1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1093 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Transit Services Act (Bill 70). Hon. Mr. Lorimer.

Introduction and first reading — 1093

Department of Economic Development Act (Bill 71). Hon. Mr.

Lauk.

Introduction and first reading — 1093

An Act to Amend the Minimum Wage Act (Bill 76). Mr.

Cummings.

Introduction and first reading — 1093

Prejudgment Interest Act (Bill 66). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 1093

Oral Questions

Bids for ferry construction greater than budget allocation.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1094

Involvement of Education Minister in appointment of SFU

president. Mr. Wallace — 1094

Reduction in Surrey School District construction budget. Mr. McClelland —

Authority to hire staff under Vancouver South Community Resource Board. Mr.

Gibson — 1095

Flood conditions on Fraser and Thompson Rivers. Mr. Curtis — 1095

Negotiations between RNABC and BCHA. Mrs. Jordan — 1095

Examinations of affidavits of Brunsdon et al by A-G's

department.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1095

Withholding of funds from Fraser Valley college. Mr. Schroeder —

Policy of preference for B.C. companies. Mr. Bennett — 1096

Meeting with B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines on Bill 31, Mr. Schroeder —

Agreement between Surrey and Lands department re farm

purchase.

Mr. McClelland — 1096

Land claims meeting with Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

Mr. Wallace — 1097

Agreement on DREE designation of northern regions.

Mr.

D.A. Anderson — 1097

Impasse between Elevator Constructors Union and companies. Mr. Curtis —

Tenants' meeting on housing crisis. Mr. Gibson — 1097

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General

estimates.

Mr. Bennett — 1098 Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1104

Division — 1098 Mr. Bennett — 1104

Mr. Phillips— 1098 Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1105

Mr. Gardom— 1100 Mr. Bennett — 1105

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1102 Mr. Morrison — 1106

Mr. Gardom — 1102 Mr. L.A. Williams — 1106

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1102 Mr. Phillips — 1109

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1102 Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1109

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1103 Mr. Phillips — 1109

Mr. Bennett — 1103 Mr. Wallace — 1110

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1103 Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1111

Mr. Bennett — 1104 Mr. Gibson — 1111

Mr. Morrison — 1104 Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1114

Mr. Bennett — 1104 Mr. Phillips — 1114

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1115 Mrs. Jordan — 1121

Mr. Phillips — 1116 Mr. Curtis — 1124

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1116 Division — 1125

Mr. Lewis — 1117 Mr. Curtis — 1125

Mr. Gardom — 1117 Mr. McClelland — 1126

Mr. Kelly — 1120 Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1128

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1121 Mr. McClelland — 1129

Motions

Motion 13.

Mr. Phillips — 1129

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1130

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1130

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1130

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1130

Mr. Speaker — 1130

Motion 16.

Withdrawal of Motion 16. Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1131

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1131

Mr. Speaker — 1131

Point of order

Request for Mr. Speaker's report on use of microphone

cut-off switch.

Mr. Chabot — 1131

Mr. Speaker — 1132

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we have on

the floor of the House today the new chairman of the Labour

Relations Board of British Columbia. He was formerly a

professor of law at Osgoode Hall in Ontario. I would ask the

House to welcome Mr. Paul Weiler.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Today I am

very happy to announce that we have visiting us the B'nai Brith

women of Vancouver. With them is Mrs. Iris Krasner, president

of the B'nai Brith women, district 4. Mrs. Krasner is from Los

Angeles. I would like to also say that Mrs. Esther Giesbrecht

of Vancouver has organized this tour, and I would ask the House

to welcome the B'nai Brith ladies and our American

visitors.

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

like to welcome more students from that great high school of

Gladstone, close to beautiful downtown Vancouver, to the

Legislature with two teachers, Ms. Kinney, and Mrs.

MacIvor.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I have a very special

guest in the gallery this afternoon from Carmacks, Yukon

Territory: my uncle Louis Liden, who I'd like everybody to

welcome.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker I would

like to ask the House to join me in welcoming Alderman Hank

Coleman, who is also chairman of the Central Kootenay Regional

District. He is with us today with a large contingent from the

Central Kootenay Regional District.

Introduction of bills.

TRANSIT SERVICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Lorimer presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Transit Services

Act .

Bill 70 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

the House after today.

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Lauk presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

Department of Economic Development Act .

Bill 71 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MINIMUM WAGE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Cummings, Bill 76,

An Act to Amend the

Minimum Wage Act , introduced, read a first time and ordered

to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I rise

on a point of personal privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the Hon. Member would be seated at

this time. We're still on introduction of bills.

PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Prejudgment Interest

Act .

Bill 66 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal

privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: You mean a point of privilege.

MR. PHILLIPS: A point of personal privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: No, there is no such thing.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, a point of privilege.

Standing in the name of the Hon. Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) is motion 16 on the order paper. I feel, Mr. Speaker,

that this motion that is on the order paper — that has been on

the order paper for over two weeks now — is in essence an

accusation of me being guilty of contempt of the Legislature,

which in actuality is an accusation of guilt of contempt of the

highest court in the land.

This accusation of guilt has been hanging over my head for

some two weeks now, Mr. Speaker, and I feel that the mover of

this motion should have it discussed and indeed the committee

should be formed or my motion 13, which was put on the order

paper prior to motion 16 should indeed be discussed — today is

private Members' day. By leaving this motion on the order paper

and not acting upon it, this is an accusation of guilt and I

certainly feel that

[ Page

1094 ]

the House should move to either condemn me or clear my

name.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Today is private Members' day,

and if we follow the normal orders of the day I'm sure that

there'll be an opportunity to get to those matters under

private Members' day. I ask the House to go on with orders of

the day as our agenda spells out.

MR. SPEAKER: I can't deal with the question of privilege

because there really is not a question of privilege under our

rules. (Laughter.) Order, please!

I point out to the Hon. Member that if he does not feel

satisfied with the fact that the rules do not make provision

for any expedition of his plea, the other alternative he can

follow, which I would recommend to the Hon. Member, is that if

motions are not called he ask leave of the House to have the

rules suspended so the matter may be dealt with. But at this

time I suggest to the Hon. Member, in view of the statement by

the House Leader, that we proceed with orders of the day.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, as you

know, the orders of the day suggest that we now discuss

Committee of Supply, and that that takes precedence over all

other business in this House unless otherwise ordered.

It would appear to me, when we're discussing a department as

important as the Attorney-General's estimates, that what the

Premier has suggested is that if we refrain from debating the

Minister's estimates and pass them in a very quick manner, then

he will be prepared to go on to private Members' business as

the next order of business. If that is not correct, then I

think the Premier should make abundantly clear to this House

whether he intends to discuss estimates and the matter of

supply in this House during the total period that will take

place between now and 6 p.m., or whether he will move another

order of business.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think we have to wait for the

orders of the day to be announced before we know under our

rules. It's a little early to be complaining about that at this

stage, apparently.

Oral questions.

BIDS FOR FERRY CONSTRUCTION

GREATER THAN BUDGET ALLOCATION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that

the lowest bid received by the government from B.C. shipyards for the new ferries

are higher than the amount set aside in the budget for these vessels, may I

ask the Minister of Finance whether additional funds will be made available

or whether, indeed, it is his intention to request bids from foreign yards?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the

opportunity of discussing this matter with the Minister

concerned yet.

INVOLVEMENT OF EDUCATION MINISTER

IN APPOINTMENT OF SFU PRESIDENT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the

Minister of Education whether or not she has been in any way

involved with the Board of Governors of Simon Fraser University

regarding the reputed prospect of employing a new president

with a financial commitment which might reach $1 million?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): No, I have

not.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker: has the

Minister any information to give the House regarding this very

disturbing news to the taxpayers of British Columbia that it is

a potential settlement?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think the Hon. Member must

know that the control over appointments to the administration

in that sense of the university, under the Universities Act,

is not within the competence of this Minister nor within

her jurisdiction. Therefore the question would be out of

order.

REDUCTION IN SURREY

SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSTRUCTION BUDGET

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, my question is

to the Education Minister as well. I'd like to ask her if it's

true that her department has cut $20 million from the $26

million five-year construction budget for Surrey School

District.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, that is not correct. At the moment the

officials in my department are doing as they do with all school

boards. They have met, and I believe are still meeting, with

the Surrey board. They may have completed their meetings from

their end. As a matter of fact, I was talking with my officials

this morning about this, and I will be getting the full report

from then on what they consider should be approved, as is

always done. Then if the school board is not satisfied, they

always have a right to appeal to me as Minister.

MR. McCLELLAND: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad you

cleared that up because the

[ Page

1095 ]

press reports say that there was $20 million cut out of that

$26 million. I'd like to ask as a supplementary, Mr. Speaker,

whether or not, as a general rule, the Education department is

preparing budgets, because of the declining birth rate in many

areas, for lower population increases in the next five years.

If you are, that doesn't relate to fast-growing areas like

Surrey, Langley and Abbotsford.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Naturally we look at our enrolment

projections. They are done by our own department officials, the

school board involved does their set of projections and then

the two of them come together to see if we can come to an

agreement on what we consider are the accurate projection

figures. I understand that at the moment the source of

disagreement is on those enrolment projections. So I will be

meeting with the Surrey School Board to discuss this in the

future.

AUTHORITY TO HIRE STAFF UNDER

VANCOUVER SOUTH COMMUNITY

RESOURCE BOARD

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker I

have a question to the Minister of Human Resources. In view of

the report this morning of an apparent misunderstanding between

the Vancouver South Community Resource Board and the Minister

as to who will have the power to hire staff, would the Minister

clarify whether he's retaining this power or whether he's

delegating it to the Vancouver South board?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Could I take

this as notice? I only saw the report in the paper myself. I'll

take it as notice.

FLOOD CONDITIONS ON

FRASER AND THOMPSON RIVERS

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

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: in view of

the snow level data presented in the most recent issue of the

"Snow Survey Bulletin," does an above-normal flood

hazard appear to exist in the upper, middle and lower Fraser

River areas and the Thompson basin?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

I take that as notice.

NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN

RNABC AND BCHA

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'd like to address my

question to the Hon. Minister of Health.

In view of the current situation between the RNABC and the

B.C. Hospitals Association, could the Minister advise us if

they are, in fact, negotiating at this time?

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

understand that there are no direct negotiations going on at

this time.

EXAMINATION OF AFFIDAVITS OF

BRUNSDON ET AL BY A-G'S DEPARTMENT

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

Attorney-General: may I ask him whether he's instructed the law

officers of the Crown to examine the affidavits of Messrs.

Brunsdon, Unger, McAninch and Stafford to determine whether

there's a prima facie case of breach of the orders-of-council

established pursuant to the Natural Products Marketing

(British Columbia) Act?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I haven't been requested by

anybody to examine these affidavits with a view to prosecuting

somebody on the ground that they made a false statement and

made that statement willfully. If the Hon. Member wants to make

that complaint to me I wish he would do so and take the

responsibility for making it, and I will then have it checked

by the officers of the Crown. At the moment I see no reason to,

because it relates, as I said, in a rather vague manner to

something that happened quite a long time ago.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question:

may I take it from the Minister's reply that he has not

requested the law officers of the Crown to look into the

veracity of these affidavits?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the answer was already given and that's

rhetorical.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I must apologize, Mr. Speaker. I didn't

understand him to say that he had not instructed them to do so

or that he had instructed them to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe he answered it quite explicitly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary, then: may I take as

correct the understanding that he did not instruct the law

officers of the Crown to examine these affidavits?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry; it's not a question.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's in Hansard .

[ Page 1096 ]

WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS FROM

FRASER VALLEY COLLEGE

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): My question is for the

Minister of Education. In light of the policy which has been

established in the Fraser Valley regarding capital expenditures

for a college, how does the Minister defend the $9 million-plus

expenditure for colleges in the Nanaimo area?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I don't see that there's any problem in

relating the two, Mr. Member. Malaspina has embarked on their

core campus facility. We said that we would encourage the

development of core campuses, and the $9 million was for the

basic core campus facility. In answer to your question the

other day, I simply stated that if we want to see some

post-secondary services in the Fraser Valley as soon as

possible, we probably will have to start in temporary

buildings.

POLICY OF PREFERENCE

FOR BC COMPANIES

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): My question,

Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Finance. I've been trying to

get an answer before from the Minister of Transport and

Communications dealing with purchasing for ICBC.

I would like to know if the government has a policy of

preference for British Columbia companies on tender, and what

that policy is.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the policy is that we do have

preference for B.C. firms, and the general rule is up to 5 per

cent differential.

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in the case where

you bring a question to the attention of a Minister where a

tender has been let that is less than this percentage and

hasn't been acted upon, what recourse does the public have in

making sure this...?

MR. SPEAKER: I think that's asking a hypothetical

question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I suggest you write the Minister concerned

about the specific area that you're concerned about.

MEETING WITH B.C. AND YUKON

CHAMBER OF MINES ON BILL 31

MR. SMITH: My question is to the Hon. Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources....

AN HON. MEMBER: Hey, Leo!

MR. SMITH: Leo, wake up! The question is: is it correct that

the Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources will meet

with representatives of the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber

of Mines tomorrow to discuss the ramifications of Bill 31?

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

from the Yukon Chamber of Mines is meeting with the cabinet tomorrow.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question: will the Hon. Minister

be at that cabinet meeting?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Unless you waylay me and kidnap me or

something else I'll be there.

MR. SMITH: One further supplemental question to the

Minister: I have no intentions of waylaying the Minister from

such an important meeting, but if it's possible to meet with

the representatives of the B.C.-Yukon Chamber of Mines

tomorrow, why was it not possible for you to be at their

meeting on Monday?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think that is a proper

question.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I answered that question last week. I said

that it was a breach of the House to discuss the question over

there when I should be discussing it here on second

reading.

AGREEMENT BETWEEN SURREY AND

LANDS DEPARTMENT RE FARM PURCHASE

MR. McCLELLAND: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources: would the Minister comment on whether or not his

executive assistant, Mr. Pearson, and the municipality of

Surrey have reached an agreement with respect to a certain

marina on the Nicomekl River in relation to the purchase of a

farm in Surrey? If so, was that agreement broken?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, I'm not aware of any agreement per

se, Mr. Speaker.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: would the

Minister check into it and find out if such an agreement was

made? Surrey is now accusing the provincial government of

stabbing it in the back with relation to that agreement.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry — would you repeat that

again?

MR. McCLELLAND: I wanted to know whether

[ Page 1097 ]

the Minister would check with his department and find out

what the facts are, because they're being accused of breaking

the agreement.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I have done so, Mr. Speaker, and I am

satisfied regarding the matter.

LAND CLAIMS MEETING WITH

UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier took as notice a

question which is rather important to the Union of B.C. Indian

Chiefs as to whether he received a letter on March 1 and a

Telex on March 8 requesting a meeting to discuss land

claims.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That was referred to the Minister of Human

Resources' (Hon. Mr. Levi'

s) office and is on the agenda for

discussion tomorrow, Mr. Member.

AGREEMENT ON DREE

DESIGNATION OF NORTHERN REGIONS

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

him if an agreement with the federal government has been signed

regarding DREE designation of northern regions of the

province?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Member. We're still

negotiating.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier again: may I

ask when it will be possible to have this agreement signed? I

understand there is no further impediment in negotiations.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As soon as we finish our negotiations.

IMPASSE BETWEEN ELEVATOR

CONSTRUCTORS UNION AND COMPANIES

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I've forgotten the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Please be seated. (Laughter.)

MR. CURTIS: To the Minister of Labour: have the Minister or

his department been involved in recent days with respect to the

continuing difficulties between the Elevator Constructors Union

and elevator companies which are established in British

Columbia?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I know of no particular

difficulties at this time. I have been kept abreast of the

arbitration which has been going on in Ontario. I have had reports from both the elevator industry

and the trade union involved on a regular basis. But I know of

no particular problem at the moment.

MR. CURTIS: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister

satisfied that most elevator constructors then are working in

the province today? There is certainly work waiting for them.

Are most of them employed?

HON. MR. KING: Certainly as far as I know, they are. I would

prefer not to anticipate any problems.

TENANTS' MEETING ON HOUSING CRISIS

MR. GIBSON: A question to the Minister of Housing, Mr.

Speaker: in view of the lack of an emergency debate on this

subject, and in view of a mass rally of tenants this Sunday to

hear suggestions and make plans urging government action to

improve the general housing situation, can the Minister advise

the House if he will be attending that meeting?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, I will not be attending that meeting.

I have a previous engagement.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister

of Mines and Petroleum Resources: I wonder if he could tell the

House what steps he has taken since coming to office 18 months

ago to promote mining and mining development in British

Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that really is a subject of an essay,

or a very large return.

AN HON. MEMBER: A very short one.

MR. SPEAKER: Or a very short one — I don't know. But it

certainly doesn't sound like the right one for question

period.

MR. CHABOT: I'll ask him a short one then. Would the

Minister tell me whether he's the Minister of the promotion of

mining for British Columbia or the Minister against mining in

British Columbia? All you've got to do is shake your head.

MR. SPEAKER: Again, that was ironical.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

[ Page 1098 ]

On vote 11: Attorney-General's office, $79,652.

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

so that we can proceed to private Members' day and proceed with

the motions at hand, I move the committee rise and report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Chabot

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

Curtis

NAYS — 30

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Nimsick

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Liden

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, when

reporting to the House, would you please tell the Speaker that

a division took place in committee, and ask for recording in

the Journals of the House?

On vote 11.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Today we are

discussing the estimates for the administration of the chief

law officer, enforcement officer, in the Province of British

Columbia. It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that if justice in

British Columbia is indeed going to be done, and carried out....

AN HON. MEMBER: And appear to be done.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, as the Member says, and appear to be

done, on behalf of all of the persons in British Columbia, then

I think the place that it should start should be in the highest

court in the land, which is this Legislature.

It would appear to me, and regrettably I have to say so, at

the present time justice is not being done in this

Legislature.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Well, you're still

here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be careful, now. Watch it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Health

feels that my being here is an injustice, which he evidently

does, and evidently other members of the cabinet feel that,

they have the duty and the responsibility to see that, indeed,

justice is done.

I am here, Mr. Chairman...

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Some people will do

that in the next election.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...to see that justice is done for the

taxpayers of British Columbia. That is why, sometime ago, when

allegations were made outside of this Legislature....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: On what point?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: When allegations were made outside of this

Legislature with regard to certain financial dealings on the

part of this government, it was my duty as a Member of this

Legislature to bring those facts into this Legislature because

it has been pointed out to me many, many times that the

Legislature is not aware of what goes on outside the

Legislature unless it is discussed within these walls.

As I stated, Mr. Chairman, justice must be done in British

Columbia to all the people of British Columbia, and justice

must start here in this chamber. I ask that the allegations

made outside this chamber be checked into in order that the

good name of the government could either be cleared....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention

of the Hon. Member that there are two motions on the order

paper covering the subject matter which you are now raising,

and therefore I would rule any further discussion of this

matter out of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I stated, I'm

discussing justice. Justice not only to Members of this

Legislature, but justice to all of the taxpayers and all of the

residents of this great Province of British Columbia.

And if justice is not going to be carried out within these

four walls....

[ Page 1099 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if

he is referring to the allegations contained in the motion

standing in the name of the Hon. Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly).

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, you are anticipating my speech.

I am talking about justice under the estimates of the Minister

of justice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member not

to refer to the subject matter contained in the two motions;

but he may proceed if he does not refer to the subject matter

contained in those two motions — the motions standing in the

name of the Hon. Member for South Peace River and the Hon.

Member for Burnaby-North.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, we heard a lengthy discussion

yesterday afternoon in this chamber by the Attorney-General, or

Minister of justice, as you will call him, about persons being

convicted of a criminal offence or

an act against the Crown, or

an act against society. He discussed the conditions under which

these people have to be housed while waiting for their trial.

Sometimes that period of time is very lengthy.

You know, I feel like one of those people today, waiting to

come to trial. And the Attorney-General, outside in the real

world, wants to correct this situation.

Mr. Chairman, do you not feel that whether it is out there

or in here, when there is an accusation of guilt, that the

person has the right to be brought to a speedy trial?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: Because as I said, Mr. Chairman, justice must

not only be done, but it must appear to be done. This, being

the highest court in the land....

AN HON. MEMBER: The voice of the people.

MR. PHILLIPS: The voice of the people, the representatives

of the people. This, indeed, is where it all must start.

If this Legislature is indeed to be the judge and the jury

and set the rules for all the people of British Columbia, they

should set the example. When justice is delayed, justice is

denied.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, had I been called into the

Premier's office and threatened, as indeed other people in this

province have been...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...would that indeed be justice?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) state his point of order?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, yesterday

there was frivolity over there on other accounts outside of the

Attorney-General's department, and then again today. It seems

to me that we should be getting on with the business of the

House so that other matters can be discussed. But that Member

refuses to discuss the Attorney-General's department. He is

discussing other business that should be discussed at other

times before this House.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. If the Hon.

Member is in fact considering the subject matter of the two

motions....

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member.... Order, please!

MR. SMITH: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for North Peace River be

seated until I have made my point? The point of order of the

Minister of Health is well taken if, in fact, the Hon. Member

for South Peace River is discussing a matter which is covered

by motions on the order paper. I would ask the Hon. Member for

South Peace River if he would indicate to the Chair whether

he's discussing anything that's contained in the subject matter

of these two motions. Yes or no? Would the Hon. Member please

reply to the Chair?

MR. SMITH: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Chair is attempting to

rectify another point of order. When I have finished, then I

will recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River. The Hon.

Member for South Peace River, I've asked you whether what you

are discussing is that which is contained in the motion

standing in the name of the Minister of Education, or the

Member for Burnaby North, containing certain points affecting

the Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: When a Member of this Legislature is fighting

for the very rights of British justice under the Department of

the

[ Page 1100 ]

Attorney-General ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I just want a simple....

MR. PHILLIPS: ...and is called frivolous by the Minister of

Health...I think that whole government considers justice as

frivolous. I can take no other attitude.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member for North Peace

River on his point of order.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Minister of Health is

imputing motives that you or no one in this House can impute

fairly at this particular time. I respect your line of

reasoning that if the Member is referring to certain events,

and if the Member is going to refer to motions which are on the

order paper, then he could be ruled out of order. But for

goodness' sake be fair in this House and allow the Member to

make his point as long as he stays in order, according to the

rules of this House, without interference from the cabinet

benches.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I have not ruled the Hon.

Member for South Peace River out of order, providing that his

remarks are directly relevant to the administrative

responsibility of the Attorney-General and are not part of the

substance of the two contained on the order paper.

MR. PHILLIPS: So as not to abuse the privileges of this

House, I certainly accept your comments. What I'm talking

about, Mr. Chairman, is not the motions that are on the order

paper. What I am talking about is the conflict of interest that

indeed is within the government itself — conflict of interest

whereby this government becomes the judge, the jury, the

accuser and the accused all at once.

In a very self-righteous mood in a recent session this

government stated that it would bring in

an Act known as the

Public Disclosures Act ...

AN HON. MEMBER: It will. Right on.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...so that every Member who runs for a public

office, regardless of what that public office in British

Columbia is, must disclose all of his business.

What the taxpayers of British Columbia want to know, and

want to see this government do, Mr. Chairman, is for this

government to disclose their actions to the light of day. They

want to see if, indeed, there is any conflict of interest

within the government itself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let a little sunshine in.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, it is the duty and the

responsibility of the Minister of justice, or the

Attorney-General, to see that this action is carried out — to

see that rules and regulations are brought into this government

at this session of the Legislature to ensure that some of the

dealings that have allegedly gone on in the past do not occur

again. It is his responsibility as the chief law officer in

this province to bring in those rules and regulations.

Mr. Chairman, how can the taxpayers of this province feel

that they are receiving true value and justice for their tax

dollars when they don't know what is going on in the financial

circles, when there are questions raised as to certain doubts

about certain financial dealings? These are questions, Mr.

Chairman, that must be answered.

There must be regulations brought into this Legislature to

ensure that some of the occurrences of the past will not happen

in the future. Mr. Chairman, I ask the Attorney-General to

stand in his place in this Legislature today to tell the people

of British Columbia what his intentions are in this the biggest

question facing British Columbia today.

These questions have to be answered. As one Member said,"We

need to let the sunshine in." If the people of British Columbia

are going to feel that right is being done by them, then it is

the duty of the chief law officer to explain to them what his

intentions are in this regard.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I

asked the Hon. Attorney-General a number of questions last

night. I didn't receive any answers to the questions, so I find

that I'm going to have...

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: ...to, with the greatest regret, repeat some of

them.

No, I was here, Mr. Member, at all times.

Society, in order to exist, Mr. Chairman, has got to live by

the rule of law; we all know that without that there's not any

order and not any consistency. We just get chaos, uncertainty

and a return to an exercise of primitive strength. But that

does not mean, Mr. Chairman, that the laws that are outmoded

and that are not of general public acceptance for the peace,

order and general weal of society? It does not mean that those

laws should not be changed.

They shouldn't be changed, Mr. Chairman, just for the sake

of change, but for the sake of publicly desired and publicly

needful improvement.

Until that time, Mr. Chairman — and this is the substance of

my remarks on this point — until that time, the law that we

have should be followed and it should be enforced, and that's

the test of any good law. Is it clear, is it concise, is it

certain, and is it

[ Page 1101 ]

capable of being enforced? Surely that's got to be the basic

framework and the basic philosophy in which we have to live by,

because anything less, Mr. Chairman, can only bring

uncertainty, contempt of the law, contempt of the judicial

process, and contempt of those whose responsibility it is to

administer the law.

That, Mr. Chairman, is what has happened with the Natural

Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act and the

regulations issuing there from, and specifically dealing with

the Egg Marketing Board. We have seen a contemptuous situation

develop.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member

whether he is proposing legislative change.

MR. GARDOM: No, I'm not proposing legislative change. If you

just bear with me a moment or two, Mr. Chairman, you'll find

out exactly what I am proposing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. GARDOM: Thank you very much. I asked, and I'm going to

ask again to the Attorney-General, who is the chief law

enforcement officer of the province and the person who has the

highest degree of responsibility of any Member of the

government and, indeed, of any Member of this Legislative Assembly — to

see that the laws of the province are enforced and carried

out.

I ask him again: was the $21,000 levy against Mr. Kovachich

in accordance with the provisions of the Natural Products

Marketing (British Columbia) Act and its regulations? Was

it? — and if it was not, how not?

If it was in order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Hon.

Attorney-General how a politically imposed reduction to $7,500

was authorized. In what manner was that authorized?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. GARDOM: Was that authorized under the law of the

Province of British Columbia in which the Hon. Attorney-General

has a duty to enforce, or was it not authorized under the

existing law of the Province of British Columbia?

If it was not authorized under the law of British Columbia,

the Attorney-General has a very, very serious matter on his

hands and we have to have some action on it.

I am asking him, Mr. Chairman — and you will appreciate the wisdom of the

question I am sure: was that activity entered into ultra vires the Natural

Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act and its regulations and ultra vires

as far as the board?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if

he is asking the Attorney-General Hon. Mr. Macdonald) for a legal opinion?

MR. GARDOM: I am asking the Attorney-General if he is

enforcing the law of the province. I have a perfect right to do

it and I will do it until hell freezes over if I have to. Has

the Attorney-General been asked by anyone that the aspect I am

talking about be explored? Should it not be explored? I would

put that question to him.

Now you will see the basis for these earlier questions, Mr.

Chairman, and I appreciate your concern as to whether or not I

am on the point. Is it not a fact, Mr. Attorney-General, that

other egg producers in the Province of British Columbia have refused

and are now refusing to pay the levies of the egg board until

they can receive assurances that this Kovachich activity was an

isolated incident and will not be repeated?

How many producers in the Province of B.C. have refused to pay their levies today under the egg board? How

many are in arrears? How much is at stake? What steps are being

taken against them? Is the law of the province being enforced,

Mr. Attorney-General, or is it not? Are these people going to

receive preferential treatment? If so, on what basis?

Are they going to get the written assurances from the

government, from yourself, Mr. Attorney-General, from the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), or from the Hon.

Premier? Are they entitled? Do you take the position that they

are entitled to assurances?

According to the material that is on oath and filed and is a

matter of record in this House, which the Hon. Attorney-General

says he has read and studied, according to this affidavit of

Mr. Brunsdon's, the Premier informed the board that if other

producers got out of line, they were to be stepped on. Has the

Attorney-General instructed the Egg Marketing Board to start

stepping on the people who are not paying their levies?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if

he would indicate to the committee in what way this matter is

under the administrative responsibility of the

Attorney-General?

MR. GARDOM: Well, yes. I am quite happy to do that, Mr.

Chairman. The administrative responsibility of the

Attorney-General of the Province of British Columbia is to see

that the laws of this province are enforced. This is why this

Kovachich procedure has become so serious: it was done beyond

the rule of law. Government by godfather.

Look at the consequences that have emanated

[ Page 1102 ]

from it. Are these other people not paying? Are they asking

for this special kind of consideration? Do they, Mr.

Attorney-General, have legal entitlement to such consideration?

And, Mr. Attorney-General, are you or are you not administering

and enforcing the law of the province insofar as it relates to

this specific problem? We've got to have some answers. We

expect to receive those answers from you as soon as

possible.

There are other topics I would like to discuss but this is

one that perhaps the Attorney-General would like to respond

to.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I think this is

answered expeditiously. The egg board has its own lawyer, or

certainly did at this time. The other party had a lawyer. I

think there was more than one party. They made a settlement of

a contested claim.

MR. GARDOM: A settlement has to be according to law, though,

doesn't it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I don't know. Now, if the egg

board lawyer is having trouble in enforcing levies or fines in

the Fraser Valley, the north, the south, the east, I would

presume he would seek a court test — if they chose to go that

way. That's the kind of decision that should be left to the

board.

Nobody has approached me. The lawyer advising the egg board

hasn't approached my department and said, "Give us an opinion."

I presume he doesn't need my opinion because I can't say how a

court test would go in any particular situation. That's for the

courts. They are free to take a court test if they want to have

their powers defined and clarified, by all means.

MR. GARDOM: Just a short response to the point made by the

Hon. Attorney-General. I think he would agree that any kind of

a settlement would have to be according to the law. When you

have a body such as an egg board constituted by a statute, it

can only settle within the terms of the authority given to it

by the statute. I don't know, and I would suggest to you, Mr.

Attorney-General, that you are far from clear as to whether or

not it would have the statutory right to compromise. I suggest

to you that it did not at all.

Now, secondly, I take it from your answer that you have not

received any personal information that there are people today

in default. Is that correct?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Not being under my department,

I don't have records of that kind. But your remarks, I am sure, are enshrined

in Hansard ; they will be available both to the board and to the lawyer for the

board. I am sure they are taking legal advice.

Your suggestion is that they don't have power to settle a

contested claim of this kind. Well, I can't answer yes or no on

that because that might be something that should be tested in

court. I'm sure what you have said will be conveyed to them,

and perhaps they have already picked up the gist of what you

are saying.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Further to the point raised,

Mr. Chairman, there is no question that the lawyers for the

board and the lawyers for Kovachich have been in touch with one

another. That's not a point in dispute.

HON. MR. COCKE: How about Samsom?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question raised is that four

affidavits have been filed in the Legislature and there is a

requirement upon the first law office of the Crown, quite

independent of his position in the cabinet.

Indeed, until quite recently, the first law officer of the

Crown, the Attorney-General, didn't sit in the British cabinet

because he was responsible, independently of the cabinet, for

enforcing the laws of the land. That is why, as I said, until

1940 I believe it was in Britain, the first law officer of the

Crown was not a cabinet minister, was not a man in the same

position as other cabinet ministers. This is why, indeed, he

still is not in the same position. He does not take direction

from his colleagues as to whether laws will be enforced; it is

his individual and personal responsibility as the chief law

officer of the Crown to enforce the law. It is not something

upon which he is subordinate to the Premier of the province, to

the Lieutenant-Governor of the province, or to any other

person. He holds that commission as first law officer of the

Crown and it is up to him to enforce it.

We have situations which have been brought up on the floor

of this House, which have been sworn by affidavit and which

indicate that the law of the land has been deliberately

flouted.

The question I asked earlier in question period which was

not answered adequately was whether or not he had taken steps

to investigate breaches of the law brought to his attention by

affidavits filed in this Legislature. I would like to repeat

some of those questions at this stage.

Did he instruct any of the subordinate law officers of the

Crown to look into the question of the accuracy or otherwise of

these affidavits which would constitute, as I believe was said

outside the House by members of the cabinet, libel on the

Premier were they false?

I would like to know whether he has instructed any of his

officials to look into this matter and whether they have

reported back to him?

[ Page 1103 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I thought I answered that

already. Libel would be a private matter. If there is a

suggestion of a breach....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Criminal libel.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Criminal libel is not really in the

cards at all. That's a very special kind of libel. Libel is

ordinarily just a private matter between citizens that I

wouldn't interfere with.

In terms of the affidavits, I have gone through this many

times. Nobody has come to me and said there's a prima facie

case that somebody has committed perjury. Nobody has made a

complaint and said there are reasonable and probable grounds to

believe somebody has committed a crime in this case. If the

Hon. Member comes to me with that evidence and that kind of a

complaint, of course we will assess it like everything else in

the department under the normal administration of justice.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My question, however, has not been

answered. The question was whether or not he has instructed

members of his department to look into this.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No. On the basis of what I said, the

answer is no.

MR. BENNETT: The whole question, starting yesterday and

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

relationship to this government and the conflict of interest

they would have in providing justice, especially when there was

a conflict with their own department operating in the private

sector, is under question.

I asked him yesterday whether the Attorney-General took

any steps to investigate the claims made last year in respect

to Plateau Mills. At that time there were serious allegations

against the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams) for intimidation and deceit. They were

contained not only in the newspapers but in a letter to the

Premier of the province.

I want to find out on what basis the Attorney-General does

initiate action of a probe or an inquiry and on what sort of

information. Just the other day we had the Attorney-General

start an investigation on the basis of an

article in a

Vancouver newspaper to do with the real estate business.

Presumably an

article in a newspaper is more important to

investigate than an accusation against a Minister of the Crown

or one of his colleagues in the cabinet.

Last year we had this letter to the Premier from the Sinco

Holdings, who are dealing with Plateau Mills, in which they

charged:

"We believe that the Minister has withheld information in

order to compete unfairly with us and has used intimidation of

government power to gain control of the company...with an

attitude from the Minister which has been deceitful."

Now, those are serious allegations. There was no action,

admittedly, by the Attorney-General to instigate a probe. Yet

the other day in this Legislature he mentioned that he

instigated a probe of the real estate business just from a

Vancouver newspaper article.

I would go back to this question, which has always been

before this Legislature, and comments made by no less an

authority than the Hon. Gordon Dowding in 1956, when he was

speaking in connection with investigations:

"Gordon Dowding (CCF-Burnaby), said it seemed strange to him

that on the basis of a newspaper

article the Vancouver police

investigation was launched, but that on the other hand he took

no action when he had a body of evidence to investigate."

This was to do with the Sommers case.

I think we have some precedent on how the Attorney-General

conducts probes or independent investigations. In the light of

the allegations lately about stock companies and about leaks in

cabinet to do with the mining royalties — and allegations have

been made that those royalties were leaked — I would like to

find out if on those important matters the Attorney-General has

launched a probe or called for a public inquiry and, if not,

why not when he, on the basis of one newspaper article, will

launch a probe into the real estate business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that a remedy has been suggested to the Leader of the

Opposition, and therefore I feel he should confine his remarks

to further administrative matters under the Attorney-General's

department.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Leader of the

Opposition is mistaken that I launched a probe in the real

estate field because of a newspaper article. I didn't say that

and I didn't do it. I think you're referring to the Fulbrook

investigation in Vancouver. Information came to the

superintendent of insurance which indicated there might have

been infractions, and he began an investigation. The newspaper

publicity came much later than that.

In terms of Plateau, I don't know anything about Plateau,

but if the Hon. Member or any Hon. Member has any body of

evidence — less than a body of evidence, any complaint — that

suggests there's been a breach of corporate, security or

criminal law, I wish

[ Page 1104 ]

they'd lay it before me, because it'll be assessed and

investigated and everybody will be treated alike in this

province, whether they're government, little fellows, MLAs,

businessmen or labour leaders.

If you have something, I'll be glad if you make that

complaint — send it to my office.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, this isn't a court of law. I'm

here to make representation when I feel the Attorney-General

hasn't done his job. This was a letter sent to the Premier of

which I have a copy. Now, presumably you consult with the

Premier.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not on this thing. Not on Plateau Mills.

Never discuss it.

MR. BENNETT: You mean he doesn't take you into his

confidence because the charge happens to be made against a

member of the department of government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: I said it didn't have to be a charge. It has to

be that a matter of public business is brought up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that a remedy has been suggested to the Leader of the

Opposition, and therefore I feel he should confine his remarks

to further administrative matters under the Attorney-General's

department.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I have been trying to find out on

what basis and how much evidence it takes for the

Attorney-General to instigate an investigation in this province

into any allegation, not by an MLA but by a private citizen

when it deals with the government or a department of government

or a Minister of government, and whether it's left to his

discretion, and whether that discretion can be open to

political influence. That's what I want to find out.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Politics will not enter into it, but a

complaint of breach of law should be brought to my attention as

Attorney-General. If it is a prima facie case that warrants

investigation, it'll certainly be investigated.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I find the Attorney-General's

reasoning a little bit strange when yesterday he had informed

the House that he had taken steps to have Dunhill sales checked

out through the VSE. Now, on what grounds does he choose to do

that while on the other he refuses?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, one Hon. Member in this House, and also a radio programme, made

pretty specific allegations that there'd been government leaks

which had led to insider trading in Dunhill and some people had

enriched themselves. If that were the case, there'd certainly

be breach of law, and I felt, based upon that, that there's a

prima facie case to investigate.

This Plateau thing I've never seen before, but if it's sent

to me and it makes a case of that kind, of course we'll look at

it.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General said he'd

launch an investigation of Columbia Cellulose shares. That was

brought up in the same allegation. Do you pick and choose?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, Columbia Cellulose is a

very large company. In connection with the two companies, I

asked the Securities Commission to look at both situations. But

in the Columbia Cellulose case, which led to the formation of

Can-Cel, I don't remember any names of particular share

purchases where somebody said there was a leak. There was no

evidence of that kind presented.

It's a very large company and a great deal of trading went

on and has gone on with that company for a long time. The

government purchase was handled by reputable lawyers. The stock

exchange, because of the large trading that takes place both

here and in eastern Canada, suspended the sale of the shares in

Columbia Cellulose at what I presume to be the traditional,

appropriate time. Nothing has been presented to me that would

indicate anything is amiss there.

Now, somebody has said it was an unusual pattern of trading,

but that alone is not really.... You know, it could be the

pulp market, which was undoubtedly increasing at that time. It

could be a number of things. There are fluctuations in all

share holdings. But nobody has come to me and said with any

kind of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out that any

discussion of the matter of insider trading is out of order

under several points. First of all, there's a motion on the

order paper in the name of the Hon. Member for South Peace

River (Mr. Phillips) on the whole subject of insider trading.

Also Dunhill is before the courts, and there's also another

motion on some of the same points. Would the Hon. Leader of the

Opposition continue?

MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Attorney-General made it

most specific — I just want to refer to this briefly and then

go on — during that speech that this wasn't a court of law and

that if there were charges they should be placed there. But

[ Page 1105 ]

it's the MLAs' obligation and the government's obligation,

where an opportunity exists for something wrong, to create an

investigation. The suggestion was made outside this House and

inside this House that in both cases, and particularly in the

former one we were talking about where there was a much larger

amount of shares, this pattern for this did exist, the

situation existed where this could happen, and you had an

obligation if you were going to act on one to act on the

other.

It's beyond the authority of an ordinary citizen to collect

evidence for the Crown to place before it. In this instance

where the situation exists it's the duty of the

Attorney-General to order such an investigation. That's what

we're talking about.

Mr. Chairman, through the Attorney-General, we were talking

about the suspension of trading. That's another matter I want

to discuss with the Attorney-General, because he said trading

was suspended at the appropriate time. Well, I don't believe it

was. I believe that the other day in Newfoundland we had an

occasion where the government was dealing with Brinco, and they

suspended trading the instant they opened negotiations to

purchase the stock — not after they'd reached an understanding,

not three months later, not when they'd reached an

understanding, not when they were about to make the

announcement formal, but when they instigated discussions.

HON. MR. COCKE: How do you know?

MR. BENNETT: That's what they announced in the papers.

HON. MR. COCKE: So did we. What's the matter with you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Leader of

the Opposition if he's discussing the whole subject of insider....

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: It is not!

HON. MR. COCKE: It is so!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member address

the Chair only?

MR. BENNETT: Which Member? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I was making a point

to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I was asking him whether or not he was

discussing the whole subject of insider trading. If he is discussing this, I

would rule him out of order on the grounds that this is subject matter covered

by a motion on the order paper set for future discussion.

MR. BENNETT: I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I was

discussing the procedures this government will use in the

future and on what formula and what set of rules the

Attorney-General will apply for future purchases or adventures

into the stock market. I think there is some confusion in this

area and I think it should be spelled out.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, without a specific case I

could say something about that.

MR. BENNETT: I'm talking about companies that may be

presently thought about being taken over or some you haven't

even thought of yet, because I am sure that's your policy.

I think in light of this new adventure into the stock market

that is unusual for governments, you should have a

clearly-defined policy which protects the public interest. That

is what the whole discussion has been about.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, without trespassing on

your ruling in discussing these past cases that are the subject

of a resolution, I may say that the question of what's called

"timely disclosure" is something being actively debated by

security administrators throughout Canada. While we have

interim reports, the matter is still under consideration.

You may recall that in general terms — and I think I've said

this — we in British Columbia, I think, are leading Canada in

our new company and security legislation in terms of insider

trading. That came in last year.

But nevertheless, there is the question as to the timing of

disclosure during a period of negotiations. It's reported to me

that the administrators of the Uniformity of Legislation

Act of the provinces who meet to discuss legislation of

this kind are unanimous that the simple act of entering into

negotiations to purchase shares is not sufficient by itself to

justify a cease-trading order. Each case has to be decided on

its own merits.

Nevertheless, this is a matter of importance. You can

include government and even talk about private business by

itself as well. At what point should the stock exchange suspend

trading to give forewarning to people that there might be some

alteration in the structure of the company? It is something we

are actively concerned with. We will be sending our

representatives to the further talks on that question, and I'm

sure they will be taking place this year.

MR. BENNETT: The point I'm making is that there should be a

different rule when governments are

[ Page 1106 ]

involved because they specifically have more power and deal

in a different manner than the normal dealings between two

companies. Because British Columbia is unique in the amount of

activity in taking over companies, having discussions with

other provinces isn't going to be of interest to them. They are

not in this airy financial arena. You should be developing

rules for British Columbia.

Because this is under discussion of financial dealings that

have gone on in the past and may be going on now, we need a

clear-cut policy from the Attorney-General as to how he will

set up rules that apply to the government. It is a different

ball game than the suspension of stock of two private companies

because we have more people involved in these discussions when

government is involved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That point is something that should be

considered. Increasingly, governments not only in British

Columbia but elsewhere will be taking an equity position.

Nevertheless, I am not sure that we should treat government

differently from a large corporation in this respect. Suppose M

& B were taking over a smaller company; that would be

massive power exercised with respect to relatively few

shareholdings in that company. The propriety and the timely

disclosure in that case really raises the same kind of

principles that should be applied if government were

involved.

I'm not knocking the point. You've raised a valid point;

government intervention should receive special consideration.

We've noted that, and it will receive special consideration in

these talks.

MR. BENNETT: A further expansion on this. The government,

particularly when it is taking over companies in which it

controls their licences and their right to cut, has a far

different role to play both as the administration of the rules

and the person who is taking them over. They have the right and

the clout to force them to sell. That is not the voluntary sale

between two willing buyers and sellers. You now have the

government which can force a sale. It has to have different

rules. It has different muscle; it controls their economic

future.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It happens that the gentleman, Dennis

Sheppard, who will be representing us at the further talks

which begin in 10 days is listening to this debate. I'm sure

your suggestions will not be lost upon him.

Well, I'm not sure which province these ones will take place

in. Montreal. La belle province .

MR. BENNETT: Just one further suggestion then. I think this consultant

would probably recommend to the Attorney-General that a full investigation of

those deals that have gone on would be a good basis for providing rules for

the future, a good way to start and find out the areas that have been missed,

the areas that are under discussion and the areas that are of concern to the

public so this won't happen again.

If the Attorney-General won't take our advice, perhaps he

will take his adviser's advice.

MR. MORRISON: I would also like to remind the

Attorney-General that a couple of days ago he advised us that

he would tell us when suspension of trading did take place in

those two cases. We have not yet had an answer to that.

He says the new companies are treated the same, but I notice

that every new provincial company that the Legislature has

control of which we incorporate is specifically excluded from

the Companies Act . We have this new bill presented to us

today, and in it,

section 11 (7), page 5, says the Companies

Act does not apply to this company. It doesn't apply to

Ocean Falls, and it doesn't apply to Can-Cel, and it probably

won't apply to the future companies.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But the government owns all the shares....

MR. MORRISON: On the one hand you are telling us that you

are responsible and on the other you take the responsibility

right out of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's irresponsible.

MR. MORRISON: It's irresponsible, very irresponsible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. With regard to the first

question, I would rule the question out of order because it

does deal with matters covered by the motions on the order

paper.

MR. MORRISON: He agreed to give me the answer; he said he

would answer it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Dunhill: January 10; Col-Cel: March 30.

Dunhill in 1974 and the last year for Col-Cel.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I'm pleased

the Hon. Attorney-General has agreed that this is a matter of

very serious importance for him and his department. I'm also

pleased that Mr. Sheppard is going to listen very carefully to

what is said and take the thoughts from this House to his

meeting in Montreal.

But I wonder if the Attorney-General would indicate how long

in British Columbia we will need to await the results of these

deliberations so that situations such as those mentioned by the

Member

[ Page 1107 ]

for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) today can't go unnoticed in

the Province of British Columbia.

The Attorney-General yesterday, when dealing with this same

subject, said that this government is very conscious of the

kinds of dangers that can creep into big business whether or

not the government has an interest in it. I think it is very

proper of the Attorney-General to take cognizance of this.

When you look at what has developed in the past 18 months,

we find that the government is now intimately engaged in the

corporate fields of oil and gas, coal, generation and

transmission and sale of electric power, railways....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Alfalfa cubes.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: ...alfalfa cubes...

AN HON. MEMBER: Poultry processing.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: ...poultry processing, pulp and paper

industry, the lumber industry, insurance industry,

transportation systems, communication systems, television and

radio broadcasting, newspapers, transit systems.

The impact that decisions of government and actions of

individual members of government can have upon our entire

society is increasing by leaps and bounds under this

government. To suggest that the Associate Deputy

Attorney-General (Mr. Sheppard) is going to consider these

things at some conference makes me wonder.

I remember in past sessions legislation was brought in. Good

ideas. Mr. R.A. Williams, who is now the Hon. Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources, in 1970 brought in

an Act

regarding conflicts of interest. It is interesting to note the

point of view taken by the Minister at that time:

"Whereas the people have a right to expect from their

elected and appointed representatives at all levels of

government assurances of the utmost in integrity, honesty, and

fairness in their public duties;

"And

whereas the people further have the right to be assured

to the fullest extent possible that the private financial

dealings of their governmental representatives and of

candidates for their offices present no conflict of interest

between the public trust and private gain."

Then he followed

with proposals to prevent conflict of interests of that

kind.

The Hon. Attorney-General suggested to the Leader of the Opposition: "When

you find out the facts, present a case to me. If it breaks the law, we'll take

action." But the Attorney-General well knows the difficulty of a private citizen,

of a Member of this House, to ferret out the dealings that take place, particularly

when we have this vast array of enterprises which the government is involved

in.

What did another distinguished Member of the opposition say

in 1972? Mr. Macdonald presented

An Act to Provide for

Public Scrutiny .

"Whereas the Government of British Columbia demands that

light should be allowed to shine on the conduct of public

business so that it may be executed without favouritism or

political bias and in accordance with the highest standards of

public morality...." Therefore we were to enact what was

called the "Sunshine Law of 1972."

"All boards and commissions deriving powers and duties under

this provincial legislation shall be affected.

"All municipal and regional councils, committees and boards,

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council when deciding appeals or

awards, shall conduct their business at meetings open to the

public at all times and shall make their records,

correspondence, decisions, and awards open to inspection by

interested persons at reasonable times and places."

Proud words, strong words, important words. More important

now, when we have this vast array of enterprises in which the

government is involved, than ever before.

And yet, Mr. Chairman, what does the Attorney-General leave

with us now? Just as he said yesterday when questions were

raised as to what the government might do in a very specific

case and he said,

If the government were to contrive to depress the price of

shares of a company in order to buy cheap, and then tout up

those shares at a later date, it would be guilty of improper

conduct, just as much as if it were done by a big company

seeking to take over a little company. It does happen out in

the business world. At least we're subject to the scrutiny of a

Legislature. It certainly would be improper; it hasn't taken

place and it shouldn't take place.

I thank the Attorney-General for his assurance that it

hasn't taken place. I agree with him that it shouldn't take

place. But then the Leader of the Opposition across the floor

said "What recourse is there?" The Attorney-General said:

The Legislature primarily, I suppose, which is more than you

can say...except that I think it's also an offence under

securities legislation....

A lot of it goes on in the business-world jungle, and if

that kind of thing were being perpetrated by government because

they had an interest in a business, I'm sure that the complaint

would, and should, be heard here in the Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, what an empty promise the Hon.

Attorney-General offers to us and to the people of British

Columbia. Try it here in the Legislature, under our rules,

where the Chairman can close debate if we transgress against

some motion that is placed on the order paper, where the House

Leader, the Premier of

[ Page 1108 ]

the province, can close debate at any time he wishes, can

choose the business which we are to discuss, where the Premier

of the province can stand in the House and give his version of

a conversation, and, even when it's plain that he lied, no

separate, independent tribunal is constructed to determine

where the truth might be.

Is this the kind of assurance you offer to us and to the

people of British Columbia to resolve the conflicts of interest

spoken of by the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) in his conflict of interest

proposals of 1970? Is this where we are?

When it comes right down to it, Mr. Chairman, when Members

of this House take strong positions with respect to issues of

this kind and they are reported in the press, are we to be

subjected, as members of the press have been subjected, to

vile, foul-mouthed, guttersnipe language from the Premier of

this province as occurred to a lady member of the press gallery

in this building yesterday?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah, come on.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Not once, not twice, but three times;

verbally assaulted by the Premier with a four-letter word that

should never have been used.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, this is my vote, not the

Premier's. The Premier is not here to answer, even if it was

his vote.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He hasn't been here since he mouthed the

word either.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I know, but this is really the kind of

accusation that is made, even in the absence of the Member,

that kind of brings this House into disrepute.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, this House is in disrepute after the

last two weeks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I've made my point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member confine his remarks to

the vote.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Attorney-General has made

his point and made it very well. We are left with the rules in this House as

the only way of protecting the citizens of the province against the improper

actions of government and the members of government. When you do so, you're

faced with rules that deny you the right to debate. And when there is fair comment

upon what takes place, you get foul, vile, guttersnipe criticism in the corridors

of this building.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Four-letter words used by the Premier of

this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please! We are considering the

estimates of the....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's disgraceful to do that.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Have the Premier come back. Let him say

fuddle-duddle on the floor of this House as he did to a lady

member in the corridor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Member....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: At least the Premier has had loyalty to

his own colleagues and his own party and to the people who

elected him, and you have not, Mr. Member. You've been carrying

on secret talks behind the backs of your electors.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What a loyalty! Let's talk about

integrity for a minute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What about loyalty? Is that a human

quality that is worth anything?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You don't do it as well as the Minister

of Highways. Try it again some other time.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would draw to the attention

of the Hon. Attorney-General that it is not permitted to

interrupt the speaker when he is speaking on the floor.

I would ask the Hon. Member to continue and I would ask him

not to refer to this matter again, but rather to confine his

remarks to the administrative responsibilities of the

Attorney-General and his actions.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that I shall do to the

best of my ability.

I ask the Attorney-General again if all he is

[ Page 1109 ]

promising to us in this Legislature and to the people of

British Columbia with respect to conflict of interest is the

opportunity to ferret out the details on our own without the

opportunity of examining into records of all the companies this

government is involved in, without any access to their records,

Crown corporations or not, and then present to the Hon.

Attorney-General a prima facie case of guilt? Has he no

investigative powers? Why don't we have in this province now

the kind of legislation the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and the Attorney-General

spoke so bravely of when they were in opposition? If we did, we

wouldn't have to be asking these questions today.

Plateau Mills is only one of the problems that exists in

this province and this government's administration. How do we

know what's going on in the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia? What kind of deals are being made?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, you don't know so make some

innuendoes, eh?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not going to make any innuendoes at

all. When are you going to give us the opportunity for close,

careful scrutiny of the conduct of business by those Crown

agencies which this government has established? That's what

conflict of interest means.

When are we going to stop one Minister from being in the

position of interfering with the activities of another? Are you

going to bring in legislation, Mr. Attorney-General? Are you

going to deal with these things at long last or are we to be

left with the same old fruitless search we have been on year

after year after year and which occurred when you were in

opposition and which encouraged you to bring in the kind of

private Member's bill that you did? When are we going to hear

from the Attorney-General, the chief law officer of the Crown,

to make certain that the government administration in the

Province of British Columbia is carried on in accordance with

law and the highest standards of integrity and morality?

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly want to support the words of the

speaker who just took his seat. It seems to me that every time

you get close to bringing some light in, you're attacked like

the Member was attacked on the floor of this Legislature by the

Attorney-General.

Mr. Attorney-General, you suggested that Members of this

Legislature go out, be a private investigator....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I started an investigation on

Dunhill based upon very flimsy information which was almost

totally false. But I did it anyway.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Attorney-General, the fact that...

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's no information there.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...in January of 1973 there were 294,000 shares

of Can-Cel traded, does that not provoke you into carrying out

an investigation? One only inside-trader certificate filed in

three months with over one million shares traded.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I've ruled that the Hon. Member

may not discuss any matter which is covered by motions on the

order paper. He may discuss it in general terms but not

referring specifically to actions of the past.

MR. BENNETT: Point of order. The Attorney-General has said

no information was filed on Columbia Cellulose, so it can't be

part of motion 13. Is that right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The motion in the name of the

Hon. Member for South Peace River, who is on his feet, states:

"...to investigate the possibility that unreported 'insider

positions' have been a characteristic of government initiatives

related to purchases of shares trading on the open market." No

particular action is specified. However, it would appear to

apply to all actions of the government of this nature in the

past. Therefore I would rule that he may not discuss or refer

to any of these matters in the past. Discuss the matter in

general terms only.

MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, do you mean

that any discussion of any possibility with any company

anywhere cannot be discussed in this House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of the motion on the order paper is

to set aside some time in the future to discuss this whole

matter. Therefore there is no point in discussing it now if the

motion is there for that purpose; otherwise they should take

the motion off the order paper.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, my first remarks to you this

afternoon were that we were discussing the chief law

enforcement officer's estimates. I said that if justice is not

performed in this chamber, how is justice going to seem to be

done outside of this chamber?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's going to be a long day.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's very easy for any government, as soon as

a subject rears its head in this Legislature,

[ Page 1110 ]

to bring in a motion so that the subject matter cannot be

discussed. It would appear to me, Mr. Chairman, that that is

exactly what has happened in this Legislature over the past two

weeks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The motion in question is of

the broadest character. Therefore it excludes most discussion

of the one standing in the name of the Hon. Member for South

Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General says that

he wants to see that the rights of British Columbians are

protected and that the government's dealings in the marketplace

are carried on in a manner that will leave no doubt. Now I ask

the Attorney-General: in view of the unusual stock trading

pattern in Columbia Cellulose, will he conduct an

investigation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'd love to reply, but that's the

subject of the motion, isn't it? So it's a little

difficult.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The request

is out of order, inasmuch as it is covered by the motion. Both

the question and the answer would be out of order.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I think the Attorney-General has

to recognize something which he's either chosen to overlook or

is not aware of. I think it is the former. One cannot look upon

the government as being any normal business competitor.

I know it is the ideology of this government to buy into and

to take over various private corporations, and we're given the

line: "Why should not government be able to buy into the

private sector?" The answer is very simple. The government has

all the power, all the authority — all kinds of authority and

power — which no other competitor in the business sector of

this province can hope to have. Therefore for government to get

in and compete and to start buying out companies or taking over

companies or acquiring equity in companies is like being in a

ball game where you're one of the competitors but you also

happen to be the referee.

If we have situations where the government does, indeed, decide to acquire

in part or in whole any company, there are various avenues open to the government

because of the power and the authority vested in the government as a very unique

participant in the business place. I quoted I think in the House already this

session the example of one of the corporations that had to be taken over, or

the government had to acquire at least 90 per cent of the shares so that it

would not pay federal income tax. Is this not an unfair advantage over other

competitors in the marketplace? This being so, is this not a clear example of

this unique kind of power which government has as a partner in corporations

or as the takeover agent in corporations? It seems to me that the point is being

lost entirely.

I've no wish to intrude on legislation before this House,

but one could quite realistically say that government has the

power and authority through legislation to depress the value of

shares, corporations, private companies or industries such as

the mining industry.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I haven't got a nickel in the stock market my

friend, you'll be very interested to hear, other than my

pension plan, I suppose, over which I have no control. I don't

play the market.

Mr. Chairman, this is not an aspect of this whole question

of honour and integrity that can be lightly discarded. The fact

is that government, by the tremendous power — namely its

legitimate power to legislate — can in fact depress the value

of shares or the value of companies or corporations and then

presumably be in the ideological position of saying: "Well, the

mining industry is not exploring, or the petroleum industry is

not looking for natural gas or oil, or this, or that — we'll

have to take it over." So they've got the private sector coming

and going. They can criticize them if they don't continue

expansion or exploration, but on the other hand they can

provide themselves with justification for state ownership by

actions which the government itself initiated.

To be more specific, I certainly do agree with the

sentiments that have been expressed. I object to government

getting into these situations in the first place whereby they

participate in private corporations or take them over and then

move the goal posts so that they have an unfair advantage. I've

tried to make that plain.

AN HON. MEMBER: We differ in ideology.

MR. WALLACE: Yes. Now, supposing I accept that as the

legitimate government you at least have every right to pursue

that path of buying equity or taking over various corporations,

I would agree with the sentiments expressed earlier on many

occasions in this House that the government, and the

Attorney-General in particular, has a tremendous responsibility

to ensure, as far as within his office it can be possible to

ensure, that no inside or confidential information available

only to the parties concerned in the potential bargaining or in

the actual negotiating going on can be used for the illegal and

unjust benefit of individuals or groups of individuals. The

Minister has said: "Well, at what point in time would it seem

right?" He talked about "timely intervention" or "timely

disclosure."

[ Page 1111 ]

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I would suggest just as a simple layman

in this matter that the time that something has happened to

stop trading is the point of decision at which the government

decides to move. On the very first day that this government or

any government decides to even enter into discussion with

Dunhill or any other corporation, in my view, the simple answer

to the dilemma is that the trading of the shares should be

suspended at that very initial point, not only to avoid insider

trading but to protect you, Mr. Attorney-General. If the

trading had been suspended the first day the move was made, you

wouldn't be in the mess you're in right now. You wouldn't be

accused of these things, rightly or wrongly.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Member, we're not in a mess.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I withdrew the unkind expression that

you're in a mess. Let me say that you would not be subjected to

the accusations, and perhaps we would be saving a lot of time

in this House.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, maybe you're right, Mr. Interjector from

Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings). We would always find something

to discuss because that's the function of opposition, in case

you haven't discovered it yet. You're sitting there in the

House just interjecting and making lots of comments, but the fact

is that the function of the opposition is to point out to the

people of British Columbia some of the dangers of big

government that's trying to take over the private sector in

this province. We have a very important function here, and if there wasn't this

element of that function, there would be others – of

course there would.

Mr. Attorney-General, I say that even from your own point of

view of self-interest as an Attorney-General, and in the

interest of your own party, it would be wise to have this kind

of protection for yourself, never mind for the people of

British Columbia.

The fact is that as soon as government makes one move to

enter into negotiations for the possible acquisition of equity

in a company, I suggest that surely it is quite obvious that

that is the point at which trading should be suspended.

There are other aspects to this which the Member for Saanich

(Mr. Curtis) introduced in the form of a private bill — the

whole question of disclosure, which I think goes a little

beyond the point we're now debating. I listened to the Member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), quoting the strong

and fine principles which were espoused by the NDP when they

were in opposition, and I fully support them.

I hope that perhaps the Attorney-General can tell us this

afternoon that that very legislation will be introduced later

this session. He introduced a bill last year, and let it die on

the order paper, dealing with disclosures. I hope that in the

meantime sufficient information and modification has occurred

that we can look forward to that bill this session.

Both the Minister and his Deputy are nodding furiously. I

hope I can take that as affirmation of the fact that we will

get that bill.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I do feel that while many of the

decisions you have to make are certainly clearly outlined for

you in the standing orders, it does seem to me that if we are

all honourable men as we claim to be in this House.... The

Member for Victoria says, "Don't be ridiculous." But we must at

least strive after this kind of honourable respect. If this is

the case, I do agree entirely with the Member for South Peace

River (Mr. Phillips) that as a result of concern over inside

trading, an action which that Member chose to take, and because

of reaction which the government chose to take, I just want to

make my opinion very clear on the record — that I think that

particular issue should be debated at the earliest

opportunity.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I agree with the statement of the duties

of my office that was expounded by the Hon. Member. In terms of

disclosure, his suggestions will be carefully considered, that

it should be at the earliest moment of negotiations. But I

would point out that some people disagree with that, because

they say they may be tentative, the negotiations may be, broken

off and you're freezing-in people's money that you don't have a

right to freeze at that point.

But we're listening to those suggestions and we'll take them

seriously.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman,

speaking to the Attorney-General's estimates I have several

general points to make — all of them briefly.

I'd ask the Attorney-General first of all if he could

enlighten the House a bit more, in view of his brief statements

yesterday and the large headlines this morning, as to the

extent of organized crime in British Columbia. I think perhaps

some alarm was caused, which may or may not be justified. But

the large headlines perhaps gave cause for alarm to the

ordinary public.

Perhaps the Attorney-General later on in this debate might

indicate, when he mentioned that in his view the big crime

perpetrators are generally getting

[ Page 1112 ]

away with this, whether he believes that this is happening

to any considerable extent, or whether his concern is more

preventive at this stage of the game.

There was a considerable discussion as well on the topic of

a centralized police force. The Attorney-General indicated, and

I was delighted to see it, that he didn't approve of that kind

of a mechanism. There is just one specific reassurance I would

like to have from him, and that is that the structure of local

police commissions will be maintained in those areas where

those police commissions exist.

To move on to another topic, we had an excellent talk from

one of the Members from the other side of the House about the

need for a systematic study on how the legislation of this

province discriminates against women in certain areas — not

only the legislation, of course, but the regulations

promulgated under that legislation.

There is a need for a systematic inquiry, I think, because

to wait until a case is bad enough to come to the attention of

the Legislature or the press or the public in some other way,

is not good enough. There's a need, I believe, to comb through

all of the statute and regulatory law of British Columbia to

see where there are written or implied instances of

discrimination against women in that law.

Voluntary groups have gone into this subject at length;

they've done a good job. But they admittedly can't do the whole

job. So I would suggest to the Attorney-General and ask him to

comment on this: the need for a task force in his department to

go through the legislation and the statutes of British Columbia

in this regard.

There was another excellent point made yesterday, I forget

by which Hon. Member, to the effect that the federal Indian

Act notes that laws of general application of any province,

which of course would include British Columbia and which would

include expenditure programmes, should extend to the benefit of

the Indians of British Columbia. In many cases this does not

happen; this particularly doesn't happen with expenditure

programmes.

Mention was made of the homeowner grant — water and sewage,

the Second Member for Point-Grey (Mr. Gardom) says — and many

others. It's important that these programmes be extended, and I

would add my voice to that plea.

Now if my understanding is correct, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General is in

this House and in this government as the guardian of justice — not just of legal

justice, but what I would call natural justice. I think much of the debate we've

had here has flowed from that concept. Certainly the remarks yesterday of the

Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) on the question of Indian lands and Indian

claims and the cut-off lands, and the role of the Attorney-General as the defender

of natural justice in that area, apply here.

I'll be brief, Mr. Chairman, but I want, on this question of

cut-off lands, to draw to the attention of the Attorney-General

one of the gravest breaches of natural justice that has

occurred in the history of our province relating to the cut-off

lands.

The Attorney-General will recall the so-called

McKenna-McBride commission of 1912 set up by agreement. And he

might or might not be aware of a particular

section of the

agreement noting that:

"a commission shall be appointed, two commissioners by the

dominion and by the province; the four so named shall select a

fifth; and the commission so appointed shall have the power to

adjust the acreage of Indian reserves in British Columbia in

the following manner: 2 (

a) At such places as the commissioner

is satisfied that more land is included in any particular

reserve as now defined than is reasonably required for the use

of the Indians of that tribe or locality, the reserve shall,

with the consent of the Indians" — that's the operative phrase — "with the consent of the Indians as required by the Indian

Act, be reduced to such acreage as the commissioners think

reason ably sufficient for the purposes of such Indians."

Now, Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Attorney-General, you

know how the history of this matter developed. Hearings were

held with the various Indian bands in good faith, with that

assurance to the Indian bands in each case and, in particular,

Capilano Reserve No. 5, 132 acres — without the consent of the

Indians. This was reciprocal legislation — dominion and

provincial reciprocal legislation.

The Attorney-General's nodding his head. I'm sure he's very

familiar with the general topic.

I want to bring to his attention this specific case in the

Capilano riding of those the realities of drug addiction, and

while that paints a fantastic picture of maintenance executive

council to press for a speedy resolution of this breach of

trust which has gone on now for over 50 years. As I think most

Members in this House well know, one of the most serious

difficulties standing in the way of the self-fulfilment of the

Indian people is the sense of grievance and the sense of

betrayal that lingers over the years in part as a result of

examples of this kind.

The Attorney-General as well, both by virtue of his office

and by virtue of self-appointment, has become the guardian of

the Skagit Valley. I was not in this House at the time but it

was with a glad heart that I heard the news a year or so ago

that the Attorney-General felt so confident that he could tell

us he would resign if the Skagit Valley was ever flooded. I

pray that he will never have cause to resign for that reason.

I'm sure he won't.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Is it in Hansard ?

[ Page

1113 ]

MR. GIBSON: I don't know if it's in Hansard or not,

Mr. Attorney-General. It's a statement that you made, is it

not?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Have you got it in an affidavit?

MR. GIBSON: Well, we can seek affidavits, Mr.

Attorney-General, but I just took it for granted that you

accepted the authorship of that remark.

Now there is a legal question surrounding the Skagit Valley.

There have been mutterings of the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) that he considers the

agreement that British Columbia has with Seattle City Light to

be invalid. I wonder if I could ask the Attorney-General not

for legal opinion — which one shouldn't ask in this House — but

to confirm to us what is the applicable law.

I have been seeking this myself. Surely a part of the

applicable law I presume is the IJC order of January 27, 1942.

I assume that a part of the applicable law is

an Act passed by

this House and consented to on April 3, 1947, entitled An

Act to Authorize the Flooding of Certain Lands in the Skagit

Valley . Then pursuant to that an agreement was authorized

in an order-in-council in January of 1967 between the province

and the City of Seattle providing for the flooding of exactly

that Skagit Valley, 6,350 acres, of which 5,710 acres, more or

less, were vested in the Crown in right of the province at that

time.

All of that seems to be valid law relating to the flooding

of the Skagit Valley. Then there is one more piece of

regulatory law, being an order-in-council of this government

dated December 6, 1973, which sets aside certain portions —

overlapping portions, I believe — of the Skagit Valley lands as

a public recreation area. Now I have a little difficulty

understanding how a public recreation area can be the same land

that is described in the agreement with Seattle City Light.

The agreement provided in part, for example, that: "the

province, subject to the rights and holders of any private

tenure, does hereby permit and allow the city to flood for a

period of 99 years from the date of this agreement those vacant

and unalienated portions of the Skagit River watershed in

British Columbia within or without the boundaries of lot 1103,

Yale division of Yale district, up to elevation 1,725

feet."

It is perhaps the understanding of the government or the

Attorney-General that these lands are no longer unalienated

once an order-in-council has been passed about them concerning

a recreational reserve. I'm not certain.

Later on the same agreement suggests that if any portion of the road to be

relocated is required to be built over Crown land, the province will, at no

cost to the city, make such lands available as may be necessary for the right-of-way.

It would seem once again that the requirement to make lands

available for these hydro-electric construction purposes

doesn't exactly jibe with the recreational area. I am asking

the Attorney General if the agreement, the legislation I have

read out, is in fact the applicable law, and if he would

enlighten us any further on what quite frankly is a very

mysterious situation surrounding Skagit.

We hope the government has in the back of its mind some kind

of a strategy here. Its strategy, from the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), doesn't

appear to be cooperating with the federal government in making

submissions to the Federal Power Commission, so it must be a

legal strategy. Later on perhaps the Attorney-General might be

kind enough to comment, and advise the House and the many

people in British Columbia who are concerned about the flooding

of the Skagit Valley.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the registry of land in British Columbia

is administered by the Attorney-General. The registration of

land is absolutely crucial to the regulation foreign ownership

of British Columbia land. I'm not going to talk regulation of

foreign ownership of British Columbia land. I'm not going to

talk have other Members. There are private Members' bills on

the order paper.

I want to talk about the administration of the land-registry

system and to ask the Attorney-General if the existing system....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, it's a very brief question, Mr.

Attorney-General, and that's the question as to whether the

existing system, without substantial amendment, could handle

the single additional question of the beneficial nationality

ownership of the land. Is the question clear?

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. MacDonald) is responsible to

this House for the Liquor Board which, of course, is yielding

enormous profits for the Province of British Columbia — in

excess of $100 million this year. I don't begrudge those

profits, Mr. Chairman; I think it is a good thing. I think the

price of liquor should be high, because alcohol is

unquestionably the most serious drug-abuse problem in our

society.

We had a very moving speech last night by the Hon. Member

for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) concerning a tragedy

caused in his riding by alcohol to a family in his riding, who

had written him a letter. It was an excellent case example of

the penalties that the citizens of this province pay in return

for alcohol abuse and, as a sidelight, of the profits that the

provincial Treasury gains from alcohol.

I am making a plea here for a greater proportion of

[ Page 1114 ]

the alcohol profits to be spent on alcohol abuse education

everywhere in the province — through the public media and

particularly in our schools. I think that this is tremendously

important. It would be helpful if the Attorney-General could

give us an account of how much money is spent right now and how

much effort is spent right now on alcohol abuse education. I

appreciate that this may to some extent come up in the

estimates of other Ministers.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Human Resources.

MR. GIBSON: Is it in one single department? Oh, it's in the

Department of Human Resources. I have looked through the Human

Resources estimates and have been unable to find that number.

Perhaps the Attorney-General might have an idea of what the

figure might be, through you, Mr. Chairman.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General is responsible

for the Landlord and Tenant Act . Once again, I won't

suggest amendments. I presume that we will receive amendments

to this Act introduced in the House later on this session. I

presume that under the estimates of the Minister of Housing

(Hon. Mr. Nicolson) there will be an opportunity of discussing

the underlying situation.

I do ask the Attorney-General if he is satisfied with the

administration of the Act and the way it is governing

relationships between tenants and landlords at the present

time. I don't think he can be — not with rents skyrocketing and

with tenants subject to intimidation by landlords. As the

Attorney-General knows there have been threats of eviction for

joining tenant organizations, which is wrong. There have been

threats of eviction just for simple complaints of improper

accommodation. There are the kicks and the bangs on the door in

the middle of the night to try and get the tenant out. He

particularly can't be satisfied with it with the supply of

housing drying up. Vacancy rates are down to 0.3 per cent.

I would suggest to the Attorney-General, through you, Mr.

Chairman, that it is indeed urgent that these amendments be

brought in. Reform is needed. We need a rental review board, a

rental grievance board, something which will make the increase

in rents at least commensurate with the increase in costs, and

smooth out the terrible acceleration in rentals that has been

going on lately, while at the same time providing for the

increase in rental accommodation supply. That in the long run

is the best guarantee of the rights of the tenants and of good

landlord-tenant relationships.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think I should reply to the points

that were well made by the Hon. Member. Big crime: I don't want

to name names, because I don't think it's in the public

interest to give further details in that respect.

Local police commissions: yes, they should be retained and

local input should be increased rather than diminished, because

in RCMP areas there is no local input at the present time.

Skagit River: it is our position that there is no legal

agreement between the Province of British Columbia and Seattle

City Light because the same was never ratified under the

Boundary Waters Treaty Act, by the IJC.

The final point — LRO system: can we provide for the

recording of the nationality of beneficial owners of land? In a

physical sense we can. But you need a computer to interpret it

and lift out all that information. But the application forms

could make that a requirement. Now mind you, when you run into

a company holding land what is its nationality? So there are

difficulties. But physically the system can accommodate the

reception of that information.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of items I'd

like to discuss with the Attorney-General today, through you.

One of them I discussed at some length last fall, and again

last spring. I refer to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police road

patrol division. I've had discussions with members of that

great police force about this. The Attorney-General knows that

my feelings are that the RCMP should not be used, these

well-trained men in criminal investigation and all of the

training that they've had should not be used out there on our

highways.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Member, there's a reason for it.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's a reason for it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I've been told there's a reason for it

and I'm also aware, Mr. Attorney-General, through you Mr.

Chairman, of the number of deaths on our highways.

But my argument is, Mr. Chairman, the number of deaths on

our highways are not diminishing. Therefore the system we have

now is not effective. And I'll tell you Mr. Chairman, through

you to the Attorney-General, I don't know if the

Attorney-General has ever been picked up for speeding or not....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Have you got an affidavit?

MR. PHILLIPS: But I want to tell you that an ordinary

citizen of this country who may never have broken any law

whatsoever, when he sees those flashing lights and sirens

behind him that he feels like a common criminal. But that's not

[ Page 1115 ]

complaint....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He may be a common criminal.

MR. PHILLIPS: He may be a common criminal? I feel Mr.

Chairman, that we could attain better results by having more

road patrol cars on the highway, marked as such, to control

traffic. But let's get away from this hide-and-seek business

and ghost cars, and patrol cars hiding behind hedge fences —

bill-boards, that's right — seeking you out like a common

criminal using radar. Let all of that knowledge and all of that

technology go to catch the criminals, not the ordinary

peace-loving citizens who are breaking the common law speeding

on our highways. And I realize....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Don't send me your tickets. I have

trouble enough with my own.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to specifically refer, Mr. Chairman, to

the State of Arizona in which by the research I am able to do

is there is very little speeding. There are very little

accidents on the roads in Arizona. But you can hardly move in

that state without seeing a road patrol car. But they don't sit

and hide behind bill-boards, they are there driving on the

highway controlling the traffic, their presence on the highway

controls the traffic.

Mr. Attorney-General, as I said before, the present system

is not working. The deaths on our highways are not diminishing,

they are increasing — and something should be done. So if this

hide-and-seek, cops-and-robbers game that we're playing with

the motorists on the highway today is not effective, I think,

Mr. Attorney-General, that you should consider again — as I

asked for last year — a separate road patrol division. Call it

the B.C. Police, the B.C. road patrol. You don't have to have

the criminal knowledge to go out there on the highway to

control the speed of the traffic.

The second item I would like to discuss with the

Attorney-General here this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, is a few

years ago the British Columbia government did away with the

system of fines. They did away with the system of fines for

infractions under the Motor Vehicle Act .

Now, in British Columbia that system is being reintroduced

again. The system of fining motorists for infractions under the

Motor Vehicle Act is being reintroduced. Not by the

Attorney-General, not by any other legislative measure, but by

the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. And indeed, that

is exactly what they are doing.

We did away with it, so that nobody paid fines, it was on a point system. So

now the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is indeed bringing the fine

system back to life in British Columbia. And that's exactly what it is.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Private companies do that too. This

isn't my department, you know.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well you are the Attorney-General. Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to know by what right, what law, without the

matter being debated here in the Legislature the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia has to impose fines, when we

did away with that system?

They're bringing it in probably not until this Legislature

prorogues. They're bringing it in under the guise of driver

insurance. But what it is, is a fine for infractions under the

Motor Vehicle Act brought in by a government-owned

corporation.

Corporations have as much power as this Legislature. The

Attorney-General says it's not his department. When do we

discuss things like that?

Mr. Attorney-General, I have one last short item that I

would like to discuss with you. I would like to ask you if you

feel it is right that a farmer who happens to be transporting

some fruit in or out of the Okanagan Valley — and I am sure the

Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) will agree with me — is it right

that a justice of the peace can swear out an affidavit and that

man can be searched like a common criminal? The illicit drug

trade in this province runs rampant. You'd be far safer to have

5 lb. of heroin in your back pocket, or in the back seat of

your car and drive around the Province of British Columbia.

Because for anybody to get a search warrant to search you they

have to really have some evidence. And nobody's going to get in

the trunk of my car if I have 5 lb. of heroin there unless they

really have some evidence.

But I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, if I happen to have

some apple peelings on my dash and maybe a little sawdust or

some wood chips around the bumper of my trunk, lo and behold I

shall be searched!

Does the Attorney-General feel that this is justice? Are we

putting apples and oranges in the same common denominator with

pot and heroin? Let's get to the core of the apple problem.

This is a very serious matter, Mr. Chairman, a very serious

matter.

I could take my panel truck and I could go to the liquor

store and I could fill it right full of booze, and I could

drive to the Peace River country and lo and behold no one would

search me, no one would bother me! But I tell you if I load my

truck up with apples, peaches, cherries, I'm a common criminal.

Now I'd like the Attorney-General to discuss these three items

that I've brought before the floor of this Legislature this

afternoon.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't want to filibuster my own

estimates, but briefly I want to say

[ Page 1116 ]

that in the case of the RCMP patrols it is useful that the

RCMP do some traffic work, because that way they get out into

the communities to find out what's going on. They regard it as

a kind of essential adjunct to their other police duties.

MR. PHILLIPS: How do you regard it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I agree. I think that is a good

argument. You know, sitting in the office and waiting for a

phone call, or just engaged in crime detection, you don't get

to know your community that well. It's kind of an onerous

thing.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you agree with those ghost cars?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Member mentioned Arizona. In

Arizona they have hidden cameras on major speedways which show

a photo of a car speeding, and which automatically ticket a

person. So I don't think you should refer to Arizona as a lucky

place to drive.

I don't think we want to have a B.C. highway patrol as an

extra police force, because I'm afraid somebody would get up

and say "Himmler!" We've had one or two under the Department of

Highways in the past, but the government does not plan any

change in terms of creating such a force.

In the case of fines, I'll be glad to convey your remarks to

the Hon. Minister concerned.

In the case of fruit from the Okanagan Valley, that is a

matter again of whatever powers the Legislature grants under

the marketing board legislation, as it now sits or as it may be

changed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabour

the fruit point, but if you put yourself, or I put myself, or

the Attorney-General puts himself in the position of a fruit

grower in the Okanagan, and reads the papers about what you

alluded to yesterday afternoon, the major crime in the Province

of British Columbia — these are law-abiding citizens. How do

they feel? They must feel the same as I do, that if we can

devote this much attention to them, surely to goodness more

attention should be devoted to the question of real criminals

in this province.

I certainly agree with the Attorney-General, and I said last

year you should have an all-out war. The illicit drug traffic

in this province is the biggest problem that this province

faces today. You should treat it, not in an ordinary manner,

Mr. Attorney-General, but as a crisis.

I mentioned in this House last year many families in northern British Columbia

who were afraid to send their children to colleges and institutes of higher

learning in the lower mainland. Unfortunately now Mr. Chairman, they are faced

with this problem their own small home towns in the north country.

The drug trafficking problem has reached epidemic

proportions in this province. Mr. Chairman, I would like the

Attorney-General to outline to me what specific action he has

taken since he became the Attorney-General of this province,

and what specific positive steps he intends to take

immediately, because I tell you that if we continue allowing

this plague to grow, it will be the ruination of the Province

of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I also pointed out last year that we have a

specific problem in British Columbia because of the many, many

miles of unguarded coastline that we have. I'm not going to go

into the speech that I made in this Legislature last year, but

I feel very strongly that those who are out there pushing

drugs, who are not users, should be dealt with most severely,

and those who are users should be isolated from society until

such time as they are cured.

We talk about break-ins, and we talk, indeed, as the lady

Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mrs. Brown) did last night, about

rape, and we hear of all kinds of crime in British Columbia.

But what is the source of the majority? What starts this crime?

Why the break-ins, why the robberies, why the muggings, why the

rapes? Do away with that evil of drugs and you will solve a

large portion of the other crimes in the Province of British

Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I plead with the

Attorney-General to treat this not as an ordinary situation. We

must declare war. I realize how the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Levi) feels. He's gone soft on drugs. The Minister of

Human Resources' attitude is soft on drugs.

But Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, I ask

the Attorney-General to stand on his own two feet, live by his

own convictions, and get on with the job that has to be done.

All the resources of your department should be focused on this

plague now, forthwith. I ask you to tell me what action you are

going to take, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, without delaying the

committee, everything we're doing really relates to this

because about, let's say, half our crime problem is

drug-related. Half our inmate population in prison is

drug-related, and so forth. Probably when I say half I'm being

conservative.

So everything we do in terms of reform of the family court,

the juvenile end, improving the quality of justice, improving

the speed with which trials can be brought on, including

upgrading the quality of the bench in British Columbia,

improving the laws, reorganizing and coordinating police

activity, integrating police activity with the justice system

and corrections — everything we're doing is really related to

this, because this is half our problem.

I I'm not happy with the progress that is being made

[ Page 1117 ]

because it is very serious. I have the seizure figures for

1973 in terms of drugs in B.C. here and I'll be glad to

show them to the Hon. Member if he likes.

Much more has to be done and really it is the total effort

of the department, because, as I say, it is so much of the

problem and everything we do is affected by it.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like to ask one further question

of the Attorney-General, if I may. How many men in British

Columbia today, in your police force, are devoted specifically

towards the drug problem? How many?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You would have to put that on the order

paper or ask me separately. I just don't know the number.

You've got the federal RCMP force, the drug detail.... I don't

know their numbers. Vancouver City Police have their own drug

detail which works with them. I don't think we could bounce an

estimate at this time, but if you want us to look that up for

you, I'd be glad to try and find it.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like that answer and also as it refers to

what percentage.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We'll get rough figures on that.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I hate to disagree with the Member

for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) in regard to the RCMP

patrolling the highways, but it's quite apparent he doesn't

live along the Trans-Canada Highway to see the type of thing

that happens with passing travellers.

I can give an instance of what happened in the Member for

Columbia River's (Mr. Chabot) riding last summer where an RCMP

constable was riding in his car and met a car going in the

opposite direction. As he met the car he saw the man put his

hand up to his face, and he automatically thought: "There's

something wrong with that fellow; he doesn't want me to see

what he looks like." So he turned around and chased him, and it

turned out that he was an escaped convict from the

penitentiary, and a very dangerous escaped convict.

Also many times when the police stop and check cars, they

come up with stolen goods, they come up with drug seizures, and

I think if the Member lived along the Trans-Canada Highway he'd

have a completely different view of the RCMP's role in traffic

control.

In my riding they do a very good job. They are very

effective. They are not bullies. In my view they are very, very

fair and courteous.

If you get caught in a radar trap, that's too bad. That's there for your own

protection. That's put there. for the protection of other people on the highway.

As for speeding, I speed myself sometimes, but if I get caught I'd better be

prepared to pay.

In regard to ICBC, he mentioned that the Crown corporation

has the gall to fine somebody. Well, he'd better stop and take

a look at the private insurance com