[ Page 2981 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Bus accident. Ms. Sanford –– 2981

Rail service between Vancouver and Edmonton. Mr. Passarell –– 2981

Northeast coal. Mr. Lea –– 2981

Government mailings of Alcan publicity. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 2982

Public employers of B.C. Mr. Howard –– 2982

Tabling Documents –– 2983

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Finance estimates. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On vote 36: interest on the public debt –– 2983

Mr. Howard

Supply Act (No 3), 1983 (Bill 38) Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2983

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 9: minister's office –– 2986

Hon. Mr. Smith

Ms. Brown

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Passarell

Mrs. Wallace

Mrs. Dailly

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1984

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and myself, I'd like to ask the members to welcome our constituency secretaries Mrs. Dorris Mutch and Mrs. Thelma Pankiw, who are with us this afternoon.

MR. PARKS: Seventy-five years ago, in 1909, 30 families settled in what was then the Fraser Mills community and became known as Maillardville. Being 75 years ago this year, there are a number of anniversary events being celebrated, and we have in the precincts today three members of the Société Maillardville Unie. I'd ask the House to join me in a bienvenue to Messrs. Leon LeBrun, Jean Aussant, Jean Rieu and Patrick Martin.

Oral Questions

BUS ACCIDENT

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. In view of the very serious concern of everyone about the tragic bus accident which occurred yesterday on the road to Mount Washington near Courtenay, I'm wondering if the minister has decided to initiate a public inquiry into safety and safety inspections on buses in British Columbia.

HON. A. FRASER: I have some details to report to the House on this unfortunate accident yesterday. On January 30 at approximately 4:15 a ConMac Stages Ltd. bus carrying approximately 55 students aged 14 to 16 left the road while proceeding down the hill from Mount Washington. According to the driver, Mr. K. A. Griffith, the bus lost its brakes. An RCMP accident investigation team and the motor vehicle inspector assigned to Courtenay have recovered the bus. A thorough mechanical examination of all braking and emergency systems is underway. Unfortunately, as the result of this incident one student was killed and several injured. The bus was found in good condition when it was last inspected on July 19, 1983. A more comprehensive report is being prepared on the scene and will be forwarded as quickly as possible.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his information with respect to this tragic accident.

The regional vehicle inspector for Vancouver Island, Mr. G. E. Crocker, has stated that there has to be a backup braking system for school buses in British Columbia. In view of the fact that this was not a regular school bus but was in fact used to transport schoolchildren, I'm wondering if the minister has considered extending the requirement for a backup braking system to all buses in British Columbia.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of what the member is asking, but I'm not so sure that doesn't exist in commercial buses as well as school buses now.

RAIL SERVICE BETWEEN
VANCOUVER AND EDMONTON

MR. PASSARELL: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Will the minister advise what representation has been made by the provincial government with regard to restoring rail passenger service between Vancouver and Edmonton?

HON. A. FRASER: The government of British Columbia has made representation to Lloyd Axworthy, the Minister of Transport for Canada; I cannot recall when, but I believe it was late last fall.

MR. PASSARELL: On a supplemental, in view of the importance of public transportation to Expo 86, the world fair, is the minister studying the use of B.C. Rail on the Kamloops-Jasper run to link the Edmonton-Vancouver rail passenger service?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Member, would you ask me that question again? Did you say BCR?

MR. PASSARELL: B.C. Rail — between Kamloops and Jasper to link it with the Edmonton-Vancouver run.

HON. A. FRASER: B.C. Rail doesn't run in that area, Mr. Member.

MR. PASSARELL: Maybe the minister is a little confused. I'm asking: if there is not an Edmonton-Vancouver run, are you thinking of using the B.C. Rail line, the present Kamloops-Jasper route, to connect Edmonton to Vancouver for the Expo 86 world fair?

HON. A. FRASER: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think this should be directed to the minister responsible for BCR. But I'll attempt to answer. The BCR already connects with the CNR at Prince George.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development in regard to his duties for B.C. Coal — the northeast coal project. I can't put it any other way than to say there are rumours surrounding the northeast coal, both volume cuts and price cuts. I'd like to ask the minister if he has made up his mind whether he is going to make a presentation to the Legislature soon — I'm talking about in a matter of days — explaining to us, and to the people of British Columbia, where we are on northeast coal. Obviously everyone wants it to be a success, but I think everyone also has concerns that with the price cuts and volume cuts, there has to be a point where the project becomes not viable.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we must have the question.

MR. LEA: The question is: does the minister intend, within the next short while — say a week — to make some sort of report to this Legislature on northeast coal, and on where the viability for that project ends with volume and pricing cuts?

[ Page 2982 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I would have to say that I am not aware of the rumour he is talking about. I realize there were a lot of rumours, both before the contract was signed and during construction, a tremendous number of rumours about northeast coal, most of them emanating, unfortunately, from the benches of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I could tell the House that northeast coal was brought in on schedule and on budget. Certainly on schedule, which is a great credit to all the workers in this province who showed the rest of the world that indeed our labour force could handle such a tremendous project in such a short time. I officiated at the loading of the first shipload of coal on January 8. The first trainload of coal, which was really bedding coal, moved from the northeast coalfields to the port of Prince Rupert on November 1, one month ahead of time. I'm not aware of any price cuts, nor of any cutbacks in tonnages. As a matter of fact, the project is functioning. As you understand, Mr. Member, any negotiations on price are between the coal companies and the steel companies. They were the ones who negotiated the contract in the first place, and they're responsible for those negotiations. I can tell you that we will be getting our royalties and that I have been assured by the Japanese steel industry that there will be no cutbacks in tonnages, if that makes you feel better. There's no rumour to start with, but I'll give you that assurance. With regard to price negotiations, that's between the coal companies and the steel industry. We'll get our money because of the negotiations that took place before the project was started.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, long questions tend to elicit long answers, and it is incumbent upon members to make both as brief as possible in fairness to other members.

[2:15]

MR. LEA: This is one of those cases in point, Mr. Speaker, where often questions are more important than the answers.

I'd like to ask the minister another question. He has insisted in this House, over the months and years, that all negotiations between the coal companies and the Japanese are between them. I would like to ask the minister then what he meant by his statement to the Financial Post reported on January 16, 1984. The minister is quoted as saying: "I used some levers I'm not prepared to make public. I had to tell them, if you don't go now...." The sentence died in midstream. The minister can't have it both ways. If he's out in the public telling them that he used levers and the pressure of government to do things, he can't come in here and tell us that he's not prepared to do it, because he's admitting that he's done it in the past. What were the levers the minister used which he says he hasn't used?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, prior to recognizing the minister I would remind members of Beauchesne's fifth edition, page 133, which says that reading telegrams, letters or extracts from newspapers is an abuse of the rules of the House.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, there is a man representing a great riding which has a great port, thanks to this government. I've told him previously that I might support him in his leadership campaign, but after listening to his question today I'm sorry I can't do that, because he simply doesn't understand the difference between a negotiated contract and the government's role in providing the infrastructure for this program. He just doesn't understand it, so I'll tell him again that the contracts to sell the coal and to deliver the coal are between the coal companies and the Japanese steel industry. Our negotiations with the Japanese government and the banking system in Japan, with the multiplicity of other interests in Japan, in other countries and in Ottawa, all the players we had to talk to in order to put this great project together, were on the basis of what infrastructure this province would provide. I had to tell the Japanese that if they don't go now, that money for the infrastructure might not be there. That's what I told them. It was very simple. I said: "Either you go now, my friends, or you never go." You said I couldn't negotiate with the Japanese. You stood in this Legislature and said: "That man Phillips, he went to Japan, had a steam bath and came home clean." Well, I'll tell you, my friend, I'm glad you smile, because your smile reminds me of an Edsel car grill.

GOVERNMENT MAILING OF ALCAN PUBLICITY

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's impossible to top that.

Yesterday I was asked a question by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). If I may paraphrase the Blues, the question was: Can the minister explain why Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources had mailed Alcan publicity through the government post office? This very urgent matter was discussed with staff, and I now have an answer.

Apparently it is standard procedure in this government that when a corporation or a body purporting to put forward a project decides to bring that forward to the lead ministry, they bring for distribution to all the other ministries of government, and all the other concerned people in government, that one block of information which is subsequently distributed by the lead ministry. When Alcan brought the information forward on their Kemano Completion application, there were 59 copies of the press release in Alcan's mailbag. As I go through the list, I see two of them that were misaddressed: one to Mr. Andrew Jackson of the NDP caucus and another to Mr. John McInnis of the NDP caucus. This oversight on behalf of Alcan caused all their Victoria mail to be included in one bag. I think it was at the convenience of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to forward that mail directly to your caucus, but, as Mr. Gaglardi used to say, we apologize for the inconvenience. In this case I would apologize for the convenience, because instead of sending the mail back to Alcan to have them spend 32 cents to mail you that letter, we mailed it on their behalf. I think it went from our pigeon-hole to your pigeon-hole. However, the other 57 people who are in receipt of this press release had it distributed in the normal manner. We'll take steps to ensure that this convenience doesn't happen again.

PUBLIC EMPLOYERS OF B.C.

MR. HOWARD: By God, the minister is a subsidiary — an agent.

I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I think I have the correct ministry. Up until now the government has been assisting in funding an organization called the Public Employers of British Columbia to the extent of something in excess of $100,000 a year in the last few years. If the Ministry of Finance is not the correct ministry, could you

[ Page 2983 ]

pass it on to the appropriate ministry? Would the government consider discontinuing that payment, to save the taxpayers this amount in excess of $100,000 a year?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the question would be more appropriately directed to the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

MR. HOWARD: Could I redirect that question, if the minister was listening, and ask the Provincial Secretary, inasmuch as he is the appropriate minister: will you discontinue paying over $100,000 to the Public Employers of British Columbia, in the interest of restraint?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, if I can ask that member for Skeena a question: why?

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to have a few moments to answer the minister and show him the proper course that he should follow when questions are directed to him, namely to provide the answer. This is a period of restraint. I thought the minister would be overanxious to save the taxpayers of this province more than $100,000 a year by discontinuing the payments to this superfluous organization that simply duplicates on the outside what the Ministry of Labour is doing on the inside. Why pay for the same service twice?

HON. MR. CHABOT: There will be a coordination of those statistics between the Public Employers and the Ministry of Labour. That activity is in the process of being put in place at this time.

Hon. Mr. Gardom tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

Vote 34: minister's office, $172,432 — approved.

Vote 35: government financial support, $56,128,016 — approved.

On vote 36: interest on the public debt, $181 million.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could tell us what amount of money has been paid in interest on the debt; what is the total direct debt at this point; and whether included in the interest figure of $181 million — or whatever has been paid — is the difference between the amount of money received when treasury bills are sold and the actual face value of them. Is that considered to be interest?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, as is the case in other jurisdictions, the interest that is paid on treasury bills is included in the calculation of interest on the public debt. It would be most improper not to do so. With respect to the interest, the most recent information that I can make available is on page 10 of the second quarterly report, which was released several weeks after the end of September.

Vote 36 approved.

Vote 37: provincial capital commission, $363,022 — approved.

Vote 38: Compensation Stabilization Program, $861,845 — approved.

Vote 39: contingencies, $95 million — approved.

Vote 40: financial transactions, $10 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 3), 1983

Hon. Mr. Curtis moved the following motion:

"That in addition to the amount authorized under Supply Act No. 1, 1983, and Supply Act No. 2, 1983, from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in the manner and at the times the government may determine the sum of $672 million toward defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, being substantially one-twelfth of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, as laid before the Legislative Assembly at the present session."

Motion approved.

Bill 38, Supply Act (No. 3), 1983, introduced and read a first time to be considered for second reading forthwith.

[2:30]

HON. MR. CURTIS: In moving that the bill be now read a second time, Mr. Speaker, a few remarks would be appropriate.

This supply bill is the third for the fiscal year 1983-84, the first and second having been introduced on July 11, 1983, and October 21, 1983, when the Legislative Assembly authorized the value of expenditures for nine months and one month respectively. The members will note that the bill is in the general form of this and previous years' interim supply bills. It requests a further one-twelfth of the tabled estimates to provide for the ongoing expenditures of government. In addition, Mr. Speaker, as required by section 21 of the Financial Administration Act, special warrants approved by the Lieutenant-Governor to cover certain essential government expenditures are included as part of this supply bill. Schedule 1 of the bill lists those special warrants approved for the 1983-84 fiscal year since the last sitting.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would point out the obvious — that is, the requirement for early passage of the supply bill in order to provide for the timely and ongoing expenditures of the government for the 1983-84 fiscal year. I move second reading of this bill.

MR. STUPICH: I must at least say the minister is not lacking in intestinal fortitude in asking for timely passage of this bill before us, which will in total provide for interim supply for 11 months of the year. There have been many firsts

[ Page 2984 ]

by this present Social Credit administration, and there's no question but that this is another. One doesn't have to look back in history to see that asking for interim supply for a period totalling 11 months is brand-new for the province of British Columbia and, I would suspect, for any province in the whole country. The government cannot point a finger at anyone and say the blame is not entirely their own — if you can call it blame, and I do. I do not believe this is the orderly way to run the finances of the province.

I did not agree with the Social Credit campaign that was carried on in 1975 when the NDP administration was accused of trying to spend public money without having public authority. The phrase used at the time was: "Not a dime without debate." We are now told that as long as the Social Credit administration does it, it's quite proper, quite reasonable and should not attract any surprise. Indeed, it should not attract any public discussion; we should deal with this expeditiously and get it out of the way in a hurry. We should approve expenditures totalling, without adding up the figures, and taking into account that we have dealt with the estimates of some six or seven ministries.... We should say that the government should have the right to spend not one dime without debate, but $6 billion, without any opportunity at all to ask the ministers how they intend to spend this money.

January is over; there are only two months left in the fiscal period. Some five-sixths of the money no doubt has been spent, but of what money we don't know. Very soon there will be a quarterly report bringing us up to the end of December. Once again, after the discussion of the estimates of the Minister of Finance and after discussion of this particular interim supply bill, we'll be told how much money was spent, and how it was spent, and we'll be able to arrive at a better guesstimate of just how much will be spent in total by the end of March.

It brings into question the whole process. Why do we go through this business? Why are the ministers now coming forward one by one and saying: "We're prepared to tell you how we're going to spend the money that is being voted for us for the period April 1, 1983, to March 31, 1984," today being January, 31, 1984? Two-thirds of the ministers have not yet stood in the House and told us anything at all about the way in which they have been running their ministries. They have not given us an opportunity to ask questions, to offer directions or to make comments on what has been happening. And all of this has been a deliberate decision by the government, not something that happened accidentally.

There was an election that intervened, but most of B.C.'s budgets have been passed well before May 5 — May 5, 1983, was election day. There have been very few budgets in B.C. that have been postponed later than May 5 of any year — the final vote on them. This year the Legislature had not even been called into session. There was no possibility of anyone asking any of the ministers what they intended to do. As a matter of fact, we didn't know until July 7 the total amount that the government intended to spend. "Not a dime without debate!" It's certainly easy to recall that phrase now, and to recall that the government chose in 1983 to wait until July 7 to give the people of the province any indication at all of their plans, if indeed they had any plans.

We don't intend to prolong this debate. There's no point. There's really little point in prolonging anything that has happened in the 1983 session of the Legislature. There was really no point in a good deal of the legislative program that the government introduced on July 7 with the budget that took up so much time, so much debate in the House and so much debate out of the House, and that created so much havoc in the province and attracted so much undesirable attention to the province — as did the budget, as did the budget debate, as did the legislative package. The whole thing was a complete disservice to the people of the province, and we're adding insult to injury today by saying, let's approve, for another month.... Of course we're going to do that, we're going to vote for it. We're going to vote for the necessary expenditures, not knowing what they are. Perhaps by the time this 11th month is over each of the ministers will have had some opportunity to stand. But I question, Mr. Speaker, whether the ministers themselves will have much heart in telling us what they are going to do, dating back some 11 months. And I question whether the members of the opposition will have much heart in asking the ministers individually, "What are you going to do?" starting in a period some 10 or 11 months ago.

The whole thing has been a farce. The way in which this government has operated the finances of the province has been a farce. Everything that they have done has certainly added nothing to the reputation of the province of British Columbia. One can only hope that when the electorate next has an opportunity, they'll decide that this government has been in office too long and it's time for a change.

[2:45]

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to make just a few brief comments on this interim supply bill before it is passed. I would feel remiss if I did not take my place to make these comments, because I think any government which shows the arrogance that the Social Credit government of British Columbia has shown — not only arrogance but also contempt for the role of the official opposition in their handling of the finances of this province and in the way they proceed with estimates in this House — is a government which should be condemned, and that's why I've taken my place to express my concern.

After all, Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues have been elected by the people in our respective constituencies to stand up here in this Legislature and debate the passage of estimates. That right has been torn away from us for the first time in the history of British Columbia. We have not been given the opportunity, except that we've been asked to debate after the fact. We have had no opportunity to stand up and try to persuade the government, as is our rightful duty as members of the opposition, to move in different directions in various estimates, areas in which we may have felt the government spent too much money or in which they have not spent enough. That right has been taken away from us by this arrogant government. They're making a mockery of our role as members of this official opposition, and I'm standing here to protest it.

I know that the government is hoping that the average citizen and member of the public out there is so concerned right now with economic and other problems that this kind of thing to do with the passage of estimates will mean nothing. Well, I am not up here on my feet knowing that I'm going to gain any great honour, prestige or votes by discussing this, but I feel I'd be remiss if I did not point out that I have grave concern over any government which strips away from the parliamentary opposition of this province their due right to examine estimates. I intend continually to make known in

[ Page 2985 ]

this House my complete contempt for a government which would do this to us.

MRS. WALLACE: We're discussing second reading of Bill 38. Do you know what the last piece of legislation we discussed in this House was? Bill 37, naturally. Do you know what that was? Interim supply. What a ridiculous mockery the government is making of this Legislature to bring in an interim supply bill on October 21, adjourn the House until January 31, and the first piece of legislation we see is another interim supply bill. It's an utter contempt for the whole legislative process and absolute negation of the democratic procedures that have been set for many hundreds of years in the British parliamentary system.

"Not a dime without debate!" My, how things have changed over there! Now it's have your dimes and debate them afterwards. Not just dimes, but millions and billions of dollars. Then come into the Legislature and debate them. You've always got the opposition over the barrel, because by the time you bring it in, if we don't let it pass right away, then you're going to say: "Well, we can't issue the old age pension cheques. We can't issue the GAIN cheques. We can't issue the payroll cheques." We're caught between a rock and a hard place. I have seen it happen too many times in this House.

Let me serve warning to the Minister of Finance and the government. When this bill is passed and the remaining estimates are discussed and passed in this House, then let's get back into session. Let's prorogue, let's reconvene, let's have a throne speech at a reasonable time and let's have a budget so that we can discuss it before the fact, not after the fact.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to reflect a little for the Minister of Finance, who does indeed come from a municipal background. I think it's useful for the minister seriously to consider that the provincial government does set rules and regulations, through the Municipal Act and through other various pieces of legislation, or what municipalities do in terms of the time horizons as to when they must have their budget finalized and when they have to be public information, and the various checks and balances that are ensured by the provincial government. Municipalities follow those time horizons when indeed those budgets have to be put forward and, indeed, if they are not put forward and finalized by May 15 of every year, there are serious consequences. The point I make is that the senior government tries to set regulations and rules for junior government, particularly for municipalities and school boards, that they have to be responsible in their financial management and that they must by law bring in a certain budget at a certain time. Indeed, in the last session, we saw this government in its wisdom make serious inroads into local government autonomy in many areas, but particularly in financial matters. Yet we see this government consistently not practising what it preaches, in terms of obeying certain rules, regulations and traditions of bringing financial matters and budgets and spending to this House on time. I think it is incumbent upon this government to change that particular way of doing things. They are late with their budgets; they bring in interim supply or special warrants without the scrutiny of the opposition or of anybody else in this province.

I close by saying that if local government carried out its financial arrangements — and there are many on the other side who have been involved in local government — and did the various things with the books and juggled and disobeyed certain rules and time lines, those councils would not last very long. I would dare to say that the citizens of those municipalities would be up in arms over the kind of abuse this government shows for traditional tabling of financial documents and bringing in the correct budgets on time, and not delay after delay. I hope this government will start to treat this House in a serious fashion. We are all involved in the financial matters of this province. There are traditions vis-à-vis budgets and spending habits, and we have seen far too many dollars spent outside the scrutiny of this House. It is not acceptable to the people of British Columbia, as they expect our local government to be honest and candid and upfront in their spending habits — and this government insists they are. I would hope they would bring that philosophy and that kind of financial accountability back into the province of British Columbia and back into this House, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the last part of the remarks made by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) in terms of moving as quickly as this House chooses to conclude this session, to have a throne speech for the new session and have an early budget. I think that both sides want that.

Mr. Speaker, rarely have I been moved to anger in this chamber in the not quite 12 years that I have been here, but I am moved to anger when I hear statements which could be described as hypocritical. I do not attribute hypocrisy to any member, but statements made could be described as hypocritical when one recalls the hours and hours and hours of debate which occupied this chamber last summer when we should have been dealing with ministerial estimates and spending proposals for 1983-84. Mr. Speaker, Hansard shows the record. I don't need to recite it here today. Hansard shows the hours and hours and hours that we spent on the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act. Remember that one, Mr. Speaker — 15 to 17 hours concerning the increase on tobacco tax? Another one was the Regulation Act.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'll ignore the interjections. The member knows full well, as a long-time member of this House, that if those bills which were not controversial but which simply carried out a part of government policy had been dealt with in an appropriate fashion, we would have been in estimates in August. We would have been in estimates in September. That is a hypocritical position taken this afternoon by those sanctimonious members opposite.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 38; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

[ Page 2986 ]

Preamble approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report Bill 38 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee on Bill 38 reports the bill complete without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. CURTIS: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 38, Supply Act (No. 3), 1983, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 9: minister's office, $185,732.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make a few general remarks only, in these estimates, and more detailed remarks in the 1984-85 estimates. I will just acknowledge very briefly that my first year in this portfolio was a challenging year because of the necessity of operating within a budget which had an increase of 5 percent in the estimates this year at a time when the demands in the justice system for those major elements of expenditure that this ministry covers were pretty great.

This ministry basically covers police services, court services, corrections and legal services of all kinds to government — civil and criminal. The demands for all of those were certainly great during the year, and the expenditure level was up 5 percent. To maintain those services within that level created a considerable challenge — not a challenge that was shirked but one which I think produced a number of changes, economies, efficiencies and better ways of doing things than we've done in the past. We were able to learn from that experience and to continue with economies.

[3:00]

Some of the increased costs involved in police services.... I think the members are probably aware that the RCMP as the provincial force is governed by a national contract which was renegotiated recently, and that under that contract the percentage the province pays escalates each year and ultimately at the end of the contract rises to over 70 percent of costs. In addition to that there were increases right across the board in salaries. The justice system is a heavily salaried component, just as the health system is, and the RCMP contract had salary increases which are negotiated nationally, not provincially. Those services were, I think, maintained in a healthy condition during the year with the slight increase in budget.

Court services also were maintained reasonably well despite the fact that there have been increases in the business coming before the courts — certainly before the civil courts, in the fields of bankruptcy and foreclosure, and the number of small claims actions brought about by the bad economy. This has created additional demands. I have nothing but tribute for those who have worked in the system of court services and continue to provide excellent performance for the public in the light of increased demands.

In the field of corrections, there were also increases in the number of prisoners in the system, and we tried to deal with those increases by a number of approaches that would both be preventive and allow the use of other options than just the option of putting prisoners in cells: making better use of their time, having day release, work programs and others which not only reduce the costs but, I think, are probably better use of the time of the person serving a sentence.

In the field of legal services to government, on both the civil and criminal sides, we had a fair degree of privatization take place during this year. That privatization, I believe, will not impair the service but will provide us with a more flexible mixture of service so that we will have certain important work done by lawyers who are permanent public servants and other work done by lawyers who represent us on either a contract or on a case-by-case basis. On the criminal prosecution side, for a number of years in the province — during the decade of the mid-seventies through to the last year or two — we had moved toward a system where the vast majority of criminal cases were prosecuted at every level by permanent Crown prosecutors. The result of that was that we built up a very good expertise of in-house Crown counsel, many of them under 40, highly trained and experienced. The system that we have started this year and are going to follow will again be a mixed system where we will keep in the ranks of the public service a number of these excellently trained prosecutors, but others will work for us on contract and some will work for us on an ad hoc system.

I happen to believe, Mr. Chairman, that the best system of criminal justice is one which has a mixture of people prosecuting cases, not all of whom are public servants but some of whom are in the private bar. I think that if you have that, you always have within the private bar people trained in the criminal law who are working for the Crown upon occasion but who can also take cases for the defence and who can as a result have a balanced point of view when they appear on a case on one side or the other. This tends to not lead to the system that exists in some other jurisdictions, particularly south of the line where you have a whole establishment grow up, over a number of years, of district attorney counsellors who are interested in their conviction rate, with on the other side a whole system of public defenders interested in representing their clients. You have a highly adversarial approach to criminal law in these jurisdictions, whereas traditionally under our system and in Britain — and the system which operated in this province for many years until the early seventies — you had lawyers working back and forth for the Crown and the defence. I think that's a healthy, balanced system.

The budget estimates this year have been even more remarkable, I think, because of these increased demands that I mentioned, and because of the major steps we took to deal

[ Page 2987 ]

with the financial end of the ministry. As I think members are aware, the justice system in the province has really been totally restructured in the last ten years. The development of a provincial court system, the structuring and operating of a whole court administration system, and the organizing and structuring of the corrections program in the province, as well as the development of a Crown counsel system and a highly professional civil law section of legal services, have all occurred during the past decade; also, the B.C. coroners' service, the office of the fire commissioner and other services have been added to that array in the past decade. We were able to continue all these services, but with policy and managerial reviews taking place to reassess the need for and extent of those services in a time of declining financial resources. So the budget represented a meeting of the objective to continue the needed service with the reality of economic restraint and the need to improve the effectiveness of delivering our services.

I should also mention in my opening remarks that the successful operation of any justice system in this province depends to a very large degree on a number of people who are volunteers who work for community groups or who are associated with community groups and agencies who support, cooperate with and make an important contribution to justice programs. I have a firm belief that individual citizens in their communities have responsibilities to support and sustain justice and public safety programs. This year we were able to maintain resources, to make them available to those agencies which provide important services and to agencies that mobilize and encourage the involvement of citizens in the maintenance of the justice system. So often, I think, in the social service field in the past ten years we have come to look upon many of the tasks as being ones that can only be performed by permanent salaried personnel or by part-time salaried personnel, and we have overlooked the tremendous energy out there that can be tapped and well coordinated by salaried people. There are those who are prepared to devote their time to and put a great deal of energy into the justice field.

I should, I think, pay tribute to our provincial police force and to our municipal police forces in this province. The RCMP, which is under the responsibility of my ministry, performs the services of a provincial force on a contract basis for the province and, of course, as you know, for a number of municipalities. I believe that we've been exceptionally well served by the policing community in this province in the years past and in the year that's just about gone by.

We will continue strong support to improving policing in this province. We will also expect a great deal in terms of efficiency and diligent management, which I think we are getting. As a matter of priority in the policing field, we will continue to make it a major thrust of the police to enforce the law of impaired driving and all offences related to drinking and driving, and to try to reduce the number of serious traffic accidents. In this regard, in the past year we were able to proclaim the sections of the Motor Vehicle Act which provided for compulsory blood-testing. In cooperation with my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), we have instituted a number of special programs to try to enforce traffic safety at major holiday times.

I think that as a province, though, both through the police and the community, we have to put increased emphasis on crime prevention and make sure that that is an integral component of the responsibilities of a police officer. Community-based crime prevention activities are essential as resources available to both the province and to municipalities are reduced and the demands on the criminal justice system are increased. Accordingly, also, I pay tribute to those who have taken the step of becoming involved in our auxiliary policing programs, which are so successful, and can be an important link to regular policing activity and assist our regular police in the field of crime prevention. I support that program just as I support the program on the fire side, which is so vital: that is, the work of the many volunteer fire departments in this province who make the activities of the permanent firefighters easier and provide excellent coverage to a number of communities that cannot afford the complement of a permanent firefighting force. It is our responsibility, I think, to ensure that there is training, both to police and firemen, volunteer firemen and auxiliary policemen, and that they receive proper training through the Justice Institute and other programs.

The criminal law administration under this ministry is, to a large degree, responsive to the Criminal Code of Canada, which, as all members know, is a federal statute. I have tried to play a vigorous role in making a number of direct representations to the federal Minister of Justice and Solicitor-General as to the types of changes and the emphasis that might be placed on Criminal Code offences. I know that a number of amendments to the Criminal Code are going to be introduced into Parliament in Ottawa within the next several weeks, and I await those with a great deal of interest. I hope they will meet some of the needs of people involved in policing and law enforcement in this province.

In the last five years we have made a number of major strides in the field of corrections. We have replaced outmoded and unsafe correctional facilities with some new facilities. The two that I would specifically mention are the Brannan Lake correctional centre and the new Vancouver Pretrial Service Centre on Main Street, which are major initiatives and have been very successfully received in operation. We're now proceeding to renovate the Vancouver Island Regional Correctional Centre — more affectionately known as "Wilkie" — which should be completed in several years, transforming that from its previous state of antiquated disrepair into a modern correctional facility.

We will also, during the course of this year, be reviewing our court services operation throughout the province to do more streamlining of that and more rationalization of existing facilities and locations, so that we can give better service and meet the increased demands of the system in an efficient, cost-effective way.

[3:15]

Before I sit down I would like to pay tribute to the recently retired deputy minister, Richard Vogel, who left the post of Deputy Attorney-General on September 1 and has now returned to private practice in Vancouver and has accepted a post as a senior partner with a major Vancouver law firm. He was one of a special breed of public servants in British Columbia, like his predecessor. He came from the private bar to Victoria and did a stint as a deputy minister. He left a major practice, gave up his private sector work and came here and made a contribution and then went back. I think it is a very healthy approach to have people from private life who come and enter government service, stay for a

[ Page 2988 ]

period, make a contribution and return. I acknowledge his contributions to public life in British Columbia.

I am also happy today to introduce formally to the House my new deputy minister, Mr. Ted Hughes. Ted Hughes comes to us with a very special background, in that he served as a judge in Saskatchewan. He was a judge of the district and superior court, and when he last sat on the bench in Saskatchewan he was a senior superior court judge in that province. He moved to Victoria and came to work for the Ministry of the Attorney-General about 1980. During the three years or more that he was with this ministry he developed a reputation for being a very competent person who could solve problems, both within the ministry and across ministry lines, as a person who was consulted by people in all branches of government. He gave a great deal of expertise in the field of native and ombudsman matters, administrative law and various tribunals, and he solved a number of very tricky problems. He is a man of a good deal of maturity and patience and brings a wealth of experience to the job. I acknowledge him and I'm delighted that he's here.

I should introduce also the assistant deputy minister, finance side, Frank Rhodes, who is on my right, who served in the capacity of acting deputy minister for nearly six months, when he worked far beyond the call of duty and worked 17-hour days without complaint. He has a vast knowledge of this ministry. Behind me is the deputy minister, corrections side, Bernard Robinson, who is one of the most distinguished experts in the field of corrections in Canada. I found out he was well-regarded across the country, a very sophisticated and modern expert in the field of corrections and a good administrator. I have been delighted to work with these gentlemen and also with my excellent associate deputy minister on the criminal justice side, Mr. Alan Filmer, a very distinguished counsel who helped me greatly during the last six months. I think with those remarks, I'll step down and respond to matters from my critic on the other side.

MS. BROWN: After the irrational, uncontrolled outburst of the previous minister just before he left the room, it was a bit of a relief to hear the soft and gentle voice of the Attorney-General. But as he proceeded, I began to understand and to feel a great sympathy for the students who have been subject to his lectures over the years, because surely he has to be the most boring speaker ever to speak on the floor of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Personal reflections are quite unparliamentary.

MS. BROWN: That was not a reflection but merely a statement of fact, Mr. Chairman. I want to extend my sympathy to the new Deputy Attorney-General Mr. Hughes, and to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Filmer and Mr. Rhodes, and hope that he doesn't make too many speeches to them but in fact spends more of his time listening than talking. It seemed for a while there that he was going to fall asleep in the middle of what he was saying. However, the content was what kept me awake, because the tone didn't.

I want to congratulate the minister because he said this is his first year, and, as I say, I sympathize with the fact that it's his first year as Attorney-General. I realize that it would explain some of the mistakes that he has made in this ministry during his brief tenure in that position. This is my first year, too, as a matter of fact. It's been less than a year since I was critic of this particular ministry, and it has been a learning experience because I have come to it without a legal background, which was deliberate on the part of my caucus. It was the feeling that maybe it was time that the ministry were looked at and perceived through the eyes of someone who was the recipient of the services of the ministry — and even the victim, really — rather than through the eyes of another legal person. I know it has been the tradition over the years for Attorneys-General and their critics to be legal experts, though that's not necessarily true in every single jurisdiction. I know there have been exceptions to that. So I bring a different perspective to this particular role, and certainly a lot of learning has to be done.

In that regard I want to say that I have appealed to various people in the ministry by mail and through visits, and I have asked for their help and their assistance. It has been very graciously given. I really have received a number of letters in response saying whenever I needed any assistance, by all means to contact them. On the occasions when I have, this assistance has been very graciously given. I have also taken the opportunity to visit — although not as often as I would like to do — some of the correctional institutions and the community groups and other areas, and I intend to do a lot more before I am through.

I want to deal with a number of specific issues. Maybe if I gave the minister an indication of what I am going to touch on, he could start preparing himself to deal with them. I'm going to look at legal aid, which is very controversial in terms of what has been happening to that particular area, and ask some questions about it. I'm also going to look at the field of corrections, concentrating more on what is happening to the women in the system at this time, because I have had the opportunity to visit the women's units and some of the youth institutions, but I haven't been to the men's unit yet. So I won't have quite so many questions dealing with the men's unit until the estimates are up again in the future when I've had a chance to visit these institutions. I also want to look at the whole area of special projects and the groups that are a little nervous about what is happening to funding in terms of the work that they have been doing. I want to look at the whole question of the enforcement of maintenance orders, which, as the minister knows, was not touched at the federal level under the new divorce act which is now being debated in the federal House. I also visited the film classification office and talked a little bit about what's going to happen in terms of pornography and whether there's going to be any extension of their jurisdiction in that area. My colleagues will deal with other areas, but those are specifically the areas I'm going to be touching on.

I want to express some regret, Mr. Chairman....

Maybe I'm quite incorrect about this, so I'll put it as a question first. In view of the fact that the minister has just struck a commission to listen to statements and to accept submissions and briefs from the community at large about the delivery of legal services in the province, can the minister tell me whether it is his intention to continue funding the Legal Services Commission right up to the maximum they need until at least this particular commission has tabled its report and we have had an opportunity to scrutinize it and to debate it in this House? I know that some special warrants went through to pick up the extra costs which accrued to Legal Services as a result of the decision brought down on the Mountain case. I also know — the minister has said this publicly, and I regret that he has made that decision — that

[ Page 2989 ]

there are going to be amendments, or at least one amendment, to the Legal Services Society Act to somehow circumvent that particular decision. However, would it be possible for that amendment to wait until this legal services task force has completed its travels around the province and listened to the submissions made to it? I look forward to making a submission to it too; I'm not sure whether that's going to be permitted or not but I'm certainly going to apply to make a submission to it. Can it wait until they've tabled their report, giving us an opportunity to discuss it, before amending that particular piece of legislation and putting the Legal Services Society in a compromising situation where it will find itself unable to do as good a job for the community at large as it needs to do?

The minister stated — and certainly seems to be aware of the fact — that the need for the services of the Legal Services Society is increasing, not decreasing, as a result of the economic times, of some of the policies of this government. A number of reasons. There seem to be more and more people needing the services of that particular branch of his department. It seems to me that to strike a commission, and also to be almost on the edge of receiving the report from the federal commission which has been looking at the whole delivery of services at that level.... To decide at this time to amend the legislation so as to circumscribe the commission in performing its task effectively is a little irresponsible. I hope that's not an unparliamentary comment, because that's not what I'm intending. What I really am trying to suggest to the minister is that if he's willing to listen, he should at least listen first and then decide, after having heard all of the arguments pro and con, whether he is in fact going to need this amendment or not and, if he decides that an amendment is needed, the nature of the amendment. For him to decide to introduce the amendment before the commission completes its task is to render the commission quite impotent and to make its job a mockery. So I want the minister to respond and explain whether he's willing to do that or not.

[3:30]

The minister has said a number of times publicly that he has some concerns about legal aid being extended to people.... I don't want to misquote him so I should use one of his own quotes and be as accurate as I possibly can; I may not always achieve it, but that's my goal. Aside from saying that first offenders should be a priority, he has been known to say that he doesn't see this as a right which should be extended to people who have already disobeyed the law and have prior convictions. But as I've said, it's important to me that I use the exact words of the minister. I can't find them, so I'll suggest instead that if he has not yet seen the editorial in the Vancouver Sun of January 18, I'll read just a small section of it.

He says: "Attorney-General Brian Smith should take care lest his plan to amend the Legal Services Society Act does not create two standards of justice in British Columbia — one for the rich and one for the poor. Mr. Smith says all he wants is to free the Legal Services Society from legal constraints and allow it to 'set its priorities' for entitlement to legal aid. But if the government reduces the society's budget from the amount it needs to provide the services now outlined in the act, that can have only one result: fewer people will qualify for help." That concern has been voiced by the executive director and a number of the board members of the Legal Services Society, and certainly by individuals as well. That is the reason why, although they have tried to fit into the budget restrictions....

First of all, the Legal Services Society welcomes the $500,000 to cover the additional November and December costs which they had to face. But they would like to get two commitments from the minister. One is that the $250,000 a month will continue until the end of the fiscal year at least — that is, to March 31. The second commitment is that the amendment to the act will not be drafted until the completion of the hearings of his committee.

Would the minister like to respond to that particular section?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the task force on legal aid is quite separate from the sort of change that I discussed, which was contemplated for the Legal Services Society Act and which would be debated at another time. The change to the Legal Services Society Act was an enabling change to give the society the power to set its own priorities. Sometime last year the society, in order to meet its budgets for 1983-84, did set some priorities. Included in those priorities was a decision that they would not be providing legal aid for most summary conviction offences: that is, impaired driving and a range of other offences that are dealt with in a summary way, not an indictable way, and are therefore less serious. Ultimately, as a result of that decision, there was a challenge in the courts in a case called Mountain, in which the courts decided that under the Legal Services Society Act, as it now is in section 3(2), the society wasn't free to make those sorts of decisions, that they couldn't set those sorts of priorities, that they had to follow the minimum service provisions of section 3(2). In all cases they had to give a qualifying defendant, in any criminal proceeding, legal aid if that proceeding could lead to his imprisonment — not that it would, not that it might, but even if it hypothetically could, he had to receive a defence provided by legal aid. They made the decision that they were going to exclude the summary conviction category of offenders, except in those cases where it was clearly indicated that if this person was convicted they would go to jail. The Mountain case made it impossible.

So I have simply said that what I am going to do is introduce some amendments which will make section 3 provide discretion to the society to set whatever guidelines they wish for service, bearing in mind some general criteria but not forcing them to provide legal aid for this or that category. Certainly the amendment will not tell them that they have to not provide legal aid for someone, or that they have to eliminate someone, or that there is some particular offence that they shouldn't cover. It will be entirely up to them as to how they set their guidelines, and it will make them free during this year to make their own decisions while they and I await the report of the task force on legal services and the report that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds mentioned as being prepared for the federal government, which will also be of assistance in dealing with legal aid on a long-term basis.

This task force has a pretty broad and general mandate, because it's to look into the nature, range and priority of legal services which ought properly to be deemed essential and provided at public expense. It's also to look into the appropriate eligibility requirements for recipients and the method of delivery of legal services and the appropriate alternatives for the funding of these services. So it's got a good, broad mandate to make recommendations which will assist not just

[ Page 2990 ]

in the short term but also in the long run. If the member wishes to make a representation to that task force, that would be welcomed, the same as any members of this House are welcome to make representations. It's not going to be a task force that stays in downtown Vancouver, either. It's going to get around the province and hold some meetings in other communities. There will be ample opportunity for anyone in those communities to come forward and present briefs or to make oral submissions. There is a pretty well-balanced group of people on that task force, many of whom have already worked in the legal aid field and have run legal aid programs or have been involved in legal aid. So I welcome the member's submission to that task force, and I can assure her that there is no intention to make an amendment which will set different criteria or will direct the Legal Services Society to decide that any group or any class of offender should or shouldn't have legal aid. But I have to recognize that there is a limited amount of money in the system for legal aid, and that it is not possible for me just to put my head in the sand and say that everyone who comes forward and qualifies on a means basis for legal aid shall have legal aid for every offence regardless of whether or not we have overruns. There hasn't been that sort of money this year, and there won't be that sort of money next year, I dare say.

It's my responsibility to encourage bodies like the Legal Services Society, which is independent of government — half the members are selected by government and half are selected by the Law Society — to set their own priorities. That's what the amendment would do. It would not tell them what to do but would allow them to set their own priorities. I don't see that coming into conflict in any way with the task force, because the task force will, I hope, suggest to us what the long-term priorities should be. The society can respond to that, and the government can respond to that. It will not be interfering with the duties of the task force. The two will meld together.

MS. BROWN: The minister ends up contradicting himself. He starts out by saying that the task force on legal services is quite different from legal aid. Legal aid is provided by the Legal Services Society. You can't have a task force on legal services and say that it's quite different and separate from the delivery of legal aid. They are one and the same. One of the things the Legal Services Society does is to provide legal aid. This euphemism about allowing them to establish their own criteria.... The Legal Services Society is quite happy with the criteria set down. The problem they are having is that their funding is not sufficient for them to do the job that they want to do. That isn't going to change unless there is more funding. To say that we're now going to amend the act so that they can establish their own criteria is nonsense. They are as much upset as anyone else about the fact that they really have been squeezed as a direct result of the budgets that they submit to the government not being respected. They don't get the kind of income that they need to do the job they must do at a time when there is more pressure on their services than ever before.

The minister establishes a task force and says to it, "Now I want you to travel around the province and look at the nature and range and priorities of legal services," and at the same time introduces an amendment to the act which says that they don't have to do this; therefore a person who is not served can no longer take you to court and have the courts bring down a decision, as happened in the Mountain case. It is euphemistic legalese jargon. The Legal Services Society did not come to the Attorney-General and say: "Our hands are tied because we cannot establish criteria." The Legal Services Society went to the Attorney-General and said: "Our hands are tied because our budget is insufficient."

As a matter of fact, the decision brought down in the Mountain case was not even simply a case of "you have to obey the law." The decision was quite critical of the Attorney-General's ministry and of the government in general, and issued a reprimand. For the Attorney-General to decide to deal with that by amending the legislation is going against the spirit of the act, quite frankly. But then in the next breath to establish a task force and give it this job to do, to decide the appropriate eligibility requirement for recipients of publicly funded legal services.... What if this task force decides to hang on to the criteria they have? What happens then?

The third task placed before them is to recommend the method of delivery of legal services. What if the recommended delivery of services expands on what the Legal Services Society now has and is in fact more costly to the government? I accept it when the minister says that there are only so many dollars to go around and he regrets, most profoundly, that he is unable to fund the Legal Services Society to the extent that they should be funded so that they can meet the challenge which they're facing during these tough economic times when more and more people than ever before are eligible for legal services, for legal aid, and more and more people than ever before need it. All of the support services that the government used to have to deal with disputes are being wiped out. Landlord and tenant disputes are now going to go before the courts. More and more human rights disputes are now going to go before the courts. That's what we are being told, at a time when the family is breaking down under all kinds of economic pressures and other crises. The criteria for legal services and legal aid to women appearing before the courts have been tightened up too. They're not going to get aid unless there is an incidence of violence involved or it seems that the children are in some kind of physical or other jeopardy.

At a time when the Legal Services Society should be in a position to expand its services, it is being forced to curtail them, and the minister is going to amend the act so that it can no longer act in a protective way toward the victims who need the services of the Legal Services Society. We get a euphemistic statement about permitting them the freedom to establish their own criteria. That's not what they ask for; they ask for more money.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm sure the member knows that there isn't more money. Many worthy groups that deliver justice services and other social services have asked for more money, but there isn't more money. So the Legal Services Society itself, not at the suggestion of me or the government, was to set some criteria this year to exclude from legal aid people charged with summary conviction offences. Mountain said: "No, you can't do that under section 3:2." I didn't read Mountain as being critical of the government; I read it as saying that under the act, as it's now drawn, this service has to be provided. We understand that decision and we accept it on the basis of the existing law; and on the basis of that decision I recommended to cabinet and obtained a warrant to cover the additional funding following that decision which arose from it — $500,000 for the months in calendar 1983 that the society had to carry out the Mountain decision. If there are

[ Page 2991 ]

additional costs as well under that old act arising out of Mountain, they will have to be covered. I accept that, but I also have to face the fact that I don't have more money to put into legal aid. Therefore in the short-term basis there has to be some rationalization or some decision-making as to what the criteria are going to be as to who is going to get it. There also have to be, and the task force are charged with the job of trying to find, some long-term recommendations, because it may be that there are some other ways of funding legal aid than total funding by either government or the Law Foundation. There may be some further system of trust accounts; there may be a system of partial allocation of fines; there may be a number of ways of getting some additional funding into legal aid. I don't know that, and I know that the task force will pursue that.

[3:45]

There is also a dominion-provincial agreement which has to be renewed; that is under negotiation. I believe the federal government has to assume more responsibility in the field of legal aid, particularly when they are introducing legislation such as the Young Offenders Act, not yet proclaimed, which purports to provide counsel at the order of a judge for any juvenile who comes before a court in this country charged with a matter under the Young Offenders Act. If that is going to require free legal aid counsel to be provided at provincial expense, then the federal government is going to have to make more provision for legal aid also, under a new agreement. Those are the sorts of things that have to be looked at in the long run.

Also I can tell you, Madam Member, that while it may not please you and may not please some members of the Law Society, the public of this province is not clear that it wishes a system of total universal legal aid in all criminal cases where a person can't afford a lawyer. I'm not sure that the public of this province expects the state to provide legal aid defences for people who repeatedly escape lawful custody, people who repeatedly disobey a summons and are charged with a summary conviction offence. I'm not sure either that the public of this province expect also that we're going to provide defences in drug conspiracy cases for aliens. I'm not sure of that at all. These are the sorts of things I hope will be addressed by the task force and I think are properly in the realm of public discussion. I completely dissociate myself from your point of view that everybody who needs it should get it.

MS. BROWN: You've just yourself stated the arguments much more succinctly than I could have for why you should not tamper with that piece of legislation until you've had the report from your task force. You've just argued my case for me very effectively. I didn't know you had it in you, quite frankly, but you just did. For precisely those reasons you just stated, you should not amend that piece of legislation until this task force has reported back to you. You don't know whether the public is prepared to pay for this, and you don't know whether the public is prepared for that. You will know what the public wants to pay for once that task force has heard what the public has to say and brought their report in to you. At that point you can decide whether that piece of legislation needs to be amended or not and in what way. This is why it doesn't make any sense that you should go ahead, not knowing what the public wants, and start tampering with the legislation.

I agree with you that you haven't got as much money as you should have. The other incompetents on your side have wasted quite a few dollars that could have gone into the delivery of the justice system and into improving it and maintaining it at the quality and level at which you inherited it in 1975. I know you haven't got as much money to spend on justice as you should have. But in terms of establishing priorities, of deciding where the money should go, your task force, which is very impressive.... There are a number of people whom you have appointed to this task force — including the chairperson himself — who, putting all their heads together, will come down with some recommendations that will be worthy of your consideration. There's no question about it. All I'm asking is whether you would postpone the decision to amend the legislation until the task force has completed its round of hearings and its report. Again, because of the federal-provincial cost-sharing, we should wait, surely, until the federal report is completed as well. You should have those two reports on your desk. Use some of the brilliance that you have around you in your department, put all those heads together and come up with some ideas that will help the Legal Services Society, among others, to really deliver a top-notch justice system in this province.

B.C. used to be the envy of Canada in terms of the nature of its justice system. You're presiding over its erosion. I don't think that's good enough. All I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister give me a yes or no. Is he prepared to at least wait until those two reports are completed before he starts tampering with that piece of legislation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I'll advise the committee at this point that discussions about legislation do offend the rules of anticipation. We are in Committee of Supply and we discuss the administrative actions of the minister and of the department, and not the requirement for legislation.

HON. MR. SMITH: You have said it. I was going to tell her that she had better await the legislation and deal with it when it comes, but I will certainly not give that undertaking.

MS. BROWN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I was not discussing legislation. I was just trying to help the minister to make some decisions prior to finding himself in a dilemma, but it's absolutely clear that he's not prepared to do so.

My second question then, which he may like to respond to, is: does the minister intend to continue meeting that $250,000 a month for the Legal Services Society until the end of the fiscal year?

HON. MR. SMITH: Those cash requirements that continue to be brought about by Mountain will be met, yes.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to leave the matter of the legal services committee at this time, and I guess I'm just going to have to wait until the legislation is brought down in the hope that it won't arrive until after the task force has tabled its report. I'll talk about it at that time.

I want to talk a little about my visit to the film classification branch and to do it in two parts. I want to start off by asking the minister if he has read a survey prepared by the Public Interest Research Group of British Columbia on the topic of.... I think there's a legal term for it: "community standards." This has to do with pornography and Red Hot Video and all that stuff. That's the area I'm moving into now.

[ Page 2992 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm aware of it.

MS. BROWN: Have you got a copy of it?

HON. MR. SMITH: No.

MS. BROWN: I'd be very happy to share my copy of it. The Public Interest Research Group, which operates out of the University of Victoria and Simon Fraser University, conducted a survey in the summer of 1983 into the whole question of community standards. Red Hot Video was being prosecuted at the time and the whole question of community standards was raised. The research had to do with the publicly expressed concern of many citizens at the proliferation of sexually explicit material as content for publicly available entertainment, the rationale that the public acceptance of such material is indicated by its marketability, the necessity of including the views of the female half of the population in the setting of standards in our society, and the interest of many community groups in the project and its result. That's the background. The survey summary said that the purpose of the survey was to hear women's voices on the issue of sexually explicit material promoted as entertainment. As women make up a statistically insignificant number of the decisions to purchase pornographic material, their opinion cannot be gauged by market dollars. Therefore other methods, such as this survey, are needed to measure women's opinions on the content of pornography and its place in human society. I am doing this in conjunction with talking about the film classification branch, because I think that at some point not the present minister but the previous minister talked about the possibility of extending the responsibility for classification to video. We haven't heard anything from this particular minister about that, and so my questions are going to be on whether he has in fact decided not to do this, or if he has alternative ways in which we can deal with the proliferation of pornographic material in the video field, or if not, whether he has some other ideas.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The survey showed that women in the city of Vancouver — and most of the women interviewed were in Vancouver — thoroughly rejected the association of coercion with sexuality. Ninety-five percent of the women interviewed rejected the combination of coercion and sexuality. I think that's about the same position that the film classifier takes in terms of movies in the theatre at this point. Ninety-seven percent of them said that it was not acceptable to portray masochism and sadism, declaring as unacceptable the use of physical violence against women as sexual beings. And 94.5 percent of them think that substituting realistic dummies to receive the violence and mutilation serves to make the portrayal of violence against women as unacceptable as if it were the real thing. They were not in support of that either. That is one of the grey areas as far as the film classification branch is concerned — whether, if these acts of violence coupled with sex are taking place not with a real live person but with a dummy, that is acceptable or not.

[4:00]

I want to give their final statement: "The women said that they would approve nudity as suitable content if it applied to both men and women." I want to also say that most of the people answering this survey were 40 and under. They said that if it could be shown that the pornography market is geared to portraying sexual relations that are not coercive, then it could be stated that such a market would reflect the views of some 21 to 49 percent of the women under 40, depending on the particular practice. However, until coercion is taken out of the pornographic content and people are no longer treated as one-dimensional characters, it can safely be concluded that the views of the female half of the population are opposed to it — as I said, the 97, the 95 and the 94.5 percent figures.

In view of the fact that he has not read the surveys, my question to the minister is: has his department conducted any similar kind of investigation in terms of the acceptance of this material by women in the community? We know what the acceptance level is in terms of men; I know that surveys have been done on that. Secondly, has a decision been made to make the film classification branch extend its jurisdiction and responsibility to cover videotapes, the video market, whether for public or home consumption?

HON. MR. SMITH: Certainly we've heard from a number of community groups, not just in correspondence but in meeting with them. Some excellent material has been prepared by community groups, as the member knows. North Shore and Coquitlam come to mind. Quite a bit of work has been done in the community in trying to develop community standards, so we've got a fairly good basis upon which to build if we decide to go to a system of classification of videos, which is actively under study right now by the director of film classification. I have asked him to prepare recommendations and also to put forward some regulations that would allow us to get into this field. But I have been reluctant to jump in and set up a large regulatory bureaucracy to deal with a problem of this magnitude. Some of the control of course is quite beyond control at the distribution level. It involves customs control as well as the subversion of customs inspection, because many of these videotapes enter the country by means of electronic transmission and are not even smuggled in.

The problem is more than just one of preparing some kind of classification and regulation. The first response to this problem, as you know, was a prosecutorial one. With several major high-profile and costly criminal prosecutions we meant business; we went after these distributors and got convictions. Perhaps we didn't get tremendously strong penalties in the recent one, but the first response was a prosecution one. The police have been aware when it's brought to their attention, dealing with the worst violations.

I understand what the member is putting to me from that survey, because it's the sort of thing we've been getting directly from some of the really well-informed community groups. Rather than galloping off and saying that we're going to set up a regulatory system, I've been trying to look at all aspects of it — the production of them, the importation of them, inadequacies in the obscenity law in prosecuting and what we can do, and whether we can be effective by getting into the regulatory business. I would not like to hold out false aspirations for a regulatory network if it wasn't going to be effective, but we really haven't sat by and watched it go on. We're looking very seriously at the preparation of a regulatory system, which we'll study, and then probably we'll make those proposals public and see what the response is. I've tried to take an approach on a number of fronts and not just on the classification front.

[ Page 2993 ]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm really pleased to hear that the minister is actually looking into this field, because he's been very silent. That's one reason why I tried to raise this as early as possible in his estimates, while he was still fresh and able to deal with it. If he could somehow keep us informed as his study progresses so that we know what is happening, it would be very useful to us.

As he knows, the federal government has a royal commission looking at the whole area of pornography, which is going to be in Victoria on April 2, just prior to its hearings in Vancouver. I wonder whether he's going to be making any kind of presentation to that particular commission; that would be interesting to know.

In the meantime, what are we to do about this material that is still available in a number of video shops around the city? There is no classification on them, so anyone can go in and rent them. There are all kinds of suggestions about what material should be in special shops and not as accessible. You probably saw the Vancouver Sun, which printed the results of the various surveys that were done on this issue. In the meantime there really isn't anything, and that's my concern. While he is studying what to do about importation, the licensing laws and whether to have classification or not, nothing is happening. What is happening in the meantime, or what can we do about this in the meantime?

HON. MR. SMITH: There have been changes made in the Ontario regulations, as the member may have seen this week, and there was a piece in the Globe and Mail earlier this week that dealt with that. My understanding is that that dealt with public viewing and not private viewing. If you get into private viewing.... I do not think that it is possible for us to effectively regulate private viewing. We would have to regulate distribution or attempt to regulate the distribution of these video tapes before they get into the home. I must say that my preference is not in favour of a regulatory scheme that is either costly or extensive, but if we can find a way, under licensing, of preventing the distributors that are now distributing these films.... I would have no quarrel with what the member has been complaining of — the type of film. I think there is general agreement as to what is absolutely inappropriate in the public sale of video material, and that is material that has to do with sex with children, brutality and violence together with sex, and other forms of brutality that may not even be of a sexual nature. I think that a classification system could be devised, but the obscenity sections under the Criminal Code are so broad and so vague now that prosecutions under them have always presented difficulties and have not been easy to prosecute. I can remember in my other life prosecuting several of those cases and the tremendous time and costs that were entailed in trying to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular film offended public taste and was within the prohibited section of the Code.

I will be interested in that commission, hon. member, when it comes here, and we will certainly make some representations to it, probably on both of the issues that are before them.

MS. BROWN: They have completed prostitution already. You missed that. You've only got pornography left.

HON. MR. SMITH: I guess I've made my views on prostitution known to the minister and publicly. I really align myself with those who say that the amendment that was proposed by the parliamentary committee last year would have improved the situation greatly, if not settled it finally, and would have provided some kind of framework to allow the police to alleviate the situation that now prevails in Vancouver and other cities.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to deal with prostitution. I just want to complete the statements on pornography and to talk about the film classification area.

I think we have to start with the public viewing. There isn't any question about that. The tapes that are used for public viewing have to be the number one priority. But as difficult as it is, I would hope that we would be able to come up with some way of dealing with the other tapes as well, if not by prohibiting them, at least making them so difficult to be available to minors for example or to other people, rather than just sitting on the shelves in the video shops. And heaven knows I like watching video myself. I find it is much more pleasant to sit around with your kids and watch a movie than to go downtown and stand in the rain or something to get in. And when someone goes to pick up two tapes for home viewing because you get two for $5 rather than one for $3, or something, right there, easy to get, if that's what you want, is this other material. It seems to me that that's something we should be able to deal with. So maybe you could look at that.

The budget for film classification has been cut. They've had a decrease, Mr. Chairman. At a time when they are already short-staffed, I gather from my meeting with them that there is no inspector any more on staff, that there are all of these films which they are classifying and they have to rely on the honesty and the integrity of the theatres to use the film as they show it to them. They have lost their inspector. There is no one there any more, because they just haven't got the budget for it. There has also been a decrease in their supplies and services.

If I can put in a couple of good words for the film classification branch, it seems to me that at a time when we are looking at the possibility of expanding their responsibilities, we shouldn't be cutting their budget even by one percent, or whatever it is, Mr. Chairman. This is one of the areas that we should be looking at in terms of either freezing it at its present level or at least giving them a sufficient increase so that they can hire themselves an inspector. They've worked out, of course, that the additional responsibility for video tapes would mean that their budget would have to go up considerably because they would need quite a few more people, not just to sit and view all those tapes, which sounds like a horrendous job to me, but also inspectors to go to the video stores to see to it that the material being censored out is in fact not replaced and shown that way.

I also want to speak to the minister about the Coquitlam resolution. I'm very strongly in support of it. I wonder whether this isn't something that we should encourage other municipalities to look at in terms of their own existing bylaws. Would the minister just respond to me about the film classification budget, because I promised them that I would say a word or two about their decrease.

[4:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm at a bit of a loss to know what the member is referring to by cuts in staff, because it appears that the budget is virtually the same. I think it's $2,000 less this year than last year: it's $182,827 this year, and it was

[ Page 2994 ]

$184,264 last year, so it's almost a $2,000 difference. The staff, I'm told, is constant. There are also, of course, people who work under contract for that branch — projectionists and people who assist with viewing. There's no doubt that if we were to expand the classification or regulation into the video field, then we would require more resources. I don't think there is any doubt about that. I think it's just been kept constant. They're probably doing more with the same.

MS. BROWN: They reported that they did have a cutback in their budget. I'm quoting verbatim from my visit with them. They had to deal with increases in salaries, so a lot of juggling went on. The end result was that they ended up without an inspector at all. It says that because of the restrictions on overtime, it is impossible for the staff that's there to conduct proper theatre inspections, etc., and as a result of that they have no way of knowing whether in fact theatres are honouring the decisions made about the various showings of the film.

There is just one final thing: pay TV and whether in fact the classification concept can be used on pay TV at this time.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't think we have jurisdiction over pay TV — I mean jurisdiction to regulate it and classify it; that's the CRTC's jurisdiction. I'm still bothered by what you say about inspection. My instructions are that that is not so, that inspection is taking place. It may be that because of increases in salaries that they are doing a little more with less, but I understand that the work is being done. The cutback was virtually a freeze, which is true in so many other branches and ministries. I have no doubt that that has resulted in some cutbacks in the resources they have available. I met with the director, and the reports I have received from what she does and what they do is that they are doing a darned good job on a very lean budget.

MS. BROWN: They are doing a very good job on a very lean budget.

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a couple of questions for the minister. I don't want to prolong this. In the corrections area I'd like to congratulate the minister for some of the new programs that his department is going to. I see they're privatizing some of the juvenile programs within the correction system. I'm wondering if he could tell us if there are any plans over the next year to increase the privatization into other areas in the corrections field?

HON. MR. SMITH: As you have alluded, hon. member, some privatization has always been around: that is, nursing service, some of the residential attendant centre programs. Even community service order supervision has been delivered on contract. There will be, I think, more of that. The food services in one institution are already privatized, and we're examining an extension of that to other institutions. Where it is possible to do more privatizing, and to do so without offending — taking into account the collective agreement.... It is our intention to do so where it makes good sense. I would think that there is a range of areas where it would make good sense. So you can expect, I think, some further extension of that: not to disregard the collective agreement, but to try to promote more efficiency and flexibility.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm very happy with what the minister is saying. I'm just wondering if they've looked into probation and those areas, and, with or without offending the agreement, if it would be a better method if we turned some of the great numbers of people we do have in this province now who are out on probation over to different groups within the private sector. Not only could the government save money, but we might experience a better result and a smaller rate of recidivism.

HON. MR. SMITH: I can give you the same answer with probation that I gave you on the others. I don't know that there's any intention of turning the entire probation service into a contract service, but food services and juvenile attendance programs — many of which are now delivered by agencies and not by public servants — can, I think, be done on a contract basis just as well and sometimes even more effectively, because more community involvement takes place. So across the whole array you mentioned we are actively considering sensitive and sensible privatization — not just privatization for its own sake, but privatization that works, is effective and takes into account the collective agreement, as we're bound to do.

MR. REYNOLDS: One final area, Mr. Chairman. With regard to Oakalla, can the minister give us any definite plan as to whether that institution will be closed down? If it isn't going to be closed down, would there be any plans to get Oakalla back into the situation it was in years ago where the inmates inside the institution started looking after some of their own needs in relation to growing vegetables and looking after animals in the institution that would feed not only the inmates of that institution but of other institutions, in order to save some money? I'm just wondering what the overall situation at Oakalla is.

A final question, after you've answered that question: was there any discipline taken against any officials within the minister's department after the last riot at Oakalla?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer to the last question is not to date, because the investigation is still underway.

The answer to the question on Oakalla is yes, it is the intention to carry out the Oakalla phase-out. It has been slowed by the restraint program and the lack of capital funds available during the current year. The first delivery of that phase-out program was the opening of the Vancouver pre-trial centre, which makes unnecessary the incarceration in Oakalla of those prisoners awaiting trial and their escort across town. We're working at present with the municipalities of Burnaby, Maple Ridge and Port Coquitlam on the next phases. We'll be continuing with that, but it has been slowed down because of the restraint on capital funding.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a number of constituency issues for the hon. minister. The first one is the constitutional aspect, as the Attorney-General is responsible for native affairs. In October we passed a resolution unanimously in this House regarding the constitutional aspect of native affairs, and I was wondering if the minister could bring back to this House exactly where that resolution is today. Is it being debated with the federal minister? Have they made any decision regarding the constitutional aspect?

[ Page 2995 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: I take it that what you are asking is what is the state of the negotiations that are taking place with the native people under that amended section of the Constitution Act, which was part of the accord arising out of the first ministers' agreement. There have been two meetings of ministers — not of first ministers. A meeting took place in the fall of last year — I believe it was in Ottawa or Toronto — which I wasn't able to attend, because I was here in the House doing something else. But my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) attended that, and he and I both attended the second meeting which was held in Yellowknife last week. We have joint responsibility for that; we are working together. He is sort of the external relations representative of the government and I have the native branch under my ministry, so we work together.

At the meeting in Yellowknife which I attended, we discussed two working-group studies. The meeting was attended by all the native leaders who were included in the accord — including, I might add, Messrs. Gosnell and Robinson of the Nishga band, which you would be particularly interested in — and I met with them in Yellowknife on other matters. All the provinces and the territories were represented and there were three federal ministers there as well, in and out, but it was presided over by the Minister of Justice of Canada. They dealt first with the study group paper on equality rights; that is, the rights, particularly of women under the Indian Act — or whatever changes are made to it — and whether those should be further enshrined in the constitution, having already been enshrined to some extent.

At the second meeting, probably a much more complex issue, and one which was by no means resolved, was the issue of aboriginal title and rights, what those constitute and whether it is desirable to make some form of definition of those rights in the constitution. I would believe that considerably more discussion and work will be done on that.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There is a third meeting that is set for Toronto in the midpart of February, at which the officials and the three groups — that is, the provinces, the federal government and the native representatives — will be meeting. Then the first ministers will be meeting with the Prime Minister and the native groups in Ottawa on approximately March 8. It is at that meeting, one which is required under the accord, that the real decisions will be made.

As part of the group of cabinet ministers from the various provinces and Ottawa who are meeting with the native people, I can just say that the study group reports were excellent and there was good discussion; but we have got quite some way to go.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's response on the constitutional aspect.

I have another question regarding two specific bands and aboriginal title. They are the Kaska-Dene band in the northernmost part of the province and the Tahltan band on the Stikine. The question I have for the minister on these aboriginal studies.... If I'm not mistaken, approximately $100,000 was granted to each of these specific bands to do some aboriginal studies. Is the province having input into the studies? Is there a time limitation on them? Is the province in a position to increase that funding if the first reports show that there is much more detail regarding the aboriginal studies for the Kaska-Dene and the Tahltan?

[4:30]

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm not equipped to answer that. That would be something on which I could try to get an answer back to you outside of this chamber, and which I'll do, or something which you could address to my colleague, whom I could give some notice to that you're interested in it. But either way we'll get a response back to you. I just don't know where we stand in relation to those studies of those two particular bands. I suspect that they are solely federally funded studies at this stage, but I wouldn't be able to give you an adequate answer.

MR. PASSARELL: I appreciate the minister's statements regarding that, and I hope that he'll get back to me in the near future regarding those two specific studies.

The last question I have is in regard to a number of letters that have gone to the minister over the last few months regarding the RCMP in Telegraph Creek. The present program the government is embarked upon is to allow one constable to stay in Dease Lake to cover the community of Iskut, which is 60 miles south of Dease Lake, and the other to cover Telegraph Creek on a rotating basis. The minister's response to me and to the inquiries from the MP for the area, Jim Fulton, was that the constables in Dease Lake would be able to cover both Telegraph Creek and Iskut. One of the problems in having this policy of the police covering both communities is the road conditions. If the minister has ever travelled between Dease Lake and Telegraph Creek, he will know there can be pretty horrendous road conditions. You're up and down through the Stikine Plateau, across the Stikine Mountains, and in. Even though it's the same mileage between the two communities the police serve, you're talking about an hour and half to Iskut, but if you're driving into Telegraph Creek, you're looking at three or four hours. If there is snow or rain, it could be a day or two.

MS. BROWN: He couldn't go without his lunch that long.

MR. PASSARELL: My concern is much more serious. There's a serious problem in Telegraph Creek. You have an individual police officer coming from Dease Lake, which is going to take him, if he's one hell of a good driver, three or four hours to drive. You could have some problems. One of the things the minister should be aware of is that there is an airport in Telegraph Creek, just a strip, but the government and the regional board do not pay for the snow removal. If you're looking at a serious problem in Telegraph Creek and want to charter a plane from Dease Lake into Telegraph Creek, you're not going to be able to land there half of the time. You're going to have to drive into it.

I know there's a serious problem when we come to restraint, but I'm wondering whether the minister has decided to see if there is some additional funding whereby a constable could come from Dease Lake and spend maybe two or three days. There is still a home there. I don't know if BCBC or the federal government owns it, but there still is a home in Telegraph Creek where a police officer could stay. It's my understanding that it is not being used, and if there could be some funding available whereby a police officer from Dease

[ Page 2996 ]

Lake could come into Telegraph Creek and spend two or three days....

HON. MR. SMITH: I will discuss that matter with the deputy commissioner. The deployment of the police manpower is not something that my department does. It's something that the deputy commissioner does. I will again take the matter up with him. In addition to that, I will look at the alternative that you suggested by which some basis might be found to keep the airport open, so that they could get in by plane if there was a need to have a constable deployed quickly to Telegraph Creek. That is something I must deal with the deputy commissioner on because, as I say, we do not guide the deployment. We negotiate the contract, but we leave it to the force to decide the way in which the manpower is deployed.

MR. PASSARELL: My last question for the minister is that I appreciate that the deployment of police officers really does not fall under his jurisdiction, though the money allocation does, and I hope that the minister will be able to emphasize to the RCMP that they use that program. I would also appreciate it if the minister would look into the aspect of keeping that airport open through the regional board or the Ministry of Highways.

I addressed four or five questions to the minister, and I appreciate the comments that came back. I also appreciate my colleague the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), sitting there smiling at me.

MRS. WALLACE: I have three entirely unrelated items to take up with the minister. Perhaps if I deal with them separately, he can answer them, rather than running through them all.

The first one relates to a presentation that was made to the Premier and cabinet in May of last year by the B.C. Business and Professional Women's Clubs. In the preamble to their presentation, they say they are enclosing several resolutions that were passed at their 1983 conference for the consideration of cabinet. Then they say: "Our first resolution deals with pornography, and we are most anxious that you and your cabinet, especially the Attorney-General, read this submission." I'm wondering, Mr. Attorney-General, whether or not you have perused this and whether or not you have dealt in any way with the Business and Professional Women's request.

Just to refresh your memory, what they are demanding — and they do use the word "demand" — is that "the Attorney-General fulfil his duty forthwith by clearing the way for every agency to enforce the law and prosecute to the letter of the law all such offenders." They have preceded this with several explanatory statements which I don't want to repeat at this time, because I'm sure you're familiar with them. They go on: "If the law is found to be unenforceable, then the Attorney-General should now move expeditiously to change the law before the problem becomes insoluble and damage to the community irreversible." I wonder whether you have considered their request, Mr. Minister, and whether they have had any reply from you regarding this request.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I might just indicate that there was another resolution, one aimed specifically at the Attorney-General, dealing with legal services in our society. They made the point that the persons most seriously affected by the cuts in this service are women, the disabled, native Canadians and the unemployed. They were requesting reinstatement of legal counsel and family courts by provision of adequate funding to the Legal Services Society. We're close to the end of this fiscal year and that funding has not been made available. I know the minister cannot tell us what is happening in the next budget, but I would like some assurance that at least he has read these recommendations from the business and professional women and hopefully has responded to them as a provincial body, and is giving some positive consideration to the requests that they have made in those two areas.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I didn't read that. I was not in this office until the end of May 1974. It is a submission that may well have reached my desk; nevertheless, it is not dissimilar to those that other groups have made. You have very kindly read them out and not just referred to the brief.

My response to the legal aid part would be that the services provided for women who are before the courts are certainly limited on the family law and civil side, but some services are there and are intact. One is the family court counsellor, who is a pretty important individual in that structure and particularly gives assistance to women who go before that court with problems of abuse, custody or maintenance. The provision of legal counsel by legal aid is still done in family court in certain extreme cases. Unhappily, I can't tell you that there's widespread provision. There is provision in extreme cases.

The comments on enforcement of the obscenity laws are similar to others we have received. I outlined to your colleague, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), my view that you could not deal with the problem in isolation; simply prosecuting every firm in the province that distributes videotapes is not the answer. There has to be a more effective approach than that; otherwise, our courtrooms and our law enforcement officers will be involved in nothing else. My limits in changing the law are really to bring in some kind of a classification system, which I am looking at right now. You will have to ask Mr. MacGuigan to change the criminal law, and I trust you will be making some submissions as well when his task force is in these parts in the early part of April.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Attorney-General. I am sure your last suggestion will happen: that the business and professional women will follow this through. I will make sure they have a copy of your remarks, just as I have now forwarded their brief to you for your interest.

In regard to the legal services, it's a bit tragic. I don't know what happens in your constituency office, but the number of women who come into my office.... It's only through the good grace of several women, lawyer friends of mine in the Cowichan area, who provide that kind of legal advice, because it is legal counsel that they really need. Those young women lawyers, several of whom are members of the VPW and have been responsible for the drafting of those resolutions, offer free advice to these people, because those women just do not have any funds to hire a lawyer. It doesn't seem fair that that is the kind of concept we have relegated women in trouble to, but that seems to be what it is.

[4:45]

The next item I want to raise with you is the matter of holograph wills. We discussed this briefly in this Legislature

[ Page 2997 ]

last fall during the discussion of the private bill of the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree). At that time the member for North Vancouver–Capilano raised the point of the number of people who die without wills. Seven provinces and the two territories currently have a provision for holograph wills; B.C. still doesn't. They only permit such wills if there's a conflict of law or as a privileged will, but not under ordinary circumstances. I'm wondering whether or not the minister would take under advisement the need for instituting holograph wills in British Columbia. If he needs any draft legislation, I have the draft acts from all the other seven provinces which I would be happy to forward to him. It seems to work in those areas. It precludes the thing that happens so often when people die without a will. I wonder whether or not he would care to comment on that request.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't have a lawyer's enormous aversion to holograph wills. They are common in other jurisdictions. My deputy tells me that the classic one in Saskatchewan was the dying man in a tractor accident who with a nail wrote on the tractor, "I leave everything to my wife," and part of the tractor was filed as an exhibit in the case of probate, which proved that as a holograph will. In the prairie provinces and in other jurisdictions there is a long tradition of holograph wills. I think I'll ask him to bring his experience as a judge to bear in a jurisdiction that has them and give me a report on them.

I guess you would always have cautious legal purists who would say in response to you; my goodness, there can't be certainty as to the attestation and the witness and everything else, and how do we know that at the moment he did that he was of sound mind if he didn't sign it in front of two disinterested witnesses, and they then sign in his presence, which our version of the old English Wills Act provides. I really don't have those lawyer aversions to it. I'm quite prepared to look at it from the standpoint of social need, bearing in mind that it may well be an issue that the Law Reform Commission have already looked at, and if they have not, would like to address me on.

I should have said in my opening remarks to my critic and to members of the House that a great deal of law reform is yet to be done in this province, and that I will endeavour to make it a priority to do some law reform. I'm going to very promptly review in depth all the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia over the past years that haven't been enacted, some of which are darned good, but we just haven't gotten around to doing them. I'm going to try to address private law reform and law reform in general. I think we've gotten a bit behind in that field. I'm glad you raised the subject of holograph wills; I'd be happy to consider it.

MRS. WALLACE: They've been in effect in England since 1883 and haven't seemed to cause any great problems there. A holograph will, like any will, can be contested if there is a question of authenticity.

The third and final subject I want to raise has to do with the public trustee's office. In my duties as MLA I have been extremely concerned about the delays that occur in that office. I've had several occasions to phone the public trustee, to try to get hold of someone there — and that's a problem in itself — to find out what is happening regarding a certain estate. I'm not suggesting that there is any wrongdoing in the public trustee's office; it's just the matter of time. I don't know whether they are understaffed or what the problem is.

As an example, I brought one case with me into the House. The file I picked up only goes back to May 1981. It's interesting that the file starts with a letter from the solicitor involved in this case on behalf of the husband. It was a divorce case, and the wife's estate was put in the hands of the public trustee, and the husband's lawyer wrote me in May 1981. As I say, this is as far back as this file goes. The letter reads: "I think that Barbara Wallace finally prodded the public trustee into action. The examination for discovery has now been set." That examination for discovery was held on June 5, 1981, and I assumed the thing was all cleared up. In September 1983 the lawyer in question came into my office with a file of correspondence, and nothing had been settled. They had had the examination for discovery on June 5, 1981, but as of September 16 no settlement had been reached. He brought in a letter from the public trustee's office dated August 12, 1983, saying that they would prepare a separation agreement — this was after I had been involved again — and as of September 9 nothing had happened there. Now I haven't heard again from the lawyer in question, and I really should have picked up the phone and called him to see whether or not this has been resolved.

But whether or not it has been resolved at this point, it's still too long a delay. The things that happened there, of course, related to the value of the property, because we were in a period of declining markets; the property that was to be offered for sale has deteriorated in price, so there's not as much coming out of the estate. The other thing is that two of the children who were interested in buying the property gave up in despair and bought other property, so are not now in a position to take on the family home. Those kinds of delays seem to me to be inexcusable. The middle of the case was 1981, and here we are possibly in 1984 but certainly in late 1983 with no solution. I wonder whether or not the Attorney-General can use some influence to try to speed up operations in that public trustee's office.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. SMITH: I used to hear those things when I was in practice too. There has been a fairly major investment in a computerized management system which has been introduced there. Over a million dollars....

MRS. WALLACE: Maybe that's the problem.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I don't think so. I think that it will help. The budget is slightly down but basically static, and the staff is about the same. It's an office which lends itself to criticism because it is dealing with a number of estates and patients, and you just pointed out an example of what happens when you delay on a piece of real estate in a declining market. The value is wasting, really, while that is happening.

If you would like to give me some chapter and verse on that one, I'll give you some kind of specific response. But I think it would be better if I had those details, because any criticism of that nature is pretty vital if it affects value and the children's assets as much as that did.

MRS. WALLACE: Just as a point of interest, I note on the bottom of my letter of September 16 to the public trustee:

[ Page 2998 ]

"carbon copy, Brian Smith, Attorney-General, with the complete file."

MS. BROWN: I just wanted to say to the Attorney-General while the other questions were being asked that I'm still doing some reading and nagging away at the whole business of what's happening to the Legal Services Society and to the delivery of legal aid in the province, and so I'm going to be raising it again. I'm not really finished with that topic yet. However, he accused me of believing that everyone who needs to have legal counsel should have it. He said he doesn't share my opinion. I just want to suggest to him that I share the opinion which was voiced by, I think, Mr. Justice Farris in the case of Regina v. Ewing and Kearney, in which he said: "Simply stated, it is my opinion that (1) an accused person is entitled to a fair trial, (2) that he cannot be assured of a fair trial without the assistance of counsel, and (3) if owing to the lack of funds he cannot obtain counsel, the state has an obligation to provide one." So I'm not as unique as the minister would like to suggest, nor as feather-brained or bleeding-heart — or whatever other term he would like to place on it. But I am concerned enough about the legal services thing that I am going to be nattering away about it, because I'm not satisfied. I have some stuff from Ontario which shows that they're handling it. I'm a little bit confused about why they can do it without having to cut back on the level and the quality of service that they are giving, and we can't. So I'll be raising that again.

Two questions. The minister has had an opportunity to rethink the decision to terminate the services of the special probation officer who travelled with what is euphemistically referred to in Vancouver as the "kiddy car." That is a car which has two police officers and a probation officer, and they are responsible for monitoring the streets of Vancouver and picking up the child prostitutes and trying to get them off the streets. As the Attorney-General knows, because these kids are juveniles the only person who has the clout of the law behind him in dealing with these kids is the probation officer. Yet the decision was made that that officer is redundant and that as of April 1 his services were no longer needed. There was a hue and cry about this, and I am quite sure that the minister has had an opportunity to rethink that decision.

Can the Attorney-General state whether the termination notice for that particular probation officer has been rescinded?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I understand that they have been notified that they are going to be reassigned. They haven't been handed pink slips. There is one in Vancouver and one in Victoria.

MS. BROWN: Reassigned to what?

HON. MR. SMITH: Reassigned to other responsibilities but not riding in the kiddy car. What you maybe neglect to remind us is that although the backup probation officer wouldn't be riding in that car, the two police officers would be there. This program was a very costly one because of the shift and the time, and I think I would have to be very strongly convinced that it was a core program, which I do not consider it to be, in order to make a different decision. Both those individuals who were in the kiddy car program were notified that we would not be continuing that program in the next fiscal year; that is correct.

[5:00]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I haven't got with me in the House my file on child prostitutes, so I guess I'm going to have to wait until tomorrow and bring it in. I didn't think I would have to go through that debate on the floor of this House again. The number of children operating on Davie Street as prostitutes, for whom there is no recourse....

The Ministry of Human Resources cannot deal with them. One of the things that came out of a community advisory committee on this issue was the design of this thing which is referred to as the kiddy car. Now the two police officers riding in that car cannot prosecute or do anything with these kids, because they are juveniles. The only person who has any clout over these kids is the probation officer. Most of these kids, when they are placed on probation, are told to stay out of certain areas: stay off Davie Street, stay off Granville or whatever the area is where normally they ply their trade. Only the probation officer can say to them, "You are violating your probation," and haul them in. For the minister to say that what I failed to mention is that there are two policemen in the car.... I did mention that. But they haven't got the same kind of relationship with those kids that the probation officer has.

When the minister says that it was cost-effective....

How do you measure in dollars and cents what happens to a child on the street? How do you place a price tag on that? Especially with all the research and statistics coming out of his ministry, starting with Human Resources when they're kids, moving into juvenile detention and on into corrections, the cost in dollars and cents to us as a community...because once these kids get into the system they don't come out, except at the other end, through corrections. But much more expensive than that is the cost to them, what it means to them. The minister is saying I have to stand here and convince him that is a necessary court program, Mr. Chairman. That doesn't make any sense at all, but if I have to do it, I'll do it. I'll bring my files in tomorrow and I'll do it.

HON. MR. SMITH: You can spend all week on it if you want. I don't have any quarrel with your basic proposition that that problem and those youngsters need attention. But whether the best way of giving them that attention is to have a probation officer riding in the same car with the two policemen is what concerns me. I agree that they must indeed have probation attention, but we had not felt that our experience of having them in the vehicle was crucial, but sure, I'll take a look at that. That's two positions, and if that is effective to have them in there we'll review that.

MS. BROWN: Okay.

HON. MR. SMITH: I have no quarrel with you that those kids need probation attention. It's the riding in the car in the middle of the night with the two police officers that I had some doubts about, but we'll review that.

MS. BROWN: Fair enough.

In support of riding in the car, you have to go where the kids are. You can't protect them by sitting in your office. They're on the streets in the middle of the night. That's where they are, and that's where the probation officer has to be when they are hauled in, and say, "you're violating your probation," and deal with them.

[ Page 2999 ]

I know that the minister made a number of public comments about the uselessness of the Fraser report on prostitution, but one submission made to that particular commission was by Nancy Morrison, who was formerly a provincial court judge and has had some experience, both as a Crown counsel, prior to going into the private practice of family law, and then sitting on the bench. Her submission dealt with the whole area of young people on the street, and she came up with some very interesting recommendations about the ways in which the Attorney-General's ministry, the police, etc., could deal more effectively with these children. I'm not sure just how the minister could go about having access to her submission — maybe she'll let him have a copy, if he makes a phone call, or maybe Mr. Fraser will let him have a copy — but it's worth looking at, because her approach was quite different to a number of other approaches in terms of how to deal with these particular children. I certainly found it a novel and exciting experience.

Will the minister make available to me a copy of a policy paper developed by his ministry on the whole area of wife assault? I just read about it in the Women's Office Newsletter, and it said that the Ministry of the Attorney-General developed recently a policy paper which calls for the abandonment of the assumption that wife assault is primarily a domestic or social problem which can best be handled through counselling or conciliation, and recommends that the justice system emphasize the criminality of wife battering and take the necessary measures to ensure the woman's protection. "This approach calls for a concerted response from police and the courts."

I find this very exciting and I'd like to read it, so I'm wondering if the minister would send me a copy.

HON. MR. SMITH: Most certainly, yes. We're about to make that public, and we're in the process now of implementing some of the recommendations of it.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

My remarks on the Fraser commission had neither to do with the personnel of that commission, who are very good people, in my view, nor with the quality of some of the material that is coming before them. It was the notion of having a committee roaming the country at large expense when it seemed to me that there were other approaches. I would have favoured some immediate legislation on the subject, at least to deal with the street problem. Then if a commission were going to be set up, I'd prefer a much more modestly structured one, because the kind of budget they have, compared to the sort of budget we're using on our legal aid task force, and getting people with equal types of qualifications to devote their own time in going around this province.... I just think the federal government do things in a very extravagant way on some occasions. That's really the concern I have. They delay things with commissions, and they do it in a way that is not cost-effective.

As for Nancy Morrison's paper, I would be delighted to receive it. I heard Nancy interviewed this week on the new Divorce Act when I was driving along in the car. She was excellent, and I would pay close attention to what she said.

MS. BROWN: Actually, Mr. Chairman, he should get her back on the bench, but supreme court this time. No more of that county court business.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't have that authority.

MS. BROWN: He doesn't have that authority? Surely the Attorney-General recommends. I know you can't recommend her to the Senate, but to the supreme court....

Can I talk about corrections now? That's what I'd like to say a couple of things about. I wonder if the minister would explain to me, for example, the procedure by which a person appeals a decision made by the regional director of corrections in terms of their right to visit the prison. Can you explain to me if there's any appeal to the decisions made in that area? Also if any reasons or explanations have to be given as to why a person's right to visit has been terminated? What happens? What's the whole process that takes place then?

HON. MR. SMITH: If visitation rights are cancelled, the reason for that cancellation is conveyed to the prisoner, and that decision can be appealed to the commissioner of corrections. Some appeals have been taken. But the reasons are always given. If you know of a case, hon. member, where neither of those occurred or where no appeal was made available, I would be pleased to learn of it.

MS. BROWN: I was speaking not of a prisoner but of someone with visiting privileges, and specifically a case pertaining to Claire Culhane, who had her visiting privileges suspended in 1978. No explanation was given except that it wasn't in the best interests of the institution at that time. She has gone through the usual appeal procedures. She again wrote a letter asking whether her visiting privileges could be reinstated and again was told that that was not possible, with no further explanation attached to that. I do not know all of the details of the case, but I just wonder about the machinery and where she goes from here.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I'm not familiar with her case. I understand that she went to court on the issue and the court upheld the refusal of the visitation, but where she would go for the refusal of her visitation would be to the commissioner of corrections. I'm not familiar with the circumstances of her case, save and beyond that she did challenge that unsuccessfully in court. So she has to go back to the commissioner, and it may be that the reasons for her visit were not stated. I don't know.

MS. BROWN: But there is no outside board of appeal other than the courts. I mean, there's no point in going back to the commissioner, because she did that and was told that the decision was going to be upheld.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, there is not, but I understand that on the last occasion that Clare Culhane requested visitations she was given full reasons why those visitations weren't permitted. I don't know how long ago that was, but she was given reasons. It was about a year and a half ago, I understand.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak a little bit about my visit to the women's unit in Oakalla and generally about the whole question of women in prisons. First of all, I can't say enough about how very cooperative the staff whom I met with were. I was given a complete tour of the institution. I visited the school, the gym, the kitchen, and various and sundry places, and had a chance to speak to some of the

[ Page 3000 ]

inmates. I feel generally that I was treated very fairly in terms of my request to meet with them to find out something about what was happening at that particular time.

The real concern I have about the justice system in general is that it really doesn't treat women fairly. If I can hark back to an old topic, I want to use the Lynda Williams house and its closing as one of the examples of what I'm about to talk about. The decision was made that that place was not cost-effective, because there are not enough women in prisons. In other words, if women are to get the kinds of resources that they need in the community once they are discharged, we need to drum up some more business. We have to have more women going into prisons. That is a negative concept. That is not the way we should be looking at it.

The women had Twin Maples. Again, because there were not sufficient women to keep Twin Maples at top occupancy, men were introduced into Twin Maples. It's now coeducational, if one can use that word. What's happening, of course, is that there are now more men using Twin Maples than there are women, and the rumour is out there that eventually the men are going to take it over and that the women are going to also lose that as a resource.

[5:15]

To show you that I'm not the only person in the world concerned about this, I received a copy of a report that was submitted to the branch management committee in January 1984, which was prepared by the Women's Program Committee for Female Inmates. The title of it is "Review of the Availability and Use of CBRC," which means community-based residential centres — community-based residential beds for female inmates in British Columbia. I'm sure you must have a copy of the report. I just want to touch on a couple of things that the report talked about. It bemoaned the closing of the Lynda Williams house. That was one of the things it talked about. But it also reveals some interesting things, such as the fact that the statistics of what happens to women when they leave the institution are not being kept. The follow-up on the statistics just isn't there.

The other thing it pointed out is that the present analysis is based on a telephone survey. It gives the number of beds that are available and the length of stay and the type of program available to them. It says the total number of beds available is 264. Of this, only 53 percent are available for women and 6 percent are guaranteed for female inmates. It goes on to say that there is no systematic gathering of information on the destination, upon release, of female inmates. Any community-based facilities serving female inmates released from prison don't necessarily have programs attached to them to help women through that transition phase. It says that the demand for bed space for female inmates, especially in the lower mainland, exceeds the guaranteed bed space which is available, and goes on to say that the problem of providing adequate bed space may be further increased by the introduction of long-term temporary absences.

They made three recommendations. The first is that 20 community-based residential centre beds be made available to female inmates immediately and that 15 of these be guaranteed. The second recommendation is that all community-based residential centre beds established for female inmates have a program component geared toward contributing to their self-sufficiency. That's so obvious that I'm surprised it's not already happening. The third recommendation is that access to the community-based residential centre beds be provided both at entry from court — you should be able to go straight there — as well as during the course of a female inmate's sentence from a correctional centre.

I have two questions for the Attorney-General: has he received and read and inwardly digested this report, and if so, has he made any decisions about the three recommendations enclosed therein?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I haven't read it. I am advised that my department received it about ten days ago, but the concept it contains, of using these community-based residential centres, is one that I support and one that we already do support. Of the 20 that the report identifies, we have in operation now between six and eight in three centres, some of them run by Elizabeth Fry. They seem to be an effective way of dealing with the problems that you mention, and also of carrying out the concept that has been endorsed by Madam Justice Proudfoot and others of separate incarceration — and incarceration in a community setting where they are with other women seems to make sense.

On your question about Twin Maples related to this issue, I have absolutely no intention of closing the women's component at Twin Maples. I have no doubt that the rumour mill produces these fears, but that is not my intention. Having closed the Lynda Williams Community Correctional Centre, I would not be closing Twin Maples.

I think the report points in the direction we would like to move. We'd have to provide approximately 12 more of those centres if we were to carry out the recommendations.

MS. BROWN: As far as privatization is concerned, I'm pleased that the minister reversed his decision about the kitchens. It was very important to the women in Oakalla that they retain access to the kitchens, that they be able to use it rather than have their food being catered. Unfortunately that's not true of the men's unit, and I'll talk about that at another time.

Are nurses going to be privatized? There is some concern about this. One of the things Lynn mentioned is that a certain relationship grows between the inmates and the nurses who are on staff, and this would disappear if Upjohn, for example, or some other organization have the contract and send different nurses at different times into the institution. Is the minister going to proceed with the decision to privatize the nurses, or allow the nurses to remain as public servants?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, we did reverse the decision on food services at Lakeside; so, as I say, it's not just blanket privatization for its own sake. It has to work, and it didn't seem to work sensibly with that unit so we didn't proceed with it. It is intended to privatize nursing, but there will have to be some assured quality and continuity of service. You can't have nursing service provided for under contract without that continuity, with a different nurse arriving every day or every shift. Again, I don't intend to be the harbinger of silly privatization.

MS. BROWN: Maybe then the Attorney-General would explain to me why the decision to privatize the nurses; everyone seems to be quite happy with the system as it is, so why this decision to change it?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, it seemed to make some philosophical sense to have people in the medical profession delivering medical services and not people in the correctional

[ Page 3001 ]

field. We believe that contracting that service will give us important flexibility, which we don't have now. We also believe that the cost of that privatization will be competitive with current costs and may even permit an increase in the level of nursing service, compared to what we're currently able to offer. As well, we're aware of the standards of nursing that are required, and I think we'll be able to ensure that we have a very high standard. Certainly we don't have a revolving door as to personnel.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, if the minister isn't completely hard-line on this, I would appreciate it if he spoke to the — I don't suppose you use the word warden any more; it's the administrator or whatever — of the women's unit and some of the other people to find out the way they feel about the whole business of privatizing the nurses. The nurses who work for the corrections system are medically trained; they're not freelancing. They are registered nurses. The only difference is that there is some continuity, and they get to know the inmates and the inmates get to know them. The minister cannot say that it's going to be more cost-effective to privatize that, because that's not the case. It's going to be more expensive in the long run. So if he has not made a hard-and-fast decision, I hope that he will have a talk with them before making a final move in that particular area.

I'm sure the minister shares my concern that Kingston is the only federal facility available for women. This is something that I ran across: there are a number of women who will have to go to a federal penitentiary but would rather remain in British Columbia, because this is where their residence is. What can we do about that? Has the minister got an alternative recommendation?

HON. MR. SMITH: The policy on female offenders who are sentenced to more than two years is that we will accommodate them if we're able to; indeed, we do. I think that's been the policy for some time. It may be that some more joint work with the federal penitentiary branch needs to be done on this, to do some more planning. Our position is that if we can accommodate them here, in most cases we do, instead of having them shipped to Kingston.

To return to your previous item on the nurses, yes, I'll examine that privatization. But some of the services now are provided by outside agencies rather well. At Lakeside, the educational and library services are provided by Douglas. I think that you'll find that having nursing service provided with medical administration may be preferable to having it provided with correctional administration. Yes, we will look at that.

MS. BROWN: I want to touch on a couple of the recommendations made in the Proudfoot report and find out what's happened to them.

One of the recommendations we dealt with was that Twin Maple should remain as presently constituted. Well, we haven't got any control over that. Has an independent adjudicator been appointed to deal with the disciplinary court? Has that happened? Is that now in process?

HON. MR. SMITH: The opportunity is there if the request is made for citizen representation on disciplinary courts. It is not often or regularly requested or invoked, however.

MS. BROWN: Can the Attorney-General tell me which of the recommendations have not yet been implemented and why? Maybe that's the easiest way to do it.

[5:30]

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I don't have the Proudfoot report. I didn't know it was on the list of what you wished to discuss, but next time I will carry it around in my pocket. If you want me to write you and tell you what we've done with the recommendations, I'll be pleased to do so.

MS. BROWN: I'll be here tomorrow, Mr. Chairman, if the minister would like to bring that response back at that time. We've been working through it, and I know some of them have been done. I'm just wondering about the ones that haven't and the reasons for it.

I received by mail — and I have no idea where it came from — a copy of a secret thing sent to.... I guess it's a memo. I got pages 2 and 3 — I didn't get the first page — signed by the commissioner. It's to all the regional directors, I guess, and it has to do with the adult correctional centres and the reductions in terms of meeting the budget. There are a couple of things in this that I was kind of wondering about. One has to do with early release — the recommendation that when things get a bit crowded we should have a bit more early release.

"When institutions become overcrowded, inmates may be released under the authority of the commissioner of corrections on a terminal temporary absence for up to 15 days. It is projected that we will be using this program twice as much as it has been used this year. This could result in some criticism from the courts and the public, particularly when an inmate who has been released on a terminal temporary absence is involved in a further offence while on early release."

The reason I'm concerned about this is.... As I said, I didn't get page 1, but what I got was that "the following is a summary of initiatives which have to be employed," which the reductions will be achieved through. It shows that the 1983-84 budget was $47 million, I guess, and the 1984-85 budget is down to $45.75 million — a reduction of 3.4 percent. So what Mr. Robinson did was to outline five ways in which we could deal with the reductions. One of the reductions, No. 5, was this business of early release. I wonder if the minister would like to address himself to this. I'm trying to get my hands on page 1, and I haven't been able to yet, but I'm concerned enough about this No. 5. It came without any identifiable stamp on it, except that it was under the signature of the commissioner, Mr. Robinson, with carbon copies to the ministry's executive committee.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, we're certainly examining a number of ways of reducing the incarceration demands; that's no secret. Some of those options are contained in that document that you referred to. Those various ways in which we're going to achieve our results and achieve certain desired budget results for 1984-85 have not been finally decided or dealt with. But the early release program has been around for some time and has been employed more vigorously in the past year. That's correct. We have increased the number of people who are on the temporary absence program. We allow terminal absences now for those who have education or employment absences, and also we allow the district director

[ Page 3002 ]

to make other terminal absences. The limitations on those, hon. member, are that the number of days which are granted do not exceed 50 percent of the time the inmate has to serve or one-third of the inmate's sentence length. Only those inmates who behaviourally don't present any danger to the public are eligible under that program. We have employed that program quite effectively — and I'm sure you would be pleased also — without very much public criticism since February 1983. Throughout the balance of 1983 it has continued, and it would be my intention to continue employing it during 1984. Whether we achieve the targets mentioned in that memorandum is still a matter for the ministry to finally determine.

MS. BROWN: Clearly, Mr. Chairman, there are risks involved. What this memo is saying is that in order to deal with the overcrowding in the institutions they are going to be releasing people earlier than the courts would like to see them released, because it says here this could result in some criticism from the courts, and certainly from the public, if the inmate, while on early release, is involved in a further offence.

The decision of the government to cut back on the budget of the adult correctional centres clearly is fraught with all kinds of dangers. Listen to number 3. It says:

"Giving increased priority to the making of inmate moves based on available placements rather than security and program requirements could possibly result in some increased risk of disruption in institutions and in the escape rate."

The minister can stand on his feet and drone on and on in the hope that he's going to hypnotize us to the point where we don't hear what he's saying, but the reality of the situation is that this memo, private and confidential, which was sent out to all the regional directors, was also quite explicit in terms of the risks involved in trying to meet this 3.4 percent reduction in funding for the adult correctional centres. It said:

"Refining further the bed load management plan, this is a management tool designed to keep all facilities at or near 100 percent of their resource capacity. Giving increased priority to the making of inmate moves based on available placements rather than security and program requirements could possibly result in some increased risk of disruption in institutions and in the escape rate."

What is the commissioner saying to his regional directors in this memo? What he is saying is that if he carries out the decisions made by the Attorney-General and cuts his budget by 3.4 percent there is a greater chance of disruptions in the institutions, as though we haven't had enough disruptions as it is. There is a greater chance of escape, as though we're not having more than enough as it is. And also they're going to come under criticism from the courts and from the public at large, especially if under the early release program some of these inmates commit a further offence as a result of their early release.

I'm not even adding the fact that the support programs that should be in existence in the community and the planning that should go on to ensure that we don't have a revolving door syndrome with some of these inmates is all being eroded too. So as we are closing the Lynda Williams homes, or whatever, cutting back on the community resources, having no programs or plans in the community and not even monitoring what happens to these people once they are out of the institution, we are having the commissioner telling his regional directors that in order to meet this budget reduction, we're placing the community and the institution at risk, and they are not carrying out the instructions of the courts. That's what this memo is saying.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member is wrong about that document. That is not a document that was sent to the field. She has part of a document that was sent to the executive committee and dealt with various ways of meeting certain levels of funding that might occur. It was for discussion at the executive committee; it is not a transmittal of a decision to the field, much as she may wish to characterize it as that. The increase that occurred last year in a number of our prisons was something like 25 percent. That ballooning of the population has not reoccurred this year. It is, I think, important that the temporary absence program is one that is supported, and I hope the member does support it. The document that she is referring to is an internal memorandum that was circulated to the executive committee for studying various possible levels of funding for '84-85, and that's all it was. It was not a direction to the field, it was part of planning. I can't help it if these documents get into the hands of members; I think it's endemic in almost any jurisdiction in this country that these things do occur. But I think that I have a responsibility to put it in the perspective in which it was written, not as orders to the field but to the executive committee: this is what we might face in funding; these are the things that we can do; these are the down sides of it and these are the plusses of it; and then the decision can be made later.

MS. BROWN: If the document was sent to the executive committee, why does it have at the bottom of it "carbon copies to the executive committee"? If I'm writing you a letter, why do I put at the bottom of the letter "carbon copy to Brian Smith"? I'm writing you a letter.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, because....

MS. BROWN: I'm getting the front page anyway. It's okay. The truth will out eventually, Mr. Chairman, because this did not come from an executive committee member. I am getting the front page, and this document was not sent just to the executive committee. They got the carbon copies of it.

HON. MR. SMITH: You're quite wrong about that. That was a memorandum that was sent by the commissioner of corrections to Frank Rhodes, and it was copied to the executive, committee. It was not sent into the field. I congratulate you on having purloined it in some way, and I'm sure you'll make an absolutely gorgeous headline in the Kerrisdale Courier or whatever your nearest neighbourhood paper is.

[5:45]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would mind tabling the document. Now that it's public property, why not table it?

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Table it.

Interjection.

[ Page 3003 ]

MS. BROWN: Are you willing to table it?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No. You know why, Mr. Chairman? Because, for example, it talks about reducing basic training for the staff. That was one of the recommendations, too. You didn't get a copy of the document, did you? "Reducing basic training for the staff in all activities" it's right here. That's right. It is.

We're talking about a document under the signature of the commissioner, which the minister tells us is for internal use only, and which is even more frightening when we know that they're planning to reduce basic training for the staff in all activities. It talks about eliminating one inspector, about a reduction in the number of inspections that can be carried out in the coming fiscal year, and on a more selective practice in dealing with inmate complaints concerning the administration of the Correction Act will be necessary. I think it's even worse if it is true that these are the recommendations that the executive committee was studying.

I started out by saying that I was missing page 1. If the minister would table the full document so that we can see it — it came only to Mr. Rhodes, and as an act of courtesy; copies were sent to everyone except the minister — then that would be helpful. I am very happy to xerox this and table it, because I think we should know what's going to happen in the adult correctional centres as a result of the ministry's decision to cut their budgets. That's the kind of recommendation that the commissioner is making. Untrained staff, undertrained staff, overcrowded facilities, moving people without any concern to security, placing the institution at risk of disruptions, increasing escape rates. Those are not my words. I'm reading them verbatim — issued under the signature of the commissioner.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right. These are the recommendations that are being made in order to stay within the reduced budget of that particular administration. When there is a prison riot or something goes wrong, nobody goes back and looks at the reason why. But it's right here. If they carry out these recommendations.... The commissioner himself said that in order to meet the 3.4 percent reduction they have to carry out these recommendations, and it could possibly result in increased risk of disruptions in the institution. He's foretelling the future. The commissioner is a fortune-teller. Here it is right here, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right: Peter Pocklington should see him.

It's right here. We're told about the increase in the escape rates. We're told about the discontent of the courts, because people are being released before they should be — the public being at risk because these people may be involved in further offences as a result of being released early. We're talking about the fact that staff are not going to be trained even to the minimum levels that they are now being trained to — a reduction in basic training of the staff in all activities.

They're talking about the elimination of inspectors. This is a section dealing with inspection and standards. Do you know what the reduction in their budget is going to be? It's 13.2 percent. It says: "Difficulties will be experienced in achieving the objective of remaining within the anticipated funding level if we are unable to reduce the numbers in the adult correctional and youth containment centres, and if the effect of the proclamation of the Young Offenders Act proves to be onerous." The minister says not to worry about it, because this is just an internal document. That's when we really should worry about it. And I want the minister to say that he does not support the recommendations in this document; that's what I'm waiting for him to say.

HON. MR. SMITH: If the member is finished reading from her purloined, fragmented billet doux, I'll tell her that it's dealing with a different budget year than these estimates, and it is not something that I have decided to do or not to do. It is precisely what I told you it was. It's not for the field but for internal discussion. You read it extremely well in your dramatic, alarmist tones, and I wish you well with the Kerrisdale Courier.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the minister is hoping that ridicule and humour will undo the damage being done by the statements in this document. If I were a wolf I would really be terrified, but I'm not. So you can make whatever sounds you want. I know I'm safe, Mr. Chairman; I'm not worried about that minister.

This document talks about the elimination of the forestry camp in Maple Ridge and reducing the day program. It goes through a number of other things, which I don't want to deal with in detail, because I asked the minister to table the rest of the document, and I'm hoping that he will. He stated it was a different fiscal year. It says right here, "1983-84, $47,369,590," and it's projected to go down to $45,780,469 in 1984-85 — a reduction of 3.4 percent. The years are right here. There is no question about that. So there are two requests, one that has been rejected and the other that the full document will be tabled. My colleague from Burnaby North wants to continue, and then I'll proceed after.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a quick question for the Attorney-General. It is to do with the infamous cow barns at Oakalla correction centre for men. I know there has been a lot of adverse publicity about the usage of those barns, which should have been put out of use for any human being — I'm sure the Attorney-General would agree with me — two years ago. I was wondering what you are planning to do about it, what the present status is.

HON. MR. SMITH: They are used only, as you know, in an emergency. The emergency in which they were used was the riot that occurred there last year. The incarceration there was very brief. It is not intended to use those again, except in similar emergency situations. They will be phased out and will go before Oakalla does. Eventually Oakalla will be phased out as well into the distributed centres that are planned and which we will be going ahead with, the first of which has already been opened on Main Street.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a supplementary to that question. I know the plans for phasing out the men's and the women's sections, but we are all aware of the fact that the women's section has also undergone some extensive, expensive renovations. My question to the Attorney-General is: if that can

[ Page 3004 ]

be done with one section which is supposed to be phased out, could not the same thing be done to temporarily provide proper facilities instead of using those cow barns even for the emergency situations, as you have said? It apparently is a very inhuman atmosphere in the cow barns, and no matter what the inmate may have done, I think that we have a responsibility as a so-called civilized society to try to provide at least a half decent place for them.

HON. MR. SMITH: I think we agree that that's a last resort holding place. There are other isolation cells in the Westgate B-wing which are used first and are better and would normally be used. Those cow barns have only been used twice in recent years and very temporarily in an emergent situation when the numbers were such that they couldn't be accommodated elsewhere. That was the only circumstance under which they were used.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.