1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1029 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Memorandum tabled on inventories

question. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1031

Accounting procedures on Songhees Indian lands. Hon. Mr. Barrett —

Hydro inventory procedures. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1031

BCFGA negotiations. Mr. Bennett — 1031

Auto body shops surcharge. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1032

Meeting on land claims with Union of B.C. Chiefs. Mr. Wallace —

Crown position on cement overcharges. Mr. Cummings — 1032

Action to reduce price of beef to consumers. Mr. Chabot — 1033

Bids and particulars about new B.C. ferries. Mr. Curtis — 1033

Federal-provincial relations on Skagit Valley submission. Mr. Gibson —

Filing of mining company prospectus with Securities

Commission.

Mr. Smith — 1034

Emergency debate on rent freezes. Mr. Curtis — 1034

Administrative structure for BCIT — 1034

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General

estimates.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1034

Mr. Smith — 1036

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1040

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1041

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1043

Mr. Cummings — 1044

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1044

Mr. Wallace — 1044

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1049

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1051

Mr. Curtis — 1052

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1053

Mr. Fraser — 1053

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1055

Mr. Fraser — 1055

Mr. Smith — 1055

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1057

Mr. Smith — 1057

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1058

Mr. Bennett — 1058

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1059

Ms. Sanford — 1059

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1060

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1060

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1064

Mr. Gabelmann — 1064

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, it gives me a great deal of

pleasure to introduce to the House a former Speaker of this

Legislature now living in Arizona. He was then the Hon. Hugh

Shantz. I'd like you to give him a good welcome. I'm very

thankful for some of his decisions, from time to time.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House

to welcome a number of bright, energetic, potentially great

citizens in the Province of British Columbia from Centennial

High School in that modest constituency of Coquitlam.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I'd like also to welcome

visitors from Fort St. John. In the Members' gallery this

afternoon we have Mayor Peter Frankin, Alderman Davidson and

Town Clerk Doug Harman.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I

would ask that you and the assembly join me in welcoming a

group of students from Hope Secondary School with their

teachers, Mr. William Scott and Alphonse Boucher.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): I'd like to ask the House to join

me in welcoming a group of students from Hugh Boyd High School

in Richmond.

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today a group of

constituents from Vancouver South and I would ask the House to

join with me in welcoming them here today.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in the

galleries of Mayor Ross Marks of 100 Mile House, the president

of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, along with two members of

the UBCM staff. In addition, I think it should be pointed out

that Mayor Marks received a very important honour last

September when he became one of the very few members of the

UBCM to serve a second term as president of UBCM.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I am rising on a

question of point of privilege. On the order paper today there

is motion 16, in which the Hon. Eileen E. Dailly is to move a

motion to set up a committee to find out whether I did indeed abuse on February

20 — two weeks ago today....

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of your privilege?

MR. PHILLIPS: My point of privilege is just this, Mr.

Speaker. This motion is hanging like a great big hatchet over

my head and I, like the Premier, will not be cajoled,

bludgeoned, threatened or intimidated in my work in this

Legislature representing the people of that great constituency

of South Peace River!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I take the short content of your

remarks to be that you'd like them to get on with this motion

or drop it. Is that what you're saying?

MR. PHILLIPS: That is exactly it.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that I'm not in charge of the

order of business in the House. I merely have to follow the

wishes of the House as its servant. I point out to the Hon.

Member that we unanimously passed a priority motion, a

precedence motion that supply take precedence over all other

business until concluded.

I cannot change the order of business on my own and I'm sure

that the Hon. Member can't either, but between us, perhaps he

can be patient.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the fair-minded

individual that you are, I would like the opportunity to plead

with the lady Member who brought in this motion that she should

not leave this hanging over my head as a threat. So far as I'm

concerned, Mr. Speaker, this has absolutely nothing to do with

the pending court case....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that the Hon. Member is

out of order and he knows he's out of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I know flattery is very nice, but it doesn't

solve the problem of the rules.

MR. PHILLIPS: How would you like to have that hatchet

hanging over your head? If I was out of order in this House and

if I misused the rules of this House I want you to call that

committee and I want you to do whatever you're going to do to

me — now! (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I'm going to ask you to sit down now, please.

(Laughter.)

[ Page 1030 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: This is no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: No, it certainly isn't, but I do say we must

comply with the orders of the House and the rules of the House,

and in due course I hope motions will be called.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Point of order. Yesterday

in the House a point was made by the Premier that the subject

matter of that motion was sub judice. In other words, we posed

a variety of questions in committee to the Premier in which he

failed and would not answer because he suggested that the

matter was before the courts, or was to be before the courts.

On that basis we were unable to question the Premier on the

government's actions relative to Dunhill and Columbia

Cellulose.

MR. SPEAKER: I can only say that if it's sub judice I'll

have to look at the question, but it's not one that we can

debate at this time because it would be out of order.

MR. CHABOT: I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether you could

point out to me the propriety of a deputy government leader

preparing a motion of censure against a Member from the blues,

which you've ruled on, Mr. Speaker. The blues are not to be

used for any official purpose.

MR. SPEAKER: I've already pointed out to the Hon. Members

that the blues are there for their convenience only. They're

not for publication to the press, but they're for your

convenience in this House. If you wish to take responsibility

for anything that's printed in the blues in this House, you

take that on yourself.

MR. BARRETT: Point of order. I would appreciate a ruling

from yourself, as I only expressed an opinion yesterday,

related to information that came to my attention about a

certain court case. I would appreciate a Speaker's opinion on

both motion 13 and motion 16 referred to by the Member. I would

ask if your would be kind enough to take it under advisement

and give us your Speaker's opinion on those two motions,

considering the legal action.

MR. SPEAKER: These are motions 13 and 16. Well, in due

course I will study the matter with my advisers and report back

to the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. My conduct

in this House can have nothing to do with this court case which

is before it. I'll help you rule on that right now; it's got

absolutely nothing to do with my conduct in the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, let's have a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: I know nothing about the court case, and

naturally I would have to ascertain the facts before I could

even consider the question. I would hope that you would all be

patient so that I would have time to do that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hear, hear.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's the easy way out for a bad

position.

MR. SMITH: In the discussion a few moments ago you said, and

quite rightly, that Committee of Supply takes precedence over

all other business. But I would remind you, Sir, that it takes

precedence over all other business unless otherwise

ordered.

MR. SPEAKER: That's true.

MR. SMITH: And this can be ordered by the leader of the

government and the House Leader at any time, as you so well

know.

MR. SPEAKER: That's a matter between the two of you which I

can't solve. Any other questions on this?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it was fairly well

established in the Sommers case, a case of a Minister of the

Crown launching proceedings for libel to prevent a subject

being discussed in this House — or so it was interpreted by the

opposition at that time — that the fact that a civil matter is

before the courts in this way does not constitute a bar to

discussion, and I trust this will be borne in mind.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank you for your advice on the matter. I

think I already know at this point that usually matters that

are before the court, if they are in the House at the same

time, may be considered up to a certain stage. I'll deal with

that when I study the matter. I appreciate all your help and

advice all around. I haven't yet checked with The Vancouver

Sun ; I'll do that later.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, that's a nasty slur on the press.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

[ Page 1031 ]

MEMORANDUM TABLED ON

INVENTORIES QUESTION

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was asked a

number of questions and I promised the House that I would get a

response to those questions as quickly as possible.

On the question of inventories, Mr. Speaker, let me first of

all table with the House a memorandum to all Deputies

concerning this particular matter that was raised yesterday,

and which caught the interest and the fancy of the House. I

think this memorandum dated November 10, 1965, clears up any

questions. If there are any further questions, I'll be pleased

to refer them to my department.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me; you wish to have that tabled?

HON. MR. BARRETT: With leave.

Leave granted.

ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES

ON SONGHEES INDIAN LANDS

HON. MR. BARRETT: The question was raised about the Songhees

reserve — a fixed assets statement. This was originally 118

acres of Indian lands located on the other side of the Johnson

Street Bridge, which was purchased by the provincial government

in 1917. A new reserve was purchased for them at that time.

Mr. Morrison, the Member for Victoria, had a question on

vouchers from the Comptroller-General. In respect to the

portion of the year November 1, 1972, vouchers were still

available by vote number. Commencing April 1, 1973, the audit

department has available the details of votes by supplier as

well as all payments made to any supplier by sequential audit

reference number.

Because of the changeover in the accounting system

instituted November 1, 1972, until March 31, 1973, the supplier

number has to be determined first. Then each month's records by

supplier number have to be checked for the item in

question.

In the Member's case the comptroller advised that his list

was so voluminous that designating vouchers he required

appeared to be almost an insurmountable task. He has not yet

presented a call list as requested and as he stated he would do. The Comptroller-General has phoned twice but has had no

return reply, but he would be pleased to hear from the Member

to continue this.

I hope, Mr. Member, that he'll be able to comply with your

request.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I think he has the answer in that

regard. Okay, that's the system.

HYDRO INVENTORY PROCEDURES

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Crown corporation inventory control,

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority: yes, B.C. Hydro and

Power Authority keeps an inventory record comprising a control

system on the receipt and issue of stores, a physical count

that continues throughout the year of each item in the

inventory and spot checks under the internal audit

programme.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Premier is giving a

statement with leave of the House I take it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, this is the request....

MR. SPEAKER: It still has to have leave of the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, with leave I'll file the

answers. In all cases, B.C. Rail, B.C. Ferries and B.C. Hydro

and Power Authority do have inventories and the details are

here.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're very welcome, and I'm pleased to

have had the opportunity of answering these questions so

quickly.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Yes, my

question....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What's your point of order?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A point of clarification, Mr. Speaker. We

are quite happy in the opposition to have the Premier answer

questions raised in committee in this way. But I feel it's

important that this not be done in question period time.

Question period should be formally called after Ministerial

statements of this nature have been completed.

MR. SPEAKER: All right, it's compensated for, in any

event.

BCFGA NEGOTIATIONS

MR. BENNETT: To the Hon. Minister of Agriculture: on

February 25 the Minister was reported as stating that in

negotiations with the BCFGA negotiating group for a guaranteed

farm income plan, they were together on 28 of 30 points. I

[ Page 1032 ]

wonder if the Minister could advise whether they're still

together on 28 of 30, or how the negotiations have gone on this

plan.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker,

negotiations are still going on. There's still this concern

about the two major points. There was another meeting last

week; there's another one planned for this week.

MR. BENNETT: But, my question was whether there are only two

points separating the group.

HON. MR. STUPICH: That's the latest information I have,

yes.

AUTO BODY SHOPS SURCHARGE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A question to the Minister of Transport

and Communications. As autobody shops are now charging people

who bring their cars in for repairs a surcharge of $1.50 per

hour, and they are charging this prior to starting any repairs,

may I ask whether it's possible for these people who are so

charged this surcharge to apply to ICBC for a refund?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I would

have to give some consideration to that suggestion before I could give you a

yes or no answer to that. There are so many things involved in the proposal.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Indeed there are, Mr. Minister, but the

subject has been before you now ever since this scheme began

some 12 days ago. I would like to know what the procedure

should be for my constituents on Vancouver Island who happen to

have accidents — their fault or somebody else's — and who are

being asked to put up money before the body shops will touch

their cars. What advice can I give them?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I had no knowledge that any body shop in

Victoria was charging a surcharge.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Vancouver Island.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You said your constituency.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My constituents happen to drive, Mr.

Minister, from outside my own constituency to other parts of

the Island. It's a logical thing, if you have an automobile, to

take it a distance.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, you send over the case of the individual who

has been charged a surcharge and I'll certainly check it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I take the Minister's reply to mean

then, Mr. Speaker, that there is no standard procedure to be

followed and no policy direction has been laid down by the

Minister to ICBC?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I outlined the situation to the House

yesterday.

MEETING ON LAND CLAIMS

WITH UNION OF B.C. CHIEFS

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

Premier whether he received a letter dated March 1 and a Telex

dated March 8 from the Union of B.C. Chiefs seeking a meeting

regarding the land claims, and is he intending to have that

meeting?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take it as notice, Mr. Member.

CROWN POSITION ON

CEMENT OVERCHARGES

MR. R.T.- CUMMINGS (Vancouver-Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker,

to the Attorney-General. On March 12, in The Province

paper there was a headline which alarmed me very much. It said,

"Crown Can't Sue to Recover Rigged Cement Costs. Taxpayers are

not about to get back any of the extra money they have paid by

these concrete prices...."

MR. SPEAKER: May I ask the Hon. Member...? First of all,

it sounds like a hypothetical question, which would be out of

order. Secondly, may I point out that the Hon.

Attorney-General's estimates will be up in a few minutes, in

which case questions that have to do with his department are

then available for questioning?

MR. CUMMINGS: The point I want to make is that the federal

government says they can't move because there's a statute law.

But there's a basic common law that a Criminal is not allowed

to profit by a crime. I want to know from the Attorney-General

how come corporate criminals can escape with a profit. These

fines they pay are just minimal of the real profit that they

have absconded with.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Hon. Attorney-General wish to answer

at this time?

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

make a brief answer. I can't give an

[ Page 1033 ]

instant legal opinion as to whether or not the consumers who

have been hurt by price-fixing have a right of action against

the companies who are guilty of that particular offence. I

doubt if they do, and I think that the Legislature — and I'm

sure the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) will be

looking at this — may have to think in terms of some class

remedy to make it possible for consumers who are illegally

faced with an unjust price increase to recover the amount by

which they have been bilked.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd like to curtail this because I think it's

out of order. In Beauchesne on 147 it says,"You must

not seek an answer to a legal proposition or legal

question."

ACTION TO REDUCE

PRICE OF BEEF TO CONSUMERS

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, a question to the Minister of

Consumer Services. It has to do with the critical statements

made by the Minister of Agriculture and Beryl Plumptre. They

condemned the retail outlets for not reducing the price of beef

in the stores, which the Minister outlined had been reduced

substantially to the producer but hasn't been passed on to the

consumer. I was wondering what action the Minister has

initiated to rectify this problem.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr.

Speaker, our department is still in its formative stages and

we're not in a position at this time to examine the question

nor to take remedial action. Hopefully before the end of the

session we will be in such a position.

BIDS AND PARTICULARS

ABOUT NEW B.C. FERRIES

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and

Communications. When is it likely that we shall have a decision

by the B.C. Ferry Authority with respect to the acceptance or

rejection of the bids received for the construction of three

new ferries?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I am expecting a report

momentarily from the Ferry Authority management on the bids

which were opened, I think, yesterday.

MR. CURTIS: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of

Finance. In the event that B.C. Ferries accepts one of the bids

and it is higher than has been allocated, will the additional

revenues be made available from another source?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I'll take that as notice.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Supplemental. With regard to

the B.C. Ferries, would the Minister of Transport and

Communications confirm at this time that the designs for the

new ferries will contain provisions for only coin-operated

dispensing of food?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's certainly news to me if it's true.

I'll check, but I doubt it very much. It was my understanding

there was going to be full cafeterias on these new ferries. You

may be right, I don't know, but I doubt it very much.

(Laughter.) I doubt it very, very much.

MR. McCLELLAND: But I could be right.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It would be strange, but it could

happen.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Have you had any secret meetings? Have

you got any idea where that information came from?

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll tell you about it some day.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You said you hadn't been to any secret

meetings. Have you been to secret meetings somewhere?

MR. WALLACE: Supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. Could the

Minister tell us whether the design of the new ferries will

obviate the need to pump the bilges of the ships in the

straits? Will there be separators — I believe that's the

technical term — compared with the practice which goes on with

the existing ferries of pumping the bilges out in the

straits.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can't answer that question now.

MR. WALLACE: It's a pretty important pollution question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, okay, I'll take it as notice. I'll

get an answer for you.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS

ON SKAGIT VALLEY SUBMISSION

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I have a

question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources, who said last week that it would be unlikely,

according to the

[ Page 1034 ]

report, that the provincial government would support a

federal submission to the United States Federal Power

Commission to prevent the flooding of the Skagit Valley. I'd

ask him if he has now crystallized this lack of support into a

firm government policy.

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

I think that the position has been stated in the press. I have really nothing

further to comment in that regard.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, could the

Minister say whether it's a fact that provincial officials have

been ordered not to work with federal officials on this

case?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No.

FILING OF MINING COMPANY

PROSPECTUSES WITH SECURITIES COMMISSION

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Hon.

Attorney-General. In view of the provisions of Bill 31, which

grants large discretionary powers to the Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), how can any mining

company file a meaningful prospectus with respect to mining

ventures with the Securities Commission?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there is a bill currently

before the House. I can't give a legal opinion on that; you'd

have to ask the Hon. Minister of Mines. He'll give you a legal

interpretation of that bill.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about Prospectuses from

mining companies who wish to engage in a new venture in the

Province of British Columbia. How can they file a prospectus

when they do not know to any great degree what effect this bill

will have on their operations? Yet they must file those

prospectuses with the Securities Commission.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, that's a proper matter to

bring up during discussion of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: We can deal with that later perhaps in the

estimates if it's found to be in order.

EMERGENCY DEBATE

ON RENT FREEZES

MR. CURTIS: To the Hon. Premier. Is the Premier aware of any

request from the First Member for Vancouver-Centre (Mr. Barnes)

for an emergency debate on rent freezes in the lower mainland

area of B.C.?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, thank you for the question. I

certainly am, and we are having an emergency debate in caucus.

I'm pleased with that Member's contribution as a Member who

fights for his constituents.

MR. CURTIS: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. That's wonderful

about the caucus, Mr. Premier, but when is it likely to reach

the floor of the House?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, I can't share with you

the results of all secret meetings. We only have reports on

some — (Laughter) — some of which have been attended by some

people and some which have been attended by another. But if you

wish to join our caucus, you don't have to do it by secret

meeting. Write out an application and we'll consider it. Then

you'll have an up-to-date report.

MR. CURTIS: Supplemental. Invitation declined, Mr. Speaker,

but when will it reach the floor of the House where we can all

debate this very serious matter?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Soon I hope, Mr. Member.

ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE

FOR BCIT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Education, Mr.

Speaker. Can she inform us when we're to get the autonomous

administrative structure for BCIT so that the present

iniquitous situation where the Provincial Secretary makes an

offer of 14.5 per cent in wages one day and reduces it....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Is that not so? You made no offer of

14.5? I thank you for your correction. When are we going to get

an autonomous structure?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I believe I

informed the House last session that I'd have the legislation

for this session and that still stands.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF THE

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 11: administration, Attorney-General's office,

$79,652.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General):

[ Page 1035 ]

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to filibuster my own estimates,

but I want to say two or three things very shortly in opening

this vote.

It has been a time of rapid change in the Attorney-General's

department. One of my very good lawyers the other day was

talking to some judges and he said working in the A-G's

department was like being in a car that was running out of

control down a hill 60 miles an hour. And he said, "I think I

fell out." Neither he nor anyone else has fallen out, but it is

a period when I want to take a moment to pay tribute to the

staff in the department. There are extensive changes going on.

There are new faces, such as the new Deputy Minister, Mr. David

Vickers, and it's kind of an exciting period.

I don't know everything that's going on, so I hope that in

the course of this debate what I don't know I'll find out by

way of your questions.

To give a couple of examples of some of the reorganization

that's going on, I might mention two things. I've long thought

that the corporate and financial services of the

Attorney-General's department which have been fragmented should

be co-ordinated and combined. You have the Registrar of

Companies, the Superintendent of Brokers, the real estate

function, the insurance function, the society function, public

trustees and the administration of estates. That kind of

financial services is what the Attorney-General's department

wants to extend to the people of the province, and perhaps, more particularly, to the business community of the province. We

think they should be co-ordinated rather than running in their

own separate directions. I think it's very valuable in terms of

enforcement and improving the quality of those services.

I would like to announce that I'm proposing there be a new

Associate Deputy Minister. How many will that make in the

department?

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, nobody's being fired, and the person

I'm proposing for that job is a very capable and dedicated

person, namely, Mr. Dennis Sheppard, who has served the people

of British Columbia in one capacity or another and in

government to a great extent for a long period of time. I think

those of you who know him will commend the choice I'm proposing

to make.

Talking about the organization of the department, I'd like

to say a word or two about — well, let's call it by its true

name — organized crime.

I've long felt that the people who are responsible for big crime get away —

whether it's in British Columbia or Quebec or Ontario or states of the Union

of United States below the border. They are the fish that are never caught;

the big ones that get away.

They never, for example, get close to the white poison. They

are very hard to prosecute. It's the lesser fry that cause the

immediate damage in the community, but very often bigger people

are responsible. And to a very great extent, our intelligence

units know who they are, know when a contract murder has been

carried out in the Province of British Columbia. But there

hasn't been that coordination of forces of justice which will

enable the effective things to take place. And by effective, I

mean research in the area, drawing upon the whole gamut of

activity, including — and I stress this as terribly important

in this field — the full co-operation of the federal government

and its agencies.

In this connection I have had very brief remarks with the

Hon. Otto Lang, Minister of Justice, and the Solicitor-General

for Canada, Warren Allmand, and I intend to have further

conversations because in this kind of a project we would need,

of course, their co-operation. It would be most helpful to

us.

We think in terms of the necessity for policy in this field

and if it isn't serious at the present time in British

Columbia, it will become so unless we make it clear that this

kind of organized crime will be hounded in this province, and

that B.C. is not going to be this kind of a garden where this

thing will be allowed to flourish and grow and be attractive to

the kind of criminal elements that I am mentioning, and where

it can so easily become attractive because the means of

transportation are so simple and swift and short today by

aircraft.

So we think there should be a policy board looking at that

problem, with elements in it from the Attorney-General's

Department to police....

AN HON. MEMBER: To discuss the police commission?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, not really. No, I'm not talking

about the police commission, Mr. Member, I'm talking about a

unit within the department which will be concerned with policy,

investigation and prosecution.

And speaking in terms of personnel, though this isn't the

object of getting to my feet, I have made an offer to Stewart

McMorran, who's been the prosecutor in the City of Vancouver

for a long period of time, who is not, as far as I know, an NDP

card-carrying member.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Have you checked it out?

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I haven't checked it out. But he is the

kind of citizen who has proved an incorruptible prosecutor — a

bit of a terrier, a bird-dog, the kind of person we need in

this field if

[ Page 1036 ]

we're really to make it clear that this area's not to be a

happy hunting ground for big crime. So that's the kind of

thing, one of the things, we're looking at in terms of a new

thrust in this department.

Finally, let me confess a little disappointment, then I'll

sit down, Mr. Chairman. I don't think, as the Hon. Minister of

Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) has announced that the law school

at the University of Victoria can get off the ground in

September, 1974. It's not a financial thing; it's an academic

problem. We have the Dean selected, Mr. Fraser Murray, and he

has accepted that position. He is now the assistant dean at

Dalhousie.

After a long search and careful search, we've got what I

think is a very excellent candidate to act as dean of the law

school. But getting together the necessary staff so the law

school starts as a highly qualified respected institution in

the province is something that takes time. And my indications,

both from the committee at UVic and from the new dean that I

have in mind, are that it probably cannot be in September,

1974, for a good start. That's the bad news.

The good news is that at UBC law school, we will be able to

increase the.... We've had conversations with Dean McLean,

and the enrolment of new students at that school can be

increased this coming fall by 30 to 35 students. So, over a

period of three years, with that additional intake, the total

complement at UBC Law School will be, say, 725 students rather

than 625 students.

I stress this because, as I say, it's terribly important

that we open up the doors of opportunity in our professions to

people against whom those doors are slammed at the present

time. It may be because of lack of a privileged background — I

think that does have something to do with the availability of

higher education, especially specialized higher education, to

many of the people of the province.

But I think it's terribly important that we have an

additional inflow of home-trained UBC, B.C.-trained young

lawyers, boys and girls, because I think they're very badly

needed in this province. We're going to open, and we are

opening, legal aid offices, for example, throughout the reaches

of this province. We're offering pretty attractive starting

salaries, but there aren't too many people to take up this kind

of exciting public service kind of law. So, while we cannot

proceed, as far as I know, in Victoria in September 1974, I'm

glad to say that I think UBC Law School will be able to

increase its enrolment, and that's a little step in the right

direction.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, before I start my

remarks to the estimates of the Hon. Attorney-General, I'd like first of all

to welcome that new Deputy Minister in the department of the Attorney-General.

And also the appointment of Mr. Sheppard as an Associate Deputy Minister.

The Attorney-General and I may have a bit of discourse this

afternoon and perhaps with your help, he'll be able to answer

some of the questions I'm going to pose to him this

afternoon.

Anyway, before I get into that part of the Minister's

estimates, I would like to indulge for a few minutes in

mentioning to the House that this is Fort St. John Day. I guess

we have other visitors in the gallery besides those who I

officially welcomed a little earlier. I see that Alderman

Hamilton, Alderman Spicer and Alderman Knight are in the

gallery, along with the Chairman of the regional district, Mr.

Framst. So it's nice to welcome all of those people from

northern British Columbia and the town of Fort St. John to

Victoria, particularly on such a nice day.

I'm glad to hear the Attorney-General's remarks with respect

to increasing the enrolment of law students in the faculty at

UBC. Certainly those people who wish to take up the profession

of law will be glad to hear that there will be accommodation

shortly for more students than there has been in the past.

I'm not sure I follow the Attorney-General's remarks with

respect to organized crime in the Province of British Columbia.

As I listen to him, I seem to get the impression that the law

enforcement officers of the province quite often know when a

contract for murder has been issued by an organized crime

syndicate. If that is the case, I would ask the

Attorney-General to elaborate and....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: After the event.

MR. SMITH: Well, the Attorney-General didn't explain that

when he was on his feet and I was just going to suggest to him

that if the law enforcement officers knew of the event, why

didn't they do something to prevent it?

But the other side that I would like to spend a few minutes

discussing with the Attorney-General is: it's fine for him to

say that organized crime in the Province of British Columbia

will be hounded and certainly looked at much closer than in the

past because perhaps we are entering into a phase of fast

transportation and large-scale crime operations in this

province. But he must be considering, then, a treatment of what

could be called hard-core criminals and hard-core crime on a

different basis than he has outlined with respect to many other

operations within the jurisdictions of the Attorney-General,

because from what I have read and the remarks that I have heard

the Attorney-General make in debate, he believes in opening up

the facilities for prevention of crime along with making more

use of bail, less use of detention in jails, more use of public

facilities where the people who are involved are not

confined.

Now, that might be a reasonable plan for people

[ Page 1037 ]

who are not involved in murder or serious crime, but I would

hope that there'll be a very definite demarcation line between

those criminals who will be treated as criminals, because that

is what they are, and those people who have been convicted of

minor misdemeanors, who could be allowed out in the public

without any great harm.

As I see it, the job of the Attorney-General is to protect

the public. This is one of the responsibilities of his office,

and certainly he would be doing no service or favour to the

public if known, hard-core criminals were treated in the same

manner as those who are not involved in criminal actions.

I'd like now to spend a few moments discussing with the

Attorney-General, as the chief law-enforcement officer of this

province, a matter which I believe is of utmost importance.

This, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, is

the need for legislation to define and eliminate conflict of

interest within the operations of the government of this

province...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: ...conflict which is damaging to the public

interest and which, if allowed to continue, will very soon

destroy our whole parliamentary process.

Now in the last 18 months we have seen a profusion of

legislation pass through this House, by a very large government

majority, which gives the Crown increasing power over the

rights and the privileges of people. This, in itself, is

alarming. But of far greater alarm is the tendency of this

administration to place in the hands of appointed boards and

commissions broad sweeping powers, powers which may be

exercised without bothering to refer back to the Legislative

Assembly, the cabinet or, in some cases, the courts.

These powers have been granted, as the Attorney-General well

knows, in certain statutes that are now part of our legal

process in this province. I would ask the Attorney-General

this: does the Attorney-General, as the chief law officer in

this province, visualize the danger inherent in this process?

If not, then I must conclude you have turned a blind eye to

your responsibility as Attorney-General and choose to plot the

course in the administration of your department according to

narrow parochial party preferences.

Mr. Attorney-General, you have a favourite saying about

letting a little sunshine in. But, far from letting a little

sunshine in, if you allow this to continue, you are placing the

whole province under an inverted bucket; and as you know, a

bucket has no doors, no windows, very little air and, for sure,

no sunshine at all.

That is the position we are approaching in the Province of British Columbia

when you analyse the legislation that has been passed during the sessions since

the NDP came to power.

In this province a whole new dimension of conflict of

interest has been created which required identification and

remedial action. Your socialist government follows the dictates

of the Waffle Manifesto and other espoused socialist

philosophies, and I suppose that's your prerogative. But it is

rapidly expanding both the regulatory functions of government

in industry, commerce and the business world.

At present you do not even appear to recognize the conflict

of interest within government operations, let alone provide any

remedy for it. This neglect to mention conflict of interest

centres around the decisions and actions of government

officials and bodies in the discharge of their public

responsibilities. Officials and bodies may be faithfully

pursuing the public interest as separate and apart from

personal interest or personal conflict, because I believe there

is a great deal of difference between conflict of public

interest and conflict of interest, as you have suggested, where

elected Members should be required to report to someone in the

Legislature as to what they own and the assets that they

have.

So I feel there is a very distinct division between people

and bodies operating in the conflict of the public interest

and a conflict of personal interest.

The conflict I am talking about occurs, Mr.

Attorney-General, when in the discharge of public

responsibilities your government places itself, or its

officials, in the position of being on both sides of the

question at one time — on both sides of the action at one

time.

I'd like to suggest to you, for instance, that this

government, as we have seen in the past few months, commits

itself to being both the buyer and the seller of a resource;

the issuer and the applicant for a permit or a licence; the

regulator of an industry as well as the operator in that

particular industry; one party in a dispute and the arbitrator

of that same dispute; the competitors of a private company, or

a private business, and the regulator of that company and that

business.

In the opinion of the official opposition in these cases,

conflict of interest is definitely involved. Even though no

personal pecuniary gain may accrue to the public officials who

find themselves, or their agency, in these situations, their

activities and transactions definitely involve a conflict of

interest in the plain sense of that term. Actions and decisions

affected in this conflict of interest are contrary to the

public interest.

I would like now for a few minutes to illustrate the kind of

conflict of interest which is becoming increasingly apparent in

the operation of this government and for which there appears

little remedy in law, or little recognition of the problem.

I'll take a

[ Page 1038 ]

hypothetical case as an illustration.

A coal company, of which the government is 40 per cent

owner, is in danger of losing money — which would not be in the

public interest. I think the Attorney-General would agree. It

therefore goes to the railway, which is wholly owned by the

government, and requests a reduction in freight rates. At the

same time another coal company, privately owned and also losing

money, makes a similar request.

Now no matter what the officials of the railway decide to

do, do they not have a conflict of interest which could be

prejudicial to the best interests of the railway and the

non-government company or corporation?

That case is really not too hypothetical, Mr.

Attorney-General, because as you full well know, you are in the

process of purchasing 40 per cent of a company known as Sukunka

Coal. You are the owner of the B.C. Railway. There are other

companies that might want to get involved in such a situation,

and Kaiser Coal might be one of the competing companies — a

private company competing against Sukunka Coal for a market.

Let's examine it a little further.

The government coal company, anxious to increase its

production and produce a favourable operating statement,

endeavours to sell coal at as high a price as possible — to the

B.C. Hydro Power Authority, for instance. But B.C. Hydro, if

allowed to operate without political interference, would buy

its fuel as economically as possible from whatever source was

available on a competitive basis.

I say to you, Mr. Attorney-General, is not conflict of

interest inherent in the purchase decision of this kind,

particularly if B.C. Hydro has also received sales offers from

non-government coal companies? There is a definite, in my

opinion, conflict of interest. Let's take another hypothetical

situation. Let us look at a sawmill operation owned by the

government.

In order to grow and remain viable it must acquire more

timber leases. Timber leases must be obtained through a

tender-bid system, processed from another agency of the same

government. Individually owned and operated sawmills are also

interested in acquiring some of the same leases in the same

area. Does this situation create a conflict of interest for

officials of both the government, the sawmill and the Forestry

department? I think it does, Mr. Minister, and it is something

that we need remedial action on.

Suppose the government sawmill is somewhat obsolete, and its attracts the attention

of the government's environmental authorities? If the authorities really applied

the environmental standards which it has established for other operators, the

government sawmill would be forced to cease operation. In so doing it would

be unable to hold its timber-harvesting agreement with the Department of Forestry,

or honour its timber-harvesting agreement with the Department of Forestry. The

environmental authority is dependent on the Department of Forestry for some

of the information required to evaluate the performance of the government-owned

mill, as well as to evaluate the performance of any private sawmills operating

in the area.

I say in this situation a conflict of interest on the part

of the officials and government exists. We only have to look at

the Prince Rupert area to realize that that conflict exists

today. You have Can Cel, which is a government-owned

corporation, in the lumber and sawmill business, operating in

competition, for instance, with Skeena Forest Products Limited,

Eurocan and Rayonier, all operating some phase of their total

operation in that particular area.

Let's look at another area for a few minutes, Mr.

Attorney-General. Let's look at the labour relations field and

unresolved industrial disputes. Let us say an industrial

dispute arises between the government and the workers in its

coal, sawmill, railway power operations. Government is both the

employer and the arbitrator of this dispute. Does this

situation involve at least an appearance of conflict of

interest? I think so.

Now, take a quick look at market transactions, stock market

transactions. The Minister of Finance purchases shares in a

utility company for one of the superannuation funds for which

he is the trustee and fiscal agent. As trustee, it is his

responsibility to obtain as high a return as possible for

secure investments so that as high a pension as possible may be

paid to the employees when they retire. I think this is the

object of the operation of any pension plan.

The utility company applies to a regulatory body for a rate

increase in order to provide a reasonable rate of return to

shareholders. The Minister of Finance appears at the rate

hearing as an intervener, arguing that the rate increase is

unnecessary. However, the rate increase may be necessary in

order to pay a higher return to the people who are

shareholders, including the Minister of Finance who holds

shares as trustee for the pension fund.

Does this situation not involve a conflict of interest? In

my opinion it does.

We only have to look at the transactions in the purchase of

B.C. Telephone shares in increasing numbers, and the purchase

of Westcoast Transmission shares to realize sooner or later a

conflict of interest will arise.

The government purchases shares in a utility company — as

you have done — and elects some members to the board of

directors, which you have not done as yet, but it could happen,

Mr. Attorney-General. These directors, as representatives of

the government's desire to keep utility rates low, should

oppose a rate increase. But as representatives of the

shareholders, they should favour a rate

[ Page 1039 ]

increase. Do not such directors have a conflict of interest?

I say they do. What position would these directors be in if

they were called to testify at a rate hearing?

Let's look at just one more area where a conflict of

interest is a distinct possibility. Government, through the

Securities Commission, is responsible for the regulation of

security dealings within the province. The government is also a

buyer and a seller of securities, and a shareholder in a number

of companies requiring various approvals, et cetera, from the

Securities Commission.

Moreover, the government issues certain political statements

which depress the stock market of certain companies. The

government, through its stock market consultants, buys up a

portion of the stock at depressed prices. It could happen.

Shortly thereafter the government makes a number of policy

announcements which paint a bright future for companies in

which it has acquired equity.

In that respect we could suggest that the $12 million profit

made by Can-Cel in the first year of operation under the

government had an effect of bolstering people's confidence in

Can-Cel.

The question that should be asked, though — irrespective of

any insider trading that could have taken place in that

particular transaction — the question that should be asked is:

is that $12 million of profit a legitimate profit? Or was it

really a matter of reducing the amount of stumpage paid by that

company so it looked like they made $12 million profit in their

first full year of operation? I think it's a very pertinent

question, Mr. Attorney-General, and one that should be looked

into by you.

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

of the Hon. Member a quote from May , 18th Edition, page 766:

"The administrative action of the department is open to debate

but the necessity for legislation in matters involving

legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply." I

would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the present

administrative responsibilities of the Attorney-General.

MR. SMITH: Oh, I think I'm confining my remarks very much to

the present administrative responsibility of the

Attorney-General because this is one area where he has full responsibility as chief law

enforcement officer in this province, and I'm certain that he

would agree with that.

Let's get back to the stock market hypothetical case. First of all, through

announcements the government of the province depresses the stock market. They

then, through authorized agents, buy shares. Then it's possible for the government

to make announcements which will quickly inflate the value of the shares and

bring them back up. While that is going on, it's entirely possible that the

agent who represents the government could be instructed to unload the shares

at the escalating price.

The problem is this: the Crown itself is not bound by the

Securities Act, but some of the companies in which the

government had acquired an equity are so bound, so there is a

conflict of interest. What is the Securities Commission to do

in such a situation? Does not conflict of interest abound on

every side? The issue in my mind is clear. It's definitive; it

requires immediate action.

Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, as chief

law enforcement officer of this province you have a

responsibility and an obligation to view these situations and,

in my opinion, introduce legislation forthwith to protect the

people of British Columbia from exploitation by Big Brother

government. This, in my opinion, is happening today: through

these corporations, which have become part of the NDP policy

during the last 18 months, conflict of interest is rampant, and

it's growing every day by leaps and bounds.

There is a trend to widespread adventurism on the part of

government in the business sector. You've appointed boards and

commissions, and granted to them powers above and beyond this

Legislative Assembly — in some cases removing them from the

jurisdiction of the courts of the land.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Name one.

MR. SMITH: You know full well the corporation I'm talking

about; it's written into the statutes and you presented the

statutes through this House.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Which one?

MR. SMITH: You're aware of them. You're aware of them. But

this is happening on every area....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's a court appeal there.

MR. SMITH: There's no court appeal, as you know. There's a

provision that they are above and beyond the call of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just request that the Hon. Members not

speak from their seats, but rather wait until their turn comes

to speak.

MR. SMITH: Pardon me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm recognizing the Hon. Member for North

Peace River, and I'm requesting that the Members not speak from

their seats.

MR. SMITH: Well surely I don't mind, Mr.

[ Page 1040 ]

Chairman, if the Hon. Attorney-General wishes to interject

and we can have a bit of a discussion across the floor. If he

wants to raise a pertinent point and allow me to answer it

while I'm on my feet, I don't mind that. But I respect your

ruling as Chairman of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request that the Hon.

Member who has the floor, then, make it clear for

Hansard .

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I brought up a few

matters in the last few minutes which we in the official

opposition are vitally concerned about. I know that other

Members of the House wish to participate in this debate this

afternoon, and rather than go on to a number of other areas

which I'll canvass with the Attorney-General some time during

his debate, I will defer to other Members of the House at this

time.

But I would just say this before taking my seat: in our

opinion, the conflict of interest does exist; that in the

opinion of the official opposition there is a tendency toward

exploitation of individual citizens by Big Brother government

in this province; that you have somehow become overwhelmed with

the idea of becoming financial equity holders in many business,

or equity holders in many businesses in the Province of British

Columbia, if not to take them over outright.

It is a concern to the citizens of this province, and to

echo the Minister's own words, I say it was time that the Hon.

the Attorney-General let a little sunshine into the Province of

British Columbia; that you fully accept your responsibilities

as the chief law enforcement officer of this province and that

you bring in legislation which will at least alleviate or

prevent this conflict of interest which does exist and will get

greater as time goes on.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the first point the Hon.

Member made was very valid. Those who are vicious or violent or

dangerous should not be considered in terms of the alternatives

to incarceration that I have been talking about, because they

are a menace to society. But you must bear in mind, Mr. Member,

that for the most part, these are inmates of the federal

penitentiary prison system by reason of the nature of the kind

of crimes that we're talking about.

In respect to conflict of interest, this government is very

conscious of the kinds of dangers that can creep into big

business, whether or not the government has an interest in

it.

For that reason we think there should be disclosure

legislation and election expense legislation.

Partly for that reason we brought in a new Companies Act last year in which

we tightened up — really for the first time — the insider trading provisions

in the Companies Act , and we applied them whether or not it was a government

company or a company in which the government had an interest.

If the government were to contrive to depress the price of

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

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

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

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

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

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

place and it shouldn't take place.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): What recourse

is there?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Legislature primarily, I suppose,

which is more than you can say...except that I think it's

also an offence under securities legislation. I would think so.

I haven't tried to analyse specifically the point as to whether.... It may even be under the Criminal Code .

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

that kind of thing were being perpetrated by government because

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

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

companies in which the government has an interest should be

treated equally under the law — that's my particular

responsibility — and under the same standards as their

competitors. Of course, I'm speaking as Attorney-General in

terms of their legal treatment.

As to whether Big Brother government is exploiting people,

I'm not the Minister of Finance who is making the investments,

but it seems to me that — far from this government exploiting

people — for the first time in the history of this province

we're finally arriving at the point where we're beginning to

make them shareholders in their own resources.

You can call it democratic socialism or you can call it

people's capitalism, but it's not exploiting people. The

ordinary people of the province can finally have an equity

interest in the wealthy resources of their own province. That's

helping people.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): Before I

address a few remarks to the Attorney-General, I too would like

to join the House in welcoming his most recent Deputy

Minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Could I just introduce the two

Associates? I didn't notice that they were right here. Sorry to

take your place, Mr. Chairman, but Ed Epp is the Deputy

Minister in the field of corrections, and Dennis Sheppard is

the

[ Page 1041 ]

gentleman I mentioned earlier from Financial and Corporate

Services.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Members of this side of the House have

known Mr. Epp and Mr. Sheppard by experience in the department

and in this House. I have had the pleasure of knowing your

Deputy Minister as a member of the bar in the legal community,

and I certainly welcome him here today. It's a pleasure to see

a man of his calibre taking a position such as he has taken and

performing his responsibilities with a diligence which is

obvious. Attorneys-General need that kind of help.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Some more than others.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes. However, we won't bother naming

names, Mr. Attorney-General.

I also welcome the suggestion that the Financial Services

Division of the Attorney-General's department is to be

coordinated and given a senior person in control of it for the

first time, so that the interrelationship of those financial

services can be drawn together and their problems brought more

clearly to the attention of the Attorney-General and the

cabinet for the action which is required.

Certainly I think that Mr. Sheppard is a wise choice in that

respect. I just hope it isn't too long, however, before Mr.

Sheppard, through the Attorney-General, will be able to bring

about some of the needed changes in that financial segment of

the departmental responsibility — which under the previous

administration was so long neglected, with consequences which

we see on every hand, some of which will be raised later on in

this debate.

I also can understand why the Attorney-General, in

considering the matter of coordinating the efforts of the

police and the prosecutors in the province to deal with the serious

problem of crime, and particularly organized crime.... Mr. McMorran

certainly comes with a wealth of credentials if

he accepts this appointment.

I must say, however, that I have made a note of what the

Attorney-General said, and I'm not sure that he was as

complimentary to Mr. McMorran as he might have been. He said

Mr. McMorran was a bit of a terrier and a bit of a bird

dog.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That was a joke.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, you know what you're saying, Mr.

Attorney-General, when you speak of Mr. McMorran that way. When

you contemplate the melding of a terrier and a bird dog, I'm

just not quite sure that the Stewart McMorran I know exactly

fits that image, somehow or other.

I'm sure the Attorney-General meant those as alternatives rather than conjunctives.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Different days.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'd like to deal briefly with the matter

of the task which this policy board may be called upon to

fulfill in the Province of British Columbia. It's a matter of

assimilating and thereby drawing the best out of our police

forces and our prosecutor organizations in B.C.

There's no question that that's required, but what concerns

me — and I'd like the Attorney-General to assure me that my

concern is unfounded — is that we're seeing drawn together in

the hands of the provincial government a control over police

forces and prosecutors throughout this province which, combined

with the control the government already functions in the

appointment of judges in our provincial court system, seems to

me to establish a degree of control at the provincial

government level which might be abused, not by this

Attorney-General, I trust.

Once these things become consolidated, we end up with a sort

of centralized police force controlled from Victoria, whose

channels of control extend out to all the communities in the

province.

These channels and this kind of control can be abused by

government, to the detriment of the system of the

administration of justice and citizens as a whole.

I've heard rumours that what we're going to face in this

province is sort of a secret police force controlled by the

provincial government. I've heard it rumoured, and I discount

those rumours; but when you make this kind of announcement, Mr.

Attorney-General, I think it is incumbent upon you to make

clear the intent of your programme and the power and authority

which may be vested in a board such as the one you

mentioned.

If you don't make it clear beyond question, then these

doubts in people's minds begin to be raised, and once raised

they gather momentum which can only be detrimental to the

administration of justice. So I hope that the Attorney-General

would be prepared today — and if not today, before his vote is

over on Thursday or Friday — to tell us exactly what it is that

his programme envisions in this regard.

One of the most important things for government to recognize

when implementing new policies and new programmes is the wisdom

of making certain that the public clearly understands what is

intended in advance, so that they make their representations

either directly to the government or through the Members of the

Legislature, hopefully bringing about proper changes in the

concept.

This brings me to another subject, which was dealt with

briefly by the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) and

which the Attorney-General has

[ Page 1042 ]

taken some pains to express in this House and outside as

well. That's the question of what we're going to do with our

jails and with the people who find themselves in our jails or

in the hands of the criminal justice segment of our

law-enforcement system.

I must say that I was pleased to welcome a year ago the

changes that were brought by legislation into our correction

services. We had a good debate at that time expressing on all

sides of this House the desire to ensure that — as the

Attorney-General said in his speech earlier this session — we

don't keep on making criminals in some of these institutions,

and that we do our best to rehabilitate these people and make

sure that they are returned to useful, productive positions in

our community.

But when the Hon. Attorney-General spoke in debate on

February 25, he said some things which made me wonder. I wonder

if he could clear up this problem now. He said, and I'm reading

from Hansard , Mr. Attorney-General, page 504, February

25, when you spoke in the budget debate this year: "We are

determined to decriminalize the justice system."

I want to know what you mean decriminalizing the justice

system. The system either falls on the civil side or the

criminal side, and if you are involved in crime, it's criminal.

How you are going to decriminalize that system I'm not

sure.

But later on in the same page in Hansard , you

said:

I think when we look at the people we're dealing with here

that society should permit deviation unless there is an actual

threat to somebody else's life or safety. In other words, I

think the only right that society has to confine some person

against his will is if it is to protect people from actual

harm, and when I say that I mean harm that is significant and measurable and

not simply inconvenience or nuisance.

Well, it's very easy to

say those words, but what is the scale that you're going to

use? What do you mean when you say, "actual harm that is

significant and measurable"? Is a physical beating a measurable

harm? Is a knifing measurable harm? Threat of a physical

beating or knifing: is that a measurable harm? Is that

significant?

I'd just like to hear the Attorney-General indicate how far

we can deviate from what will be acceptable standards of

conduct before we pass beyond the limit that the

Attorney-General would set in his approach to either confining

or providing some rehabilitative treatment for people who are

in this condition.

I know that the Attorney-General has talked about the

shortage of psychiatrists who are able to perhaps assist in

making this definition. Are we going to wait until we have

sufficient psychiatrists or are we going to embark upon these

programmes before we're equipped to make what is a satisfactory

measurement?

In this regard, Mr. Attorney-General, I have had it suggested to me by psychiatrists

that sexual crimes which are accompanied with violence is a pattern of life

you can't change. I trust that that's not the kind of deviation you mean.

The Hon. Attorney-General, in the answer to the Member for

North Peace (Mr. Smith), said that we're not talking about

these people who find themselves in positions where they get

into the federal institutions at the penitentiaries. I'd just

like to have him clearly indicate how far he's prepared to go.

What segment of society are we talking about in allowing them

to deviate? And how much deviation are we prepared to allow

before society must say, "Stop, we have to treat you in a

particular way" — either by confinement or, as I say,

rehabilitation?

Again, it's important that the Attorney-General clearly

indicate what he has in mind in this respect and what his

department has in mind. If the programme is worthy of

consideration and implementation, hen we should make every

effort to ensure that it's not going to fail because of the

lack of understanding by people in our community.

We had the federal government embarked upon a similar course

of action within its jurisdiction. We had quite a strong debate

in the community, Canada as a whole, with respect to some of

the actions that were taken by the federal Minister. Whether

you agree with what Mr. Goyer was trying to do or not, the fact

of the matter is that its failure was because of the inability

of the federal government to inform the public accurately, to

involve them in discussions at the community level, so that

misunderstanding would disappear — or if not disappear, that

many of the major questions in the minds of individuals in our

society could be answered, and the fear and apprehension at the

suggestion of a little bit of deviation as being okay, could be

minimized.

I hope that the Attorney-General is successful in the

programme of doing away with our jails. I don't think he will.

I don't think society is yet ready or will be in five years,

which is the time the Attorney-General appears to have set, to

accept that particular concept. That doesn't mean, however,

that we shouldn't start on the journey, because, like all

journeys, we never will reach the end unless we will take the

first step.

So let's take the first step, Mr. Attorney-General, but let

us make sure that we're not going to be deterred in the

journey.

We must take into account the enormous cost of crime and the

enormous cost of criminals. It's an unnecessary, completely

non-productive drain upon society. Everything we can do to

diminish that cost must be applauded. But I trust that we will

not be frustrated in the programme because of an anxiety on the

part of the Attorney-General to get going, or of the staff,

because of pressures which come from particular areas in our

society to do something without involving the whole community

in the

[ Page 1043 ]

debate.

Perhaps the Attorney-General would like to deal with some of

those matters. There are other things I would like to raise

with him later, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the very

thoughtful speech of the Hon. Member, I think it's important to

lay at rest certain things such as any idea that the

Attorney-General of British Columbia favours a centralized

police force. I don't.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Or your government?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This province is policed, apart from the

provincial RCMP forces and the special forces of the federal

RCMP by municipal police forces — I think there are 11 or 13 of

them — and RCMP acting under municipal, provincial and federal

contracts. I see nothing wrong with that. I like the idea of

local option, where the local community can choose as to

whether or not it shall have an RCMP contingent or go

municipal, or vice versa.

I do point out that in 1976 the special financial

arrangements between the provinces of Canada and the federal

government with regard to RCMP policing come up. There will

inevitably be discussions as to that financial formula. But,

for my own part, I welcome the participation of the RCMP at all

of those three levels in the policing of British Columbia.

I'd be a little afraid, quite frankly, of a monolithic

police structure. I know that the Province of Ontario has got a

provincial police. I don't think that I've heard of abuses.

Quebec has the Quebec provincial police — and maybe I have

heard of abuses. But I think it would be a mistake for a

province to eliminate local option to the selection of their

force, and I would hope that the financial incentives being

provided by Ottawa will continue, even though I recognize that

both the Province of Quebec particularly and the Province of

Ontario have a special financial disadvantage in the kind of

arrangements that have been made because they haven't bought

the incentive.

In the case of the Province of Quebec, it's very hard for

them to buy the incentive, which would be full RCMP policing.

So they lose out under that particular formula. I wouldn't

doubt that there'll be some adjustments. But I hope the

incentive will be there and that we will retain the mix and

that we will retain the local option.

Now the phrase "doing away with the jails" is a little too

strong, because I have stressed that we need alternative

custodial centres as well as alternatives to incarceration if

we are to do away with what I do regard as the major schools

for crime, such as Wilkinson Road and Oakalla.

We have to build up the alternatives, and that means building up a lot of smaller

institutions centered in the community, some of which will be custodial.

I wish I could answer in more particular terms what I mean

in terms of when a crime becomes not a victimless crime, for

which if anything probation or other remedies should be

available, if a correction is necessary, to those which really

menace the community or some of its members. Certainly physical

beating does; certainly knifing menaces the community. No

question about that.

But I think all you can do is take each case by itself. The

person who's engaged in a physical assault one time, going

through a period of emotional stress and turmoil, may at a

later period be no menace to the community at all in terms of

violence. Other people may have an ingrained propensity to

violence, and in that kind of a case I am not soft-hearted in

terms of the rights and welfare of that offender, because I

have to think in terms of the rights and welfare of the victim

or potential victim as well. But I think those are, hopefully,

a minority and will remain a fairly small minority of those who

transgress our criminal laws. But they should be treated, where

necessary, in custody.

I can't explain the sentence "de-criminalize the justice

system." I think it must have been a stenographic error in the

Hansard office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Shame!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If I used that phrase, I think I didn't

know what I was talking about. But what I intended to say....

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I'll accept that, yes. And I hope

Hansard got that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Arid it would not have been the first

time. What I meant to say, really, was that we should take out

of the criminal justice system those things that are

victimless, those things that are illness, basically because

it's addiction or alcoholism or it's mental instability, and

treat them in some other way and still bear in mind that the

rights of those people treating them that other way have to be

governed by some sort of due process.

In any programme to reform the jail system, the necessity of

public understanding, a point made by the Hon. Member, that I

am glad has been stressed because the programme will fail

unless we move slowly, unless we go out into the community and

explain it, and receive the acceptance of it and the support of

it, and the understanding of it which is vital to its

success.

You know, it will even fail with the inmate population, some

of whom have been conditioned, through long years of insecurity

and inability to

[ Page 1044 ]

master their own problems, to some kind of motherhood, some

kind of security behind brick walls and iron bars — and kind of

gravitate back to that kind of a jail environment. Sometimes

there's difficulty in getting inmates to leave a major jail

institution and go out to a forestry camp, because in the place

of bricks and mortar they feel some kind of security which

satisfies a craving inside themselves. So public understanding

and caution in the implementation of this programme is terribly

important.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver-Little Mountain): Mr. Chairman,

I'd like to get back to the question I asked the

Attorney-General in question period which the Speaker

graciously allowed me to ask — and the Attorney-General

graciously answered — then ruled it out of order.

Basically, the point I would like to make is: a group of

companies have been breaking the law over 10 years. I have

staff out trying to estimate how much money is involved, but I

suggest 1 per cent. In this

article they mention the Vancouver

International Airport, $32 million. Just the little one per

cent skim is only $320,000. A one per cent skim of a Knight

Road is what? — $160,000. You know, most businessmen like that

little figure, one per cent. That's just one per cent for who?

For a wintry cold day?

I would suggest to you, Mr. Attorney-General, if I can read

this article:

"Taxpayers are not about to get back any extra money that

may have been paid for federal buildings made with price-rigged

cement or concrete."

Somehow I can't believe this is true because Mr. Basford

said that the law now gives us no such right; but common law

says that you cannot profit from a crime. These men committed a

criminal act.

Correct me if I'm wrong; if it's not covered by statute law,

common law prevails, and common law says they cannot profit

from this crime. They have to give this money back.

I'm going to keep harping on this because I think it's well

into millions and millions of dollars. Because in 10 years....

I can think of even other companies, individuals, being ripped

off by these people, and I hate to say it, I'm a little old

fashioned: I want my pound of flesh, Mr. Attorney-General.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You've got a few, Roy. (Laughter.)

MR. CUMMINGS: Judging by the federal Liberals.... At least

they do stick together, Mr. Minister. They probably shake hands

and agree that certain presidents of certain companies won't be

investigated too closely.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.

MR. CUMMINGS: We'll leave that to you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): You're blowing a good argument

Roy. You just blew it.

MR. CUMMINGS: Mr. Attorney-General, I think the common law

prevails because it's not covered by statute. These men are not

allowed to gain by their criminal acts of conspiring against

the people. Thank you.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think the Hon. Member is raising a

very valid question as to whether or not the legal advice that

has appeared in the paper — and I haven't read the

article yet,

but I've been listening — is valid advice. Apparently a federal

Minister, I think it was Herb Gray, said that there was no

right of action vested in the federal government, although it

had bought cement at presumably a rigged price, contrary to the

criminal laws of Canada.

I would have thought that a person injured in that kind of

a circumstance would have a civil right of action, but I'm not

here to dispense immediate opinions.

The other interesting thing, though, as I said in question

period, is whether there should be some kind of redress for

consumers generally who are hurt by illegal acts of large

corporations. Hurt in the sense that they paid too much for a

product, or the product has turned out to be deleterious,

dangerous, or defective.

You've got a whole class of consumers out there; I would

think that we should look — and I'm sure this government is

looking at the question of whether those people should have

some kind of a class remedy against the offender.

If there is a difficulty in terms of the answer I gave at

the beginning, if there's something wanting in our law, I think

we should look at that too in terms of whether or not somebody

who bought cement at too high a price should have a civil right

of action. I think they do at the present time, but if they

don't, perhaps we should be looking at it, and we will.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like

first to comment on the Attorney-General's statement about the

law school in Victoria. I think it is, indeed, very unfortunate

that it cannot begin this year. I would like to have some more

documentation as to his comment that previous students have

been unable to enroll. I can't remember the phrase that the

Minister used — something like privileged families, or

discrimination — there was some implication that you didn't get

in on the basis of ability.

[ Page 1045 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, your family has to be able to

afford, say, seven years of higher education....

MR. WALLACE: But you have to have a slot to go to. You could

have all the money in the world, but if you can't find a slot,

any more than you can find a slot in the medical school, it

doesn't matter if you're a millionaire.

I just want it very clearly on the record, Mr. Chairman,

that I've seen, for example, the applications for 1971 to the

medical school, and that was determined very clearly on the

basis of academic ability, not on any question of who could

afford what.

I think it would be a misfortune for this House to assume

that some of our universities get up to tricks in deciding who

can get into the available spaces. We have, as has been said in

this House many times, 500 or 600 applicants for 60 places —

that's for the medical school. I can't give you exact figures

for the law school, but anyway that's in passing.

The subject has been raised of the question of handling of

criminals. I think anyone who goes into our jails today and

talks with the inmates, as I have done at both Wilkinson Road

and William Head, will find, if they try to be objective at

all, probably two thirds of them have no real reason to be in

that jail. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be paying some

penalty to society, never let that be the principle.

The principle is that we have people in our jails under

circumstances which can only increase without question that

opportunity for them to become more criminally oriented. No

question about that. How anybody in their right mind can walk

through Wilkinson jail and look at these cells, the square

footage, the frightful hygienic facilities, the rotting shower

stalls, the incredible conditions in the kitchen, which would

not be tolerated in any public restaurant....

In fact I know that the medical officer of health in this

community, two or three years ago, made recommendations about

the kitchen in Wilkinson jail to bring it up to safety

standards. How we don't have an outbreak of typhoid every other

week in that institution, I'll never know. The inmates tell me

that the flour bags are eaten in half by rats and mice before

their flour gets around to being baked.

Now, I say to you, Mr. Chairman, let's not have a lot of

airy-fairy philosophy about crime and criminology; let's get

down to some very basic facts. And the basic facts are that we

are all wasting our time talking about better management of

crime when we have the shocking facilities that exist at

Wilkinson Road jail.

I spoke about Wilkinson Road, I think, two years ago, and I

was assured that something would be done.

I just cannot see any other conclusion than what has been

happening, namely, a higher repeater incidence of people who

have once been through the jail system in this province.

I don't want to talk in great length about the jails. I have

an even more important subject which I'd like to raise, and I

would like to comment under corrections and other votes on some

of these matters. But there are two fundamental points that I

think must be raised in the Minister's vote. One is this

question of how much sincerity do we bring to our claim from

both sides of this House that there are many people in jail who

could be handled in a much more adequate way, who would be

punished and who would learn a lesson but who, in fact, would

have a real opportunity not to repeat the crime, or a real

opportunity not to be dragged further into the criminal

atmosphere.

Now, I spent two hours the other night talking to the

inmates at William Head — I know that's a federal

responsibility by and large....

AN HON. MEMBER: Was it a secret meeting?

MR. WALLACE: No, it wasn't a secret meeting. It was out in

the open, or at least within the confines of the minimum

security.

I might say, in passing, Mr. Chairman, that our federal

government is about to spend $300,000 to build a fence around

William Head, and apparently the record shows that nobody has

ever gone over the fence in the first place. In passing I would

say that there's an obvious need for much co-operation between

provincial and federal authorities. But that's something I'd

like to talk about under corrections.

These inmates and prisoners in William Head give this

repeated theme that a person who is put in jail for a very

limited period of time gets the message very quickly. I don't

know how quickly that means — whether it's one month or two

months or three months. But long jail sentences for many first

offenders have the devastating effect of dragging these people

into an area and a knowledge of criminality and pressure from

other prisoners which create an indelible stamp on these

individuals.

I hope the whole thrust and our policies in this province

will be to find a more realistic and a more practical way of

punishing offenders without, in fact, exposing them to many of

the very serious criminal elements within the jail system.

But even if you have shorter sentences, as I'm

suggesting.... By shorter sentences I mean sentences within a

prison and with confinement of the inmate within a cell. I

think any psychologist would say that to incarcerate anyone in

the kind of cells that you have in Wilkinson Road cannot have

anything but a very serious effect on that person's mental and

physical health.

[ Page 1046 ]

Now, I don't mean by that that they're not well fed. I saw

the food, and the food is, in my view, perfectly reasonable. I

am told that it is very much the same thing day in and day out,

and they tell me they want more fruit and vegetables.

But the mental and physical health of any person

incarcerated in these small cells, and with the kind of shower

facilities, which I'm sure are worse than some of the skid row

conditions we hear described in Vancouver, and the kitchen

facilities.... On the fact that the administrator of the jail

has been appealing year after year after year for the most

primitive basic needs for the prisoners in Wilkinson jail, I

say that before we get carried away on long-term, five-year

programmes, surely the shower facilities and the kitchen, at

least, should be given immediate and urgent repairs.

Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, Professor Michael

Jackson, of the University of B.C. Law School, spoke to the

Vancouver People's Law School last year. This report was of

February last year and he says: "Prison sentences for B.C. are

five times the national average." Five times the national

average. We just seem to find that the easiest way to deal with

an offender is shut him up behind the kind of bars I've

described in the Wilkinson Road, and to all intents and

purposes forget about him and the kind of incidents I came

across at William Head. Somebody spends four or five years in

jail and they get put out on the street with $22 in their

pocket and no job. Then we wonder why they get into other

problems of drugs or crime or what-have-you.

It's quite true, as the Member next to me says, that the

high incidence of drug offences is one of the reasons that we

have a high prison population because, of course, up until now,

prison has been regarded as a solution for the drug problem.

And that's just absolutely the craziest, most useless way to

try and handle drug addiction — put them in jail. Because if

they have some emotional or mental instability, or a

personality problem that puts them on to drugs in the first

place, you lock them up in a place like Wilkinson Road, in a

little cell five feet by eight feet, or whatever it is, and not

even give them decent hygienic facilities to live in and wash

in, and no degree of privacy, it's completely

de-humanizing, You know, if that's what we want in society, okay. Let's

just come out and not hide any of the facts from the public.

But if we stand up here and say that we're in a more

enlightened era and that we realize this crime situation is

just dealt with on a treadmill — by dumping them in jail and

de-humanizing them in the way I've said, and then turn them out

on the street and expecting them to be upstanding citizens with

productive jobs in society — we're crazy. We're talking in two

different directions at the same time.

I just think that it's about time that the practical aspects of this whole

business of a jail system were put on record.

I just couldn't help reflecting on a headline as up to date

as Tuesday, March 5: "Murderer Gets Life Term." I just want to

quote a little part of this statement. I won't mention names,

but this person was found guilty of murder. I don't think that

one needs to express the details or anything else, but simply

to say that the convicted person made some rude remarks to the

judge. But the point that really impressed me, when I had been

thinking in terms of a more enlightened approach to criminality

and the handling of criminal behaviour, was that this person

had been sent to reform school when he was eight years old.

Now, I don't know what the reform school was like, or what

the facilities were like compared to the institution I've just

quoted, but it must be a most serious and traumatic action to

take to put an 8-year old in reform school. It said that he had

been out of institutions only two-and-and-a-half months by the

time he turned 18 years old.

All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that there's something

wrong — whether it's our medical system, our social system, our

penal system or all three, I don't know. But here is this man

at age 26; he commits murder and he's sentenced for a minimum

of 10 years in jail.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat the point, as the Hon.

Member from....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It was a minimum of 15 years.

MR. WALLACE: Oh. Well, this quote must be wrong, Mr.

Attorney-General. I'm quoting from the newspaper: "The law

calls for a minimum of 10 years to be served before parole can

be considered."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The judge made it 15.

MR. WALLACE: Anyway, I just want to make it very plain, as

the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound made it plain, that

we're not being soft — or I don't wish to promote the idea of

being soft — on violent criminals and people who are a menace

to society. In no way am I suggesting that we should be any

less careful than we are with this kind of situation. But I say

if this person was abnormal in his behaviour at eight years

old, I wonder to what degree the mechanism by which he was

handled, and the facilities in which he was placed, dragged him

into this continuing criminal atmosphere which, as I say, leads

to more and more offences, and finally the ultimate offence of

murder.

I think this illustrates the fact that somehow our approach and our attitude

and our enlightenment as to criminality, particularly in the young offender,

[ Page

1047 ]

needs some fresh look and some different way of sentencing

and following up.

Under "corrections" I would like to talk about the probation

officer problem and the fact that it would seem to me that we

need more people to investigate more adequately the

circumstances of a person when he or she commits an offence,

and we can talk about pre-sentence reports and so on.

The other point that I think is just shocking and incredible

is the way in which the mentally disordered offender can be

shut up for life in this province. And that's no exaggeration —

no exaggeration at all, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to ask

a question: how many legally sane people are locked up in mental institutions because of faults in the legal, process

and sheer administrative incompetence?

I know the Attorney-General is sympathetic to this issue,

and I'm very happy about that. But just like the mess in

Wilkinson Road jail, I think it is about time that we put on

the record just exactly what has been happening in this

province over the last several years in dealing with a person

who, at the time of his offence, appears — and I use the word

"appears" very advisedly — to have some emotional or mental

disorder.

I think in this issue we should give credit to Jack

Wasserman of The Vancouver Sun for the tenacious way in

which he's done an excellent job for journalism by illustrating

some of the details of this situation. I think we also, in this

House, should pay credit to Dr. Foulkes who, in his Foulkes

report, has delineated the problem and suggested a solution. I

would like to quote parts of the Foulkes report and pay credit

to Dr. Foulkes for the work he has done on this subject.

The fact is that 9 per cent of the total Riverview

population are order-in-council patients — and I'm quoting from

the Foulkes report. And just to quote the way in which the

Foulkes report pages are numbered, I have to say that I'm not

very pleased about that, but that's just a minor detail — page

section IV(c), 13-4 states: "They" — namely the inmates — "are

not patients but prisoners who are sentenced to an

indeterminate period of preventive detention on the grounds

that they might be dangerous to society."

Mr. Chairman, what happens is that the person who appears to be emotionally

disordered is examined by one physician who makes a recommendation to the judge,

and then the Attorney-General is often asked to issue an order-in-council that

the prisoner be held during the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor. Again,

I pay credit to the Attorney-General. It's publicly stated as recently as Saturday:

"A.G. Backs Test Case on Riverview." So I'm not disputing in any way the Minister's

sympathy, but I think the people must understand what has been happening and

the urgency with which this situation must be corrected.

We also have the action of a lawyer, Robert Gardner, in

Vancouver, who has taken up this issue and attempted to find

out just what the legislation has been and why it has been

possible to lock these people up and not give them periodic

reviews to establish if they are, in fact, still disordered and

still a menace to society.

Unfortunately the Attorney-General's department hasn't been

as flexible as it might have been in the case of dealing with

one, at least, of the problems. I don't want to go into all the

details, Mr. Chairman, but the fact is that Mr. Gardner tried

to deal with the case of a person whose name was just reported

as "Bill," who had been held for 79 days. When finally

Mr. Gardner got into court, Bill just very conveniently was

discharged the same day, which, according to reports, somewhat

weakened the case for the lawyer, who said that the matter was

then of academic significance.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, you explain it if you will, Mr.

Attorney-General, but the fact is that people are there who, in

the first instance, might have been emotionally or mentally

disordered but who have been kept there by various legal

technical devices which, in all effects, means that they are

there on an indeterminate sentence which might well last the

rest of their lives.

Whether the Attorney-General has a conflicting explanation

to what I'm saying or not, I certainly would like to quote from

The Vancouver Sun again, of February 8. I'm getting

ahead of myself, but what happened was that Mr. Gardner

appealed the court decision and the matter was put before five

judges of the supreme court of B.C.

"They" — the judges — "also criticized the Attorney-General

for failing to provide Gardner with the names of persons held

at Riverview, and at one point Mr. Justice Branca suggested

that the attitude showed 'contempt of the rights of the court.'

Commented Mr. Justice Branca: 'If 20 to 40 people are being

held illegally, the Attorney-General should give every

assistance to a practitioner who might want to help them.'

As I say, on a later date — March 9 — the Attorney-General

is quoted as saying that he will consider revealing one or two

names of patients in Riverview Hospital, provided this doesn't

endanger their privacy and does not do harm to their

health.

But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the forensic services in

this province, and presumably the medical staffing, are

inadequate in quantity to deal with the needs of people who

find themselves in this situation.

[ Page 1048 ]

The public of the province probably wonder how this can

happen, and it happens quite easily in one of four ways. As I

say, if the person appears unstable, one physician — and I'm

not sure that's a good idea either. We're all fallible and we

all make mistakes, and I feel that one....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, the physician might be unstable, too. I

don't know.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You'd decimate the opposition.

MR. WALLACE: But the fact is that when we commit somebody on

the basis of declaring them insane, we do require two medical

signatures if they haven't committed a crime. I would suggest

right off the bat that there should be no different attitude or

no differing attitude to a person whose sanity is being

questioned on the basis of a crime.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It is two there, too.

MR. WALLACE: Well, in this case we must take issue with the

Foulkes report, because the Foulkes report on page

chapter

IV(c) 13-5, under paragraph 3, says that "a magistrate or

judge, satisfied by the evidence of one physician...." So

the Foulkes report must be wrong.

Another way that this can happen is that during trial a

person may be found unfit to plead, or to stand trial. And this

decision, apparently, can be made at any time during the trial

of a person.

Of course, the worst one of all, perhaps, is that a person

may be found guilty by reason of insanity, and disappears into

the institution and apparently can be kept there for some

considerable time.

This Mr. Gardner who made the case said that there are

instances where persons remanded literally disappear out of the

courtroom and never get back. In case people are saying,"Well,

this is all exaggeration," I should just quote one of

the articles that Jack Wasserman wrote on February 14,

He rather ironically entitles his article: "Gulag

Archipelago West" and sort of mentions that in some ways the

fate which might befall a citizen in this province may not be

too different from what happens in Soviet Russia. To make it

very clear, Mr. Chairman, he says the big difference is that

the people handling the problem here are very well-meaning and

in no way are trying to be unfair to the victim, but in fact,

with the process of law as it now is — or the lack of process —

they do indeed suffer considerably.

The case he quoted on February 14 was the case of a young man — he doesn't

quote the age. On January 31 the lawyer saw his client in the cell and considered

that he was calm enough to appear in the courtroom, and went into court expecting

to have the person produced.

The prosecutor explained that the prisoner was under the

effect of this order-in-council issued by the Attorney-General.

It was not the policy to bring insane people into court. Then

the case was set over. At a later date the lawyer turned up and

the prisoner was not produced. Then, to put the whole judicial

system in a state of what I consider unbelievable mockery, at a

later remand date the lawyer and the judge, who by this time

was very concerned because he wondered what on earth was going

on, apparently turned up but again the prosecution argued that

the prisoner could not be produced to the court.

I quote from the Jack Wasserman column of February 14: "But

later the same afternoon, after the defence lawyer had left,

the accused was brought from his cell to another court room. He

spent one minute in front of another judge who issued an

order." Now, it seems to me that this is a tremendously

serious, frivolous way to play with somebody's freedom. If the

Attorney-General has decided to correct this, then of course

this is good news.

I would just like, in finishing these comments, Mr.

Chairman, to make it very plain that in the fall of 1969 the

federal government made it possible for order-in-council review

boards to be set up. In June of 1969 the Canadian

Criminal Code was amended to allow the

appointment of a board of review. The concept was that any

person in this situation should have his case reviewed at least

six months after entering jail, and every six months as long as

he remained in that situation.

In March of 1969 the Deputy Attorney-General of British

Columbia did indeed set up a review board. But here again, the

incredibility of the whole thing is that that review board only

sees persons referred to it by the Attorney-General's office.

Again the Attorney-General shakes his head; again the Foulkes

report is wrong.

Foulkes report,

Part IV,

Section C,

Chapter 13, page 7:

"However, the British Columbia board, not being a statutory body, differed from the Criminal

Code provisions in one major respect. It only sees those

persons who are referred to it by the Attorney-General's

office. It falls very short of reviewing all order-in-council

persons every six months."

The Attorney-General may wish to answer this. It's a very

serious situation that I'm raising. From the press reports,

he's favourable to doing something about it. I'm sure he will.

If he's questioning the accuracy of the Foulkes report, I think

it should be clearly on record that Dr. Renee

Goldsmith-Kasinsky, criminologist, who I understand is now at

the

[ Page 1049 ]

University of Calgary, did a study. In fact, I understand

that perhaps the kind of work he did and the efficiency of his

research was probably one of the best parts of the whole

Foulkes report in terms of the depth into which the doctor

pursued his investigations and the accuracy of his report. If

the Foulkes report is inaccurate it is a condensation of this

very detailed report which was prepared by Dr.

Goldsmith-Kasinsky.

On that basis I would hope the Attorney-General in sincerity

might consider, or the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) in

conjunction with Dr. Foulkes might consider, making Dr.

Goldsmith-Kasinsky's research work available so that we can all

read it and find out the facts and discuss any points he has

raised if such points are in dispute.

I do understand that Dr. Goldsmith-Kasinsky went very much

to the heart of the matter and illustrated the tremendous

dangers there are of mentally-disordered people finishing up

in a mental institution for years and years and years without

even access to a medical review.

The Foulkes report goes on to talk about a therapeutic bill

of rights. I think this is an excellent idea. The basic idea

behind the therapeutic bill of rights is to ensure that by

various ways a person who is kept in such an institution on the

basis of an order-in-council will be subject to periodic

review. I don't just mean one minute before a judge where one

person says one little phrase or sentence and the person goes

back to the place he was at two minutes before. I mean the

realistic medical assessment of that person's mental and

physical condition.

There is real need for boards, perhaps not only with medical

people but certainly with social and legal people as well, to

try and determine that the individual who was admitted to the

institution because of a criminal offence supposedly based on

his mental state should have access to review.

The Foulkes report also makes another very good point. Since

these people have nobody to turn to, there should be what they

call an ombuds-person appointed for the individual prisoner who

finishes up being incarcerated in such an institution. For all

of these involuntary committals there should be a centralized

record open to public inspection.

I don't think that in our society today we should be left

wondering whether it's 10 or 30 or 40 people; we should know

that this is a real problem. In the cold light of day and as a

consequence of the kind of review I'm talking about, I am quite

willing to recognize that maybe three-quarters of these

patients still require some form of supervision and restraint.

I'm not denying that. But I don't care if 99 per cent of them

need the care. The fact is there might just be that one person

who could be treated and returned to society.

After all is said and done, our medical capacities and our availability of

treatments and medications are changing very rapidly. I'm not even sure that

a review every six months is often enough; it may well be that these cases should

be reviewed every three months.

We have to look, as did Dr. Foulkes and his colleagues, at

the question: are we really dealing in these situations with a

problem for the Corrections Branch or are we looking at what is

essentially a medical-social problem? The Foulkes report makes

the recommendation, and I certainly agree with it entirely,

that the major responsibility for these persons should be

conferred to the Department of Health. I think they use the

words, "major responsibility," wisely meaning that there

must still be an element of corrections involved for the very

reason I have said several times: society must be protected,

and we must be sure that persons who are a menace to society

will not be released on false evidence or on misjudgment of

some medical examiner.

On the other hand, the decision about whether the criminal

or the patient has improved or got worse or is just the same as

he was when he came in has to be a medical decision.

I hope that when the Attorney-General answers this point he

will say that these order-in-council review boards will become

realistic, they will function, and everybody will be assured of

a review every six months. It won't be one minute before the

judge who has one person saying something very quickly and puts

him back in what in effect is a prison.

In case anyone says I'm exaggerating, I've quoted this case — and I haven't heard it being denied — that Mr. Wasserman

wrote about on February 14. It isn't enough in my view to say

that maybe the majority of these persons still require

restriction of their freedom because of their mental

incapacity. I recognize this may be so. But I don't care if

there are 50 in there and 49 of them still need to be there.

That 50th one deserves to be back in society. Right now there

is a real risk, proven risk, that he might be there for the

next 20 years.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should answer at

this time because otherwise some of the things that have been

said by an Hon. Member might pass out of my memory.

The Hon. Member made a very good plea for phasing out the

kind of institutions, and not only their conditions, such as we

witness at Wilkinson Road. I appreciate that, because, as I

say, we need public co-operation and debate. We have to go out

in the community and find alternate sites. Just finding those

sites for a residential community's treatment facility is

difficult, because people are up to the bell and they say, "not

in Kerrisdale" or "not in Point Grey."

[ Page 1050 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Really, people have got to understand...

MR. SMITH: Not in Coquitlam.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...that we need that kind of community

response and help in finding the kind of smaller units that can

be alternatives to the kind of prisons that the Hon. Member was

speaking about.

We have in the last year — I think it's in the last year —

managed nevertheless to have a decrease in our institutional

inmate population of 16 per cent, and we have had an increase

in the numbers of those on probation of 18 per cent. Our record

in Canada is pretty good, but not as good as it should be.

I think I was a little shamed by the Province of Quebec. I

don't know whether I properly absorbed their figures, but le

Ministre de Justice, Jerome Choquette, was parading some very

strong statistics in support of their probation programme, and

we don't want to fall behind. Even though we have the drug

thing worse than they do....

MR. WALLACE: Fix up Wilkinson jail — that should be done

right now. It's incredibly inhuman.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's part of our phasing out programme

and I don't want to give exact dates on this five-year

programme where certain things happen. We have it

diagrammatically laid out, and on certain months of certain

years certain institutions are supposed to drop out of sight.

Now, I don't think it would be fair to my staff to give those

as being definitive, firm dates because everybody is trying

their best, but I can assure you that in the course of that

five-year chart, Wilkinson Road drops out of sight. I'm not

going to name the year but it's a fairly soon year.

MR. WALLACE: Are they going to eliminate these conditions

until they do drop out of sight?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think we're doing our best. We haven't

had a report of mice in the flour, but that's the kind of thing

we're trying to take care of. My good Deputy says the showers

at Wilkinson Road are being fixed, and there are small things

that we're doing like that, but the main thing is to phase it

out.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We haven't even got showers in the

Legislative chambers — do you know that? I've got Deputy Ministers who

want to bicycle to work and they say they've got to have a shower

before they can take their place behind their desk.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No handball courts.

The case that the Hon. Member mentioned of the boy in family

court is a serious case. Apart from the brutalizing effect of

the jail system that's almost led to that murder, another thing

we can do is have a family court system where a family

counselor, with his probation or social welfare people — call

them what you will, serving under him — can spot this kind of a

case before it becomes serious. It might be from a school

report. It might be from a home report, but before he even

enters the court system of the family court, there is a kind of

a vetting, an assessing process and a counseling process that's

going to take place.

If Hon. Members, as I'm sure they have, read the Berger

interim report, where we intend to start the pilot project in

the South Fraser Judicial District, they'll see that this kind

of preventive law is something that's an urgent necessity.

In terms of those who are in Riverview, I confess that the

situation is not good. We have three different kinds of cases

there. We have the remand case, which is under a

section of the

Criminal Code where somebody is remanded for psychiatric

observation or found by the judge not fit to stand trial. I'm

not contesting the Foulkes report in this respect, except to

say that we've been able to have two psychiatrists' reports for

all of the cases I've looked at in the last year. Maybe he's

referring to an earlier period. But nevertheless they go. They

drop out of sight of the court.

If they're in there for a lengthy period of time they would

come before the review committee, which is Dr. Harold

Keenleyside and Drs. Myles, Richardson and Gareski — three of

them sitting together. They can't see these people, although

we've said it should be on a periodic basis. Too often people

apply to them and they do their best. It is not a statutory

tribunal under the code as such. It's a review committee with

an extra stipend paid to the judge, who's doing very good and

humane work, and he makes his recommendations. Perhaps it

should be statutory.

Maybe that'll help, but we're looking at more than that. You

have the remand people there. You've got those not guilty by

reason of insanity, which are the kind that worry us most,

because they may have committed physically a murder and then

they're found not guilty by reason of insanity, but are they

still dangerous? They could be.

Then you have those who are transferred serving sentence.

They're already in an institution. In terms of the criticism of

the court, I'm not worried about being criticized by a court,

but this was preliminary

[ Page 1051 ]

to the judgment and when the judgment came down Mr. Justice

Seaton said at that time when he'd heard the full report: "I do

not attach an improper motive to the Attorney-General's

department in his refusal to divulge names."

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but even the minority judgment said

this. I don't want to read it all, because if somebody

criticizes us, then that's fine. If the criticism is valid we

want it. This information drew from the applicant the statement

that a name had been supplied, but before the application could

be determined he too was released to the court from which he

had been remanded for a second time. Well, I have no doubt that

this was pure coincidence. The Crown nevertheless took the

position. It's true that we did supply two names. It's true we

are very reluctant to supply any names, because there are

people that two psychiatrists have said are mentally

incompetent, and do you really have their consent?

We did supply two names in this case to Mr. Gardner. He went

to court on one of the names and that person happened to be

released. Then he went on to appeal on a no-name basis to test

the technical point whether you could go on a no-name basis

instead of using the other name we had supplied to him. Well,

I'm not criticizing him for that, but we are prepared now to

co-operate.

One of the greatest problems is purely in terms of

personnel. I've got a letter here from Dr. Duffy. I suppose

there's no harm. He's a great public servant who hangs about

Oakalla Prison and he does a marvelous job, but when I

suggested in the remand cases that we've got to take them back

to court anyway rather than have them continued on a treatment

basis by the letters of psychiatrists, he points this out. He

said when he heard about this: "It'll be an enormous increase

in the time spent in court appearances." For example, it would

have meant to him 11 court appearances this month so far, of

which six would have entailed a whole day because they were in

the Interior of the province. "The extent of this workload was

never envisaged in our original agreement of two years ago. I

can see no way in which I can continue to assume responsibility

for these examinations," if he has to go into court and

defend them under cross examination.

This is a problem — the resources to create proper forensic

services as auxiliaries for the court. I hope that we will

begin to find those resources. I hope there will be legislation

this session — we're working hard on it — to begin to pull

things together.

I think the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), who is in his place and

signing his mail, should be the one to introduce that because I think it's a

health problem. I know I've got responsibilities under the Criminal Code , but

to the extent they could be treated on a health basis, I want them so treated.

I hope that the Hon. Minister will bring in forensic service legislation at

this session and that we'll be able to find the medical and psychiatric resources

to build that up into a thing which will not only protect society but protect

the people who, as my friend says, may be incarcerated when in fact they're

not dangerous.

In terms of those committed under the mental health Act, if

the Hon. Minister of Health wants to say what safeguards he

has, I would be glad to hear from him. We lack some of the

safeguards right now....

MR. WALLACE: Only if they're reviewed every six months.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, just to finish that, if we go on

with the present system, there's no way this committee can see — I think there are 120 people. The 9 per cent figure is

probably right. There's no way the district judge and two

psychiatrists can see them all in that period. We'll have to

reshuffle. We've told them: "See those who apply just as often

as you can." We check their cases, but it is not periodic yet.

There would not be the resources under that review board to do

it on a six-month basis, and if we don't find something better

in the meantime we're going to have to beef up the reassessment

review board personnel.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, just so

that we can divide up the two categories at the present time, I

recall last session of the Legislature we voted, I believe, in

this House unanimously on a new form of appeal to those that

are committed by medical commitment or that kind of commitment.

That medical appeal board is now working. There's an advocate

for the patient, there's an advocate for the institution itself

and a neutral chairman.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: No. That's the trouble, Mr. Member. That's

why the thing is so confusing. On one side we've got the

criminal or the forensic situation, and then on the other side

we have the medical commitment. So I'm just trying to outline

what we've done there. Those review panels are now working. As

a matter of fact, I'm having to appoint more chairmen in order

to look after the number of people and cases that are being put

forward. It's working very well to all intents and

purposes.

Interjections.

[ Page 1052 ]

HON. MR. COCKE: Of course, that's something I can't forecast

at the present time. But certainly we're looking into all

different kinds of new ways.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I would like to

explore just a little further with the Attorney-General,

discussing his salary today, what I consider to be, unless he

offers an even stronger assurance than we've had so far in

response to the statements of the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), a move towards a

centralized police force. I feel that it is a potentially

explosive situation.

If the Attorney-General wants to correct me, then I will

accept the correction. But the record will show it: there is a

draft police Act in the Attorney-General's office. It has not

reached the floor of the House and it envisages, as I believe

my informants are correct, a combination of RCMP and municipal

forces in certain functions if not in fact. It perhaps will

greatly interfere with career police officers who have been

involved in municipal departments throughout the province for

quite some time — and there are 12 of them.

When I was speaking in the budget debate in February — and

the Minister was not present at that time — I attempted to

sound a note of caution to him in this regard, saying that I

couldn't over-emphasize my concern that, if not the

Attorney-General, at least some of his senior departmental

people, some academics perhaps, were trying to put together

this new organization which would greatly upset the policing

arrangements we have and which are functioning in a generally

satisfactory manner in a number of communities in British

Columbia. We don't want a repeat of the Bremer

affair.

What is Dr. John Hogarth doing? Is Dr. Hogarth working on a

draft? Has the draft been presented to you? Is it coming to the

session? To this session? Is it well over 100 pages? Does it

see a centralized move with respect to a B.C. police commission

and a concurrent diminishing of the authority of local police

commissions?

Let's not just talk about Vancouver city because so many

things which this government seems to want to correct centre on

the Vancouver city situation. Let's talk about some of the

other municipal police departments.

Are we going to have a single and quite powerful B.C. police

commission? Why are proposals being put forward to greatly

increase the number of sheriffs' officers and to give them new

duties in British Columbia? There are approximately 200

sheriffs now; is that a reasonable estimate? Well, may there be

350 or 400 before these changes take place?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: At best, to release the police for

police duty.

MR. CURTIS: I see. To release police for police duties.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's up to the courts. It's nothing to

do with the police.

MR. CURTIS: Well, I'm pleased to hear that and I do hope

that goes into the record. There is v