1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3929 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 21: minister's office –– 3929

Ms. Brown

Mr. Hall

Mr. Davis

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Cocke

THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Crown corporations committee is

desirous of sitting this morning. I would ask leave to make a motion.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I therefore move that the Crown corporations committee be permitted to sit this morning during this session of the Legislature.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 21: minister's office, $155,343.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of things I would like to raise this

morning with the Attorney-General. I'll start off, first of all, by

saying that I'd like to express some misgivings about the awesome

powers of the benchers.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:

That's right. The benchers, Mr. Chairman, are probably — as far as we

know — the most powerful group in terms of the secret workings of its

organization and its lack of accountability to anyone at all.

MR. MACDONALD: Be careful now. I'm a son of a bencher.

MS. BROWN: Well, I think sons of benchers are excluded from the comments I'm about to make.

am little bit disturbed, Mr. Chairman, about the inconsistency and the

uneven way in which the benchers dispense what is certainly their

conception of justice, and I am wondering whether the Attorney-General

should not be looking at the possibility of at least putting in a

number of lay people to monitor the decisions made by the benchers and

to have some kind of input into their workings. Now I recognize that

once the benchers have decided to disbar someone, he can appeal this;

but the costs involved sometimes make this a not very realistic thing

to do.

I have no opposition to the fact that what they are supposed to be doing is protecting the community at large.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, one moment, please. Hon. members, there appears

to be an awful lot of noise and interruption of the speaker. I wonder if all

members could come to attention, please.

MS. BROWN:

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I think the interruption is probably organized

by the benchers, because they didn't support what I'm about to say.

One

of the things that really disturbs me about the inconsistent way in

which they hand out justice.... If I can cite a specific case — if the

Attorney-General is listening....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

Once again. I will remind the committee that the hon. member for

Burnaby-Edmonds has the floor. There appears to be an awful lot of side

conversation going on, and that is a clear interruption of Committee of

Supply.

MS. BROWN: There was a case recently, Mr. Chairman,

involving a woman who practises law in this province who was acquitted

by the courts of the province of the accusations made against her in

terms of her relationship with one of her clients. Despite the fact

that the courts found her not guilty, the benchers have taken it upon

themselves not necessarily to disbar her, but to suspend her for three

years, and then to insist that after that period of time she has to

work with another lawyer for two years and then write the bar exams all

over again — which is fair enough. If the benchers were dispensing that

kind of justice to everyone. But one doesn't have to be a lawyer: one

need only read the press reports of the activities of other lawyers —

and some judges — to know that the benchers did not deal in exactly the

same way with those other specific cases. Very recently we had a case

reported in the newspaper of a lawyer who acted on behalf of both the

vendor and the purchaser on a piece of property which he owned. He was

forced to repay $30,000 to his clients because he had hidden from these

two women the fact that he was the owner of the property. That was

clearly unbecoming conduct, yet the benches have not seen fit to do

anything about that.

There

are a number of other instances, as I said, where not only lawyers but

judges have gone up before the courts and the benches have done nothing

about it. This particular woman had to continue paying her fees to the

benchers, because they said they would not consider her case if she

were not a member in good standing. So during all of this period from

1977 until now she has been paying her fees so that she can remain an

active member of the legal community. They have, as I said, suspended

her for three years, No attempts have been made to refund the fees

which she has been paying during this period of time. I'm not

questioning the way in which the benchers behave, Mr. Chairman. What

I'm questioning is their inconsistency, and the fact that they seem to

treat some of the cases that come before them differently than they

treat others. I'm not going so far as to accuse them of sexism. It's

very strange the way they dealt with this woman, but maybe that's the

way they do it.

What I would like to see is some kind of lay

auditing. some lay monitoring of the benches. In this day and age it's

not good enough for any private society or group in the community to be

totally locked in itself and not have anyone else able to look in on

their deliberations and give some input from outside. That. very

briefly, is what 17 wanted to say about the benchers.

The main thing that I wanted to deal with today is the fact that at the first

ministers conference on the constitution,

[ Page 3930 ]

which

was held in February of this year, the provincial government indicated

to the federal government that it would like to see jurisdiction over

marriage and divorce transferred to the provinces.

AN HON. MEMBER: Last year.

MS. BROWN: Yes, 1979.

recognize why the provinces are asking for jurisdiction over divorce.

The Attorney-General thinks that this is one way of dealing with the

problems of the family relations legislation: if in fact the province

had jurisdiction over all matters dealing with marriage and divorce, it

would probably be possible for the Family Relations Act to run more

smoothly. But I think it may not be a bad idea for the Attorney-General

to get some input from someone who has a different point of view and

perspective on this particular issue.

I want to clarify that

when I speak I am not speaking on behalf of all women, but I am

certainly speaking on behalf of those women who would not like to see

the province have jurisdiction over divorce. I am speaking on behalf of

those women who believe that the rules governing divorce should be

national in scope. In other words, every person in Canada, regardless

of what province they live in, should have to meet the same kind of

criteria in terms of the decisions being made about whether or not they

should have a divorce.

That is the point of view I am going

to be presenting. I understand that that is certainly the position

being taken by the Canadian Bar Association. They again came out

against the fractionalization of divorce at their meeting in Calgary

last year. I understand that even the B.C. bar itself is not fully in

support of divorce being placed in the hands of the provinces. There

are a couple of reasons for this that I want to talk about. In doing

this I am going to be quoting extensively from a number of briefs which

were presented by women's groups at conferences throughout Canada — in

Manitoba, Alberta, Ottawa, and various places. I believe there has

certainly been a lot of input at that level — not at the level of the

MacGuigan report, because women didn't have input at that level but in

terms of appearing before bar associations and various other hearings.

The input has been that for the most part there is no support for this

position on the part of the provincial government. Women recognize that

in this country we still have unequal treatment under the law.

transfer the jurisdiction of divorce from the federal government to the

provincial government would really represent a move away from a goal of

equality in treatment for all people. The multiplicity of laws which

would result, in terms of the provinces'

interpretations of the

breakdown of marriages in different ways, couldn't help but exacerbate

the inequities which we are presently fighting against. Having a

federal code is one battle that we don't have to fight now. By changing

it and giving each province this kind of jurisdiction, all the

government would be doing would be giving women another battle to fight

in terms of inequities and inequalities.

Most of the

positions stated in the MacGuigan report seemed to really indicate that

in terms of the law and of lawyers, it's easier and tidier if it's done

by the provincial route. But that's not good enough. I think we have to

look at it in terms of the impact it's going to have on women. It's

going to impact on men and children too. I'm not saying that only women

are going to feel the impact of it, but I'm speaking specifically from

the woman's perception. Certainly most of the comments I have to make

don't apply to men.

Maybe you can answer these questions for

me, Mr. Attorney-General. How many women served on the special joint

committee that made that report to the federal government? Our

understanding is that there were no women serving on the special

committee of the Bar Association, which supported it. Maybe you can

tell me how many women were on the joint committee. Maybe you can tell

me what sort of consultation the provincial government had with women's

groups in coming to a decision on this issue. I have not been able to

find any provincial women's groups in British Columbia which were

consulted by the government before it decided to take this position at

the first ministers' conference. Maybe you know of some women's groups

you consulted. I would like to know who they are, because we would

certainly like to be able to have some dialogue with them.

The

other thing, Mr. Chairman.... And I'm quoting here from a discussion

paper which was presented by Mr. Moir — I think his name is Donald.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don.

MS. BROWN:

Don, that's right. This is his discussion paper to the branch and he

talks about the chaos in the American divorce system. I think that that

comparison is really a very good one, where each state has its own....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN:

No? He says: "When we look at the chaos of the American divorce system,

Canada has reason to be reassured that we have a national law of

divorce. In order to overcome the human misery and the social and

financial cost of the — multiple problems that state jurisdiction over

divorce causes, the States are slowly moving towards uniform statutes,

most notably in the field of custody." He also mentions Australia and

other federal governments, other countries where, when the

fractionalization or the balkanization of divorce was recognized as a

hardship, which it was in terms of its impact on people, the move

towards a national system is being implemented. We have a national one.

We have a federal code, and we are talking about disbanding that and

giving the provinces jurisdiction over this area.

I gather

that one of the positions put forward by the report was that marriage

is still seen as a matter of social and cultural character. I think it

was in 1876 — or certainly back in the good old days — that marriage

was considered a matter of social and cultural character. But that's

changed. That's not the way it is anymore for those people who even

bother to marry. It has now become, and certainly I hope it will become

even more so, a matter of a partnership of equals working together — a

social and economic partnership as well as a legal partnership of

equals. That's what we're talking about. So to build a premise on an

outmoded concept of marriage as being of social and cultural character

doesn't make any sense. I think that recommendation might have held

some water if it were done even 25 years ago. But the evolution of a

different way of two people in a marriage relating to each other is

certainly something the law is going to have to take account of sooner

or later, and the sooner the better. I recognize that traditionally the

law likes to run at least 100 years behind everything else, but even

the law should now begin to be aware that marriage is changing.

When the recommendation is that the reason the provinces should have control over divorce, is because each

[ Page

3931 ]

province could adjust in terms of its own values, then that is precisely the

reason why we do not support this concept. The idea of each province basing

its rules of divorce on some sort of "its own particular values...."

What values in British Columbia? We have such an amalgam of different ethnic

and cultural groups.... Whose values are going to be the deciding values in

terms of grounds for divorce? Take any other province across this country. Who

is going to decide which is the prevailing value at the time? Does the value

change when governments change? The whole idea of breaking it down into that

concept is very frightening. The very arguments that this report used and based

its recommendation for turning it over to the provinces on is the very reason

why we don't want it turned over to the provinces. We don't want every

province that you go to having a different set of values in terms of divorce.

Then, of course, there's inequality again, right across the, country, in

terms of where you live — whether you are eligible or not eligible, and what

the settlement is or isn't would come into play. For example, in B.C. we

have Catholic values, Unitarian values, Scientology values; there are so many

other kinds of values.

have managed to work out, on a national scale, some kinds of rules.

They're not perfect, but they apply straight across the country, and it

would be an absolute mistake to change that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Our values.

MS. BROWN: Oh, your values.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Ours.

MS. BROWN:

What I'm saying is that B.C.'s "our" may not be Manitoba's "our," may

not be Prince Edward Island's "our." But Canada's "our" is Canada's

"our," and that's the reason why we should stick with Canada's "our."

Then it won't matter what province you live in; the "our" is the same.

That is "our" as opposed to "hour." The hour is never the same.

Again,

Mr. Chairman, I think we can look at the American experience. A number

of people in talking about this say that we don't want to have the kind

of Reno availability here, where one province has quick divorces. We

don't want people rushing to Saskatchewan or Alberta for a quickie

divorce, or being penalized because they live in Tory Ontario, or

anything of'that nature.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was a Freudian pause — a quickie.

MS. BROWN: Like a Mexican quickie divorce — that's what I was talking about.

The

other thing, of course, is the economics. This is really very important

as far as women are concerned. As you know, all the statistics show

that we are falling further behind in terms of real income, job

opportunities, assets, and all these kinds of things. It becomes very

much an economic handicap once you start breaking it down in terms of

different provinces. That is another reason why we are opposed to that

concept.

If you look at legislative Houses across the country, Mr. Chairman, you find

that the representation of women in these Houses is quite disproportionate in

terms of our representation in the community at large. Again, this worries us

in terms of the laws that will be framed. The input on the part of women is

not going to be truly representative, because we are just not elected. We have

50-odd members here of which a handful — something like just over 10 percent

— are women, and this is supposed to be the best provincial House in Canada

in terms of the representation of women. Certainly in terms of drafting and

framing laws at the provincial level, we are very concerned about the inequities

being highlighted in that particular instance — the fact that we are not going

to be a part of it.

want to go back — reading again from Don Moir's paper, because I think

he puts it in a very clear way — and put to the Attorney-General one of

the problems that is illustrated, and ask for an

interpretation.

"To

illustrate the intricate problem, consider a wife born in Ontario,

married in Manitoba to a husband born in Saskatchewan, and they take up

residence in Manitoba. The husband is then posted to Quebec, and in the

course of his employment the husband is then given a permanent posting.

His wife in dismay has decided that she is not prepared to move from

where she is living to join him. The wife takes the children with her

and returns to Ontario.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Remember

that is where she was born, even though she married in Manitoba a man

born in Saskatchewan who is now living in Quebec. Does the

Attorney-General have that?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It doesn't matter where they are born.

MS. BROWN:

What matters? Is where they're living the only thing that matters? This

argument says that if she takes the children and returns to Ontario,

where does she file for divorce? She files for divorce in Ontario. He

is living in Quebec and is fighting the divorce. Where is the custody

decision made?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Newfoundland.

MS. BROWN: In Newfoundland — precisely.

The

fact of the matter is that the whole business of balkanizing the

process of divorce is going to be confusing. The decisions are going to

be uneven, inconsistent and a hardship on everyone. As I said, I am not

speaking only on behalf of women, but certainly in terms of custody

decisions, the costs involved and the whole business of kidnapping

children, which is already a problem in Canada — can you imagine how

that is going to be exacerbated and how much worse it is going to be if

in fact we have a non-uniform system of custody rules, regulations and

laws in this country, and non-uniform reasons for divorce across this

country? I don't really believe that the past or present

Attorney-General or the government of British Columbia really took this

into account in making this recommendation to the federal government. I

recognize that the decision was made to use this particular issue as a

negotiating tool in the whole constitutional argument. That is what

bothers me — the fact that in making some kind of political

constitutional decisions and other things, the whole area of family and

divorce law being used in this debate without taking into account the

kinds of really negative experiences that will accrue to children and to

[ Page 3932 ]

women

and to families in general if this goes through. I don't believe that

unified family courts are the solution to everything in family law; I

support unified family courts — I think we need them — but they are not

enough just by themselves.

I think we need to have

consistent, uniform, strong federal divorce laws that operate for

everyone in this country, no matter where they live — that the same law

applies. If the law is not fair and if the law is not good, let us

amend that one law. Let us not have every province with its own divorce

law based on its own "values," as was recommended by the MacGuigan

report, Mr. Chairman; and let us not use it, really, in terms of

negotiating on behalf of other constitutional issues.

didn't touch on the matter of property, but that is certainly one of

the things that is being dealt with under the Family Relations Act and

one of the areas that the provincial government is having some problems

with. All of the things that we're fighting for in terms of marriage

being recognized as a partnership of equals....

I'm sorry the ex-Attorney-General is so bored he's yawning. I hope you have read the prestigious McGill Law Journal

— I'm not pushing it because it's my alma mater, but they agree with me

on this issue. They're not in support of the balkanization of divorce

laws and, again, they cite the comparison with the American system.

They say: "In the absence of compelling reasons for transferring

competence over divorce from the federal parliament to the provincial

legislature, it might be preferable to leave things as they stand." And

I certainly agree with them. "Provincial competence could give rise to

the very real perils of added litigations, inconsistent judgments

regarding marital status and general confusion." That is absolutely

what we're afraid of, and I would strongly endorse their recommendation

to try to improve and amend the existing federal act. Let's not start

splitting it up in terms of the different provinces.

Mr. Chairman, very quickly because the green light is on, I just want to say two things.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: You know, that minister is never interested in anything except budworms.

MR. LEA: You would be too if you had them.

MS. BROWN: That's right.

Mr.

Chairman, very quickly to the Attorney-General and I recognize that we

probably can't discuss the Family Relations Act, because you are

appealing it.... I'm not sure. Is it before the courts at this time? If

it isn't, I certainly would like to recommend that the idea of one

judge with the responsibility for sitting on all family matters and

that of the extension of the unified family courts are, I think, two

ways of dealing with the Family Relations Act — and I would support

that. For example, in the lower mainland, where we have 14 provincial

court judges among New Westminster, Surrey, Burnaby and Chilliwack and

only seven county court judges, by using this method you would in fact

double the number of judges who could sit and hear these matters and

make decisions on these matters. So I would strongly endorse an

expansion of the unified family court concept, and also this business

of appointing, for family matters, one judge who is able to hear and

make decisions on all of these issues at one sitting.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, I'll deal with the very major question, the point that

has been raised by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds with respect to the

current constitutional discussions as they affect the matter of family

law in all of its areas. Let me, first of all, assure the member that

the position that has been taken for the province of British Columbia

by my colleague, the Minister of Inter governmental Relations (Hon. Mr.

Gardom), has not been taken, and propositions put forward are not being

put for ward, as a pawn in some kind of trading game for constitutional

reform.

Ms. BROWN: That's reassuring.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

British Columbia is very concerned about this aspect and believes that

those major elements touching upon family law should be solidly within

the jurisdiction of the provinces.

I will have more to say

about divorce in a moment, but let me assure you that the question of

the expansion of the unified family court — matters dealing with

maintenance, custody, access, property rights and so on — can, we

believe, best be handled under a provincial jurisdiction and by judges

who are appointed provincially, because of the difficulties that are

created when you suddenly limit the access of persons who have these

problems to those judges who are federally appointed —

section 96

judges — and who are limited in numbers. Because the province is large,

when problems occur in the Kootenays or at Kamloops and you have to

wait until the superior court judge is available, then you have delays

and all the consequences, all the damage that can give family

situations. As I say, we think the opportunity for resolution of family

cost are items we must bear in mind. Therefore we want judges to be

accessible to people who have problems. We want the system to be

efficient and, as the member pointed out, to have matters dealt with

preferably by one judge at one time. The question of cost is something

which goes without saying.

This is not to say we are

suggesting that there shouldn't be concurrent jurisdiction. If as a

matter of choice a person wishes to take a particular issue before a

superior court judge, he has that right. We certainly don't disagree

with that. But if the resolution of the problem, wherever it may lie in

the province, can be more effectively dealt with in the local area by

judges who are particularly qualified in family relations matters, and

all the services associated with unified family court services are

available there, then one should be able to go without questions being

raised about constitutional difficulties.

I wish to assure

you, Mr. Chairman, that I'm not offending against the sub judice rule.

The Polglase case is going on to appeal; leave has been granted by the

Supreme Court of Canada. We believe that our law is properly passed

within our jurisdiction, but that's altogether aside from the

constitutional problem.

I wish to reiterate that we are not

under any circumstances using this as a trading pawn in constitutional

games; that's not our position. I think the member would be pleased to

know that in all of the areas which I discussed there seems to be

unanimity between the ten provinces and the federal government with

regard to this aspect.

The question of divorce. Consistency is achieved under

[ Page 3933 ]

the

law as it presently stands by having a federal standard established

under federal statute, I would remind the member that it took 15 years

to get some significant changes in that law. I would think that she and

the people on whose behalf she speaks would recognize that the time it

has taken to make significant social change through federal laws in

matters such as this can place barriers to keeping pace with social

needs. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but in fact it does take that

long; and that's just one item to be borne in mind. I wish to assure

the member that the position being taken by my colleague on behalf of

the province is the same as hers, and we're glad to have her support.

do not want Reno-type situations to exist in this country. That's not

our position. The present position is that status to bring a divorce

matter before the courts is a federal concern. The recognition of any

divorce granted in this country is a matter of federal concern. The

question of grounds will be a matter of concurrent position. We expect

to see the national government set grounds which will be available

throughout the whole nation. If there are in any one province

particular reasons for a need to modify, then it would be optional with

the provinces. This has been the proposition put forward by Ontario and

Quebec. I'm only telling the member the present state of the

propositions that are before the governments for consideration. Those

are the propositions that have been put forward.

But my

colleague has taken the position, as I said, that we do not want

Reno-type situations to develop in this nation. We wish to have

consistency; it is British Columbia's position that we will seek that

in any constitutional change. It may come in a number of ways. It may

come by ensuring that the federal law with regard to the recognition of

divorces will deal with that matter. A province by itself may propose

that a divorce be granted on certain grounds, but they may find that

the federal standard with respect to recognition of a divorce will

prevent those grounds from being used. We're not sure exactly what the

final formula will be, but I can assure you that our position will be

that we wish to see consistency across this nation. Other provinces —

two in particular — hold different views. That is a matter which will

have to be sorted out in the final discussions that take place between

the several ministers who meet towards the end of the month.

Eventually, as the discussions go on to the First Ministers' level,

these matters will have to be resolved. All I can assure the member is

that British Columbia's position is for consistency. As she points out,

we don't want a situation where one jurisdiction in Canada seems to be

a readily available place for a quick divorce, without consideration of

all of the other matters which flow from the dissolution of a marriage.

the course of her remarks the member spoke about her views with respect

to what the marriage relationship is. She expressed it as being a full

partnership of equals. That, of course, is the position of this

government. I think our Family Relations Act makes it clear that

there's the position we take. We're certainly glad to have her support.

I haven't made myself clear with respect to British Columbia's position

in these constitutional discussions, perhaps the member could raise any

other concerns.

With regard to the first matter that the

member raised the governance of the Law Society of British Columbia and

the fact that they have awesome powers — yes, I suppose they do have

awesome powers. But they also have awesome responsibilities, because

the powers that lawyers themselves have in the conduct of their

professional affairs and the impact they can have upon citizens are

very great. Therefore, if control is required, perhaps some awesome

powers are required to meet those situations.

The member

mentioned judges. They're not members of the society. They're not

controlled by the society. The benchers of the Law Society have always

been concerned about matters of governance. Several weeks ago they

convened a special meeting over a weekend in this city for the purposes

of all of the benchers sitting down and intensively examining the

profession, the Law Society, the way that it is used by the public, and

the way in which they're discharging their role. As a consequence of

that they have instructed one of their members to more fully examine

some aspects of the governance of the society. I have an appointment to

meet with the master treasurer and the president of the British

Columbia branch of the Canadian Bar Association on September 2, here in

Victoria, for the purpose of discussing with them views that they have

with respect to the improvement in the matters of governance of the Law

Society. At that time I propose to lay before them some concerns which

I have on that subject.

You mentioned one particular aspect,

and that is the inclusion of lay persons on the benches. That's a

proposition which I happen to support. We have it in the governing

bodies of other professional groups. As a result, the monitoring aspect

of their membership on those bodies produces favourable results. It has

been tried in the province of Ontario. The success there is difficult

to measure. The work of the benchers is long and exacting. They spend

long hours in dealing with both the governance and discipline matters

that are their responsibility. But I don't think that should deter us

from seeking lay persons in the community who can contribute to the

governance of the Law Society. I propose to discuss that in my meeting

in September with the treasurer of the Law Society.

The

member mentioned one particular aspect which has been in the press

during the last few days. It's a question of whether a vendor of

property, who was also a lawyer, could advise the purchaser of the

property on a solicitor-client relationship.

MS. BROWN: No. Can he hide the fact that he is the owner?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Yes, I appreciate that. In other words, the lawyer is advising his

client on how to deal with property, which the lawyer was in fact

selling.

MS. BROWN: Right. but the client didn't know.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Yes, that's right. What I want to say is that that's been dealt with in

the courts. The member may not have noticed, but that matter is also

now before the benchers for the purposes of discipline. If you want my

view on the matter, there's no question that that was improper activity

in the conduct of a solicitor-client relationship.

MS. BROWN:

I just want to deal with two things that the Attorney-General

mentioned. I'm really pleased about that meeting he's going to have

with the benchers on September 2, and I'm glad he's going to suggest

that a lay person — at least one or two — be around to at least listen

to the delibera-

[ Page 3934 ]

tions

as they are taking place. Just having someone else there listen to how

they reach their decisions would, I think, be good. I certainly

recognize the responsibility that the benchers have, and I support it.

I think that disciplinary bodies are important; they are doing a good

job. However, I think the job they are doing would be improved if there

were some other people there with a different perception, just to have

some input into it.

I want to give you two quotes from the

Mulgat-MacGuigan committee that I'm particularly upset about and that I

probably glossed over too quickly. One is when they said: "The fact

that one Canadian living in a particular province might get a divorce

where another might not should not offend anyone deeply." Well, it

does. That is the point I'm making — not that the provinces should have

easy divorces or quick divorces, but that there will be inconsistency.

Although

I recognize that it may take 15 years to change a federal law, I am not

opposed to the notion that I would prefer to take 15 years to change a

law if that change is going to affect everybody in exactly the same way

right across the face of this country, rather than have the law change

much more quickly but be unequal in terms of how it affects people;

that's the thing I'm saying. Even though you're saying you're going for

consistency, I'm supporting that by saying that to be sure there is

consistency it should be a national code, a federal code, which is what

we have now. Once you start splitting it up, consistency is in

jeopardy, consistency is under attack. Even though it's like the

national building code or whatever, where the federal government can

put down minimum standards, there is nothing to prevent a provincial

government from adding or modifying those standards in some way so the

inequities once again appear. What we find ourselves doing, as people

fighting for equality, is having to battle the inequities which surface

in various provinces. Consistency, if you really want it, is by going

after a national code.

The other quote which came out of

that, particular report — the Mulgat-MacGuigan report — is the one

dealing with values. I dealt at great length with that and I get really

nervous about decisions based on people's own so-called ethical,

cultural and social values, and believe that we should have a set of

values that apply straight across this nation in terms of grounds for

divorce. Again, the consistency in value is one that we can more easily

safeguard and guarantee if it's a national one and if it's a federal

one. My input to the government is this: think about this seriously. If

you really are committed to consistency, you've got it now. You're

going to jeopardize it when you start breaking it down, decentralizing

it and giving. It to the various provinces. I assure you, in closing,

that you certainly have my support in terms of the unified family court

having jurisdiction over all family matters and being better able to

deliver justice when that's the case.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, so that there is absolutely no

misunderstanding of our position, we don't want Renos in this country.

That's the position that has been taken by us in these discussions. We

recognize that other provinces — certainly two of them — have different

points of view. We will, in the presentation of our positions, make

every effort to ensure that those different points of view are modified.

MR. HALL:

These estimates on the Attorney-General's role are very interesting,

and sometimes the non-lawyers have almost as much fun as the lawyers.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: More fun.

MR. HALL: Oh, I don't know about that. Sometimes you even lapse

into Latin if you're not careful.

year ago I raised a question in the House — I thought a very serious

question — with the then Attorney-General and was promised a response.

I didn't get a response. Being a persistent fellow, I decided to raise

it again. It has a continuing character. It's not the first time that

has happened with the ex-Attorney-General, and I intend to bring that

to the House's attention from time to time.

A year ago,

during the course of a very unpleasant, difficult strike at Adams

Laboratories Ltd. in Surrey, six strikers went to court. The

Attorney-General was the Minister of Labour then and I'm sure he knows

all about the dispute. He may even know something about the court

appearances and the court happenings. On July 4 I asked questions about

what happened following the appearance of those six employees in the

court. Three of them were fined and three of them were jailed. One of

those sentenced to six months in prison had previously joined the

strike, had been a victim of criminal assault, had been stabbed, and

had been shot at. All of that was directly related to the strike.

Neither I, the union or the employee are suggesting for one second that

it had anything to do with the employer. Following sentence at the

court, the six people went immediately from court to jail. It was

faster than when you throw three successive doubles playing Monopoly.

They didn't pass a phone or anybody. They didn't do anything. Nobody

gave them any advice. They were also handcuffed. One of them was a

single parent and was unable to make any arrangements at all about

looking after the child.

I raised all of this on July 4,

1979, in this, House. The people were kept in detention while paperwork

was being done. I maintain, surely to goodness, that those kinds of

facts could have been found out while paperwork was being done. I asked

for a response from the then Attorney-General. No response was

forthcoming, although one was promised. This is a complaint that has

nothing to do with the current officeholder, nor does it have anything

to do with the staff of the Attorney-General, who were working on the

case as fast, I presume, as was reasonable to expect. In actual fact a

letter was transmitted from the Ministry of the Attorney-General to the

court services division headquarters. It was signed by an old friend of

mine, if I may say that. Mr. Sheppard happens to be in the House

assisting the Attorney-General today. That letter, sent in response to

correspondence forwarded to him from the then Attorney-General sought

to explain away the case. May I point out though that the member of the

Legislative Assembly received no such response. On the morning in

question three deputy sheriffs were asked to attend the courtroom where

the six accused were being dealt with in the specific centre. The three

deputy sheriffs were given sketchy information with respect to the

nature of the case. Upon their arrival they simply understood that

three persons were being committed to jail and three others were being

fined, with a proviso that in default of payment of the fines they

would have to serve a jail term as well. The deputy sheriffs did not

understand that the three individuals who had been fined had been given

time to pay their fines.

I want to repeat that to you, Mr. Chairman, if I may. The deputy sheriffs did not understand that the three individuals

[ Page 3935 ]

who

had been fined had been given time to pay their fines. When a person

has not been given time to pay, he is immediately taken into custody

until the fine is paid by someone on his behalf. The deputy sheriffs

did not understand that any time to pay had been given. Therefore they

assumed that all six defendants were in custody from the moment the

courts closed. It is usual for persons sentenced for a term in custody

to be handcuffed during the process of moving them from the courtroom

to more secure accommodation. All this has been pointed out to the

deputy sheriffs and the court reporter. They acknowledged the error,

think the word "error" to describe what happened might be satisfactory

to describe a letter passing between the Attorney-General and myself,

but I don't think that the word "error" is satisfactory to describe

what happened to somebody who has been handcuffed on his way to jail,

and not given any time to pay a fine when he did have time and to make

any arrangements when they knew he had arrangements. Semantic

discussion though that may be, I think the word "error" is a bad choice

of words.

With respect to the delay in the paperwork, which I make reference to, Mr. Attorney-General, the letter goes on to advise:

"Had this been a criminal matter, the paperwork would have

been attended to by members of the court staff. However, as this was a civil

contempt matter, the judge asked the plaintiff's lawyer to prepare the necessary

order and present it for signature. Consequently the preparation of the paperwork

— and the length of time involved in the particular case was the responsibility

of the plaintiff's lawyer."

Again, I think it was a very unfortunately happening.

The

letter by Mr. Sheppard goes on — and I do appreciate the time he took

to acquaint the House with the details surrounding the case in response

to the correspondence sent to the then Attorney-General — to say, in

the final paragraph:

"Please accept my

apologies for our staff failing to understand that time to pay has been

granted to the three defendants. I do not think this will occur again.

I also point out that with the move of the new courthouse in the fall,

security problems will be much fewer and accommodation for persons

being held in custody much better than is the case presently in the

Pacific Centre, and this should make the role of the deputy sheriff and

the situation of the defendant much easier in future cases."

was a very unhappy ending through a very unhappy situation, exacerbated

by clinical ignorance of the case by the deputy sheriffs. Had I been a

lawyer acting for those people, I would have sued somebody about that,

and I think I might have been successful.

I'd like to know

whether or not that could happen again. I'd like to know if apologies

were sent not just to those people involving themselves in the case,

like the member for Surrey and the B.C. Federation of Labour; I'd like

to know if apologies went at least to three of the defendants. I think,

as I said on July 4, that that kind of activity in the middle of a

strike — in the middle of sensitive, difficult, violence-ridden

problems in my constituency — did little to help. In fact, the strike

went on, as you know, Mr. Minister, for some time, and who knows what

contribution that made. It was sad case. I must confess that had I had

a more fulsome answer from the then Attorney-General, I might not have

raised it today. I would have done it perhaps in a different way — at

least I would have had the benefit of a proper answer in the first

place.

The next question. through the Chairman to the

Attorney-General, is that it's been my unhappy duty from time to time

to have dealt with people who have got into trouble through having run

afoul of the police — people who have had their vehicles towed away,

and I have had to explain to them what has happened and what the law

is. I think that's happened to many of us. I don't want to deal with

the whole question of municipal bylaws on towing — that's not the

purpose of today's exercise. What I'm dealing with is a letter that

I've had in response to some inquiries from the fire commissioner by

Mr. Gordon Anderson regarding unauthorized parking in fire zones — and

this is all over the province; let's take the whole province — at

shopping centres, hospitals, apartment buildings, public buildings, and

so on.

There have been a number of incidents whereby fire

exits, fire hydrants, escape zones, etc., have been plugged by

careless, stupid, selfish — use your own adjective — motorists. Some

municipalities have bylaws that enable something to be done about it;

some municipalities don't. My query of you is to find out if there is a

fire marshal's responsibility under the Fire Marshal Act that will make

sure that we are not putting into jeopardy by blocking, by preventing

exit from public places, from beer parlours.... I can think of shopping

centres next to beer parlours. I can think of the biggest beer parlour

in Surrey, which is the Dell Hotel, right in the middle of a shopping

centre with exit lanes blocked night after night after night.

Now

what are you going to do with the Dell hotel? They try their best.

Yellow lines are painted — no bylaw. I understand there is no bylaw. I

should confirm that with the first member, but I'm pretty sure I'm

right; there's no bylaw. Similarly with fire hydrants, etc., provincial

standards would indicate.... Well, it indicates to me that there should

be a provincial standard, and I would like your response on that

problem. Now as we spread down the valley and become a more mobile and

motorized community south of the river, as you build more and more

bridges, we're finding that we're spending more and more time in that

automobile — gas and energy problems notwithstanding.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

last question to the Attorney-General is a question that has worried me

for some time, regarding school district buses. If there is a

requirement for me to wear my seatbelt and my passengers to wear a

seatbelt........ I see School District 36 buses on at least three

provincial highways every morning of the school year, and when they go

on field trips in particular, travelling at the posted speeds; I'm

wondering why we don't have a similar requirement for seatbelts in

those buses. Now that is an expensive proposition, but I don't think

expense is the criterion we should be looking at. We've specifically

exempted from our legislation, I understand, public transportation, but

I don't know why we've exempted the private transportation that is,

indeed, used to convey our active school children who are moving about,

sometimes, on the way to school. I'd like to get a response from you

regarding any research, any statistics you've gathered, any

possibilities whatsoever regarding changes — and I'm being very careful

how I word this question — regarding seatbelt legislation, particularly

for school buses that are travelling in the province.

[ Page 3936 ]

Those are my three queries, Mr. Minister. They are very simple, short and direct.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I thank the member for a clear statement of his three matters. First of

all, with respect to the problems affecting the law, which rose out of

the Adams Laboratories strike, the matter has never come to my

attention, Mr. Member. I'm not suggesting that you should have written

to me again, but may I first of all ask you if you would — I don't want

the names to be in Hansard —

just drop me a note which will identify the file so that I can get it

from my office and can answer the question as to whether apologies or

regrets were extended to anybody. I would be happy to do that forthwith.

The

issue, however, is one which gives us concern. This, of course, was a

case of persons being imprisoned for a contempt, which is a civil

matter, but I think the rules should apply equally to those situations

as they do to the criminal field. Usually in criminal matters, through

contract arrangements with the Attorney-General's ministry, we have

organizations throughout this province who do serve the purpose of

assisting people who have been sentenced and are going to be taken into

custody — Elizabeth Fry, for one, comes to mind. They certainly have

representatives in the major court facilities who can provide the kind

of service that is so often required by people who are suddenly

confronted with going into custody.

There is another

practice which is perhaps, if anything, more effective, and that is on

the part of the judges when, having convicted, they then advise the

accused person that they will reserve to sentence in a certain number

of days and the convicted person is then able to make such arrangements

as he or she must make in order to take care of their other

responsibilities before being taken into custody.

The

question of handcuffing is a very difficult one to handle. We would

like to see the sheriffs officers be able to exercise a discretion and

judgment in such matters, but sometimes when they have tried to

accommodate persons who, perhaps by reason of the nature of the

offence, shouldn't be handcuffed, they've done so to their regret. The

standard, therefore, is that when you are taken into custody for the

purposes of being transported to some other place, handcuffs are

employed in every case — or should be. It isn't always done. It's a

very difficult decision to make as to what standards you apply, because

they vary from case to case. It is a constraint which I would prefer

not to apply, but for some persons who will resort to violent activity

it is the only way in which some measure of protection can be given to

the person who is responsible for transport.

Unauthorized

parking in fire zones. Any person who interferes with any fire exit,

fire equipment or fire lane must be considered to be one of the least

responsible members of our society — particularly in the circumstances

to which the member refers, where you have very large public

establishments in which there are hundreds of people at any one time.

While every care is taken to ensure that no fire does start, when one

starts then it is panic. If fire exits and fire lanes are blocked, then

the panic is only intensified and injury and loss of life results. The

fire commissioner, under legislation which we passed earlier this

session, is preparing for — and I expect to be presenting it to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in the next seven days — the adoption of

the National Fire Code for this entire province. I will be discussing

with the fire commissioner whether or not matters of this kind could

not better be dealt with on a provincial code basis, rather than left

to the vagaries of municipal bylaws. If they are on a provincial code

basis, then they can be enforced by the police, the fire departments

and the fire commissioner's staff. I am pleased that the member has

raised that matter.

Thirdly, seatbelts. I don't want to put

the member off by saying that the seatbelt legislation falls under the

jurisdiction of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser). That's not putting you off, because that too is a matter of

concern to me. I'm not sure why it is that buses are exempt,

particularly school buses. We have established between that ministry

and mine the Motor-Vehicle Task Force, which is looking into a whole

range of matters associated with safe operation of motor-vehicles in

the province. I'm not certain whether they have turned their attention

to this question of seatbelts and whether the penalties for not wearing

them are an effective means of ensuring that seatbelts will be worn, or

whether there are problems with some of the exemptions.

I am

particularly concerned in the case of school buses, where there is

perhaps a tendency on the part of students to roam around on the buses

and not even be in the seats. If they become involved in an accident,

then the potential for serious injury is, if anything, made greater. I

will raise this with the chairman of the Motor-Vehicle Task Force. I

will ask him whether it is being considered, and if not why not. I will

be happy to provide the member with an early report on this particular

aspect. I suppose that in normal buses on streets where people are

getting on and off quickly there may be some justification for not

wearing seatbelts. But school buses normally travel the same route and

children are on them for a particular period of time; they are not

being dropped off at regular intervals except on the way home, and the

wearing of seatbelts would seem to be appropriate. There is, of course,

the additional problem in buses of whether you can get the

shoulder-strap type of harness; you may be limited to the waist belt.

That is also a problem which I am sure will have an effect upon whether

or not they should continue to be exempt.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief. I only want to deal with two subjects —

subjects which you will readily recognize as being properly in the area

covered by the Attorney-General's estimates, as they involve the law

and the way it is administered in British Columbia.

My first

topic is judges. I'll put it in the form of a question: who sits in

judgment on judges? No one should be above the law, and I've often

wondered why that tight little fraternity consisting of lawyers and

former lawyers is allowed to pass judgment on its own profession when

the rest of us — average citizens and politicians included — have to be

judged by those who are deemed to be learned in the law. The need for a

more objective forum in which the questionable conduct of certain

judges can be judged is needed, and we need it soon.

second topic is expropriation — expropriation by the Crown in the right

of the province. I can't understand why we in British Columbia at this

late date don't have a single act to deal with the enforced removal of

private property from private hands. Ottawa does, and other provinces

do; but British Columbia is still back in the Middle Ages in this

respect. We have expropriation powers in 70 different statutes, many of

them unfair. Ten provincial departments and agencies,600 municipal and

local agencies and a host of

[ Page 3937 ]

private

corporations and individuals have the power to dispossess owners of

their private assets. They make a mockery of our society, one which is

based, among other things, upon the right to own property in this

freedom-loving country of ours.

But back, Mr. Chairman, to

the question: who judges judges? Judges are not supermen or superwomen.

They are ordinary mortals like ourselves. They have their weaknesses

and strengths, their likes and dislikes. Most of our judges. especially

those who have been on the bench for a long time, have been closeted in

a tight little world of their own profession's making.

Mr.

Chairman, I've learned this much in my recent brush with the law: our

judicial system doesn't always administer justice in this country. It

administers the law. What you and I legislate here in this chamber is

the principal grist for the typical judge's mill. What the words say,

or more precisely what the legal profession agree the words say, is

all-important. How the public sees the issue doesn't matter in the

courts. The public view, in fact, is irrelevant. It's the legal

interpretation of a clause, a line or even a word in a statute that

really counts. This sounds like hair-splitting, and that's often true.

I should know because that's what my case, a case dealing with a

minister's travel allowance, was all about.

But to get back

to judges and the question of who should pass judgment on judges when

judges themselves have a vested interest in protecting the good name of

that august profession in which they've chosen to serve, what happens

when a judge is personally involved in a hit-and-run case? What happens

when a judge picks up a prostitute in broad daylight in downtown

Vancouver? What happens when a judge, having been apprehended, asks the

policeman: "Do you really know who I am?" What happens when a judge

breaks any one of a number of laws upon which he, as a judge, is asked

to pass sentence from time to time? Mr. Chairman, I know what happens

now. That judge is turned over to other judges or others in the legal

profession, friends or acquaintances of his, people who know their

place in the legal scheme of things, what the pecking order in the

courts is, what views this judge has and another judge hasn't.

Sometimes it's a judge or a group of judges who pass judgment.

Sometimes it's a prominent lawyer or a select list of lawyers who are

asked to pass judgment. They may make the right decision, and they do

in most instances. But there is obviously a matter of professional

pride and always there is the question of appearances.

There's

a well-known dictum in our democratic society, that justice must not

only be done, but be seen to be done. Lawyers who let judges off with

little more than a tap on the wrist are undermining our legal system,

perhaps unwittingly, more than they are helping. That's why I

personally would like to see judges judged by laymen when they get into

trouble. This is why I would like to see them tried before an ordinary

jury made up of men and women chosen at large, people who would judge

them in a more open and down-to-earth way. If we need a chairman or an

acting magistrate to ensure that the proper procedures are followed,

why not have the chief of police in the municipality in which the

offence took place keep order in the court? Then justice would not only

be done but, equally important, it would be seen to be done. Judges

would be judged by their peers, who are in fact the people themselves.

They mustn't be left in their rarefied atmosphere to protest and

pontificate among themselves. Otherwise, how can you explain to the

average layman why the in-group in the legal profession rarely ever

suspends a judge? They get a mild admonition, of course, but if they

have a drinking problem or even a credibility problem, they get six

months' leave with full pay; they get a paid holiday, enough time away

from the bench for them to get over the shock of having been in trouble

with the law and, hopefully, long enough for the public to forget what

they did in the first place.

As a politician — and you're

also a politician, Mr. Chairman — I must say that I'm apprehensive

about judges. Many of them don't like politicians. They don't like

politicians even though they were appointed to their judgeships by

politicians in the first place. They don't like us, even though many of

them were members of political parties in their early years; some of

them even ran for office a time or two.

When I was

sentenced, Mr. Chairman, the judge made a big point of the fact that I

was a politician. He said that I'd served my country well, over a

number of years, and that I'd never before been in trouble with the

law. But, in his eyes, the very fact that I was a politician made me a

person unlike other people. My political visibility was such that I

couldn't be treated like anyone else. He went so far as to say — and

here I'm quoting directly from the transcript:

"Had

plain 'Mr. Davis' in private employment been found to have engaged in

similar conduct, he would likely have been reprimanded and warned. He

may even have been discharged. It's more likely that he would not have

been obliged to have suffered the indignity of a criminal trial. He

has, however, resigned as a minister and has taken the honourable

course of resigning as a member. He has been obliged to appear in court

and bear all the publicity which his case has engendered, and both he

and his family have been obliged to suffer the agonizing embarrassment

and humiliation of a trial. For him and his family it is indeed

unfortunate that he cannot be dealt with as plain 'Mr. Davis' — as an

ordinary citizen."

Parenthetically. Mr. Chairman, I was an

ordinary citizen at that time. In other words, having been a politician

I received an extraordinary sentence. That's not equality before the

law: it's the opposite.

To make my point, it's not the kind

of treatment a judge would get at the hands of other judges. They would

extol his virtues and play down his shortcomings; they would list his

many years of service and certainly, by inference at least, applaud his

profession. At least this is the way it looks to people like myself

who, having been in the courts, have taken a real interest in the way

in which judges who are in trouble with the law have been judged by

those in the legal profession who are called upon to pass judgment on

them. That's why I think we have to find another way in which to judge

judges. That's why I'm urging the hon. Attorney-General and other

members of the executive council to give some thought to the way in

which these eminent gentlemen and gentlewomen are tried in our judicial

system in the future.

My second topic, as I indicated

earlier, is expropriation. I made the point that we should have one

carefully thought out, carefully phrased and carefully administered

expropriation act in British Columbia. We shouldn't have provincial

laws — many of them old, some of them new: adequate and inadequate;

fair and unfair — that allow government agencies to seize private

property without due process and without necessarily compensating the

owners of the property.

[ Page 3938 ]

Mr.

J.V. Clyne, sitting as a royal commissioner, with today's chief justice

of B.C. as counsel, said in 1964 that the province's expropriation laws

should be consolidated and the basis of compensation changed. In 1972

Mr. Justice Fulton, chairman of the Law Reform Commission of those

days, made similar recommendations. He called for the establishment of

a single tribunal to arbitrate all expropriations in British Columbia.

He said: "It is fundamental justice that there should be adequate

procedural safeguards to protect the individual citizen from the abuse

of exercise of expropriation powers. "

Many hon. members on

this side of the House have spoken on this subject in recent years. I

know the Attorney-General is aware of the need for this kind of

legislation. Perhaps he can tell us why it has taken the government so

long to get around to drafting a single bill dealing with expropriation

in a modern, democratic manner and presenting it to the House.

Perhaps

he can also tell us how he thinks a sensitive and fair-minded

administration would deal with the difficult problem of compensation. I

personally don't think that the simple market-value approach is good

enough. In this case the value of land, buildings and other assets is,

I contend, its value in the eyes of the owner. His or her anguish,

disruption and feeling of insecurity should also be taken into account.

No doubt the Crown will end up paying more for property under

legislation of that kind; but it is the only way in which government —

impersonal, purposeful, big government — can possibly deal with people

and still maintain their confidence and respect.

We have to

put the individual first in this chamber, this province and this

country. One of the tangible ways in which we can indicate our

intentions in this regard is to deal fairly and compassionately with

those who are caught up in this process of expropriation. A new act

which says it all, and says it properly and fairly, is badly needed in

British Columbia. The sooner it is drafted and passed in this chamber

the better.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, with leave of the committee might I rise to make a brief introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure for a member for Vancouver South

to be able to introduce to members a person from Prince George. As you

know, Mr. Chairman, by virtue of being in the chair today, you are

unable to make the introduction. I know that, having been a past

chairman of the Prince George school board, you would want to do that.

However, on your behalf might I introduce and ask members to welcome a

member of the Prince George school board, a school trustee, Mr. Gordon

Ingalls, and his family.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I

first want to make a few remarks concerning the remarks of the member

for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). I followed that case, as I'm

sure we all did in the province of British Columbia, very carefully. I

didn't have any more facts than they showed me in the news, but I was

convinced — and I still am — that that member was ill-served by the

judicial system of British Columbia. I am convinced from what I know of

the case that the conduct was nothing more than one could expect in any

role, whether in the private or public sector. The case seemed to come

down to a very narrow definition of the word "benefit. " So I want to

say that I agree with those remarks.

But I think that member

was also ill-served by the Premier of the province of British Columbia.

To be fair, I don't think the member can give the back of his hand to

the lawyers and judges without mentioning a very abrupt decision by the

Premier of this province, which I think placed that member is an

unnecessarily difficult position. The matter could have been handled

much differently than it was. Since we're throwing brick bats around,

we'd better throw some at the government.

I want to say a

few words about something that has been dealt with very extensively

here — the various inquiries. I won't deal with them in any detail.

Standards of conduct and the standards we apply to the law in a

democracy are to be standards that we all observe equally. But there

are some people who have a special duty: those who administer the law,

those who judge the law and those who make the law. I submit to you,

Mr. Chairman, that that duty has not been consistently carried out by

this Attorney-General — the kind of example that must be set for the

people of the province. Something less than a perfect standard has been

applied. Let me just very briefly explain why.

A year ago I

raised on the floor of this House the problems in connection with

allegations made by a judge in the course of his judgment and in the

course of his handling a matter under the Family Relations Act. At that

time, the former Attorney-General quite appropriately decided to call

upon Mr. Justice Seaton to do a complete inquiry into that matter. Now

the reason Mr. Justice Seaton was called in on that particular case was

that it would clearly be inappropriate for a member of the

Attorney-General's staff to conduct an inquiry, since there was such an

inherent conflict of duty and interest in that case. Quite

appropriately, the Attorney-General's predecessor called upon a judge

of the supreme court. I might say, you'll notice that following that

judgment it seemed to have been universally accepted. There didn't seem

to be a great deal of fuss created on the floor of this House or in the

public domain in the exchange of ideas, surrounding that matter. Of

course, Mr. Chairman, the reason is that he didn't have this nagging

suspicion that there was a conflict of duty and interest when Mr.

Justice Seaton did his report.

Well, Mr. Chairman, when you examine the other matters that

have come before this House as to whether there is a conflict of duty

and interest, every time something in the political realm occurs, there

is the clear matter of a conflict of duty and interest — in the matter

of the campaign donations, in the matter of the Eckardt report, and in

the matters raised by the CBC program, which I understand now is sub

judice. I won't make an extensive comment about it. The Attorney

General had within his grasp the means to solve all of these problems

by simply appointing a judge of the supreme court to do a proper and

open inquiry. Without criticizing any of the reports that have been

filed, one can't escape a nagging suspicion that there is more to the

story back there some where. All the cards haven't been put on the

table. I say, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney-General, who has a

special responsibility to the people of British Columbia as their chief

law enforcement officer, who quite properly says that he's more than

just a member of the cabinet, and as the first law officer of the

Crown, has a special duty to set an example to the entire province in

those kinds of matters. I submit, Mr.

[ Page 3939 ]

Chairman, that that has not been the case. I'm sorry to say that, because I have great respect for the Attorney-General.

Where

a matter that is clearly in the political domain comes about, there is

a special responsibility that the standard be a standard that every

British Columbian can be proud of. That was not the case, Mr. Chairman.

do want to ask the Attorney-General a couple of questions surrounding

his responsibility under the Coroners Act. My information is that last

year ten of the 120 coroners in the province of British Columbia

resigned. My information is that a telegram was sent to every coroner

in the province of British Columbia, which stated that if he did not

attend a seminar he would have to resign. Now that's a paraphrase,

because I don't have a copy of the telegram that went out.

ask you, Mr. Attorney-General, to place yourself in the position of a

coroner, with some pride in his function, some confidence in

his'ability, and a feeling that he has made a significant contribution

in the province. To treat coroners in this province in that way, I

suggest, is to demean the office. A letter went out to every coroner in

regard to that same conference, saying they must attend or be

classified as a non-qualified coroner. The telegram came out

subsequently saying attend or resign. That, in itself, might not be

bad, but there are a number of other matters that should be looked at,

Mr. Attorney-General.

The morale within that particular

division that the Attorney-General has responsibility for, I suggest,

is not high enough or may be low. It could be a result of not treating

these people with the kind of professional respect that they deserve.

That's only one indication, Mr. Attorney-General, on that subject.

You'll recall the pathologists had a fee dispute in regard to their

operations. The Attorney-General was threatened with them simply not

bothering to work for the department unless a certain fee was made. It

seemed to me again that that seemed to be a rather high-handed approach

to take. They didn't have to have this confrontation. I hope the

Attorney-General comments about that situation and perhaps he will be

able to tell us the present situation with regard to the pathologists.

The

third area I wanted to ask the Attorney-General about is also with

respect to morale in the coroner's office. My understanding is that the

coroner's staff has in fact filed a letter of complaint with the

Attorney-General asking for an inquiry into these problems. I'm hopeful

that the Attorney-General might be able to rise in his place and tell

us what progress there has been in that matter.

Basically it

is a question of morale within the ministry. I would like the

Attorney-General to try to clarify those areas: the question of the

morale of the coroners themselves; the question of the attendance at

that particular seminar; the question of the present status of the

pathologists; and the present state of the inquiry with regard to the

employees in the coroner's office.

In

summary, Mr. Chairman,

I think if they tried a Gallup poll in the province of British Columbia

now, surrounding the view the people have of this government.... There

has been a great deal of attention paid to the dirty tricks, but I keep

getting this uncomfortable feeling from people in my constituency that

they are becoming more and more cynical of the administration of

justice. I don't think that is a correct attitude to take. I think a

good deal of that will always be out there. I think the administration

of justice through the courts in this province has been fairly good,

but right now the public perception of it is at a low ebb. There are a

number of reasons for that, not all of them connected with the

Attorney-General.

Certainly one of the reasons for this widespread cynicism around the justice

system has to be the question of how the Attorney-General has handled

problems of the government, how he has gone about providing reports, and why

he has failed to bring in independent help in the majority of these cases to

give a full, open and public inquiry with the material and evidence available

for scrutiny.

MR. COCKE:

Just to enlarge a little bit on the comments of the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we do have

a serious problem, as I see it, in the coroners office and in the

coroners service in the province. As the Attorney-General probably

knows, I have a fairly wide acquaintanceship in the medical field. It

strikes me wherever I go that medical doctors — not just pathologists,

but medical doctors generally — are talking about the morale in the

coroners service, about the authoritarian way the coroners service is

being run, and are indicating that the present coroner did not come

with all that much experience and immediately took over the service and

ran roughshod over a lot of people.

Mr. Chairman, as a

member of the Legislature, it doesn't give me a great deal of comfort

to discuss an employee of a department or of the government. I would

prefer to direct the whole question to the minister who should take

responsibility.

I think the problem is that the ministry

didn't recognize early enough that they had a problem. When I asked the

minister about the pathology problem — and that was that the

pathologists were threatening to withdraw their services — the minister

indicated that he had knowledge of that situation, I don't know how

much knowledge he has of past events in that service, but I am

suggesting that as far and wide as you want to go in the province,

you're going to hear criticism of the way the coroners service is now

being run.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that in view of

the very large increase in budget for that service we should be

expecting something better than a service that is now, according to

some of the people that I talk to, in general chaos. Doctors who have

been coroners quit. Others who have had a long period of experience

have quit, by virtue of the fact that the demands made on them, in

their eyes, are demands that are not really worthy of their attention,

let alone their acquiescence. It strikes me that in a service like

this, we're so tremendously dependent upon, say, a contracting-out

situation. For the most part, coroners are not full-time people. When

we're dependent upon the service of professionals who have high

standards, we demand that those professionals keep up their standards.

But, generally speaking, we don't demand that those professionals

attend what they perceive to be Mickey Mouse conferences, with agendas

that don't really require the response that the coroners service

demands; then we see a situation in jeopardy.

I suggest that

this department has been overlooked by the ministry. I suggest that the

ministry has been far too busy with inquiries into other areas to have

really given this the kind of attention it requires. I know there must

be some very serious thoughts in terms of where we're going,

particularly when there is such a massive response across the province

to some of the things that have occurred.

It strikes me that there was some talk the other day that I heard — that the coroners service indicated that, well, they

[ Page 3940 ]

could

quite nicely do without pathology. It's absolutely impossible — utterly

impossible. The services of a pathologist, particularly to a coroners

service that is now indicating that they're directing themselves to

forensic work....

You can't make that kind of statement.

Another

area in which I have found, to some extent, some disquiet is in the

police force. I'm talking generally in terms of the police forces

across the province. What they're saying, Mr. Chairman — sometimes

under their breath and sometimes out loud, depending on where they are

— is that their service that they normally provide is being usurped.

The coroners service now is trying to duplicate the services of the

police force. No wonder the budget goes up under those circumstances.

The budget has increased significantly in this service. I suggest that

under those circumstances, it's about time we heard from the

Attorney-General with respect to his feelings about the way things are

going, and also hear from the Attorney-General what direction he may be

giving in the immediate future for a coroners service that is not going

to be strife-ridden, as I suggest and as I charge that service is at

the present time. Now I don't think there is too much point in going

into this in any greater depth, because I'm quite sure that there are

those around the Attorney-General — if he hasn't already got all the

information, and I suspect he has — who can quickly fill him in on the

complaints. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there must be a mass of

correspondence in that ministry if just my discussions that I've had as

recently as a trip up to the North Island to speak to the doctors Lip

there.... It was a general topic of discussion. That isn't the only

area in the province where I've heard these complaints. Generally

speaking, Mr. Chairman, we've got problems. I think that those problems

are totally uncalled for in that particular service.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to respond to the matters raised by the last two

members, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), with regard to the coroner. Dr. McArthur

was appointed chief coroner under the new legislation in April 1979,

and the members will realize that at that time there was no provincial

service in the true sense. Therefore Dr. McArthur was given a very

major responsibility to build a service province-wide, so that there

would be consistently high standards with regard to the

responsibilities of coroners throughout this province. We also hoped

that we would achieve as quickly as possible some of the standards that

have been established for coroners services in other provinces. I might

say that this province falls far behind other provinces in the level of

service that is provided.

As a consequence of some of these

changes, there has been resistance on the part of those who had

functioned over the years under the old system. I am not in any way

suggesting that their concerns were not valid. It was a matter of who

was going to direct the coroners service. It may even be that in the

course of the development of the service there has been some

insensitivity in the haste to bring about change.

I have had

a recent meeting with the chief coroner. I am aware of the resignations

there have been and the circumstances surrounding those resignations. I

am aware of the concerns about attendance at seminars. I am aware that

staff members have taken grievance proceedings through their unions. I

am not satisfied, as difficult as the job of the development of the

coroners service may be, that it should be done in such a way as to

produce issues of this kind. As a consequence, I will be meeting again

with the chief coroner in about ten days, at which time he and I and

officials of the ministry will discuss this whole range of issues that

have been raised by people in the service, and we will map out a course

of action which will be taken to ensure that those issues are

satisfactorily resolved to those people who see them as issues and that

they don't recur. What that direction may be will depend in large

measure upon the discussions that take place and the ideas that the

coroner may have with respect to some change in direction.

The

members have raised the question of a pathologist. The immediate issue

with regard to pathologists has been resolved, as the members know. The

same day as the withdrawal of their services became effective, the

Deputy Attorney-General and I interceded and resolved that immediate

issue, which was the question of the payment of fees. But there are

some other issues which flow from those discussions and a series of

meetings have been arranged in the month of September with officials of

the ministry and the pathologists, in which the coroner will be

involved, to ensure that all of the outstanding concerns that the

pathologists have are resolved and we don't have a recurrence of some

unfortunate differences of opinion.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:04 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1980,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada