1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page 945 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

The Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation Act (Bill No.

103) Hon.

Mr. Williams. Introduction and first reading — 945

Development Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill No,

102) Hon.

Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 945

Proceedings Against The Crown Act (Bill No. 107) Mr.

Chabot.

Introduction and first reading — 945

Committee of supply: Department of the Attorney General estimates, Hon. Mr.

Macdonald — 945

Mr. Smith — 946

Mr. Gardom — 949

Mr. Lauk — 953

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 956

Mr. Chabot — 956

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 958

Mr. Curtis — 958

Ms. Young — 960

Mr. Brousson — 961

Mr., Wallace — 964

Hon. Mr. Levi — 967

Motions No. 33 (Hon. Mr. Williams) Examination of guidelines on stream bank

and shoreline protection — 969

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 969

Mr. Wallace — 969

Hon. Mr. Williams — 969

Motion on oral question period (Hon. Mr. Hall) — 970

Motion on bound volume of Hansard (Hon. Mr. Hall) — 970

FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 1973

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I have great

pleasure in informing the House that a group of students from

Victoria High School with their teacher, Bill Ashwell, are in

the gallery today and I trust the Members will welcome them in

the appropriate manner.

Introduction of bills

THE PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

INCORPORATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Williams moves introduction and first reading of

Bill No. 103 intituled The Pacific National Exhibition

Incorporation Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 103 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I have

the honour to present a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor.

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor herewith

transmits a bill intituled Development Corporation of

British Columbia Act and recommends the same to the

Legislative Assembly, Government House, March 1, 1973.

Bill No. 102 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CROWN ACT

Mr. Chabot moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

107 intituled Proceedings Against the Crown Act .

Bill No. 107 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL

On vote 16: administration, Attorney General's department,

$74,004.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Chairman, this

is a very modest request of the committee, for a modest sum of

money for a very important portfolio.

AN HON. MEMBER: A very modest man.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I hope to be able to listen to the

suggestions of Hon. Members in the course of this debate

because it is an unfolding new programme — a kind of exciting

thing that I hope is happening in terms of legal service and

protection for the people of the province. But I want to listen.

I would like to say one thing about a matter that is not

only important but has engaged the attention of this House; and

that is the mortgage brokers field. I intend, within a very few

days — three or four days — to place legislation before this

House. It is a matter which has given me concern, and it has

given the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.

Brousson) concern. It has given many other people concern, and

people are being badly hurt.

I regret we have to look in terms of law enforcement and

prosecutions and personnel in the civil service to try to find

out where a person is being hurt, and then go in and

investigate and so forth. But that is the kind of world we have

been living in, you know. I know people are not being hurt in

these ways in the social democracies of the world like the

Scandinavian countries. I have said that before, but I mean

that. We have got to increase our real services to people in

terms of housing and shelter and needs, so there are not

desperate people who go above ground within the law, or

underground if the law stamps it all out, to borrow money at

exorbitant interest rates.

I have listened to the debate. I may say to my Hon. friend

from North Vancouver–Capilano that I rather regretted that he

kind of dodged the issue. The issue is under what circumstances

should a government step in and close down a private business.

We can't control the interest rates as such. I appreciate that

is a matter that should give us all concern.

[ Page 946 ]

I ask my friend, on what conditions this ought to be done.

Under what circumstances, the rate of interest, such and such,

the kind of transaction, assuming they are within the law — because most of them are. If they are outside of the law, it is

easy, But that's a bullet the Hon. Member steadfastly refused

to bite. I think it is being tackled in this bill.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Some of them

are outside the law now.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's easy. Now, if we find that, they

will be prosecuted or investigated or their license can be

suspended under the existing law. It is the ones that are

within the law, you know — we have to set standards. I intend

to set standards whereby if in the opinion of the registrar,

with an appropriate appeal, the mortgage broker is engaging in

unconscionable transactions or is conducting his business

contrary to the public interest, his license will be picked

up.

I think it should be done in this field. In the meantime

let's hope the other Ministers, like Municipal Affairs, like

the Minister of Finance — financial assistance to homeowners

and that kind of thing — will build up our social services in

this province, as I'm sure they will, so that in this kind of

capitalistic jungle in which we live, in another part of the

forest good people are not being torn and gored as they are

being today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This seems to be a day when we have broken a little new ground

in the Legislature. Our first Friday morning sitting. It's also

a new experience for both the Attorney General and myself. He

is taking his estimates through the House for the first time

and I am standing on my feet to lead off a debate in that

respect for the first time. Perhaps we will both learn a little

bit during the course of this session.

I was interested in the Attorney General's remarks that he

wants to listen. We also hope he wants to answer a few

questions.

It must be apparent to all of us right at this moment that,

while you may want to listen, you are not particularly

interested in listening, at this moment at least, to our

comments about the Pacific National Exhibition, or a

development corporation in the Province of British Columbia. It

seems to me, Mr. Chairman that those bills were deliberately

brought in this morning to stifle debate…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: …on the content of those bills. Certainly if

the Attorney General believes in open government he could have

either delayed those bills until after this morning's session…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The PNE isn't under me.

MR. SMITH: …or brought them in next Monday. Certainly it

cuts off any meaningful debate that we may have been able to

have in your estimates regarding these two very important

matters.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The matters are under the A.G., so go ahead.

MR. SMITH: Under development corporations, is not part of

your department under another hat?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, we haven't reached that yet.

MR. SMITH: I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that there is an

agreement that when we're in the Attorney General's estimates,

and his salary, that the debate can be fairly wide ranging

because of the fact that he does wear two hats. One is the

Attorney General, and the other is Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce. Are we not going to be able to debate in a

general way philosophy and so on, in both areas of his

responsibility?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, a point of, order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated for a

moment?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: My friend has raised a very valid point.

But these fields are so dissimilar that I think it's in the

interest of the Opposition as well as the Government that we

discuss them separately, so that debate on the industrial

development thing can take place when we reach that vote.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, then might I say this. Will you

allow latitude? And is the Attorney General prepared to give

the Opposition a fair amount of latitude in the debate under

Industrial Development?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: If we're not going to be able to examine it in

broad terms during the Minister's estimates on Industrial

Development, then we might as well have the debate now on both

the A.G. and Industrial Development, although I would prefer,

and I think the rest of us would prefer, to do it the other

[ Page 947 ]

way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Up until now we've had the

cooperation of the House in respecting the wishes of the

Minister. I think that the proper thing to do now would be to

respect the desire of the Minister to debate these matters

separately. Therefore I will so rule from the chair that we

will do this.

MR. SMITH: I'm prepared to accept the ruling. And it's not

that we want to complicate it. It's that we want to be able to

discuss in broad terms Industrial Development when we get to

that point, at the appropriate time.

The Attorney General at times during the past few months has

made a number of comments. Some of them of course have been

recorded in the Press. I think that they indicate, in broad

terms at least, some of his philosophy — the philosophy of his

position as both Attorney General and the other Minister's hat

that he wears. I presume that some of the things that he has

said reflect what is being contemplated by the Minister.

In my experience, Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that

I've seen a Minister become so discouraged so quickly. He's

only been in the chamber for about 20 minutes and he's already

left.

In any event, I believe that we would like the benefit of

the Attorney General's philosophy on a number of different

points.

One of the things that we would like to discuss with him is

his position on an ombudsman for the Province of British

Columbia. He has certainly indicated in a number of speeches

that he would be prepared to act on the matter of providing a

provincial ombudsman to this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is a private Member's

bill before the House.

MR. SMITH: I would think that the Minister might want to

state a position, as he has done previously in the Press, as to

where he stands on the matter of…

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a bill before the House, Hon.

Member.

MR. SMITH: I'll pass on to another particular point that I

wish to discuss with the Minister. And that is the matter of a

B.C. Human Rights Act, and his position on that. He's indicated

in broad terms that there would be changes. What is it that he

has in mind? What type of changes would be made? When can we

anticipate the legislation that may be pending at this time? Or

when does he intend to bring it into the House?

The Attorney General, speaking as the Attorney General, has often referred to his position on the petroleum

industry in the Province of British Columbia, and he may want

to touch on that today and enlarge upon it under his Industrial

Development portfolio. But he has time and again indicated the

fact to the Press and to the public that the Province of

British Columbia should be in the petroleum business,

particularly in the refining end of it.

I'd like to know if that includes, in his mind, the

take-over of the petroleum industry in the Province of British

Columbia. He can comment generally on some of these things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask you to confine your remarks to the

Attorney General's estimates.

MR. SMITH: There was a comment or two made by the Attorney

General in the past concerning the preservation of communities

in the Province of British Columbia. He's talked many times

about the preservation of the small town complex in the

province. I would hope that he would comment on what he really

means in this respect by the "preservation" of these towns.

We would like to know something about his position regarding

consumer protection in the province, and what he intends to

bring in in the way of legislation, if anything, in that

respect.

Frankly I want to bring up a matter which I think directly

concerns the Attorney General. I'm not prepared to bring it up

until the Attorney General himself is on the floor of the

House, because I believe that I would like the benefit of his

presence when I discuss it, since it's a matter of police

harassment, in my estimation. I'm certainly not prepared to

discuss it until he comes back to the floor of this

chamber.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Let's have a brief

recess.

MR. SMITH: If the Minister is going to be absent I'd suggest

to the Hon. Chairman that we recess this debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would rule that you must

either continue your discussion or else take your seat and have

another Member take his place.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, if the Attorney General is not

prepared to be in this Chamber at a time when we are going to

discuss his estimates, then I move that the committee rise and

report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the committee rise and

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[ Page

948 ]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

Richter

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Gardom

Brousson

Curtis

Wallace

NAYS — 34

Hall

Macdonald

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Calder

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Lea

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Member for North Peace

River.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's nice to see the

Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) back in his chair after a

brief absence. If it takes a division bell to get him back

there, well perhaps that's for the good of the House and

everyone else that's in it.

I'd like to comment briefly on three or four items and ask

the Attorney General to comment on them.

While he was speaking earlier in debate, he made a reference

to the need for more legally trained judges, particularly in

the rural areas of the Province of British Columbia. Now I

agree with him that this is a necessary direction in which to

proceed, but as one who comes from a rural area, I know the

difficulty we have in finding adequately trained people in the

law profession to go into those areas, let alone people who may

be in the judiciary, to settle there. There is also always the

problem that even though you may want to appoint someone who

has had a number of years of legal experience as a lawyer, if

they are successful in their chosen field of law there's a

reluctance on their part, of course, to abandon their practice

and go to the bench.

I'd just like to have the Attorney General expand if he

would, when he's speaking, on how he intends to accomplish what

in my opinion is a very worthwhile objective, this matter of

getting more legally trained people into the judiciary and

therefore providing all areas of the province with a higher

level of expertise on the bench.

I note that the Hon. Attorney General commented on the increase of $1.5 million

in the field of legal aid. He specifically referred to civil law, to neighbourhood

law offices, duty councils and Indian court workers. I would wonder if for the

benefit of Members in the House when he is on his feet he'd comment a little

more specifically on the areas that he intends to go into in this respect.

I noticed that he indicated need to revise the Small

Mortgage Loan Act , and I would hope that he

would comment on that in a general way at least when he is on

his feet, indicating to us what he has in mind.

He indicated a concern about not only the number of real

estate salesmen and the number of people taking real estate

courses in the Province of British Columbia, but also the high

mortality rate, in terms of those who graduated from the

course, as related to the people who actually enrolled. There

is over a 50 per cent failure which, I agree, is too high.

The indication was that perhaps there should be some

pre-licensing course for real estate salesmen. I think that's a

point well taken. In other industries you have, quite often,

either pre-licensing courses or a preliminary licence that is

issued for a period of six months or a year, during which time

you must complete a study course to the satisfaction of the

department, before you're granted a full time licence. I would

hope that he would comment further on that when he's replying

to some of the questions that are put to him this morning.

Now I would like to deal specifically with one matter of

which I know the Attorney General is aware. It's been brought

to the attention of his department, but to my knowledge at this

particular time the department, although they have investigated

the matter, have done nothing about it. It's a matter which

involves, according to a statutory declaration, and affidavit

that I have, police harassment at least and possibly police

brutality in the arresting of an individual in the Province of

British Columbia.

I refer, Mr. Attorney General, to a letter you received

January 17 from a Mrs. Gordon Erikson of New

Westminster, bringing to your attention a case which involved

her son in arrest at New Westminster by the RCMP, and bringing

to your attention the fact that she felt it was false arrest

and that her son was manhandled by the police at the time that

he was arrested.

I would like to quote a few excerpts from the affidavit that

was signed by her son, one Leonard K. Erikson, of

7904 Rosewood Avenue. This affidavit was sworn

before a notary on January 15, 1973.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Is it before the

courts?

MR. SMITH: It's not before the courts, no. Not to my

knowledge.

[ Page 949 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: If the Hon. Member is looking for a law case,

perhaps this is one he could act on, although I would say that

the people themselves have the responsibility for choosing

their own lawyer.

Anyway, the affidavit reads in part:

"When I arrived at the RCMP office in Port Coquitlam, at

that time it was indicated that the man went there to lay a charge against another

specific individual. I asked to see the prosecutor, Mr. Sims. I was told by

the clerk to go and sit in the waiting room.

I'd been waiting there for about

10 minutes when two police officers by the names of Corporal Keiz and Constable

Morgan came in and asked for Mr. Erikson. I answered that I was Leonard Erikson.

Corporal Keiz then said that I was to go with them to see the prosecutor.

When

we reached one of the halls leading downstairs, Corporal Keiz told me that I

was under arrest for non-support of my children for $100 per month, for the

months of January, February, March, April and May of the year of 1972. I told

him that I had the receipts at home to prove that I had paid for the support

of my children. He, Corporal Keiz, told me that I was lying and that he was

under orders to arrest me, and I would be imprisoned for 30 days in Oakalla.

The two officers then took me downstairs to the cells and told me to give them

my belt and everything out of my pockets.

I told them I wanted to make a telephone

call and I tried to telephone my father at his business number but the line

was busy. I then tried to telephone my lawyer and that line was also busy.

this time there were four officers standing around me. When one of the officers

told me that I was to go into the cell I protested that I had to let someone

know where I was in order to get the mistake of the charge corrected.

The four

officers grabbed me. One officer pulled my belt and in doing so tore two belt

loops from my pants. The other three officers removed everything from my pants

pockets.

The next thing I knew I was being pulled backwards, face-up, with my

arms and thrown backwards across a cot with my lower back striking the edge

of the steel bed frame, and I blacked out as my head hit the cement.

When I

regained consciousness I had extreme pain in my back and could not move my back

or legs.

Later a man who said he was a doctor felt my pulse and told me I was

all right.

I told him about my back and legs but he did not look at them. The

doctor then signed a paper which the police were shoving at him."

It goes on to indicate that the man did have a severe

contusion in the neck which was later verified by a doctor;

that actually the force of the fall did fracture a bone in the

back of his neck, and that he was not able to move; that for

the time being at least he was partially paralyzed from that

particular incident.

The affidavit indicates that he had in fact made payment

through the courts for the payment on behalf of support of his

children; that the money had been paid into the courts; that

certainly from that standpoint there was no reason for the

officers to arrest him.

He was later released. But at the time he was still in bad

shape physically and had to be helped out of the police station

into the car by his parents who finally located where he was,

even though they didn't know at the time what had happened or

where he had gone. He was not allowed to make a contact outside

of the two telephone calls he originally tried to put through

and found that the telephone lines were busy.

It would seem to me, Mr. Attorney General, that when this

case was brought to the attention of your department, you would

have proceeded with a thorough investigation of what happened.

The man did suffer a disability. It's a proven fact by

affidavits that he has, signed by expert medical advice, that

he was roughly handled. There's a question that perhaps the

arrest was a false arrest to begin with, in that they did not

allow him to prove the fact that he had paid the money that he

was required to pay for the support of his children into the

courts before they placed him in the jail cells.

I would hope that the Attorney General, who I'm sure must be

aware of this case — and I am sure that the Attorney General,

from what I have seen of him, is a man of compassion — would be

prepared to comment on the action that is presently pending by

the department of the Attorney General, or what actions he

intends to take on behalf of a man who I feel was badly

mistreated by the police authorities in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to discuss

a couple of items this morning, Mr. Chairman, with the Hon.

Attorney General; first of all as to whether or not he's going

to inform the public of British Columbia this morning that he's

going to be bringing in a right to sue the Crown.

It is no privilege, Mr. Chairman, for a citizen to have the

same rights against his government as his government has

against him; but it is a right denied in the Province of

British Columbia, It is a right that continues to be denied in

the Province of British

[ Page 950 ]

Columbia. I would tend to say, Mr. Chairman, that we've had

about the lowest "Dow-Jones" of law reform of any province in

Canada. It's high time — more than high time, it's critical time — that this right now be given to our citizens.

Even more particularly should it be given in view of the

very drastic steps that are being taken by the socialistic

government…

AN HON. MEMBER: Order.

MR. GARDOM: What do you mean, order? Don't you think they're

taking drastic steps, my friend? A "drastic-step" bill? Oh.

Well, I'm glad of that. I haven't seen that bill as yet.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, the point that I wish to make:

by virtue of the expropriative action that is being taken by

this Government, the citizens in the Province of British

Columbia are denied the right and the access to the courts to

challenge this awesome power of this socialistic

Government.

I'd like to say a couple of words about the ever-increasing

trend, Mr. Chairman, towards taking disputes between citizens

away from the courts and giving them to some independent

tribunal or arbitration board to resolve. Most of this I think

has come about, Mr. Chairman, by virtue of the fact of the time that

it takes to get things through court, and does not necessarily

depend upon the cost.

Often people who elect to take the arbitration course, Mr.

Chairman, even though they may have to pay an arbitration board

upwards of, say, $1,000 a day and even hire counsel themselves — they could have had the election of going to court and having

a trial within the four walls of a court where the judge

charges about $5 a day for use of his courtroom.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, quite tragic indeed that we

have spent all of this time — in fact centuries of time — building up a progressive court system with qualified judges

and then finding the situation developing of them perhaps only

hearing these enormously difficult and enormously large cases,

such as the B.C. Hydro and power construction case, with the

vast majority of disputes between citizens being relegated to

tribunals which are inadequately regulated — which I am going

to say a few words about in a moment — and inadequately

staffed.

These tribunals, Mr. Chairman, by virtue of not having a

clearcut process of administrative procedure in the Province of

British Columbia, can result in bringing about expensive

appeals because of very basic errors by particular board at

some time.

Governments have also, Mr. Chairman — and this is a

regretful point which could be cured effectively if the

citizens had the right to sue the Crown — been able to get

around this type of thing in the past by preventing anyone from

questioning the decisions of boards; for example, the Workmen's

Compensation Board and the Labour Relations Board. This seems to be a

very poor way of providing justice to our citizens.

We do have the courthouses, we do have the judges and we

have a very good body of law — although it's certainly in need

of reform and updating at all times. I don't think, Mr.

Chairman, that we should let all of this go by virtue of the

fact that we have not paid enough attention to the very

machinery of justice.

I do feel, Mr. Chairman, that we're going to run into a

situation of having more cases. The Attorney General has got to

start planning right now to request an increase in our Supreme

Court bench. Because I think by virtue of the legislation that

you're introducing — the Companies Act and the Land

Commission Act , to name just two — I tend to think that

you're going to see quite a bit of court congestion as a result

of these statutes. So I would commend the Attorney General to

consider those points.

Now here is one that is dishwater-dry I think insofar as the

public are concerned.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dishwater-dry?

MR. GARDOM: Dishwasher-dry — that is bad…It's early in

the morning. I apologize.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dishwater-wet.

MR. GARDOM: Dishwater-wet. Somebody's going to say I'm all

wet. Who's the first one to say that? You're all asleep at the

switch this morning or you'd have said that.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, this is rather a dry area in the

field of our law and one that has been exceptionally weak; that

is the rules for procedure in administrative bodies. I am going

to advocate, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney General gives

serious thought — and if the law reform committee has not yet

got this under study, that he instruct them to put it under

study — that we have in the Province of British Columbia an

administrative procedure Act.

The ground rules are very, very unclear here in the very

many boards and tribunals, both from the point of view of those

who are doing the administering and those who are being

administered. For example in the Department of Agriculture

we've got boards such as this: the milk board, the broiler

marketing board, coast vegetable marketing board, cranberry

marketing board; egg, fruit, grape, interior vegetable

marketing boards; mushroom, oyster and turkey marketing

boards.

In the department of the Attorney General we've got the

Liquor Control Board; in the Department of Finance, the

Assessment Appeal Board; in the Department of Highways the

Highway Board; in the Department of Labour we find five boards:

the Labour Relations Board, the Workmen's Compen-

[ Page 951 ]

sation Board, the Human Rights Commission, the Board of

Industrial Relations — and formerly the Mediation

Commission.

In the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources we

find the Pollution Control Board; Municipal Affairs has the

B.C. Housing Management Commission, the Municipal Financing

Authority; the Provincial Secretary has got five commissions,

and on and on and on. There seem to be 29 major boards, Mr.

Chairman, and there must be dozens more of minor ones that are

regulating the lives and the economies and economics of B.C.

citizens.

They have extremely wide powers, these tribunals, but few — in fact next to none, if any — rules of procedure. The rules of

procedure that they have, Mr. Chairman, are very widely

varied.

This is the premise that I wish to make here. The four tests

to a good law are these:

(1) Is it certain?

(2) Is it concise?

(3) Is it clear? and

(4) Is there a very simple and inexpensive procedure to get to

it?

Now we find the latter test through the court system, but we

do not necessarily find it through the administrative system. I

would say indeed it is the converse. I would say that in the

majority of cases not only the people who are appearing before

these tribunals are unaware of any kind of procedure but the

tribunal itself does not have any whatsoever.

So I say that we should have in the Province of British

Columbia an administrative procedure Act. It should include

eight basic principles.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member. There is a bill on the

order paper, No. 84, intituled Administrative Tribunals

Appeal Act . Therefore, I would ask that you not consider

the substance of this bill.

MR. GARDOM: I'm very glad you drew that to my attention, Mr.

Chairman. What number was that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 84.

MR. GARDOM: Good. I'd like to take a look at it. It only

deals with appeals, and I'm not talking about appeals. I'm

talking about administrative procedure for administrative

boards. This bill is on right of appeal from an administrative

board. I'm glad you mentioned that, because that's just one

restricted side and I'll be happy not to refer to it, save and

except maybe a sentence.

The statute should include eight basic points, one of which

is what the Hon. Chairman referred to. The first point, Mr.

Chairman, is that all people whose rights may be affected must

receive notice of hearing. The administrative rules must be

published.

(2) Particulars of the allegations should be furnished — like a statement of claim that you find in a lawsuit — giving

particulars of the allegations.

(3) There must be a proper hearing — and I do hope I'm

having the ears of the Attorney General to these eight very

vital and interesting points. Am I? Good. There must be a

proper hearing in public, excluding of course, Mr. Chairman,

cases where the public security is involved, but only in that

situation. The proper hearing in public must furnish the

parties the right to call and subpoena witnesses and documents

and to cross-examine so a case can be fully presented and

argued. There should be a record maintained, like there is in

the Supreme Court or County Court proceedings and like there is

in this very Legislature itself, and counsel should be

permitted to represent people.

(4) Decisions must be rendered by those who heard the

evidence; abolish absentee decisions.

(5) Reasons for judgments or reasons for findings must be

published.

(6) There must be a right of appeal — the point that you

referred to me a moment ago, Mr. Chairman.

(7) There should be one simple form of application to the

court if the administrative tribunal refuses to exercise its

statutory power or happens to follow an incorrect

procedure.

(8) The power should be granted for each tribunal to

incorporate detailed rules particular to its own function.

Now this procedure and this problem is not new; nor is it

unconsidered, Mr. Chairman. In 1939 — which goes back quite a

way — President Roosevelt ordered an investigation into

procedural reform in the field of administrative law.

In 1961 the Administrative Procedure Act was prepared

and adopted in some 25 American states.

The Donnemore Committee considered the matter in England in

1932; the Franks committee in 1955; New Zealand has measures

along the lines I've been talking about. What I've said is

essentially a compilation of the recommendation of the Ontario

Royal Commission into Civil Rights in 1968.

So I don't think we need another study. We just need the

Hon. Attorney General to get off his oars and bring in an

administrative procedure Act in the Province of British

Columbia. This should have come in many, many years ago and why

it never did is quite beyond me.

There's a great quotation which I would like the Attorney

General to remember. I quote Mr. Justice Frankfurter when he

said this: "The history of liberty has largely been the history

of procedural safeguards." Hence what I'm asking for here, Mr.

Chairman, is just those kinds of procedural safeguards for

administrative bodies — in order that we can define the

ballpark, see the game is played in the open with a proper set

of rules and certainly with an impartial referee.

I'd like to say a few words about legal aid and ask the Hon.

Attorney General just how far this legal aid

[ Page 952 ]

programme is developing in the province, and to what extent

he has had his negotiations with the Minister of Justice in

Ottawa.

There's no question, Mr. Chairman, that one characteristic

of the law that has burdened it from the very outset has been

gap has been closing, but far from significantly, and only as a

result of piecemeal efforts by individuals and private

organizations. It's high time that our society took the

position that legal aid is not only a social measure but is a

democratic right.

It was way back in 1838 that Charles Dickens, through the

mouth of the beadle in Oliver Twist , said, "The law is an ass."

I would say, Mr. Chairman, surely it's the height of assininity

in this day and age not to create a means of access to the law

that is equal to all.

There is no quarrel, Mr. Chairman, with justice being done

within the walls of the law courts, but it is very little

comfort to those who are unable to get through the door.

We have been talking about legal aid in this party and the

New Democratic Party talked a lot about legal aid when they

were in Opposition too. This has been going on for a number of

years in the Province of British Columbia. We feel there should

be a comprehensive, province-wide legal aid plan fashioned on

the Ontario programme — a form of Judicare. There would have to

be proof of need and it should be civil, certainly, as well as

criminal. I'd like the Attorney General to comment on that.

Before sitting down, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to refer to one

other item. This is something that may be somewhat difficult to

incorporate but something that is desperately necessary. This

would be trailblazing legislation, I suppose, of its kind in

Canada. It is to go ahead and establish a family forum for our

domestic courts.

This family forum, Mr. Chairman, should have far, far less

stress on the word and the role of "court," which in the

matrimonial sense today still conveys a feeling of antagonism

and bitterness and, in the case of the litigant, often a most

unbelievable departure from credibility.

The family forum, Mr. Chairman, and the concept of the

family forum, should connote something that would be more of

tolerance and forgiveness and compromise. In the sum total it

should be a means for the better understanding and better

solution of all forms of matrimonial strife.

The process has got to be modernized and I would say with a far greater latitude

in the Rules of Evidence, still leaving its weight for determination in the

hands of the arbiter and continuing with rights of appeal, which are fine and

dandy. But let's do away with these half-day arguments on admissibility as to

whether it is hearsay or it isn't, or whether it happens to fall within the

very multitude of exceptions.

The atmosphere — and this is the main point — the atmosphere

should be changed from one of fright and one of combat, which

it is today in the matrimonial field, to one of sympathetic

informality. The whole spectrum of domestic problems should be

phased into this one family forum, It should be as bright and

as pleasant as possible. It should be regarded more in the

light of a clinic dispensing cures and remedies for the various

aspects of family difficulties, rather than a court of last

resort.

In the past, Mr. Chairman, this is what it has been. We've

been following a surgical procedure, essentially, as opposed to

a procedure of preventive medicine. I would the forum should

concern itself with the totality of family problems — for

example: the less serious assaults, failure to maintain wives

or children, actions for the division of matrimonial property,

securing support for unwed mothers, adoption, the handling of

delinquents, claims for the custody and care of children,

actions for the dissolution of the marital tie, by annulment or

divorce or what have you.

Today, Mr. Chairman, these unhappy people find themselves in

about three forums. I think that's wrong. They can find

themselves, say, in the Family Court for support; they can find

themselves in the Supreme Court for custody and for

guardianship, and they can find themselves in the County Court

for division of the spoils of the matrimonial experience or

suits on separation agreements.

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

It's not just enough to have arbiters in the new service.

The new service should be staffed by trained professionals — psychiatrists and social workers, marriage and youth

counsellors — as I said at the outset of these remarks, people

who would be practising preventive medicine rather than just

first visit surgery. They would provide a great aid for the

judge as well as for the whole suffering family too.

These things cannot be done today, Ms. Chairwoman, under the

existing framework that we have. We have excellent judges, but

the antique concepts and mechanics that they are obliged to

work under prevent them totally from doing the job that I am

talking about. At the present time, the route is for the judge

to decide a winner. The concept today is totally adversary. I

suggest that it should be more of the inquiry kind of

concept.

In order to do this, Ms. Chairwoman, we definitely need a

re-orientation of attitude. We certainly need a departure from

the very tired old methods that we've been following. We need

remedial and counselling services. I say that the sooner we can

get to having a family forum to encompass all of these items

that I've been talking about in the Province of British

[ Page 953 ]

Columbia, we will have made the most startling advance into

something that is positive and something that will be of

assistance, and something that is needed in Canada.

There have been trial projects, I gather, in the United

States of America and I understand that they're working most

effectively. I would appreciate having the comments of the Hon.

Attorney General on certain of these items that I've discussed

just now.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Ms. Chairperson, At long last the

Opposition gets to see how it's done. (Laughter). Do you want

to bring some more of your people in? The Hon. Liberal leader

will be taking notes, of course.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you want that case — or don't you?

MR. LAUK: You can catch it later in Hansard . Ms.

Chairperson, I would like to comment on two or three

things.

First of all, I would like to say that I am going to vote in

favour of vote 16.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was an agonizing decision.

MR. LAUK: Because I think that the present Attorney General

is almost as good as his father and he has every opportunity of

doing even better.

There are several things that I wanted to raise. I want to

first of all say how encouraged I am with the conversations

that I've had with the Hon. Attorney General and his department

with respect to legal aid and with respect generally to the

administration of justice. There are many problems in this

province and I don't think I'm going to play the game of

blaming it on the former administration.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): You admit it's a

game?

MR. LAUK: In this case only, it would be a game. I feel that

problems about the administration of justice — although there

was severe neglect — were perhaps not too readily understood by

previous Attorney Generals. I can assure this House that the

present Attorney General does understand the problems involving

legal aid, involving the high population of Indians in prisons

and involving the prestige of the provincial court Bench.

I know that the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. Gardom) and I probably felt on many occasions that

provincial court judges shouldn't have been paid at all. That

depended upon the decision that we were receiving at the time.

But after the emotion of the day subsided, I think both he and I

and most of us who are familiar with the operation of the

provincial court in this province are a little disturbed at the

pay and the working conditions that these ladies and gentlemen

receive.

They are people who, in many cases, have sacrificed

lucrative private practice to go and serve the public in a

different way. Presently, Ontario judges of the same level of

court are receiving more. I would ask the Attorney General to

conduct a through review of these salaries. They don't have any

bargaining rights. They don't have a union so that they can sit

down and discuss working conditions and their salaries with the

government. I think that they have had shabby treatment in the

past.

Their salaries and working conditions, I must say, Ms.

Chairperson, directly relate to the respect with which the

public holds the courts and, in fact, the degree of comfort

with which they sit on the bench themselves. So I would ask the

Hon. Attorney General to conduct an immediate review of that

situation through the new Chief Judge, His Honour Laurie

Brehan.

I want to touch upon something that I consider much more

serious, in the sense that it is of serious consequence to us

today. It's a case that arose during the Christmas period,

during a trial up north in Quesnel. I want to emphasize that

this particular case is not the exception. There are several

cases similar to this that have occurred over the years.

It is a problem not with the Department of the Attorney

General. It's not a problem with the administration of justice

generally, perhaps, except that I will suggest one or two

changes that can be made. But it is one of those unfortunate

problems that has existed for all too long and must end, I'm reading from a newspaper that was sent to me. It was in

the Williams Lake Tribune. There's no date on it, but it

reported a trial that took place on December 19. I know that

the Hon. Attorney General has a copy of this and has expressed

the same grave concern over this situation as I do now.

A jury of 11 men and one woman deliberated for over four

hours December 19, before finding three young Quesnel men not

guilty of forcibly seizing and indecently assaulting a young

Indian girl.

Testifying during the nearly week-long trial were the

17-year-old Nazko girl allegedly assaulted; another 14-year-old

girl of the Cluscas, her companion the evening prior to the

alleged incident; and another person, Ivan Squallian, aged 20,

of Redstone, her companion at the time she was allegedly

seized. There were no defence witnesses called at this

trial.

During the evidence, it was described that one of the

accused stopped a car, in which there were three persons, got

out and attempted to drag the victim into the car. On the

following day, the victim, the same girl, and a boyfriend were

hitchhiking along the

[ Page 954 ]

road. A car with the same three occupants stopped. The girl

was seized, taken and assaulted.

There was evidence also of a female companion of the three

accused persons, which tended, accordingly to the article, to

support the evidence of the prosecution. There was the evidence

of two confessions each from at least two accused, both

contradictory, which would lend corroboration and support for

the evidence of the prosecution. The three accused were

acquitted. The 12 jurors were white.

I will say no more about this except that it's an outrage.

It's a travesty of justice. I haven't read the transcript. I

don't know whether the Attorney General's department has. I'm

not saying single out this case, but I will say this. We have

to realistically sit down and review the jury system in this

province. If we can't rely on the RCMP or our sheriffs'

officers to try and balance these juries, especially in the

specific instance when they're trying Indians or when their

victims are Indians, we're going to have to write it into the

law. Thank you.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Ms. Chairman, can I answer a couple of

questions briefly? Then I happen to be informed that the Hon.

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) has an

urgent matter that he wants to bring up. So I though I'd just

answer a couple of the questions. It may be that the committee

would agree with your recognizing him as the next speaker.

Just an answer briefly to the last speaker. That trial….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Your leader has been on his feet.

MR. PHILLIPS: Which leader?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There shouldn't be any levity about the

case my friend referred to because that was a serious case.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was not serious.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, that's up to the committee. I'm

making a suggestion.

It was very hard for me to understand the verdict brought in

by the jury in that case. Yet I think it is a matter that has

to receive further study.

We have instructed the sheriff's officers, when Indians are

involved in a case, to try to have Indians on the jury. On the

other hand we are under the panel system where the defence can

stand up and challenge this person, that person and that person

and it is very hard under those circumstances still to have

Indian people on the jury where Indian people are involved.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm not sure of the dates, but I don't

think there is any chance of an appeal. It's a verdict by a

jury on the facts, and it is very hard to appeal that kind of

thing.

I will mention, before I answer the other questions of Hon.

Members in the field of policy, that in respect to the

complaint brought up by the Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith)

addressed to us by Mrs. Gordon Erikson, I have had a full

report from the police officers concerned and it varies very

substantially. It is only fair to say is. I am not going to

read the contents of it, but it varies very substantially with

the report of the complainant, As I say, I don't want to read

that, because this evidence has not been tested out. We have

now informed Mrs. Erikson that the police disagree with this

version of the facts.

In a case like this, nobody has to come and see me. But I

will make this offer to Mrs. Erikson, that if she wants to come

to Victoria and see me, it is this kind of case, I think, that

deserves at least half an hour of my time or maybe more. That

is up to her whether she wants to do that. If she does want to

come to Victoria, I'll set aside the time and I will see her

personally so she can see both reports.

Then if she wants to take matters further that will be

entirely up to her. If there is a problem of the expense of the

ferry, that is a very small detail really in the circumstance.

I would be glad to see that she gets it.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: I would like the House to advise the Chair

if it would give the right to speak next to the Hon. Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I don't think you should

question…

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The chair recognizes the Hon. Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman.

I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) for yielding

his position in this debate to me, I promise to be very brief.

When speaking in the estimates of the Hon. Premier and

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) two days ago, I raised

with him the matter of conversion of rental apartment units to

condominium ownership units and I gave a specific example which

had occurred in my constituency. That particular case

[ Page 955 ]

was one which involved an apartment largely occupied by

older fixed income people.

Last evening I was advised of a similar situation which is

occurring in the municipality of Saanich on Tillicum Road. This

morning I met with a number of the tenants of the apartment

complex there.

I wish to present these matters to the Hon. Attorney General

with a suggestion that he might consider implementing. I might

say, first of all, that the people have been in touch with the

Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) in his

capacity as mayor of the municipality and that he will be

meeting with them this afternoon. Ms. Chairwoman, I refer to a

complex which was known as Burnside Garden Village and is now

called Parkside Place.

On November 27, 1972, a letter, on the letterhead of Nacel

Properties Limited, was sent to each of the tenants. I have

copies for the Attorney General. I will read this letter.

"I am pleased to announce that our company has purchased

Burnside Garden Village. On November 30, 1972, we will change

the name of the development to Parkside Place. We wish to

assure all tenants that Mr. George Croft and staff will

continue to manage the property in order that we may maintain

the high standard of operation that has been associated with

this project over the past year.

"As soon as weather permits we will be decorating and

repairing the exterior of each building and all interior common

areas. It is our intention to make Parkside Place a more

attractive place to live.

"Parkside Place will be converted from a rental project to a

self-owned condominium. We believe that we can offer the

present tenants one of the finest family condominiums in

Victoria.

"Condominium living offers to the owner all the advantages

of apartment living along with the financial advantages of

owning your own home. The present government regulations make

it advantageous for each person to own their own apartment.

"If you should not wish to purchase a suite, you may

continue to lease your present accommodation at existing rents.

Your present lease will be fully honoured and extended.

"I will be contacting you to arrange an appointment at your

convenience and to discuss your personal interests. For your

convenience, I will be residing in suite 370, starting December

4. You may also leave any message with Mr. George Croft at the

office."

It is signed by Mr. Gene Haibeck, Manager of Nacel

Properties Limited.

Ms. Chairwoman, this apartment development is occupied by people of very modest

means. As a matter of fact, two of the ladies with whom I spoke this morning

have husbands who are unemployed and they are in receipt of welfare.

Subsequent to November 27, 1972, a further letter was

received by these tenants. Unfortunately I do not have a copy

but I am advised that the import of that letter was to say that

if the suite that he occupied were sold, the tenant would have

60 days to get out but if he couldn't find accommodation, this

company would make other accommodation available in the same

complex. They were also advised that someone would visit them

about the terms of sale. This letter gave to these tenants the

right of first refusal to purchase their particular suites.

Since that date no one has approached any of these tenants

with respect to offers for sale and on February 16, 1973, this

further letter came. It again is on the letterhead of Nacel

Properties Limited:

"As you are probably aware, the suites in Parkside Place are being sold as condominium units under

the Strata Title Act . Many two- and three-bedroom suites were

sold to our existing tenants and all the vacant suites were

sold to non-residents of Parkside Place. Our low prices have

created a brisk sales demand and in order to make suites

available to our purchasers, we are regretfully asking you to

vacate by March 31, 1973.

"If vacating by March 31 creates many serious difficulties

for you, please telephone me at 386-0070 to discuss the situation personally.

Thank you for your tenancy with us. Yours truly."

And again it is signed by Mr. Haibeck.

Ms. Chairwoman, the fact of the matter is that having

received that last notice, given in light however of the

earlier letter which indicated to these people that if they

didn't wish to purchase they could continue to lease at

existing rents, many of these tenants, being unable to afford

to even contemplate the purchase of their apartments, have gone

out and attempted to find alternative accommodations. They are

doing so, as I pointed out, by reason of their receipt of

notice that they are to vacate by March 31, 1973.

Some of them have been fortunate in finding accommodation.

They are now advised however, and some of them wish to move out

this weekend, that they cannot move out unless they pay 30 days

rent in lieu of notice. One woman who moved out in the last few

days, after the moving truck had arrived, had her apartment

locked by the manager of the complex so she could not remove

her furniture. The door was not unlocked until she in fact

paid, the 30 days rent in lieu of notice.

This is a serious tragedy for these people, particularly as

they all have children. I don't wish to give the names of the

individuals, but the occupant of suite 3566 has two children,

3574 has two children, 3560

[ Page 956 ]

has three children, 3544 has three children, 3562 has two

children, 3550 has three children. It is extremely difficult

for these people with families of this size to find rental

accommodation which will accept them with their children.

Now, further detail came to my attention during the

discussion this morning. The occupant of suite No. 3570 was

willing to buy but was told that she couldn't buy because she

had children and this condominium was to be turned into an

adult-only condominium operation.

These people face an obligation today of finding alternative

accommodation if they can. They face the moving costs, they

face the obligation right now — if they find accommodation — to

pay one month's rent in lieu of notice plus the cost of moving

the telephone and utilities which total about $13. And none of

them are financially able to withstand this kind of economic

blow.

As I pointed out, the original letter indicating that this

was to be a condominium operation was sent on November 27. I

also find that two tenants who occupy suites 3558 and 3546

moved in in January and February and were given three months

leases and were not advised that this building was being turned

into a condominium operation. They, too, have received the same

notice to vacate.

This is a serious and difficult problem. It is a difficult

one, I appreciate, for the landlord as well as the tenants. But

it is a problem for which our laws as they presently stand do

not appear to provide any easy, equitable relief.

I suggest, Ms. Chairwoman, to the Hon, Attorney General that

this matter be placed immediately in the hands of his consumer

affairs officers and one of the solicitors of the Department of

the Attorney General for investigation. And that following such

investigation, the Attorney General and the cabinet in this

assembly give their immediate attention to providing the relief

which the circumstances may indicate.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. the Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On the matter raised by the Hon. Member;

we agree, of course, that the department will look into it

immediately. I hope the Member will make his information in

fuller form available to one of my officers.

Now beyond that, I think I have to say what the government

is going to do in this field. This seems to be a day when

everybody is asking us to announce legislation. I'm not sure if

it's positively out of order on estimates, but it's bad form.

But we're doing it.

We're going to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act with

respect to the kind of notice that has to be given in these

conversions and the kind of relief in moving expenses that

might be accorded a tenant.

We also have under consideration amendments to the Strata

Titles Act , through the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to

give municipalities some control over conversions.

Under the kind of procedure we've been following in this

House, we can pass the bills possibly reasonably soon. But

royal assent usually does not come until the end of the session

which might be May 15…. I don't know when the end of the

session might be. (Laughter).

But possibly, when the Hon. Member is speaking to my

department, we might bear in mind, whether in terms of

expediting bills or whether in terms of making it clear to

these people that the government is ready to proceed in terms

of protecting tenants in these conversion situations, if there

is any way in which retroactive legislation would be fair — bearing in mind that we're now making a ministerial statement

that we're concerned about it — they, from this point on,

should be careful that they protect the rights of those tenants

in the meantime. If that's fair within our laws we won't rule

that out either.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River. And

before he speaks, the chair wishes to thank him for his

graciousness in relinquishing his position in the speaking

order. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: You've left me speechless. (Laughter).

Madame Chairwoman, we're discussing a very important

estimate at this time. We're discussing the granting of the

salary to the chief law enforcement officer of the Province of

British Columbia.

Now, I think as we discuss this we should look back upon

some of his actions since he's become the chief law enforcement

officer.

One of these first actions he undertook after becoming

Minister was to cancel certain charges that had been laid

against certain construction unions — unions that had openly

defied the laws of this province.

I wasn't overly pleased with the reason given by the

Attorney General to the cancellation of these charges — the

particular law which they violated will be thrown out or

amended. Had he said "We don't have sufficient evidence to

pursue the defiance which was apparent," then I'd have

been satisfied. For him to say: "We're going to throw the law

out. They violated the law so we're not going to prosecute," appears to me, really, that the Attorney General was

anxious to assist his friends. And I don't think that defiance

of the law, be they friends of the Attorney General, should be

overlooked.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Friends had nothing to do with it. They

weren't my friends.

[ Page 957 ]

MR. CHABOT: There was tremendous haste on your part to throw

out these charges.

We read from time to time in the newspapers the sham battle

that is going on between Mr. Haynes and the provincial

government. And make no mistake about that; it really is a sham

battle because Mr. Haynes is the chief bagman for the New

Democratic Party. And in his role in collecting political funds

on behalf of your party he has finally received his

payment.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member imputing

any improper motives?

MR. CHABOT: The answer is no. I am saying that Mr. Haynes is

the chief bagman for the New Democratic Party. I'm just making

a statement.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, it's untrue.

MR. CHABOT: I'm making a statement. He's being paid off for

his active financial accumulation of funds when he was

appointed not too long ago to the judicial council. Now there

are people in British Columbia who are not overly happy with

that particular appointment, Mr. Attorney General. There's an

article here that says;

"Provincial court judges are beside themselves, with some

justification, over the NDP government's appointment of Ray

Haynes as one of the two lay members of the judicial council

who could conceivably wind up making recommendations to

discipline the judges.

"The appointment which is apparently designed to indicate

that there is nothing personal in the government's current feud

with the B.C. Federation of Labour is viewed as a disaster in

some legal circles.

"Nobody can object to Haynes being in position to screen

appointments to the bench. He probably has more smarts than

many people who could be named to the post.

"But even in the promised land when labour-management

relations are supposed to be better, the chances are still six,

two and even that Haynes, in his professional role as Fed.

Secretary, or somebody with whom he is associated

professionally can wind up in front of a provincial court

judge.

"His new role as a member of a body with power to recommend

disciplinary action against the judges could place the judge in

a ridiculous position. In fact almost any layman who is in an

action might create this conflict.

"The judges would prefer to see the disciplinary portion of

a judicial council function placed in the hands of higher court

judges.

"I'm wondering whether the Attorney General would give some

consideration to this recommendation of taking the matter out of the hands of

laymen and especially laymen who are friends of this Government."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On a point of privilege, Ms. Chairwoman.

If my friend, The Hon. Member for Columbia River, is making a

charge in terms of a pay-off or something of that kind, let him

put a motion of privilege — I think the proper motion would be

one of contempt — on the order paper of this Legislature.

If he is not prepared to take that course, let him shut up

about it because what he is saying is completely and totally

untrue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. CHABOT: Madam Chairman, I have conclusive evidence that

Mr. Haynes was counselling certain individuals in this province

to defy the laws of this province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: What I'm asking you as Attorney General is to

charge him.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Give me the evidence, I'll look at

it.

MR. CHABOT: A telegram on July 25 was sent to all recording

secretaries of unions in British Columbia, and it says:

"THE ELECTION HAS FINALLY BEEN CALLED. WITH THE RECENT

ACCELERATION OF THE BENNETT GOVERNMENT'S WAR ON THE TRADE UNION

MOVEMENT, INCLUDING THE UNPRECEDENTED RCMP RAIDS, AND WITH

LABOUR MINISTER CHABOT'S PROMISE TO BRING IN LEGISLATION TO

ELIMINATE UNION HIRING HALLS AND OTHER ESSENTIAL TRADE UNION

RIGHTS, IT SHOULD BE EVIDENT TO EVERY TRADE UNIONIST THAT THE

BENNETT GOVERNMENT MUST BE DEFEATED NOW.

BY CONVENTION DECISION, THE FEDERATION WILL BE ASSISTING

TRADE UNIONISTS AND OTHER NDP CANDIDATES. THE ASSISTANCE MUST

BE PROVIDED WITHOUT DELAY. WE URGE YOU TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO

CONTRIBUTE TO THE FEDERATION'S POLITICAL ACTION FUND WITHIN THE

NEXT TWO WEEKS.

TO ENABLE US TO GET THE BALL ROLLING, WE WOULD ASK YOU TO

ADVISE BY RETURN WIRE WHAT WE MAY TENTATIVELY EXPECT FROM YOUR

UNION. WHILE DIRECT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IS TO BE CENTRALIZED

THROUGH THE FEDERATION, YOU MAY ALSO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE

ASSISTANCE IN THE FORM OF MATERIAL AND MANPOWER TO THE

CANDIDATE IN YOUR AREA.

LET US TAKE NO CHANCES. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE THIS

GOVERNMENT RE-

[ Page 958 ]

ELECTED SO THEY CAN PASS FURTHER LEGISLATION AIMED AT WEAKENING

THE TRADE UNION MOVEMENT.

(SIGNED) RAY HAYNES

SECRETARY TREASURER, B.C. FEDERATION OF LABOUR."

Now, Mr. Haynes is counselling the unions to defy the laws

of this province; to defy the laws of this province absolutely.

And unions have openly admitted that they have defied the

Labour Relations Act . Openly admitted it, while the

Attorney General sits back and does nothing.

I want to know today, Mr. Attorney General, whether you're

prepared to take legal action against the breaking of the laws

of this province. Are you prepared to carry out an

investigation — if you're not prepared to take legal action, on

the basis of the violation of the Labour Relations Act

by the trade unions of this province?

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Order please. Kindly address the chair.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Attorney General — any answers?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't mind what order the answers are given,

but the other Hon. Member sat down.

MR. CHABOT: I asked you a simple question.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I'm giving you an answer, as soon

as you take your seat.

I've said what I've said about anything improper. Now if my

friend wants to do that, take the proper course, it is fine

with me.

Leaving that aside, you've asked me about the appointment of

Ray Haynes to the judicial committee, a non-paying job of

public service. He's appointed because he is secretary of the

B.C. Federation of Labour, and presumably one of the people — we

want labour representation on there, right? We want it to be

with this broad consultation with the trade union people.

We want people in the trade union movement involved in

understanding the laws and observing the laws. There might be

labour legislation or they might be criminal sanctions — you

can't see them broken in one field and upheld in another, or

winked at in another. So I think it's a valuable input that we

should have labour representation on the traditional council.

Now the make up of that council is Chief Judge Brahan the

treasurer of the Law Society of B.C. or his nominee, two

district judges, and they laymen.

Now in that kind of a council which is advisory, advisory

only and non-paying, I welcome the appointment, the acceptance

of the appointment, by Ray Haynes of that position. I think it's good that sections of a

community actively coming into, sometimes, collision with the

law should be part of the lawmaking and the judicial process.

Why not?

Now so far as any charges…if my friend's got evidence

that warrants action, submit it to my office. I've no objection

to looking at things even if they happened in the past, that

might warrant charges being laid. But you'll have to give me

something better than that letter you read.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. CHABOT: I've read to the Attorney General a telegram in

which Mr. Haynes has openly counselled the unions to break and

defy the Labour Relations Act of this province. I'm

asking him whether he is prepared to take legal action or

investigate this matter.

I think it's serious. It's quite obvious by the telegram

here that he collects money on behalf of the New Democratic

Party. Is that the reason, Mr. Attorney General, you are

unwilling to take legal action against Mr. Haynes? Is that the

reason?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Send me the telegram, but it's not an

offence to collect money for the New Democratic Party.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If you think that you can charge

somebody based on that telegram, I don't know what law school

you went to. I don't think there's a charge there.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Get some legal advice on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member asked me

another question and I omitted to reply to it. You asked me

about the dropping of charges. I'd just like to say, and I

think I explained it at the time, that this was on the

recommendation of the prosecutors, who in that case were George

Cumming and Bruce McColl, in no sense NDPers. They said that

because of legal difficulties the charges should be dropped.

That was the reason they were dropped.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Saanich and

the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands):

[ Page 959 ]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few general observations and

questions to the Attorney General and I hope they're within the

purview of discussing his salary.

First of all, I do appreciate the actions taken by the Hon.

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) in meeting

with some very concerned tenants, as he outlined fully. While

the Attorney General, through you, Mr. Chairman, knows that

municipalities have very little, if any, authority or ability

at the moment to assist, I will offer in my office in the

Municipal Hall this afternoon any assistance that the

municipality can grant immediately in this particular instance,

while the matter is being investigated by the more senior

government.

It's also, Mr. Chairman, easy to be timid about dealing with

the Attorney General's estimates in the presence of so many

learned members of the bar in this House, but I am going to

press on in any event.

I would like the Attorney General if he can to give us some

comments a little later with respect to night courts, or

evening courts as they may more properly be described,

particularly in the greater Victoria area. It seems to me that

there is a very real need for such a night court in the

metropolitan region of Victoria for reasons that have been

stated many times and in other areas.

The lawyers may not care too much for it, and judges perhaps

may be a little unhappy, But I'm aware of men and women losing

a number of hours of their employment and their payroll as a

result of having to go to court for one reason or another,

during the course of the day. I would commend consideration of

something such as that in this area.

Others more competent than I have spoken on the crowding of

court calendars, but I would underline the point which has been

made today and previously in that regard.

May I also ask through you, Mr. Chairman, that the Hon.

Attorney General spend a few moments outlining his philosophy

regarding the role of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the

province, and particularly in organized areas in municipalities

or cities. The point has been made quite recently in fact that

municipalities in British Columbia, some 12 of them I believe — I'm subject to minor correction on that — but about a dozen

municipalities have their own police departments.

They are in effect subsidizing RCMP policing in other

municipalities as well as over the province as a whole in

unorganized or so-called unorganized areas. There's no question

in my mind but that there must be greater financial assistance

to municipalities directly related to their efforts to police

the municipality concerned.

We can demonstrate rapidly escalating costs in local government throughout

the province, in maintaining a police force which is efficient, which is up

to strength and which is performing satisfactorily for the people of that particular

city, town or district.

As an example, I'm going to quote Victoria city and the

Municipality of Saanich, two reasonably large jurisdictions.

Saanich with about 66,000 persons, and a police budget this

year of something in the neighbourhood of $1.6 million. Now,

Mr. Chairman, through you, that's a very large portion of any

municipality's budget. There's no sign that its rate of climb

is going to slow.

In Victoria city, checking the figures from quite recently,

the actual budget for 1972 was approximately $1.9 million — Victoria city, with about 61,000 or 62,000 people.

This year, subject of course to cuts by the council or the

police commission in final budget stage, the police budget for

the City of Victoria could be about $2.3 million — that's

roughly 14 mills on the general tax base, a very, very large

percentage of the total operating budget for a

municipality, Unfortunately we're in an era when the image of the

policeman has suffered. This is not limited to greater

Vancouver or greater Victoria or British Columbia, but across

Canada and North America. The individual acts of harassment or

thoughtlessness or roughness or brutality on the part of a

single police officer attract the headlines. But it is often

the case that one bad incident overrides many, many,

day-in-and-day-out activities carried out by members of a

police department, in and with the community, and those too

often pass unnoticed.

In this area, as the Hon. First Member for Victoria (Mr.

Morrison) could explain, we have an organization called COSY,

the city organization sponsoring youth. Another one is called

SPOT, the Saanich Police Organization for Teens, working very,

very well — quietly, not often attracting the front page or the

lead story on a television newscast, but working regularly with

the young people of the community.

I think the municipalities — and I trust the Attorney

General, Mr. Chairman, through you, would agree — that the

municipalities are attempting to recognize that there is now a

new breed of police officer and that that type of candidate

should be very carefully sought out when police departments are

being added to. The phrase is rather trite, but I think it's

extremely valid — "Brains, not brawn." We want the best

possible men and women in our police departments.

HON. MR. MACDONALD : And more training facilities.

MR. CURTIS: I'm coming to that, Mr. Attorney General. May I

carry on?

We need more training facilities, as the Hon. Attorney

General has indicated, but we also need…

[ Page 960 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CURTIS: Gee, I don't think I had carbons when I was

writing this out.

We also need financial assistance in this training. A

typical municipality now is taking advantage of the Canadian

Police College for its senior and promising men, sending them

to the college for six or eight weeks at a time. There is a

form of subsidization at the federal level as a result, because

their room and board charges are very low and the actual

tuition charges are kept extremely low.

I think a typical and concerned municipality would also have

a pretty fair programme of in-service training. I am sorry that

it is no longer possible for a municipality to take full and

logical advantage of the Vancouver Police Academy training.

That was the case until very recently but, as I recall, the

former Attorney General, or the former cabinet, terminated the

programme of financial assistance in that particular

instance.

We really want to see our police people given every

opportunity to learn and keep up to date on such a wide variety

of programmes and training fields in their work.

I would also like to speak for just a moment about an

attitude concerning police commissions or boards of police

commissioners. I think they should be encouraged, or required

by provincial statute, to meet on a regular basis. It seems to

me that in some municipalities and cities perhaps the police

commissions meet two or three or four times a year.

They meet to have a cursory first look at the budget; they

meet a little later to examine the budget in greater detail and

to pass it on to the municipal council; then they probably

meet again in the summer or fall if some particularly pressing

matter comes before them. This isn't the rule but it does

happen. I am quite sure that there are many instances where

police commissions do not meet as regularly as I'm sure the

Hon. Attorney General would like them to meet.

I think also they should — and I would be interested to

learn if the Attorney General agrees — become more involved in

the canvassing or the screening and final selection of

candidates offering themselves in the police department.

Perhaps too often they're simply prepared to receive a list of

recommended candidates from the chief constable or someone else

in a senior position in that police department, and to approve

the list as it has been presented.

My personal philosophy is that really there is no more

important position to be filled in local government than that

of the police officer.

We have many individuals, men and women, offering themselves for work in police

departments, but the final screening gets down to very, very few indeed who

would be suitable to join the force. Over the course of three or four or five

years of replacing members of a police department and adding new members to

a police department, you really can, if you're careful, produce a very fine

department. Or, in reverse, by carelessly adding candidates, you can gravely

interfere with the quality of that police department.

Mr. Chairman, I think there are many other parts of the estimates which others more competent than I will

want to touch upon, but I appreciate the Attorney General

listening and making a few notes on these points.

We generally approve of the attitudes and actions thus far

of the Hon. Attorney General. I look forward to hearing him

answer these and other questions in the course of the next few

hours of debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. Many of us in this chamber are not lawyers, we are

not conversant with the niceties of legal jargon, the

subtleties of law. But we have to deal, in our capacity as

Members of this assembly, with problems of our constituents who

are dealing with the law.

Hopefully only about once in our lives we may have to go

through probate proceedings. It has been brought to my

attention on several occasions that there seems to be a lack in

the probate department in the ability to have wills probated.

They seem to take interminable lengths of time. During those

times people suffer.

I received a letter from a woman whose husband had died last

August. They had joint wills. According to their lawyer, there

was no difficulty as far as the estate went in who owned what,

and there were no problems existing at all.

However, in February this woman had still not received any

of the benefits of the estate. I don't know what she was living

on.

I turned the letter over to the Attorney General's

Department and asked them to advise her what could be done, how

this could be speeded up, how she could obtain access to the

funds in the estate. I asked them to advise me of their reply

to her.

I received the reply and, Mr. Chairman, I couldn't

understand it. If I couldn't understand the language, she most

certainly couldn't. It was gobbledegook.

On another occasion I am aware of a very similar situation

in the case of a widow who has $16,000 in term deposits that

are rightfully hers, but they are taking so long in getting the

estate probated, that she has had to go to the bank and get a

$4,000 loan to live on while the estate is being settled. Her

lawyer informs me that there is nothing wrong, it just

seems

[ Page 961 ]

to be held up in the Probate Department.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. YOUNG: This case I believe, if she requires $4,000, it

has to be five or six months.

As I read the estimates I do not know just where this comes

in the estimates. I just would like to know if some attempt is

being made to speed up the probate of wills and estates,

especially those that are unencumbered in any way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. BROUSSON: I don't normally have much to say in the

estimates of the Attorney General's department. But I will have

a little bit today on a couple of subjects.

I do think, Mr. Chairman, that the subject of consumer

affairs is clearly becoming one of the major issues of this

session. I was very pleased of course to hear the comments,

when he opened the debate this morning, from the Attorney

General that he is going to bring in legislation on the subject

of mortgage brokers. I think this not a matter of disagreement

between us; it is a matter of when or how we going to do it.

The faster the better as far as I am concerned.

I've had so much mail on this subject, as I've said before.

Really with the mail I've had this week alone, I could start

all over again to debate the whole thing and give examples. I

don't want to do that, of course.

I do want to say that I made the comment a week ago that I

was beginning to get some evidence on this matter of what I

consider to be very unethical referrals in this field. Since I

spoke on that a week ago I've had several other comments from

people who tell me this is just common practice. A financial

collection agency of some kind, knowing that a person is in

difficulties, will pass the word to one of the more unsavoury

kinds of mortgage brokers or finance companies and immediately

they get in touch. There is something in the way of cash or

some other consideration passed under the table.

I'm not sure how we can legislate against this sort of

thing, Mr. Chairman. But I have to agree with the Attorney

General, the more this sort of thing is publicized, the more

the sun shines in, the better chance the public has to

understand it and perhaps deal with it themselves.

I want to repeat one kind of case only, because I think it

one that is not understood by the public at all. I think it is

not understood on the basis of questions that have been given

to me, personally — it is not understood by a number of people

in this House.

That is the problem that I raised two weeks ago, first of all using Avco Finance

as a particular example. Again I want to say that it isn't fair to Avco to single

them out I suppose — a number of people like Avco use the same kind of technique.

This is where a gentleman wanted $1,000. He went into an

Avco office and made arrangements for his loan. They suggested

to him that perhaps he might like to have a little trip to

Seattle or something like that, so they increased the loan by

$300-odd. Then the insidious things they sold him; life

insurance, health and accident insurance, and fire insurance.

All of which he accepted without really thinking. Immediately

the loan became more than $1500.

This is the fact I was surprised to find so few people in

this House understand — and hardly any of the general public

understands — that when it goes over $1500 there are no

ceilings whatsoever on the interest. At $1500, the ceiling is

15.2 per cent. If it is $1501, there is no ceiling and usually

it jumps to 24 per cent. Fifty per cent more — more than that — three-quarters more than the ceiling. It is a tremendous

jump.

The Attorney General referred to this very briefly, to point

out that this is a federal problem. This comes under the

federal Small Loans Act which was last amended in this

area something like 17 years ago, 1956.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, Mr.

Chairman.

The British North America Act clearly gives the

subjects of banking and interest to the federal government.

While the province has such things as credit unions and

disclosure of the rates of interest and that sort of thing.

What I want to emphasize here, exactly as the Attorney

General has suggested, is that the federal government badly

needs pushing and that the Attorney General must call for a

federal-provincial conference at the first opportunity to press

very hard for this. This party for one will certainly support

action in this direction. I think it is long overdue.

The problems that we discussed in this area are not only

legal. I appreciate that the Attorney General is going to bring

in some amendments to the Mortgage Brokers Act . There

are not only legal problems and some of these must be dealt

with in other ways.

There is the problem that we have the poor credit risk.

There is the problem of homes that are outside the major urban

areas. As soon as you go outside a city like Kamloops, you run

into a different kind of problem entirely. The large

conventional mortgage companies, the banks, the trust

companies, and those sort of organizations literally refuse to

write those mortgages. I am not sure what the problem is with

Central Mortgage and Housing. Maybe there are some problems

with CMHC in those areas. I am not sure about that. There are

problems of small homes that people need to finance, that are

under a certain size.

[ Page

962 ]

The conventional mortgage company says, "We're not

interested. We don't want to be bothered with those." There are

certain kinds of unusual homes — unusual construction and so

on.

So I want to repeat the importance of perhaps the credit

pool that the Attorney General mentioned. Perhaps the assigned

risk plan that Frank Mazco of the Legal Aid Society in

Vancouver has been proposing. The law and legal changes alone

will not solve that area of problems.

I want to repeat the proposal that I made before to the

Attorney General. We need some kind of finance and mortgage

advisory council. I think we need to bring the industry in. If

this has to be done in some legal way, let's do it. But, I

think that unless we involve the industry in those areas, just

passing laws alone is not going to police them

satisfactorily.

If the Attorney General and the Government, with the

prestige of that office, will call in the industry; set up a

proper and fully representative and responsible board; point

out these problems and say, "How are you going to help us solve

them. If you don't want to help us solve them perhaps we may

find some way to force you." But isn't it better to involve the

industry on a voluntary and cooperative kind of basis. I think

the industry is ready for this.

In letter after letter different companies and individuals

have clearly said, "We would like to work with the Attorney

General and with the government in solving these problems.

There is a reputable side of this industry, "

Perhaps if they were called in they would have the

opportunity to set the standards of fees, the ethics — and help

the Attorney General do the policing which he points out is

very difficult to do by legal means and the law alone.

I've mentioned before not only the Legal Aid Society, I've

mentioned the Legal Assistance Society and the help that they

try to give in some of these areas. I've mentioned the Consumer

Action League.

I just want to speak a little about the Consumer Action League, Mr. Chairman.

Their address is 257 East 11th Avenue, in Vancouver. The same address actually

as the Legal Assistance Society. I want to tell you a little bit about the history

of the Consumer Action League, because I think there is a very important lesson

for this House to learn. This organization is worth some study and worth some

publicity. In 1971 the Consumer Action League really grew out of a research

project sponsored by the Company of Young Canadians. Now there has been a lot

of dishwater and mud thrown at some of the federal government projects like

LIP and OFY and the Company of Young Canadians and so on. I think this is an

example of something excellent that grew out of the Company of Young Canadians.

This research project got a couple of young people interested

and involved in this area and out of this, in the spring of '72

came the Consumer Action League. A grant from the B.C. Central Credit Union

of $1,000 got them going in a little office and from there they got an LIP

grant which began to pay a few salaries. They've been operating all this year,

since last summer, with three people under salary from the Local Initiatives

Project. These people have been acting as debt counselors to people in Vancouver.

They're very, little known by the general public. It's been a matter of the

word spreading with regard to the kind of services they have to offer.

Last fall they've published an excellent book which I

commend to everybody in this House to read. It's called a

Debtors Handbook — A Canadian legal guide to

handling creditors and avoiding debts. Someone commented that

at the price of $2.95 maybe they were getting

themselves out of debt.

But it's an excellent little publication. It's written by

Mike Culpepper and Allen Parker, the two people who were the

guiding lights, the moving spirits who gave inspiration to this

organization to get it off the ground. It's only been on the

newsstands since last November I think. I recommend it to

everybody in this House. Perhaps the Attorney General might be

willing to make it available to each of the Members of this

House. I think it would be a good investment.

Mr. Chairman, I think B.C. owes a debt to these young

volunteers. They are fine young Canadians who have shown the

way to the Attorney General, to the Government and to the rest

of us how to do something. I'd like to read some quotations

from their most recent newsletter. It's just one paragraph,

headed by, "Provincial government shows no signs of action," Mr. Chairman.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: This is just the latest one. Let me read it,

Mr. Chairman:

"February, 1973. There are no signs that the provincial government is going to do anything in the

consumer sphere this session. After working diligently to try

to persuade the government to create a consumer affairs

department, the Consumer Action League received a letter from

the Attorney General virtually writing the idea off. In part,

the argument was that such an entity was no cure-all.

Well, Mr. Macdonald, it may not be. What we said was, 'It would be a start.' It would give us a place to

go with our problems."

And that's my underlining — it would

give us a place to go with our problems, Mr. Chairman.

"Now, we aren't saying that you can't take care of things…" and they list some of the legislation they've been asking

for. Some of it the Attorney General has got on the way. I

won't read all that list because I give the Attorney General

credit for this.

[ Page 963 ]

Certainly, this is probably about three weeks old.

I think the key sentence that I wanted to read was what I

read so far — when are you going to do something about specific

consumer problems? "It would give us a place to go with our

problems." That's the important thing.

I had to find someplace, Mr. Chairman, to go with the file

that I developed on second mortgage, third mortgage, first

mortgage problems. I had to find someplace to go with the

problems of finance companies. I had to find someplace to get

these people advice. I've said that when I can accumulate the

whole thing in an orderly form, I'm going to take it to the

Consumer Affairs Office.

I just wonder, Mr. Chairman, how that present Consumer

Affairs Office is going to handle this kind of file. I see no

provision for it in the estimates of the Attorney General. Just

this morning, I think, he's committed the officer to go to

investigate a project that the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) raised.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that was another office.

MR. BROUSSON: Well, he mentioned the Consumer Affairs

Office, Mr. Chairman, and this is the office I'm talking

about.

This Consumer Action League is showing the way in two areas.

One, which I mentioned last week, is education. The kind of

thing they've printed here is education for the public to help

them in these areas. They're showing the way because they have

provided just one of the offices I have suggested — the

storefront consumer advisory office that I called for across

the province. They've provided one, at 257 East 11th Avenue in

Vancouver.

I think the Government should look at this pilot that

they've offered us and consider how little the provincial

government has done in comparison to that pilot. That pilot now

has three debt counselors operating in one part of Vancouver.

The Consumer Affairs Office has its officer, who is also for — I don't know — 20 or 25 per cent of the time, chairman of the

Hearing Aid Board. He has an administrative assistant and he

has a secretary. The Consumer Action League has more than that;

yet they're one office in Vancouver.

Other provinces, Mr. Chairman, seem to be further along in

the area of protection of the public in provincial areas. I'll

read a clipping from the Vancouver Sun of February 16,

when the Quebec Minister of Consumer Affairs — he's a Minister

of Consumer Affairs in the provincial government of Quebec, Mr.

Chairman. There's a province that's obviously concerned about

their responsibilities to the consumers of the province.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

MR. BROUSSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that's correct. But

they also have an attorney general or a similar office, Mr.

Chairman, that looks after the legal affairs of the province.

They also have another Minister who looks after the industrial

development of the province. This Minister that we're talking

about, Mr. Chairman, seems to combine all those into one big

hat, Of course, this particular story was outlining some of the

regulations that Quebec has on the subject of advertising aimed

at children. He went on to explain the standards of TV

advertising that they were promoting in Quebec. He was asked

how B.C.'s Attorney General reacted to his presentation. The

gentleman said he liked it. He said, "It seemed intelligent to

me."

Well, I'm very glad, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney General

has recognized the intelligence of these ideas. I'm glad that

the Attorney General has said that he's going to attend the

meeting in Quebec City in May or June on consumer affairs. But

I think we're asking the Attorney General to take on too large

responsibilities.

He's told us what difficulties they're having in getting all

of this legislation written and into the House, the many

problems he has in these areas and all the things he has to

catch up on. I think if we had a complete and separate consumer

affairs department, we would have an opportunity to solve these

problems. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney General will

outline the plan that the Government has to provide the kind of

service to every part of British Columbia on consumer affairs — not just to the people who write in to this tiny office in the

Law Courts building in Victoria or those who visit other

volunteer agencies and agencies financed in other ways.

I might comment, incidentally, that last night's Vancouver

Sun still has 75 inches of classified ads under "Money

for mortgages." The only encouraging thing is that Provident

Mortgage, which one of those that I consider to be the worst

examples of the industry, have cut their advertising down to

only eight inches from about 25. They've heard some of the

message, I hope it's beginning to come through to some of

them.

Now I'd like to turn very briefly, Mr. Chairman, to another

problem under the administrative responsibilities of the

Attorney General. In this case, it's another area that I would

like to remove from his jurisdiction. I want to explain to the

Members of the House who are new this year that I've been

carrying on a campaign since my first year in the

Legislature

[ Page 964 ]

to remove the problems of the Fire Marshal's office from the

Attorney General.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear. Hear.

MR. BROUSSON: The problem specifically, Mr. Chairman…

AN HON. MEMBER: Put them in the Skagit Valley. (Laughter).

MR. BROUSSON: Along with the mortgage brokers.

(Laughter).

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just don't remove the solutions.

MR. BROUSSON: The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that the control

of natural gas, electricity, refrigeration, boilers, pressure

vessels — all of these areas come under the jurisdiction of the

safety services division of the Department of Public Works. The

problems of jurisdiction over propane, oil, oil-fired equipment

and allied problems in building come under the Fire Marshal's

office, which is in the Attorney General's jurisdiction.

I've outlined the problems at great length in the past and

I'm not going to do this today. But I want to point out that

the basic problem is not simply one of administration, it's the

dangers to health and life that exist. The inspection of those

things under the Attorney General's jurisdiction are in many

cases done by RCMP or maybe the mayor of a local municipality — a variety of people like this around the province have been

inspecting. :

I've told a story before where the RCMP officer in the

Fraser Valley was specifically asked by an oil burner mechanic

for a permit to install an oil burner. He said to the mechanic,

"Have you done a good installation?" The man said, "Yes." The

RCMP officer said, "Fine. Here's your permit." That's the

complete extent of the inspection that was done of that

particular installation.

I've been calling for four years, Mr. Chairman, to reform

this jurisdiction. I've talked about it personally with the

former Attorney General. I've talked about it with the former

Minister of Public Works. I've talked about it with the present

Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley). I haven't

discussed this directly and personally with the Attorney

General so far this year. I sense some willingness perhaps to

move in this direction. I What I regret is that when I look at the estimates of the

Fire Marshal's office, I find, Mr. Chairman, that they've gone

up by three people and up by about $45,000. So it doesn't

appear to me that the kind of problems that I'm talking about are really being removed

from the Fire Marshal's office and sent over to the Department

of Public Works in any meaningful way. The Fire Marshal's

office appears to be still its little empire, which is what's

been going on for a good many years.

Almost every other province in Canada has this separation of

jurisdictions, where the natural gas and propane and oil are

all handled together within some kind of safety services

division or department of labour or in a variety of ways. But

they're handled together by the same group of inspectors, as I

have been appealing for for four years. I hope, Mr. Chairman,

that the Attorney General will tell us that this is a mistake

in the way his estimates are drawn up for the Fire Marshal's

office and that they are going to do something about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would

simply like to make a few remarks about one of our problems

which are intimately related in society these days to the

Attorney General. Let me preface these remarks by saying that I

already appreciate very much the insight the Attorney General

has shown in this subject. I am talking about heroin addiction,

A large percentage of people in jail, perhaps 50 per cent, are

there because of some connection with drug abuse, I would like, in order to be fairly brief, to limit my

remarks and make them very clearly limited to heroin. First

there are two points, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make. First

of all, most people who are not touched with this problem would

rather not talk about it or think about it.

It is the kind of problem in our society that we all pray to

God that our children or our associates will never be touched

by. The fact, Mr. Chairman, and the reason I think this is so

important, is that even if society is not really sympathetic to

the addict per se, the number of innocent people who are

intimately involved and whose lives in fact are frequently

ruined by the involvement of a son or a daughter in heroin is

really quite large. I would say there must be a circle of 5 or

10 people involved innocently for every one heroin addict. If

we have several thousand addicts then it is obvious that we

have thousands of people, in society whose lives are seriously

touched by this problem. That, I think, is point number one,

which is not adequately realized by the public at large.

The other point, Mr. Chairman, is that even although some of

the suggestions that I'll be making to the Attorney General and

asking for his response,

[ Page 965 ]

even although they may sound somewhat negative…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted also because,

again in paying compliment to the Attorney General, I would say

that I appeared before the task force with several people who

have intimate knowledge of the heroin problem, and I was

delighted by the patience and the very pertinent questioning of

the two members of the task force of the heroin addicts who

were present. I wish my comments to be interpreted purely

constructively today and to say that I think we are on the

right track.

I'm trying to make the point, for the two reasons I

mentioned, that there are a number of people involved. Also,

whether we like it or not, Mr. Chairman, the present situation

in society is absolutely futile in relation to the heroin

problem. I say not only futile in that we are not really

helping people with the problem but in fact the problem is

increasing in numbers. This has been disputed in some quarters

but I think the best source of evidence is the people

themselves who are addicted.

If you speak to the people in the greater Victoria area who

are using heroin regularly, you will find that use is on the

increase. I think figures from the other metropolitan centres

bear this out.

So have two basic points from which to begin. I think it is

a big problem in society and, secondly, whatever the law is of

is not doing at the present time is futile. Why do I say

futile? The simplest example one can give is our own court here

in Victoria. Every day in the week the judge is landed with the

responsibility of sending people to jail for a variety of

crimes as well as the possession of heroin. The most frequent

comment the judge makes is that he knows this is solving no

problem to send them to Oakalla but he has no alternative.

If we add these three main elements together and if we

listen to the medical advice that is available on a world-wide

basis, it is very obvious that a person who is addicted to

heroin is in fact a medical problem and not a criminal problem.

That would be my first question. I would be grateful if the

Attorney Genera would answer it: Does he personally agree with

the points I have raised, which are just a recital of evidence

which has become obvious all across the continent? Does he

agree that once a person is addicted to heroin…I repeat, I

am talking only about heroin. It has the unique property of

totally enslaving the individual, physically, mentally and

morally. A man who will steal money from his own children

surely can't be considered to have remained a reasonable,

rational, healthy, responsible person.

This argument is so basic to anything that the law might

consider in changing its attitude.

I might interject, Mr. Chairman, I recognize that this

involves federal legislation, but the initiatives to solve our

national problem will have to start somewhere, even in this

province, or some other enlightened province. I would like to

think that the enlightened province would be British

Columbia.

I would like to know if this rather basic concept, that the

heroin addict is a medical problem, and I repeat the word

"addict" — I'm not talking about the person who dabbles in it

and who still seems to have the ability to choose whether he

ceases to dabble in it or to proceed to become addicted — I'm

talking about the established addicts of whom there seem to be

about 1,000 in the greater Victoria area.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I was coming to that point, Mr. Chairman.

That is one of the myths — that most of the people who are

pushing heroin are themselves addicts. This is sometimes the

case but there are many people who are certainly making large

sums of money who are not addicts but who are certainly

trafficking in the drug.

Let me make it very clear that I feel personally, and I

think experience in other countries has shown, that as far as

the law is concerned on the trafficker who is not an addict, it

is doubtful if it can be too severe in its penalties. But I

personally am opposed to the death penalty for any reason. I

want to make that point plain.

In terms of severe penalties for the trafficker, I am in

agreement on that, and would echo the sentiments, I think, Mr.

Chairman, of many people in our society that the law is not

severe enough in the sense that in sentences, even apparently

long sentences of 7, 8, or 10 years, the criminal is too

readily paroled after a short period of confinement.

If the Attorney General accepts, and I would be delighted to

hear it, that the addict is to be regarded as a medical

problem, could I then ask the next question, as to which

direction we feel we should go — first of all in containing the

problem and in controlling crime associated with the problem.

These two aspects are intimately related one to the other for

obvious reasons. If the addict is irresponsible and cannot be

cured, and I keep repeating this, we are trying to contain the

problem. This is why it seems such a negative attitude.

There is an excellent long documentation of the whole

problem, for the record, in a magazine called The Public

Interest in the fall of 1972. This is a tremendously

accurate appraisal of all the aspects of heroin addiction. It

makes this point very clear, that whatever we do, we are simply

trying to contain a problem.

[ Page 966 ]

If we only succeed in making it no worse, then perhaps this

goal is as much as we could achieve. This is why I personally,

from some considerable contact with addicts, parents of

addicts, the brothers and sisters of addicts, really have come

to the firm conclusion that despite the apparently negative

approach, I would hope that this Government, through the

Attorney General, would look very seriously at making a

approach to Ottawa to consider the containment value of

providing heroin under medical supervision to, and I repeat, to

the established addict.

There is no suggestion that one should in any way legalize

heroin. I am simply suggesting that there is enough evidence to

support the concept this would at least contain the addiction.

It would somewhat reduce the crime associated with it. I'm not

suggesting it would eliminate it — that is not the case. But it

would reduce the crime.

In conjunction with this provision we might also develop

alternative, compulsory forms of restraint on the individual. I

think that our basic concept of human behaviour is that within

large measure we should be allowed to behave as we choose,

provided this does not impair or damage other members of

society around us.

Therefore, if we decide that the man or woman is not a

criminal but is, in fact, a considerable menace to his

associates, I personally would wonder if the Attorney General

would look at the alternative of some other form of restraint — compulsion that the person be treated and attempts made to

rehabilitate him while, perhaps, in the meantime, having no

choice but to provide some amount of heroin. I would like to

think that we've reached the point in our society where we

recognize this kind of approach as offering something more

positive than what we're doing at the present time.

On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure the Attorney

General is aware of this, many heroin addicts are criminals

before they get on to heroin. I would not want to leave the

impression with the House that I'm suggesting that this kind of

alternative — compulsory restraint on the addict together with

medical rehabilitation — would necessarily solve the

problem.

We have to accept the undesirable conclusion that what we're

trying in large measure to do is contain the problem, since it

seems rather obvious from experience all over the world that

addicts to heroin cannot be cured. I think that if we go off

with any kind of goal, with the best of intentions, with the

idea that this would cure the problem, then of course we will

fail miserably and feel disappointed. But the situation is

sufficiently serious, and I know there are many addicts — I've

met many of them — who have made repeated attempts to terminate

their addiction.

I may say in passing that in our many discussions I appreciate the efforts

of the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi), who

has gone a long way to listening and becoming aware of the total drug problem

in society, including the heroin aspect.

There are many addicts who do attempt to come off the drug.

I think that so much of the problem is a medical one their

physiology is changed to a degree — that it may well be

impossible for an addict to remain permanently off. This is an

opinion which one can't prove. But there's so much evidence to

indicate the irrational behavior of the person who, let us say,

has been off heroin for weeks, or months, or even years, and

the impulsive, sudden way in which they may suddenly again

begin to take heroin and become re-addicted, if that is the

word.

What I'm saying in this attitude of containment, which I

hope the Attorney General would consider, is the fact that if

they are a medical problem maybe we shouldn't look at them so

differently from the person with diabetes, or heart disease, or

blood pressure, who is well for several months and then becomes

ill, then overcomes his illness and for a period of time is

again "abstinent," for lack of a better word.

I think society's problem is that the heroin addict in the

first place inflicted the problem on himself. But if the man

with a heart attack has periods of illness, and periods of

functioning when he holds his job and supports his family, then

of course he gets a lot of society's sympathy for the periods

of illness. Certainly the heroin addict, I think, is ill in a

sense for the rest of his or her life.

If we could begin to adopt this kind of approach, provided

we protect the rest of society as far as possible through the

means you and I agreed about, namely heavy penalties on

traffickers and some compulsory restraints on the person who

perhaps exhibits no wish to give up the addiction and is

obviously a constant menace to society by his crimes, I think

we have to seriously look at some intermediate type of facility

for the compulsory restraint of such a person.

He does himself no good to be in jail, and it's common

knowledge that he affects others in jail who perhaps come out

of jail with ideas and knowledge about drugs which they didn't

even have when they went in.

I've spoken too long, I realize, and I'm finished. But I

think the whole perspective of heroin in society we should not

try to divorce as harshly as we do from the purely criminal

aspect. If the efforts in the social sphere and the medical

sphere of the other two Ministers are combined with the

Attorney General's efforts, I feel that this province could set — we were talking about pathfinders the other day, I think we

could be pathfinders in British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister

[ Page 967 ]

of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Thank

you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the House should recognize that the previous

speaker has done a great deal to bring some real focus onto this problem, not

only as a Member of this Legislature but as a member of the medical profession.

And it's rare indeed that you have such a courageous effort on a part of a member

of the medical profession to deal with this particular problem.

I've had the privilege of participating on two panels with

the Member. I find that his attitude to the problem is

knowledgeable and forthright. It takes a lot of courage to be

able to do that.

Now, as I've said publicly before, the Government has been

considering this problem. I submitted a report to five members

of the cabinet who are involved in this particular problem.

Sometime today, at the appropriate time, I'm going to file a

copy of the report and make it available to everybody.

What I want to say is this. We are very much aware of the

tremendous frustration that exists in communities in the

province about the drug problem. There is nobody in this House

who is not touched by this problem, because somewhere in a

family, or in a relative or a friend, they know of situations

in relation to the drug problem.

Let me say this. In our report we've used the term "drug

abuse," more or less interchangeably with "drug

dependency." And when we talk about drugs we also talk about

the alcohol problem — in fact, all of the drug taking that

creates dependency which some people need in order to be able

to function. In most cases many of them are not functioning

that well.

I'm not going to discuss anything to do with the

correctional side of the drug question, because as you know

there is a task force that is preparing a report for the

Attorney General. I don't think that I should mention that.

Specifically, the whole question of, what we are going to do

about the drug dependency problem — when I submitted the report,

I made a number of recommendations. I said that in view of the

very serious problem of drug dependency in the province it is

recommended that the cabinet adopt the following policies:

(1) Approve the statement of philosophy. In the report we

have noted a philosophical approach to this which is very much

in keeping with what the previous speaker talked about. We deal

with it as a medical social problem.

(2) Enact legislation to create a commission in this

session. Legislation is being prepared to create a drug

dependency, or drug abuse commission, somewhat on the lines of

the one that exists in Alberta, with some changes. We have endeavoured to define what drug abuse is,

what drug dependency is, and what the function of the

commission would be.

There would be a cabinet committee, that would be

responsible for the total problem. They would appoint one

Minister to report to the legislature.

We would appropriate money, perhaps equal to the amount of

money that is already being spent. We're having great

difficulty trying to assess just how much money this Government

is spending in all of the areas. We have 84 agencies in this

province that are involved in the drug dependency programmes.

As soon as we have a firm figure we will certainly announce it

to the House. It is necessary that we co-ordinate all of this

effort and that the effort be co-ordinated through the

commission.

But the main thrust of the work of the commission will be

right into the communities. We will ask every community What it

is they want to do about the drug problem. Through the vehicle

of community resource centres, we would want it to happen that

that service would be delivered.

We are not visualizing a monolithic structure at the top

telling people in the communities what to do. We are asking the

people in the communities to tell us what it is they think we

should do.

We were up in Duncan two weeks ago and met with a group of

people. Over 300 people turned out on a Saturday to discuss

this problem. They have a structure. There is an excellent

structure in Lake Cowichan that has a resource centre

operation. And we have to plug all of the needs for countering

the drug problem into these structures, because the resource

centre is not going to be just for drug addicts, but for all of

the problems that the community has to deal with.

You will also find in the report that we've recommended that

we phase out the operation of drug-specific agencies. There are

a number of drug specific agencies that are operating in the

province. We have suggested that over a period of two years

these should be phased out. They should plug their services

into the community resource centres. If those services are not

acceptable to the centres, then we have to suggest that that's

not the way to go.

We cannot continue to support drug-specific agencies. We

want to deal with problems, not with a specific kind of

approach. As I've said before, we've got 84 agencies that are

dealing in this kind of problem in the most un-coordinated

way.

In reference to the whole question of education, there's

been lots said about the values of education in the whole drug

question. The report is only six pages long but attached to the

report is a lot of back-up material which I hope the Members

will find interesting. There's two specific articles that have

been done by specialists in the field on the whole question of

drug education.

[ Page

968 ]

I don't think we should kid anybody that just because we

spent over $400,000 on advertising, as we did last year in the

drug business, that it's having any significant impact at all.

What we are suggesting is that we want to get together a group

of people — some educators, students, public relations people,

parents especially parents of those who are addicted — and we

want to talk about how we're going to develop the kind of

education programme that will be needed.

In my opinion we're going to have to deal with drug

education in terms of those young children in our schools nine

and ten years of age. We're going to have to interpret to them

the business of getting a "high" out of life rather than a

"high" out of some kind of drug. That's going to be difficult

but we've got to go that rout