1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd 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 27, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5489 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Riding representation. Mr. Macdonald –– 5489

Sooke Forest Products Ltd. Mr. Mitchell –– 5489

Military research. Mr. Nicolson –– 5489

Forestry budget cuts. Mr. Howard –– 5490

Hospital waiting-lists. Mrs. Dailly –– 5490

Mr. MacWilliam

Ministerial Statement

Funding for Canadian Commercial Bank. Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5491

Mr. Stupich

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

On vote 11: minister's office –– 5491

Mr. Lauk

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Mitchell

Ms. Brown

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Williams

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 1985

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the galleries today are gentlemen from my

constituency: first of all, Mr. Dave Gamble, who is the publisher of

the Summerland Review; and secondly — in your gallery, Mr. Speaker —

Dr. Karr and Frank Laird from Penticton, who are here to meet with the

Minister of Health on hospital matters. I'd ask the House to welcome

them.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon we have 60 grade

10 students from Fraser Valley Christian High School in the Fleetwood

area of Surrey. I would ask the House to please welcome them.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: In the gallery this afternoon is one of

those hard-working individuals who serves the community very well, a

government agent of our province. I'd like the House to welcome Lynne

Tripp, the government agent at Fernie and an alderman in the

municipality of Fernie. I'd like the House to welcome him this

afternoon.

Oral Questions

MRS. DAILLY: To the minister…. Oh, he's not there either.

We're having difficulties, as you can presume. There are so few

ministers here that you'll have to give a moment to adjust for the one

who is here.

I wonder if the Attorney-General will be arriving momentarily. Does anyone know?

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Well then, go ahead.

RIDING REPRESENTATION

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Attorney-General. I have poor eyesight, and I'm not concerned with

whether he is here or not. I ask the Attorney-General the following

question: in view of the fact that the constituency of

Coquitlam-Moody....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we must have the question addressed to someone, even an acting….

MR. MACDONALD: To the acting Attorney-General. In view of the

fact that Coquitlam-Moody is 462 square miles and Central Fraser Valley

is 160 square miles, and Coquitlam-Moody has 1,300 people more than

Central Fraser Valley, my question to the acting Attorney-General is

this: under the Charter of Rights —

section 15, guaranteeing equality

under the law and the protection of the law — will the Attorney-General

refer the constitutionality of the redistribution system in the

province of British Columbia to the constitutional experts in his

ministry and report back to the House?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I am the acting acting Attorney-General.

MR. MACDONALD: You've been taking acting lessons.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Not necessarily so, but I would be glad to

take the question as notice, Mr. Member. I will relay it immediately to

the Attorney-General on your behalf and bring to his attention the copy

of Hansard , with the questions asked.

SOOKE FOREST PRODUCTS LTD.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I'm lucky I have my minister here — the Minister of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names!

MR. MITCHELL: I can't use his name; he knows who he is.

Though we haven't had any financial statement from the minister on

the recent bailout of a chartered bank in Edmonton, my question is….

Tomorrow the creditors of Sooke Forest Products will be meeting in a

bankruptcy hearing on the mainland. In view of the government's report

in the media that they have bailed out this chartered bank in Alberta,

have the minister or the government made any effort to assist Sooke

Forest Products to provide jobs in that area, to get that mill back on

the road?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Inasmuch as the question relates to Sooke

Forest Products, I would think that it would be more appropriately

directed to the Minister of Forests.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, not that I would like to disagree

with the Minister of Finance, but it is he who makes recommendations to

the cabinet for the disbursement of funds. This is what Sooke Forest

Products needs: some assistance to get that operation back in

production. The question, again to the Minister of Finance, is: has the

government, or has his ministry, made any attempt to assist Sooke

Forest Products in their financial difficulties? I don't want to have

it diverted to the Minister of Forests, because that is not his

prerogative.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it is the Minister of Finance

who receives proposals, recommendations and requests for expenditure,

but he does not initiate them in line ministries. I think the member

appreciates that. I would again refer the member to the appropriate

minister to answer a question relative to Sooke Forest Products.

MILITARY RESEARCH

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question to the acting Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications. Can he confirm that the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

today made a statement that the British Columbia government is

interested in undertaking research on the U.S. Star Wars weapons system?

HON. MR. SMITH: I will take the question as notice and get back to the House.

MR. NICOLSON: A new question to the acting minister. When did

the government decide to shift its research and development efforts in

the direction of warfare research?

[ Page 5490 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: The member knows that that is an incorrect

statement. But I will take that incorrect statement back to the

minister too, for his response.

[2:15]

MR. NICOLSON: I have a new question to the Premier. Has the

government decided to pursue weapons research, or is the minister

pursuing the role of Dr. Strangelove purely on his own initiative as a

private member?

The Premier did come in a little bit late. A statement has been

attributed to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

that British Columbia is going to undertake Star Wars weapons research.

I ask the Premier whether it is the government that has decided to

pursue weapons research, or is the minister pursuing the role of Dr.

Strangelove as a private member?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about

statements attributed to the minister. Certainly I will find out the

authentic remarks and not deal with statements attributed; that puts us

in a very difficult situation. I can remember once, Mr. Speaker, that

somebody attributed intelligence to the member for Vancouver Centre and

that's why I'm very careful about things that are attributed rather

than fact. Therefore I will listen to what the minister has to say. I

know you're very interested in what the response will be.

FORESTRY BUDGET CUTS

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

Forests. Can he confirm or tell the House whether there is today in

Victoria a meeting of provincial regional forest managers, called for

the purpose of discussing the impact upon those regions of cuts in the

forestry budget?

HON. MR. SMITH: I take the question as notice for the Minister of Forests.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if I could ask another question then.

Could the minister tell the House the extent to which the budgetary

cuts will be applied to services at each of the forest regions in the

province? In other words, what services are to be curtailed within

those regions as a result of the curtailment of funds in the budget?

MR. SPEAKER: That would appear to be almost a supplementary to a question taken on notice.

HON. MR. SMITH: Insofar as a question was asked, and

notwithstanding the rather dire and incorrect assumptions contained in

that question, I will take what remains back to the Minister of Forests

for an answer to the House.

MR. HOWARD: Sometimes we're better off with the Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). Forestry in the province isn't, though.

Can the minister confirm that there will be approximately 160 jobs lost

in the Forest Service as a result of the budget cuts?

HON. MR. SMITH: I will take that question as notice.

MR. HOWARD: Can the acting minister tell me why he, along with the Minister

of Forests, participated in permitting his colleagues to cut $3 million out

of the silviculture segment of the forestry budget and at the same time tack

$2 million extra onto the propaganda budget of the Provincial Secretary?

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

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll take the small portion of the question that's in order back to the Minister of Forests for his answer.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, that was a question to the acting

minister as to why he did that himself. Obviously he has no answer as

to why he did it.

HOSPITAL WAITING-LISTS

MRS. DAILLY: A question to the Minister of Health. A recent

survey of hospitals in B.C. shows that there continue to be long

waiting-lists for so-called elective surgery, especially in the

interior of the province. Prince George, for example, has a

waiting-list of more than 2,000. What steps has the minister taken to

ensure that British Columbians can receive timely surgical treatment

when a diagnosis is made by their doctors?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the question is rather

interestingly written by whoever wrote it. Diagnosis does not

necessarily mean that surgery is required. There are waiting-lists at

various hospitals, there are personal waiting lists of various

physicians, and, as the chairman of the B.C. Health Association said

the other day, many hospitals use waiting-lists as leverage to try to

get more money for various projects. Waiting-lists are for the

convenience of the patient, the hospital and the physician. There are

many reasons why waiting-lists vary in size throughout the province,

depending on which hospital or physician may be involved.

No one in British Columbia is required to wait a period of time for

emergency or urgent surgery anywhere in B.C. There are many instances

where people require elective surgery. By the very nature of the words

"elective surgery," it is not an emergency and it is not urgent. There

are certain physicians in the province who themselves have a

waiting-list which may exceed a year. There are equally competent

surgeons who may be able to take care of the matter in a much shorter

period of time. Waiting-lists per se mean very little across the

province when it comes to the required surgery for those citizens who

are in an emergency or urgent situation. It's a minor game played by

some people with numbers.

MRS. DAILLY: I choose to quote from the people who are out

there suffering right now, waiting to get into the hospital, not from

some member of the bureaucracy in the hospital administration.

My question to the minister is: for the people out there now — and I

know he has received letters in his ministry, as have all the MLAs —

who are suffering trauma because they can't get in the hospital,

because it's considered elective.... What is he doing to solve the

problems of those people, who I know have written to him personally?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Very few people indulge in that type of

letter-writing without the encouragement of their physicians. Most

citizens in the province of British Columbia

[ Page

5491 ]

understand and appreciate the hospital system we

have. There are many situations where persons who may require elective

surgery themselves cancel the date because it is not convenient to

their personal schedule, or the physician may not be able to perform on

that day because he is required elsewhere, or the hospital may find

itself in a position where there are so many emergency cases that they

can't take care of that surgery. That's part of the procedure; it

always has been.

Waiting-lists can vary day by day, week by week, month by month. The

average length of time a person waits for surgery in the province is

not that long. It depends upon the condition of the individual. In more

than one instance, when a person is advised that a hospital can now

perform the surgery, quite frequently the person will say: "I've

changed my mind, and I don't want it."

We have had instances, and some members have brought it to my

attention, where a person who required a certain type of cardiovascular

surgery was advised he had to wait nine months until we advised him

that if he saw a different surgeon he could get in within two weeks. So

waiting-lists are whatever one wishes to make of them.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I find the minister's comments rather

interesting, in terms of a specific question I have for him, if I may

just outline it. A gentleman in Lumby — as a specific example — has

been waiting for surgery since June 1983 for spinal disc fusion. He is

unable to work until that operation is done. He has had several

consultants, and he clearly requires the operation; he's in a great

deal of pain. I want, basically, to seek a promise from the minister to

investigate what I consider to be a totally unacceptable situation

which denies this person his ability to work while having a lengthy

delay for what I consider to be emergency surgery. He's waited since

June 1983.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I welcome the member's question. I would

ask him to provide me with the information as to who the patient is. We

will gladly investigate why any person in British Columbia would wait

two years for a relatively simple surgical procedure, a spinal fusion.

I would very much like to get that information. I think the details of

that specific case may be quite interesting. I would caution the member

not to make decisions as to what is an emergency.

FUNDING FOR CANADIAN COMMERCIAL BANK

HON. MR. CURTIS: I rise to make a ministerial statement. Mr.

Speaker, on March 25, 1985, the Hon. Barbara McDougall, Minister of

Hyndman, Provincial Treasurer for the government of Alberta, issued

statements indicating that those two governments, Canada and Alberta,

along with the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and the six largest

Canadian chartered banks, would provide for an infusion of capital to

strengthen the Canadian Commercial Bank in Edmonton.

In addition to the infusion of capital indicated above, the

governments of Canada, British Columbia and Alberta have undertaken to

provide support through the purchase of subordinated debt of the bank.

The Canadian Commercial Bank, although based headquartered, if you will — in

Edmonton, has a significant number of British Columbia depositors, and in addition

the bank is an important source of financing for a wide range of western Canadians.

As a result, after careful consideration, Mr. Speaker, the government of British

Columbia has taken responsible action in supporting the bank through the purchase

of $13 million of subordinated debt. Again, this action is being taken in the

interests of western Canadians generally and, in particular, of a large number

of British Columbians

Mr. Speaker, I assure you and the House that at an early and an

appropriate date I will make a further statement to the members with

additional information for all hon. members regarding the circumstances

which led to the province of British Columbia's participation in this

matter.

MR. STUPICH: In view of the publicity, we certainly welcome

the ministerial statement at this point in time, and also welcome the

news that there will be further information at a later date. Out of

consideration for the people involved and the risks that we might run

in trying to say too much or ask too much, I think we have not much

else to say at this particular point in time, except that we await with

interest the minister's statement when he is ready.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 11: minister's office, $223,385.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 11 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Vote 12 — resolved a sum not exceeding....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if one wouldn't chat so much, one

could hear what the Chair was saying. Does the second member for

Vancouver Centre wish to speak to vote 11?

[2:30]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I should point out that the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) is not even in the committee. Don't

focus attention on me.

Perhaps the committee has other business that we can move on to — some other minister — because we....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Carry on. I'll take notes.

MR. LAUK: All right. Yesterday I asked the minister, with

respect to a serious situation in the city of Vancouver that affects

British Columbians everywhere, but particularly those in the Chinese

community....

I'm just being courteous and waiting for the civil service to get

into position. My first question of the Attorney-General.... Yesterday

the Attorney will recall that in committee I asked....

AN HON. MEMBER: There go your answers.

[ Page 5492 ]

MR. LAUK: I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, that asking questions

of either the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

or the now Attorney-General is like playing tennis with a machine that

eats the balls. You never get a return.

HON. MR. SMITH: That's a backhanded remark.

MR. LAUK: Well, it's a better backhander than yours, I hear.

Just briefly I want to canvass.... I don't want to sensationalize

the issue. I want to have a serious discussion on the record for a few

minutes about the Ming kidnapping and the problem in the Chinese

community in the city of Vancouver.

I have been informed, as I pointed out towards the adjournment hour

yesterday, that the investigation into Chinese gangs in the city of

Vancouver was almost exclusively conducted by one member of the city's

police force. I will not reflect upon the competence of that one member

except to say that I think he was doing an excellent job — for one

member. Since the very tragic circumstances involving the Ming family,

I understand that the Attorney-General is now aware of a more

coordinated effort of investigation that is taking place into this

affair. The threat involved in this incident indicates that it might

not be an isolated incident; there is some evidence that a gang is

involved and that it was a coordinated effort. There are other

suggestions that this gang has connections in Hong Kong, San Francisco,

Seattle, as well as Vancouver.

Without in any way endangering the efficacy of the investigation,

could the Attorney-General outline whether a coordinated investigation

is now underway, whether or not he is confident that that coordinated

investigation includes enough members of the police forces that may be

involved, and whether or not that coordinated investigation will be

relentlessly pursued until the criminals involved in this case are

brought to trial?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the member would know that I'm

not able to say a number of the things that he'd like me to say or I'll

jeopardize the investigation, but I can say that for a number of months

a very concerted police task force in Vancouver has been working on

nothing but this problem. That task force has focused its energies

particularly on the activities of three gangs, Asian in character,

which are known as the Red Eagles, the Lotus gang and the Viet Ching

gang. They are gangs whose activities are not only Asian, but their

victims appear to be Asian almost exclusively as well. As a result of

the concerted law enforcement activities that were started last year,

in November 1984 the Vancouver police successfully raided a number of

youth gang hangouts, and 29 charges were laid for a variety of criminal

offences. That's one visible result of the work that's gone on.

We have the case under intensive investigation. It includes the

combined intelligence resources of all police forces as well as CLEU,

and the RCMP are involved too. Of course, a reward of $10,000 was

offered by the Vancouver Police Department, and the Chinese Benevolent

Association has also established a reward fund for public donations.

I might say that the police do need the assistance of members of the

community, particularly of the Chinese and Vietnamese community who are

being victimized. It is terribly important that we receive information.

They can do that through the Vancouver Crimestoppers number, or they

can make contact anonymously. This week, as a matter of fact, all

Chinese news media are being given this message, and this request is

being made by the Vancouver city police. The fact that some of these

activities involve extortion and intimidation of members of this

community makes it most important that they feel confident to come

forward with information, and understand that in coming forward we're

not going to drag them into a courtroom if they don't wish; that they

can come forward with impunity. But in order to remove the fear of

extortion from that community....

I emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that this appears to be the work of a

very limited number of individuals. We are not talking about large

gangs in numbers. In fact, the total membership in the three gangs is

somewhere between 100 and 150 persons; the Asian community in Vancouver

is basically very law-abiding. The task of trying to break up these

gangs and bring to justice the persons responsible for the tragic

kidnapping and murder of the couple is of the highest priority of law

enforcement in this province.

Now I've said everything that I can. I think the member will understand that.

MR. LAUK: Just two points to the Attorney on this issue. I

appreciate that because of the nature of the investigation, I have to

rely on the Attorney-General's assurances that it is a high priority

for CLEU and the coordinated investigation. There are two points I wish

to have clarified. There were allegations that there were connections

between these groups the Attorney-General mentioned and groups outside

of the jurisdiction, and that somehow Canadian Immigration allowed two

gang members from a foreign jurisdiction to travel into the city of

Vancouver, and that this information was not passed onto the law

enforcement agents at all or not passed on in a timely way. Could the

Attorney-General please say something about that? My understanding is

that they had connections with these gangs in other cities.

The other point that I raised in my opening on the issue was: is it

true that until the Ming murders there was only one person on the

so-called task force to which he refers?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I can't confirm the first matter that the

member raised in his most recent question. Regarding the second matter,

it is not correct that there was only one person working on this before

the Ming killings. There was a considerably larger number of persons

working than that, and of course they participated in the raid that I

mentioned, of November 1984.

1 felt this matter was of sufficient urgency that a week and a half

ago in Vancouver I met with my chief law enforcement people: that is,

with the deputy commissioner of the RCMP, the chief of the Vancouver

city police and my own assistant deputy minister in charge of policing,

which covers the people who are in charge of the task force and all

other agencies, including CLEU. I told them that this matter had to

have the highest policing priority. I've not just let the system work

at it; I've told the officers who were in charge of those two forces,

and the management of CLEU, that it is our absolutely major field

priority to crack these gangs, to bring to justice the kidnappers and

killers, and to stop the extortion that's going on in the community.

MR. LAUK: Because of the uniqueness of this situation and the desire that he has expressed for cooperation, would

[ Page 5493 ]

the Attorney-General consider the government

donating a large sum of money from consolidated revenue toward the

reward? It would be an expression, it seems to me, of solidarity with

the Chinese community — that it's not just their problem. Could the

government demonstrate that on behalf of the taxpayers and the citizens

of British Columbia, by increasing in a substantial way the rewards

available to help solve this crime?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, not at this time, because I think the

reward factor has been handled well by the Vancouver police department

and the Chinese Benevolent Association. I do not believe that the

province on other occasions has directly involved itself in the reward

side of things. That has been left to community organizations and to

police boards, if they wish. But the direction of the investigation is

something that we take very seriously.

MR. LAUK: Moving on to another subject, I want to ask the

Attorney-General to elaborate a little on his views of the operation of

the Criminal Code of Canada. We are getting a lot of confusing remarks

attributed to the Attorney-General with respect to his view about the

enforcement of the Criminal Code.

At one point we got the rather bizarre statement that he made in the

Bahamas. That's where the Canadian Bar meets these days, I understand.

Are the lawyers from central Canada checking out their numbered

accounts in the Bahamas? Is that why you have to go down there? But

it's good tanning weather, and I know that some discussion about the

law takes place down there occasionally, between golf games and so on.

[2:45]

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No one from British Columbia can afford to go to the Bahamas unless they are on the public payroll, my friend.

First of all we got the reports that the Attorney-General believes

that we should have firing squads. I'm not going to suggest, as one of

these irreverent local newspapers suggested, that the cabinet be issued

with rifles and form a circle and shoot inward, but I am going to ask

the Attorney-General to elaborate a bit further on the firing-squad

concept. It has all kinds of implications. I suggested earlier in this

House that we could find perhaps a retired brigadier to supervise

public executions by firing squad. We could supply him with a good

mount, and he could have crowd-control measures and so forth. That's a

possibility.

What became even more bizarre, Mr. Chairman, is the

Attorney-General's suggestion that we start to cannibalize the

enforcement of the Criminal Code in this country on a provincial basis.

By that I take it that he means there are certain sections of the code

that should be enforced or amended on a provincial jurisdiction basis.

One of the great benefits of the Canadian confederation, in contrast to

the American federation, is that we have a unified, consistent federal

Criminal Code. You can't get one penalty in one province for the same

crime committed in another.

I think that the Attorney-General, if he's serious about these suggestions,

has a lot of explaining to do. No serious jurist has looked at the Canadian

situation and not concluded that in terms of criminal law it's a vastly

superior system to that in the United States because of the fact that only the

House of Commons can amend the Criminal Code and that it applies to each and

every Canadian no matter where he or she lives.

Is the Attorney-General seriously suggesting that we may eventually

have the death penalty in British Columbia, no death penalty in Nova

Scotia and the death penalty in Prince Edward Island, and so on? And

that we may have the death penalty for premeditated murder in Prince

Edward Island, but in British Columbia we may have the death penalty

for voting NDP, or some other kind of offence that's not usually or

hasn't been included in the capital penalty range since 1810 or so?

What is the Attorney-General doing? Is he just musing? Because if he's

just musing, it's a very irresponsible thing for the chief law

enforcement officer of the province to do. He can chat over a scotch

with the boys at the club, but for heaven's sake, when the

Attorney-General starts musing in public, he's causing uncertainty and

confusion with respect to the policy of this government and law

enforcement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Somebody might take him seriously on it.

MR. LAUK: If the Attorney-General does not want to be taken

seriously, he's also endangering the dignity and seriousness of his

office. Firing squads indeed!

At one point the Attorney-General said that he thinks that the

convict should have a choice of which method of execution he or she

wishes to endure. This reads like a gothic novel of some kind. I can't

imagine that the Attorney-General is serious. Could he set the record

straight and perhaps at least suggest that this was just a wide-ranging

discussion, that it is not a matter of government policy, and that he

does not intend to pursue it any further?

HON. MR. SMITH: The Canadian bar met in the Barbados, which

is where they decided to have their midwinter meeting with the West

Indies bar, who were gathered there. They decided, I suppose, for the

sake of attendance, to put on the list of topics the topic of capital

punishment, and to drag me half-way across the continent to make....

MR. LAUK: Kicking and screaming, I'll bet.

HON. MR. SMITH: It was, because I was only there four days. I

tell you, it's easier to go to.... You would appreciate, as a world

international banking traveler, that it's more difficult to get to a

place like the Barbados than it is to go to Zurich, where you're so

well known.

MR. LAUK: I'm only there checking on your Swiss numbered accounts, Brian.

HON. MR. SMITH: My aim in this whole thing is to focus

attention on the necessity of protecting society from a very small

range of criminals who have committed murder on contract, who are

repeat killers or who kill policemen and prison guards in the course of

escaping. I firmly believe.... It is my personal belief, not the view

of this government; this government is not in charge of criminal law

enactments, as you know. It's my view, as a member of this government

and as a member of this House that the only thing that can protect

society, the only thing that can deter in those cases, is the death

penalty. I've said before that I do not believe that the method of

execution should really enter into

[ Page 5494 ]

the debate, because it is an equally serious — and

odious matter to take a human life by a lethal injection as it may be

to hang someone. That's the point I was making in the Barbados. Lurid

and funny headlines about firing squads may give rise to discussion in

this House, but I was not and am not advocating firing squads or any

other particular method of execution.

With respect to the other issue of whether the criminal law should

have different features and different penalties from one province to

another, it already does. I hate to tell you, hon. member, that the

criminal law is not totally symmetrical in its enforcement, and never

has been. In fact, different ranges of penalties have often been

imposed for the same offence. That has never been resolved by the

Supreme Court of Canada, because the Supreme Court of Canada does not

deal with sentence appeals. It could, but it chooses not to. It leaves

that to the court of appeal in the province. So you have now quite a

different range of sentencing.

Also, a number of sections of the Criminal Code leave discretions to

the Attorney-General as to whether to do things. He may in one province

do something, and do something quite differently in another. An example

is in the area of prosecutions that require the consent of the

Attorney-General first — defamatory libel, nudity, that sort of thing.

In this province we don't prosecute for those offences anymore, and yet

they do in other provinces.

The criminal law was never meant to be absolutely symmetrical and

uniform. I don't advocate having different penalties for murder in this

province than somewhere else. I think the best route is to have

Parliament deal with the matter and change the Criminal Code

nationally. If Parliament is unable to do that, unable to come to grips

with that, and chooses to delegate those penalties to juries in a

particular province, that would be preferable to no action on capital

punishment. My thrust has been to try to persuade federal politicians

to have their free vote in Parliament and deal with the capital

punishment issue. If on a free vote they decide they're not going to go

with capital punishment, as they have in Britain, then maybe we can put

this debate to rest and get on with some of the measures we have to

take in this country if we're going to deal effectively with national

and international crime.

A serious initiative nationally on international crime is, I

believe, long overdue. The Americans had a presidential task force

which was highly successful. There have been commissions in the past in

Canada, like the Cliche commission in Quebec; the present Prime

Minister won his public spurs for his appearances on that commission.

That commission had much to do with law enforcement policies that were

carried out later in Montreal, crackdowns on organized crime. I do

believe that we need a major national initiative on organized crime.

British Columbia is probably further ahead than most other places

because we have the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit; we have the

special forces on Vancouver Island and the mainland that deal with drug

matters. We are watching international criminals as they move into this

province, we are aware of their movements and take action against them,

but I feel we need a nationally coordinated approach to fighting

organized crime.

MR. LAUK: I want to deal with capital punishment, not organized crime, and just make a very clear statement.

The people who are for capital punishment are legion from time to time in Canada. It's such a serious matter that I'm

sure the Attorney-General would not concede that the matter should go

to, let's say, a referendum, because we might get a differing reply

depending on day of the month, and on who has just been murdered or not

murdered. It's not the kind of an issue that should be left to public

opinion, and sometimes the vagaries of public opinion from time to

time. That's the first point I should make.

Secondly, the Attorney-General raises the issue that it's a

deterrent. There is absolutely no evidence to support that. There is

just a feeling people have that the ultimate threat of the death

penalty is somehow a deterrent. Those people who are deterred by the

death penalty, if you'd like to use a tautological argument, wouldn't

commit the crime in the first place, would never think of it.

The question of capital punishment is that I don't particularly care

— I'll be quite candid about it — whether the murderer forfeits his

life or not. I may from time to time, depending on how I'm feeling from

day to day, but if I'm particularly angry and repulsed by the actions

of a cold-blooded murder.... I'm not particularly fond of the murderer,

nor am I interested in protecting that person's life, as far as it

goes. But there are two points that bother me.

The official taking of his life, through the state, is an indignity

not to him alone; it's an indignity to all of us. It's a brutalization

of society. I'm sure that when the hon. member was in law school, as I

was, someone trotted out the old story about the chief of the criminal

court in Britain, who was passing sentence upon an individual. I am

paraphrasing: "I recognize the rather tender years of the convict, but

the crime is such that has to be stamped out and deterred throughout

all of England. Therefore the sentence of hanging will be carried out."

The convict was ten years old, and the offence was the theft of stamps

from Her Majesty's Post Office. Indeed, it was carried out. It was in

1810. We've moved quite a distance from that period. We've all read our

Charles Dickens. We've all at least dabbled a bit in humanism, to the

extent where we recognize that organized execution brutalizes the

society.

We spoke a moment ago about the Ming murders. I want to talk to you

about who these murderers may be. Do they come from a war-torn culture,

where executions occur in the streets every day, where they have been

conditioned to be unconcerned about the value and sacredness of human

life, so that it becomes a matter of psychopathic rote, if you like, to

them? I'm not saying that introducing the capital punishment penalty in

Canada once again would lead to that, but the official sanctioning of

the taking of human life sends a message to all of our citizens that

human life is expendable, that it's not that sacred; we are therefore

brutalized to that extent, and we become less civilized because of it.

It is difficult, I know, for the family of the victims, and people in

our community, to look on these horrible events and not passionately

demand the ultimate penalty. But I'm saying we must, because eventually

— and I don't think this is a utopian goal — we will live in a society

where these kinds of cold-blooded murders become less and less.

We have failed to instill in people coming to our country that we

live in a country that is more civilized, if you like, to that extent.

If they come from a region that carries its swords and its weapons and

has its killings in the streets, they should leave them at the border

when they come in. Just solving the problem at the end of the matter,

by saying capital punishment, is not going to do it.

[3:00]

[ Page

5495 ]

The second reason I'm opposed to capital punishment — and I think

every jurist, every Attorney-general and every citizen of Canada should

be opposed to it — is because of the mistake of convicting innocent

people. If we watch television, of course, this doesn't happen. But as

the hon. Attorney-General and I know, it happens often enough. Even if

it happens once in a while, it happens often enough.

Isn't it a wonderful thing that the Attorney-General could come in here yesterday and announce that he's appointing Mr. Justice

Med McFarlane to establish compensation for a man who spent — what was

it — 11 years in prison for a crime which we now know he did not

commit? There was a time when the crime which he was alleged to have

committed was punishable by death. We convicted an innocent man. And

isn't it wonderful that the Attorney-General, with the largess and

graciousness of Her Majesty's government, can provide compensation to

that person? It's not enough to say that it's an imperfect system, that

it's got human error, and so on and so forth; we know that. It's the

best we've got.

We know of instances where innocent people have been convicted of

murder. There's the Marshall case in the Maritimes; the Christie case

in the United Kingdom, just after the war. There were other instances

in Canada where people have been convicted of murder who we know are

likely innocent, but we can't prove it.

Capital punishment should not be available, and it certainly

shouldn't be available to a jury. I have every confidence in a jury to

make a finding of fact. In many situations I much prefer the finding of

fact of a jury to that of a judge, because a judge tends to be more

legalistic. But, by God, I think it's barbaric to take an opinion poll

on the death penalty of a jury in each and every instance of a trial

for murder. It's absolutely barbaric.

I think that it's irresponsible of the Attorney-General to raise

this issue at this stage, for him to argue about a free vote in the

House of Commons. How many free votes do you want? You want a free vote

every once in a while until you get your way and get capital punishment.

We abolished capital punishment in this country by a number of

steps, mostly through commutation in the sixties and then through a

series of steps in the House of Commons. We had free votes. In spite of

public opinion, legislators in the House of Commons mostly were

courageous enough to turn back the tide. But there may be a day when

this clamour for a free vote and yet another free vote and yet another

free vote will bring back the death penalty.

At least in the United States it's part of an intellectual exercise

in the supreme court. Here it's Russian roulette; it's the roulette

wheel, if you like. Can we get enough people in the House to vote for

capital punishment today or not? It's a distraction in a free,

democratic and so-called civilized society constantly to be harping on

this issue.

There is no evidence of deterrence. There is lots of evidence that

mistakes can be made and innocent people executed if there is the

ultimate penalty. I'm not asking the Attorney-General to respond; I

would hope that he would reflect upon the position that he's taken. I

would suggest in all candour that the Attorney-General has taken the

position because it's fashionable and it's also part of a law-and-order

image. I would hope that he doesn't really hold the views that he's

expressed.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, when I first took these views

in the sixties, it wasn't fashionable; indeed it was fashionable to

preach commutation and the abolition of the death penalty. I have

maintained my views over a period of 15 or 20 years, and they have not

altered. The more cases I did in the criminal bar, or particularly in

defending or prosecuting cases of brutality, cases of killing and cases

of contract killing, the more I came to the opinion that the only

supreme deterrence — the only possible deterrence — was the death

penalty. While I recognize the sincerity of the hon. member's views on

that, I would hope that he would accord me the same recognition and not

think that I'm on some law-and-order kick on this at all. I am not. I

happen to think that it's an issue that's important and which I, as the

person in charge of law enforcement, have the duty and the

responsibility to speak out on.

Mr. Chairman, I represent in my ministry a number of police officers in this

province, men who work long hours, who are devoted to their duty, who often

take enormous risks in the face of their duties. What am I doing to support

them if I do not acknowledge that there are some persons in our society and

in our institutions, persons who have killed, and who are serving life sentences,

and who have only one thing on their mind: that is, to escape…? And to

bring that about, they will kill again. What else can protect a police officer

or a prison guard but the deterrence of the death penalty?

I can tell the hon. member that I will continue to speak out on this

matter, but I will try and do so in a measured and responsible way. I

might say that the element of mistake is probably the best argument

that could be made against putting back the death penalty, and was

obviously the argument that the Canadian bar adopted when they defeated

the resolution so overwhelmingly.

I would have thought that with commutation, with the power of pardon

being as it is, in borderline cases of guilt or innocence the death

penalty would not be imposed in any event. But that is the argument

that I think mostly appeals to lawyers: the possibility of making a

mistake. There is one known case of a mistake of executing a man for

murder in Canada in the 1880s, and there are others that could have

occurred.

He says also that it is barbaric for the jury to make the decision.

I would have thought that the one body in a position to make that kind

of judgment, having heard all the facts of he case, all of the evidence

both for and against the prisoner, he evidence in mitigation and

everything else, and having had the opportunities they would have to

hear pre-sentence reports and material.... They would probably bring in

a verdict that was most compassionate — and it would he in the best

place. But I do agree with the member that capital punishment ought not

to be decided by referendum. I do not like that route. I think that

parliamentarians should decide it, and they should decide it on the

basis of conscience. It's my understanding that the new Prime Minister

has promised that here will be a free vote on this matter some time

during the ordinary four-year term of his administration. I'm sure that

he'll honour that commitment.

MR. VEITCH: I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 5496 ]

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, even though they don't look their

age, in the galleries there are 40 senior citizens from the Bonsor

Recreation Centre in the great riding of Burnaby-Willingdon, and I

would like the House to bid them welcome.

MS. SANFORD: I'd like to raise another issue with the

Attorney-General, relating to the question of child abduction, which I

know is a very difficult one for Attorneys-General and countries to

come to grips with. I'm aware that Canada signed the draft convention

relating to international child abduction. This is the accord that was

drawn up at The Hague and signed, I think, in 1982. I'm wondering,

first of all, if the minister can tell us how many countries have now

signed that particular convention.

Secondly, I would like to know what's happening within Canada, among

the various provinces, with respect to this question. As I understand

it, as of January 18 of this year there were some 1,224 children

between the ages of 10 and 15 missing in Canada. I recognize that a lot

of those are runaways, and a lot of them have been abducted by

strangers. But a number of them have been abducted by parents who don't

have the custody awarded to him or her. This becomes a difficult

problem. I have a case in my constituency in which custody was awarded

to the father, and the mother took the child to Prince Edward Island. I

think he has now spent about $20,000 trying to have this child returned

to him. He went to the province of Prince Edward Island armed with the

court order saying that he in fact had custody, but was told by the

authorities in Prince Edward Island that if he attempted to take that

child back to British Columbia he would be charged with kidnapping.

I understand there is a draft copy of some umbrella-type legislation

that would apply across Canada. Uniform maintenance and custody act is,

I think, the term used for this draft legislation that has been

circulated. I wonder if the Attorney-General could comment on the

status of that draft legislation, and on the position that he has taken

with respect to the issue of child abduction as it applies among the

various provinces in Canada.

HON. MR. SMITH: Unfortunately I can't do so at very much

length at the moment. I will, and I know that we have made

representations through the Uniform Law Conference to try to have a

uniform piece of legislation on custody, making it possible to

return........ I'm thinking particularly of the parental abduction

cases, where you have a custody order in one province in favour of,

say, the mother, and the father, who lives in Nova Scotia, suddenly

arrives in British Columbia. He's having trouble getting access, so he

just swoops the child up and disappears back to Nova Scotia. We have

horrendous jurisdictional difficulties in getting the child back. It

may be that it's treated as a criminal offence, which is probably not

where it should be. The civil courts try to deal with it; but the Nova

Scotia judge may take the position that he has no jurisdiction because

the order was made in British Columbia. That has been a problem for

some time.

Representations to do with that were made to the federal government

in connection with amendments expected to the Divorce Act. We haven't

had from the new Minister of Justice, hon. member, a detailed response

as to what's going into the new Divorce Act, but I've heard him say

that it will try to deal with not only matters of divorce but also

matters of custody and enforcement of maintenance. So I suspect there's

going to be something in there. But I would have to do a little bit of

research and come back to the House if I'm to reply in more detail to

your concerns. The concerns are valid ones, because I think the

majority of these cases are parental abduction cases and not abduction

by someone else.

[3:15]

We have the separate question, of course, which you raised, of

missing children. Missing children is an awfully serious problem. We

have tried to approach that problem from the standpoint of massive

advertising on television and elsewhere through various community

programs and to have their faces and their descriptions seen by the

community as quickly as is possible, once they are identified as

missing. I know that's not an adequate response to a serious question,

but I would be quite delighted to bring more material to you.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to know if the

minister was aware of the draft legislation that was circulated; I

think it was done by John Crosbie at the time. This legislation, as I

understand it, was entitled Uniform Maintenance and Custody Act. It was

my information that the various Attorneys-General of Canada were to

look at that legislation. It had nothing to do with the Divorce Act as

such, but it was a separate piece of legislation which apparently the

federal government wanted to introduce to ensure that these reciprocal

agreements could take place more readily across the country.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, it was the minister in the former

government. It was part of the MacGuigan proposals for divorce,

maintenance and custody. We have not seen the new product or what the

new government is proposing to lay on the table. We have discussed the

matter, only in the briefest way, at a meeting with Mr. Crosbie and the

Attorneys-General in Newfoundland in November. There has been nothing

in detail, that I've seen, from the new government or the new minister.

Certainly we have the proposals of Mr. McGuigan, but they were

ancillary to his hope to amend the Divorce Act.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring a

particular issue to the attention of this House and to the

Attorney-General. It is something, that I dealt with for 20 or 25 years

in my previous occupation; that is, the sexual abuse of children. Many

times in the past when interviewing children after reports that

normally came from school counsellors, of sexually abused children....

Twenty years ago, I can assure you, the courts would not even consider

it. The social welfare department would run for cover if you went there

with a complaint. Senior management in police departments wouldn't

listen to you. I know from the many arguments that I've had with Crown

counsellors that they would not go to court with the uncorroborated

evidence of a child. But over the years, I guess as a spinoff of the

women's lib group, there has been a change in the attitude of the

Ministry of Human Resources, the courts and the Crown prosecutors. They

are now taking child abuse cases to the courts; in fact, we are getting

convictions.

My main problem is a particular case on which I have contacted the

Attorney-General and his ministry by letter. If he would prefer, I will

not use the name for the record, but I could give some of the

background and some of the deficiencies in the attitudes of the courts

or the corrections systems. This person was convicted of four sex

offences against juveniles — two on each case. There was a guilty plea,

and there

[ Page

5497 ]

was a sentence of ten months. The person was sent

to one of the local jails. Within five days from the time that he

arrived in jail, he was out on a work release program.

Maybe, Mr. Chairman, you are not aware of the traumatic effect on a

family — a father, a stepfather, an uncle or anyone else — of a sexual

offence case. To get the wheels in motion and to get that case to a

police department, to Crown counsel, and to get it into court and to

get a conviction literally destroys many families. What I find very

strange is that.... I know that the corrections branch and the

Attorney-General and all the social agencies that have been involved in

this type of conviction are aware of the problems that arise. How can

the Attorney-General expect a family to go through the type of

traumatic problems that it develops when you say that three to five

days after they get into jail on a 10-month sentence, they'll be out on

a work-release program?

If we're going to make a deterrent to that type of crime or offence,

I think the courts, the corrections branch and the public must look at

it in a broader position. Are we going to use the courts? Maybe the

courts and the jails are not the method best suited for this particular

offence. But if we are going to use the court system and we are going

to give sentences, how can we go to families, social workers, school

counsellors — and in so many cases, in my experience, the school

counsellor is the first person to identify it — and say yes, you have a

case and it's a serious offence. We're going to process it. We're going

to spend thousands of dollars of public money, hundreds of hours of

police and social workers' investigation, and then either.... As I say,

I don't know what source, be it the defence counsel or the presentence

report. You're going to say yes, once we get a conviction.... As I say,

for sexual offence of a juvenile you can get up to 14 years in the

Criminal Code. It's not an offence that is dealt with lightly in

Canadian law, in the Criminal Code. But the actual sentences, or the

sentence that has been brought to my attention, the sentence that is

being discussed....

A lot of groups that deal with this at a community level are quite

shocked; they're not happy with the reaction of the minister's office.

The appearance in this particular case was that the jail in question

was overloaded and it's a lot better to have him in another facility so

that he can go out and carry on his job. Maybe from a rehabilitation

point of view there is a place in our correction system, but if we're

going to take this swinging-door approach to the courts for a serious

offence, I don't think we are going to be able to go out to the

community and tell parents, social workers, school counsellors that:

"Yes, we'll get a conviction, but he'll be out in three to five days."

I would like the minister to give an answer, not so much to me but

to society and to families who are faced with this offence. What is the

court's position and what is his ministry's position?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, it is certainly not a happy

situation for a family to have to go through a case of child abuse,

particularly against a member of their own family. That's a terrible

ordeal. Anyone who has ever had the task of prosecuting a case of

incest, as I have, can tell you that they're terrible cases. But this I

do know: one thing that is more terrible is to continue to condone,

continue to allow that kind of situation to continue. You see, for a

long time in the justice system — until very recently — our tendency

was to treat these cases of sexual abuse and incest as family matters

essentially, and not ones that should be dragged into the court; they

were messy, they did too much trauma and might destroy the family. I

don't think that policy succeeded; all that policy did was to continue

to keep the subservient members of that family in a victim status. As

long as they went along with it, as long as the authorities all said,

when they were called out, "Well, we're not going to do anything. Try

to settle your own difficulties. We're not going to bring it into

court. We're not going to lay charges. We're not going to make

arrests," then the abuser, the culprit knew that he could go on

forever. I'll never forget the trauma of prosecuting a case of incest

before a jury in the courts of Victoria — a father-daughter incest

case, and it was horrible. But it was necessary that that man be

prosecuted, and it was necessary that he be removed from the family. I

see no other way, hon. member. But I do sympathize with you and what

your constituents have told you, that it is in itself a terrible ordeal.

MR. MITCHELL: I don't want to belabour this issue, but my

main concern is.... I understand the position of the Attorney-General

that it has taken a long time to get it into the courts. But now we

have got it into the courts. We have got courts to make a conviction.

But they get a conviction of ten months and within five days they're

out on a work release. Now this is the part that.... Are we going to

look at a serious offence under the Criminal Code that can give up to

14 years? Are we going to say: "Yes, you could get 14 years, but you're

going to have a...." You know, the sentence has gone from six months to

nine months to ten months. I was told by social workers who were

involved with it that they thought they had really accomplished

something when they had got a ten-month sentence. But even after they

got the courts to support a ten-month sentence, the person was out on

the road in five days.

Somewhere in the corrections system you're going to have to look at

a different approach. We had a young lad steal a handful of coins from

a wishing well at the Empress Hotel. He got six months, and he served

the bulk of that six months. But in what I say is a far more serious

and moral-type case the system is allowing a person out in five days.

Where are our priorities? Is our priority property or people? I think

this is where the court system, the Attorney-General and the

corrections branch have to make a difference. There's got to be a

difference between what somebody does for lust and what someone does to

survive for food.

[3:30]

1 just can't accept it. I know that groups dealing with children and

the people dealing with abuse of women cannot accept it — and they

won't accept it. People don't want to go and scream to the press, but I

think the minister has to give some direction, and he has to give some

thought to what we are going to do and what the people can expect to

happen out in the community, and he has to have some communication with

the people who are involved at all levels of the enforcement area of it.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't think that I can say any more, except

to.... The member's expressed it very well. I'll review that file again

and see if there is anything more that I can do.

The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) asked me about the Hague

convention on international child abduction, and I'm sorry that I

didn't have the answer for her when she was

[ Page 5498 ]

here. But for the record, Canada is a party to the

Hague convention on international child abduction, and British Columbia

consented to be bound by that. There are very few countries in it as

yet. The signatory countries are France, Switzerland, Canada and

Portugal.

MS. BROWN: I want to talk to the Attorney-General about the

fact that in about three weeks, sections 15 and 28 of the charter are

going to be kicking in. We in British Columbia are still in the dark as

to just what has been happening over the past three years to bring the

statutes of British Columbia into line with those sections of the

charter.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I know that the Attorney-General keeps saying that he's going to

bring a bill down, presumably an omnibus bill or something. But I

really don't think that that's good enough, and I don't think it's

fair. I think that we should have this information early enough that we

can peruse it, and probably even make some suggestions as to some

amendments or changes. This is not an unreasonable request, because

certainly I know that other provinces.... Saskatchewan, notably, had a

White Paper — "Compliance of the Saskatchewan Law With the Canadian

Charter of Rights and Freedoms" — which was released in September of

last year, so that the women, minority groups, other ethnic groups,

trade unionists and other people in Saskatchewan who were going to be

affected by sections 15 and 28 had an opportunity to look at the

statutes which were being reviewed and the changes that were being

recommended, and give the Attorney-General there some feedback as to

what they thought about what the government was going to do.

Today in the mail I received a document from Manitoba which was just

released: "Effect of

Section 15 of Charter of Rights and Freedoms on

Manitoba Statutes." They've gone through and looked at their

legislation, broken it down according to discrimination based on age,

sex and race, and given an indication as to just what statutes they are

looking at and the kinds of changes that they anticipate they are going

to have make prior to April 17.

In British Columbia there is a volunteer group, a coalition of women

in law — they call themselves the Charter of Rights Coalition of B. C.

— who have been very active in this matter. They've taken the

legislation and done a lot of work on it. They've prepared a review of

selected British Columbia statutes which they anticipate would be

affected by the charter: workers' compensation, the Human Rights

Commission, pensions legislation — that kind of thing — and have

prepared quite a comprehensive document. They sent the Attorney-General

a copy, Mr. Chairman — if the A-G would look over his half-rim glasses

— but they have not received a response. They don't know whether it got

lost in the mail, whether the Attorney-General had an opportunity to

read it, or what he thinks about it — if anything at all.

I think that the Attorney-General owes it to us, really, as members

of the province, as people who live here and are going to be affected

by the legislation, to at least indicate to us what statutes are being

looked at — or have been looked at over the past three years, because

this is not something that's just been sprung on the province; the

province has had three years to do this. Now we know that an

interministerial committee was struck to look at the legislation. We

know that some work is being done. But we haven't got a clue what work

is being done, what statutes are being looked at, whether anything is

going to be amended, or whether the province is going to use its right

to override a number of pieces of legislation, or just what it's doing.

I don't think that it's fair to wait until April 17 to just drop this

on us. I think that we really should have an opportunity to be a part

of the decisions. We can't have that opportunity unless the minister

moves very quickly over the next three weeks to at least give us some

indication of what statutes he's looking at and what he's contemplating.

HON. MR. SMITH: I think that two provinces have introduced

legislation. I think the majority have not yet either introduced

legislation or filed White Papers. Certainly two provinces, Ontario and

Newfoundland, have gone marching to the polls without any charter

material out as proposed amendments. But we will have an omnibus bill,

which I had hoped that I would be able to introduce before we rose. I

told the member that, and I can assure her that I tried to do that as a

target. But we have an interministerial committee that has examined our

revised statutes, and has examined them pretty thoroughly. We will be

amending over 40 pieces of legislation, as really a first omnibus

charter bill, and they will be on, I think, the ordinary and obvious

cases where there is discrimination now — discrimination against women,

discrimination against people by reason of age, discrimination on the

basis of residence, and that sort of thing. We will be proposing that,

and there will certainly be time to consider it in this House. There

will be time after this bill is passed to consider making other

amendments. As I understand the charter process, we are going to find,

from time to time, that the courts are going to characterize some of

our legislation as offensive or vague, and that that process will go

on, and that we will make amendments as a result of court attacks. But

we will also make amendments in the future, as I would see it, on the

basis of submissions people make to us, convincing us that we should

have had this legislation changed at the time we introduced our first

omnibus bill.

What we're trying to do for April is to have a major omnibus bill

removing those obvious discriminations. The report that the group you

mentioned sent to us has been received and considered by the committee,

along with other submissions that we have. We would welcome any

submissions.

I don't think there's a huge amount of magic in the April 17 date,

except that the equality sections then apply, and it's then open to

anyone to attack our statutes. If we have a pending attack on a statute

on a ground that we think has substance, we would be prepared to

introduce further amendments. So I don't look upon our April list....

The Charter Amendment Act, 1985, is what it will be called. I don't

look upon that as the end of the process at all; I look upon it really

as just the beginning.

I have no difficulty in receiving submissions from any citizen of

British Columbia who believes that we should amend legislation because

it offends the charter, nor do we have any plans, I can tell her at

this stage, to make use of our override. We're not going to propose in

the charter amendment bill any overrides. Overrides would be.... We

would consider those to be special cases.

I don't think we would use the override lightly, but there may be

cases where we'll have to use it. Of course, I guess, the main one that

comes to mind is on the issue of compulsory retirement, in which we're

going to have a variety of views on

[ Page

5499 ]

both sides of this chamber, and indeed in society

at large. We're going to have on that issue, I would think, a very

deep-ranging debate. It's not going to be a debate that will divide on

ideological lines or on party lines at all; it's going to cut across

all segments of the community. So that's a matter that I can assure you

is not in the charter amendments, but that we will make a separate

proposal on to this chamber.

I don't feel that the sky is going to fall in if there are some

matters that aren't in our first charter amendment bill, because we are

prepared to amend that bill, and we are prepared to add additional ones

later. I suspect that the courts would require us to do so, in any

event.

MR. PASSARELL There will be a number of issues I want to

discuss with the Attorney-General. After my initial discussion of

high-speed chases. I want to discuss aboriginal title.

Mr. Chairman, I'm a fan of Clint Eastwood in a number of ways. But

one thing that makes good movie productions, and colour in movies, is

high-speed chases. We're finding more and more of that happening daily

in day-to-day situations with the police and problems that the police

are called in on. It's been my understanding that if a police officer

in an emergency response in a vehicle has to go through a red light in

an intersection, they're supposed to show some type of care before they

proceed through the intersection. It's not really an absolute right for

a police officer to go through, in my understanding, even though I'm

not a lawyer and even though I'm taking some courses this summer which

I hope the Attorney-General gives me a hand with.... It's been my

understanding that one does not have an absolute right, and must show

some type of care in an emergency response situation.

My concern is that more and more policemen have taken it upon

themselves as an absolute right, in pursuing an individual, to go on a

high-speed chase into communities, and particularly neighbourhoods.

It's one thing for Clint Eastwood to do it for Hollywood films; it's

another thing when we're seeing police cars going at 110 or 120 miles

per hour through residential areas pursuing the bad guy.

I'd like to know if the ministry is going to tighten up on this

aspect of high-speed chases, because it is a problem. You cannot

control a vehicle going 120 miles an hour through a residential area as

well as you can control one going 30 or 40. In a sense, you're

endangering the community you're supposed to be protecting — "to serve

and protect" is the motto — if you're going through a residential area

in a high-speed chase. So I would like to know from the minister if

there are any new regulations from his ministry to stop what seems to

be an increase in high-speed chases in residential areas.

[3:45]

HON. MR. SMITH: It has been the policy in this province since

the B.C. Police Commission developed guidelines in 1980 that high-speed

chases are supposed to take place with a great measure of care and

discretion. Not only are police officers supposed to exercise extreme

caution but they are supposed to use their emergency lights and sirens

when in pursuit and communicate with their superiors when possible to

let them know that they are engaged in this pursuit and the route of it.

We reviewed the adequacy of those guidelines recently as a result of a case

in Kamloops, the Anderson case, which was widely reported. We certainly came

to the conclusion at that time that the guidelines needed a review, and that

though they were adequate as far as they went, more training of drivers of emergency

vehicles was needed and in order. The Justice Institute of B.C. has been conducting

this kind of training. Over the past year that amount of training has increased.

In our current instructions to police officers on high-speed pursuits we also

have tried to emphasize that they should make a decision to break off a high-speed

chase at any time when there is a greater risk to society posed by the chase.

The final thing that we've done is to introduce the hollowspike belt

for use in certain parts of the province. While you can't have the

hollow-spike belt in streets of the member for Vancouver Centre's

riding, because you would catch his clients leaving his office when

they received his bill, you can probably make fairly good use of them

in some parts of your riding, hon. member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell).

They are being used in the interior, and indeed, they're being used in

the Colwood detachment areas.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Snow removal willing.

The hollow-spike belt is another good answer to Clint Eastwood.

MR. LAUK: Is there a differentiation between the kinds of

offences for which you are pursuing these people? Very recently in the

Victoria area, in the last few years, and in some instances in the city

of Vancouver, young drivers, particularly, sometimes panic for a

variety of almost irrational reasons. For example, there was one case

in the city of Vancouver where the police put on their emergency

equipment to pull the driver over — we subsequently learned that it was

for a traffic violation — and the young driver, 16 or 17 years old,

forgot his licence at home. The penalty, if there would be any in that

situation, would be minor, but he sped away. He panicked. My

understanding is that the city police pursued at high speed. What are

the guidelines with respect to that and are they being enforced? That

was ridiculous. An accident did result, and the boy was subsequently

charged with dangerous driving, I'm instructed.

These silly things can be avoided. First of all, better driver

training for the young drivers, but also the police should not be

pursuing people on traffic violations at high speed, or even for what I

would call

summary conviction criminal offences. Your guidelines

suggest a break off of high-speed chase when there's a danger to the

public. My submission, and I think the submission of the hon. member

for Atlin, is that these high-speed chases, particularly in city areas,

are always a danger to the public. Remember that that lad driving the

car, however irrationally, speeding away from the police, is a member

of the public that's entitled to protection as well, even against

himself.

HON. MR. SMITH: It's all a matter of judgment in a given

case. All I can say is that we've tightened up our instructions and

we've emphasized more the protection of the public outside the car

being pursued. We would certainly prefer that the police didn't invoke

the high-speed chase for a person suspected of violating the noxious

weed act.

MR. PASSARELL: Are you ever serious?

On to the second issue that I want to discuss with the minister, and that's aboriginal title.

[ Page 5500 ]

Mr. Chairman, year after year in this marble mausoleum we have

impassioned speeches concerning many issues which all of us, at one

time or another, feel strongly we should bring to the attention of the

government or of the 57 members in this House.

The issue I'd like to discuss today, as I have year after year

during the A-G's estimates, is the aboriginal title or land claim

issue. It's quite interesting, Mr. Chairman, that I'm discussing this

issue, as other members of the New Democratic Party will do, on what is

in a sense a historic day because of the recent hearing regarding

Meares Island, an issue that I think all political parties are looking

at very closely because there is division and there is opposition.

There is an opinion by, I think, all politicians in the country,

regardless of political stripe, regarding issues such as Meares Island.

As a Canadian I felt very proud of our court system today, with the

injunction that was brought down on behalf of the first citizens of

this province and this country regarding Meares Island. With this

government I know what your philosophy is when it comes to the

aboriginal claim — the aboriginal title. It's been quite clear over the

years in our discussions that your philosophical belief is that

aboriginal title, if it ever did exist, was extinguished in 1871 when

British Columbia became a province and part of Confederation. I have a

different opinion on that. No court made that decision. There was no

high tribunal of high commissioners of the Queen or the King at the

time who made that decision. There was no treaty signed prior to that

date or afterwards in this province to say that title was extinguished

because British Columbia became a province in 1871. This has been a

denial of something that should have been corrected now for 114 years.

For 114 years we and the people who came before us have discussed it,

and probably the people who will come after us will be discussing this

idea and this issue and a right that should come to the first citizens

of this province.

Mr. Chairman, British Columbia does not have the sole jurisdiction

to solve the aboriginal title. That's something that's going to have to

be worked out between the federal government and the provincial

government. As much as I know that the Attorney-General, for his party,

what he believes in.... It still has to be done in trilateral

negotiations between the federal government, the provincial government

and the native nations of British Columbia.

It's interesting to go back and look at the history of this issue —

not going back the 114 years and not going back to the royal

proclamation in 1763 that gave the initial rights to the native people

in Canada, but when we look at prior to the mid-seventies, the federal

government under Mr. Trudeau and his famous White Paper, which was a

slap in the face to the native people in this country, even by its

name.... He came out and would not actively participate with the

native people in sitting down and having jurisdiction settlement

negotiations on these important issues. Then it seemed in the

mid-seventies the federal government, probably after the election of

'74, had a change in heart, and started wanting to sit down and

negotiate claims and settlements across this country. We look at James

Bay and at what's happening in the Yukon with the Council for Yukon

Indians. But that was an important milestone in the mid-seventies

because then the provincial government did not want to sit down and

start negotiating seriously the important issue of land claims and

aboriginal title.

We had a famous court decision called the Calder decision. It went

to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was never decided one way or the

other: do the Nishga people have claim to the Nass Valley? Is their

aboriginal title correct? Three judges voted in support of the Nishga

claim, three judges voted against it and one judge ruled on a

technicality. It was more or less like a hung jury. It's never been

decided. That was the famous Calder decision. So to the non-lawyers

like myself and many other individuals that issue has never been

resolved. Regardless of what the province says at the first ministers'

meeting, saying that rights were extinguished in 1871, that there are

no aboriginal title claims in this province, I haven't seen that in

black and white in a court decision.

I'd like to talk a little bit about one of the groups of people that

I deal with politically, that I feel very proud of, and that's the

Nishga people. I think all of us who are elected feel proud when we

associate ourselves or deal on a day-to-day basis with a group or an

organization. We feel, from the heart, how important that is to us as

politicians.

Prior to 1871, before British Columbia became a province, the Nishga

nation existed, as well as many other nations across this province and

country. There were no treaties, no rights signed away. These were

vibrant, strong nations that existed on a very local level — sometimes

even expanding, as the Haida, Nishga and Tlingit people would travel

across this province. It was an organized society with an organized

structure that existed for centuries prior to the arrival of the new

immigrants to North America. They were a peaceful society — and often

much is said today about nuclear holocaust. The Nishga people were a

peaceful society, they were not known as a warring nation, but if they

were pushed they had battles with tribes and nations that coexisted in

the same area.

The important thing about their peaceful society, which the Nishga

people have continued year after year, century after century, and will

and even to a certain extent the Russians who used to live in the

panhandle of Alaska. The way the Nishga people treated the white man,

offering assistance when they could....

It is and will continue to be a proud society, proud of their role

in Canadian history to such an extent that when they were given the

right to vote, they elected the first native to any assembly in Canada.

That was Mr. Frank Calder. The Nishga people took what was denied them

for a hundred years, and when they had the right to vote, they elected

one of their own, and he became the first native Indian to be elected

to an assembly in Canada.

[4:00]

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, he became a cabinet minister, and he

served with distinction for 26 years. Very few members are ever elected

in this House for 26 years.

Mr. Chairman, I'm still the youngest member of the Legislature, and

can't forget that when I was born native people were not entitled to

vote in this country. They weren't entitled to have some of the rights

that we feel so strongly about today. The rights that we take for

granted, the privileges that we take for granted.... They were

denied those rights almost until 1949 or 1950, when we as a country

extended to citizens of this country rights that we had taken

[ Page

5501 ]

for granted for a hundred years. We did it just three decades ago.

[Mr. Ree in the chair. ]

We still see discrimination, although not so much in Canada, not so

much in British Columbia. But there is discrimination in how we as

human beings treat our fellow human beings. South Africa is a perfect

example of what's happening today. Rights are supposedly granted to

citizens of that state, but they are denied. They're on the books.

Often they're not even put on the books for residents of South Africa

who were born there — they go back generation upon generation.

You know, often when I talk with the Attorney-General — and I know

that in the last few years we've had some, I would feel, honest debate

between each other.... It hasn't got into any

you're-the-bad-guy-and-I'm-the-right-guy sort of thing or vice versa.

We just talked the way we felt. I hear from people on both sides of the

floor, in communities across this province: why? Why do we need a land

claim? Why is there aboriginal title? I think we really have to look at

that. There have been and there are injustices in society today, even

in our great province of British Columbia and in our great country of

Canada. Martin Luther King believed in change. He even put his life in

the forefront to have something change. He believed so strongly in

change that he gave his life to change injustices in society. He spoke

eloquently on how he would like his four children one day to be able to

go down to Georgia, into a very racist town, and be able to play on a

playground with four white children. This wasn't that long ago. We're

talking 1964 and 1965 — maybe even around the time of the birth of some

of the Pages that work in this Legislature. But there is injustice in

this society. Can we go back and change the past? It's probably easier

said than done.

MRS. WALLACE: We can change the future.

MR. PASSARELL: But we can, as my hon. colleague for

Cowichan-Malahat said, do things for positive change for the future.

That's the way we have to look at things in this assembly. We should go

and sit with our counterparts in the federal government to bring some

type of change for benefit, to resolve this situation of aboriginal

title. It's simply not going to go away. Some residents in this

province feel that if we don't discuss it, then it's not important.

It's not going to change anything. We can't keep our heads in the sand

any longer on this issue.

We see reports daily in which people across this country stand up

and talk about freedom of expression, even though our constitution is

much different than the constitution in the United States when it comes

to individual rights and privileges. We see the freedom of expression

that is being brought up by some individuals across this country. One

person was just tried recently and sentenced, if I'm not mistaken, to

15 months for publishing racism: Mr. Zundel. What worries me is that

we're getting caught in a trap of saying: "What is freedom of

expression? Does everybody have the right to say what they feel, when

they feel like it, regardless of who it hurts?"

That feeling still continues in many parts of this country when it

comes to the native people. We just recently heard about a hotel in the

northeastern part of the province that would not rent a room to a

native person. We're talking about the twentieth century; we're talking

about 1985. At this hotel, individuals — native people, which this

minister is responsible for — were not entitled to rent a room in a

hotel. There has to be something wrong with our laws. There has to be

something wrong with the way we view human beings in this province,

because what we're talking about is something that is so important to

all of us: rights and privileges.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time, hon. member.

MR. PASSARELL: Oh, how long are you entitled to speak during…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your new rules set it out — 15 minutes.

MR. PASSARELL: If I sit down and have an intervening speaker, then I'll he able to…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may rise again.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I've been very interested in the

remarks of my colleague for Atlin, and I would certainly like to hear

him continue.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the House for allowing me to get back up.

What is aboriginal title to all of us? What does it mean? When we

talk about aboriginal, it means first — the people who were here first,

before us. Title: I buy a house; I have to register that to have title

to it. There is some kind of legalese that is involved with that title.

We have to remember that in British Columbia there is no title or

treaty, except for two small areas, treaty 8 and treaty 11 in British

Columbia. The other 99.9 percent of this province has never been in a

treaty or had any kind of negotiations. Let's look at the positive

aspects if we were to sit down with the first citizens of this province

and have some type of honest negotiations in dealing with and settling

aboriginal title. I think one of the first aspects that we have to look

at is the economic aspect.

All we have to do is look across to our neighbour Alaska to see what

the state of Alaska did in the last decade in resolving aboriginal

title. Today there are corporations that were set up 12 and 13 years

ago when the title question was settled for the first citizens of that

state. Corporations were set up — if I'm not mistaken, I think there

were 12 at the time — for the first citizens. Today, 11 out of the 12

corporations that were set up are profitable; they are in business,

employing more and more people year after year. Those profits raised

through the Crown corporations that the native people set up in the

state of Alaska are used in the community. They don't have to go to the

government; government doesn't have to come into the community and say:

"Here, I'm DIA. I'm going to build a house and put in a water system

for you." What the first citizens of the state of Alaska are doing is

using the profits from their aboriginal claims in that state to benefit

themselves, to put in their own homes, to employ their own people and

to improve their living conditions without going to the government for

welfare and social assistance.

In this province the Nishga people have brought forward two

important economic proposals that would benefit not only the Nishga

people and the north but the entire province.

[ Page 5502 ]

The first one is the forestry proposal that the Nishga nation has brought out, and the second one is the fisheries proposal.

To quote from the Nishga proposal on forestry, they said that the

Nishga people have never relinquished their title to their land and

that they want to utilize the components — the resources — in their

territory, the 8,000 square miles along the Nass Valley which at one

time were controlled by the Nishga people. They did their own forestry.

They did their own fishing. It should again be recognized as a Nishga

resource. Further on in the foreword to their publication it says that

they've never surrendered their territory and/or its resources. They've

never signed a treaty to say their resources were given away to someone

else, or anything of this nature. Neither was it ever forced from them;

there was no war, no invading army that came in and said: "Those trees

are ours." Neither by force nor by treaty have the Nishgas relinquished

what they, for centuries upon centuries, have owned.

The Nishga tribal council, through their forestry program and their

fisheries program, believe that they, as the inhabitants of the Nass

Valley, can control those resources for the best benefit of the Nishga

people as well as of the province of British Columbia and the country

of Canada. Because they're interested in it. It was theirs. It's not

like having a company coming in that doesn't even know the area,

clearcutting the trees, not replanting them, getting the profits and

then moving on to another area of the province. That is their home, and

will continue to be their home.

One issue on which I oppose the present government is the aspect

that's often turned around as: "If we solve aboriginal title claims in

this province, people who owned homes prior to the settlement will lose

their homes." There is not one proposal that I have ever seen from any

aboriginal nation that has said that if the settlement is solved with

the federal and provincial governments, they will be displacing

individuals who live in the area. The settlements are not about that.

It's about time we throw that incorrect information out. Let's deal

with the facts. Either you're going to solve the claims.... Either

you believe that those claims do not exist because they were

extinguished in 1871 when B.C. became a province, or that those rights

still are in force. But don't start spreading the idea that individuals

who live there — for instance, me, or any of us — are going to be

displaced because of a settlement. That's not true. It's about time we

dealt with the facts and not with the unfacts.

Often I receive criticism for using the words "first citizens."

Individuals who are opposed to that term say: "Well, we're all first

citizens. There are no second-class citizens." But that's not the case.

If we look at the budget that was just approved this week, on page 192

there's a

section under the Provincial Secretary's ministry that's

called the "First Citizens' Fund." That fund today is over $25 million.

All that this government uses is $1.8 million. That's $25 million that

we could be investing....

[4:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. We are on the Attorney- General's estimates, not on the Provincial-Secretary's.

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, I understand that, Mr. Chairman. You don't have to lecture me on that one.

The $25 million should be entitled to be used by the native people

of this province, through the Attorney-General, for the settlement of

the aboriginal title claims in this province.

Federally — and I just want to touch on this very quickly because it

affects the area where I live in Atlin — the Liberal government

approved the land claim settlement in the Yukon, after long

negotiations with the Council for Yukon Indians. This proposal would

have benefited two nations in my riding in the Atlin constituency: the

Atlin band and the Kaska Dene council. Now the federal government,

which the minister will be meeting with in the near future, has changed

its position in regard to the Yukon settlement. One thing that I would

like to see done, through the Attorney-General's ministry, is to set up

a committee in this House, with two or three members — one Social

Credit member, one NDP member, one chairman — to go around this

province and really take an interest, to take a belief, to take a

feeling of what's going on on this issue of aboriginal claim and title.

We also hear that if we do something like this, it's going to cost the

taxpayers millions and millions of dollars. That's not true. We can sit

down, two or three of us in a committee that the House will approve on,

and we can get around this province with very little expense to the

taxpayers. We're given bus passes; we're given train passes. We can

travel this province.

When political parties say, "We've traveled the province," very

rarely do they ever go into the far north. I haven't heard of too many

committees coming into the far north. Often they neglect the far north

when they say "provincial" committees. What I would like to see is this

minister putting together a committee to go, as Justice Tom Berger did

one time, through the Mackenzie, to hear what the people of this

province really feel about land claims.

Assimilation is not the answer. That excuse has been used for year

upon year: assimilation. As we said earlier, we can't change the past,

but we can do something for future generations. We have to remember

what Martin Luther King said about change.

I hope the hon. Attorney-General will have some reaction to my

speech, because this is getting silly: year after year, standing up and

just asking for something that should be a basic right to citizens in

this province.

HON. MR. SMITH: I am going to respond on the subject, but I

understand that the Leader of the Opposition will probably speak on it

as well. I don't want to respond twice on the subject.

MR. SKELLY: I very much appreciate the statements made by the

member for Atlin. Many of us on this side of the House share his

feelings about the issue of aboriginal title and aboriginal claims in

the province. I'm sure those feelings are shared on both sides of the

House, especially in view of the fact.... My understanding may be

wrong on this, but I understand that the Social Credit Party, in its

1975 convention, passed a resolution saying that the Social Credit

Party would recognize aboriginal title in the province of British

Columbia should they become government after the 1975 election, and

that they would proceed to negotiate outstanding aboriginal claims to

the province between the province, the native people and the federal

government. Between their intention and implementation, something

failed somewhere along the line. It seems that they have now adopted

the position that if aboriginal title to the province did exist, it was

extinguished at the time the terms of union were entered into between

B.C. and the federal government.

[ Page 5503 ]

Since that time a number of court decisions have been made and, as

the member for Atlin pointed out, a number of developments have taken

place around British Columbia: the settlement of the Alaska native

claims by the establishment of those native corporations that the

member mentioned. Native people in this province don't necessarily

consider that an appropriate means of dealing with the problem here,

There also have been settlements elsewhere: Quebec, Yukon and Northwest

Territories are all under discussion; the continental United States as

well; and overseas, Australia has also grappled with the problem. Why

should British Columbia remain an outsider on this issue?

I appreciate the fact that the member for Atlin mentioned the

historic decision on Meares Island that came down today and the fact

that the justices decided that an injunction will be continued to

prevent logging until the arguments about aboriginal claims to that

island are heard. So today is a historic day. I think you can't say

that the Indians won on this issue. You can't really say it was a

question of Indians versus MacMillan Bloedel or of loggers versus

environmentalists. More than anything else, justice triumphed today.

I'm hopeful that the government can take action while the Meares case

is being discussed. And while the injunction is in effect, I hope that

the government will take action, in consultation with the Indian people

on the west coast of Vancouver Island, to make sure that M&B's log

supplies are ensured from other areas, where the conflicts aren't so

great, and that the loggers can continue to work, and that log supplies

will continue until the issue of aboriginal title on Meares Island is

dealt with. Of course, that is obviously going to result in the

discussion of aboriginal title in the province.

I regret that the current government hasn't lived up to the

resolution passed at their party convention back in 1975, and that they

haven't taken the step of recognizing aboriginal title as a government,

sitting down with the Indian people of this province and with the

federal government and negotiating a reasonable and just solution to

the aboriginal claims in this province. I think it's long overdue. Mr.

Chairman, if we leave this issue up to the courts, we may see a

settlement in British Columbia that none of us can accept — Indian and

non-Indian alike.

This is really an issue that has to be dealt with through

negotiation, and it has to be dealt with between reasonable people

sitting around the table looking out for the best interests of all the

people in the province — Indian and non-Indian alike — and trying to

arrive at a conclusion that is acceptable to all people in the

province. I don't think you can do that in court, which is an adversary

system. I think that has to proceed through negotiations, and the only

thing that appears to be delaying those negotiations at this point is

the recognition by the government that aboriginal title exists and that

we should proceed to negotiate that title and the aboriginal claims

around it in a fair way.

Some people in the province would like to generate a bit of a climate of fear

around this issue — and I'm not saying that that's true of anyone in

this room. But there are people who like to generate a climate of fear around

this issue. There's the suggestion that if aboriginal title and claims are

dealt with, the economy will shut down. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Indian people, the same as any other people in this province, would like to

see the economy succeed. It seems that the only thing that threatens the economy

in the province right now is the continuation in office of the Social Credit

government. Everyone in the province of British Columbia — Indian and non-Indian

alike — would like to see this economy thrive and grow. I cannot understand

how some people in British Columbia would see that the resolution of aboriginal

claims would in fact cause any problems at all for the economy; in fact, there

would be benefits to all citizens of British Columbia, as there have been elsewhere

where aboriginal claims have been settled.

Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations seek the floor, or is he just ignoring the rules?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The Leader of the Opposition will continue on vote 11.

MR. SKELLY: In any case, Mr. Chairman, there is some concern

being generated by some people around the province that dealing with

the issue of aboriginal title and resolution of those claims would

result in some economic dislocation in this province; in fact, I think

the results would be very positive. If we arrived at a negotiated

solution, the results would be very positive for the economy of British

Columbia. Essentially what would happen is that we would mainstream a

group in British Columbia's society that has been marginalized over the

years and kept out of the economic mainstream and, if not legally

discriminated against in British Columbia's society, de facto

discrimination does exist.

I read an

article in the Vancouver Province this morning, Mr.

Chairman — and you've probably read that

article as well — which

outlines some of the special problems that Indian communities suffer.

I'll detail some of them for you: "Forty-five percent of native deaths

occur among Indian children under the age of four. The non-Indian

average is less than 1 percent." Most of this, according to the

article, is due to poverty, poor housing and poor nutrition. The

economy of Indian communities, according to Saul Terry, who made these

statements, is virtually non-existent. He also describes the effect of

the education system on Indians in this province. The dropout rate of

Indian students, according to Chief Saul Terry is about 80 to 85

percent. It's absolutely inexcusable. Unemployment in most Indian

communities ranges around 90 percent — again, absolutely inexcusable.

Suicide among Indian youth is six times higher than suicide among

non-Indian youth.

Mr. Chairman, if British Columbia is not legally a racist society or

does not legally discriminate against Indians, then de facto we are a

racist society. If some people, because of their racial

characteristics, suffer in a disproportionate way as a result of the

way they are treated by our society, then in fact, if not in law, we

are a racist society, and something has to be done by this Legislature

to address that problem. We cannot be proud of the way this province

deals with the Indian people here. The facts show that British

Columbians, in the way it treats this cultural group, is a racist

society. We have an obligation to upgrade the status of Indian people

and to make them equal with other citizens of British Columbia — equal

in terms of the health care that they have, equal in terms of the

education that they enjoy, equal in terms of their ability to survive

in the modem world. Those things in British Columbia today are not

equal.

The way to resolve this problem is not to give more to a particular

group. I think the way to deal with this problem is to recognize an

ancient injustice, to redress a long-standing grievance, and that is

the injustice that results when you take

[ Page 5504 ]

land from people, when you take culture from people and when you

relegate them to a marginal status in society. We are now coming close

to dealing with that issue in court decisions. But there's only one way

we can really deal with this issue, Mr. Chairman, and that is to

recognize the injustice that has been done, to recognize that there is

aboriginal title in the province of British Columbia, and to proceed to

negotiate a resolution of aboriginal claims.

[4:30]

As I said, I am very pleased that the Meares Island decision has

come down today. I think it brings us much closer to dealing with this

issue in court. I think that the statements made by the justices in the

Musqueam decision have also brought us much closer to recognition of

aboriginal title. I'll just read one line from the Musquearn decision

of November 1: "The situation of the Indians is entirely different.

Their interest in the lands is a pre-existing legal right, not created

by the royal proclamation of 1763 or by

section 18 (

l) of the Indian

Act or by any other executive order or legislative provision." Indian

interest in lands precedes any act that has been passed since

non-Indians took over the control of these lands. Their interest

precedes any legal document that's been passed by non-Indian society in

this province. In the decision of Justice Seaton today: "I am firmly of

the view that the claim to Indian title cannot be rejected at this

stage of the litigation. The question…."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I won't go any further in that line, but it appears — through you, Mr.

Chairman, to the Attorney-General — that we are coming closer and

closer in these court decisions to a recognition of aboriginal title in

British Columbia. Obviously the courts cannot deal with this issue.

This is an issue that's going to have to be resolved by representatives

of the citizens of British Columbia, representatives of the citizens of

Canada and representatives of the Indian people sitting down together

across the table in a reasonable way, with a view to finding a solution

to this problem. And that is by recognizing that aboriginal title to

the province is a political decision, and proceeding to negotiate the

claims arising out of that. I would hope that the Attorney-General

would make an announcement in this Legislature today that that would be

his government's intention.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the position that the Leader of

the Opposition espouses now and has for some time is certainly

different from the position that his party espoused when they had the

responsibility of office. As I recall, during the period 1972-75 they

did not acknowledge the existence of aboriginal title. Indeed, the

minister responsible, Hon. Norman Levi, Minister of Human Resources, in

a statement that he made on the June 15, 1974, on behalf of the then

government, set out a very clear description of what their position was

when they were in office. It was this:

"It is the position of the government of British Columbia

that any resolutions sought by the Indian people to the land question must be

found with the federal government. This government is of the opinion that, under

the laws of this country and particularly under the terms of the British North

America Act, it is not only clear that the issue must be resolved by the federal

government and not by British Columbia, but also that it would be highly improper

for British Columbia to participate in these discussions."

It's interesting, you know, that they take one position when they're

out of office and another position when they have the responsibility of

office.

Every government in this province since 1871 has taken a consistent

view on this matter, and that is the view, going back to the early

governments, that there wasn't even a question of aboriginal native

title, that it was in fact extinguished. In fact, it wasn't a matter

that the Fathers of Confederation, who negotiated the entry of British

Columbia, had to deal with or believed they had to deal with. They

believed that the native issue had already been determined and that

aboriginal title no longer existed. If you read the accounts of those

historic meetings that took place in Ottawa in 1870 among the colonial

delegates — Dr. Carrall, Hon. John Helmcken and Joseph Trutch — and the

meetings they had with federal ministers, you will find that that was

not a matter in dispute. Indeed, I look at Dr. Helmcken's diary as

edited by Dorothy Blakey Smith, the only extant account of those

negotiations, and I look at the appendix to Dr. Helmcken's diary, page

357 — and these are the only record that we have of the meetings that

occurred in Ottawa, in which our Fathers of Confederation met with

Canadian delegates. This is what it says about the question of Indians.

"The clause about Indians...." And that is the clause that

ultimately became the

section of the British North America Act and the

terms of the union which clearly made lands and lands reserved for

Indians a matter of federal responsibility. He says this: "The clause

about Indians was very fully discussed. The ministers thought our

system better than theirs in some respect, but what system would be

adopted remained for the future to determine. I asked about Indian

wars, and Sir George Cartier said that it depended upon the severity.

As a rule, the expense would have to be borne by the dominion

government." There is absolutely no doubt that.... They didn't have

a problem in their minds about aboriginal rights, because they didn't

arise. The matter of future dealings with Indians would be the

responsibility of the federal government.

In this province we've come a long way in the past ten years in our

dealings with our native people — a long way. I really do appreciate

the good debate that the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) and I have

had over the years on this matter. It has never been with any kind of

rancour, difficulty or personal difference, but I guess we hold basic

differing views. He firmly believes, as his constituents do, that they

do retain the aboriginal title to very large portions of the watershed

of the Nass River.

As I understand their claim, which is so eloquently articulated by

their chief, Jimmy Gosnell, and by other spokesmen for that noble tribe

that I've come to know over the past five or six years, they claim that

the Nass watershed has been theirs since time immemorial and that their

ownership of that land has never been extinguished. We're talking about

some 5,000 square miles of land, and they certainly have never

suggested — I quite agree — that they're going to dispossess others who

are on there. But they tend to dispossess a fairly large chunk of cash

from the treasury of Canada or the province. They certainly are never

going to dispossess occupiers, I agree. But it is a major claim in

terms of area, geography and dollars, and one that this province has

never acknowledged and recognized. We have, as a matter of courtesy,

attended meetings that have been held between the

[ Page 5505 ]

Our position has been that if Ottawa wishes to acknowledge,

recognize and reimburse for such a claim, that is within their purview

to do so. We would prefer that it were not so, but if they wished to do

that, that was their responsibility. We, on the other hand, have

recognized that we have some responsibilities for native matters

involving cutoff land settlements.

For many years the natives in this province had a very real

grievance. Lands that were taken from their reserves without their

consent following Confederation were never addressed, and no

compensation was paid. As a result of negotiations starting in 1976,

we've settled a number of those cutoff land claims: Penticton, Osoyoos,

Westbank, Okanagan, Clinton, Squamish, Becher Bay and Chemainus, which

are all combinations of either cash or cash and land. Three agreements

which we have concluded in the last year and which have not yet been

signed include Alexandria, Seton Lake and Sechelt.

We have recognized that we have an important responsibility there.

We've also, through my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who has been involved in this field for

some time and now shares responsibilities with me, had a number of

other negotiations of an economic kind with natives. I think of the

agreement that was arrived at with the Stuart–Trembleur Lake Indian

band, in which a tree-farm licence was granted in 1982 in relation to a

timber operation there. That one we're proud of and very pleased about.

Also, this government takes pride in voluntarily negotiating with

the Fort Nelson Indian band an historic agreement in this province

which divides the revenues that accrue from natural gas pools

underlying the band's reserves in whole or in part. That agreement was

signed by this government in January 1980. To date the band's share of

revenues has exceeded $20 million. No doubt there will be considerably

more as the price of natural gas and the prospects of that resource

continues.

There are a host of other agreements of an economic nature that have

been entered into. First-home grants, the First Citizens' Fund — which

the member for Atlin mentioned — special rural development agreements,

agreements of a forestry nature, agreements also for.... Bums Lake

Native Development Corporation funding in 1979 was another one which

members of this House will be familiar with. I could go on.

All I'm trying to say is that although we don't agree with the

argument of the first nations, and with the member for Atlin and the

present position of the Leader of the Opposition's party on aboriginal

title, we do agree that we have a responsibility to try to improve the

lot of, and deal with the aspirations of, our native people, and to do

so in good faith.

We go to the first ministers' conference next week — the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the Premier and I - and

the issues that are before us primarily are the issues of

self-government and, to a lesser extent, equality rights for women. We

support a further clarification, if desired, in the constitution

dealing with equality rights for women, We certainly support a

political advance on the question of self-government, but we are not

and have not been in favour of constitutionalizing at this stage a

right of self-government.

through two administrations, that they would support a

constitutionalizing of self-government, and then what self-government

meant would be worked out by negotiation in the future. We have felt

that that is a cart-before-the-horse proposition, and that the only way

to deal with an issue like self-government is to get out and negotiate

on a tripartite basis band by band, and to find out whether what

self-government is going to mean in one part of the country would be

different in another. Where an arrangement is made in relation to local

self-government and the assumption of authority by a band to have more

control over its own governance in the field of social services and

otherwise.... Where that is proven to work, and where that

arrangement is an appropriate one and does work, then at that stage we

could see no reason why we wouldn't consider putting those arrangements

in the form of an agreement or treaty.

That is the approach, that pragmatic approach taken fairly and up

front, because we have not fooled them in any of our negotiations by

taking a different position. We are not enshriners in constitutional

stone, and we are not believers in negotiating aboriginal title, but

apart from those things which they may find defective in our point of

view, we are prepared to negotiate with them in good faith on a range

of subjects, including self-government.

[4:45]

MR. SKELLY: Well, I thank the minister for his explanation.

It is interesting that he quotes a former New Democratic Party Minister

of Human Resources selectively. We did have some difficulty, of course,

with the federal government at the time we were in office, but when the

issue of cutoff land claims was brought up by the NDP government and

the NDP government indicated its willingness to deal with the cutoff

lands under the McKenna-McBride agreements between the provincial and

federal governments, Mr. Levi indicated at that time that he was aware

that he was opening discussions on the general land claims to the

province, and that dealing with the McKenna-McBride cutoff lands was

only the first step. He recognized that and recognized it publicly.

It's interesting that the minister goes back and quotes the Helmcken

diaries to justify his position on aboriginal title to the province.

It's also interesting that the negotiations between the national

government and the provincial government on the issue of Indian lands

did not include the Indians, the original owners of the lands.

It was very easy for Mr. Helmcken to have his view and for the

British Columbia authorities to have their view and for the national

authorities to have their view. The authorities that weren't consulted

were, of course, the original owners of the land. All of this took

place without their consent and without their agreement. That's the

problem that we've been dealing with for more than a century now and

the problem that this government refuses to deal with at this late date.

There was no comment from the minister on the justification for the

settlements in Alaska, the continental United States and other areas

around the world — no justification at all. Why is British Columbia an

isolated area in terms of the way it treats its aboriginal people?

I've also read some federal government reports on these issues, the

annual reports of the superintendent-general of Indian affairs, where

it appeared to be the federal government position at that time, back in

the late 1890s, that their goal or their objective was to eliminate

Indians as a separate

[ Page 5506 ]

people, and that was the reason why they established the education

systems that they established. That's the reason why they went after

the practice of potlatching among native communities in British

Columbia. When you read the federal government's position and the

reports of their superintendent-general of Indian matters, their

objective was to extinguish native people as a separate cultural group.

So really, when you hark back to the Helmcken diaries and the reports

of the Fathers of Confederation, I think you have to look at their

particular bias, and also at the fact that Indians weren't represented

in those discussions at all.

We congratulate the government for the granting of a treefarm

licence to Tanizul Timber and to the Stuart-Trembleur band. We feel

that's resulted in good solid economic development and job creation

efforts in that area. I think the minister's timing was a bit wrong, or

maybe he was a little confused about the timing of the establishment of

the Bums Lake Native Development Corporation; some of those events may

have happened prior to 1975, if he checks his history. The same is true

of the allowance of homeowner grants on Indian reserves. The New

Democratic Party government between 1972 and 1975 not only allowed

homeowner grants to be made on reserves, but made that legislation

retroactive, because that's one form of grant that had discriminated

against Indians and Indian on-reserve housing.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'm sure the minister would support my private

bill presented in 1976 which had to do with an impartial and

independent tribunal to deal with certain matters of concern to members

of the Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, it's unfortunate that the government will not move

from the position that there is no aboriginal title to the province of

British Columbia. I suspect that within the next little while the

courts are going to make that decision for us, and we will be forced to

negotiate aboriginal claims in the province. I think that's extremely

unfortunate.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I feel that I should take my place in this discussion

with the Hon. Attorney-General. As you may well know, Mr. Chairman, just over

10 percent of the people in my riding are native Indian. I've gone to bat

for them on many occasions on quite a large number of matters. I want to take

this opportunity, because I'm getting up on a different matter, to say that

I fully support the position taken by our leader and the member for Atlin regarding

aboriginal land title, which has been a most serious issue in my riding over

many years. It's a matter that should be resolved just as soon as possible,

and I think the government of British Columbia could — and should — immediately

take the initiative in this regard. In passing, because I was here between 1972

and 1975 as a member of this Legislature, I want to tell the Attorney-General

— through you, Mr. Chairman — that I'm quite proud of the advances our government

made on behalf of the native Indian people of the province over that period,

in spite of very difficult problems at that time with the federal government.

I want to discuss with the minister very briefly a topic that I

think he would know something about. The Sechelt Indian band, after

many years of lobbying and negotiating with the federal government,

finally got the federal government to agree to draft legislation for

self-government for that band. In fact, the band councillors were

informed at one point during the course of negotiating on this matter

that the legislation would probably be presented to the House of

Commons sometime in February. This did not occur, and I know the

reasons why it did not occur. I'm up to date on that particular

situation. I might add here that members of the elected band council

from the Sechelt Indian band did in fact meet with the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) here in Victoria, along

with Mr. Exell, who is responsible....

We've lost the Attorney-General. I'm asking him a direct question.

He'll be back? Okay. I know Mr. Exell is listening and is very familiar

with this matter, so I will carry on. I understand. It happens to the

best of us.

Mr. Chairman, as I said, some elected members of the band council

did in fact meet because this proposed legislation has direct impact on

the policies and, when the legislation passes, will have direct

implications with respect to the provincial government of this province.

So what I am asking for a