1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1341 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Acceptance of Blair report by hospital industry. Mr. King — 1341

Student summer employment programme. Mr. Wallace — 1342

Policy concerning auto insurance. Mr. Gibson — 1343

Grade 10 school leaving. Mr. Strongman — 1343

Mediation of CUPE dispute. Mr. Stupich — 1343

Food price increases. Ms. Sanford — 1344

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

On vote 10.

Mr. Macdonald — 1345

Mr. Lea — 1345

Mr. Wallace — 1346

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1348

Mr. Lea — 1348

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1349

Mr. Lea — 1349

Mr. Macdonald — 1349

Mr. Lea — 1349

Mr. Wallace — 1350

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1350

Mrs. Dailly — 1351

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1352

Mr. Kempf — 1353

Mr. Nicolson — 1354

Ms. Brown — 1354

Ms. Sanford — 1355

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1355

Mr. Strongman — 1355

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1355

Ms. Brown — 1355

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1355

On vote 11.

Ms. Brown — 1355

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1355

On vote 12.

Mr. Macdonald — 1355

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1355

Mr. Nicolson — 1356

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1356

Mrs. Wallace — 1356

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1356

On vote 13.

Mr. Macdonald — 1356

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1356

On vote 14.

Mr. Macdonald — 1357

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1357

Ms. Brown — 1357

Mr. King — 1357

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1358

Mr. Skelly — 1358

Mr. Nicolson — 1358

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1358

Mr. Lea — 1358

Mr. King — 1358

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1359

Mr. Nicolson — 1359

Mr. Barber — 1360

Ms. Brown — 1361

Mr. D'Arcy — 1362

Mr. Lea — 1362

Mr. Macdonald — 1363

Hon, Mr. Gardom — 1363

Mr. Nicolson — 1363

Mr. Levi — 1363

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1364

Mr. Barber — 1364

Ms. Brown — 1366

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1366

Mr. Nicolson — 1366

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1366

On vote 15.

Mr. Skelly — 1366

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1367

Mrs. Wallace — 1367

On vote 18.

Ms. Brown — 1368

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1368

On vote 19.

Mr. Macdonald — 1368

Mr. Gardom — 1368

On vote 22.

Mr. Macdonald — 1368

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1368

On vote 23.

Mr. Gibson — 1368

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1369

On vote 26.

Mr. Macdonald — 1369

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1370

Mr. Skelly — 1370

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1371

Mr. Skelly — 1371

On vote 25.

Mr. Barnes — 1371

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1372

On vote 26.

Mr. Cocke — 1372

Mr. Skelly — 1372

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1373

Mr. Hewitt — 1373

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1374

Mr. Barnes — 1374

Railway Operation Continuation Act (Bill 22) Hon. Mr. Williams. Introduction

and first reading — 1375

Statement

Clarification of procedural matters. Mr. Speaker — 1375

Appendix — 1376

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, seated in

the gallery this afternoon are two very important gentlemen. The first

is Mr. Clare MacSorley, the son of a former member of this House and

Social Credit member for Burnaby, the late Charles MacSorley.

Also seated in the gallery today is a gentleman who is well known to

most British Columbians and to all those involved in sports and

municipal affairs, and certainly to the media. Currently he is involved

in a most successful community self-help crime-prevention programme in

Burnaby, which is unique in the world, through his capacity as

president of the Burnaby Rotary Club in conjunction with the Burnaby

detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Would this House

please welcome Mr. MacSorley and Mr. Erwin Swangard?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in

the gallery this afternoon are students from the Eric Hamber Secondary

School. I would like to ask you to welcome the members of these classes

from this great secondary school in the Vancouver–Little Mountain

constituency, as well as their teacher, Miss Judy Summer, who is in

charge.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce

an important visitor from Tahsis today, Alderman Eric Brynjolfsson, who

is down here to watch the assembly in action.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the

House join me in making welcome in the gallery today Reverend Rocke and

Mr. Schumacher, who are here on business from that great constituency

of Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would like the

House to welcome Alice Jeffrey from Glenval, band manager and also on

the northwest college council, and Mr. Ken Muldoe, economic development

director of the Gitsan Carrier Outreach.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, sitting in the

gallery — as she does every day and has done for the past 23 years — is

Mrs. Ruth Johnson. On behalf of the House and certainly on behalf of

the caucus, I'd like to welcome her and also thank her for the very

delightful cakes that she made available to us.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I ask you to welcome a group

of young ladies and gentlemen of grade 11, Agassiz Senior Secondary School,

at Agassiz, under the leadership of Mr. Ronald Dinn, their instructor.

Oral questions.

ACCEPTANCE OF BLAIR REPORT

BY HOSPITAL INDUSTRY

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): A question to the

Minister of Labour: I wonder whether the minister can advise the House

as to whether or not he and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) have met with the hospital industry, particularly the

Vancouver General Hospital board, in an attempt to persuade them to

accept the Blair award — that is, the industrial inquiry commission

recommendations commissioned by the Department of Labour.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): In specific answer

to the member's question: no, I have not met with either the management

of the Vancouver General Hospital nor have I met with representatives

of the union. However, at 3 o'clock this afternoon I am meeting with

Mr. Geroux, who is the president of the Hospital Employees Union, at

his request. But I've had no request for a meeting from management.

Perhaps the member might wish to address a similar question to the

Minister of Health, or perhaps I can respond. I understand the Minister

of Health, this afternoon at 3 o'clock, is meeting with representatives

of management of VGH, so between the two of us we will meet with them

both separately, and perhaps together this afternoon.

MR. KING: A supplemental question: as I understand it, the

Blair report does recommend that the Minister of Health release a

report that was commissioned regarding health services in the province.

Since it appears that the hospital industry's refusal to accept the

Blair report is partly predicated on the lack of finances from the

Minister of Health's department, I wonder if the Minister of Labour is

not interested in consulting with him regarding the acceptability of

the Blair report to the industry.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I suggest to the member that he is perhaps

in error in his assessment of the reason for the rejection of the Blair

report. The report was rejected by the employees at Vancouver General

Hospital. The reason for that rejection is unknown to me. The Health

and Labour Relations Association, which bargains for the employers, has

rejected the report because it exceeded significantly the

anti-inflation guidelines which have been laid down by the national

government.

[ Page 1342 ]

With respect to the matter of any report concerning health services,

I think also that the member is in error. The report of Mr. Blair in

this regard dealt with a job-evaluation study, and he recommended that

it be included as part of the collective agreement which he was

recommending. That report, as I say, has been rejected by both the

unions and by management.

MR. KING: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: it's true that the

report I refer to was the report on the job evaluation which the

current Blair report, the industrial inquiry commission report,

advocates be made public. Can the Minister of Labour tell me whether or

not he has the agreement of his colleague, the Minister of Health, to

make that report public?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: My discussions with the Minister of Labour on this subject, Mr. Speaker....

MR. KING: Talking to yourself? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I find that when I talk to the Minister of Labour I get better answers. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: At least he understands the questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In my discussions with....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Labour has the floor.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for that last.

In my discussions with the Minister of Health, I am advised that the

report will be made public, but it is the desire of that minister to

discuss the implications of it with the hospital employers before so

doing.

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to ask the Minister of

Labour a question, with regard to phase 2 of the provincial

government's summer student-employment programme. In view of the

minister's statement in the House in question period on April 26 that

he was completely unaware that a dispute existed with the B.C.

Government Employees

Union about proposed student rates of pay, could I ask the minister, in

light of these facts, if it is correct that in fact an impasse has been

reached and that telegrams and other forms of notification have been

sent to students telling them not to report for work until further

notice and until further decisions or further negotiations have been

completed regarding the rate of pay?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: To the member for Oak Bay, Mr. Speaker,

I'm not aware of any telegrams being sent to any students. If they've

been sent by my department I would appreciate the member making me

aware of that fact.

With regard to the matter of an impasse, I do not believe there is

an impasse. The union takes the position that jobs which are part of

the component should be paid at the component rates, and I don't

disagree with that. The student rate is to be applied to student

positions in each department.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister

aware that certain departments such as Agriculture and Mines are, in

fact, employing students at union rates of pay and that this is

confusing to those other students who had been told that they were to

be employed, for example, by the Department of Highways, and

subsequently have been told not to report for work? In other words,

there seems to be a complete uncoordination of policy despite the fact

that this year — I think the minister made the point — all applications

were to be centralized and computerized, simply to avoid this

uncoordination through different departments. Would the minister care

to comment on that?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry if there's any confusion. If

there is, it hasn't been caused by the Department of Labour. It has

always been the case with regard to the summer student-employment

programme that some students were paid at student rates for student

jobs. Other students who were employed by departments within component

jobs which required some special skill or experience were paid at the

component rate. That is the situation that still obtains this year.

There may be some confusion in some of the departments. I think if they

look very carefully at the correspondence from the Department of

Labour, that confusion will be very quickly resolved. And if we have to

send out another clarifying memo, we will certainly do so.

MR. WALLACE: A final quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister could explain then government statements,

including a statement by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy),

that if the impasse or the dispute with the unions was not

[ Page 1343 ]

settled there would be a serious number of students expecting

employment out of the 4,600 the minister quoted on April 23. How many

of these 4,600 are, in fact, likely to become employed during the

summer by various departments of government?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take that question

as notice. I have asked for a specific report as to the number of

positions which have been nominated by the government departments to

the referral service which is operated by the Department of Labour. I

don't have that report at the moment and therefore I cannot tell you

specifically how many jobs will be forthcoming from each department,

but that inquiry is going on this morning.

POLICY CONCERNING AUTO INSURANCE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

Could the minister confirm in the House his reported statement of

yesterday that at present there is no definite government plan to allow

private insurance companies to sell automobile insurance in British

Columbia?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): This is a matter of

policy, Mr. Speaker. We did have a meeting yesterday, however, with the

representatives of the private insurers from eastern Canada to discuss

with them what the possible circumstances might be for re-entry of the

private insurers into British Columbia next year.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary. I would ask the minister if

he's aware that on April 22 of this year, the First National Insurance

Co. of America and the Unionamerica Co. were granted licences under the

Insurance Act, which include the authorization to undertake automobile

insurance, and that this is the first time such authorization has been

granted since June 7, 1973. Does this not indicate a change in policy?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, it doesn't.

GRADE 10 SCHOOL LEAVING

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education.

This morning I read in one of the Vancouver papers a statement

allegedly by yourself that gave me great concern. I, as most of you

would agree, would very much dislike to see anyone curtailed after the

grade 10 level for continuing in their future education. It seems to me

that the state should never enter into the personal development of any

person, especially at such an early age as 15 or 16. I would ask of

that minister an explanation of his remarks yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I would draw your attention to the

rules in Beauchesne which indicate that to inquire of a cabinet

minister whether statements made in a newspaper are true or not is out

of order.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: I would be happy to reply....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I am drawing the minister's attention to the quotation in Beauchesne. If he wishes to reply, that's the minister's prerogative.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member and to

assure all hon. members and the public of British Columbia that no one in the

government or the Department of Education even remotely considered the

idea of axing non-scholars or any other students, particularly at grade 10.

The objective is exactly the opposite to what the headlines in the Vancouver Province

implied this morning. The department is studying, Mr. Speaker, the

articulation between the secondary and post-secondary institutions in

British Columbia with the view of making it easier for us to get on

with its programmes. It applies to technical and vocational training.

The objective is to improve the retention of the students in the

system. We think this will happen, because we have a number of

institutions developing in British Columbia....

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, why doesn't the minister ask leave of the House to make a

statement, if he'd like, after the question period?

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a point of order, Hon. Member.

HON. MR. McGEER: I asked if it was the wish. If it isn't the wish, that's fine with me.

MEDIATION OF CUPE DISPUTE

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour. In view of the serious effects on the community of the continuing dispute between

[ Page 1344 ]

the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Mid-Island Public

Employers' Association, in particular on education in the Nanaimo

school district, and in view of the fact that mediator Clark Gilmour

has twice given up trying to reach agreement and has recommended that

an industrial inquiry commissioner be appointed, and in view of the

fact that the union has accepted his recommendation but management has

declined to accept it but management has said that they would accept a

commissioner if the government appoints one, is the minister

considering appointing an industrial inquiry commissioner?

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): I am not considering

the appointment of one but I am proposing to discuss the matter with

the union and with the employers' representatives.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplemental question by the member for Nanaimo.

MR. STUPICH: The minister said he is meeting with them. Could I ask when that meeting will be taking place?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I said I was proposing to discuss the

appointment of an IIC with both the employers and the union. I have not

set a date for the meeting yet.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): A further supplemental

to the Minister of Labour. Within my constituency, both that labour

situation and the situation in the Cowichan school district With the

IWA have resulted in the schools being closed for some period of time.

Have you been approached to take any action in that particular dispute?

Are you aware of what the status of that labour situation is at this

moment?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I am aware of the status of the labour situation but I have received no requests to intervene.

FOOD PRICE INCREASES

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): To the Minister of Consumer

Services. The Anti-Inflation Board has announced that food prices for

the month of April increased by 0.5 per cent. I wonder if you would

advise the House what the monitoring carried out by your department

revealed for that same period of time.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, I already filed a document in the House giving the latest information my department has.

MR. SPEAKER: That concludes the question period, Hon. Members.

If I might just make a statement before we proceed further today, Hansard

has informed me, Hon. Members, that they have considerable difficulty

on occasion transcribing the words that are delivered in debate on the

floor of the House. I think this comes about because of members turning

away from their microphones to engage in a bit of conversation or an

aside with other members adjacent to them or behind them. So I just

suggest to you all that you please keep this in mind and try to

maintain a distance from the microphone that will allow the

transcribers in Hansard to

transcribe what you have said, because they are missing a lot of the

remarks. Now that may not in itself be bad sometimes. Regardless of

that, it is very difficult for them. It has been brought to my

attention; I now bring it to the hon. members' attention. So please be

guided accordingly.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, what is your pleasure and the

pleasure of the House with regard to questions that have been taken as

notice? Is it the wish of the House that these be answered at the

conclusion of question period or during question period?

MR. SPEAKER: I think, Hon. Minister, that you are talking now

of giving an answer that would take up considerable time or take up

time within the 15 minutes of our question period. I am afraid that my

feeling as Speaker is that this is entirely the prerogative of the

minister involved. If the minister feels that asking leave to make a

statement prior to the start of the question period will then allow

members to proceed further in their questioning, that is the decision

the minister must make. If it is a question that you have had to

research considerably and it is almost in the form of a return, you

might consider filing it at the table. But in any event, it is my

opinion that asking leave before the question period or following the

question period is a matter of decision for the individual minister

concerned.

HON. MR. McGEER: How about during the question period?

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure that the rules are quite clear: the

questions to the ministers should be short, concise and to the point.

We hope that answers will follow that same pattern. At times I have had

to rule both the questioner and the answerer out of order because of

the length in time that was taken.

Orders of the day.

[ Page 1345 ]

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

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

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, I'd like

to ask the Attorney-General whether he believes in sunshine and open

government and whether or not he believes that when a public report is

prepared it should be released for the perusal of the public. I refer

particularly to one by Messrs. Bain, Wyler and Black on the ombudsman.

It seems to me with a bill coming, and here we're kind of late into the

session, that those were public reports and should be released for

discussion so they can be examined by members of the Legislature and

all the public — not sat on. The Attorney-General is sitting on a

public report that has been paid for by the taxpayers, and one that the

taxpayers are not allowed to read. If you don't do that, then you

plummet in a bill....

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): That's one you left.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, do you want me to release it? I can go

down to my office...I can go to my basement. (Laughter.) I can make a

photocopy of it and let you all have that report; it belongs to you all.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: You know, this is closet government when you

sit on a report that surveyed the role of the ombudsman in many parts

of the world, and made recommendations and was paid for at public

expense. Yet you won't let the public read that report. So I'm just

asking you: will you release it? Just nod your head.

You know, I think it's a tragedy that reports of this kind are not released well before the time the legislation is tabled.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's behind the closet; we couldn't find it.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, there were two copies.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Something else you left under the rug. (Laughter.)

MR. MACDONALD: So what do I say to stay in order, Mr.

Chairman? I'm demanding the release of the report on the ombudsman. I

think that if you sit on these reports you're engaging in closet

government, which is the worst kind.

Question No. 2 — and the first one is easy to answer — I ask of the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). You may say that

this comes under his department but it doesn't; it comes under the

general superintendence of the Attorney-General in seeing that justice

is done to citizens. The question I brought up was whether or not

recipients of assistance under the Human Resources department have the

right to look at their personal files, because those files are vital to

them to know whether a bum decision has been made and they've been

rejected unfairly from assistance....

MR. KING: Because of long hair or dress...

MR. MACDONALD: ...or an anonymous letter, a letter that's on

there — something from a doctor, something from a neighbour complaining

about their conduct — and no opportunity for people, who are the

recipients of decisions on the part of government, and which are very

vital to them, to see the file on which the decision was made. Now the

recipients of relief through the CNIB, the blind, now have the right,

with somebody accompanying them, to inspect their files through the

CNIB.

We did in our period of office, Mr. Chairman, under the Workers

Compensation Board, assure that it was out in the open. I say that the

Attorney-General ought to have an opinion on this as to whether or not

public files are going to be available to the people affected by them

so they'll have a right of reply, so they'll have some opportunity to

see on what basis that decision is made. I'll just sit down — those are

two questions, Mr. Attorney-General.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, I would like to

raise an issue with the Attorney-General. It concerns the city of

Prince Rupert, which is in my riding, and it concerns the RCMP lock-up

in that community. Just so the Attorney-General is fully aware of the

matter, I would like to read into the record a letter addressed to the

Attorney-General — I know that oftentimes the minister doesn't get a

chance to personally peruse letters that come into this department.

City of Prince Rupert,

March 31, 1976

Hon. Garde B. Gardom,

Attorney-General,

Legislative Buildings,

Victoria, British Columbia.

Dear Mr. Gardom:

Your letter of date March 16, 1976, in which you advised

[ Page 1346 ]

that the government will not assume responsibility for the

Prince Rupert lock-up was considered by city council on Monday evening last.

Needless to say, the council was shocked and disappointed by the position taken

by the government. You will be aware that the former Attorney General for British

Columbia, A.B. Macdonald, agreed on behalf of the Government of British Columbia

to assume responsibility for prisoner maintenance in Prince Rupert after April

1, 1976. As a result of that agreement the council sought the approval of the

electors to construct a city detachment office for the RCMP, valued at approximately

$600,000.

A loan authorization bylaw was approved in November, 1975,

and the architect engaged by the city was instructed to prepare preliminary

construction plans. To date the city has paid out approximately $9,000 in architectural

fees for a project that is now threatened because of your government's attempt

to break an agreement.

Prince Rupert city council feels that the province of British

Columbia has a moral and legal obligation to the city of Prince Rupert to honour

their commitment on lock-up responsibility which was made by the former Attorney

— General in January, 1975.

Your early comments would be appreciated.

Yours very truly,

William Smith,

City Administrator,

City of Prince Rupert.

I spoke with Mr. Smith this

morning by telephone. The matter — as the letter points out — is still

there. The agreement, in my opinion, has been broken, Mr. Chairman. I

have advised the city of Prince Rupert to get attorneys and see whether

they cannot sue the Province of British Columbia for this breach of

agreement, and they are so doing right now. They are going to

solicitors. If this agreement was between anybody else — two corporate

bodies or a private person and a corporation — I'm sure that they would

have grounds to sue and would win their case. I have advised the city

of Prince Rupert to do just that.

It seems to me a very high-handed way of dealing with the problem,

when there was an agreement by the government of British Columbia,

through the former Attorney-General. The city of Prince Rupert has

gone out and spent money for architectural fees, has gone to the people

of that community in a bylaw referendum to get approval from the

people, which was passed, and now the government of the day is going to

go back and renege on that agreement that was made by the former

government.

Whether the present government agrees or not with the former

government, the agreement was made with the city of Prince Rupert, and

I don't think our philosophical, ideological or political differences

should make any difference to the city of Prince Rupert. The agreement

made was between the city of Prince Rupert and the Province of British

Columbia, and I believe that this agreement should be kept.

I remember, many times, sitting on that side of the House and

listening to the Attorney-General of today, when he was a member of the

Liberal Party, talking about the sanctity of contract and criticizing

us strongly, when we were government. I suggest that this is a pure

case of breaking the sanctity of a contract, and I would like to have

the Attorney-General's comments on this matter.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I presume the

minister is collecting the questions and will give one series of

answers. I simply must repeat the question that I asked yesterday

afternoon regarding the Victoria juvenile detention centre, which, as I

stated yesterday, is used to a very varying degree, but regardless of

whether they have seven young people or 23, there is no routine medical

service available to check on the physical and mental condition of the

young persons brought to that detention centre. I would just quickly

repeat that there have been children with infections; there have been

young girls admitted who, unknown to the administration, are pregnant.

There are risks of other diseases being spread, and the tendency has

been to wait for a crisis, in which case the young person is then taken

to the emergency department of a local hospital.

Is the reason for this lack of funding, or is it lack of

administration — or what is it a lack of? The fact is that the facility

is owned or at least financed by the provincial government, but managed

by the four municipalities of Victoria, Saanich, Esquimalt and Oak Bay.

The medical supervision of the young offender in that institution is

certainly inadequate, to say the least, and I'd like to know if the

minister has had an opportunity since yesterday to check into it, or if

he will investigate the matter.

Another question, which I won't go into detail on again, but to

which I want an answer concerns any plans the minister has to deal with

the case of the person who is found not guilty by reason of insanity

and is admitted to Riverside hospital, and detained there on what

amounts, very often, to an indefinite sentence. Once the person has

been admitted to that facility because of reasons of insanity, it is

extremely difficult.... I won't repeat all the reasons I stated

yesterday, to save the time of the House, but it is a very important

question of an individual's rights and freedoms. The long-term result

is very often that the person who finds himself in there because of

insanity, which is not — contrary to the idea of many people — a

permanent condition.... A person may well be psychotic under the

influence of drugs or some other chemical agent who commits an offence

and who, within a matter of days or weeks, is no longer insane, or

insane under the kind of loose

definitions that have been used down

through the centuries as to

[ Page 1347 ]

what constitutes insanity.

Mr. Chairman, there are apparently offenders in that facility where

in the past medical recommendations have been made that they be

released. But the present procedure is that the cabinet decides whether

such recommendations should be followed, and, perhaps worse than that,

these recommendations are not necessarily made public. I would like to

know from the minister if he is happy with the present arrangement —

and I'm sure he couldn't be. If he isn't happy with the arrangements,

what policy changes does the minister have in mind?

I would also like to comment briefly on a statement by the former

Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) regarding the ombudsman report. I feel

that since we are committed to an ombudsman there should be the maximum

possible public dialogue before the actual legislation is implemented.

I would like to ask the minister whether he has considered tabling the

proposed legislation, but not proceeding with the legislation. This is

a technique, he well knows from his many years in the House, which

displays the basic trust and content of government legislation but

allows all the public, persons and parties, interested in the bill to

continue public dialogue.

I do hope that the minister would make some comment, even if he

disagrees with my proposal, because there's a great deal of public

interest in not only the need for an ombudsman, but the fact that such

a person or such a role in society has been promised by this government.

I understand there are only two provinces in the whole of Canada who

now do not have an ombudsman — being Prince Edward Island and British

Columbia. It would seem to me that regardless of the best of intentions

of all of us in this House, all arms of government are proliferating at

a somewhat alarming rate and the individual's access to people who

determine a lot of his destiny is getting more and more difficult. The

point I think is so important is that now having finally reached that

big moment when the government of British Columbia is committed to

creating an ombudsman, surely all these other jurisdictions and

different countries have had a great deal of experience and we should

draw upon all that kind of information to get the best possible

legislation in British Columbia.

Another final point I wanted to make or ask about is that I believe

the B.C. Police College has recently formed the equivalent of a special

weapons and assault team which is meant to deal with abrupt or serious

riots and such-like where there is danger to the public. The comment

was made that this special weapons and assault team would conveniently

be ready to go into action at the time of Habitat.

Mr. Chairman, there's been a great deal of discussion about Habitat,

quite naturally, and a great deal of newspaper reporting of the fact

that Vancouver and British Columbia, and perhaps Canada, have been very

remiss in taking Habitat seriously and that one or two individuals have

carried an immense load in even getting the preparations for Habitat to

the point they have now reached. There have also been comments, based

on experience of such previous events as the Olympics, that some of the

international terrorist organizations might well choose to use the

function of Habitat to create international incidents which would be,

in their view at least, to their advantage.

I'd like to know two or three specific things about the government's

commitment to Habitat. First of all, what extra police protection has

been requested from whatever source — whether it's from the

municipalities or from the federal government, or from people living in

the province of British Columbia, or interested groups or countries,

for that matter, that will be taking

part in Habitat and sending

high-ranking delegations to Habitat? What request has been made of the

provincial government to participate in any way in providing police

protection?

Secondly, to what degree will delegations to Habitat be bringing

their own police protection? And, if so, what preparation has the

Attorney-General's department made to deal with the kind of incident

that flourished on the front page of the newspaper the other day when

one of the foreign potentates was pictured with a gun tucked in his

belt under his jacket, and this only became visible when he waved to

the crowd? I will try to be tactful and not even mention names, Mr.

Chairman, to embarrass anyone, but this was a person of the highest

rank — a king, in fact — who visited Montreal, and in the course of his

acknowledgement of the crowd waved his arm and as his jacket opened

there was a revolver tucked in his belt.

I think that Habitat inevitably, because of the very nature of the

event, will be drawing high-ranking political leaders from many, many

countries. I wonder if the provincial government, or the

Attorney-General's department on behalf of the government, has made any

particular plans to arrange ahead of time the laws which will be

applied — or overlooked, perhaps — in the light of some of these

delegations bringing their own police protection, in which cases these

individuals will be accustomed to a very different type of regulation,

or perhaps no type of regulation, over the use of guns and weapons in

public.

In other words, many of them will be bringing with them types of

weapons and a background in the use of these weapons quite different

from the regulations which apply in the province of British Columbia.

The third question I'd like to pose is the cost of police protection during Habitat and whether or not

[ Page 1348 ]

the Attorney-General's department has finalized any cost-sharing

formula with the federal government. It's quite obvious from a great

deal of information published in the news media that there will be

considerable extra costs involved in trying to provide police

protection. I would assume this is mainly a federal-provincial

responsibility to try and meet these costs. I just wonder if the

minister can give the House any information as to what the cost will

be, and what cost-sharing formula will be applied, and whether or not

the municipalities, to any degree, have been asked — or at least the

municipalities in the lower mainland — whether they have been asked to

contribute anything towards the cost of police protection for Habitat.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to respond to the hon. member

for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), first of all, dealing with Habitat. I think

we're recognizing, Mr. Member, that British Columbia is a law-abiding

community with law-abiding citizens, and we're looking forward to a

peaceful conference, and we're certainly expecting that everyone will

bear that caveat in mind.

The member asked me what type of police protection has been

requested, and the response is: that which is adequate and necessary.

He talked about the delegates bringing their own security forces — none

that we are aware of, Mr. Member. The VIP security is a matter of RCMP

jurisdiction, and apparently this is the policy of the Government of

Canada.

Dealing with what laws shall apply — the laws of Canada and the laws

of British Columbia shall apply, and the costs of the police facilities

and security are those which will be borne by the city of Vancouver.

You asked me a question last night, Mr. Member — and I was going to

respond but we ran out of time here yesterday — concerning the juvenile

detention home in Victoria. I thank you for drawing that to my

attention. It's the first that I'd heard of it. Out of this year's

budget we propose to locate some form of medical help and assistance

there, a nurse or something along that line.

You raised again the question of the very difficult task that has

been faced by cabinets in this province essentially since the time of

Confederation, and that is dealing with order-in-council patients.

Long-term changes are being viewed by the federal government. Any

long-term change, of course, would have to result from the federal

initiative because it's a provision under the Criminal Code of Canada.

However, there was a report in front of the national law commission — I

believe in October of last year — with a view to various

recommendations to code changes. It's a matter that is under

consideration by the new government and a lot of thought is being given

to it.

The member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is not at his desk

but, first of all, I would like to file, if I may.... Well, he'll be

back.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, I can see through him still, by gosh! That's right.

I'd like to file, Mr. Chairman, if I may, the report of the Law

Reform Commission of B.C. on minors' contracts, and this is one that is

dated a little bit earlier but it came to my desk actually this

afternoon for filing.

Now the member mentioned the report by Messrs. Black and Weiler on

the ombudsman. You know, I thought he would have attended to filing

that. I'm rather surprised to find out it hasn't been filed, and I am

delighted to see that it will be.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the lock-up agreement — I

don't yet have the file, Mr. Member, but I can mention this to you.

This is a question of government policy. Whether there was or was not a

commitment is open to

interpretation. It is not the policy of this

government to provide lock-up services such as was suggested for Prince

Rupert and only for Prince Rupert. If it is going to be government

policy to provide that type of service, it would be for all of the

municipalities in this province. That would cost millions and millions

of dollars and it is not possible for us to become involved in that at

this present time.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General has just informed

the committee that it is not the policy of the new government to follow

supplying staff and personnel for lock-up facilities. If that's the

policy of this government, so be it. But at the same time I don't see

why the city of Prince Rupert should have to pay out money based on a

policy of the past government. An agreement was made.

I would like to tell you some of the background, Mr. Chairman. The

former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald), the member for Vancouver East,

travelled to Prince Rupert with me and went through the facilities that

the RCMP have to work from and in the city of Prince Rupert. He found

those facilities just as deplorable as I do.

Also there were the staff and the mayor and the council of Prince

Rupert. They considered that Prince Rupert should be a special case

because no one should have to work in the kind of facilities that the

police have to work in in the city of Prince Rupert. It's deplorable.

As I said, the former Attorney-General did take the time to come with

me to Prince Rupert and go through those facilities with me. He stated

in his letter to the city of Prince Rupert, to Mayor Lester, that the

city did make a special case.

[ Page 1349 ]

Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General says that policy has changed. I

say so be it. But the city of Prince Rupert should not have to suffer

for that policy change, and I would ask the Attorney-General to say

that the city of Prince Rupert is going to be reimbursed for any

expense that they have been put to by the policy change. I think that's

only fair. It wouldn't be that much, I wouldn't imagine. All I would

like to do, Mr. Chairman, is to have the Attorney-General stand in his

place and say that he will get in touch with the city of Prince Rupert

and that any expense that the city has gone to because of an agreement

with the former government should be reimbursed to that city by the

present government.

Now, that's only fair. The agreement was made, and if the

Attorney-General will stand up in this House and say that all the

expenses that the city was put to by this change in policy by the new

government will be reimbursed, then I think maybe that's the best the

city can hope for from the government. It's not the best they should

get. They should get the agreement that was made with them by the

former Attorney-General. That would be the fairest. But the next

fairest thing would be at least to reimburse the city of Prince Rupert

for the expense that they have gone to. I would like to hear the

Attorney-General's answer to that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd just like to make one observation, and

that is this: whether there was or was not an agreement, as I said

before, is certainly open to

interpretation. Conceivably any statement

by the Attorney-General for the provision of this service would be

subject to Treasury Board, so he would have faced the same restriction.

MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's quite good

enough. As I mentioned at the outset when I took my place this

afternoon, I believe the city of Prince Rupert...well, I know they are

going ahead getting legal advice on how to sue the provincial

government. I think that it would be in place for this new government

to treat Prince Rupert fairly, as they deserve, and not even put them

to the expense of having to go to attorneys to try and see what rights

they have on this broken contract. I suppose what the Attorney-General

is telling me is to tell them to go to the courts and decide. They are

going to, and I think they should. You'll find that the city of Prince

Rupert is not going to take this lying down. They are going to go to

their attorneys. They have already and they will go to court.

MR. MACDONALD: The situation in Prince Rupert which has been

brought up so eloquently and correctly by the member for Prince Rupert

was that you had one of the worst lock-up situations in the province,

especially for young people. You also had a terrible RCMP detachment.

It was all in that one old building, and people were falling all over

each other. The city of Prince Rupert then made very generous provision

to go ahead with a new RCMP headquarters which is very vital in that

city. They drew up good plans which met out approval, and to say that

the Treasury Board didn't approve.... No, I got that cleared before I

wrote the letter.

The thing that really disturbs me, Mr. Chairman, is that the

Attorney-General seems to be suggesting a change of policy. Apart from

the interests of Prince Rupert, we believed that the lock-up should be

administered by people independent of the police officers. We said that

not only because of the justice situation, but that it's better that

the police officer who makes an arrest turns over the accused to an

independent party such as the sheriff service, or custodians who are

specially trained for lock-up duty. The other side of the coin is that

you thereby release police officers into the community for police work

instead of having them look after a lock-up, which is not up to the

limits of their training at all.

I would hope that the Attorney-General will not turn his back upon

the taking over of the lock-ups for management through the sheriff

service or through custodians or people who are specially trained to

look after those who are arrested. That's the long-term policy issue.

In the case of Prince Rupert, we thought that that was the place to

start the pilot project of the takeover of the lock-ups because that

was the place where the need was greatest.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, just one final point. The

Attorney-General said there seems to be some doubt as to whether, in

fact, an agreement has been made between the city of Prince Rupert and

the Province of British Columbia. Just to put the record straight,

here's a letter dated January 30, 1975, to His Worship, Mayor P.J.

Lester, City of Prince Rupert, and signed by Alex Macdonald,

Attorney-General. It says:

Dear Mayor Lester:

In your absence I met with the acting mayor and some of your

councillors. Naturally I am concerned that the city proceed at least with plans

for appropriate quarters for the RCMP detachment. I was given to understand

that the key problem for the city was the provision of the personnel to run

the lock-up in the event the police detachment was in a new location. It seems

to me that you have made a special case, and I can advise you that we will somehow

find personnel, either through the sheriff service or otherwise, to provide

this lock-up service in the event the RCMP moves, p r e s u m a b I y in 1976,

into the newly-constructed quarters.

I think this answers the request to me to

[ Page 1350 ]

which I undertook to reply within two weeks.

Yours very truly,

Alex Macdonald,

Attorney-General.

Now it doesn't leave any doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the agreement was

there. "Go ahead, " the former Attorney-General said in his letter. "Go

ahead, because somehow the Province of British Columbia will make sure

that the personnel are there, either through the sheriff service or

otherwise." The city of Prince Rupert, it would seem to me, would have

been negligent in their duties if they hadn't acted on the strength of

this letter. It is an agreement signed by the Attorney-General of the

Province of British Columbia telling the city of Prince Rupert to go

ahead. Now to say that maybe there is an agreement or maybe there isn't

an agreement is pure nonsense. The agreement was there.

I just can't understand the attitude of the new government, Mr.

Chairman. They seem to be so concerned about whether agreements are

kept or not kept, but when it comes to them, they'll break them when

they see fit. Let's see how they act, Mr. Chairman, when it doesn't fit

into their plans. Then I'll bet that they go by the letter of the law

on whether an agreement is an agreement.

Actually, I feel sorry for the Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman. I thought he had more weight in cabinet than he has.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back to a question

to which, with respect, I didn't appreciate the answer from the

Attorney-General. I'm talking about the offender in Riverside. I'm

quite well aware of the fact that I am not well versed in the niceties

of the law, but I am quoting the Law Reform Commission. I would like to

quote their statement from the working paper called "The Criminal

Process and Mental Disorder." That working paper states that "the

disposition of the unfit accused has been delegated from federal powers

to provincial Lieutenant-Governors — in effect, the cabinets of the

various provinces."

Mr. Chairman, with respect, all this gobbledegook about any change

in federal legislation is not accurate; either that or the Law Reform

Commission doesn't know what it is talking about. The fact is that it

is my understanding, from all the reading I have done on this issue,

that a person originally admitted to Riverside because of an offence

committed while insane to use a word which, as I say, is loosely

defined has, in effect, an indeterminate sentence. The only way that

person can ever be released from Riverside is first of all to have a

review from which recommendations go to cabinet. I am just asking one

simple question: do they go to cabinet and does the cabinet make the

decision? If it is the case, does the minister not feel that it is such

an unfair thing to ask the cabinet, really, to make that kind of

decision? Should not there be some other mechanism whereby perhaps the

judge plus medical personnel are given some autonomy to make the

decision? Then if the offender repeats the offence after release, at

least the government — the cabinet — neither in a positive nor a

negative way could be criticized for having let politics influence what

was a medical decision.

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General, through you,

that there have been lots of comments in the media that it is such a

sensitive decision these days when society is very concerned, and

rightly so, about events which happen, for example, when a person is

released on parole and commits an offence while on parole. Great

emphasis is given to the minority of such cases, and overlooked are the

big benefits that are following, in my view and in the view of many

people, from the majority of parolees who do not get into trouble and

who do not repeat offences. The same kind of thinking must be in the

minds of cabinet ministers when they face recommendations regarding a

person in Riverside who may have committed murder or rape or some other

very serious offence. The cabinet ministers are left facing the

decision as to whether they release this person back into society or

not on the basis of somebody's recommendations, however well motivated

these recommendations might be.

All I am saying is that it doesn't seem the best way to do it by

passing the buck to the cabinet. I wonder if the minister could tell us

what alternative he might consider.

When I was on my feet a moment ago I forgot to get onto an important

local issue, and that is the question of the courts in Victoria, Mr.

Chairman. A very eminent judge retired not too long ago....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Would you like me to respond?

MR. WALLACE: Certainly.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The procedure at the present time, as I

think the hon. member is aware, is that the matter first is heard by

the order-in-council patients review board. After that it is processed

through cabinet. That is the only procedure that is presently

available, and we will require to alter that in an amendment to the

Criminal Code of Canada. This is a matter that is being looked at right

across the country. It's not unique to B.C. It's a very difficult and

awkward procedure, as you have clearly illustrated. Personally, I think

there's a lot of value to your remarks, and also to the considerations

of the Law Reform Commission, but that's as far as I can go with you

today.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I certainly apologize if I

[ Page 1351 ]

suggested that the minister gave an inaccurate answer. Can I just be

absolutely clear that the situation is that even if the government

wished an alternative mechanism, it is not within the jurisdiction of

the cabinet to change the mechanism without a change in the Criminal

Code of Canada?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Right.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I appreciate your explaining to someone

like myself who's not well-versed in the technicalities of legislation

at different levels.

With regard to the law courts in Victoria, could I ask two or three

quick questions? Mr. Justice Wootton, a supreme court judge, recently

retired and I understand he has not been replaced. I wonder if there is

to be a replacement.

The court of appeal was moved from Victoria. I also understand that

Victoria has the dubious status of being the only provincial capital in

Canada that does not have a court of appeal in the capital. The court

of appeal, I believe, was moved when renovations were embarked upon to

build two extra floors on the courtroom building in Victoria. I would

like to know if the minister will give either a commitment or confirm

the fact that the court of appeal will return to Victoria when building

renovations and additions have been completed.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The present county court is being held

temporarily in St. Ann's Academy. With no disrespect whatever to that

building or to the former order of nuns, I just want to make it very

plain that the legal profession in Victoria are very unhappy about the

albeit temporary facilities. On top of that, I think they've just

recently discovered that, unknown to them, much of the space on the

additional two floors will not be made available as courtroom space but

as government offices.

I would like to get answers to these various questions. First of

all, will we be having someone appointed as a supreme court judge to

replace Mr. Justice Wootton? Will the court of appeal return to

Victoria? Will the new construction involve any new space for the court

or will it all be used as government offices — the two additional

floors? Finally, is there a projected date by which it is confidently

expected that the construction will be completed?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Labour disputes, acts of God and pestilence

notwithstanding, the fall is the target date for the completion and,

hopefully, the court of appeal will be back in and operating by then.

We are also proposing that the three courtrooms be installed on the

main floor. We're going to try to do that with the least disruption

possible over the next short while. Concerning the retirement of Mr.

Justice Wootton, I wish him the greatest of good fortune and success in

his retirement. I'd like to thank him on behalf of the people of this

province for his great contribution. Insofar as his replacement is

concerned, that is a matter for the consideration of the Minister of

Justice (Hon. Mr. Basford) .

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I understand that the

Attorney-General's department has made a decision to move the inmates

from the Vancouver juvenile home to the Willingdon campus. My questions

are related to that decision, so perhaps I should first ask if that

decision has been made, before I carry on with my questions. Has it

been made?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Willingdon is to be a remand and assessment programme. That's what the concept is.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, that's fine. That's really what I want to

get on to. I realize it's to be a remand centre and some of the young

people from the juvenile home, I gather, will be moved there also. Okay.

I know the Attorney-General is well aware that the Willingdon campus

is, of course, now used by BCIT. You have made the decision, obviously.

My hope is that there's been a considerable amount of consultation with

BCIT. I do want to ask you, hopefully in discussions that have taken

place, what decisions have been made regarding this move, because

there's grave concern about some of the problems inherent in the move

from the point of view of BCIT and, may I say, perhaps from the

community, not because the young people are going in there but because

So, specifically, my questions are: as we know, there was a nursing

course.... Rather, the facility was being used at Willingdon for a

nursing course. What will now happen to that? What about the students

who were being accommodated there and who were able to live there

during our serious housing crisis for students? Where will they go now?

What will happen to the food services which were being provided, not

only for the students on campus but for the other students at BCIT? I

do feel that it's important for all of us to know, now that you've made

your decision, what is going to happen in those areas.

Secondly, I'm sure the Attorney-General has visited Willingdon and

is aware that it has a very, very large swimming pool which we were

very pleased, as government, to open to the community so people of all

ages could use this very, very excellent pool. What

[ Page 1352 ]

are your plans there? Will this now be all closed off to the public?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think the best way to respond to your

question, Madam Member, is to read to you a letter I sent to the hon.

member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), because I don't wish to miss any of

the points and, as you know, this is a pretty encompassing department.

I'm doing my best here.

First, insofar as consultation is concerned, this was the decision

that was entered into, not individually but with the concurrence and

encouragement of both the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland). It's something that we

figured was long overdue in this province, and I must say I'm very

pleased with the response the new government has received concerning

this measure.

I have reported to the member for Oak Bay that I wish to clarify the

proposal of the Willingdon facility, and drew to his attention that I

was fully aware that the previous use of the facility as a training

school for girls involves many of the negative aspects which he

outlined in his letter. This department doesn't have any intention of

reintroducing this kind of situation in the proposed juvenile

programme. The facility will be used as a resource for both boys and

girls requiring detainment at the time of arrest, or requiring secure

remand based on an order of the court. A screening and assessment

mechanism is being built into the programme to assure that juveniles

are only received into the facility when no other adequate resources

are available and that their period in the facility be for as short a

time as possible.

The facility is being renovated and developed into several stages of

security accommodation with a supporting programme based on staff

involvement with remanded juveniles. This is an attempt to reduce as

much as possible the use of cells and other security procedures as a

method of control. But, of course, it has to be realized that the

juveniles who are received into the detention facility are for the most

part those whose behaviour does not allow for placement in a more open

community-based programme.

Now current planning also includes the possibility of locating the

Burnaby family court in the facility. This would provide, in the view

of the department, a much closer association between the resources of

the family court and the remand centre. This is a positive development

and it should create a total atmosphere of responsiveness to juveniles

in conflict with the law, which I think would well help to avoid some

of the negative institutional problems that were referred to me by the

member for Oak Bay.

Now vis-à-vis the Department of Education, the Department of the

Attorney-General has been able to work out a satisfactory arrangement

with it, as I've indicated. The pool and the recreational facilities

will be available for general use and the cottages in the complex will

be retained for the exclusive use of the Department of Education.

The classroom in the main building has not been used by the

Department of Education, I gather, for some time, and consequently

there is no major disruption of educational programmes operating in

that complex. As I say, Madam Member, this is a matter that

consideration was given to by the three ministries, and that's the

decision that's been taken.

MRS. DAILLY: On a supplementary: I appreciate the detailed

answer from the Attorney-General. My concern, however, is that some of

the inmates, no doubt — as you've mentioned, I think, yourself, or it

was suggested or implied — will need some fairly high-security

containment. I really cannot see how you are going to be able to mix

high-security containment with general use of the building by the

community and by the students. This is something, frankly, that really

concerns me. How can it possibly be done?

May I say that why I am expressing this concern is that when some of

the young people from the old Vancouver juvenile home were sent to

Haney, when they had problems with the boiler blowing up and so on, we

know what the result was. We had that turned into a vocational school

and then these young people were placed there. I know this was done

under the former government and at that time there was an emergency

situation, but it was on the interim. My concern is that I do not see

how you can mix an open educational community service with a

high-security containment.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Again, I'm stressing the fact, Madam Member,

that this is to be a remand centre. There are going to be very large

staff increases, and the containment programmes are not only going to

be bars and cells or perimeter programmes. There are going to be a lot

of people involved; there's going to be a combination of both.

But I would like to mention that this government is going to come to

grips with something that I must really criticize the former

administration for not attending to. We propose to provide a facility

for hard-core juveniles, and are going to try to look at it in as

modern a light as possible.

We do appreciate the fact that there are a relatively small number

of hard-core juveniles who just have to be taken out of the mainstream

for a bit because they are of serious concern to the communities in

which they've been placed. I've heard many complaints from judges,

people who are involved in work with juveniles, social workers — you

name it. They say: "My gosh, eventually we've been getting to the point

of complete frustration. There is nowhere to put these kids." Now we're

planning to

[ Page 1353 ]

find an adequate place for that. But that has nothing to do with this programme at all.

MRS. DAILLY: I didn't want to start opening up a

philosophical debate on the containment area of young juveniles that

I'm sure may come up later. I still don't have an answer from the

Attorney-General.

My main concern is that he had admitted that there will have to be

high-security containment; there will be bars. The cells will have to

be used, I suppose, which I rather regret — I've seen them. I find this

a great concern. If anyone has gone into that place and seen those

cells.... But if you're going to use them — and that is your decision;

we're not here to debate that decision — I'm simply saying how can you

possibly have that high-security containment and at the same time have

it open for community and education? I cannot see how. I'm just asking

you — how can it be done?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm assured by the professionals involved that it can be done, and I'm relying upon their advice.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to

prolong this debate — it's gone on for quite some time now — but I rise

to speak on vote 10 of the Attorney-General's estimates in order to

acquaint the members of this House and, as well, the hon. minister with

some of the problems which face my constituency, and in fact much of

the north, in regard to the justice system in our province.

First, I would comment on remarks made yesterday by the member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) regarding the totally inadequate juvenile centres

of the lower mainland, especially here in Victoria. Mr. Chairman, I was

appalled at what the hon. member described, but we have no such centres

in the north — good or bad — no facilities for the detention of

juveniles, no such centres at all in the northern part of this

province. In my estimation we must give serious consideration to the

installation of such centres if justice is to be served in this

province.

My second point is that of probation — not only for juveniles but

for adults as well. I think probation is a tool used far too much by

our judicial system today, not only in British Columbia but in all of

Canada. We have individuals in my constituency who have appeared and

been convicted and been placed on probation two, three and even four

times — in many cases, consecutive terms. This does not protect the

innocent citizens of our province.

We have only to cite the incident which occurred in Vanderhoof a

very short 10 days ago when an individual who had been convicted of a

shooting spree in Prince George less than a year previous, and was

placed on probation, broke into a home where there was no one at home,

grabbed a rifle and began shooting at random through the window into

the street. Before it was over one of the bullets had passed through a

window across the street, striking an invalided pensioner between the

eyes and killing her — in her very own living room. Tragic. And all

this while this individual was on probation. There have been many such

instances when probation has not protected the innocent.

I do not wish to be lengthy this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, but before

I sit down there are a couple of other points on which I would like to

touch in the area of justice in our province.

First — and this was done under the former administration, and under

the previous Attorney-General — the removal of lay judges in our

province.

MR. MACDONALD: There are still JPs.

MR. KEMPF: Removal of these judges from our judicial system,

in my mind, was one of the most unjust acts ever performed in this

province. In the small communities in the north there was nothing that

was more just than the decisions made by these lay judges...

MR. MACDONALD: Do I get equal time?

MR. KEMPF: ...excepting possibly the decisions made by local

JPs, who, prior to another wise decision by that previous

administration and that previous Attorney-General, could sit on

summary

conviction cases in this province.

Mr. Chairman, there is nothing more just than decisions made and

sentences brought down by a lay judge or a justice of the peace —

individuals who know their communities, know the people, and know the

circumstances.

MR. MACDONALD: They know everything but the law.

MR. KEMPF: Removal of these individuals from the judicial system was a backward step, Mr. Chairman.

No. 2. Again I relate to

an Act of the previous administration under

the previous Attorney-General. The Forensic Psychiatric Services Act is

a very dangerous and very archaic document — a document which we would

have expected would emanate from the Nazi Germany era during the Hitler

regime....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KEMPF: It is certainly not

an Act that should exist in the province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Archie Bunker.

[ Page 1354 ]

MR. KEMPF: I won't go into the Act itself, but I ask that you

read it yourselves, hon. members, and that you consider its abolition,

Hon. Attorney-General.

To sum up, Mr. Chairman, I believe what I have tried very briefly to

say here this afternoon is that there is a definite need in our

province today to return to a judicial system that will once more

protect the innocent and not the guilty.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): I thought the former Attorney-General was going to respond but if the....

MR. MACDONALD: I'll get my estimates through.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm not going to comment on the member's

statement, because he sort of mixed some good points with some rather

ludicrous ones, and I think he demeaned some of the strong points that

he did make.

Mr. Chairman, I spoke last Thursday about the discussion paper on

impaired driving for the Nelson Justice Council. It's not to my

knowledge yet been fully endorsed by the council.

In response to some of the points which I tried to point out — and

I'll summarize, Mr. Attorney-General — evidence was that in this

particular area one of the problems we make in policy is that we try to

create a policy which services Vancouver and doesn't serve other areas

of the province such as the north or the Kootenays.

In our area, Mr. Attorney-General, the report, which was done with input from the RCMP....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Did you send me a copy of that?

MR. NICOLSON: I haven't sent you that copy yet. In fact,

copies are very hard to get — the newspaper in Nelson has had

difficulty getting a copy.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Have you got one?

MR. NICOLSON: I have one, yes, and I'll give it to you.

One of the points I would like to make is that you said you would go

along with irregular roadblocks. I think one of the points that they're

stressing is that since week-end drinking seems to be the problem, the

roadblocks should be on a weekend and that we should not....

AN HON. MEMBER: Not every one.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, maybe not every one. It wouldn't hurt to

try some other time, but I think that it should be a deterrent, and it

can only be a deterrent if people really feel they've got a very high

chance of being caught. Being able to drive over 17,000 miles without

being caught, which is the expectation from figures from the RCMP, is

not a deterrent, and people aren't taking it as seriously as it was

taken in England.

I would like you to consider, having read the report, the

possibility of intensive weekend roadblocks. This is the time when

people do the drinking. They don't drink and drive when they're staying

up in the Meadow Creek logging camp. You can only go from the Meadow

Creek logging camp up to the bowling alley. You would walk that

distance and back, and even if you were driving while impaired on that

road, with the amount of traffic it would be rather unlikely that you

would cause a serious accident.

During the week people from the Meadow Creek logging camp are not

engaged in heavy drinking. When they come into Nelson on the weekend,

that's when it happens. We have a limited resource, a limited amount of

time that can be spent. Their suggestion is that it be through

intensive weekend roadblocks, as one in every 10 drivers is impaired

between the hours of 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. Sunday morning. I forget the

statistics that I quoted from the report the other day, but it seems to

me that something like 72 per cent of traffic fatalities occur on that

weekend period, particularly on Saturday night and Sunday morning.

I would like the Attorney-General to consider that perhaps

infrequent or irregular roadblocks in Vancouver would catch people who

are very impaired and bombed out after having been at a cocktail party

on Wednesday evening, but in the Nelson area you are going to have a

better success on a Saturday night. The objective is not really to

catch people but to stop people from drinking and driving impaired.

It's a deterrent, I would hope.

Mr. Attorney-General, you don't want to plug up your courts any

more. If by this action you happen to catch an awful lot of people and

you continue to catch them, we'll have to look for something better

because we want to stop people from doing this. Your courts are plugged

up right now and you can't handle them. If we catch all these people,

then what do we do with them? It is hoped that there could be an

experience perhaps similar to that in England, where introduction of

breathalysers did serve as a deterrent, and yet in Canada the

experience is that it didn't. I will send over the report and I would

like him to consider that.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I just have one very brief

question, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the Attorney-General can tell us

something about the plans that he has to deal with the crisis of

teenage drinking — the fact that it has reached crisis

[ Page 1355 ]

proportions. I know that everyone else has spoken about alcoholism

as it affects the adults in our community. I want to know if there are

any programmes or any resources being developed. If funds are being set

aside, what is being done to combat this insidious thing which is

happening to our young people?

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Attorney-General, I just want

to remind you that I don't think you answered the question yesterday —

although I must apologize for being out of the House at one point when

you were on your feet — with respect to employing two or three

additional people to work on the Land Registry Act so that we can get

more statistics with respect to the sale of land in B.C. to absentee

foreigners.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It would be difficult, I gather, to collate the material in the filing system that is being used, but it is worth looking into.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, I would

like to speak briefly to the Attorney-General with regard to the

process of conveyancing property in this province as it exists at this

point in time. For many years we have been under a tariff system and

virtually forced to use the services of a solicitor. In my mind, he is

a very highly trained man who is trained in many aspects and phases of

the law. I would ask if the Attorney-General would consider a system

similar to that found in Quebec, where a notary public does most of the

simple conveyancing of property, especially with regard to housing. The

rates are much lower and people are satisfied. I think we are all

concerned that housing costs are skyrocketing. I think conveyancing

fees are just part of it, and I would like to know if the

Attorney-General would consider increasing the number of notaries

public in the province — I think there are 500 — to a number

significantly larger, and also upgrading their skills so that they

could be considered paralegal people and would be able to help in the

conveyancing of land.

HON. MR. GARDOM: At the present time, Mr. Member, the

notaries in the province, of course, do convey land but I gather that

the rates are just about comparable between one and the other. I'll

take note of your remarks and give consideration to it.

I would like to thank the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson)

for sending over the report on impaired driving which he referred to

today and on earlier days. I can assure him that we are not going to

have city vision in the matter.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I repeat my question to the Attorney-General about teenage drinking.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Madam Member, I am afraid this is one item

where, save and except if enforcement of the law is concerned, the

programmes will be under the Department of Health. You can question the

minister during his estimates.

Vote 10 approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You must be fooling — I demand a recount!

On vote 11: administrative and support administration of justice, $2,596,384.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I raised under the minister's vote

10 the question of the affirmative action report in his department. I

notice that vote 11 also covers personnel administration and the

overall policy of the department. The question I raised was: what has

happened to this report and the five recommendations outlined in the

report for the department?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Madam Member, the report came to my desk, as

you know, within the last couple of months. It's not going to be a

report that's going to die on the vine. It is a matter that is being

considered within the department. Hopefully, we're going to be able to

use some of the resources of our department to implement some of the

suggestions. That's as far as I can go today.

Vote 11 approved.

On vote 12: courts, $20,264,381.

MR. MACDONALD: I would like to ask the Attorney-General

whether he is satisfied with the Shrum report on 51, 61 and 71, or

whether the design for that complex by Arthur Erickson is going to be

dismantled or whether it will go ahead, as Arthur Erickson left the

planning before Gordon Shrum came into the act. I would like to say

that I regard this, in terms of the court house portion, as primarily a

justice question, not.... Use of courtrooms, space, administration —

all of these things, of course, require heavy input from the

Attorney-General's department. As you satisfied that Shrum won't upset

the apple cart?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have not read the report.

MR. MACDONALD: Has the Attorney-General received the report?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have received a report.

MR. MACDONALD: Will you table the report, Mr.

[ Page 1356 ]

Attorney-General, for the public?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's not in my province to do that, Mr. Member.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I notice the decrease in the

number of deputy sheriffs. I understand that the present course which

is underway was intended to enrol something like 70-odd students, and

it has an enrolment of around 30 or 32, and that for the next enrolment

at present there is something like 16 and there is consideration of

cancelling it. This and the decrease in the number of deputy sheriffs

make me wonder about the future of the programme, which I see as a good

one.

I might even say, concerning the point that was brought up about

lock-up facilities, that in the city of Nelson we have a fine city

police detachment but they just had a problem of a breakout in the

Nelson city jail, which was rather interesting. Perhaps this whole area

could be and should be more expanded so that custody could be looked

after more and more by sheriffs, and police work and investigative work

could be handled otherwise.

So I would like to know what is happening in terms of the training

programmes, which I understand go on at BCIT or near BCIT — maybe the

vocational school, but somewhere around Willingdon and the old

Grandview Highway — and what the significance of this reduction of 100

in deputy sheriffs is.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the hon. member for

Nelson-Creston, the figure that is shown for last year is not a true

figure because by virtue of the freeze, that was greatly reduced. I

don't have at my fingertips the actual figure but it was 300 and

something — I am informed 350 or so. So what is contemplated actually

is an increase — a more realistic figure. Insofar as the training is

concerned, it is an ongoing programme until the maximum number is

reached.

MR. NICOLSON: I can well appreciate when a new programme is

introduced.... For instance, in the Department of Housing I don't think

the full complement of the Department of Housing has been attained yet

as was in the estimates last year. But could the Attorney-General give

me some idea of how many deputy sheriffs there are now and how many you

would envisage increasing through training and hiring in the next year?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll have to take that question as notice

and give you an answer. I will request one from the department. I don't

have that information.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, my question relates to staffing, too, in this particular

vote. I notice that the overall staffing has been reduced by something

like 72 bodies. If you add on to that the 15 per cent general allowance

for staff reduction, we are talking about some 100 people less being

provided for in this estimate. In the Attorney-General's report,

which he filed recently — I realize it is for 1975 — on page 11 there

is reference to the very detrimental effect that short-staffing is

having. It says: "Those engaged in growing, expanding programmes in the

administration of justice such as Crown counsel, court reporters,

sheriff service, court administration were particularly disrupted

because of this very thing — the shortage of staff." I would ask the

Attorney-General if he could explain the rationale for reducing staff

in this particular budget when it is very overworked.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I agree with the point that the member has

taken. That's not the intention at all. Perhaps it is not clear from

the material; if it's not, it should have been made clearer. The 15 per

cent reduction does not apply to the court services.

Vote 12 approved.

On vote 13: Crown counsel, $5,542,695.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask the Attorney-General, in

view of the fact that we're striving for one provincial court system,

one set of prosecutors, whether there are municipal bylaw infractions

or other matters that are now going to be left to the municipalities

rather than the provincial prosecutors. If so, what are those matters?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry.

MR. MACDONALD: Are there any prosecutions, say municipal bylaws, that will now not be conducted by the provincial Crown counsels?

HON. MR. GARDOM: There is a possibility that the major city in the province — the city of Vancouver — may hire its own lawyers this summer.

MR. MACDONALD: I think it's kind of unfortunate because I

think one provincial system is the objective. If we begin dumping on

municipalities all the obligation of prosecuting this and that, that

will tie them up. We'll have the fragmented system all over again and

we'll be dumping a financial burden on the municipalities.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I understand, Mr. Member, that some of the municipalities do wish it, so we're going to look at it very carefully.

[ Page 1357 ]

Vote 13 approved.

On vote 14: police services, $26,447,180.

MR. MACDONALD: I'd like to say just first, very briefly, that

I think we've been very fortunate in British Columbia in the people

we've had to be assistant commissioners of the RCMP. We've had Gordon

Cunningham, and then Ed Willes, and now the new appointee is Peter

Bazowski, who has British Columbia experience and will make a very

excellent deputy commissioner at headquarters in British Columbia. I

wish him well and I think we are to be congratulated on getting that

calibre person in B.C.

The other point I'd like to make briefly under this: if we're going

to help the police, we have to see what's happened to that

loan-sharking bill that minister Ouellet — was it? — was going to pilot

through the House of Commons in Ottawa. Now when we talk about

organized crime, as we have to, there's a whole area of organized crime

involved in loan sharking, and that's set out in the report of CLEU.

It's serious even in British Columbia. It's breaking some lives in

terms of penury. It's killing some lives in terms of contract killing,

and it's involving threats of bodily harm and other things to exact

from unfortunate people who get caught in the toils of unconscionable,

usurious interest rates.

This is a fertile field for organized crime, and while the police

services can do so much, there's got to be a law behind them. The old

loan-shark Act, the federal one, is just of no real help to us at all

in this province. There should be a limit on the interest charged, you

know, in that Act, so there's something that we can put our teeth into,

and registration of people engaged in this business so the police have

some kind of a handle to stop loan sharking becoming a major cancer in

British Columbia, as it undoubtedly has become in cities like Montreal.

So I would hope that the Attorney-General would use his influence

to.... I realize that interest is a federal matter, and there's a limit

to what can be done in the province of B.C., but I hope that he will

make sure that the federal government puts that at the top of their

priority list in terms of criminal legislation before it is too late.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just in response, with the leave of the

House, to a question raised by a member over there, the sheriffs

complements are 9 sheriffs, 341 deputy sheriffs and 36 deputies being

recruited for training.

I indeed subscribe to, and associate myself with, the remarks of the

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) concerning the commissioners

of the Royal Canada Mounted Police in this province, who have done an

outstanding job. I, too, would indeed welcome commissioner Bazowski to

the province. He has come here today, and we wish him very, very good

health and a successful tenure in B.C.

I thank the member concerning his remarks regarding the

loan-sharking legislation, and will certainly give it careful

consideration.

MS. BROWN: Just two very brief questions. The hon. Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) prior to the last election, Mr.

Chairman, went around the province of British Columbia assuring

everyone that there was a top-secret police force out there that was

designed by the then Attorney-General, the hon. member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Macdonald), which constituted a threat to the life and limb

of the people of British Columbia, and I'm wondering....

AN HON. MEMBER: Freedom.

MS. BROWN: Freedom of the people of British Columbia. I'm

wondering whether the Attorney-General, under this vote, would be able

to tell the House whether he's discovered this police force and all the

guns and uniforms they were supposed to have and what he has done, if

he has found a police force, to ensure the freedom which had been

threatened by their alleged existence.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver-Burrard, please proceed.

MS. BROWN: I'm wondering if the Attorney-General will tell us

whether he has discovered this police force, because we are now

concerned about the freedom of the people out there and all the guns

and uniforms and things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 14 pass?

MS. BROWN: No, no, no!

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I think the Attorney-General should answer the question posed to him by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard.

Interjection.

MR. KING: All right. I'll yield the floor and come back later.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You always look down when you stand up. Why do you do that?

MR. KING: That's since you joined the coalition party, I didn't use to look down at you when you were a Liberal.

[ Page 1358 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I thank the hon. member for her

remarks and I'm glad to see that she's not being political, as she

never is, this virgin child of politics across the way. (Laughter.)

However, the police forces that are in the province, I think, are

evident to everyone; we have the RCMP and we have the municipal forces.

Those are the ones that I'm aware of. (Laughter) .

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Well, can we take it that the

Attorney-General is dissociating himself with the remarks made by the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) ?

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

HON. MR. GARDOM: I've no idea what remarks she made.

MR. LEA: The public needs reminding.

MR. SKELLY: Well, yes, let's remind the people of the remarks

she did make when she was travelling around the province for the past

three years. She said that the socialist government was setting up a

brown-shirted secret police, arming them, equipping them with cars. Has

the Attorney-General found this not to be true?

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: He has dissociated himself from the remarks of the present Provincial Secretary?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very important

question because statements were made by the then, I think, president

of the Social Credit Party or League and now Provincial Secretary,

which created an impression about firearms. I would like to see the

Attorney-General give us some sort of a reassurance about what types of

firearms were purchased. What firearms do we have? I believe that there

are some for sheriffs, for instance, in their custodial work, but these

wild statements were made. It's fine for one government to deny it, but

there is an office to uphold and the dignity of that office to uphold.

It would certainly give some credence if the Attorney-General could

make some comment about these things and, once and for all, put to rest

the minds of the people. Otherwise, some people would, I think, assume

that not only was there a secret police, but this government is

continuing to retain them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I did respond to the question. I said that

the police forces in this province consist of the RCMP and the

municipal forces. If you consider the sheriff's office a police force,

you can include them too — if you consider them. I don't consider the

sheriffs office a police force per se.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the Provincial Secretary, when she was

the president, or the chairman, or whatever you call it — the head bozo

for the Social Credit League — went around this province saying that

there was a secret police force and there was an arsenal of weapons

being put away to supply that police force. I ask the Attorney-General:

was she lying or was she telling the truth? Was she lying or

telling the truth? It's that simple. She was either lying or telling

the truth, and I want to know what the answer is to that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: Well, I didn't want to break the questioning theme,

Mr. Chairman. I wanted to raise another matter and that pertains to the

agreement with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for staffing for

police duties throughout the province. The Attorney-General knows that

there have been problems in some of the rural areas of the province,

particularly with respect to adequate staff to do a proper job of

patrolling highway systems and so on that frequently become a kind of a

racetrack or a drag strip because people with high-powered cars realize

that the area is sparsely policed and generally free from patrol. I

wonder how many complaints the Attorney-General's department has had,

since the current government took office, from rural parts of the

province indicating a dissatisfaction with the number of police

officers available for highway patrol duty and so on. I wonder, have

there been any such complaints?

AN HON. MEMBER: Haven't seen any.

MR. KING: No? Well, in my particular riding this has been a

problem in the past. I would ask the Attorney-General to pay particular

attention to the Slocan area between Nelson and Slocan City where it

became a real problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the problem, Bill?

MR. KING: The main problem was, you know, drag-racing on the

highway. It used to be, driving from Slocan City to south Slocan

particularly, that the road was absolutely marred by burnt rubber. It

was really something to behold in terms of the games that were played

on that highway. I really don't criticize the RCMP detachment at

Crescent Valley, I believe it is, because they certainly lack the

manpower to do an adequate job. They were in the position where the

staff was so sparse that they

[ Page 1359 ]

simply could only attempt to respond to the various complaints and

calls they had, but in terms of any sustained patrol function there

simply were not adequate staff to do that.

I appreciate that these things come and go, and it may not be the

most serious kind of problem that faces and besets the province.

Nevertheless, there were a number of lives lost. Particularly those

people who live in the area and drive their automobiles to and from

work, a period of some miles, it's a bit chilling, you know, to be

threading the needle, as it were, through drag-strippers on a somewhat

isolated road where they are free from patrols,

So I'll just draw it to the Attorney General's attention and ask him

to give consideration and to maintain some dialogue with the RCMP

detachments in isolated communities to determine the adequacy of their

manpower.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The member made a very valid point. I gather

the department has not received complaints. I believe one did come in,

I've just been informed, from another area, Sparwood. But, of course,

the people involved in that could well be charged with speeding,

perhaps with driving without due care and attention, perhaps with

reckless or dangerous driving. Of course, part of the problem is

collecting the evidence, so if the citizens in the area would assist

the police, that would be greatly appreciated.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm heartened on the one hand and

a little alarmed on the other that the Attorney-General seems to be

pleased with the programme carried on by the sheriffs and deputy

sheriffs in their custodial duties. Yet a great disservice was done to

this innovation in this province in terms of relieving the RCMP from

escort duties and other things, and in fact, indeed, a separation of

the police from the court matters, which I think is very important.

In the birth of this idea a very extreme disservice was done by the

person who is presently the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).

She did go around talking about a secret police force; the only thing

it could have related to, in fact, was the sheriffs' programme. I know

that the sheriffs are trained in small arms, that there is a firing

range up on Burke Mountain, and that the people who are undergoing

training with .38 revolvers, I believe. To my knowledge, they do not

take training in any other type of weapons — not to my knowledge,

although perhaps maybe they do.

Are there M-whatever rifles or automatics? Are there automatic

weapons? These are the types of questions and the things that one was

led to believe by the statements of the now Provincial Secretary when

she was the president of the Social Credit

League. I think that it's incumbent upon the Attorney-General, at

this time, to clear up this misapprehension for once and for all. Clear

it up. Why is the Attorney-General leaving?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll answer that question.

MR. NICOLSON: Don't answer that question, Mr. Attorney-General. You'll answer the question I have asked? Then why are you leaving?

This, Mr. Chairman, was an irresponsible statement. Now it was

either a truthful statement or an untruthful statement. If it was a

truthful statement, then the people have a right to know. Perhaps even

the former Attorney-General should be censured for not having brought

out the information — even though he's a friend of mine, a colleague

and a man for whom I have a great respect.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a state secret.

MR. NICOLSON: Really, the present Attorney-General must act.

He must act, because the former Attorney-General said that there was no

substance in it. I don't know if he said it was a lie, but either it's

a lie or it's the truth. It's one or the other. I think it is incumbent

upon the Attorney-General to clear this up, that a great disservice was

done to this very worthwhile move when the concept of relieving trained

police officers from these routine custodial duties....

If you were a rural member, such as I am, and you had occasion to

travel in and out of the Castlegar airport you'd realize that RCMP

officers have years of training. Before they go on the job they have a

great deal of training and that training continues, and they continue

to improve their level of qualification. These highly trained people

were not our enforcing laws; they were doing something which could be

better done, or as well done, by someone else — escorting people to the

courts from the area in which they were perhaps detained, having

detained them from the Vancouver institutions, taking them back to the

courts in the areas in which the crimes had been committed.

So this was a good concept. It was a good concept and it was marred,

I think, despicably maligned if there was no basis in fact in the

remarks made by this present Provincial Secretary prior to being, of

course, elected and during the time in which she was not an elected

member of this House. So either there's truth in this or it was a

despicable act maligning a very worthwhile and praiseworthy...

MR. LEA: Just a plain, ordinary lie.

MR. NlCOLSON: ...institution which everybody.... The judges I've talked to, lawyers I've

[ Page 1360 ]

talked to, members of the RCMP with whom I've talked, and in fact

the sheriff in the Nelson district with whom I've talked, are all

supportive of this idea, and yet a shadow was cast upon it. I think

that the Attorney-General could have answered this quite simply; now

it's getting to a point where it could almost become ridiculous that it

not be answered.

I would urge the Attorney-General to get up and reassure this House

and the people of British Columbia that there is no hidden arsenal,

that there's no secret police. Don't just get up and tell us that we

have the city police forces, the RCMP and sheriffs. But is there some

sinister force or isn't there? Was there a real, malignant rumour

spread by the person who is presently the Provincial Secretary at the

time during which she was not an elected member of this House but the

president of the Social Credit Party?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is this? What's her name?

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I don't name people in this House because....

MR. LEA: Who was the president of the Social Credit Party in the past year?

MR. NICOLSON: Well, the president of the Social Credit Party at the time the statements were made was Grace McCarthy, but....

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you sure it wasn't Charlie? (Laughter.)

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, either there has been a malignant

rumour spread by the former president of the Social Credit Party, or it

was a fact. I would like the Attorney-General to take this opportunity

under this vote which covers the sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, which I

think she was trying to misinterpret at that time, trying to create

public hysteria — and did very successfully, make no mistake about

that.... She did a very successful job in her capacity as president of

the Social Credit Party. She resorted to lengths that I wouldn't use in

seeking political power, but it was successful, I admit that.

I think that now it's time the Attorney-General, the chief officer

of law and a person charged with this responsibility and charged with

being, I think, above politics, charged with being above politics in

this very important position.... I would hope that he would stand and

reassure this House that there was no basis in fact in those

maliciously spread rumours, lies and innuendos.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to interrupt the proceedings of the House for just a moment to introduce the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much. It's not often the

member for South Peace River has the opportunity to introduce a group

of students from his constituency, and I thank the House for giving me

this opportunity this afternoon.

In the gallery is a group of students from the Chetwynd Secondary

School. This group comprises 19 students with their teacher, Michael

Reid, and they call themselves "The Chetwynd Voyageurs." I'd like the

House to welcome them this afternoon, students from the great Peace

River country.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General

has two very simple and straightforward choices. He can repudiate the

remarks made by the then president of the Social Credit Party, the Hon.

Grace McCarthy, now Provincial Secretary, when she claimed repeatedly

on numerous occasions and in numerous places throughout the province of

British Columbia that there existed in the province of British Columbia

a secret police force with a secret cache of arms — a secret cache of

guns hidden away somewhere.

We ask the Attorney-General in all seriousness to repudiate these

remarks and to bring to the province of British Columbia that fact

which we knew, and which our party knew as government, which was that

we were proposing a sheriffs service of first-rate quality, value and

worth. There was no secret police then; there is no secret police now.

If you have discovered one now, tell us now. If there is none now,

repudiate the remarks of the past president of the Social Credit Party,

the Hon. Grace McCarthy, Provincial Secretary.

The choice is very simple, Mr. Attorney-General. Was she correct or

not? She stated repeatedly throughout British Columbia that there

existed a secret police force with a secret cache of arms. Was she

correct or not? A yes or no will do. If you say yes, she was correct,

identify the secret police, tell us where the arms are hidden and tell

us what you are going to do about it. If your response is no, she was

not correct, then tell us that. Repudiate the remarks that she made

which have cast a very bad light on the sheriffs service of the

province of British Columbia, for which you are now responsible.

Repudiate those remarks for once and for all. Tell us, tell this

legislature, and tell the people that she was wrong, wrong, wrong —

that every charge she made about a secret police was false —

consistently, repeatedly false from beginning to end. You have an

opportunity, Mr. Attorney-General, to set the record straight on

behalf of your own department. Tell us today what we know to be the

case. There never was a secret police

[ Page 1361 ]

force; there is not such a secret police force today. That is the very simplest choice: yes or no. Was she right or wrong?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just like to caution hon. members that

the proper names of individuals who are members of this House...it is

not customary for us to use them. If you wish to refer to them as a

newspaper clipping or something like that, it is permissible, but to

refer to them as the member who just took his seat has done, it is not

customary in this House.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering whether the

Attorney-General really, as the chief law-enforcement officer in this

province, will clarify for us one simple matter. Did the Provincial

Secretary speak truthfully when she said that there was a secret army

or police force with guns and uniforms in existence in this province

which constituted a threat to the freedom of the people of this

province? If, in fact, he has found, since becoming the

Attorney-General, that there is no such secret force, then I would like

to ask that the Attorney-General charge the Provincial Secretary with

public mischief, because that is precisely what she did. She should be

charged under the law with creating a public mischief and if found

guilty should resign her seat.

We are calling on the Attorney-General to do his job. We have just

voted him a very handsome salary to run his office. Part of his

responsibility is the police service. Now was there a secret police

force? If there was not a secret police force, then a crime has been

committed —

an act of public mischief. Maybe not a crime, but

an act of

public mischief was committed by the present Provincial Secretary, a

member of the government. It is the responsibility, then, of the

Attorney-General to see to it that justice is done. An example has to

be set. We cannot tolerate people going around this province creating

the kind of disturbances which were created by that member before she

was a member of this House — the fear, the anxiety and the paranoia

which was fostered by the statements made by that member before she was

a member of this House. She must be punished if there was, in fact, no

truth in the allegations which she circulated.

However, is it possible that she did speak truthfully and that, in

fact, the Attorney-General has found a secret police? Is he prepared to

tell us about it or is he hiding it so that he can use it in some way

himself? So really the Attorney-General has to do one of two things:

say to the House there is no secret police force — "I have found no

secret police force" — at which time he will have to lay a charge of

public mischief against the present Provincial Secretary. If found

guilty, she must resign. Or else he must say to the House: "There is a

secret police force but it is a secret and I don't want anyone to find

out about it." Those are two options open to him.

Mr. Chairman, it is here in the Vancouver Province of May

12, 1973. I am quoting — this is the only reason why I am using the hon.

member's name because I would not transgress on the dignity and the

honour of this House.

It says here: "Grace McCarthy, former Social Credit Minister Without

Portfolio, says that the B.C. government is forming a secret police

force under the new B.C. Energy Act." That minister is responsible also

for ensuring whether, in fact, under the new B.C. Energy Act, such a

secret police force was in existence. Then she starts to talk about all

the terrible things that this secret police force would be doing:

"...reaching the minds of the young and then they form a secret police

force, which is what they are doing today. She called on the Social

Credit and Conservative Parties to join hands to remove the foreign

philosophy from this province."

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: There you are, Mr. Attorney-General. Tell us: have

you found a secret police force and is it now a secret? Because if you

share this secret with the House, we will keep it a secret, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MS. BROWN: We will understand that the Attorney-General has

found a secret police force which he would like to remain a secret, and

so he doesn't want us to tell anyone else about it. We will respect

that wish. If he has not found a secret police force and he does not

want to keep it a secret, then he has to admit that the hon. Provincial

Secretary, before she became the hon. Provincial Secretary, did, in

fact, go around this province creating an atmosphere of fear and

anxiety. A public mischief I think, is the legislation under which she

should be charged. I am not sure; it may be sedition. I don't know. I

wouldn't dare tell the Attorney-General what Act to charge her under.

What other Acts are there? I am not sure, but surely there is

an Act.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Okay. But in fact, you know, Mr. Chairman, if the

Attorney-General would admit that the hon. Provincial Secretary was as

correct in her

[ Page 1362 ]

first warning — that, in fact, there is a secret police force — as

she was in her second warning about the coalition being formed....

Because the coalition was formed; they did join hands and form the

coalition. So she was quite accurate in her second statement. But as

for the first statement, the one that has to do with the secret police

force, if she was in fact not telling the truth, then surely the

responsibility of the chief law-enforcement officer of this land — the

protector of justice of all the people, the protector of freedom of all

the people of British Columbia — demands that the hon. Attorney-General

lay a charge under whatever legislation there is to lay a charge under

and that that minister be brought before the courts for creating a

public mischief in this province.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): I would like to have the

Attorney-General answer not only the questions put to him by the first

member for Vancouver-Burrard, but also I would like to have him tell me

if he, as chief law officer of this province, knows anything about the

existing new force that we don't know about. That's the one that the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has been telling us

about that is going to go around and do an investigative job on this

$80 million worth of fraud that he has been telling us is rampant in

this province. That $80 million worth of fraud is a very serious

defalcation of funds and evidently, if we can believe the statements of

the Minister of Human Resources, represents....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I interrupt the member just long enough to remind him that we are on vote 14?

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with a

law-enforcement situation, and I am wondering whether the

Attorney-General has referred this very important question to the

Co-ordinated

Law Enforcement Unit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Vote 14 is on police services.

Some of the questions which you are asking now might better have been

asked under the minister's vote, under his salary vote.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, if the miscreants who are guilty of this $80

million alleged fraud are to be caught, I would think it would have to be done

by a police force — by the RCMP, by a municipal force or by the Co-ordinated

Law Enforcement Unit, which is under the Attorney-General. I would suggest that

it is very much in order under this vote to ask these questions.

MR. SKELLY: It's a "fuzzy" jurisdiction.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with allegations

that were made that a number of welfare recipients and a number of the

600 social-worker field staff of this province were party, by either

sins of omission or commission, to fraudulent activities which cost the

taxpayers of this province $80 million. I would like to have the

Attorney-General possibly edify the House on whether or not he has even

been asked for a report on this most serious defalcation of funds,

whether he's had it referred to the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit,

or whether he's had any activities on it at all within his department.

An hon. minister of the Crown has made these suggestions not once

but several times, and I have no reason to disbelieve him. I would like

the situation cleared up. Either this kind of defalcation of funds is

going on — and I believe it would amount to several hundred thousand

dollars per social worker if it was — either that, or we certainly want

to clear the professional name and the legal name of the field staff

who are involved in making decisions on how social assistance is

disbursed in this province.

Most certainly I don't like the idea of a kind of a backroom force,

people going around and asking citizens of this province, and

professional people in this province, questions — the snoop squad.

In fact I phoned one of the Human Resources offices in my riding

about this very question and asked them if they'd seen any evidence of

the minister's snoop squad. They said: "No, but there were a couple of

guys in here the other day whom we didn't know to fix a typewriter." I

said: "What's so unusual about that? Typewriters need fixing." He said:

"Well, we never had typewriter repairmen wearing suits before."

Evidently it turned out that they were from Nelson Stationery, or some

very reputable company.

Certainly the House needs to know as much as we can about this

because your department has come under fire in the estimates, Mr.

Attorney-General, for being short of funds in certain areas. Certainly

if there was $80 million available this year that was not available

last year, through fraudulent activities, I'm sure it could be put to

good use, even in such areas as legal aid and many of the areas which

we've had your department questioned about in terms of funding supply

during these estimates.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, on May 11, 1973, this is from the Prince George paper:

"Social Credit researcher and former Minister Without Portfolio,

Grace McCarthy, warned Thursday the provincial government is forming a secret

police force under the terms of the new provincial Energy Act. Mrs. McCarthy

told 500 party supporters attending a dinner here for former Premier W.A.C.

Bennett that the police force is to be used to enforce the

[ Page 1363 ]

government's socialistic, monopolistic legislation.

She said the force is mentioned in sections of the Energy Act which empowers

the energy board to hire anyone to enforce terms and provisions of the Act.

"She went on to say that everywhere the socialists

have gone in the world they first take over the control of the land,

then infiltrate education to reach the minds of the young, and then

they form a secret police, which they are doing now, she said."

Now I would like to first of all comment, Mr. Chairman, on the

Attorney-General himself. When I sat on the other side of the House and

he was a Liberal member, I had respect for the Attorney-General. When

he decided to join the Social Credit Party I knew at that time that he

must have some misgiving because of the kind of people he was going to

have to associate with.

Now he cannot sit in his place without standing up and saying that

what was said by the now Provincial Secretary was the truth, because it

was a lie that was being spread by the hon. Provincial Secretary when

she was president of the Social Credit League. You can't just sit, Mr.

Chairman.

You know, people in this province actually believed that the New

Democratic Party, when it was government, was forming a secret police

to take away their freedoms. They believed that because the hon.

Provincial Secretary went throughout this province saying it. It's not

good enough.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're shouting!

MR. LEA: You're darned right I'm shouting!

You know, it's a lie; that's what it is. It was a lie! The

Provincial Secretary was going out and telling the people of this

province — that's what it was, pure and simple — a lie!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General should

answer that question. Either the Provincial Secretary was revealing a

state secret, or she should be charged with public mischief. There was

a fellow in Russia who called the Minister of Culture a fool — now that

didn't happen in B.C. — and he got five years for seditious libel and

10 years for revealing a state secret. (Laughter.)

If we did form a police force under the Energy Act.... But the

member for Prince Rupert...it isn't funny; these statements were made

and they were believed by a lot of people. I think it was a most

unfortunate episode in the history of B.C. that that kind of mischief

should have been going abroad in the province.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's not for me, hon. members, to reflect upon

the alleged past remarks of any member of this Legislature. I would certainly

mention in response to the opposition's political attack this afternoon

— which is coming for very obvious reasons; I mean, this is not really fooling

anybody either — that if they felt so strongly about the issue when this occasioned,

as I understand from the hon. member for Prince Rupert, in 1973, they had ample

opportunity to take such steps as they deemed appropriate, or any citizen would

have an opportunity to have done that.

I've informed this House three times this afternoon, and I'll do so

again, that as far as I know, the only police forces in this province

consist of the RCMP and the municipal forces.

If you consider that a sheriffs' force is a police force too, I

would include that. Now I don't know of any others, either today or in

the past.

MR. NICOLSON: I'll accept the statement made by the

Attorney-General because that's what I also believe to be true in terms

of the police forces that exist. I would just like to say, though, that

the Attorney-General said that this has been a political thing, and

certainly it is political. It was political when it was started; it was

political when these statements were made, Mr. Attorney-General, and

make no mistake about that. I think a certain phrase has struck a cord

of familiarity with the Attorney-General.

But had the Attorney-General of the day perhaps laid charges, there

would have been a great outcry: here's the president of a political

party being persecuted. I would only say that the present

Attorney-General would be in a better position — he would certainly be

beyond any political accusations — and that he should look at this

objectively in that a public mischief was created and that a response

should be made. At least the people of British Columbia can be

reassured by the Attorney-General that there is no secret police force,

and that the former president of the Social Credit Party was spreading

a lie during the last election campaign which existed from 1972 to 1975.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like

to deal with CLEU in the two excellent reports that have been produced

by that organization, and just to quote from the first report.

In the beginning there are four quotations from various authorities;

one says: "Organized crime is an actual society interested in anything

which is profitable." This was said by Eve Prevost in an inquiry into

the crime justice in society in Quebec in 1969. There is a subsequent

quote: "Vancouver and

[ Page 1364 ]

Seattle are serious problems." This was said by John R. Bartells,

Jr., administrator of drug enforcement in the U.S. Department of

Justice, 1974.

Then the first report goes on to outline in some detail many of the

activities of organized crime which exist in British Columbia. Again in

the second report, which was published, I guess, in December of 1972,

at the end there is a reference to the crime commission feasibility

study. It's to this point that I wanted to see whether we could get the

Attorney-General to respond. The statement says:

"In our crime commission study we are attempting to

determine the necessity and the desirability of the implementation of a

British Columbia crime commission along similar lines to the Ontario

crime probe and the Quebec crime commission.

"We are currently assembling material relating to the

different methods of implementing effective crime commissions.

Preliminary indications are that certain legislative provisions are

already in effect enabling the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council to call

such an inquiry to be made in any matter relating to the administration

of justice in the province."

The reason I raise this is because in going through the reports,

particularly in the first report in reference to the drug trade in

British Columbia, there is a statement that the amount of money that

was handled in 1974 — and I would suggest that there is probably

something in the neighbourhood of $300 million — which is the

involvement of the drug trade in British Columbia.... Perhaps what

we're dealing with in Vancouver itself is something like $15 million to

$18 million dollars a month.

I was wondering whether, in the investigations that the CLEU people

have been doing, they have been able in any way to track down the

significant amounts of money which have been handled every month. Now I

rea