

As Deputy Premier I'd be pleased to take the question proposed by the

member for Vancouver East as notice without any editorialization as to

the premise on which it is based.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEGGATT:

I also have a question for the Premier, and in his absence I will

direct this to the Minister of Finance. I asked him similar questions

on Monday, which he took on notice. On Monday, in answer to a question

of mine, the Premier said that he would not permit a takeover of

control of Quintette by the minority Japanese interests in that

particular mine. It was announced today in Japan that Denison Mines has

agreed to the Japanese takeover terms which would permit a minority

Japanese interest in Denison Mines to have effective control. Can the

Minister of Finance give his assurance that the government of British

Columbia will not permit or countenance changes in the coal deal that

will penalize future generations of British Columbians by locking them

into a losing proposition, with the Japanese buyers controlling the

price of this B.C. resource?

MR. SPEAKER: The question contains considerable argument.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, there is considerable editorializing in the question, as

you observed. I would also point out that while there are financial

implications in every portfolio, another minister, not I, is designated

as the minister responsible for industrial development in this province.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, I had considered asking that minister, but he was absent

on Monday, protecting the Japanese car industry in Ottawa, as I recall,

so I thought he might not be right up to date.

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

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the member for

Coquitlam-Moody to withdraw that inference. I was protecting jobs for

British Columbians in Ottawa on Monday.

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is to the Minister of Finance at this point. Has the

minister's government decided — and if he wishes to consult with the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), please do so — in the next two days to prevent one of

British Columbia's most valuable non-renewable resources from falling

into the hands of minority Japanese interests?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, there are premises in the question that I think are

incorrectly established and incorrectly based. It's curious that while

one of my colleagues was,

[ Page 8390 ]

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

On a point of order, the NDP House Leader has indicated that any answer

I've given recently is not truthful. I take offence at the member's

remarks, Mr. Speaker. The members can giggle and laugh — that's fine.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, if any member, whether in possession of the floor or not,

attributed to another hon. member any motive less than honourable, I

ask that it be withdrawn. Mr. Member for Skeena, was an improper motive

imputed?

MR. HOWARD: What I shouted across the floor,

Mr. Speaker, was that we wanted a truthful answer. The question was

directed to the Minister of Finance because he gives truthful answers.

I don't know why he would be upset at that.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

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

MR. HOWARD:

There wasn't any inference. If there is presumed or thought to be on

anybody's mind, they are in error, but certainly I'll withdraw out of

deference to you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT: I will

ask the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, who must

now be up to date on this.... There's a billion and a half in public

investment going into this project. We now have an announcement that as

of Friday a minority Japanese interest will control the Denison Mines.

Are the minister, his government, his Premier and the Minister of

Finance going to sit idly by while the Japanese take over this interest

and determine the price of the product, and sell it to themselves to

subsidize Japanese automobiles?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It

never ceases to amaze me how that poor member, who supposedly is a

lawyer and supposedly knows something about business, can stand

continually in this Legislature in an endeavour to mislead the people

of British Columbia. Let me tell you the facts.

As I have

stated before in this Legislature, the government of British Columbia

indeed has a contract, probably one of the toughest contracts ever put

together in the history of any major development in North America.

MR. BARRETT: Table it!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In due course.

That

contract is between the government of British Columbia and Quintette

Coal. The Japanese partners, who control approximately 38 percent of

Quintette Coal Ltd., have, over the last three or four months, made

some changes in the shareholdings; and the Japanese steel industry,

because of the viability and because this great project will open up a

vast new area of the province of British Columbia....

MR. LEGGATT: Demanded control.

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

MR. SPEAKER: That is an unacceptable remark.

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

With

the Japanese steel industry coming in, the total Japanese investment in

this project remains about the same. The inference made by the member

for Coquitlam-Moody is absolute nonsense. Denison Mines, as a 50

percent shareholder in the Quintette project, are the full managers of

the project. As in any arrangement, certain basic issues require full

board approval, such as additional expenditures of millions of dollars,

etc. This is true of any company in Canada. You don't go out and

blindly commit your company.

MR. LEGGATT: How about price?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I've told that member before that the price of coal is set on long-term

contracts, and in those contracts there are adjustments for inflation.

Yet that member continually stands up in this Legislature and

endeavours to mislead the people of this province that the Japanese 10

percent can set the price of coal. The price of coking coal is

generally set by world demand. Coking coal is a world commodity. It is

needed not only by the Japanese but also by every steel industry.

Canada is still a net importer of coal, because the steel industry in

Ontario buys all its coal in the United States. The price of coal is

set by world demand; that has always been the case. You're trying to

build up some scene....

I'd like to take that member for

Coquitlam back to 1968 when the steel industry of Japan rescued the

province of British Columbia and Kaiser Coal when they were suffering

financial hardships. The development of the southeast has created

thousands of jobs in the province of British Columbia. The investment

that we are making today will provide opportunity for further commerce.

The total investment by the taxpayers of British Columbia will be more

than paid for by the two initial contracts.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

On a point or order, I'd like to correct a quotation attributed to me

in the House during question period; I'm rising at this first

opportunity. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said that I

had....

[ Page 8391 ]

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

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

MR. SPEAKER:

On the point of order raised by the Minister of Energy, the only

vehicle in standing orders that I'm aware of that allows for any kind

of correction is standing order 42, which provides that if a member

makes a speech in this House and he is either misquoted or

misrepresented in the content of his speech which was made in this

House, that correction can be made in this House. But remarks

attributed to a member either in a newspaper, in the corridor or away

from the precinct cannot be corrected under any vehicle of which I am

aware. May we conclude with this point first, because the member has an

opportunity to respond.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Perhaps

you could help me then. Surely there is a vehicle for quotations

attributed to a member of this House by another member of this House,

in this House, which are incorrect — to raise them in some manner in

order that the member who is incorrectly quoted has the opportunity to

respond and make a correction. Then the record would be straight.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, I'm sure that with the imaginative abilities that all

members have, they would find ways. It is not for the Chair to instruct

in the rules.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I wasn't asking

for instruction; I was asking for advice from the Chair. Perhaps, Mr.

Speaker, I could rise on a point of privilege.

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. If you accept my point, I

would be happy to have a motion ready at the appropriate time.

During

question period the member for New Westminster attributed to me a

statement that hospitals were falling to pieces, as I think he said.

What I said was not that hospitals were falling to pieces but that

members opposite said that unemployment was bad, the economy was bad,

and they said that hospitals were falling to pieces, yet instead of

doing the work they're being paid to do they'd sooner wallow around in

the mud, slip around in the kind of gutter politics that they've become

so good at over the past few years. That is what I've said.

Interjections.

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

Does the member now have a motion to propose?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the motion could be presented

when it was ruled whether or not there was a matter of privilege.

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

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

MR. BARRETT:

I rise on a point of order, referring to quotations from documents

which were made by the minister in answer to a question. Is it not a

rule in this House that when a minister refers to specific parts of a

document such as the agreement on northeast coal, the agreement should

be tabled?

MR. SPEAKER: When a document is quoted in

this House verbatim, it is normal procedure for it to be tabled. If it

is only referred to or paraphrased, it is not required to be tabled.

However, that discretion lies with the individual who refers to such a

document. Without having the document in hand the Chair cannot possibly

determine whether or not it was quoted from or paraphrased or simply

referred to.

MR. BARRETT: That is my dilemma. For

some months now we have had this document referred to, but it has

mysteriously been kept secret, and we get closer to paraphrasing, or

maybe not.... I know it's difficult for the Chair, but it's even more

difficult for us as members. I'm at a loss, Mr. Speaker, as to how this

rule applies when we're continuously being subjected to references to a

document that is being kept secret.

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

HON. MR. McGEER:

It's been a long-standing practice of this House, under standing

orders, that if one member misquotes another in the House, the member

then rises and corrects the record. That is not outside the House; it

is inside the House, and it is especially important. I've been in the

House as long as you have, Mr. Member, and I know what's gone on inside

the House.

Mr. Speaker, the obvious reason for this ruling

and the practice is that not only is it insulting for one member to

misquote another — whether by accident or not — it's important that the

record be corrected for the purposes of Hansard . Question

period has been instituted since this rule and this practice became

accepted in the House, and I would like to suggest to you, sir, that

when you consider the matter of privilege you take into consideration

the longer-standing rule and practice of the House that makes it

unnecessary for matters of privilege to be raised over simple

misquotations, whether during question period or during debate in the

House.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: In

the matter of correcting statements, during the course of debate it is

not unusual in this House for there to be a divergence of opinion as

regards various matters. Facts fall into dispute — that's the normal

course of debate. If we accepted in this House the practice that

whenever one member disagrees with another member he should then have

another opportunity in the same debate to stand up a second or a third

or a fourth time to take his place in that debate, the entire rule that

a member may speak only once to a question would fall into disrepair.

Hon. members, I have presided over this House for several years and

have watched members try to

[ Page 8392 ]

stand

up following a motion or a question or a statement to try to correct

what they perceived as something in error in that statement. The Chair

has steadfastedly resisted it. If there is any practice that can be

traced through the Journals and through Hansard ,

that practice is this: the Chair has resisted that kind of procedure

because it would put the whole question of debate into an intolerable

phase.

Standing order 42 is in its place. It is there for a

specific reason, and I think that we should observe it within the

bounds of its intent. I do believe that if we wish to stretch standing

order 42 beyond its intent, I would resist that with all of my

strength. However, if it is the wish of the House to amend standing

order 42, then the remedy is also in place: simply refer it to the

committee which is standing, awaiting your instruction to do exactly

this, and should that instruction come from that committee and be

adopted by the House, the Chair would be happy to abide by that.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

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

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

MR. COCKE:

I know that. I wish to table a document that will help Mr. Speaker make

a decision, because the exact words I used are in this document. The

exact words the minister argues about....

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

Leave granted.

MR. NICOLSON:

I rise on a point of order. I'm sorry to take so long, Mr. Speaker, but

during question period I took note of some of the terms used by the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips). Yesterday there was disorder in this House, which you dealt

with very promptly and probably with the appropriate amount of severity.

When

there was a request today for the withdrawal of some statements by the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development got up and asked, with words to this effect:

"Would you ask the mudslinger to withdraw any inference of lying?"

Maybe with some human frailty, Mr. Speaker, you asked an hon. member to

withdraw any inference of lying, but you did not immediately deal with

that.

Through the questioning which then followed, the

member twice referred to my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr.

Leggatt) as trying to "mislead the people of the province," and then on

another occasion, used the word "liar," which you did upbraid him for.

request that you review the actions of the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development during question period today to decide

whether some punitive action should follow, as it would appear to me to

have been deliberate mischief, tampering with the good conduct in the

House and trying to make the Speaker's job more difficult than it needs

to be.

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

experience has always been that there is a rule of relevancy in

question period. The Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development has consistently given irrelevant answers to relevant

questions. There's no question about that. At no time today during

question period did he deal with the question he was asked, which was

the specific question on the takeover of Quintette. Surely, Mr.

Speaker, you have the jurisdiction to intervene and ask the member to

sit down for speaking nonsense and not dealing with questions. With the

greatest respect, I would ask that you do so in the future.

MR. SPEAKER:

With regard to conduct and procedure in question period, I will

undertake to review the entire process to see whether we can put into

force in question period the kind of procedure which would fall more

squarely into the provisions of Beauchesne and Sir Erskine May.

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, as members may be aware, recent census figures show that

British Columbia's population has increased by almost 11 percent over

the past five years. This increase gives rise to whether our province's

citizens are sufficiently represented in this Legislature.

Consequently, I am pleased to announce that we're appointing a

commissioner under the Inquiry Act to determine whether these new

census figures warrant additional seats in this House.

Under

the terms of the appointment, Mr. Derril Warren, a Kelowna lawyer and

one-time leader of the B.C. Progressive Conservative Party, will be the

commissioner. Mr. Warren will be looking at a number of factors,

including population, geography and past history. Should he see fit, he

can recommend the addition of representation to existing electoral

districts and subdivision of multiple-member districts that warrant

representation by more than two members. The commissioner's findings

and recommendations are to be made on the basis that this assembly

comprise no fewer than 57 and no more than 71 members.

all members know, our democratic system of government is based on fair

and effective representation. That is the intent of the commissioner's

duties, and I am sure that all members of this House will assist the

commissioner with this task. Like all members, and all British

Columbians, I look forward to his findings and concluding

recommendations.

In conclusion, I ask leave to table a copy

of the order-in-council, which has been recommended by cabinet, so that

members will have the benefit of the exact terms of reference of the

commissioner's appointment.

Leave granted.

MRS. DAILLY:

I was listening in my office, and I wish to say to the Provincial

Secretary that we appreciate you making this announcement to us.

However, if I may express a concern on behalf of our party, once again

it is a one-person commission, and I think the policy of the New

Democratic Party is that we think it would be far preferable to

establish at least a three-person commission. It's no reflection

whatever on the person you have announced, but I do wish to state that

[ Page 8393 ]

feel that most of these commissions, in other jurisdictions, are not

handled by just one person. I regret that you have decided to continue

that policy.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL

GAS AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The

purpose of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act is primarily to

serve two purposes. One requirement is to provide for increases in fees

and rentals which apply to petroleum permits and leases. These were set

in a

schedule in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, and provisions in

the legislation allow for those revisions to be made through

regulations, as required by order-in-council. I might just mention that

there have been no fee increases since 1974.

The second main

purpose is simply to meet some housekeeping needs. It's been the

practice to update the legislation from time to time. These further

changes are quite minor. The area where five-year term leases are

allowed is increased. Improved access allows more year-round drilling

in this larger area that's established, so the industry doesn't need a

ten-year term. This doesn't apply to marine areas. The amendments

provide that surrendered oil and gas rights go into the Crown reserve

category. So that companies do not file on this acreage, better control

over the provincial resource is assured through this measure.

Some

name changes are made just to recognize some organizational changes

which have been made within the ministry, and provisions are made in

the legislation for administering the new oil reference price system

established by the federal government, unless Mr. MacEachen changes the

national energy program on Monday night — which we all hope he will.

With those few words, I move second reading.

MR. D'ARCY: The opposition is going to oppose this bill. I

think it should be called the Petroleum and Natural Gas "Keep the

Industry on its Back for Another Year" Amendment Act, 1982. Once again

we see the government going after an industry that has been devastated

by economic events in North America and the world. Instead of, like the

federal government recently and the Alberta government, realizing the

errors of their ways — in the federal government's case, in terms of

their national energy program, and in the case of the Alberta

government, realizing that their agreement with Ottawa was a bit too

harsh on the industry, given today's economic conditions.... Our

provincial government, and that minister over there, instead of

understanding that reality and easing up on government charges to an

industry that is in a great deal of trouble, chooses to force it

further into the ground. That industry is already virtually flat on its

back. It was reported in the media a few weeks ago that only two rigs

were drilling for gas and petroleum in the entire province of B.C.

Instead of making specific the lease charges and rentals that the

industry is going to face, this bill is going to put the industry in

the same position as other industries have been put in by this

government, such that they don't really know where the goal-posts are

going to be next year or the year following, what the charges are going

to be. They're faced with a situation where the government, in cabinet

secrecy, without coming to this assembly and without consulting the

press of this province, can arbitrarily change the rates, leases and

fees charged to the industry. The government wants to raise an extra

$13 million to $14 million this year, according to the minister. By our

calculations, it appears from the estimates that he is socking the

industry with a further 17 percent increase this year. I submit that

this is substantially beyond the guidelines put forth by the government

itself in terms of spending control in the public sector — not only

their own government spending but also the spending of local government

in this province.

I want to repeat

that we will be opposing this bill. We do not believe in cabinet

secrecy, when it comes to charges to the public, by this government or

any other government. We don't believe in a further body-blow to an

industry that is already flat on its back. A few weeks ago, this

minister quite correctly admitted that he had made a mistake in

suggesting amendments to the Mineral Act. Those amendments would have

been very hard for the mining industry, which is in a great deal of

trouble in this province, to counter, and he quite correctly, having

admitted his error, withdrew the bill. He then comes back a week later

with the same kind of a bill relating to the petroleum and natural gas

industry. I think the minister should reconsider once more. If we have

a healthy petroleum and natural gas industry in this province, the

minister knows very well that the revenue to the government, as well as

the revenue to individuals and businesses in terms of profits and

wages, will far exceed the $13 million to $14 million which the

government expects to raise as a result of this bill — assuming that

this money can be brought in, because we may have no industry at all to

bring in any funds to the government if the government proceeds with

this bill.

Without question, this kind of action on the part

of the government is typical of other actions over the last five or six

years. We saw it in the ferry rate increase bill a few weeks ago; we

see it in the forest legislation; we see it in the water rental

increase. The government arbitrarily wants to saddle individuals,

business and industry with increased fees, increased charges and

increased difficulties when it comes to doing business in this province

and getting the economy back on its feet. I certainly do not support

this bill, and we will be voting against it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker. I might just note, so that members could be prepared

during committee stage, that part of the bill is incorrect. The date of

implementation is July 1, but it should read September 1. We will be

including amendments at the proper time for that.

For that

and other reasons, and because the industry is depressed at this time,

the estimated revenues of $10 million to $15 million for a full year

will likely be in the $5 million to $6 million range. It's a fairly

modest increase. As I've said before, there have been no increases

since 1974. One reason that increases get behind an orderly method of

keeping up with the needs of the community, of making sure that our

resources return a fair value to the people of the province who own

those resources, is that they tend to be in legislation. So

[ Page 8394 ]

depends on the timing and on what happens to the Legislature at various

times of the year in order to set priorities on getting legislation in

place.

The member talked about setting rates and fees behind

closed doors. I remember the former Premier of the province, now his

leader and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), telling the

chicken farmers of B.C.: "If you want to do business with me, come into

my office. We'll do it behind closed doors and we'll set little private

deals." I also remember the former Mines minister, who became Mines

minister in the dying days of the government, taking over from a

minister who literally destroyed the mining industry in British

Columbia, telling the mining industry virtually the same thing: "We're

not going to have any royalties for you; we're not going to have any

taxes. What we'll do is this: you come into my office and we'll pass

little deals together." Every mining company had a little different

deal that it made with the Minister of Mines.

Also I'd like

you to hark back to how Hydro rates used to be set. They were set in

the same way — behind cabinet doors — until this government established

the British Columbia Utilities Commission, and Hydro rates are now set

in public after full public hearing for the first time in history.

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

Motion approved on following division:

YEAS — 28

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D’Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

Bill

56, Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to interfere with the progress of the

committee, but I wanted to respond to a matter which was raised by the

member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt). I wanted to respond

yesterday, but he volunteered with the member for Kootenay (Mr.

Segarty) to pair for the afternoon. Perhaps he'll be back in the

chamber later, so maybe we can carry on.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with three items. The first one is the

Freedom of Information Act. I think the Attorney-General knows that for

a number of sessions now I have introduced this bill hoping that the

government would bring one in, if they won't accept mine. I understand

that the Attorney-General is actually looking at the possibility of

one, according to an

article in a recent paper. I don't think I need to

go through the importance of freedom of information. I think we're all

aware that any enlightened democracy today should certainly have in

their statutes a Freedom of Information Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Just to advise the committee, perhaps the member could relate to the

administrative actions of the Attorney-General, which I'm sure the

member is going to do, and avoid discussion of legislation.

MRS. DAILLY:

Under the administration of the Attorney-General, I'm very glad to say

that I understand he is considering, as the administrator of the

Ministry of Attorney-General, the possibility of bringing in the act.

simply want to ask him a couple of questions, if he would be kind

enough to answer. First of all, it is such an important piece of

legislation that I was wondering if he would perhaps consider

establishing a committee of the Legislature to assist him and his

ministry in the development of a Freedom of Information Act. I know

that in the House of Commons they worked on

an act for many years. I

wonder if the Attorney-General would give consideration to the

establishment of a legislative committee in which we could assist him

in the development of this.

I also want to say that why I'm

so concerned about everyone having their input into this is that for

the citizens of this province to finally receive one, I think we all

want to take part and be sure that it will be a piece of legislation

that will provide all our citizens with full access to government

documents. That is important; otherwise it would be a mockery to bring

in something that did not provide this. I hope the Attorney-General

would find it possible to comment on that. A number of actions have

taken place under the Social Credit government where, if an information

act had been on the books, perhaps there could have been a lot of

adversarial moments on the floor of this House that would never have

taken place if we had originally been given the opportunity to

information that we as the opposition and the public should rightfully

have. In other words, Mr. Chairman, I think you would agree with me

that the public should never be subjected to any coverups of

information that may be politically

[ Page 8395 ]

undesirable

for a ministry to release, when actually the information should be

available for the public to judge themselves. It becomes a very

one-sided Legislature if the opportunity to make judgments is only

based on a very slow leakage of information from the ministers of this

government.

The second point I want to make is to do very

briefly with Oakalla. Yesterday the minister said that new facilities

were definitely needed. Naturally I understand that you need to have

the women's section, perhaps combined with the federal. Are federal and

provincial women inmates to be in one area? I'd like to know that. The

second question is: has his ministry considered whether it is

absolutely necessary to incarcerate a lot of the people now

incarcerated in Oakalla who are not there for violent crimes? I think

that is a debate that is going on in society today. We're all

questioning the cost of incarcerating people who are being placed in

provincial jails, perhaps for something not of a violent nature. Do we

need to spend all this money? Can another system of perhaps regional

camps, more minimum-security type, smaller areas be found, instead of

the public having to finance, through their tax dollars, another

provincial institution that is going to cost enormous sums of money?

Has the ministry ever given consideration to whether we really need to

incarcerate the number of people that it apparently will be

incarcerating again? It just seems to me that the whole penal system

has not changed that much in the last 100 years. I wonder if you could

comment on the need for this, because the serious offenders could be

taken care of in the federal system.

One final quick

question. It is on the mandatory testing of people who have

injuries.... You may have answered this earlier. People who have been

in tragic car accidents are taken to hospital, and because of their

injuries there is no mandatory testing allowable — maybe not because of

their injuries but because they're in the hospital. In many cases we do

not know what the type of impairment was. I think this has been an

impediment to proper justice. I wonder if you could comment on those

three items.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the

questions which the member for Burnaby North raises are certainly

appropriate, and I'm delighted to have the opportunity to respond.

With

respect to freedom of information, I share the same view that she does

with respect to the necessary availability of information in the hands

of government, not only to members of this Legislature so that they may

better discharge their function, but also so that the citizens of the

province can have access to the information that is developed by

government in the course of many of its activities so that they too may

be able to participate more effectively in the processes of government.

The officials in my ministry have been examining very carefully the

freedom of information legislation that has been introduced in some

provinces. Frankly, we find the examples in other provinces to be

lacking in the scope that seems indicated with regard to freedom of

information, if indeed it is to be an effective program. We have also

examined the programs in other jurisdictions and have carefully

analyzed many of the aspects of the federal legislation that has been

so long in the drafting and so long under consideration by the

committee of the House of Commons. We still have very serious

reservations about some aspects of the federal bill, but we will be

looking forward to seeing what the final results of the debate on that

legislation will be. It is regrettable, however, that no matter how one

approaches freedom of information, there are certain aspects of

government information which must be excluded from a ready access to

public inspection. This has been set out and dealt with in a variety of

ways. We are particularly interested in the approach taken by the

federal government in this respect, and we are also looking forward to

identifying the nature of the bureaucratic administration which will be

a necessary companion of freedom of information legislation. That

examination is going on at the same time as considering what the

legislation should be in this province.

We find that simple

matters like filing systems and the retrieval of information would

require, in the ministries of government, a very major overhaul of the

entire document filing and retrieval systems. This will be assisted

materially with increased computerization, but that aspect is being

dealt with as well. There is not much point in bringing forward

freedom-of-information legislation if, when the citizen goes to seek

the information to which he is entitled, he finds that there will be

long delays and indeed some impossibility of finding the information

and the documents which are properly requested. What I am saying to the

member is that it's an important move forward; it's one which is not

being ignored. Careful study is being given to the matter. I can't at

the moment forecast when legislation will be in the draft stage, but I

believe that when it does come forward it will draw upon the better

aspects of all of the other examples that have been tried.

Freedom

of information creates some very serious problems with regard to the

criminal justice division. We know from the American experience, for

example, that through their legislation the underworld is able to

obtain information which is directly beneficial to them and directly

contrary to the enforcement of the laws in the United States'

jurisdiction. We would want to be careful that that is not the case,

and that's one of the major debates that continues between the

provinces and the federal government with regard to the federal

legislation.

Consideration by a committee of this

Legislature: I'm not certain whether it would be appropriate; in fact,

I doubt if it would, in the development of legislation. But in view of

the scope of this legislation, it is one which, in my view, should be

appropriately examined by the select standing committee. I have always

believed that greater use can be made of our select standing committees

with regard to information of this import, because irrespective of

whether you're on the opposition side or on the government side, I

think that careful analysis of the direction that we're going — indeed,

making it possible for the citizens to make representations about

concerns that they may have about aspects of the bill — is important.

It would be milestone legislation for this province and should be

treated in that particular way.

Oakalla. One of the new

units that we are contemplating — as I said yesterday — is the new

women's facilities. We embarked upon this project because of growing

concern with respect to the Lakeside Correctional Centre. Even though

it has been significantly modernized in recent years, we consider that

a new women's facility is desirable, and should be separated from any

of the male institutions — not that there's any interrelationship now,

but I think that it should be located in some other place than where

male prisoners are kept. The concept of federal women prisoners being

in our facilities only arose two years ago, when in conversation with

the

[ Page 8396 ]

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

One

of the reasons for that is that there are serious problems in visits

from members of the families of women who are incarcerated in those

facilities. They had been discussing an arrangement with the province

of Alberta whereby women prisoners from Alberta could be kept in an

institution in that province. That started the discussions, which have

continued to a stage where we have identified points of understanding

between the provincial government and the Solicitor-General's

department as to how this would be done. We have identified the size of

the unit required; we have also identified what we will be obliged to

do operationally in running the institution in order to meet federal

standards. We have also indicated to the Solicitor-General of Canada

that we wish to apply some of our provincial standards to those

prisoners with respect to programs, educational opportunities and

rehabilitation techniques. This is being worked out, and we think it

will be an improvement. The federal government has indicated they would

assist in the capital cost and contribute financially to the annual

operating expense on a per-inmate basis. It would be run by the

provincial corrections system with financial contributions from the

federal government.

With regard to other facilities, we do

have many programs in the corrections branch that are specifically

designed to keep people from being incarcerated. The debate that rages

around whether or not we should do anything at Brannan Lake as part of

that program. We want to decentralize our correction facilities. We

want to provide more open facilities, where we can handle prisoners who

are classified for facilities of that kind. We don't have maximum and

minimum security institutions, as in the federal system. Ours are

divided into two categories — secure or open. Even the open facilities

have a gradation of security. As soon as a person is convicted, it is

the responsibility of the corrections branch to classify that person

and determine what institution will best suit that individual and the

penalty that he or she must pay to society for his or her crime.

Through

this, we have reached the refinement of what is now called a

direct-entry program. There was a time when, if you were convicted in a

court in the city of Vancouver, Burnaby or New Westminster with a

sentence of two years less a day or less, you would be taken to

Oakalla, where you would be classified and would spend some days there.

Having been classified, you would then perhaps be sent to one of the

other, open institutions. We now have a program in place whereby

direct-entry access is available. We are now able to classify in

advance of that step, and take the person directly to an institution of

a type other than Oakalla. This is done at the Alouette River unit, for

example, where we take prisoners whose crimes are non-violent. They

tend to be alcohol-oriented and are unlikely to be in the facility for

much longer than three or four weeks. Through direct entry we are able

to take them from the court in which they are sentenced to our Alouette

River unit, process them and merge them into the program. That's the

direction in which we hope to proceed.

To the extent we are

able, and as quickly as we are able, we are expanding the community

correctional centre concept. It is the most open institution we have

and is used for intermittent sentences. We have them operating in the

midst of Vancouver. In many cases, the people who live in the

surrounding areas don't even know it is that kind of institution. The

classification of the prisoners who go to that institution is such that

we have no difficulty whatsoever in functioning in that way. We are

proceeding to develop more camps and more of these open facilities.

While

I'm on the subject, the member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown) raised

the question of why there aren't camps for girls. I'm glad she raised

the matter. I don't have an answer for her, but it will be referred to

the commissioner of corrections. I agree with the member that surely we

don't have to accumulate a lot of people before we can give the

experience. While we go a long way to give camp-type experience, such

as Outward Bound, to young men in order that they may face challenges —

which have a major rehabilitative effect — we think that similar

challenges can be developed for girls as well. It may not necessarily

be the same rigorous type of experience in many cases, but I think the

same kind of challenge.

MS. BROWN: It can be the same.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's right.

Lastly,

the member raises the question of the mandatory testing of bodily

fluids. I think you were referring to blood tests. This is a problem

which is being addressed by all of the Attorneys-General in Canada; it

was dealt with at the Attorneys' meeting in Newfoundland last October.

A resolution was passed supporting that concept, and an interprovincial

committee of Deputy Attorneys-General has been established under the

direction of the Deputy Attorney-General for the province of

Saskatchewan. They have been looking at what is being done in other

countries of the world with regard to mandatory testing of blood

samples. Australia is one; Sweden is another. Australia even has a

program whereby when you get your driver's licence, you consent at that

time to mandatory testing of blood samples. It is a far better method

of determining alcohol content than is a breathalyser, and this will be

discussed at the meetings in Montebello, I believe, in August of this

year — all the experience from other countries.

We know that

the Canadian Medical Association has passed resolutions in support of

this move; we're also aware of the resistance that can be expected from

people in the civil liberties movement. We understand their concern,

but I think it was the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who

spoke earlier in debate on this matter, who raised the question that

perhaps we should look at the balance between civil rights — whether

you should protect the civil rights of a person who by reason of his or

her consumption of alcohol has seriously maimed or killed some person,

or the civil rights of the person who, lawfully going about his or her

affairs, is placed in jeopardy by that person. I think that argument,

when it comes, will be an interesting one. I support the concept. I

don't believe that there is the kind of problem that has been

identified in this regard, and it will provide us with a means of

resolving many of the problems that are experienced in drinking and

driving.

In this province we have been able to develop a

significant amount of invaluable information, which is contributing to

the committee of Deputy Attorneys-General, through a pilot project that

was run at the Royal Columbian Hospital under the aegis of my

predecessor, now the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr.

Gardom). The doctors in the emergency wards and staff at the Royal

Columbian Hospital undertook this project where they asked people who

came in

[ Page 8397 ]

the hospital from motor-vehicle accidents and so on if they I would

consent to having a blood sample taken. From that we have some very

valuable information, and from that program we can clock the time of

the week and the time of the day when the incidence of high

blood-alcohol readings can be identified. It is quite dramatic when you

consider what happens Friday and Saturday nights between 11 p.m. and 3

a.m.

With this we also have the startling information which

is coming from the province of Ontario, based upon their statistical

analysis of highways tests, that as you drive down the highway in that

province every eighth car you pass is driven by someone who has an

unacceptable blood-alcohol level. That's a very dangerous exposure. We

undertook a similar program in British Columbia, and the analysis of

the statistics is not yet complete, but it is startling to contemplate

the frequency with which, on the average, you are, when driving your

car, confronted by another vehicle in which the driver may be impaired.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief. I'll deal with two

subjects only, subjects which you'll recognize as being properly in the

area covered by the Attorney-General's estimates, since they involve

the law and the way in which it's administered in this province. My

first topic is white-collar crime: how it's spotted and how it's dealt

with in British Columbia. My second topic is expropriation of private

property and the way our governments deal with our citizens and their

property rights in British Columbia.

Firstly, about white-collar crime, some say that it's on the

increase — I don't know about that. What I do know, however, is that

the RCMP's commercial crime squad in B.C. has grown in numbers.

Starting as a pilot project in the mid-1960s, what was initially a

two-man

section has swelled to 70. Its budget has grown as well. Its

investigations, many of them now extremely sophisticated, reach into

nearly every aspect of business life. They reach into the professions

and into the activities of the public service as well.

said that British Columbia's RCMP commercial crime squad had its

beginnings as a pilot project some 17 years ago. It was the first in

Canada and was something of an experiment until 1974, when the previous

government, the NDP government, upgraded the entire operation.

According to Superintendent Bob Mullock, and as reported in the monthly

magazine B.C. Business ,

October 1980 edition, the force "pressured the NDP government into a

massive reorganization and rewriting of B.C.'s enforcement regulations,

allowing for considerable expansion of the section." The same

article

then goes on to say:

"Government sources say Mullock is as successful and persistent

in attempting to increase his section's budget and staff as he is in accurately

predicting crime trends, how to ambush the trends and consequently earning the

respect of officers throughout the force."

gather that it has only been in the last few years, with its growing

numbers and its increasing expertise, that British Columbia's

pacesetting commercial crime squad has had a significant impact on

crime in the business and related sectors in this province. Not only

did it have to learn a lot about business and business methods, but it

also had to learn from experience how the rules were being broken, and

where the most flagrant cases of fraud did in fact occur. It took many

investigatory man-hours to track down a crime in the securities area,

for example. To quote Superintendent Mullock again:

"It

wasn't worth the problems it created for enforcement agencies. It has

been a success story since.... It has vastly improved in the last four

or five years, but it has a long way to go yet. It's not perfect by any

means, and there are always going to be people who are going to try and

stretch the law to the nth degree. I don't think we'll ever plug all

the holes, but public disclosure rules have gone a long way to helping,

and the advent of the computer has helped us enormously. It now takes

us 30 seconds to get a list of all the contracts in a trade where it

used to take us months before."

Speed is one thing.

Presumably the RCMP's commercial crime unit is becoming more efficient

all the time. But there's another aspect to its growing number of

investigations. That's an increasing awareness in the business

community, among professionals and in the public service that

white-collar people are being watched, and watched closely. This

combination of larger police resources and a growing public awareness

is one of the ingredients which will reduce commercial scams in this

province no end. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "scam" —

questionable business practices perhaps, ones which take advantage of

one business person as opposed to another. employers as opposed to

employees, shareholders as opposed to top management, whatever you

will. But a presumption of guilt is always a dicey thing, especially

where the law and the courts are concerned.

Fraudulent

business practices, described in precise legal and accounting terms,

were not a problem for lawyers and accountants up until the 1970s. Then

the law started to change and enforcement became more rigorous. The two

have dovetailed, and as a result we have many more cases coming before

the courts. We have more court decisions defining, in a body of case

law, what is acceptable and what is not acceptable conduct in business

and business-related activities — from a criminal point of view.

Clearly governments — and the government of this province is not alone

— have opted for more standards and tougher standards in the business

relationships of individuals and corporations or agencies.

What

has happened to old ideas like caveat emptor? They've gone by the

wayside insofar as the consumer is concerned. Now they're being

discarded in business as well. Word of mouth, trust between individuals

and words like "reasonableness" have apparently gone out the window.

Laws are being put in their place. Each of these laws has its

loopholes, and each loophole invites fresh legislation. This is an

awesome process insofar as business of the old, rough and ready style

is concerned. It makes risk-taking riskier still. The rewards flow more

and more to the cautious, the careful, the well-advised — both from a

legal and an accounting point of view. This is too bad because, while

it provides additional employment for lawyers and accountants, it's

also wrapping business up in red tape. That's my warning, especially to

small businessmen who don't have the expertise to deal with this kind

of thing.

However, we've hardly begun. The 1980

article in B.C. Business

had him stating that his

section caseload had become backlogged to the

extent that they had 32 man-years of work on hand and new cases

flooding in. Other government officials quoted in the same magazine

suggested that the

[ Page 8398 ]

commercial

crime backlog was growing as the commercial crime unit generated most

of its own cases. Other types of workload, they said, were being

imposed on it. Again, quoting the same article, I find the following

section interesting. "The section" — this is the unit — "is

contemplating establishment of a corruptions group to investigate

reports of crime involving politicians in B.C." To be quite clear, that

was an

article written some 18 months ago. I leave it to you, Mr.

Chairman, to judge who the magazine's sources were and what the results

have been.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

Apparently

the commercial crime unit employs outside expertise. It has contracts

with chartered accountants and others with specialized backgrounds —

for example, company comptrollers. They help sift the evidence gathered

by the police as a result either of co-ordinated raids of every aspect

of a suspected business transaction or of voluntary submissions of

records from a business, which itself is a report of a white-collar

crime. The consultants apparently narrow down the location of the

suspected activity and point to possible trails where more evidence

might be found. It's the police who actually carry out the

investigation and conduct the interviews. Again I quote Mr. Mullock.

"There are specific types of material the accountants pass

on to us. They really put the handle on what the books say. What the investigator

has to do is be trained to ask the right questions of the auditor. We'll

go for the accountant as much as possible, because when we take the case to

court, his testimony is expert and it counts for more."

One

of the key differences between white-collar crime and most other types

of criminal code infractions is that in a commercial crime

investigation the police almost always know, even at the outset, who

the suspect is. The finger points already. The challenge is in proving

that a crime was actually committed. Often in a complicated serious of

transactions which have every appearance of legitimacy, they may turn

out to be legitimate, at least in the minds of those involved. However,

the police face one hazard which is doubly serious insofar as the

innocent are concerned. Some people try to get even with their

employers, partners or competitors by claiming that they have swindled

the innocent. They're trying to get back at someone often as a result

of a business failure. This, according to Mr. Mullock, is itself a

crime.

Because of the nature of the activity, commercial

cases generally involve a lot of money. There is considerable

expenditure, certainly, on the part of the RCMP, since officers must

often spend — besides time needed for sifting through innumerable

records — months of taking down detailed evidence in other towns,

provinces, states or countries, and, after all this is done and the

charge levied, giving direct evidence and assembling witnesses at each

stage in the court case itself. Cost, obviously, is a big item. It's

the order of magnitude of cost as compared to the dollars-and-cents

scale of a crime that I would like to dwell on for a moment.

In some instances, from a purely commercial or even taxpayer point of view,

the cost isn't worth the trouble. Let me refer to my own encounter with

the justice system in this province as a case in point. My transgression, that

of keeping the difference between a first-class fare and an economy fare on

half a dozen occasions, was of the order of $1,000. I estimate the cost of

the investigation by the police and my prosecution by the Crown to be in the

order of $250,000. Two hundred and fifty to one is a poor cost-benefit ratio.

It's ridiculous from a single income-outgo point of view. So there had to

be more to it — an example, for instance. Someone had to be tripped up for doing

that sort of thing. Someone had to be put through the hoops, and it was I.

Frankly,

Mr. Chairman, I can understand that. I understand that when some person

unknown — and I've never been able to find out who that person was —

blew the whistle on me, the commercial crime squad was intrigued. It

started digging and found that I had turned in a ticket more than once.

So they really went after me, covering all of my comings and goings as

a federal and provincial cabinet minister, as president of my own

consulting engineering firm, and as a private person. There wasn't

anything they didn't look into over an approximate ten-month period,

and there were very few people they didn't interview who had worked

with me or for me over a period of years. It was upsetting at the time

and it hurt my family no end, but I got over it, or most of it. What I

still find disconcerting is the fact that my company books disappeared

at the outset and didn't turn up until I dropped my appeal to the

Supreme Court of Canada. Then I found them on my back doorstep,

unaddressed, and with no indication whatsoever of who had had them in

the meanwhile.

I realize that one of the purposes of

estimates is to question the responsible minister. I have, therefore,

my several questions to the Attorney-General in this area of commercial

crime and its administration in B.C.

First, who initiates

these investigations? Second, who decides whether or not these

investigations should be pursued to the courts? Third, when and to whom

do the police report when they think they have found something? Fourth,

do the police themselves recommend prosecution, and if so, are their

recommendations always or frequently acted upon? What I'm really

groping for is some idea as to the freedom of action our commercial

crime squad has and the extent, if any, to which the rest of the

ministry in general, and the Attorney-General in particular, has a veto

over its operations. Are they able to do their own thing at all times,

or are there some policy limitations on their activities? By that, I

mean their searches and the prosecutions which they recommend and which

may take place.

Before I leave this topic of commercial

crime and swing over to the matter of expropriation, I want to make it

quite clear that I'm not trying to rework my own case. I think I can

understand how it happened and why the outcome was as it was. Mine was

a high-profile case and, as the judge who sentenced me said, I had to

be dealt with more harshly than others in similar circumstances who are

not in the public eye. That's behind me, but I really want to know

where the purview of the minister — the Attorney-General and his staff

— begins and ends in this area of commercial crime, and how the

Attorney-General ideally would like to deal with it in the future.

second topic, as I indicated earlier, is expropriation. I want to make

the point, as I have done in previous estimates of the

Attorney-General, that we should have one carefully thought-out,

phrased and administered expropriation act in British Columbia. We

shouldn't have a host of provincial laws, some 30 of them, some old and

some new, some adequate and some inadequate, some fair and some others

— on the face of it — unfair, that allow government to seize

[ Page 8399 ]

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

Mr.

J.V. Clyne, sitting as a royal commissioner, said in 1964 that the

province's expropriation laws should be consolidated and the basis for

compensation changed. In 1972, the then Mr. Justice Fulton, as chairman

of the Law Reform Commission, made similar recommendations. He called

for the establishment of a single tribunal to arbitrate all

expropriations in B.C. He said that it is "fundamental justice that

there should be adequate procedural safeguards to protect the

individual citizen from the abusive exercise of expropriation powers in

this province." Many hon. members, including a number on this side of

the House, have spoken on this subject in recent years. The hon.

Attorney-General, when he was in opposition, did so. He's aware of the

need for this kind of legislation. Perhaps he can tell us why it's

taking the government so long to get around to the drafting of a single

bill to deal with this important matter of expropriation in a modern

manner, in a manner befitting a democratic country in which the right

to own property is a right endorsed by successive administrations, both

federal and provincial, and which the provinces in particular have a

duty to defend because of their responsibilities under our Canadian

constitution for the administration of property and civil rights.

Perhaps

the Attorney-General can also tell us how he thinks a sensitive and

fair-minded administration would deal with the difficult problem of

compensation when private property has to be taken for some public

purpose. I personally don't think the simple market-value approach is

good enough. There's often a special value attached to land, buildings

and other assets, an admittedly enhanced value in the eyes of the

owner. His or her anguish, inconvenience, disruption, and feeling of

insecurity should be taken into account. Compensation, in other words,

should have a humanitarian element to it and there should be an appeal

— as in the case of a recent amendment to the B.C. transit act — to

some authority other than the courts, one that can act promptly and

with understanding when cases of this kind come forth.

doubt the Crown will end up paying more for property under such

legislation, but it's the only way in which government — impersonal

government, big government, purposeful government — can properly deal

with people and still retain not only their confidence and respect, but

also a belief in the freedom of the individual and the democratic

process in this country. We have to put the individual first in this

province, and in Canada. One of the ways in which our provincial

government can indicate its intentions in this regard is to deal both

fairly and compassionately with those whose property is being taken

from them. An expropriation act such as the new federal act in the

early 1970s says it all, and says it with feeling. That's badly needed

in British Columbia now.

Since I've only just now sent the

Attorney-General a copy of my remarks and since he may want a little

time to study my questions, I'll gladly yield the floor to anyone else

who wants to pursue questions. I'll certainly be looking forward to

what the hon. minister has to say on these two topics.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I an indebted to the hon.

member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) for providing me with a

copy of his notes, including the highlights.

MR. MACDONALD: The notes are very full.

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

Dealing

first of all with the matter of commercial crime, and at the same time

the whole question of the cost of the enforcement of criminal law:

there is no question that in the ideal society, if everyone were

prepared to abide by the rules of society, including the rules of

business, we would be able to avoid a tremendous burden of expense

which is cast upon the taxpayer, in the support of our police forces

and the administration of justice through the courts and into the

corrections service. Unfortunately, we don't live in that ideal

society. As matter of fact, we live in a society which in many respects

seems determined to proceed in just the opposite direction. Society has

two choices: to establish through our laws standards of the nature of

conduct considered appropriate and to insist on the adherence to those

standards through the imposition of the criminal justice process and

the penalties associated with it; or to give up standards altogether,

creating a situation which I think on careful analysis neither the

member nor society in general would prefer to have.

In the

area of commercial crime, the unit of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

in this province has grown. It was 70 members. I believe it is reduced

from that figure at the moment. I would point out to you, Mr. Chairman,

that the commercial crime unit of the RCMP is part of the federal force

and therefore not directly answerable to the Ministry of

Attorney-General in this province. We do contribute to their work. We

make available to them certain consultants and evidentiary facilities.

As in the case of other federal crime units, we also provide them with

prosecutorial service. That's because of the shared nature of the

jurisdiction within which the commercial unit must operate — partly

federal, but also partly provincial. Therefore this arrangement exists

with regard to the commercial crime unit.

They must deal

with conduct which, otherwise lawful, is used by unscrupulous persons

to prey upon the unsuspecting public, who are entitled to expect and

indeed must expect that business is conducted in the way of business

and not in the way of crime. With modern business methods, with

securities legislation, strict and detailed as it may be, there is

still room for those people who are of an unscrupulous nature to

utilize those rules for the conduct of business in order to defraud the

unsuspecting public, whether it be in stock transactions or in the

conduct of other opportunities which may be exposed to the public for

the purposes of investment. When activities of that kind come to the

attention of the authorities, the authorities must investigate because

of the widespread damage that can be done to unsuspecting people —

large and small. The small investor is as much at risk in this area as

the large investor.

I can assure the members that with

modern computer technology the opportunity for people to engage in

affairs of this kind is enhanced, rather than diminished. It is

possible, however, to use some of the same techniques in the detection

of crimes of that nature. It is for this reason, and because of the

tremendous profits that are available for crime of this kind, that

attention has been focused to the RICO concept in the United States.

The Ministry of Attorney-General in British Columbia has prepared an

exhaustive study of what are properly called racketeering-influenced

and corrupt organizations for the purpose of placing them before all

the Attorneys-General in Canada and the Minister of Justice with

recommendations that our criminal legislation in Canada be

[ Page 8400 ]

modified

to accommodate the RICO concept. The RICO concept is simply that those

people who engage in crime as a business — whether it be in the guise

of legitimate business or not — and are therefore not easily

susceptible to investigation, as is the case of the transactional

criminal, can be called upon to account and the profits from crime,

which are enormous, can be taken by the state as part of the penalty

for such criminal activity.

The member asks a number of

questions with regard to investigations of this kind. Who initiates

these investigations? Investigations are almost invariably initiated by

the commercial crime unit of the RCMP based upon complaints that they

receive, either from individuals who have suffered at the hands of

persons who engage in this kind of conduct; persons who suspect that

this kind of conduct is going on and are able to identify it with some

definition; law societies; accountancy societies; or the boards of

directors of companies who, as a result of the conduct of their audit,

have it drawn to their attention that certain criminal activities have

taken place within their organizations. All of those are ways in which

it can be identified, as I said a moment ago, that business is not

being conducted in a way of business but in a way of crime. This also

applies with respect to those aspects that the member commented upon in

the statements from Superintendent Mullock, who was formerly head of

the commercial crime unit in this province and has since been

transferred to Manitoba.

With regard to crimes involving

politicians it should be recognized that it's not suggesting that the

politicians themselves are the criminals, but those crimes in which

criminals seek to involve politicians for the purposes of the criminal

enterprise. The politician may be innocently involved in the activities

of criminals who seek to conduct their schemes contrary to the law

through government agencies.

Who decides whether these

investigations should be pursued or not? That is a judgment that is

made by senior police officers once they have had an opportunity to

make the initial examination, determined whether the enterprise they're

investigating warrants further investigation and determined the nature

of the crime and other related activities which may indicate that

crimes in other areas can be established.

When and to whom

do the police report? During the course of investigations, police will

report to Crown counsel specialists in these fields, in the case of

commercial crime, to determine whether or not the evidence which is

being accumulated in the direction that the investigation is taking

does indeed indicate the prospect of a crime which is proscribed by the

Criminal Code. That's done during the course of the investigation, and

when the commercial crime unit — and this applies in all crimes — is

satisfied that they have exhausted their investigation, they then go

with all of the evidence they have accumulated during the course of

those investigations and lay that before Crown counsel, and take the

advice of Crown counsel with respect to the application of the law in

the identification of the charges, if any, that can be supported by the

investigation and the evidence that can be adduced at court. When that

step is over — I might as well give them all to you — it is then up to

the police officers, or the officer in charge of the investigation,

based upon the information which he has and the advice of Crown

counsel, to swear the appropriate information before a justice of the

peace and to be ready to be examined by the justice of the peace as to

whether or not he has appropriate grounds upon which that information

can be laid.

The fourth question was: "Do the police

themselves recommend prosecution?" No, that's not the role of the

police. In a professional system, such as operates in the province of

British Columbia, the police investigate, the police lay their

investigations before Crown counsel, the law is applied, and if charges

are indicated, then it is the police officer's responsibility to swear

the information. This does not say, however, that the police officer is

precluded from swearing information even though he doesn't have the

legal advice from Crown counsel.

The Criminal Code makes it

clear that any person who believes that he has the appropriate grounds

for swearing information may do so. Therefore in the final analysis it

comes down to the conscience of the individual whether or not he or she

is satisfied that, based upon the information available to them under

the circumstances, they can appropriately swear the information; the

consequences of not having that kind of information can be severe. But

let me reinforce that in British Columbia, in the relationship of the

criminal justice division and our police services, they function in a

very professional way, where each discharges its responsibility in

developing the matter up to and including the swearing of the

information. From that time on it becomes almost entirely the

responsibility of the Crown counsel.

The other matter that

the member raised was the question of expropriation and why it had

taken so long. We have been examining for many years in this province

the many studies made into the matter of expropriation. We have in the

past four years examined a number of expropriation models that could be

appropriately applied in British Columbia, and it is my hope to place

before this Legislature at its next session a modern expropriation

statute which will serve the needs of British Columbia and all of the

agencies which may require the use of expropriation to discharge their

responsibilities. Some elements of that new legislation were adopted

this year in the bill with respect to the Urban Transit Authority, but

the legislation that will come forward — as I say, hopefully next year

— will go much further than that particular bill.

On the

question of value, that is also being considered with respect to the

new legislation. There has been a variety of approaches. Our current

thinking is that the fair market value concept is indeed the fairest

for all concerned, provided that it is applied in those circumstances

and that the expropriating agency is limited to expropriations of

property which it can justify as being required for the purposes of the

particular enterprise. We have, as of this year in the UTA legislation,

a requirement that when that step is taken moneys must be paid by the

expropriating authority at the front end, not long after the property

is taken. If you examine the UTA legislation carefully, you will note —

and I don't mean to impose upon the rules of the House — that there are

some very serious penalties for the expropriating authority which

carelessly addresses itself to the matter of value. They can be

challenged with respect to that. There are means of having the value

determined in circumstances where umpires or arbitration can be used,

and each of the parties will have full opportunity to bring forward

their consultants and appraisers in order to justify the position that

they're taking. Equally, however, there is the possibility of some

penalty for the owner of the property who carelessly, and in the face

of evidence with respect to the fair market value, attempts to achieve

significantly more than the arbitration body would award.

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

[ Page 8401 ]

now

so many statutes dealing with expropriation that when we bring through

the new legislation we will have to go through 22 or 23 present

enactments and strip out of them the present expropriation

requirements. While it may not seem like much of an effort, I can

assure you that it is a difficult process, because it will require very

careful amendment of all these other pieces of legislation.

MR. LORIMER:

Yesterday I asked the Attorney-General about the $90,000 paid from

public funds, by the direction of Olson for the benefit of his family,

and why the agreements that were reached, dealing with public funds,

have not been made public. And I asked him whether or not he intended

to table in this House the documents referring to the agreements

reached. This is not just an agreement between a lawyer and his client;

this is an agreement, as I understand it, dealing with moneys put up by

the taxpayers of this province. I submit that they have a right to know

what arrangement was made with reference to these funds.

What

is needed here is not secret government but open government, to let the

people know — let the sun shine in and let the people see what

arrangements have been made with reference to the disposal of that

$90,000 or $100,000, whatever the amount was, of public funds. I wonder

if the Attorney-General is now in a position to tell us whether he

intends to make these agreements public in order that the people, who

have a right to know, will know.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I

didn't recall this as being a matter raised by the member yesterday,

and I apologize for not responding to it. The answer to the question is

no, I do not consider it to be in the public interest at this time to

table those documents.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm pleased to

finally have this opportunity to bring this one item to the attention

of the Attorney-General — an item which I have in fact brought to his

attention as the minister responsible to this Legislature for native

Indian affairs. This is the matter of allocation of funds to a certain

group of people to assist in the construction of an airstrip on Denny

Island at Bella Bella.

Some brief background. I don't want

to take up the time of this House with the 14-year history of this

particular project, but simply say that it has been agreed,

particularly by the federal people, that that long stretch of coast

between Vancouver Island and Prince Rupert does not have one landing

strip in that whole distance and that a strip could be required

somewhere in that area for coast guard purposes, safety purposes,

refueling stops, convenience to the people in the community and all of

those things. As a consequence of that and at the request of the Bella

Bella band council over on Campbell Island, the federal government did

in fact commission a study as to the best location of this airport in

1968. It was completed by 1970, and I had the opportunity of looking at

that study at the Federal Ministry of Transport office in 1971 or 1972.

The bottom line and results of that study were that while the people

who did the study felt that there was not that much to choose between

the two locations, the proposed site on Campbell Island would serve a

far larger number of people — some 1,200 native Indian people live on

Campbell Island at Bella Bella and 50 permanent residents are on Denny

Island. The hospitals, schools and police facilities — all of these

facilities — are located on Campbell Island. Since being elected to

office I have made representation to various federal and provincial

ministers and governments to assist the band with the proposed

construction of this much-needed facility. There was the usual

stalling, particularly by the federal government, and as a consequence

about two and a half years ago a private group of people, some of whom

are residents, for their own pecuniary interest decided to start

construction of an airstrip on Denny Island. Many of these people, as

this

article points out, live all over the coast — Campbell River,

Richmond, North Vancouver, Tsawwassen — hardly Bella Bella locals.

bring this up to date, it was brought to my attention on June 7 of this

year.... Before I get into this, I should tell you that I did approach

the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) more than a year ago and

requested at that time that no funds be forwarded to either group until

the total matter of airport location in that area — which was a very

serious matter, particularly to the people living there — had been

resolved. In fact, as I recall, the minister did tell me that before a

final decision was made on this matter he would contact me and seek my

view on the matter.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The

fact is, much to my surprise, that on June 7 of this year — a couple of

weeks ago — it was brought to my attention that on June 4 the minister

had in fact written to a society called the Denny Island Airport

Society and promised that group of people $350,000 out of the air

transport assistance program when that money became available.

Fair

enough. I'm not knocking local initiative. If any group of people

decide they want to build an airport, baseball field or that kind of

facility, which they've done time and time again throughout my riding,

or build their own road — as people did in Bella Coola at one point

some 15 or 20 years ago — that's local initiative. But that's not what

we're talking about here. What we're talking about here in this

particular case — and this is what concerns me.... First of all, you're

doing a disservice to the 1,200 people....

I'll provide a

little more background here. The two applications, one from the Bella

Bella band council and one from the Denny Island group, went forward to

the Minister of Highways at approximately the same time. As I recall, I

think that the Campbell Island group preceded the Denny Island group by

a month or two under the air transport assistance program. In the

meantime, the Campbell Island group, the band council at Bella Bella,

had applied to the federal government and had been assured of $250,000

from the federal government, should the provincial government come up

with the $100,000, as requested, from the First Citizens Fund. I have

correspondence here that indicates that the First Citizens Fund did in

fact approve the $100,000 grant for the purpose of building an airport

on Campbell Island, where the people live, thereby ensuring that the

$250,000 would be forthcoming from the federal government.

and behold, not too long ago — about three weeks ago — just prior to

receiving this information that I quoted a few minutes ago, I received

a phone call from Bella Bella that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe), on his own initiative and against the pleasures, wishes and

duties of the First Citizens Fund Advisory Committee had arbitrarily

decided that he was not going to forward this $100,000 to the Bella

Bella band council, thereby negating as well the $250,000 from the

federal government. That is $350,000 down the tube for the native

Indian people.

[ Page 8402 ]

The

band council, the native Indian people living there, have charged,

first of all, discrimination. It is a case of outright, blanket

discrimination, favouring one group over another. That's what's

happening with the Provincial Secretary and that government blocking

that $100,000 grant from the First Citizens Fund. You have effectively

killed the Campbell Island airport proposal, and, in my view, that's

where the airport should have been.

Secondly, I can hardly

believe that this small group of people, non-residents who have large

investments on the Denny Island side and a lot to gain financially,

would proceed with spending approximately $800,000 of their own money

towards an airport site that has no access at all without some

assurance from somebody, somewhere here in Victoria, that this $350,000

— and maybe more — would be forthcoming if they completed, or at least

did a certain amount of work on, the Denny Island airport.

One

has to ask the Attorney-General, and I certainly have to ask myself:

was collusion involved? I don't know. You have to ask that question.

Would any rational person or group of business people go out in the

middle of the bush with no access, out in a veritable rock-pile, and

spend $800,000 — people like Quesnel Redi-Mix, McLeod Crane Service or

other names that have been put forward to me by the band council? Would

any rational person do that? Not very likely, unless they had some

assurance that funds would be forthcoming from the provincial

government. The provincial government — if you cast your mind back a

few minutes — did in effect block any chance that the Campbell Island

people had of having that airport on the site where it belongs. With

this airport, and when under the auspices of the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways that road is punched through eventually — a

very expensive road, because it's mostly rock work — 1,200 people on

Denny Island will have to take a water taxi over to Denny Island, and

if there's a medical emergency, because the hospital is located on

Campbell Island, it will mean loading the stretcher into a water taxi,

carrying this sick person up this rock bluff, and all the rest of it.

It simply doesn't make sense.

What I'm suggesting to the

Attorney-General is that he should use the powers of his office, as

representing the native Indian people of this province, to have those

funds withheld until there is a thorough and full investigation into

the possibility of collusion. Where is the right location for that

particular airport? Is there discrimination involved? Because in my

view, if the provincial government proceeds in blocking this particular

project over on Campbell Island as requested by the native Indian

people living there, over their objections to these very few people

living on Denny Island, I would think that this would be reflected to

all of the native Indian people throughout the province as a Social

Credit move and as sheer, outright, blatant discrimination.

I remind the Attorney-General of a Social Credit Party resolution passed unanimously

at their party convention which states among other things that the Social Credit

Party would recognize and rectify wrongs of the past and present grievances

of the native Indian people of British Columbia. Is this an example of rectifying

wrongs? The resolution goes on to say: "Be it further resolved that at

all times the objectives of this Social Credit Party will be to encourage and

not restrict self-help development to the native Indian people of British

Columbia." This government is taking exactly the opposite tack.

would like a full inquiry, Mr. Attorney-General, into this whole

matter: the possibility of collusion, the problem of discrimination,

the possibility of who's rubbing whose back, who are friends with the

developers — because I happen to know that some of the people involved

and some of the people receiving these funds have very high and

influential friends in the government. These allegations should be

checked out, in my view.

I must say, in all fairness, that

when I discussed this matter with you personally, Mr. Attorney-General,

you were sympathetic and understood the problem, but that is not good

enough. The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

actually made the decision. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

is deeply involved by blocking — stonewalling — $100,000 of First

Citizens Fund money which he is not directly responsible for. What's

the point of having a committee if the Provincial Secretary is going to

make those decisions on his own? Why don't you do away with that

committee? These are serious allegations and will have very serious

repercussions, not only in Denny Island and Campbell Island, but with

all the native Indian people in British Columbia, and it's wrong. Mr.

Attorney-General, what the government is doing now is wrong.

MR. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, I have four topics that I would like to cover with the

minister. I'd like to follow in line with the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) in dealing with the Olson case. I was

wondering if the minister could go a little further in some of the

remarks he was making yesterday dealing with improvements that may take

place following the review of the investigation dealing with the Olson

case. He suggested that there's going to be a closer liaison between

all police departments in similar offences, such as murder. Because of

the seriousness of this type of crime, and especially the crime of

murder, have the RCMP or the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit

considered establishing a murder investigation committee or team that

would work on all murder cases? They could survey the evidence of

similar crimes throughout the communities and the province.

I feel that there is a need for a better type of coordination immediately the

crime is discovered. So many times in a crime of this nature, the initial two

or three days of investigation are the most crucial part of that investigation.

In some cases the investigation may come in the middle of the summer when a

lot of people are away on holidays, and some departments do not have the manpower

to put a full investigation into operation. If a team were prepared to move into

any type of crime, and check out the circumstances that have taken place, they

could see if there was a connection or correlation between that crime and similar

crimes in other areas. I speak on this from the personal experience of one who

was thrown in two weeks after a double murder took place. I know the frustration

of trying to put something together with a team when the initial investigation

was not allowed to proceed under the circumstances that needed to take place.

The minister also mentioned yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that looking back on the

investigation with 20-20 hindsight, maybe there would have been a different

operation, a different investigation and followup, put into effect. I agree

with him. We all know that money is paid by police for information; none of

us are naive enough to think that everything is discovered, but normally that

fact does not become public information. It is not something that is bandied

about as a kind of political Brownie point. I ask the minister, with 20-20

[ Page 8403 ]

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

feel that the fact payments were made is a fact of police life and

investigation. The money and how it was paid is normally not public

knowledge. The facts that come out in court are used to convict a

person. It doesn't matter how factual evidence was obtained, as long as

it was obtained in a manner that is not inadmissible for court

evidence. I think this is the important part. I really believe that

this type of discussion should never have ever taken place. It's not

that I'm against freedom of information, but I believe that in an

investigation of this nature, how the evidence was obtained is not

important. The important thing is that the evidence was admissible in

court and sufficient to support a charge and conviction. I think this

is the important part, as long as it is done in a humane and decent

way. These problems developed in this particular case. With 20-20

hindsight, we can learn a lot in investigations. I believe there is a

need for a coordinated team, and it should be established to work on

all such serious crimes. Perhaps it could be fostered by the minister,

in cooperation with the RCMP or with CLEU.

I would like the

minister's opinion on the question of raising the age limit for

juveniles from 17 to 18. I realize it is a federal matter. But it is

now accepted that a person is mature enough at age 16 to hold a

driver's licence or to hold down a job.

Prior to the last

changes in the Young Offenders Act, it was held that 16 was the age of

maturity; they were taken out of the juvenile classification. From my

experience I have found that the majority of kids involved in criminal

offences are mature enough at age 16 to know the difference between

right and wrong. To class them as juveniles until the age of 18 is, I

think, not really looking at the facts. It does not give the juvenile a

chance for rehabilitation. Over the age of 16 they are mature, and they

know what they are doing. To continue to allow them to hide behind the

skirts of the juvenile act is not helping the kids and it's not helping

society. I'm not saying that as a bigoted redneck, but I think you'll

find that it's a fact of life that a lot of these kids think it's a big

joke.

The third issue I'd like to ask the minister's opinion

on has to do with a new industry in the entertainment world, the video

machines that are sprouting up all over the community — the video

parlours. Basically they are no different from the slot machines or any

other games of chance. When they move into a community I think they do

suck a lot of money out of juveniles' allowances. It's the experience

of many police departments when they go into the parlours and check out

the cash boxes that in many cases the amount represents the same amount

stolen from the community in break-ins, and especially from coin

collections. From personal experience, I know that when they empty out

the cash box, they find silver 25-cent pieces, and when they check the

cash registers of the same enterprise they find 50-cent pieces and

silver dollars that are worth far more for their silver content than

face value. If you try to talk to some of the kids who are passing this

money, they always say it's money that was given to them or it's their

allowance. Coin collectors do not give away large numbers of silver

coins to kids so they can play video machines.

I've gone

into the community in the last few months and talked to the kids;

they're plunking $25 into a machine in one evening. If they were

adults, and working, and that was what they liked to do with their

earnings, that would be their business. I don't think I'm a prude. But

should there be an age limit?

A few months ago I was quite

surprised when one of the all-night convenience stores was sponsoring a

competition or tournament for an entry fee of $5, which was given to

one of the charitable health groups. It was designed to attract

juveniles from the ages of 8 to 15 to play the video machines. To me,

when you're encouraging children of that age to play the video

machines.... Not only do they waste a lot of money — you can put in $5

or $10.... The average working family does not give their kids an

allowance to blow it on a video machine. What happens when the kids run

out of allowance is that in many cases they're stealing from their

brothers, sisters, mothers or neighbours. This is the effect I think

the establishment of these video-machine parlours is having on a

community.

I've gone through a number of areas in my own

riding where those active in the community have opposed the opening of

new parlours. If there are going to be any regulations.... As I said,

I'm not trying to stop gambling. If people want to gamble, that is

their business, but I think that gambling should at least be restricted

to those aged 16 and over, or adults, and not left wide open for

younger kids, especially when organizations and businesses run

particular competitions where it is designed for a younger age.

There's

one other issue I'd like to bring to your attention. I have talked to

the minister about this. For the record, I would like to review the

circumstances of this particular case. In 1980 a husband and wife were

divorced in Prince Edward Island. The wife received custody of the

child and later remarried and moved to British Columbia. She married a

serviceman and was living in my particular riding. In late 1981 the

husband appeared in the Prince Edward Island supreme court and made an

ex parte application for custody of the child. The husband and his

lawyer came out to Victoria with an ex parte application and made an

application in the Victoria supreme court for an order for the police,

sheriffs or RCMP to pick up that child.

I believe that the

courts have a certain responsibility. If any parent makes an

application for custody of a child, even though another parent already

has legal custody, on certain occasions or in certain cases the ex

parte application is justified. The one thing I cannot accept is that

an order can be given by the courts, can be enforced by the peace

officers, sheriffs or RCMP, and that they can go into a school and

apprehend a six- or seven-year-old child and take the child out of the

province. At no time was the mother ever advised that an ex parte

application was before the courts. The courts were situated within

three miles of her home. The school they went into to pick up the child

was literally blocks away from the mother's home, where she was. At no

time should anyone — a father who made an application.... I believe

there are occasions where fathers or mothers have a right to make an

application, but there must be a different system. If the court is

going to issue an order to pick up a child, at least there should be

some instruction to bring the child before the courts so that the

mother, who still has — as far as she knows — legal custody of that

child, has an opportunity to oppose it, or to present and listen to any

evidence that might be submitted. This has a traumatic effect on a

family and on the respect that mothers, fathers or members of the

community have for a court system that will allow something so inhuman.

I say it is inhuman that one member of a dissolved marriage can come

[ Page 8404 ]

from

another part of Canada into an area and with the support.... And they

tell me it's legal for them to come in, make an ex parte application

and send the police out to pick up the child, and not once inform the

mother.

In this particular case, the only time the mother

was advised was when the father's lawyer, who is herself a mother, was

so shocked that she notified a court worker in the probation service to

advise the mother that her child would not be home for dinner. There

have to be some changes, and I sincerely recommend that if an ex parte

application is to be granted, before it is issued and before the child

is removed from the community, if the court wishes to order it, the

child should be taken to some foster home or back to the court, and the

mother should be notified. If possible, the order should be served on

the mother, not given to a police officer to go into a school and

actually pick up the child without the mother's ever being notified.

would like to make another recommendation to the minister: serious

consideration should be given to these particular issues. Divorce is,

as we all know, a civil matter. Divorces themselves, in fact all

domestics, are about the worst thing the courts have to deal with on a

regular basis, and one of the most disruptive parts of policing. As the

particular

section of the court is civil, why couldn't the application

for picking up children, or any other service of a civil nature, be

given to the sheriff's office? Policemen have to work within the

community and they have to earn respect. Using police for this type of

operation, this type of enforcement, does not help either their image

or their ability to develop respect within the families.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

this particular case, many people saw it in the same way as I did; they

were shocked, and they seemed to hold this against the police. I think

the police were misused in this particular case, and I would like the

minister to give serious consideration to this. When a child is going

to be apprehended and taken out of the province, before it is removed

from British Columbia the person who has legal custody should at least

have an opportunity to present their side of the case within British

Columbia. The expense of flying back and forth to Prince Edward Island,

hiring lawyers to have a divorce settlement order changed, is very

heavy on an average working family. I think it's unnecessary; there

must be a better way. I would seriously ask the minister what proposed

changes, if any, he may have on this particular case.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The member from Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) raised a matter dealing with

the construction of an airstrip at Denny Island and queried whether or

not that should have been done in the face of a proposal for the

construction of an airstrip on Campbell Island, which is nearby. This

matter properly belongs in the estimates of the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. I will only respond in respect of one

aspect, which is the funds in the First Citizens Fund and the

relationship of the advisory board of that fund to the Provincial

Secretary.

This fund is used for a variety of native Indian

purposes. Application was made to this fund for moneys in connection

with the proposal to build an airport on Campbell Island. This has been

a matter which, as the member pointed out, has been under consideration

for a long time. I was asked about the advance of the money from the

First Citizens Fund, and because I am aware that the federal government

has for years declined to indicate its acceptance of Campbell Island as

an appropriate location for the construction of an airport, and

therefore, through the federal Ministry of Transport, was not prepared

to construct an airport on Campbell Island, I suggested to the

Provincial Secretary that he should not pay the moneys of the First

Citizens Fund in respect of the proposal unless and until the federal

government indicated clearly that it was prepared to support the

construction of an airstrip on Campbell Island.

With respect

to why it's being built on Denny Island and what is being done, the

airport assistance fund, which is under the Minister of Transportation

and Highways.... I would suggest that the member restate his problems

when that minister's estimates are before the House.

The member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), asked about investigation teams. As I indicated

yesterday, the RCMP have moved within their own organization to shorten

the lines of communication to ensure that interdetachmental information

flows more quickly. As between the RCMP itself, the detachments that it

operates in the province and those other municipal forces in this

province, we have through the organizations of Vancouver Island and

Vancouver JFO the opportunity for the RCMP to interrelate with

information between those forces. That system, we believe, is

appropriate for inter-force relationship, and that was functioning

during the investigation into the Olson crimes. What has been improved

since the spring of this year is the internal reporting relationship

within E division, which the deputy commissioner identified as needing

some improvement.

On the matter of payments to informants, I

must say that the prospect of not disclosing the matter was never an

issue in the case of Olson, because within a matter of days after the

arrangement was concluded by the RCMP and with Mrs. Olson's lawyer, we

found that it was of general knowledge within the police community. It

wasn't much longer than a week or ten days after the event that we were

aware that the news services in the province were aware of it. They

were, however, responsible in the use of that information, recognizing,

as I know they do, that the pre-release of such information might have

interfered with the administration of justice and the concept of a fair

trial. They restrained themselves until after his plea of guilty.

You

mentioned the question of the age of young offenders being increased

under the new legislation from 16, which has been used in some

provinces. We've used 17 and it's gone now to 18. Frankly I think that

it was a mistake. It was done, I'm advised, by the Solicitor-General of

Canada for two reasons. One was in the interest of consistency, and the

other was to avoid challenges under the charter with regard to age

discrimination. The concern that I have — and it's one that was

mentioned by the member — is the fact that there are many 16-, 17- and

almost 18-year-olds who, unfortunately, are already experienced

street-wise criminals, and yet they will be dealt with under the young

offenders legislation. However, our concern is broader than that. We

will be obliged to raise these young offenders up into adult court more

often than has recently been the practice. It has not been the practice

of criminal justice to raise juveniles into adult court except in the

most serious cases. We expect that we will see an increase in the

number of instances when we have to make application to raise. And I

think that will, in many respects, diminish the value of the young

offenders legislation.

[ Page 8405 ]

You

also raise the matter of video machines, and this works together. The

kids who are drawn to these stores and the like that have video

machines often fall in this age category. As you properly point out,

this has been the experience in the city of Vancouver, which has led

them to take some action. Flowing from the expenditures that take place

using video machines like Pacman and Star Wars and whatever, and the

tremendous attraction they seem to have for the young people, I think

elements of petty crime will be on the increase. Unfortunately, with

respect to the operation of video machines, they're not like slot

machines. There are no prizes that we are aware of and they're under

careful observation. Therefore they're not contrary to the Criminal

Code. The way in which they can best be controlled is by municipal

bylaw, as the city of Vancouver is doing with some success.

You

mentioned that there was gambling, and I think it should be clear that

if these video games are used in the way of gambling, then it is an

offence, and the operators of those machines or the owners of the

establishment in which they are found will face criminal prosecution if

that's the case. You mentioned one instance when people pay to play.

That sounds to me like it's a lottery, and that may also be an offence

under the Code. If conduct of that kind is taking place, then the

players and the owners of the establishments can expect to be dealt

with very harshly.

In the case of the custody of the infant

— I won't use the name — I sometimes wonder how cruel we can be in the

interests of what we think is a just approach