1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3941 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Vogel report on Eckhart commission. Mr. Lauk –– 3941

Mr. Macdonald –– 3942

Expansion of Roberts Bank port. Mr. Segarty –– 3942

Eckardt commission report. Mr. Lauk –– 3943

Uranium mining moratorium, Mr. D'Arcy –– 3943

B.C. Tel service. Hon. Mr. McGeer replies –– 3944

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

On vote 21: minister's office –– 3945

Mr. Lea

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Hyndman

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Nicolson

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Levi

Mr. King

Mr. Macdonald

Division on the motion that vote 21 be reduced by the sum of S I ––

THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

It is my pleasure to introduce to the House today some cousins from

Prince George, Dan and Elsa Biech, with their son Christopher and

daughter Theresa, and I ask the House to join me in welcome.

HON. MR. McGEER:

It gives me great pleasure to recognize that in your gallery today

we've got a distinguished returning Victorian, one who made good, Prof.

Stewart Smith, who is one of North America's best-known physicists, now

at Princeton University. He is back here for a summer vacation with his

wife Norma, and children Peter and Ian. I hope the members will bid

them welcome and realize that there are some British Columbians who've

made good.

MR. SKELLY: I ask the House to join me in welcoming three guests from Port Alberni: Mr. Gerry Koning, Mrs. Pearl Koning, and Fred Koning.

MR. REE:

I have a great deal of pleasure today in introducing a person to this

House for the first time. I am very pleased to have my wife Cheri in

the House; it's her first visit to the Legislature, and she's in the

centre front of the Speaker's gallery. I would ask this House to

welcome her today.

MR. KING: Today in the gallery,

visiting Victoria from the city of Calgary, are my nephew and niece,

Jeff and Penny Lennard. I would ask the House to extend a warm welcome

to them. Peter Lougheed agreed to give them holidays.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, also visiting with us today is a very long-time and good

friend of mine, Mr. Chuck Dixon. He's in the gallery with his two

lovely daughters, Pamela and Dawn. I would ask the House to bid them a

very special welcome this afternoon.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and the question period be delayed for 15 minutes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, to seek the floor to make a motion one first must have

leave. Therefore the motion cannot be entertained without the member

first receiving leave to make a motion.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I challenge that ruling. That doesn't make any sense at all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you may challenge the ruling, but the remarks made by the member will be withdrawn immediately.

MR. LAUK:

I can question the sense or the logic of the Speaker's decision. I

don't mean any personal effrontery, Mr. Speaker. My view is that you

said you have to have leave to seek the floor. Once you've been

recognized by the Speaker you've got the floor, so I don't need leave

to seek the floor.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is familiar with the rules of the House.

The challenge has been made of the Speaker's ruling. The question is: shall

the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS –– 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 24

Macdonald

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Oral Questions

VOGEL REPORT ON ECKARDT COMMISSION

MR. LAUK:

I have a question for the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General

confirm that Dale Mearns, Social Credit campaign worker, was the first

person to be hired by Eckardt to assist him in his commission and that

she worked in the Vancouver area during the election campaigns in 1969,

1972 and 1975 for the Social Credit candidates.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm any one of the four questions.

MR. LAUK: Will the Attorney-General undertake to obtain that information and provide it to the Legislature?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

No, Mr. Speaker. Whether Miss Mearns was involved in any election

campaign is a matter which doesn't touch upon my administrative

responsibilities.

MR. LAUK: Did the investigation

conducted by Mr. Prelypchan establish whether Dale Mearns met with the

Queen's Printer at any time to discuss the printing of the Eckardt

report?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice and bring the answer back to the member.

[ Page 3942 ]

MR. LAUK:

Is the Attorney-General telling the House that he hasn't read the

evidence that's supposedly supporting the Vogel investigation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the only person associated with

the work of the commission who communicated with the Queen's Printer

was a Mrs. Robbins. If you ask me about somebody else, I'll be happy to

inquire.

MR. LAUK: The Attorney-General has stated

that all members of the commission's staff were interviewed by

Prelypchan. Is the minister prepared to table in the House Miss Mearns'

account of the "finger" episode?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK:

If the Attorney-General is not prepared to table her whole account, I

wonder if he would be prepared to share with the House what Dale

Mearns, Social Credit campaign worker, says occurred with respect to

the instructions she gave to the Queen's Printer?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, that will have to follow upon my inquiry as to whether

there were any communications between Miss Mearns and the Queen's

Printer.

MR. LAUK: If it is determined that there was

such a communication, will the Attorney-General reveal to the House

that portion of evidence?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if Miss Mearns had such communications and it is contained in the reports, I'll consider the matter at that time.

MR. LAUK: Did the investigation establish just what role Mearns played in the work of the Eckardt commission?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that she held a senior office position at the office of the commission in Vancouver.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister confirm our information that Mearns signed all expenditure authorizations, in addition to her office duties?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm that.

MR. LAUK: Will the Attorney-General obtain that information and provide it to the Legislature?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll be happy to, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK:

Did the investigation establish whether the hon. first member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) in any way suggested

that Miss Mearns contact Mr. Eckardt when he was appointed

commissioner. In other words, was there an investigation about how Miss

Mearns was appointed or hired by Mr. Eckardt, and did the hon. first

member for Vancouver–Little Mountain have an involvement in that?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the investigation didn't extend into those areas.

MR. LAUK:

Would the Attorney-General now agree that this matter should be

publicly canvassed through the Inquiry Act, and has the minister

decided to do so?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer to both questions is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary question, I just want to ask the

Attorney-General whether he would consider it proper that someone in

the position of Mr. Eckardt, appointed a sole commissioner in terms of

election boundaries, should appoint an active partisan member of one of

the political parties involved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the function of question

period is to ask those urgent questions touching upon my administrative

responsibilities, not for me to determine what might be proper in any

particular case as determined by the member.

MR. LAUK:

It was yesterday that the Attorney-General indicated that he would have

acted quickly not only if criminal charges became apparent but if

improprieties had occurred. I would ask the Attorney-General again: is

this a situation that he would call improper or involving an

impropriety?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not in the sense that

it would result in an inquiry. The persons employed by the commissioner

were, I assume, people whom he considered to be qualified to do the

particular task that would be assigned to them.

EXPANSION OF ROBERTS BANK PORT

MR. SEGARTY:

I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development. As you know, Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of positive

industrial development going on in southeastern British Columbia, but

all of this lies in jeopardy if the Roberts Bank superport is not

expanded immediately to accommodate future coal markets. Ottawa's

representative to British Columbia, Senator Ray Perrault, issued a

statement today saying that the province had put some new road-blocks

in the way. I wonder if the minister could fill us in on what is

happening with the expansion plans.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

In answer to the question of the hon. member for Kootenay, I know that

the hon. member and the House are very much aware that I have worked

ceaselessly and tirelessly during the last four years in order to sell

additional quantities of coal from the great province of British

Columbia. I want to inform the House and all the great citizens of

British Columbia that indeed I am very anxious to see the development

of Roberts Bank proceed.

Just last Thursday, when the Hon.

Jean-Luc Pépin was here, we signed a great agreement on Duke Point. We

discussed at length the development of Roberts Bank, and I told the

minister at that time: "My friend, this is a big thick legal document.

If you find that the legal people in Ottawa have some difficulty, with

the wording, you get on the phone and phone me. I'm sure that we can

immediately resolve the problem, because I've had my colleague the

Attorney-General work with me on this." I want to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that the province of British Columbia, in seeing that that

great Roberts Bank expansion goes ahead so that we can

[ Page 3943 ]

sell

coal to the benefit of all Canadians and bring in those offshore

dollars and help our trade, wanted to protect the interests of the

producers, not only those in southeast British Columbia but all the

future producers, when we ship those great commodities from a growing

economy in western Canada. So we have built in a few safeguards, but

nothing that would preclude the federal government from proceeding.

show that we put our money where our mouth is, in the last paragraph of

this letter which I sent to Mr. Pépin I have said: "In order to ensure

that time is not lost, British Columbia is again prepared to guarantee

all costs reasonably incurred by the National Harbours Board, relating

to the expansion over the next few weeks or months, until the legal

agreement and all the legal terminology can be worked out, finalized

and signed." So I've told Ottawa: "Go ahead with the great expansion of

Roberts Bank so that those coal companies can ship out their coal, and

the province of British Columbia will reimburse you for your expenses,

if there is no such thing as an agreement being signed." I want to

assure the member from that area, who is greatly interested in his

constituents down there, that Roberts Bank will proceed. There are no

difficulties, and we should stop negotiating through the press. All I'd

appreciate is a phone call from the Minister of Transportation and

Highways and the problems will be solved.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, without being critical of the Chair,

the Chair permitted the minister to proceed, in direct contravention of

the rules, to make speeches and not to be responsive to the question.

That has permitted an intrusion into the time allotted to question

period, and, if nothing else, the question period should be extended in

order to cover the points taken up by....

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, in keeping with the traditions of the House we will deal

with the question of the point of order at the conclusion of question

period, without taking any further time at this particular moment from

question period.

ECKARDT COMMISSION REPORT

MR. LAUK:

I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Yesterday, in answer to

my question, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) stated that

members of the Queen's Printer staff were interviewed, and it was

disclosed in the course of that interview that the Queen's Printer did

not keep work logs. On January 17, 1980, it was reported that the

Queen's Printer maintained computerized information sheets that act in

the same way that logs do and provide details of the number of print

impressions on every job that they do. I'm informed by the civil

service that those are available. Can you clarify for the House and the

Attorney-General Just what records were kept by the Queen's Printer of

the work they did on the Eckardt report?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I think that the

suggestion he makes that logs are kept is incorrect, both as evidenced

by the report which I find the Deputy Attorney-General has made, and

other information. I understand there to be computer runs, which I

believe are strictly an indication of the time and place and amount of

copies which are made, but not logs or further information regarding

the reports which are made or imprinting which is done.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, to the same minister: the information that I have — and

perhaps the minister can clarify this — is that they maintain

computerized information sheets that provide details of the number of

print impressions for every job that they do. From those one can

determine the time, the number of copies and the nature of that which

is being printed. Can the minister clarify that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: According to my information, that information would not indicate the nature or detail of what the printing was that took place.

URANIUM MINING MORATORIUM

MR. D'ARCY: To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Back on February 27 of this year, order-in-council 44280 was passed which orders

that the commissioners appointed by order 170179 "shall report their findings

and recommendations to date to the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council on or before

the 31st day of May 1980." It goes on to indicate the methods by which they

shall report and rescinds certain other orders-in-council.

question to the minister is: since, under this order, there is

absolutely no mention of a moratorium on uranium mining and

exploration, what is the legal basis for the moratorium on uranium

mining and exploration announced on February 27 by the Premier of the

province of B.C.?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I'm a bit at a loss to understand the urgency of this question

from last May. But the legal procedures in which we established the

moratorium have been partially put in place by further

orders-in-council which were passed following that order-in-council

which the member mentions. There is also at the present time an

amendment on the order paper which we'll have the opportunity to

debate, which sets the parameters along with the regulations for the

uranium moratorium.

I don't understand, first of all,

whether or not the question is in order, especially since there are

some proceedings which will be debated in this House, presumably within

the next few days.

MR. HOWARD: On the point of order

I raised earlier, I want to reiterate it to say that what occurred

during question period, I submit, was an answer — basically a

non-answer — given by the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) that was specifically designed to take

up the time of the question period to prevent a full course of

examination of questions of the minister. The minister was obviously

not being responsive to the question in any event and I think the Chair

should have intervened and brought the minister to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

As hon. members are well aware, if the rules governing question period

were strictly enforced in all cases there would be very few, if any,

questions that would be in order during question period. We only have

to refer to the last question during question period asked by the

opposition. If the matter of urgency were applied to that

[ Page 3944 ]

question,

it would have been ruled out of order. Secondly, the Chair had to take

into account that we are currently in the estimates of the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and further opportunity will be

provided on those questions which were being asked.

Nonetheless,

the point raised by the member for Skeena has some validity. Again I

must stress that when members are answering questions they must be

brief as well. At the same time, hon. members, I would point out that

the Chair has allowed great latitude in

preamble to questions as well

as answers. I think in this case the judgment of the Chair has been

adequately demonstrated.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of

order, Mr. Chairman, in part of your explanation just now you referred

to the fact that in the judgment of the Chair the estimates of the

Attorney-General were to be resumed shortly and that would provide an

opportunity to canvass certain questions. That's a presumption on the

part of the Chair that the questions which were going to be asked by

members of the opposition related to the Attorney-General's office.

They probably did not, and it's a presumption on the part of the Chair

to take that course.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's a very appropriate observation, hon. member.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with respect, the Chair must take

into cognizance when thinking over this particular situation that the

government sets a precedent — a put-up job, as we just saw, where

minutes are taken out of question period. This therefore gives the

government an opportunity in a very short question period, such as we

have in this jurisdiction, to muzzle the opposition and stonewall on

questions that they don't wish to have put forward.

Mr.

Speaker, I suggest very strongly that it's an abuse of question period.

I know it's a little unsettling for them, but while this was going on I

noted that there was great glee over there in cabinet. There were

chuckles and they thought it was a very, very funny incident. It is not

funny at all; it's an abuse of question period.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, on the same point of order, I must point out that in the

approximate six months that come to the immediate recollection of the

Chair, only on four days of those six months have government members

asked questions in question period. I would ask members to give that

equal consideration.

MR. NICOLSON: On the point of

order, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the opposition does not deny the right of

government members to ask questions. We're all hon. members in this

House. I think it was the answer that was taken exception to. I draw

your attention to the comments by Mr. Speaker Smith on February 28,

1976, I think, in which he drew our attention to Sir Erskine May's

sixteenth edition, page 363, and said: "An answer should be confined to

the points contained in the question, with such explanation only as

renders the answer intelligible, though a certain latitude is permitted

to ministers of the Crown." I submit that if we are to make light of

question period or to make a mockery of it, it isn't a matter of

whether the opposition or government gain or lose. The whole system

loses. I'm sure for that reason, Mr. Speaker, you will in future keep

Mr. Speaker Smith's ruling in mind.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I've been trying for some time to get the floor to answer a question. It's been difficult to do.

MR. HOWARD: It's the first time you've gotten up in weeks.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Well, sometimes the opposition loves to ask the questions and they're

never as interested in the answers. That's part of the problem and why

we get so little business done.

B.C. TEL SERVICE

July 15 the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) asked me

if I knew the danger and catastrophe that would happen to our emergency

service if B.C. Telephone Co. were to switch to the new TSPS system,

which is widely used throughout North America. I undertook to gain some

information on that subject for him.

I'm informed that

approximately two or three calls per day per centre are received on an

allegedly emergency basis, but only about 10 percent of those represent

real emergencies. The information is that the introduction of the TSPS

system will enhance the capability of operators to hold and identify

the addresses from emergency calls, when the caller is unable to

provide the address, under the automatic number identification system.

Those areas that do not have this automatic number identification

system will be in the same position after TSPS is introduced as before.

But by the end of 1981 approximately 83 percent of B.C. Telephone lines

will be served with the new ANI system, which will enable the TSPS

operator to view on a screen the number from which a call is made,

immediately the lines are connected. By reverse microfiche the operator

will then be able to identify the address of the caller, virtually

within seconds.

Now, Mr. Speaker — if I could have the

attention of the opposition for just a moment, since they wish this

information — under no conditions will we be worse off anywhere in

British Columbia as a result of introducing this system, which is

widely utilized in North America. By the end of 1981 the vast majority

of lines in British Columbia will be served by a vastly superior

system. So I can find no confirmation of the assertions from the member

for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. Indeed, the information seems to imply

quite the reverse of what he suggested to the House.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, under our rules.... By the way, that information I would....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is the point of order, hon. member?

MR. LAUK:

The tabling of documents. The information from which the minister read

extensively is, I suspect, from B.C. Telephone Co. — their point of

view only, unconfirmed by the government. I wonder if he'd table that

document, to rest my fears.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr.

Speaker, once more the member is entirely wrong. This is not

information that is written out in some report by B.C. Telephone Co.;

this is information from the Ministry of Communications. I did

[ Page 3945 ]

bring some typed notes in here, Mr. Speaker, so that I would be certain, in the official record of Hansard ,

not to give any wrong impressions to the House as were given by the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew- and now more recently by the first

member for Vancouver Centre. It's the same problem, Mr. Speaker: they

like to ask a question and are extremely disappointed by the answer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew rises...?

MR. MITCHELL: The other part of the question was: what study has been made on the 911...?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. On what point does the hon. member seek the floor?

MR. MITCHELL:

The point of order on the tabling of documents. Also, the rest of that

question was: what studies have been made on the introduction of the

911 phone number for emergencies?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, we can rise on a point of order; we cannot

engage in a debate. We must quote a point of order and then stick to

that point of order; we cannot at that point go into further debate.

MR. MITCHELL:

On a point of order, the minister answered part of the question on

emergency services. Part of the question was: what studies have been

made on the 911 phone number for emergency services?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I was answering the question as it was recorded in Hansard

on July 15, 1980. Now if the member would care to check what he asked

at that time, I can provide him with answers. If this is a new

question, Mr. Speaker, then of course I can take that new question as

notice.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, we appear to be engaging in some cross-debate, which is totally out of order at this point.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

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

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise with the Attorney-General the

subject of the Port Simpson cannery. The Attorney-General is the

minister of the Crown responsible for the cannery. I'd like to preface

my remarks by saying that I have talked privately with the

Attorney-General about this matter, and I feel that the

Attorney-General was honest and forthcoming with me.

I'm going to make a not unusual request, but the

circumstances of the request might be a bit unusual. The native Indian

villages situated in my riding, along with one or two other villages

not within my riding but still involved in the origination of the Port

Simpson cooperative — each and every one has asked me if I would not

push in this House for a public inquiry under the Inquiry Act. The

United Native Nations at their convention by resolution have also asked

that a public inquiry be held into the operations of the Port Simpson

cannery.

In making this request on behalf of the Indian

people in my riding and other Indian people throughout the province, I

do not suggest that there is any wrongdoing on behalf of government —

either by this government or the preceding one. What I am saying,

though, is that within the Indian community there is great distrust of

the actions the government has taken — both our government and the

present government — in the circumstances surrounding the Port Simpson

cannery. There are also questions being asked in the Indian community

about the administration of that cannery by the very people from the

Indian community who ran it.

It seems to me that this

Legislature and this government would be doing the Indian community a

great service by opening the information gates into government

involvement in the running of the Port Simpson cannery. I ask for this

so that the air can be cleared. not to bring forth any of what I

suspect would be shortcomings on behalf of the Indian people themselves

in running the cannery, or by this or the previous government. Every

week for months I have had letters and phone calls from Indian people

asking me to try to find out exactly what is going on in the Port

Simpson cannery. It isn't because the minister hasn't been forthcoming

with me that I cannot understand it and therefore can't go back to

those people and say: "Here's a clear-cut indication of the course of

events that have happened since the cannery came into existence." For

instance, I am asked why the members of that cooperative can't meet as

a cooperative. They've been informed that they can't — at least some of

them have been informed that they can't, or so they tell me.

seems to me that the time has come that all of the dealings in that

cannery should become full public information so that the people who

have paid the bills, the taxpayers of this province, can see that

government has handled itself properly, and so that the Indian people

themselves, who have been and are involved in that cannery...so that

that information and the manner in which they have run that cannery can

also become full public knowledge. As I said at the beginning, I'm not

saying that anything has gone wrong or is wrong. It's a rather unusual

request for a public inquiry, but I think justice and democracy would

be served, and I think that the interests of a very large minority

group in this province, our first citizens, would indeed be served.

When

many of them asked me to bring this to the floor of the Legislature, I

said: "You realize that if the government accedes to this request, it

is a case of let the chips fall where they may." I understand that from

my point of view as a New Democratic Party member and from our

involvement in the Port Simpson cannery. I don't feel we have anything

to hide from those years or anything to be ashamed I of. I don't

believe the present government has anything to hide or to be ashamed

of. But I think the rumours surrounding the Port Simpson cannery are

causing dissension and causing one faction to go against another within

the Indian community itself. I believe the way to stop it is to lay it

on the table. I

[ Page 3946 ]

think the cost of doing that would be insignificant compared to the good that could come out of it.

It's

not my intention in asking for this to prove wrongdoing by anyone, but

only to make sure — as has been said in this House before on other

issues, only I'll phrase it in a different way — that democracy is not

only being done, but being seen to be done. I think it's important.

Over the years I have had private chats with the minister a number of

times. I know that he shares my concern not only for the tax dollars

that have been spent in there and whether they've been spent properly

by two different governments, but that this project work. I know it's

the minister's concern that it work. It's my concern that it work.

But

it isn't enough that the minister be satisfied. It isn't enough that I

be satisfied. It isn't enough that the people who are involved in the

everyday operations of the cannery be satisfied. The Indian people as a

whole should be satisfied that they have full knowledge of the workings

of the Port Simpson cannery. All four parties that were in this

Legislature at the time — the Conservatives, the Liberals, the Social

Crediters and the NDP — all voted for this. We voted for it because we

thought it was time that we, as a Legislature, involved ourselves in

not handing out things to Indian people, but at least giving them an

opportunity to work for themselves and to make decisions for

themselves. I think we all looked at it as a social experiment. I think

to a great degree it's worked.

What I would like today is to

have the minister, as much as possible, brief the Legislature and

therefore the people of the province. What's happening with the cannery

today? What is its status? Who is running it? How are things going?

What are the hopes and plans for the future? I would ask that the

minister give serious consideration to my request for a public inquiry,

so that everyone, not just those involved, knows what the Port Simpson

cannery has been all about for these last few years.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The matter raised by the member for Prince Rupert is an important one.

I'm pleased to say that he and I share precisely the same concerns and

the same point of view with respect to the operations of this cannery.

It would be easy to look back to the days prior to the time that I had

had any responsibility for this matter and criticize actions that were

taken by persons charged with the management of the cannery, and the

situation which existed in the spring of 1976 when it appeared that the

continued operation of the cannery was likely to be impossible without

significant fund's being made available for that purpose.

would be equally possible, Mr. Chairman, to examine a range of

management decisions which have been made since 1976 and for some

people to criticize those decisions. But I think the member and I are

together on this point, that that exercise, while some people might

find it to their particular advantage to point the finger of blame at

one person or another or one group or another, would ignore what must

be the long-range consideration of what I believe is proving to be a

successful experiment in social and economic development opportunity

for the native Indian fishermen and for native Indian shore workers in

the Port Simpson area.

The member is correct. Over the

years, prior to 1976, and certainly since 1976, for a variety of

reasons there has grown an unacceptable measure of mistrust of people

who have attempted — to the best of their abilities — to ensure that

this cannery operation is a success. I think that it is important for

the future of the cannery first of all to ensure that that mistrust is

answered, if it can be; but more importantly, that the attitudes which

are basic to the mistrust are changed, so that they stop interfering

with the proper administration of that cannery operation.

The

cannery, in all the coast, is probably one of the best canneries we've

got. There are others which are larger; there are others which are much

better managed. But for its size, and for the people at Port Simpson

and the fishermen who use that facility, it really is a modern and

efficient operation.

It has suffered throughout its history

from management problems. It has suffered from lack of support among

people who should support the cannery operation. Again, I don't

criticize those fishermen who joined the cooperative in its early days

but subsequently decided not to support the cooperative operation and

in their own private interests went to fish where it would do them the

most good. But I think that if we can lower the level of mistrust, or

eradicate it altogether, we can bring the numbers of fishermen who will

support the cannery on a consistent basis to the level that is required

to make it an efficient operation to the benefit of the fishermen and,

most assuredly, to the benefit of the shore workers, who, I suppose,

are the ones who are most dependent on that operation.

the fishing industry has been over the past number of years, it is

always possible for fishermen to engage in their activities to their

financial benefit, because people who are seeking the fish resource

from fishermen are large in number. There's been a ready market for the

fish that are caught. The shore workers, on the other hand, those who

are at Port Simpson — and they are largely members of the Port Simpson

band — depend upon the operation of that particular facility. If that

cannery were to shut down, there would be a few of them, perhaps, who

would go elsewhere and find employment, but the measure of economic

stability that that cannery can provide to the Port Simpson community

and to some neighbouring Indian areas would be lost. I think that would

be a tragedy.

The member and I spoke several weeks ago about

the cannery and what was going to happen. I can tell the member now

that the cannery has been functioning. The season has been somewhat

difficult for the fishery on the coast. There has been some significant

adjustment which has to be made because of the availability of fish.

Some custom canning is being done. I am advised that the cannery is

operating as near to profitability as possible. The final results of

that will have to await the end of the current salmon season.

With

respect to the cooperative itself, there has been a large measure of

misunderstanding among the members of that cooperative — or those few

members who are prepared to support it — and there haven't been the

meetings. But that's their responsibility to call. It's quite separate

and apart from the way in which the cannery functions. Perhaps because

the government involved itself in a major way in providing some

management assistance, there was the feeling that continued functioning

of the cooperative organization was no longer required. I think that's

unfortunate.

There have been others who've been interested

in forming their own cooperative and involving themselves in the

operation of the cannery under some arrangement or other, and that is

always a factor which can be considered. But it can't be considered

separate and apart from the existing co-op.

[ Page 3947 ]

the course of the past few years it has been difficult to find

qualified cannery managers, marketing managers — which are absolutely

essential if that cannery is to function independently of any outside

assistance. But I believe that in the past few months, with some of the

changes that have taken place in the fishing industry throughout the

whole of British Columbia, highly qualified people are now available to

this cannery operation, who are prepared to devote their time to the

work of cannery management.

The member has asked for a

public inquiry. That may be required; that may be the only way out of

the situation. I would be concerned, however, that it might not be the

way out. It might be seen as another attempt on the part of government

to re-examine this operation, to seek out the problems, and to identify

where blame might lie without addressing the problem that the member

and I really recognize. How do we convince the Indian people, the

Indian fishermen, and the Indian shore workers that they can make that

operation go? It is theirs. How can we demonstrate to them that by

joining together in full support of the canner-y operation they can,

not in the first or second year but certainly over the long-range,

secure for themselves a stable role in the fishing industry of this

province? Fishing is traditional for the Indian people. Other native

cannery operations do function on the coast. They have their problems,

but they do function. I would hope that the Port Simpson cannery could

be, for the north in particular, a facility equal to that which is

available to the Indians in the south and middle-south portion of the

coast. Indeed, in the long range, by having two functioning operations

such as this, there should be the possibility of joint arrangement

whereby the entire coast can be available to these two Indian economic

enterprises. It won't be easy, but I think it can be achieved.

Without

rejecting the member's suggestion that a public inquiry might be the

way to handle it, I will make this commitment to the member. Following

the end of this salmon season and the closing of the records for that

season, I will meet with them at Port Simpson or Prince Rupert,

whichever is most convenient to the majority of the people who are

interested in the cannery.

I trust that the member will make

himself available for such a meeting, at which time the history of this

whole operation can be reviewed with persons interested in the cannery

and its future. I emphasize that, because I'm not interested in meeting

with people who want to quarrel about the past. If they want to come

and understand what has taken place in the interests of the future of

the cannery, then with those persons who have been and are still

actively involved in its operation, I will try to answer all of the

questions that may be posed. I appreciate that in the course of such an

exercise there will be those who will wish to quarrel. I'm prepared, to

the best of my ability and that of the people who have been involved,

to answer all of their concerns. It may not be possible to satisfy

them, but at least we will provide them with answers.

would like to have the financial statistics available at that time so

that if there are questions about its operation — who has benefited and

who has not — then they can be fully answered. I do that not because I

believe there is any problem which can't easily be resolved, but in the

hopes that in such a way we can put down the disturbing factors which

have plagued the cannery operation over its history so far and

encourage the full and active support of those native Indian people who

can make it work.

When I first became responsible for this

operation in 1976, this operation was viewed by some as being another

native Indian failure. I won't accept that definition of what has taken

place at all. Quite frankly, if there has been any failure. It has

been, I think, on the part of perhaps government — on the part of two

governments — in not identifying the major problems which~would face an

Indian enterprise operation. I think they've now been identified; I

think there now is an understanding of what is required to ensure that

this can be a well-run and effective operation. There has been a

suggestion over the years that the government was prepared to dispose

of the cannery and its opportunities to private ownership, to other

persons who might wish to have the cannery and run it. That's not the

case. It has been our steadfast view that the cannery should be

supported as an Indian enterprise, and it remains that today.

So having said that. Mr. Chairman, may I just repeat my commitment to the member

that at the conclusion of this salmon season, which won't be very long now,

and the closing off of the books for that season, I'm prepared to convene

such a meeting. I would like to work with him in advance, because even though

we may differ politically, I'm satisfied that with his assistance the two

of us can go a long way to overcoming some difficulties which should not plague

this cannery, and encourage the support that is necessary for its future.

will require some restructuring, I believe, of the existing

organization; it may require some financial assistance, which, I think,

is available from the people who themselves are interested in the

success of the cannery. I think there are people who know that cannery

now can work and who are prepared to make their own direct contribution

towards that activity. But whatever the result, I think that we can map

out a course whereby in the years to come that cannery will survive and

sustain the people for whose benefit it was built.

MR. LEA:

Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the minister for a number

of things. I'd like to thank him, number one, for not ruling out of

hand a public inquiry; it may be needed. I would like to thank him for

his commitment to meet with the members of the cooperative after the

salmon season. I commit myself to being there also, and I also commit

myself to meeting with the minister when we get this session out of the

way and discussing with him various methods of trying to solve the

problems that we have. I'd like to thank him.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I should clarify one thing, because the people who are in the fishing

industry in Port Simpson will say: "Well, that's great, because you

don't close off the books of the cannery for this salmon season until

next spring sometime when finally all of the payments are due." That's

not what I meant. I meant as soon as the operation is there and they

know how much the pack is, where it is, that it's in the hands of the

marketers for handling and so on.... Maybe they have to tidy up any

amounts due to fishermen, but I don't think we should wait that long;

that's just a question of detail. I'm talking about when the pack is

in, and they've got themselves cleaned up for the season. That's when

we should meet.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, I want to

discuss with the minister the question of wiretapping in the province

of British Columbia. The question of the legal infringements of our

[ Page

3948 ]

human rights — the rights of privacy which in a

democracy we take for granted, but which we must always be ready to

protect. In the middle of April I put a question on the order paper

which I am surprised has not been answered. It's question number 23,

and I thought it would have been answered before these estimates came

before the House.

I'm going to repeat the questions.

"1)

Were any court orders for wiretapping granted in British Columbia in

1979? 2) If the answer to No. 1 is yes, how many? 3) If the answer to

No. 1 is yes, which judges and how many did each judge grant? 4) Did

the RCMP or local police forces engage in any wiretapping without a

court order? 5) If the answer to No. 4 is yes, how many and by what

force?"

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

Now I don't

know why this question has not been answered. One can only presume

after a period of four months that it was not answered because the

Attorney-General did not want to answer this particular question, and

I'm at a loss to know why these public matters cannot be brought

forward and debated in this House.

I would like to know if

there are abuses in the granting of permission for wiretapping. I want

to know whether it's a question of a wholesale granting of wiretaps in

this province, whether the forces that are wanting the wiretapping have

to prove any case at all, or whether the orders are granted

automatically.

The other questions that I would like to have

answered.... I presume that there are a number of judges who would be

very sticky in granting any orders for wiretapping. I would therefore

guess that if wiretaps are being granted in any great number, they are

being granted by relatively few judges. I want to know the names of

those judges who are granting the wiretaps and those who are certainly

limiting the number of wiretaps that are being granted. There's no

question in my mind that with the new technology in the world the

dangers of abuses in wiretapping can be numerous. I think it's a

serious question that should be taken up seriously by the

Attorney-General to determine what is going on in British Columbia in

the field of wiretapping and scientific surveillance.

It's

my opinion that no single judge should be given the power to order a

wiretap. I submit that there should be two or three judges sitting

together. I appreciate the fact that wiretaps may be necessary in some

cases, but I don't think wiretaps should be used as an excuse for other

normal police surveillance that has been carried over the years — as an

easy way out or a simpler method of getting the information that was

previously obtained by other methods. It's my opinion that there should

be at least two or possibly three judges sitting on any application for

a wiretap to make sure that our freedoms are protected. It is my

opinion that there must be ample proof that no other method of police

investigation can obtain the evidence that is required and there is no

other feasible method of obtaining such evidence.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

I want to be assured by the Attorney-General that these orders for wiretaps

are not merely humdrum things that are granted by judges to give many permits

for wiretaps for the purpose of obtaining evidence which could be obtained in

a number of other ways. I hope that the Attorney-General will answer these questions.

He's had notice of them for four months now and I presume he's ready

to answer them today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I didn't answer the questions from the member on the order paper, but

I'm sure the member is aware that on April 29 I tabled in this House

the report for the calendar year 1979, which is prepared under the

protection of privacy provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. Not

only did I file the report for 1979, which provides all of the

information that the member sought with regard to the number of

applications for electronic surveillance and much more, but I also

tabled at the time the supplementary reports for the years 1975 to 1978

inclusive. The reason that those supplementary reports were filed was

that each year as cases in respect of which electronic surveillance has

been used progressed through the courts, the statistics changed

slightly. Therefore under the system which is in place in this province

whereby full and complete and extensive records are kept with respect

to such matters, there is a continuing update of all this information.

It's important for the information to be available and it is very

appropriate that the provisions of the Criminal Code specify the

maintenance of such records.

I suppose I might also point

out to the member that while the Criminal Code of Canada makes it

obligatory for the Solicitor General of Canada to table his report,

there is no such obligation falling upon the Attorney-General of any of

the provinces. Notwithstanding that, since the privacy provisions were

introduced in the Criminal Code in 1974, it has been the practice of

Attorneys-General in this province to file such annual reports in this

House. Specifically, in 1979 — for the member's benefit — there were 78

authorizations for interceptions of communications. In 1978 there were

133, in 1977 there were 89 and in 1972 there were 76.

The

member also asked questions as to which judges made the orders

permitting these interceptions. Mr. Member, no such record is kept of

that factor. I suppose that those people designated by the

Attorney-General to make applications for authorizations — and they are

all Crown counsel — could keep such a record; but the applications are

made throughout the length and breadth of the province, and it has not

been our practice to do so. As a matter of fact, I see no value in

keeping such a record, because the obligations which face each judge in

determining whether or not an authorization for interception should be

granted are the same, and they are spelled out in the Criminal Code. If

the member will look at

part 4 of the Criminal Code, he will find that

those are spelled out.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

assist him, maybe I could refer to

section 178.13 of the Code, which

spells out those matters of which the judge must be satisfied. He must

be satisfied that it would be in the best interests of the

administration of justice to grant the order. He must be satisfied that

other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed. He must

be satisfied that other investigative procedures are unlikely to

succeed or that there is an urgency in the matter such that it would be

impractical to carry out investigations of an offence using other

investigative procedures.

I wish to assure the member that there are only, a limited

[ Page 3949 ]

number

of senior Crown counsel designated and who thereby have my

authorization to seek such orders. When I became Attorney-General the

number of persons who held such authorizations was approximately 40.

Since becoming Attorney-General, I have reviewed the list of persons

who have that authority, and it has been reduced to 22 — for the

purpose of ensuring that when this final and extraordinary step is

taken in the investigation of criminal activities, there can be no

question as to the qualifications of the person who would make such an

application.

I must also point out to the member — and he

will find this in the Code — that the material which is used in support

of the application is by law retained by the judge and sealed by him.

That information is not available for examination by any person, save

on application to the court, and if such application is ever made,

notice is given to the Attorney-General so that he may be represented

in the proceedings where the disclosure of such information is sought.

Lastly,

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the member that his suggestion that there

be more than one judge involved is not one which I think is unworthy of

consideration, but I would point out that the Criminal Code of Canada

is a federal statute. If there is to be a change in this regard, it is

a matter which can only be attended to with the assistance of the

Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General for Canada. I would have

thought that if there were a need for such a change, those persons in

the House of Commons who share the member's views with regard to the

seriousness of wiretapping exercises would have raised those with the

Minister of Justice. To my knowledge, that has not been done.

MR. LORIMER:

I want to thank the Attorney-General for his answer. However, the

filings that he referred to, of course, only dealt with the first

question which I asked. Which judges granted the orders was, of course,

not on file, and the minister advises that he does not have that

information, but he assumes that it's probably not necessary to have

that information.

The information which I have received

might indicate that he should maybe take an interest in who is granting

the applications. Although I have no personal knowledge myself, there

has been a suggestion made to me that most applications are taken

before certain judges. I would ask the Attorney-General to take an

interest in that particular aspect of the granting of applications.

also know that it is a federal statute, and I presume that if the

minister found my suggestions feasible he might take them up with the

Minister of Justice in Ottawa.

Apart from that, the other

question I asked was whether he had knowledge of taps that were placed

without court orders. He has not answered that part of the question,

and I hope he might advise if he has any knowledge of wiretaps being

placed without the proper procedures being used.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the use of electronic surveillance

without authority, certainly the police officers in this province.... I

can assure the member that with respect to those matters which fall

within my jurisdiction as Attorney-General, there have been none. The

member may say, well, how can you be sure. The technical problems

associated with instituting electronic surveillance are considerable.

When the privacy act provisions of the Criminal Code were introduced,

there was established a detailed process which is undertaken before

electronic surveillance takes place. It involves the filing of

applications. first of all, by investigating police officers with

senior members of their police forces. They are then passed to the

people who are involved in electronic surveillance work to determine

whether or not electronic surveillance is possible. At each stage there

is an additional form which is completed and sent forward to the

records section, to which I made reference.

Only after those

steps are taken do the investigating officers, with appropriate written

authority from their police forces, present themselves to Crown counsel

and lay out the basis upon which they believe that a court would be

satisfied to make the order. Therefore, with each of those steps being

taken, Mr. Member, you can be satisfied that the people who do the

electronic surveillance technical work do not become involved until

each of those steps has taken place, and until documentation is in

place to show that each of the steps has taken place. Then and only

then, with a judicial authorization in their hands, are the technics

undertaken.

I cannot speak for those areas which come under

the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General of Canada. But I can assure

you that the same procedures are involved when electronic surveillance

is undertaken by forces under his jurisdiction.

MR. HYNDMAN:

Very briefly this afternoon, I want to refer to the Attorney-General a

topic which has been of some recent concern to me. Today, as

coincidence would have it, it was highlighted in this morning's

Vancouver Province in a front-page story with the headline:

"Vernon Lawyers Want Notary Kept From Law Business." The story

highlights in Vernon what is apparently the resumption, after many

years, of a dispute between lawyers and notaries public in various

parts of the province as to what range of work notaries should be doing

and what number of notaries there should be. For the benefit of the

Attorney-General, I would like to quote just very briefly from this

article, then add some comments of mine, and put a suggestion to the

Attorney-General. I would appreciate his comment. The

article reads in

part as follows:

"Lawyers in Vernon are going

to B.C. supreme court to try and prevent a recently graduated notary

public from setting up shop there.

"Notaries say the case is part of a growing effort by the legal profession to find work for young lawyers.

"The

Vernon Bar Association's challenge is based on a 1921 statute that

gives lawyers the right to formally oppose new notary licences that

they feel are not required in any given district.

"The statute has been seldom used since a 'gentleman's agreement

' was made in 1957 between notaries and the Law Society of B.C. to end a bitter

rivalry between the two professions."

And the

article continues.

As a member of the bar of British Columbia who's practised for some 13

years, I'm concerned to see headlined news of the apparent resumption of

some very old hostilities between the practising bar and notaries. I say that

because I think a very high percentage of practising lawyers and a very high

percentage of practising notaries in this province get along together well and

enjoy very cordial, constructive and harmonious relationships. In Vancouver

South, within a radius of just a few blocks, for example, on Fraser Street,

there are, I think, three notaries and perhaps half a dozen

[ Page 3950 ]

lawyers

in practice. They enjoy a very cordial and constructive working

relationship, and I think the public in that area of Vancouver South is

well served by all of them.

I have some particular interest

in this matter, having served for seven years as secretary-treasurer of

the Vancouver bar association — from 1967 until 1973. The Vancouver bar

association is the largest of the county bar associations in British

Columbia. During those years its membership grew from about 1,500 to

2,000, and one of the interesting things we had to do during the course

of our regular agenda meetings was to review, on a monthly basis,

applications in respect of the replacement of notarial seals in the

lower mainland of B.C. Under the understanding reached in the

mid-1950s, it was agreed that, although the Law Society of British

Columbia would not object to the proposed number of notarial seals, on

the other hand the notaries agreed not to seek to expand that number.

Nonetheless, it remained the agreed jurisdiction of the geographically

relevant bar associations to have placed before them proposed

nominations of notaries to replace a vacancy in a sea], and if there

was objection in terms of fitness for the seal the bar associations

were entitled to file such objection. I think, if memory serves me

correctly, during all those seven years, and through the fairly large

number of applications processed through the Vancouver bar association,

there was not one case of objection in terms of fitness, and at all

times we felt there was a very cordial working relationship between the

Vancouver bar association and the Law Society of B.C. on the one hand

and the Society of Notaries Public on the other.

I am

therefore distressed that the gentleman's agreement, as it has been

described, of the mid-1950s is now, apparently, in some jeopardy. I

think some tribute should be paid to Judge Alfred Watts, QC, who was

secretary of the Law Society of British Columbia for about 20 years

after World War II, and who on behalf of the Law Society was the person

substantially responsible for negotiating that agreement; and to Alec

Matthew, a former member of this assembly, who was also the president

of the Society of Notaries Public. That gentleman's agreement, it

seems, has worked quietly and well for about 25 years, and as I say, it

is now in some jeopardy.

If the press story today is

substantially accurate — and I believe there have been some similar

local reports from other parts of the province — what appears to be

breaking out is, as described-in the press, a "bitter rivalry" or a

form of local civil war between lawyers and notaries, ending up in the

courtroom, and an adversarial contest between local lawyers and local

notaries as to whether or not the number of notaries should be

increased in a community. My concern is that everybody will lose in the

case of an adversarial contest like that. It's inevitable that if local

lawyers and notaries are going to go to court and battle each other

over the correct number of notaries in an area, there will be harsh and

bitter words and charges and allegations as to the correctness of the

number, quality and range of services performed by lawyers and

notaries. Neither the lawyers nor the notaries will emerge from that

kind of a debate in a positive sense, and the public, which is the most

important party to such a controversy, because they face the

consequences of it, will be confused and distressed, and to the degree

the public are familiar with lawyers or notaries who have been savaged

in argument they will be concerned that serious allegations have been

made in respect of notaries or members of the bar that they know.

think it is going to be a regrettable and unfortunate thing if this

issue of public policy, which it really is — the issue being how many

notaries there should be in B.C. In the 1980s and what range of

services they should perform — is settled in a courtroom in an

adversarial system. It is important as a matter of public policy; I

think the place for it to be settled is in this Legislature through

legislation.

My suggestion to those members of the bar of

British Columbia who are concerned on a local basis about this is that

they call or institute a truce, if they are thinking of fomenting

further legal action, and that instead they let the two appropriate

bodies work on this problem, those appropriate bodies being the Law

Society of British Columbia on behalf of the lawyers and the Society of

Notaries Public on behalf of the notaries. It's my understanding — and

I'm very pleased to see it — that in the Vancouver Province

article this morning it was pointed out that those two appropriate

bodies — the Law Society and the Society of Notaries Public — have been

working together constructively in recent months on this problem.

Therefore my suggestion is that lawyers on a local basis who have

concerns about the numbers of notaries and the work they are doing

express those concerns through the Law Society — their regional

benchers — and similarly that notaries should be responding through

their society, as I think they're doing.

What we have here,

regrettably, I think, is a potential breaking away from the

constructive working relationship between the Law Society and the

Society of Notaries Public. That breaking away, if it means a spate of

local adversarial courtroom disputes, is not going to produce progress

to anyone. As I say, it would create even more public confusion and

distress.

The suggestion I would like to make to the Attorney-General flows from a further comment in this morning's Province

article: "The notaries society and Law Society have been working

together recently to urge the government to amend the statute. So far

the notaries society has received excellent cooperation from the Law

Society, but neither side has yet to approach Victoria." It would

appear from that that the two appropriate bodies — the Law Society and

the Society of Notaries Public — are working together, presumably to

bring to the Attorney-General a joint proposal for legislative change,

likely next session.

If their work is not finished and we're

going to have an outbreak of some regrettable local hostilities, my

question to the Attorney-General is whether he might consider taking an

earlier initiative than that and perhaps appoint a person or persons to

look into the matter immediately, to call over representatives from

both the Law Society and the notaries, and to review this matter. That

would have the following benefits. Apart from the Law Society and the

Society of Notaries Public, which are already working on their own

suggestions for change, those lawyers in communities around the

province who are individually concerned can additionally express their

concerns by correspondence or a brief or by coming here in person. But

we're not that far away — believe it or not, Mr. Chairman — from the

next session of the Legislature. It's perhaps six or eight months away,

which is not, I think, a long time for people to wait for some

suggestions and comment from the Attorney-General's ministry, and

that's the appropriate place whence change should come. It is a matter

of public policy; changes are best reflected in the legislation

governing notaries and the Law Society; those changes are best debated

in this chamber.

[ Page 3951 ]

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

conclusion, Mr. Chairman, my suggestion to lawyers who are concerned on

a local basis but are not prepared to wait for the work of the Law

Society is that they please be patient. If they have concerns they

should direct them to the Attorney-General and not to Her Majesty's

courts. I would be interested in a comment from the Attorney-General as

to whether, in view of this apparently regrettable trend towards some

local hostilities and, it would appear, the regrettable end to the

gentleman's agreement of the last 25 years, some informal initiative

might now be taken by his ministry to have those concerns considered

here in Victoria with a view to legislative proposals next spring and

some debate in this chamber, the proper place for expression of public

policy, next session.

MR. COCKE: We hear the member

for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) calling for legislation. I know that

that's against the rules, so I won't call for legislation.

a matter of fact, this was an issue that I was going to deal with to

some extent. I want to say to the Attorney-General that in 1957 there

were 330 notaries in the province of British Columbia. Today, in 1980,

with double the population in the province, there are still 330

notaries. So I don't see where there's going to be any great benefit to

appeal to the Law Society to put forward some kind of proposition that

would benefit the notaries.

I suggest that the notaries are

scared to death. Those that are there probably don't want to rock the

boat too much. There is a problem. The member says that he would like

to see it not break out in hostility. I would just like to take the

member to Surrey at the present time where that hostility has already

broken out. One of the notaries in the area either died or retired — I

can't remember which — and there is one notary public vacancy. That

vacancy is not to be filled, as far as the local lawyers are concerned.

They're saying: "There's lots of us." The only problem is they're not

available, and they cost more money. I might be dead wrong, but it

strikes me that this cabal of lawyers in this province pretty well runs

the legal affairs, and I think that maybe the Attorney-General should

give us his impression of what he feels should be done in terms of

giving the notaries an opportunity to practise, and giving them the

opportunity not only to fill vacancies but maybe to better reflect the

population as it now stands. If we're comparing 1957 to now, there's

been a net reduction in terms of percentage of the population.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I asked the minister whether or not he took seriously

the comments — irresponsible, in my view — of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem)

with respect to motorcycle helmets. As I said yesterday, for us to ignore that

question would be a very sad event indeed. The hospitals will attest to the

damage that's done even with helmets by that machine, and particularly with

people who are relatively new motorcycle drivers, riders, or whatever. I suggest

that it's going to be incredibly enhanced by this business of people deciding

with bravado to ride around without a helmet. There's very little protection,

indeed, on a motorcycle. Some of them are highly powered and very fast. I believe

that what protection can be afforded should be afforded, because the public

pays the shot. A person can go ahead and commit suicide if he wishes, but if

he isn't quite successful the rest of us are going to pay for an extended

period in hospital. So from that standpoint, I think the Attorney-General should

take a very good, hard look at this whole question.

The

third thing, and the last, that I want to talk to the Attorney-General

about is this question.... Here's a file, Mr. Chairman. of a very sad

case. I'm not going to talk specifically about the case, but here's a

kid — I believe he's...

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Seventy-three years old.

MR. COCKE: ...eighteen.

You know, the Minister of Forests always makes silly, trifling remarks

when somebody's trying to talk seriously about a very important

question.

Here's a kid who's been in and out of court,

in and out of probation, in and out of every conceivable situation —

never anything particularly serious. He's mentally retarded. I believe

his IQ is something in the order of the very low seventies, or just

around seventy. He's very lonely, gets himself into trouble, and there

really is no service.... I noticed my colleague the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) saying the other day that Human Resources

winds up with these cases. I wish that that were the case for many of

them. Often they wind up in the Attorney-General's area of

responsibility, and that's in the jails and so on for want of some

place or some other means of looking after their needs. I know that

there has been some suggestion that the Ministry of Health is going to

improve or expand the facilities of the mental health division in

Burnaby. That's needed, but I believe that is more for the dangerous

person requiring real security for a time. There is another group out

there, Mr. Chairman, that really require ministers and their ministries

getting together and trying to develop cooperative programs, trying to

develop ways and means of handling these people so that we keep them

out of our jails. There is a young fellow that keeps getting into

trouble just looking for somebody to say something to him, just

somebody to give him some recognition — the same kind of recognition

that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) seems to require at

all times. I just wonder whether or not the human services committee of

the cabinet is looking very seriously at the kinds of situations that

I've outlined here.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

don't want to go into any detail on this particular case, because if I

do, then it's going to identify a person. But there are people with the

need that isn't the heavy security situation, but people out there who

are, for one reason or another, winding up in our jails, completely

unnecessarily.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman. I thought

it appropriate for me to get up at this time and speak on this one

topic, since my colleague who just sat down mentioned it, and before

the minister replies I could perhaps just provide the minister with a

few more details. This relates once again to the problem we're having

in British Columbia with a recent court ruling which, in effect, makes

it legal not to wear motorcycle helmets. There have been a number of

accidents over the last few days, and I understand there was another

one just this afternoon.

I want to give the Attorney-General

just a bit of information on this whole situation. One of the basic

problems is that the type of helmet that has been used in British

Columbia is

[ Page 3952 ]

not

safe in any event. I spent a great deal of time and research on this

and made copious notes. I would like to read into the record some of

the notes I've made on this subject, Mr. Chairman. Then I will suggest

a possible solution to the minister.

In 1970 the Canadian

Standards Association passed three regulations through the

motor-vehicle branch, instructing that helmets be shatter-resistant and

resistant to grease and gasoline saturation, that weight be not more

than two and a half pounds and that 120 degrees of peripheral vision be

embodied in all helmet designs. These three requirements, for whatever

reason, were dropped in 1971. The contract was given to the B.C.

Research Council to find out what happened when grease and gasoline

come in contact with polycarbonate plastic, a substance used in

motorcycle helmets. They were told that polycarbonate plastic

crystallizes with grease and gasoline and shatters on impact. The

reason given when the standards were dropped were that the

manufacturers of polycarbonate plastic helmets — 60 percent of all

helmets sold — couldn't manufacture a safe helmet.

The AETL,

Approved Engineering and Testing Laboratory of California, was asked to

test CSA-approved helmets and found that they barely even met United

States Department of Transportation specifications. They found that

even the ordinary yellow hardhat of the construction workers' type

absorbs three times as much energy as the best motorcycle helmet made.

They also discovered that if the manufacturer can't pass the standards

presumably here in Canada, they bulk out the helmet. But the fact is

that a fellow by the name of Bill Otto of Otto Labs told us that the

amount of weight needed squares with the miles per hour in terms of how

much safety it provides, and current helmets manufactured are dangerous

because they are too heavy. We go into a lot of detail about why these

helmets are unsafe. For example, when the driver is struck, the head

moves in the direction of the force. The helmet lags behind the head.

When the head reaches out, it ends movement of neck muscles and

curtails movement. The heavy helmet is still moving, and 60 percent

more force is put on the first and the second vertebrae. It has been

shown to be enough force to snap the vertebrae.

Mr.

Chairman, I have reams and reams of statistics here, but the fact

is.... One of the points that I wish to make to the Attorney-General

right now, as soon as I get his attention, is that there has been

before the motor-vehicle branch — and on the minister's desk — a report

called the Godfrey report, an independent report on motorcycle helmet

safety. If the minister is not aware of it, I'm sure that his

colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser) must be. This report has certainly been before the motor

vehicle branch for at least a year. This report makes a number of

recommendations to which the government has paid no heed. I know that

the minister is looking into this whole question of legality of

implementing or upgrading the laws regarding motorcycle helmet safety.

What I'm asking is that the recommendations in the so-called Godfrey

report be implemented.

Secondly, we have before us in this

House now a bill relating to amendments to the Motor-vehicle Act, Bill

44. I'm suggesting to the government that two simple amendments to that

act, which we would support wholeheartedly as an opposition, would

solve this whole problem of motorcycle safety for cyclists.

know that most motorcyclists in the province do agree with helmet

safety laws. The problem is that the helmets have been practically

worthless. I'm very disappointed in the Canadian Standards Association

for allowing this to happen. They're passing these inferior helmets and

allowing them to be marketed. There are many other implications to this

whole matter. I am disappointed that the government hasn't taken

action. In my view, we can't wait for a six-month appeal or any of

these other measures that have been discussed. In my view, two simple

amendments to Bill 44, now before this House, would rectify the whole

situation. Very simply, one amendment deals with implementing the

recommendations in the Godfrey report so we have proper helmets. All

the cyclist groups I've contacted over the last few days agree that

they would not be averse to wearing helmets providing they were proper

type helmets. Secondly, the second amendment to Bill 44 would be to

compel all motorcyclists to wear the helmets. I think we will save a

number of lives in British Columbia. It seems to me there is a death a

day now caused by head injuries because of the current situation, and

they are particularly young bikers. No helmet or anything else in the

world is going to save a biker if he's travelling 100 miles per hour or

if he's hit dead-on by an automobile, but for those cyclists who drive

within the law certainly the helmet will be of great assistance.

really concerns me that while the House is in session now that bill

could be called this afternoon or tomorrow — whenever — at the

government's discretion, and that law could be changed very quickly. In

my view it would save literally — I don't know — 100 lives, whatever.

It seems that recently there is one death a day. So I'm certainly

asking the minister to talk to his colleague, the Minister of

Transportation and Highways, and call that bill. The opposition will

support amendments to that section. Stop the death on our highways

because of that situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before responding, I'm sure the hon. member knows the restriction in Committee of Supply about talking about bills.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Make that statement to the committee.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

A number of questions have been raised. The member for Vancouver South

(Mr. Hyndman) and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) have both

dealt with this.

I view the reported action made by the

lawyers in Vernon as a retrograde step. The relationship between

notaries and members of the legal profession in this province has

functioned well over many years. There has been a growing measure of

agreement and accommodation between the two societies, which I think

should be fostered in the best interests of both the societies and the

members of the public whom their members serve. I think it a retrograde

step for lawyers in any part of this province to, in effect, take

action which is a breach of an understanding which has functioned so

well over the years. I would remind members that, as the member for New

Westminster said, back in 1957 there were 300, or thereabouts, notaries

public, and there are 300 today. If one would compare the number of

lawyers there were in 1957 to the number of lawyers there are today, I

think they will recognize that the proportion of notaries to lawyers

has decreased markedly.

[ Page 3953 ]

would hate to imagine the furor that would be created if somehow or

other some interference were taken by government to limit the number of

lawyers. That too would be a retrograde step. I would only ask those

members of the legal profession to consider it very carefully.

know that the two societies have been working together with regard to

proposed statutory amendments. Those have not yet reached the ministry.

I wish to say that I look forward to their joint recommendations on

matters which may serve to improve the situation.

I will

take it upon myself to communicate with the treasurer of the Law

Society to determine whether or not there aren't some representations

which he may make to ensure that we don't throw this matter back into

the courts and undo so much of what has been properly adjusted over

recent years.

Motorcycles and the helmets of their riders. Some people need helmets more than others.

MR. COCKE: Some people need helmets when it's far too late.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I echo the views of the member for New Westminster. I think that to

ignore an opportunity to avail oneself of safety equipment because

there happens to be no law requiring it is little short of foolish. We

have had in the past 24 to 30 hours at least two deaths which

apparently can be attributed to the failure to wear a protective

helmet. And if there aren't deaths, there could be injuries. As the

member for New Westminster has pointed out, that casts upon the

individual a very significant personal damage, distress for his or her

family, and significant costs to the state for medical and other

treatment. Therefore the state has a direct interest in matters of this

kind, in the same way that the state has had an interest in and has

taken steps with regard to workers who are involved in industrial

plants. All kinds of safety equipment are required to be used by them,

and I think it seems unreasonable that a worker could work in a plant

and be required to wear safety equipment which is found to be useful,

but when he leaves the plant and drives home, he can suddenly ignore

the safety equipment which may see him safely between his place of work

and his residence, for example.

With respect to this matter

I wish to make it clear that while I am advised by counsel who appeared

in the recent court case that he believes the judge was in error, and

he is prepared to proceed by way of an appeal that may take two or

three months. So I posed to him what the situation would be if, in

fact, the appeal court found that the judge was right. Then we would

have no cure. I'm advised this afternoon that the best course of action

is for the government to consider amendments to the statute, and I have

given instructions this afternoon that work commence on those

amendments in the hopes that we may be able to introduce them into this

House for consideration before the end of these current sittings of the

House.

I also say to the member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead) that I recognize what he's saying and I have spoken to the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) about the

question of these standards.

MR. LAUK: Two years of neglect.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Well, okay, if it makes you feel better, two years of neglect, but the

question of standards is something which has been viewed by the

officials of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and they seem

comfortable with the standards they have. But I am not. I see helmets

being worn — as a matter of fact my son, who rides a motorbike, bought

one for his wife for Christmas. I was astounded when I picked it up and

found how heavy the helmet was for a very slight woman to wear, and I

thought to myself, if she ever fell off the bike or was involved in an

accident the effect of the helmet itself, and particularly its shape,

would be likely to cause her serious injury, to her neck or whatever

the case may be. So you end up being damaged by the helmet and I think

that's inappropriate.

I also wish to make it clear that from

the legal point of view we face a very serious problem, because if you

have standards and someone wears a helmet, the question is — and the

member for Vancouver Centre will recognize this whether you can prove

that the helmet that was worn'did or did not meet the standard.

Therefore the effect of enforcement of any regulation or law may be

difficult unless this matter of standards is very carefully examined.

So what I'll be recommending to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways, in conjunction with the change we will make to overcome the

current problem, is that we do get into this matter of the review that

is necessary to ensure that what we're requiring people to wear is what

they should wear and what will provide them with the proper measure of

safety.

The member for New Westminster raised concerns about

young persons who come into conflict with the law and find themselves

in the corrections system but, by reason of a low intelligence or

certain mental problems, perhaps don't receive the kind of care that is

appropriate for their condition. I wish to say that this is a

continuing matter which is dealt with by the interministerial committee

of the Ministries of Human Resources, Attorney-General, Health, and

Education. We do, in the corrections branch, provide the services of

consultant psychologists and psychiatrists. Within the system we also

provide, through the Ministry of Education, for teachers with special

education programs and courses in remedial services. The

interministerial committee is available to review particular cases and,

if necessary, to provide other resources from the community, and all

the ministries are now extending these services on a regional planning

basis. Next year we expect to see, through the Ministry of Health,

significant expansion of The Maples residential facility, and while

those facilities will be designed for a few very serious cases it is a

much needed facility in the province.

MR. PASSARELL:

A number of questions I'd like to raise to the Attorney-General

concerning his responsibility with native affairs, and since our heated

debate last year at this time on the same issue the minister and myself

have discussed the issue confidentially a number of times. We've

exchanged some literature, so I certainly hope today's debate will be

less heated.

There's still a number of answers — questions

to be answered. Mr. Chairman — and one of the first ones is: what is

the minister doing in regards to his responsibility for native affairs

for the province? It's interesting looking through on the estimate that

there's nothing dealing with the first citizens of the province under

the estimates to a certain extent. Also the aspect of what has the

minister done in his term in the last six months, in regards to native

affairs. It's interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, that back in 1976 the

minister made

[ Page 3954 ]

certain

statements to the Nishga nation which still haven't been acted upon. It

almost been four and a half years, Mr. Minister, and people in the area

are particularly wondering when you're going to act upon the statement

you made to the Nishga nation — statements concerning land claims. What

have you offered the people in the north and throughout this province,

the first citizens of this province, in regard to the programs and

following through on statements that you have made? It appears, nothing.

In a sense, Mr. Chairman, this is not a political matter but almost a human rights matter.

There are a number of native issues that must be addressed by this minister. He can't keep on putting it off year after year.

1) The cutoff lands. What's happening on this specific program?

2) Land claims. Also what is happening?

Another

aspect that I think the minister should address himself is the aspect

of native people in the expansion of mines. For instance, the Kitsault

project. That has the capability, Mr. Chairman, of destroying the

heritage of the native people in that particular area — the Nishgas —

which will cause an infringement upon their traditional lifestyles if

this mine proceeds.

Another concern in regards to the free

development aspect and the destruction of traditional customs and

lifestyles is the proposed Hydro projects in the north, which the

native people have addressed this minister and other ministers of the

government regarding their lifestyles and the effect of these

developments upon their families.

As the minister

responsible, Mr. Chairman, for native concerns in regard to the

Stikine-Iskut and Liard project, what is the minister offering the

three specific bands in the area? What are you doing for the Iskut or

the Tahltans or for the Kaska?

The minister's portfolio

includes native affairs, but it appears to be a minor consequence to

this minister in making any statements or dealing upon the actions in

his own statements. I guess the minister could stand up after and say

that the first citizens of this province are not treated any

differently than any other groups of people in the province. And I

wonder, Mr. Chairman: is this the actual case? Are the broken promises,

the confiscation of land, the regulations placed upon traditional

hunting and fishing rights, the reserve system, the lack of medical and

schools and general facilities on reserves, treating the first citizens

of this province the same as other residents are treated?

Another

aspect — the Blueberry band. The minister knows this aspect and the

issue that the Blueberry band have faced. And it appears that this

government is failing to act because it falls between a jurisdiction of

the federal and provincial governments. I would certainly hope the

minister could give some kind of suggestions to the Blueberry band

regarding the problems they are facing this fall.

There are

a number of valid concerns, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, and the

questions need to be addressed by this minister. Particularly, it's

been almost four and a half years since you made those statements to

the Nishgas. The Nishgas are still wondering and waiting for your

reply. I certainly hope you act upon your promises. That's....

I'd like him to answer those questions, and then if we have anything else we can discuss it later. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I just would say to the member, as I think I said a year ago, that he

misunderstands the jurisdictional responsibility which is extended to

me by the government with regard to native Indian matters. I will

repeat it again for him: it was a decision of this government, as it

was of previous governments, that we would not establish a Ministry of

Indian Affairs and thereby encounter the same problems that have been

encountered at the federal level, but rather provide for native Indians

with a means by which they would have access to all of the ministries

of government with respect to those issues which were of concern to

them. That has been our policy.

I have received from Indian

groups throughout the province, as their needs require, representations

in this respect, and through the officials available to me I have been

assured that access to the various ministries of the government is made

available to them. If they require special assistance, then that

special assistance is provided.

With regard to cutoff lands,

it is a matter of continuing regret to me that the matter has not been

resolved. I believe the situation remains almost exactly as it was a

year ago; that is not a consequence of any failure on the part of the

provincial government to discharge its responsibilities under the

negotiations which have taken place. The position of the province is

exactly the same as it was a year ago. It is a position which was fully

accepted by the Indian people who were involved with those reserves

from which lands were cut off so many years ago. The continuing

negotiations over the past year have been between the Indian bands and

the federal government with regard to their part of the settlement

process. A significant advance was being made during the Conservative

government. We are, however, distressed to find that since the change

in government earlier this year no positive action has been taken. As a

matter of fact there appears to be some difficulty arising out of a

lawsuit which the native Indian people have now commenced. I have

written to Hon. John Munro on this subject and met with him, and he has

agreed that they would take such steps as are required to get the

parties back to discussions aimed at ending the impasse. We are anxious

for this to be done, because once the general principles for settlement

of the cutoff land claim are complete, then we, the provincial

government, have a very major job to do in resolving those special

problems associated with each of the Indian reserves.

With

regard to land claims the position remains precisely as it has always

been in the province of British Columbia. We believe that the

resolution of land claims through a general land claim settlement, if

it is to be handled in that way, rests entirely within the

responsibility of the federal government.

We do, however,

believe that there is a more effective way of resolving the

difficulties which are experienced by the native Indian people, and it

was in this respect that we entered into direct discussions with the

federal government and the Nishga band. Those discussions have been

continuing. The Nishga band, I understand, is now awaiting the

opportunity to discuss with the two governments their fisheries policy

proposal. I have met with my officials and the officials of the

Ministry of Environment, and we are ready to resume those discussions

as soon as the federal ministry people are ready to come to the table.

I understand that no date has been get for those meetings. As is

typical this time of the year, because of the Nishga Indian involvement

in the salmon fishing season, it is unlikely that those discussions

will get underway until that season has wound up. However,

[ Page 3955 ]

are anxious to return to a discussion of those issues which we believe

are achievable by the governments in direct discussions with the

Nishgas.

If the federal government wishes to pursue the

prospect of general land claim settlement, then we hold the view that

that is their entitlement. We would want to be associated with those

discussions, but that's a decision which they will be obliged to make.

might point out to the member that the change in portfolio which took

place in November of last year resulted in the funds not being included

in a separate vote; the funds are included in the administration and

support vote, which is vote 22, under these estimates.

MR. NICOLSON:

Just a short question. The minister mentioned cutoff lands. I'd like to

bring to the minister's attention that the Lower Kootenay Indian band

and the band in the Creston area are covered in the first book of the

McKenna-McBride report. A large parcel of land south of Creston was

given to the Indians by the commissioners. About a year later it was

taken away and some other lands were given also, subsequent to their

findings. That piece of land is not part of the lands that I understand

to be under consideration, and that particular band of the Kootenay

Indians at Creston — I can't remember the name of the mission, but it

describes their band — is not listed. I researched this about a year

ago and informed them, and indeed gave them a copy of the

McKenna-McBride report, and the complexity of it is that some of those

lands have been deeded away. In fact, the Creston golf course sits on

some of that land. The other complexity is that the city has applied to

use those lands for an airstrip. The lands have been Crown lands. There

was $200,000 given to the city for the airport and another $200,000 is

now promised for a total of $400,000 from the government under the

airport expansion fund.

Yet this band has been totally

ignored, and I think that there is, on the face of things, a claim

there which should be considered and which should not be ignored. I

think that a reading of that portion of the transcript and also an

examination of the sequence of events whereby this land was given to

them and then taken away for the reason that timber rights had been

granted on those lands in perpetuity.... Well, there are no more timber

rights on those lands and certainly that reason is no longer valid.

They have retained, I believe, Mr. Harvey Ganser of Cranbrook as

counsel.

I would urge the minister to look very seriously at

that, because they're not even on the shopping list of cutoff lands and

things are steamrolling ahead in terms of that land now being further

alienated towards airport use. I would urge that the minister give that

very serious consideration, to determine whether or not that should

indeed be included among cutoff lands.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Chairman, I believe it was yesterday that I asked a question of the

minister with respect to foreign ownership of land in this province,

and the minister indicated yesterday that he had assigned someone

within his ministry to investigate the extent of foreign ownership of

land — which he can easily do through the land titles office — but that

that person had now left the ministry. I assumed from the minister's

answer that that person had not been replaced and that no one has been

assigned to look into the question of the extent of foreign ownership

of land in this province. I might remind the committee, Mr. Chairman,

that this is an issue that I have been raisin g year after year in this

Legislature, trying to convince the government that it should adopt a

policy with respect to absentee foreign purchases of British Columbia

land.

I don't think the government is that interested in

this issue, because form 16, which is the form on which people state

their citizenship when they purchase land, has been collecting dust in

boxes over in the land titles office for a number of years — no one has

even looked at them. Now I don't know how serious the minister was when

he assigned someone to have a look at the extent of foreign ownership

by examining form 16, but apparently he wasn't that serious, because

whoever was assigned is no longer with the ministry. That seemed to be

the end of the matter — at least that's the impression that I got

yesterday.

Mr. Chairman, this question is becoming a very

serious one, in my view, particularly as it relates to farmland. The

B.C. Institute of Agrologists, particularly up in the Peace River area,

is most concerned about this and has communicated with the government

and with MLAs on a number of occasions. You see, what's happened is

that many of the other provinces have seen the light and have brought

in legislation which restricts particularly the purchase of farm and

recreation land in their provinces. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba,

Quebec, Prince Edward Island — all of these provinces now have

legislation. As a result, people who are looking for investments in

land in Canada are now looking at British Columbia. because other

provinces, such as Alberta, have legislation that prohibits them from

purchasing. Since the Alberta legislation was brought in, the

government estimates that there has been a 90 percent reduction in the

acquisition of farmland in that province by foreign buyers.

This

is an important resource. Mr. Chairman. We have extensive foreign

ownership in this country already, and here is an area where the

provincial government can take some action over what I consider, in the

case of farmland. to be one of our prime resources. I do not want to

see the decisions with respect to the production of food in this

province being made by people overseas who own the property.

in the Peace River — and here again the agrologists have to estimate,

because they don't have form 16.- they don't have access to the

information; the government has never provided it and has never shown

any interest in providing it — the agrologists currently estimate that

there are 280,600 acres owned by foreign investors. Up until the middle

of 1978 — just two years ago — about 124,000 acres were owned, which

means that in the last two years, according to the agrologists'

estimates, some 156,000 acres have been purchased in the Peace River

alone by absentee foreigners. Now that is a shameful situation, and the

minister has not even taken enough interest to analyze the problem yet.

Year after year after year I've raised this issue. The agrologists

point out, I think. that what happens is that the foreign investment

forces the price of land up so that our young people who are interested

in getting into farming are not able to purchase the land. and in fact,

in British Columbia, become tenants on foreign-owned land, particularly

agricultural land. It shouldn't be allowed to happen. Certainly the

other provinces have set examples of how this problem might be

overcome. There's no specific benefit to Canadians as a result of all

these foreign purchases. There is nothing but

[ Page 3956 ]

adverse

effects from this kind of open purchase of British Columbia farmland by

absentee foreigners that is permitted by this government.

would just like to quote from the letter that was sent to us by the

agrologists. They state, and I must concur with this: "We contend that

our agricultural land base is a provincial non-renewable resource and

should not be treated as an expendable commodity. The retention of the

ownership of our agricultural land is absolutely essential to the

economic and social well-being of our province." Then the letter goes

on to request: "Again, please will this government have a took at this

problem and take some action." I can only concur with what the

agrologists are saying, and again plead today for the minister to take

this problem seriously. In view of the fact that all of those acres are

being alienated as quickly as they are — 156,000 in the last two years

in the Peace River area — it is high time the minister took some action

in this area. I would appreciate his comments too, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEVI:

I'm going to ask the Attorney-General a number of questions in respect

of the Farris case. I tried, on a number of occasions during the

Premier's estimates to get some answers, and I might just add, Mr.

Chairman, that the reason I did it then is because I characterized the

Premier as probably the individual who was the bridge between the

former Attorney-General and the present Attorney-General. The reason I

wanted to get something from him was that it's very difficult to direct

the kind of questions I want to direct to a former minister; it's not

his responsibility now. I may have the same trouble with the present

minister because he wasn't the minister when this particular item in

respect of the Farris case came up.

However, since his

appointment in November of last year we did have an inquiry with

respect to his deputy — and I'm not going to go into that; I understand

that there's a case before the courts — in which one aspect of the

Farris case was looked at, so presumably there were discussions between

the deputy and the present Attorney-General with respect to the Farris

case. I would presume — after all he's a lawyer — that he would have

read the file. I hope he read the file, because that's what it's all

about. What I want to ask the Attorney-General in the beginning — I'll

sit down and give him a chance to respond — is.... In view of the

general discussion that he was aware of — he's been aware of the

discussions in this House and in the press — is he satisfied, as the

Attorney-General, that the matters relating to the former chief justice

of the appeal court, Mr. Farris, can be left as they are — that it's in

the public interest that nothing else take place, that there in fact be

no inquiry? Is he himself satisfied that in the interests of the

public, that's where the matter should lie? I'd like to get his opinion

on that.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I have had general

discussions with the Deputy Attorney-General with respect to those

aspects of the matter which have touched upon him. As to whether I am

satisfied that matters can be left as they are, unless there are

allegations made to the proper police authorities in the province that

there has been some transgression of the law which could be

investigated by the police, then there is nothing further that can be

done by me as Attorney-General in this province. I'm sure the member

knows that judges of the superior courts in this province are the

appointees of the Minister of Justice of Canada and that it is his

office which holds the jurisdiction and bears the obligation in respect

of other matters. If there are improprieties on the part of judges of

our superior courts, then those matters are dealt with by the Judicial

Council of Canada, which under the chairmanship of the chief justice of

Canada is composed of chief justices and associate chief justices in

all of the provinces.

MR. LEVI: I have another

question which perhaps the minister can answer. Sometime earlier this

year an individual by the name of Robert Wilson met with a policeman,

with a Mr. Lees present, and laid certain information in respect to Mr.

Justice Farris. As I understand it that matter was noted by the

policeman and turned in to the Vancouver city police. Does the minister

have any knowledge that such a complaint was lodged by a citizen by the

name of Wilson?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman,

I received a copy of some material which indicated that a Mr. Wilson

had spoken with two police officers of the Vancouver city police

department, indicating that he had certain knowledge with respect to

matters touching upon Mr. Farris. I was also advised that these matters

had been reviewed by senior officers of the Vancouver city police

department, and that they would take whatever steps were appropriate in

the circumstances. It's a police investigation and should be left with

them.

MR. LEVI: Well, I presume that the minister is

saying that an investigation is continuing. Am I correct in saying

that? He said that such information was there and was being

investigated. Is the investigation completed, or is it an ongoing

investigation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I

would not know, because police investigation files are opened and are

closed when either the extent of the investigation has been thoroughly

exhausted — in which case that's the end of the matter — or when

charges are laid. In either event, even when charges are laid the

Attorney-General is not notified. It generally comes to my attention in

the course of some press release.

MR. LEVI: Leaving

aside the complaint by the citizen, and repeating some of the

statements that I made during the Premier's estimates, it is a matter

of public knowledge — it was in the press — that the involvement....

That's not the correct word; I should withdraw that. I should say that

the problem that came about in respect to the former chief justice was

as a result of a police investigation in respect to attempts to obtain

evidence on an individual suspected of trafficking in drugs, and that

an application was made to the court and granted to intercept a private

communication. A wiretap was placed on a residence. It turned out to be

the residence of one Wendy King. During the course of this procedure

the voice of the chief justice was intercepted on two occasions. Some

of this information was made available during the trial of Wendy King.

I'm

not a lawyer, but it was a surprise to me, as a result of the King

case, that I'm informed by other lawyers that a rather unprecedented

situation ensued from that trial: all the evidence was sealed. I asked

a number of people if this was something that usually happened. It

apparently did happen. It was the order of Judge Jones that the

evidence be sealed.

I appreciate what the Attorney-General

said in respect to the appointment of judges of the county and supreme

courts. They are the responsibility of the federal government. If there

are complaints flowing from those individuals, there is

[ Page 3957 ]

procedure through the federal Judicial Council. In fact, as a result of

information made available, I presume from the wiretap, information was

forwarded to the Minister of Justice — we're talking now about 1978 —

and the case was referred to the federal Judicial Council. Then the

judge himself resigned, and there was a change in the Minister of

Justice — I think the case started with Otto Lang, who was the minister

then, and Marc Lalonde became Minister of Justice, and he said that an

investigation was not proceeding because the man was no longer a judge.

The case was next raised in the House of Commons by Ian Waddell, who is

the Member of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway. He wrote to the then

Minister of Justice under the Conservative government, the hon. Senator

Jacques Flynn, saying:

"I am raising in the

House of Commons today the matter of the Wendy King case and the

resignation of the former chief justice of the Court of Appeal for

British Columbia, which was apparently related to that case. Last week

Ms. King pleaded guilty to a charge of keeping a common bawdy-house in

the Provincial Court of British Columbia in Vancouver. I note that a

stay of proceedings was entered on her co-accused, who has also been

charged with trafficking in heroin.

"Your

predecessor in the previous Liberal government, Otto Lang, took the

position that there would be no inquiry into the matter once the former

chief justice had resigned. Is this the position of your government? I

would hope that you might take a different view and appoint a special

commissioner, perhaps an able and respected lawyer of the calibre of,

say, Mr. Arthur Maloney, QC, to look into the matter to see if any

improprieties have occurred. There are numerous reasons for this: the

fact that the appeal court has been put under a cloud, the fact that

the court records of the King case were sealed, the fact of apparent

plea-bargaining — to name only a few.

"What most concerns me is that many people in British Columbia

apparently think that justice for the established and for people in high places

is different than justice for the ordinary citizen. That, of course, is not justice

at all. I look forward to your early reply,

Yours sincerely,

Ian Waddell."

Senator Flynn replied to Mr. Waddell on November 16, 1979:

"Dear Mr. Waddell:

refer to your letter of November 6, 1979, regarding the prosecution of

a Ms. King, and, as I understand it, suggesting an inquiry into the

resignation of the former chief justice of British Columbia and the

circumstances surrounding both of these matters.

"As you may be aware, the Judges Act establishes a procedure

for an investigation or inquiry into allegations of misconduct on the part of

a judge. Investigative functions under the act come to an end on the resignation

of the judge. The judge in question is not now sitting on the bench, and therefore

concern for the due administration of justice would no longer be advanced by

an inquiry.

"As for an independent inquiry into the proceedings relating

to Ms. King, those proceedings are, of course, within the responsibilities of

the Attorney General of British Columbia, and such an inquiry would be or could

be regarded as an intrusion by the federal government into matters of provincial

concern. On the information that is available to me, I do not feel such an inquiry

would be warranted or productive.

Yours sincerely,

Jacques Flynn."

Mr.

Chairman, in the last several months in this province we have had a

number of inquiries. We've had one inquiry by a judge, Mr. Justice

Seaton. We've had a number of internal inquiries conducted by the

Attorney-General's staff into matters which were raised in the

Legislature in regard to various types of behaviour.

Yesterday

in the House the Attorney-General was responding to my colleague, the

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), in respect to, I

presume, the Prelypchan report on the Eckardt commission. During the

time that the Attorney-General was replying, my colleague said: "Why

didn't you have a public inquiry with a supreme court judge?" The

Attorney-General replied: "You don't have a public inquiry in order to

determine these matters. Do you have a public inquiry every time there

is a suggestion that there has been a breach of the criminal law? That

might come later, Mr. Member. It might have come later if there had

been any substance whatever to the suggestions that there was political

interference...." He goes on to relate that to the Eckardt commission.

What

interests me is the view of the Attorney-General in respect to public

inquiries. He says you don't have a public inquiry every time there is

a suggestion that there has been a breach of criminal law; that might

come later. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that, based on the

information that the Attorney-General has in respect to the information

that was picked up from the tapes and in respect to the arrangements

that were made between Crown counsel and defence counsel in terms of

what, I think, is characterized as plea-bargaining — that arrangements

were made and discussions were had between counsel — and in view of the

fact that we are not dealing here with a deputy minister and

investigating his behaviour, nor are we investigating a commissioner

who was appointed to redraw the boundaries, nor are we looking at what

kind of arrangements were made in terms of the three cases which were

put before us, which I gather we can't talk about.... We're dealing

here, in the interests of the justice system, with the resignation of

the former chief justice of the appeal court who, when he was a judge.

was the premier judge of this province. Yet we had a number of events

which left a lot of doubt in the minds of the public, particularly in

respect to sudden sealing of evidence. There was an exchange of letters

between Crown counsel and defence counsel. During the case the defence

counsel went to the supreme court to get a ruling. He later wrote to

the Crown counsel saying: "If the ruling is not successful then I think

that my client will be prepared to plead guilty, you will not have any

cause to call witnesses, and the matter will be finished." It happened

that at the time of the trial in 1979, there were some 80 witnesses

that had been subpoenaed, 25 of them for the Crown. Yet a plea of

guilty was entered and the case came to an end.

I suggest to

you. Mr. Chairman, and to the Attorney-General, that given all of the

facets of that particular case an inquiry is in fact warranted. It is

warranted in order to clear

[ Page 3958 ]

the

air in respect to how this thing was dealt with. I think it's not

sufficient.... I appreciate what the Attorney-General said. He made

some reference to the Judicial Council, but we're now dealing with

something that is clearly within his jurisdiction. That was the

information or advice that Mr. Waddell got from the Minister of

Justice. Let me ask the Attorney-General — because he did say, and I

don't want to quote him wrongly.... When I said to him, "Were you

satisfied?", I don't think he said that he was. I accept that. But

surely, at this stage of the game, in terms of what we're talking about

now.... I've been trying to get this matter before the House for

several months. I first raised it in March of this year and now I'm

raising it again. It seems to me that if the Attorney-General, in

consultation with his cabinet colleagues, decides that there have to be

investigations into certain matters — and I've listed some of them —

surely there has to be an investigation into something as crucial to

the justice system.

I think we should bear in mind, and I

mean this in all seriousness, that we're not talking about

head-hunting. We're talking about an atmosphere that was left after the

conclusion of a case, which frankly, in my opinion, was an

unsatisfactory way of dealing with it. It involved the chief justice of

the appeal court, who was picked up on a wiretap that was applied for

and granted specifically for the purpose of getting evidence on an

individual who was involved in trafficking in drugs. That's probably

the most unusual situation that you can have. It's certainly the most

undesirable situation you can have, in terms of our justice system, to

have that take place. That's what took place.

It's very

unfortunate, as much as the Attorney-General wants to plead in terms

of.... He is the person responsible for the administration of law on

behalf of the government., Surely he is not going to be in a position

to tell this House that he is satisfied with the way the Farris case

was handled. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, I am not satisfied with it.

I spent many, many years in the corrections field, and constantly was

seeing people who were at the other end of the system of justice who

were not always happy with the way they were dealt with. Sometimes you

could say to them: "Well, you're over 2 1, you did what you did, that's

the way you get dealt with." Sometimes you spent time telling them on a

person-to-person basis that the system is not set up to particularly

pin you to the wall, but that it's a system that's for everybody. But

I'm not convinced that the application of justice in the Farris case is

the kind of application that is available to everybody in this

province. I think that's what's important about this.

There

should be an inquiry. It was suggested a long time ago. The newspapers

tended to take the exotic from it; then when it settled down they

started to talk about justice and the difference of the application of

justice depending on who was involved. I'm saying to you that this case

should not sit the way it is. I find it very difficult to accept the

statement by a former Minister of Justice, who said: "Yes, we were

having an investigation, but the man resigned. He's not a judge now;

therefore we don't continue to investigate." My gosh, I find that very

difficult to understand. Is that the way out? Do you just resign and

you're no longer responsible? What does that do for the system here?

No,

from what the Attorney-General has told us this afternoon, he is aware

of the complaint by the private citizen which was made some months ago.

He is aware, I presume, of most of the facts surrounding the case. He

has presumably read the transcripts, read the letters between Jardine

and the defence counsel. Jardine is one of the Crown counsel involved

in the case in the early stages.

Let me read you a letter that was sent to Mr. Jardine by Robert Gardner. He wrote it on September 14, 1979:

Crown counsel's office,

Main Street,

Vancouver.

Attention: James W. Jardine, Esq.

Dear Sirs:

Re: Regina v. Wendy King

This is further to our brief discussion the other day and

our earlier understanding in this case that if my preliminary application failed

I would, in fact, not proceed with the trial, but would plead Wendy King guilty

and, of course, due to the dearth of evidence, Mr. Raymond Younge's case

would be stayed.

For

the interest of the members, Mr. Raymond Younge was the individual,

apparently, in connection with whom the application was made to get the

wiretap.

He goes on:

So that you do not have a witness problem, and to avoid

the voluminous amounts of preparatory work that your office otherwise would

have to carry out, this letter is to indicate to you my intention for this coming

October.

Naturally, and I know that you can not give me a specific

statement in this regard, but I understand that the attitude of the Crown to

a jail sentence with respect to Wendy King is not particularly adamant. In other

words, it would be helpful upon the dispensation of this case if the Crown were

not banging their fists upon the table screaming "jail" — as so frequently

happens these days.

Yours truly,

Robert Gardner

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Have you got the letter that responded to that?

MR. LEVI: Well, shortly afterwards the trial took place, and they discussed....

The

Attorney-General asked if I had the answer. As I understand it the

trial took place, some discussion was had in cour