[ Page 3005 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Medicare premiums and user fees. Mrs. Dailly –– 3005

Church leaders' request for meeting with Premier. Mr. Blencoe –– 3006

Intentional log surpluses. Mr. Skelly –– 3006

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

On vote 9: minister's office –– 3007

Ms. Brown

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Blencoe

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Skelly

On vote 15: corrections –– 3020

Mr. Howard

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests. (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

On vote 41: minister's office –– 3020

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Mr. Skelly

Royal assent to bill –– 3027

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today is one of B.C.'s professional engineers, who happens to be a personal friend of mine. I am proud to say that he is one of the many members of our profession who are taking consulting engineering around the world, helping the peoples of other nations solve their problems. He is Mike Okun, manager of Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. Would the House please welcome him.

MRS. WALLACE: We have visiting from Duncan today a group of some 25 grade 10 students who attend the Duncan Christian School. They are accompanied by Mrs. Voss, and I believe they are in the gallery behind me. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. PARKS: As I trust we can all appreciate, one of the most important persons in our political lives is our constituency secretary. I have the pleasure of introducing to this House my personal constituency secretary, who is in your gallery, and I would ask the House to welcome Mrs. Carol Martin.

Oral Questions

MEDICARE PREMIUMS AND USER FEES

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Will the minister advise the House whether the government is considering increases in medicare premiums and hospital user fees?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The fees associated with premiums and hospitals have been adjusted almost on an annual basis for some time, and if there were to be any changes, I'm sure they would be made available either through the budgetary process or in due course when that decision has been made.

MRS. DAILLY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister then advise the House why his government has commissioned a $120,000 Goldfarb public opinion poll asking these very questions of the public: whether they would accept increased user fees and medicare premiums, among others?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure what survey the member may be referring to. Goldfarb people do surveys. There was some information in the media this morning with respect to a survey on health care. I'm not sure if that is the survey she is speaking of or one specific survey.... If you have the time when the survey may have been conducted, or by whom, I would be pleased to check that. But I don't really see how it relates to whether we are increasing fees at some time in the future.

MRS. DAILLY: Is the minister saying that he is not aware of any recent poll on health financing costs commissioned by the government?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Again, I would have to ask the member to be specific about which poll she may be speaking of, when it may have been conducted, and by whom — I don't mean the polling company, but who commissioned the poll. I trust she isn't confused by the report in the Province this morning — by Goldfarb.

MRS. DAILLY: Perhaps if I read the first part of the first question on the poll it might refresh the minister's memory: "Questions re health financing from a Social Credit government-commissioned Goldfarb poll. Think for a moment about provincial health care services. If the provincial government finds that more revenue must be raised to finance health services, in your opinion which of the following methods would be acceptable?" It's a loaded questionnaire. It's assuming that the government says they have to have more revenues. So what kind of answer to that can you expect from the public?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I think it's very useful for government to be advised by the citizens as to how they think health care should be financed in part, rather than by the heavy-handedness of Ottawa in imposing restrictions and penalties on provinces. The people of the province have made it clear on many occasions, either by their votes or by responses to surveys, private and by government, that they are prepared to pay for health care services rather than see health care services reduced. I think it is the responsibility of the government to ask the people whether they feel it is more appropriate that there be premiums or hospital fee charges, or increases in taxation, or some other method of raising the necessary revenue to provide for our $2.5 billion health care budget. The Goldfarb survey conducted recently and reported today by the media was that people in greater Vancouver are satisfied with health care in the province. They exhibit both trust and confidence in both hospitals and doctors. In fact, they have little to complain about. I think these findings are consistent with previous polls. The health care system in British Columbia is regarded by the citizens as being of very high standard. I think it is vitally important that government constantly monitor the attitudes of the citizens to see how health care may be better funded and in what manner. I think for that purpose polling is very valid.

MRS. DAILLY: As usual the minister has just restated his own opinions instead of answering the question. If the minister does believe that public opinion polls are good for the public, will he then authorize the tabling in the House of the actual questions asked re health financing and the answers? If the public pays for them, should not the public see both the questions and the answers?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: If a poll has been conducted, presumably the people have seen it; otherwise, who would you be polling? The results of polls and the information received are the policies of the government.

MRS. DAILLY: Oh, so you won't table it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 3006 ]

[2:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The question of maintaining our revenues for health care purposes is one which is constantly being discussed throughout the province. People are repeatedly asked their opinions with respect to premiums and hospital fees. The B.C. Health Association is one of those organizations which repeatedly asks such questions at conventions and otherwise, and makes recommendations. They are perhaps one of the strongest associations in favour of such fees. In fact they — along with representatives of the Medical Associations and others — frequently criticize government for not increasing the fees. The greatest poll that is conducted with respect to health care and how it is handled in British Columbia was the last election, when health care was a major issue. The people said: "We are in favour of the way your government is conducting its business in health care."

MRS. DAILLY: I ask the question again: am I to understand then that the minister is not intending to table or to let the public see the results of this questionnaire and the questions? Would you please answer that: yes or no.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The information which is available by way of government publications and otherwise is available in our annual reports and other reports. If a poll has been conducted by the government, it will be a decision of government whether that poll itself will be tabled or whether the results of that poll will be tabled in some form. I think it's important, Mr. Speaker, that we do not confuse what the real issue is: not whether a poll was conducted to determine what the people of the province may feel about health care, but the manner in which the health care is delivered.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is so embarrassed by their criticism of the health care system when the people of the province repeatedly respond in a positive way to the health care system. What that member is trying to do is say: "Let's forget the high level of health care we have in B.C., and let's get all excited about whether a poll was conducted."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. At this stage the question has been answered.

CHURCH LEADERS' REQUEST
FOR MEETING WITH PREMIER

MR. BLENCOE: That kind of answer is unhealthy for all of us in this House, I have to say.

I have a question for the Premier of the province. In July last year the Premier received a very important letter from the heads of the United Church, the Anglican Church, the Canadian Council of Churches, the Lutheran Church, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the Catholic Church in British Columbia. They requested a very important dialogue with your office and with you, sir. Thus far, as of January 1 of this year, you have declined to respond to that letter and you have declined to allow a dialogue with these leading churchmen. I wonder if you could advise this House why you have decided to take that course of action.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair must be addressed and not the member directly; the member should know that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I receive a number of requests for meetings, not only from churchmen but from others, and we try to work them in when we can. I'm sure that any correspondence to my office is always acknowledged. I'm sure the member isn't inferring that any letter that arrives does not receive an acknowledgement. Meetings are arranged when they can be. A number of members of the clergy and spiritual leaders, not only of the Christian faith but others, have access to my office on a continuous basis. That member might suggest that only those who make public statements can get access, but everyone will have an opportunity, as I'm available, to have input on a number of subjects. Many do and many will, as we find the time to work them in. I'm very pleased that the clergy would take the opportunity to want to talk to the Premier of British Columbia.

MR. BLENCOE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. These are the leading churchmen of this province, and they represent a lot of people and have a lot of views. You, Mr. Premier....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, please address the Chair.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier is that you have thus far refused to meet or have a dialogue with these churchmen. You haven't had the decency to respond to them.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to know if the Premier is prepared to meet, have a dialogue with or even answer these churchmen in the near future.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I take the position that all those who serve the church are leading in their own way, and that none are more equal than the others, and all have access. Those who have requested appointments eventually will have that opportunity served. I certainly try to consider them as equal, as I'm sure the member considers that we are all equal in religious ways before those for whom they wish to speak.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier, I would remind you that the letter was written in July of last year. Will the Premier answer this House today? Is he prepared to meet with these leading churchmen on these important social and economic issues? Yes or no.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, when I respond to appointments, it will be with those who request them and not those who seek to be self-appointed appointment secretaries for those who have something relevant to say.

INTENTIONAL LOG SURPLUSES

MR. SKELLY: I suppose that instruction goes to the BCILA too, Mr. Speaker.

My question is addressed to the Minister of Forests. Last August I asked the minister what action he was taking regarding the problem of contrived log surpluses and logging for export. Will the minister now advise what action he has taken on this problem?

[ Page 3007 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, a study was done last year about the whole log export question. I received an excellent report back. As a matter of fact, that report was commissioned as a result of meetings which I had a month earlier with the IWA. We have that report. It is being studied. We are about ready to make slight changes in policy in order to make the system more workable. I would think that sometime within the next few months we will be announcing what changes in policy have been developed as a result of that study being made.

MR. SKELLY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the report was made available to the minister last July and that figures to the end of November 1983 show a doubling of log exports over 1982 levels, what action will the minister take to prevent companies from contriving log surpluses in order to export to the export market?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member is assuming that export permits which have been granted have been as a result of contrived surpluses. I don't think that's the case at all. We are following a procedure which has been in place for a number of years in British Columbia, including that period of time when the members opposite formed a somewhat dubious government. The conditions have not changed. I think it is quite common, historically, that during economic cycles log exports will rise and fall in reverse ratio to other economic activity in the forest sector.

As I said, we will be addressing that issue. Slightly new policy changes will be forthcoming. I will be announcing them within the next few months.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member for Skeena has advised the Chair that he has a matter to raise.

MR. HOWARD: The matter I want to raise to the House is pursuant to standing order 35, and that is to ask leave of the House to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: There he is.

The refusal of the government, including Blow-hard Phillips, to allow the leader....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, if we are to conduct the business of this House in a proper manner, firstly interjections, particularly during motions under standing order 35, must be kept to a minimum, if made at all. Secondly, responses in the middle of a 35, I must say, would endanger the validity of the motion itself. So may we have some order and continue.

MR. HOWARD: Yes. I will resist the temptation hereafter.

The subject matter is the refusal of the government to allow the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to take part in the debate on estimates of expenditures of the office of the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, without prejudice to the member's urgency factor, the Chair will take the matter under advisement and bring a ruling back at the earliest opportunity.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table a document, the response to the 1982 report of the Auditor-General, dated November 1983. I believe that copies of this were distributed to all members at the time of release.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 9: Ministers office, $185,732.

MS. BROWN: Yesterday I raised the issue of some recommendations in a top-secret memo sent by the commissioner of corrections, Mr. Robinson, to Mr. Rhodes, which had on it an asterisk saying: "Confidential, regional managers only." I discussed some of the things in the memo, and I asked the minister to table it. He has refused to do so. However, I'm going to raise a couple of the other issues raised in that memo to see if the minister has any response.

Just to refresh your memory, Mr. Chairman, I want to remind you that the memo dealt with the impact on the adult correctional centres of the cutbacks in their budgets. One of the things it talked about was giving increased priorities of making inmate moves based on available placement rather than on the security of the program requirements, and stating that this could result in increased risk of disruptions in the institution as well as in the escape rate.

The other recommendation, which I didn't cover, was one dealing with the reduction of admissions to the correctional centres. One of the things the memo suggested was that Crown counsels and probation officers were going to suggest or recommend to the courts that fines and unsupervised probation should be used more by the courts rather than otherwise. It went on to say: "This would necessarily include persons convicted of motor vehicle related offences, as these presently constitute 42.6 percent of those admitted to our correctional centres."

[2:30]

I don't know, Mr. Chairman, whether you know it or not, but the Attorney-General has also terminated the funding for the Counterattack program, which was supposed to be addressing itself to the whole problem of people drinking and driving. A commitment was made to the organization of MADD and to the community in general that the government was going to deal much more harshly with automobile drivers who were impaired, and people convicted of driving while under the influence. The government started out by incarcerating a lot of these people. Now we find that as a direct result of the cuts in funding, a recommendation is going from the commissioner of corrections suggesting that Crown counsels should recommend to the court that fines be used instead, and that there be unsupervised probation instead. The whole

[ Page 3008 ]

quality of justice in this province is really going to be jeopardized as a direct result of the decision of the Attorney-General to cut the funding available to corrections at this time.

The other recommendation which I touched on had to do with early release, not because it was in the best interest of the community, not because it was in the best interest of the inmates, but simply because of the overcrowding in the institutions at this time. It states:

"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, and this could result in some criticism from the courts and from the public, particularly if an inmate who has been released on terminal temporary absence is involved in a further offence while on early release."

So here again we find decisions being made based not on what is in the best interests of the community at large, or best interests of the inmates, not by taking into account planning or the rehabilitation of the inmates, but decisions that clearly place the community in jeopardy. The institutions are overcrowded and the government is failing to hang on to the budget they presently have, but are in fact talking about reducing.

A comment about equipment and machinery purchases was also made. "While tolerable in the short term, the implication of our equipment inventory becoming obsolete will have a long-term financial impact." I want to make clear that I am not being critical of the commissioner, because I think it is his responsibility and his duty to lay out very clearly for the Attorney-General exactly what the impact of the government's decision will be on the corrections branch of his ministry. That's the commissioner's responsibility, and he is to be congratulated for being as open, straightforward and honest in reporting to the Attorney-General as he does in this report.

Medical standards. "Medical standards will continue to be provided below desired standards." This is a statement by the commissioner, an admission that present medical standards in the correctional institutions are below desired standards, and will continue to be so. "Over the past two years the branch has been under criticism from the B.C. Medical Association, the Registered Nurses' Association and the College of Pharmacists for failure to comply with professional standards. Failure to meet these standards will result in continued and possibly strong criticism." This is disgraceful. The Attorney-General stood on the floor of the House yesterday and said the reason he is privatizing nurses in the women's unit, for example, is because it is important to meet professional standards in that unit. Lo and behold, we have a memo issued under the signature of the commissioner of corrections himself which states that not only are medical standards below desired standards but that they will continue to be so. It also admits that the corrections branch has been under criticism for the past two years from the B.C. Medical Association, the Registered Nurses' Association and the College of Pharmacists for failure to comply with professional standards. This is going to continue as a direct result of the government's decision to cut funding to the corrections branch of the ministry by something like 3.4 percent in the upcoming year.

That's just the section dealing with the adult correctional centres. There were also recommendations dealing with the youth containment centres. As I pointed out to the Attorney-General at an earlier date, I've visited a number of these centres. I've visited the youth containment centre in Victoria, and I've made a very brief visit to Willingdon and intend to return. I will be talking in more detail about those centres and what I found there, but I want to deal with what the commissioner of corrections recommends in terms of keeping within the upcoming budget. He talks about reducing admission to the youth containment centres. Is he going to do this because it's in the best interests of the youth who are involved? Is this going to happen because it's in the best interests of the community? Not at all. He is saying that once the young offenders act is proclaimed on April 1, it's going to be necessary to reduce admission to these containment centres simply because the government has not allotted the budget to deal with the implementation of that particular piece of legislation. How are they going to do it? Through preventive programs in the community to keep young people from breaking the law? Is that the recommendation that the Attorney-General has before him? Not at all. The recommendation is that Crown counsel and probation officers are going to be recommending that these youths not be placed in containment centres. It says: "While this continues to be the present policy, it may further test the limits of the community's tolerance of juvenile offenders remaining in the community. Some criticism from the courts and the public may be anticipated."

Given this kind of information and knowing what can be anticipated, why is it that the ministry is continuing in its decision of not putting in the funding that is necessary to see to it that the province is ready when the Young Offenders Act is implemented by the federal government on April 1? Again, I'm not being critical of the memo. I'm not being critical of the fact that the commissioner finds it necessary to alert the Attorney-General to the exact impact of this program on the corrections institute. Of course the planning for the youth who come up against the law is going to be again based not on what is in the best interest of the young people or what is in the best interest of the community. We are told in this memo: "Criteria will be established with recommendations to the court for early release in order to reduce costly and dangerous overcrowding."

I was under the impression that the Attorney-General, as the top law enforcement authority in this province, was really concerned about the prevention of lawbreaking and would be concerned about putting preventive services into place. Failing that, he would take into account the protection of the community and, as quickly as possible, the rehabilitation of the youth. Those are the criteria that would be used for dealing with these young people. But that's not it at all. Here the recommendation is being made: "To heck with the community; to heck with the kids. All that we are concerned about is costly and dangerous overcrowding." Again, everything is down to the bottom line in terms of dollars and cents, and no account is being taken as to what is in the best interest of these young people. When we get to talk about the termination and the erosion of funding for community resources and the whole privatization question, we will see the ways in which the Attorney-General squeezes these kids both ways by not having the resources in the community, not having the preventive services and at the same time placing them in

[ Page 3009 ]

jeopardy by not having the facilities for them once they are placed before the courts.

But what about the probationers and the people involved in family and community services, the people who work with these kids? We are told that there is going to be a reduction there too — from 602 to 494. "The resources available to supervise probationers and parolees, to provide information to the courts and to provide family services will thus be reduced."

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: It's right here. This is not my statement. I am quoting verbatim, as the Attorney-General knows. You have your copy there, too.

HON. MR. SMITH: Are you going to file those — the whole thing?

MS. BROWN: Yes, I'm going to file mine.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: If I knew the name of the person, I would tell you. But I haven't got the name of the person. If it is not an authentic document, you would be able to state that it's not an authentic document. If this is a forgery and that is not the signature of Mr. Robinson, then you should say that. If this is not an authentic memo coming out of the Ministry of Attorney-General corrections branch, you will have an opportunity to state that. You know you can deny it.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, the document says: "The reduction of the resources available to supervise probationers and parolees, the reduction of the resources available to provide information to the courts and to provide family services." They're going to be reduced. It says: "Some criticism will result if offenders under community supervision orders become involved in further offences." Of course that's possible. You're reducing the number of people who should be working with these young people, supervising them and assisting them to make the transition back into the community when the time comes. You're eroding the services in the community which should be available to assist them. Of course, the preventive services to keep them from coming in contact with the law aren't there. We are talking about eliminating 38 probation officers; that's what it says in this memo. Some 38 probation officers and 13 clerical support staff will be eliminated. As a direct result of that, these support services are going to disappear, or at least be reduced.

What's the recommendation for dealing with that? Something else that is in the best interest of the child or of the community? Not at all. The recommended initiative is that the courts should be recommended to increase the use of fines and unsupervised probation. That's how it is going to be dealt with. In not one single instance throughout these recommendation were the needs of the inmates, the community, the youth or the families of those young people taken into account. Everything was based on how we keep within our budget in terms of the recommendation for the reduction either of 5.5 percent in the probation area or 3.4 percent in the adult correctional area as the case may be.

[2:45]

And then, of course, what happens to funds available to contracted community services? There will be a reduction of $300,000 in the funding available to currently contracted community services and attendance centre programs. That is happening at the same time, The Young Offenders Act comes on stream April 1, and at the same time we're being told the supervision of probationers and parolees is going to be reduced. They're not going to be able to provide the courts with the level of information which they must have if justice is to be done. The family services are going to be reduced. And now we find that even community services and attendance centre programs that are contracted out are going to be reduced by $300,000. "This will be offset, however, by increases in such contracting which will result from privatization. Some small net reduction in the programs available is anticipated." Even so, there is going to be a reduction.

I like the euphemistic ways in which the memo deals with some of the cutbacks. It talks about " increase in the management spans of control." That is a euphemism. After positions are eliminated throughout the province by means of office consolidation, there will be increases in management spans of control. It talks about "the elimination of support services, the amalgamation of districts and regions, and these initiatives will reduce the capacity of the branch to provide information, to initiate new activities and to undertake planning." That's an incredible indictment, I think that's just dreadful. I extend my sympathy to the commissioner who has to operate under that kind of duress. It states quite clearly: "reduce the capacity of the branch to provide information, to initiate new activities and to undertake planning, " We're going right back to the days of old, when prisons were dungeons, and that's all they were. Lockups. No programs, no planning, no community resources, no support services.

I want to repeat the final thing I said yesterday: reducing basic training for staff. We have inadequate, inferior medical care. We have under trained staff, overcrowded situations and planning around suggesting to the courts that they use more fines and more unsupervised probation. The only thing we have to worry about is that there will be some criticism from the courts and from the community if any of these people — whether they be adults or young people — are involved in further offences while they're on probation or involved in early release.

I want to repeat what I said earlier about the probation component being reduced from 602 full-time equivalents to 494 and ask the minister if he honestly thinks that he can maintain at least the current level of services in view of that reduction. Can he confirm that Corrections is going to be something like $2 million short in terms of its budget anyway? Also, can he confirm that the memo is false?

HON. MR. SMITH: I guess it would be very tempting to spend all one's estimates debating a purloined memorandum, which the member has had great fun with for a few hours, yesterday and today. I'm glad she isn't being critical of the writer of that memorandum. I would hate to see her when she was critical of him. By her approach she does not, I might say, encourage a frank and full discussion by public servants of ways they might recommend to government on how to meet various possible budget targets for the fiscal year ahead. In this memorandum a senior member of my department endeavoured to set out for the executive committee the implications of some possible budget financing proposals for

[ Page 3010 ]

1984-85. I have absolutely no intention of debating with her the 1984-85 estimates. Hopefully she will have the pleasure of doing that within the next month or two. By continuing to suggest, under the guise of not criticizing the civil servant, that the proposals in there are government policy, I think she is doing a great disservice to people in government who freely and in a confidential way set out proposals for their ministers in memoranda. I can assure her that none of the proposals contained in that memorandum is policy or has been adopted. Many of them will be discussed and probably some of them — perhaps a lot of them — will be adopted. The member also knows that we have to operate with very limited amounts of money, and therefore choices have to be made.

The gist of her criticism of all these proposals is a very simple one: that is, she believes major additional amounts of money should be put into the system. I can assure her that the Counterattack program she spoke of has not been cut. The contribution to Counterattack by this ministry has a budget of $204,000, and that budget has remained intact. We ran our part of the program. Of course, part of the Counterattack funding also comes through ICBC, and they have continued their part of the program at an even higher level. Also, this year more funds went into advertising by the industry itself to assist us in our fight against drinking and driving.

She also spoke of the young offenders act, which I take it she probably supports. I certainly supported some new initiative by Ottawa to try to bring dealings with juveniles out of the nineteenth century and into the twenty-first century. The federal act unquestionably does that to some degree, but a number of deficiencies and problems are inherent in it, dealing with confinement, documentation and a great deal of bureaucracy attendant on all these wonderful federal reforms. I spent much of the last eight months trying to develop ways in which portions of that federal legislation could be phased in and some of those sections not proclaimed; trying to persuade the minister, Mr. Kaplan, to bring in some of these sections but not all of them. But her party in the House of Commons in Ottawa has been totally resistant to making any changes in the young offenders act or to delaying its implementation whatsoever. As it now turns out, implementation of this bill has been delayed for a year. It probably won't be implemented on April 1. We are going to have a reasonable cost-sharing plan, with Ottawa putting some money into it. So some of the projected horrors in the memorandum that deal with youth containment will probably not come to pass, because Ottawa finally recognizes that if they're going to pass legislation of this kind they have to put some dollars into it to see that it's properly implemented. I've taken the position with them that we're not going to implement the young offenders act in some half-hearted piecemeal way. If we're going to implement it we want to implement it properly, and Ottawa has to help us.

I can also tell the member that the numbers she speaks of, the possible reductions in staff, are not going to amount to reductions in the number of people delivering the service to anything like that extent. If they occur, as I indicated earlier, many of those services are under consideration for privatization, and they will be continued.

I want to address only one of the many detailed matters that she would like to debate with me on the proposed 1984-85 estimates, one principle: that is, ways, other than imprisonment, of dealing with some offenders. I would have thought she would welcome that, instead of being indirectly critical of it. Surely it is not effective, in dealing with people who commit summary conviction and motor-vehicle offences, to load the jails. Surely the way to deal with them is to have very strict initial penalties which may not involve imprisonment or fines, because fines impact more heavily on people at one end of the economic scale than the other. We are examining ways that will impact fairly equally on all. Those ways include impoundment of motor vehicle, impoundment of the right to obtain licences, and a registry system dealing with our fines throughout the provincial public service, so that if we have people not paying fines, or people who are under probation orders and are not carrying them out, they will not be able to obtain motor vehicle licences or insurance anywhere in the province of British Columbia. I think that we can do a great deal more in being absolutely tough with the right to licence, and absolutely tough with the enforcement of motor vehicle licences without loading the jails up with people who have committed motor vehicle offences.

I do not believe, either, that deterrence at that level is solely brought about by imprisonment. It's certainly true that if you get a person who commits a number of motor vehicle offences and continues to have a pattern of doing so and responds to nothing else, pretty well the only recourse that you have is to imprison him to get him off the highways. Also, if you have a person who repeatedly violates the law in relation to driving without a licence, then eventually the only deterrent for that person is imprisonment. But I do not believe that wholesale imprisonment of driving offenders is going to have a strong enough deterrent effect. We have got to find other ways of deterring them, and I am going to explore and introduce the use of a very full and integrated system of reporting on licensing and hope that much greater use can be made of licensing and of impounding motor vehicles. I know that it is not a simple matter, but I think it's a matter that we can address more.

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to debate with the hon. member every one of the proposals contained in that memorandum.

[3:00]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I am really pleased that this memo was sent to me, because it gives me the opportunity to support and reinforce the warnings made by the commissioner of corrections in the memo. This is an alarming memo. What it is saying to the Attorney-General is that if he persists in implementing the cutbacks in services to the level that he is talking about, he is placing at risk the community at large, and certainly the young people as well as the adults in the system, the potential inmates and some of the staff — and I have some notes from some of their staff meetings as well. It is not a criticism of the commissioner. I am echoing and reinforcing the warnings made by the commissioner in this document, and I want to make that very clear.

I am sorry that the Attorney-General doesn't want to discuss this with me. I am going to give him some time to mull it over, and I'll raise it again sometime in the future. But in the meantime I accept, with a certain amount of pleasure, his comment that he probably will not persist in implementing all of the recommendations which are possible, as outlined in this document.

My colleague the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) wanted to raise some questions with the Attorney-General at this time, so I'll allow him to do that and

[ Page 3011 ]

give you a chance to rest from the sound of my voice, and I will see you again later.

MR. REYNOLDS: I am very glad the member for Burnaby-Edmonds is going to rest her voice. Yesterday she made some comments about the way that the Attorney-General spoke, and I think she should go and listen to herself.

I just wonder if the Attorney-General could tell me, after listening to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds saying that she doesn't want to blame the commissioner or any of his staff, but she wants to blame the Attorney-General, whether she has ever sent to you a detailed list of suggestions as to what the NDP would recommend as to how we should run the corrections system. Have they ever sat down and said, in a non-partisan way, "This is how we would like you to run the system, " or "Can we make some positive suggestions as to how your bureaucracy could run the corrections system?" Or do they just get up at estimates time and keep complaining about it?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just a minute, one at a time.

HON. MR. SMITH: In response to the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, I have found no such document in my mail tray, but it could be that it's gone astray and may have gone back to, or been leaked to, members opposite. Nothing like that has come to my attention, but I'll do a diligent search of my office when I go back. Maybe I've overlooked it.

MR. REYNOLDS: I thank the Attorney-General for that. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) said that I should look at the results from 1972 to 1975, and I would just suggest to her that I have looked very closely at those results. In fact, I've been doing a little report on the corrections system following up some of the work I did in the federal system. I would just suggest to her that, from my point of view anyway, from 1972 to 1975 Mr. Macdonald, the second member for Vancouver East, was in charge of the correction system and led us into one of the most disastrous periods in our provincial history in that area.

MR. MITCHELL: I think we'll have a little change of pace. I can't help but comment, though, on the previous speaker. I think the Attorney-General's office and the treatment of prisoners and the development of a correctional system is not something that we can afford to make fun of from a legislative position. It is one of the most serious — and I say that very sincerely — problems that we have in giving service and protection to the public. There are attitudes that we can look at it and laugh at any changes. There have been, over many many years of the treatment of prisoners and offenders, many changes. These changes in some cases have been to the good and in some cases they are debatable. I think I share the same belief as the Attorney-General that the implications of the Juvenile Offenders Act are going to cause a great problem to police officers and the courts.

But these are not the main issues I'd like to deal with. I would like to deal with three or four topics that have come to my attention. One of them is one that I brought up, I guess in the last session, before the election. I had many discussions with the previous Attorney-General about a problem that affected one of my constituents. I quite believe that if it affected one constituent in the manner that it did, it's affecting many people in British Columbia. It deals with the custody of children. Just for the record and for the minister, I will review some of the facts that took place in this particular case.

It all started in Prince Edward Island where, following a divorce, the mother was granted custody of the child of the marriage. The mother remarried to a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. In his occupation he was transferred from the east coast to the west coast, where they are now residing in my riding. As she had remarried and had the custody, they were living in the Colwood area. The child was entered in school. The father went to court to apply for custody and was granted custody, and then he appeared in British Columbia and to the local courts and got an application from the Victoria court to apprehend the child. The court ordered a police officer to go and the child was removed from school. The child was then flown back to Prince Edward Island. There were two subsequent court cases in Prince Edward Island. It eventually got into the supreme court. The child was returned to the mother. I'm not going to go into all the detail on the case. The file in my office is about that thick. But what I am concerned with is that a person can come into British Columbia, can make application to the court and a child can be taken out of school and taken back out of the province to Prince Edward Island without the mother, who, as far as she was aware from the courts, had custody of that child.

The problem that arises is that she managed, after two court appearances and going to the supreme court, to regain custody. But that family is now bearing the cost of it, which is now pushing $18,000. Somewhere in the system there must be some basic compassion and sensitivity of the courts, the system that the minister is in charge of in this province. If in their wisdom the courts, on an application — though it may have been doubtful if it was completely legal; that is not important.... The court was faced with an order from the Prince Edward Island court, and in chambers they accepted it as being official. The court then ordered a police officer to go with the father and his lawyer to apprehend a child, and at no time did anyone have the decency to notify the mother of what was happening. I feel — and I know the minister is far more competent in knowing all the legal procedures — that if we're going to have any human rights, we must start with the family and the children of the family. I know one out of four marriages is going to end up in divorce, and I know there are going to be many children who will become pawns of broken marriages. I believe that protection is needed to take the trauma from an eight-, nine- or ten-year-old child who is flown back and forth across Canada or who becomes the centre of a case before judges. Consider a family that is going to be levelled with a bill of $18,000 to protect their rights. I think it's important that this government bring in some kind of legislation so that if the courts are placed in the position of apprehending the children — I think you know that there are merits both ways — the child is taken into the custody of the British Columbia court, the jurisdiction of the courts be protected and then they have a hearing in British Columbia where both parties together can make their application.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

[ Page 3012 ]

Last year the Manitoba government did bring in a bill entitled Child Custody Enforcement Act to cover situations like this. This is the last letter that I received from the predecessor of the present minister. I won't read it all, but he did say in his final paragraph: "Nevertheless, I am concerned that our process does not as a matter of course provide an opportunity for the respondent parent to be heard before the child is removed from the province. My staff has made suggestions for a change of legislation with regard to this point. It is possible that the difficulties encountered by your constituent in this matter may result in improved procedures for those who in the future are confronted with this problem." I waited all through this session, and every time we had a bill come down, that piece of legislation did not come down. It was not part of any of the massive amount of bills that came in. I believe that there is a need for something of this type for the protection of children and families, and I was wondering if the Attorney-General has given it any further consideration. As I say, I won't go through the whole case or all the other correspondence. What is his position on it right now?

[3:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: That story is really one of a number of very vexing cases that have occurred in Canada. They have really been a procedural, interjurisdictional jungle in the area of custody and maintenance. When you have a divorce pronounced in one province and as part of that divorce you have an order made either for custody or maintenance under the Divorce Act, under the old law — that is, the Divorce Act of 1967, which is still the law — parties had to go back to the province in which that order was obtained. It was a superior court order, but in your case it would appear it was obtained in Prince Edward Island. So if either party wanted to vary the custody or maintenance part of it, they had to go back to Prince Edward Island, which is, of course, absolute nonsense. You have a custody order and the mother, who has custody, and the child move to British Columbia and the father then goes to Prince Edward Island, gets it varied, and appears in British Columbia armed with the varying order and tries to enforce it here.

The jungle that you described can only be dealt with through changes to the federal divorce act. I'm happy to say that that appears to have been dealt with in the new bill which was introduced in Parliament about a week and a half ago. That bill, as I recall, gives jurisdiction to the court.... The parties can apply in the court where the child is; that's the natural or normal court for a custody varying. Certainly it would allow the mother to have access to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, because she lives here. She could have the matter dealt with here and wouldn't have to respond to proceedings in Prince Edward Island. But if the mother had received notification in this case, which she should have done, even in the Prince Edward Island court there would have been a chance for her to defend that in Prince Edward Island, which is not the way it should be. She should be able to defend in British Columbia. But the new federal divorce act, I believe, will cure that.

This province could pass all kinds of legislation which appeared to be progressive in the field of enforcement of child custody and maintenance, but it still wouldn't address that issue, which under the constitution is a federal issue because it's an order made as ancillary to divorce. It would be quite different if an order had been made in Prince Edward Island under a provincial statute for custody not as part of the divorce. Then the courts in British Columbia would have had some jurisdiction, because the child was here. But under the court's interpretations of orders made ancillary to divorce, the only court under the old divorce act that had jurisdiction was the court that made the order in the first place. You could have had both these parties living in British Columbia, and variation of the order would have had to take place through an agent in Prince Edward Island at enormous expense. The whole thing is ridiculous.

I think the federal Minister of Justice has addressed this in his new divorce bill, and you won't have repeats of that horror. I had occasions like that in practice; I had people who were put through that kind of jungle and maze and expense. It's absolutely preposterous, and it should have been cleaned up a long time ago.

MR. MITCHELL: I agree with the minister wholeheartedly that it should have been cleared up a long time ago. But what I am really worried about is that it was courts in British Columbia who gave the order and instructed the police to attend. They never made any provisions anywhere along the line, even after the child was in custody, that the parents should have some knowledge of what has taken place. This is what bothers me. I know Manitoba has attempted to cover it with legislation, and I was hoping from the last paragraph of your predecessor's letter that maybe British Columbia was going to bring in some type of legislation that would give the B.C. courts custody once they have entered into it — that once they have endorsed the order of custody from a Prince Edward Island court, and once the British Columbia courts have involved themselves in it, they will look at the very legal point of view that a lot of lawyers look at, but look at the human side of it: what it does to a family, to the children. I think it's important that we in this Legislature start looking at things and giving some protection to people. I don't think this is too far out of line of modern, progressive thoughts in the community.

Earlier my colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) and I were talking about different facilities that are needed in the corrections branch. I know from my previous occupation as a police officer and as an MLA who does get involved a little more than I should on problems of families that come into the constituency office.... These are the different types of facilities that we must have to cover juvenile offenders. I'm not one to promote any privatization of groups looking after the offenders, but I would like to bring to the attention of the minister a particular facility that for a short two or three years was in my riding. The corrections branch and the Ministry of Health utilized it, but somewhere in the bureaucracy of cabinet the Minister of Human Resources would not utilize it. It was a facility on the Malahat; it was run by a George Bullied. Basically it was a glorified, large sophisticated group home where youth who had gone through the court system and had been given some type of confinement were sent. They had their own school system and job training.

I visited it many times with, among other people, the previous Lieutenant-Governor. They did a lot of job training for those kids commonly called "street kids" — kids who had been in conflict with the law and had problems in the home. The problem was that while the courts and the correction facilities would use this particular group home, when the sentence finished — and they might be in the middle of schooling or a particular training program — the Minister of

[ Page 3013 ]

Human Resources would not pick up the cost of maintaining him there, and the child would be removed to some other group home closer to the city. It broke up a type of training which, from talking to some of the people who worked in the school and the home, and to some of the kids who went through it, appeared to be successful in that it took a lot of kids who were in conflict with the law, who had lived on the streets and worked the streets, who had committed many offences, and brought them into a type of family relationship that is missing from a typical JDH. You must have some type of a group home. You must have discipline within it, and it is important to have some form of training that goes along with it.

What is the minister's approach in dealing with these kids, who have not had a serious conviction, but in many cases their family cannot look after them? The typical group home or foster home.... In some cases the foster homes can't look after the more hardened ones, the hard-core ones. There has to be something in between, something other than actual incarceration in a jail, something that is more or less very free for a typical child who is forced out of a home but is in a group home; a child who is fairly well settled down and hasn't got to that wild stage that many of them have. There has to be something in between. There is a case just this week in my own community office of a child who's gone from 13 to 17 running away from home, living on the streets, sleeping in cars, and yet who has never had a conviction of any type. The RCMP in the Colwood area have dealt with her on many occasions, but they haven't had sufficient evidence to put her into jail, to try to get her into the EMI or.... Local foster homes are not capable of looking after that type of child. There has to be something in between. We can't wait until they're 17 and enter the criminal system, and become even more of an expense to society. There has to be something in between for children who are going through those troubled years, causing nothing but heartache and expense for the family. There doesn't seem to be any hope for change at the present time.

What are the minister's views on this, and what does he have in mind for these kids?

HON. MR. SMITH: If, as you describe, this girl has not been involved with the courts and has not been convicted, this ministry wouldn't ordinarily be involved. It is a matter that would come under the Ministry of Human Resources. If they are before the courts, as a number of them which you saw in your long professional stint in Esquimalt would have been.... We have quite a range of things in lower Vancouver Island that are available. They range from community service supervision to juvenile remand bed space, which is contracted with private citizens who take the juvenile home while he is awaiting trial if it's not deemed to be appropriate that that child be with his parents because he is a runaway, incorrigible, or whatever. There is bed space contracted for with a number of individuals. We also have a juvenile residential attendance setup, which is contracted out, in which there are a number of juveniles. In some cases it's simply non-residential attendance run by a host of agencies.

You probably are better aware of all of this than I am. I don't know why I'm telling you this, because I know you've worked with them. The Kiwanis here in Victoria are involved in that. The John Howard Society is involved as well on the Island, and some of the churches are involved. I know that you're really seeking a kind of a social answer to the question that you posed to me. I think you'd be just about as able to give that answer as I would. The resources for dealing with the child that is not before the juvenile court system are only the resources that are provided by a host of institutions, like churches. If there's nothing under the Ministry of Human Resources, you're really thrown back on agencies like Big Brothers and others to try to give some assistance and guidance. There probably never will be enough resources to deal with kids who are at that stage — before they come before the juvenile system. Once they come before the juvenile system, you've failed at the earlier stage. That's when we come into play. We get them at the failure stage, and we have that range of facilities that I mentioned.

[3:30]

MR. MITCHELL: What bothered me was the lack of coordination between the ministries of the government. In this one particular case of the 17 Mile Home, or whatever it was called, the corrections branch utilized them, and they were very effective. The Ministry of Health utilized them for children who, because of serious injuries, had maybe mental problems and needed some stricter assistance. But when they finished that sentence, if you want to call it that, they were cut loose from an effective rehabilitation atmosphere. They were cut loose because the Ministry of Human Resources would not carry them on to either the end of the school year or until they were re-established into some type of training program. This is what bothered me. All of a sudden they came to that date and had to be moved out. I feel that if the corrections branch is going to do a job.... You don't just take a child and throw him out onto the streets; you try to get him back into his home or somewhere where he is making some progress. I feel this is important. If we're going to look at it, we're going to have to look at it from the total picture of rehabilitation. I know, Mr. Chairman, more so than maybe you do, and I know the Attorney-General agrees, that there is a problem. It's not only a grey area it's a black and a brown area. All kinds of mixed areas are out there in dealing with juveniles. It's not a simple answer, and it's not something that I want to make political hay on. I would just like to see that there are some changes that are going to be constructive.

I have a couple of other questions to ask the minister. We all hear of the golden handshake in the corporate world when people leave the corporate structure. I hear a lot of stories, and I know that under the new revamping of the minister's office a lot of the in-house lawyers are leaving the ministry. I was just wondering if he could, for the benefit of this House, outline the various packages that were given to the lawyers who are going to show the restraint that is being practised by the department. Is this change in direction really an effective economic restraint? Is it saving money? Or is it restraint because that's the go-word? Is it going to cost the people of the province a lot more money for the services that they are dismantling? I was just wondering. Without getting into the personalities of the people involved, for the benefit of the House could he explain the golden handshake that his ministry is giving to lawyers who are leaving or staying under different contracts.

HON. MR. SMITH: Regarding the first question about what sort of packages people are given, that varies so much from individual to individual. In some cases people have opted for early retirement; we have that sort of case. We in this ministry have tried to approach the thing on the basis that

[ Page 3014 ]

we are going to make some reductions in the number of lawyers inside. We really tried to look for volunteers, and we found that there were some who indeed were prepared to take early retirement or go back to private practice, in which case we'd have to take into account the length of service that they had. Also, we'd take into account the draft regulations under Bill 3, which the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has been administering. Or it might be that this individual who wanted to go back to private practice would do some of the work they were doing for us on a contract, so that we'd have a one-year contract with them to provide some of these services. We have a range of all of those. We have some in each category, depending also on whether they are civil or criminal.

You asked the question: is this going to be more expensive? I don't think it's cheaper in the short run. You've got termination costs if it's an actual termination. If it's a privatization of legal services, the costs go into a contract. You don't have visible immediate savings, but I think you do probably get savings down the line. With the cost of professional employees in government, added up over a number of years with the various pension benefits that accumulate and the other benefits, and if you take into account the overhead, the office space and the support staff required, it really adds up to a considerable amount. I put the benefits in this area as being more important than financial benefits down the end of the road, even more important than the flexibility it gives you. That is, you end up with a mixed system of justice, so that you have some excellent lawyers in government who are providing specialized services, and you have lawyers doing work for you outside who have particular specialities. You don't have to hire them for a lifetime, but you can call upon them. Suppose you have a case that involves an international financial transaction with the Common Market or something like that; you may not have anyone on your staff who is familiar with Common Market legislation and practice. To have someone on staff who has that kind of knowledge, who was a specialist in it, wouldn't be justified by the volume you do. You'd retain somebody to deal with that for you. It gives you a great deal more variety of expertise, I guess. It also allows the good lawyers whom you have to stay with you inside government to perhaps do even more specialization and to have more interesting work. You could actually privatize some of the routine work.

I think the mix system is the best: good lawyers inside, some lawyers on contract and some lawyers who do ad hoc work for you. I believe in the mix system. Certainly on the criminal side it gives a balanced approach to criminal law. You won't have a lawyer who has just worked one side of the street; he has worked both sides of the street. I think you'd know the benefits of that system, because you've worked with Crown counsel over a number of years in this town. I like the balanced system. I'm not saying I would move towards a system in which everybody was in the private bar, but I think we got too far away from the private bar.

MR. MITCHELL: I believe that there really hasn't been a change; we've always had a mix system. If you didn't have an expert within the ministry, you did go out to the private sector to get somebody who was an expert. I'm not arguing with that. I think that's normal with any legal system.

I would like some kind of an example, just to confirm some stories I hear. For a person who is employed in your ministry as a professional, for one who went on a contract but stayed within the confines of the ministry, what package would he receive from the taxpayers to be on a contract, but still working within the system?

HON. MR. SMITH: There isn't anyone like that, because if he was on a contract he would not be a public servant. He would have received a contract to do the work not as a civil servant. There is nobody who has still got those benefits and is working inside as a public servant and is also on a contract.

MR. MITCHELL: Maybe I'll put it another way. If a person signs a contract for one year, I believe he would sign a contract for a fixed amount of money; or would he sign a contract for so many hours of service? If he signs a contract for a certain figure, what would that figure be compared to his wage prior to going out on a contract, and how would that compare to fringe benefits or to maintaining an office? Is there anything written in that contract that is arrived at based on fringe benefits, on salary or on maintaining an office, or services that the government will provide? To get any figure, have you got any examples?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, I see what you want. A type of example would be somebody who was prosecuting as a public servant and decided to go outside and we contracted for him to do prosecuting for us outside, and to do it exclusively. That person would receive a total package which was less than the value of what he received inside, but it would be more than his salary. It would be salary plus maybe 10 percent, possibly a little more, but that would cover the cost of overhead, the executive bonus plan and other things that he received when he was a public servant. As I said before, you wouldn't see immediate dollar savings from that kind of arrangement, but down the road there are dollar savings, because the commitment to provide benefits over a long period of time, and a lifetime, is not there. Also, the nature of the contract can alter. That person might decide that he wanted to do non-exclusive work, and to do some prosecution for us on an ad hoc basis for which he would be paid an hourly rate, and we'd agree to that and he could do other practice. You want an example, and I'm giving an example of somebody who elected to do that, and we were prepared to do that because he was a competent prosecutor, we needed his service, so we would give him a salary plus 10 percent. That would be an example. He would lose all their other ongoing benefits. He would possibly have accumulated pension time in there which he would be entitled to retain or be paid out on.

MR. MITCHELL: You said salary plus 10 percent, giving 1 to 5 percent one way or another. Would that be within 10 and 15 percent? There's nothing else? Or does it vary?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, it would be within the range of 10 percent to 20 percent. It would vary in individual cases, but that would be the range. It wouldn't be more than 20 percent.

MR. MITCHELL: You can confirm that it's no more than 20 percent, and there are no other benefits given, like office space, secretary space, use of government facilities, Xerox, etc.? Once they get their salary plus their 10 to 20 percent to cover their costs, are there other costs or benefits thrown in for those lawyers who are working full-time in the service of the minister?

[ Page 3015 ]

[3:45]

HON. MR. SMITH: I think I should correct something I said about exclusivity. We have some exclusive contracts and have had them for some time. These people that I'm describing would be expected and required to do a full-time volume of work, but they wouldn't be exclusive. Yes, we do have some people who are in the transition period, because this just occurred — are making use of some of our facilities and office overhead, rather than receiving a payment for that. That's considered to be a transitional matter. I don't anticipate that it will be a longstanding, continuing arrangement. They will have to make arrangements to provide their own quarters. It was more efficient in some cases to do that because we had the space and the equipment available. So we haven't been rigid on the thing and said: "Okay, you're going out on a private contract; don't put your fingers on the Dictaphone again, and this empty office is going to stay just like this." We've tried to be sensible and reasonable, and where we had an office and equipment available we made an arrangement on that basis. So you will have some that are by arrangement actually using the equipment and office of publicly leased space. That's correct.

MR. MITCHELL: What you're saying is that there is no hard and fast rule for what happens when lawyers move out. When it comes to cutting staff, it will say that so many lawyers have been cut off, but hidden away somewhere in other estimates will be the cost of the contract, the cost of maintaining that office, the cost of the dictaphone and the Xerox machine and whatever else goes in there.

In the past I believe that within many ministries lawyers were hired on contract to do a special piece of proposed legislation. I believe Consumer Affairs had a lot of legislation they were working on and hired lawyers to do that independently of anything else.

There is one other question I would like to ask the minister. We have heard a number of reports that you're going to privatize the sheriff's branch and various parts of ministries. Have there been any contracts or discussions within the ministry covering the transportation of prisoners by private individuals within British Columbia independently of the sheriff's office?

HON. MR. SMITH: No.

MR. MITCHELL: That's direct. I just wanted to check it out. So there has been no consideration of anyone else having a contract to transfer prisoners. What I'm really worried about is the jurisdiction of an outsider, who is neither peace officer nor police officer, having custody of prisoners. On the American side of the border contracts have been given to transport prisoners back and forth from state to state. I was just checking a story that I heard. The minister confirms that there has been no discussion within his ministry, or no contracts given for the transportation of prisoners within British Columbia outside of the sheriff's office?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, we haven't any contracts with anyone to transport prisoners or deal with the escort function. We're not negotiating any, either.

MR. BLENCOE: The whole issue of prevention programs in the AG's ministry may have already been raised by our critic. However, I would perhaps like to delve into something a little more detailed, which is not just a matter of concern to this community and to constituents but which happens to be a personal interest of mine: the whole question of prevention in the area of those who come at risk with the law. One of my particular interests — not only as an MLA, but it's one I had before I got involved in politics — is the whole question of diversion. I think the minister is probably aware that for a number of years I worked on diversion and alternative programs, trying to find ways to divert first offenders from the court system, and sometimes from the entanglement of the various bureaucracies involved in courts and officialdom.

Mr. Minister, it's my understanding that the diversion program is on somewhat of a hold, and that you have funded or agreed to continue funding to the end of March, I believe. Before I get into some background on diversion — I'm sure you're probably aware of it, but I'd like a discussion of it — could you give us your thoughts on diversion and the possibilities of having this kind of community and prevention program continue in the city of Victoria? It is a particularly unique one and, indeed, has been recommended to continue by a number of people. It is well supported in this community by lay people and professionals. Mr. Minister, perhaps you can relate the state of diversion and what you plan for it.

HON. MR. SMITH: Early in my term of office there was a serious look taken at not continuing to fund the Victoria diversion centre, which I intervened in. We did and have continued to fund the diversion centre, and we did an evaluation of the effectiveness of the centre — not really the effectiveness of diversion. I don't think I need any study on that. My own view is that you have to have more diversion. Our prosecutors and police have an important responsibility also in diversion. I think diversion centres can be really useful, too, but diversion begins and is effective if everybody in the justice system is part of it. The member for Esquimalt, I am sure, did his own diversion, too, when he was in the saddle. Certainly I did some when I was prosecuting at various levels.

The centre is being evaluated for its effectiveness, but I can assure you it's not an evaluation of diversion; it's an evaluation of how we're doing diversion and how we deliver diversion services and whether we're effectively diverting enough people. I'll make an early announcement on it this year. We won't have what we had last year, which was quite a bit of uncertainty that continued on through the spring and summer. Ultimately we really just had a continuation of the funding without an announcement.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister, I am sure, is probably well aware of the facts and statistics that I'm going to utilize, but I think they'll be useful. I would like to put them into the record in terms not onIv of my feelings about it but the position of our party in terms of the effectiveness of such a diversion centre. I'm going to use the statistics that have been provided by the Victoria Diversion Centre. The director, Polly Steele, is highly regarded in this community, and I'm going to use some of the things she has said about her program.

I could go into all the social impacts of diversion and the merits of such programs in terms of helping young people and adults to deal with a first offence and the consequences immediately. For instance, often when I was involved there

[ Page 3016 ]

we would take the client back to meet the victim to make some direct apology and offer direct consequences for their actions. Given the nature of the government and its desire in these difficult times to control budgets, I would like to talk a little bit about the financial implications. The elimination of the centre really does not make much financial sense.

If there had been no community diversion centre in Victoria in 1982-83, there would have been an additional 875 accused appearing in provincial or juvenile courts than there actually were. If these people had all entered guilty pleas and took only one hour of the court system's time, it would have cost a minimum of $299 per case. If these accused were represented by a lawyer appointed by legal aid, the cost would be increased to $420 a case. If, as it is highly possible, the accused were placed on probation, the cost per case would be $757. These costs are based on figures arrived at through a costing exercise done by the policy planning branch of your ministry, Mr. Minister. The breakdown is as follows. These are June 29, 1983, figures that may have gone up a little: Crown counsel is $45.84 per hour; a judge is $96 per hour; support staff is $58 per hour; and the facilities cost approximately $100 an hour, for a total of $299.84; a lawyer through legal aid is $120 per case; an adult probation officer is $338 per case, to make the figure of $757.84. By comparison, the community diversion program cost per case is $106.12. This figure was arrived at by simply dividing the funding and the clients served.

If the 875 people who were diverted through the community diversion centre in Victoria had been prosecuted in provincial court, the cost to the Ministry of Attorney-General would have been between $262,360 and $663,110 — a fairly substantial amount of money. As it was, because of the existence of the diversion centre, the cost was $92,852. If we took the figure I quoted, between $262 and $663.... Say we took a figure of $400,000; you have saved the taxpayers of British Columbia $300,000. I would add, of course, that the recidivism rate — and I know that when I was there, we used to make reports and studies and keep track of our clients — was indeed low compared to the normal procedure. I think you are aware of that.

It's apparent that the continued existence of the community diversion centre of Victoria is in keeping with the government's wish to save the taxpayers' dollars. Also, the implications in terms of the social benefit derived from this particular kind of program — community based, community serviced, immediate consequences for action, working very closely with family and child counselling, the probation service often overworked.... According to my colleague the official critic, we're going to be eliminating some probation officers. That would make their responsibility even higher in terms of trying to deal with these kinds of cases.

[4:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I think it's incumbent upon the minister not only to consider the social ramifications of eliminating this program and the benefit given to this community — young and old, older clients being dealt with in an efficient and effective way — but also in terms of dollars. It is an effective program.

One of the things about the staff who worked there and continue to work there is the many hours that are put in after hours. Often it's not necessarily because of the salary. It is a feeling of commitment to community and to younger people and trying to do something about some of the more unfortunate things that are happening in our communities and our society. They are trying to turn younger people around, early in the stage of what we know can become a second or third stage and then into serious crime. Having worked in that system, I have seen all levels and can recall quite vividly talking to those who were into serious crime about what wasn't available at an earlier stage — what they didn't get. If there had been the sort of thing that we were doing and the kind of work we were doing, the opportunities might have been there to turn many thousands of young British Columbians away from crime. For many it has unfortunately become a way of life.

I think it is growing because of the economic recession. I would urge you, Mr. Minister, to consider that on a financial basis the diversion centre makes sense. It has served this community for well over ten years. I don't know if you know this, but it was started by the Sisters of St. Ann, who got things going and then phased themselves out, returning the project to the community. In my estimation and in the estimation of thousands of Victorians, this program should continue. Just looking at the dollars — I'll ask you to respond to that — it makes sense. I know you are looking at this program, and the evidence is there. The studies have been done. I think the professionals beside you — your deputies — probably support such programs. It's very important that we find the $92,000 or $100,000 in the upcoming budget, so that the centre can continue to do its work.

Mr. Minister, perhaps you could say today that financially it makes sense and that there is no reason why this program could not continue.

HON. MR. SMITH: We are certainly aware of the good work that was done by the Sisters and the good work that the diversion centre has done over the years, including educational work at Wilkinson Road and the efforts that have been made with a number of first offenders. I am not going to announce the 1984-85 spending decisions. I can't do so, even if I wanted to. We undertook in the spring that we would evaluate the centre and the delivery of diversion, and that's what we're doing. We are most supportive of the principle of diversion and of the notion that the community should be involved in diversion, that the police and the prosecutors should be involved and should have input into diversion decisions. Without their input we're not going to achieve reductions in first offenders on non-serious matters who can, from time to time, come before the courts.

I can remember so many cases in my day in the criminal courts in Victoria which involved first-offence shoplifting that would come before the courts and that were particularly sad because they often involved a senior citizen. That was before there was any diversion concept, or formal diversion concept, and these people came — or didn't come, really — depending on the interest of the investigating officer, or maybe the attention of the prosecutor. If the prosecutor got a chance to look at it before it came forward.... But I think that we've moved quite a distance from that, and that our prosecutors and our police now have a very watchful eye for this process. I certainly acknowledge that the centre has done good work. You've been involved in that, too, in the not too distant past.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Given the limits on your being able to comment about the upcoming

[ Page 3017 ]

budget, I think we've got a fairly good answer. I think there's some kind of support for this kind of program. I hope I'm not being too optimistic.

I have a couple of other issues, but maybe I just want to touch on a philosophical question. One of the things that often happens — and my colleague has probably mentioned it — in the criminal justice system with the consequences for actions in terms of criminal activities is that we do indeed put out millions and millions of dollars into the far end of the system. We continue to do it. We deal with the prison system, and we know that all the costs of keeping a prisoner are quite horrendous. I'm afraid, for a number of reasons — and I won't go into them today — that we continue to provide millions of dollars at the end to deal with the consequences of breaking the law. My colleague from Esquimalt is, I'm sure, also well aware of this.

Mr. Minister, I'm wondering if you could perhaps enlighten us a little bit on your feelings about the whole question of prevention programs. Is it your intention — and again I know we're talking about budget items — to try to turn this unfortunate circumstance around? We seem to always find sufficient funds to deal with the problems at the end; maybe we should be giving far more serious attention to the whole question of prevention programs. Instead of putting $92,000 here, $100,000 here, and $10,000 here, we could put $100 million into a new penitentiary, or.... Well, you know what I mean.

We struggle to find some paltry sums for some of these programs that often can't be measured in statistics initially, because what they do sometimes is somewhat abstract. It may take five or ten years to see that result, and governments are obviously looking to short-term solutions, because that's the nature of government. You want to get re-elected again; you want to show the public you're doing something immediate. However, I think a responsible government and a responsible Attorney-General should be looking at putting more emphasis on prevention programs. As I say, we can find $100 million very quickly for the deal at the end of the problem, but we struggle to find a few dollars at the beginning.

Mr. Minister, my question to you is: is it your intention in the upcoming years to see if you can find a lot more funds for these particular prevention programs? I think we've all recognized that that's the way to go. There are many who have always doubted these prevention programs and have said they're no good or that they don't work, but even some of the heaviest critics over the last few years — and even some of the most cynical police chiefs, for example — have changed their opinions. I think we're beginning to recognize that we've got to put a lot more effort into prevention programs. Mr. Minister, can you indicate to this House whether you will be putting a lot more money into these kinds of programs?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, the subject is one that it's very easy to expatiate on in a general and supportive way. But when you start to get down to specifics, governments are maybe not as good at dealing with or supporting preventive services as they might be. I guess that's partly because so much of our budgets go to.... In the case of justice, they certainly go to offender maintenance and not offence prevention. So much of the health budget goes to illness maintenance and not to illness prevention, and so on. I think that's a shame, but governments across the country have tended that way. What you normally get in the preventive field are hopeful initiatives and high-profile promotions, and you try to look for some kind of real delivery in that field. There hasn't been enough real delivery. I went to a national crime prevention award ceremony here in Victoria — I don't think you were there, It was prior to Christmas; actually, it was Grey Cup weekend — I remember it well. It was held here in town and Mr. Kaplan came out and presented a number of national crime prevention awards. In some cases those were given to community groups that had actually had some concrete and quite good achievement — the sort of thing we have supported. We have supported a number of juvenile crime prevention projects. The Saanich police have been active in this, and now I think all the police forces in Victoria are interested and active in this. The Victoria Boys' and Girls' Club have been active as well. We have supported seminars. We support the B.C. Crime Prevention Association; I've had a chance to go to one of their meetings. A number of projects have been supported and have been valuable in our communities, including the most obvious ones we're all familiar with: Neighbourhood Watch, Kids on the Block and Marine Watch. All of these are excellent programs. Some care is now being given in the design and planning of new towns like Tumbler Ridge to ensure that they are laid out from a standpoint that will reduce the opportunity for crime and will produce less opportunity for property crimes anyway. So I guess what I'll be looking for is some real initiatives and not just some rhetoric. If we can do some concrete things there, I would be most open to prevention suggestions. I really would, because I don't think the record across the country in this field is great. The rhetoric certainly is, though.

MR. BLENCOE: A second-to-last little issue. An ad appeared in the newspaper today, February 1, 1984: "B.C. corrections branch. Submissions invited." It's basically the move to privatization, and one of the particular programs affected is the attendance program. Sixteen employees in Metchosin, that's my understanding. I am wondering, Mr. Minister, with your move to — I hate this word "privatize," good Lord! — your change of direction in terms of government, do you foresee that this particular program that is to be taken over by somebody else other than government...? Do you see any particular service cuts as a result in this particular move? Are you prepared to allocate the same number of dollars to whoever takes it over as you have allocated under government expenditures?

HON. MR. SMITH: No. Most fervently, no.

[4:15]

MR. BLENCOE: I presume that means you're going to cut back and that there's going to be less funding for this particular kind of program. Is that what you're saying, Mr. Minister? You're saying going out of government is going to be cheaper.

HON. MR. SMITH: I tried to deal with this in some other areas. Cheaper in the long run. Probably not much cheaper in the short run. But to have the programs delivered outside of government should not — from our planning, anyway — reduce the service. It may provide us with a chance to have some changes and improvements, but we're most mindful of the fact that the service ought not to be reduced, and we'll endeavour to ensure that that happens if we embark on that change in direction — I don't want to use the word either because I've used it so many times. No, that's our main

[ Page 3018 ]

concern: that we're going to be able to deliver the same kind of service, maybe even with some improvements. Over the long run I think it'll be cost-effective. I don't promise that it'll save a lot of money immediately, because of the reasons I gave to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell). There's a startup cost in any kind of privatization.

MR. BLENCOE: That was going to be my last question on this particular topic.

Will you be able to clearly document the swings you think you'll be able to make? The reason I ask that is because one of the problems of going outside, of course, is that you tend to set up a second-level administration. You already have your own administration that this kind of program can come under — you're already administering a lot of other programs; it's a small amount — and what you're doing is going somewhere else where there will be administrative costs to set up, and that sometimes isn't taken into account. It may initially look like you're saving money in your ministry, but the fact is that with startup costs and other levels of administration the savings are not that great, and the service that is carried out may not be as effective. You've indicated that perhaps there may indeed be some reduction in the kind of service given by this system. Can you answer that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. SMITH: I think the point is well taken. It certainly concerns me any time we're going to privatize that we're not just doing it for the sake of the exercise or because we're in love with the concept, but that we're going to be able to get some improvement, hopefully, as well as lessen the number of people that we are permanently committed to as employees.

In the field that you're interested in — attendance programs and correctional programs in the field — we've been doing this to some extent in British Columbia for quite some time. The experience with a number of the societies is that they often handle these better than we do. They don't build up large bureaucracies; they utilize a number of volunteers and can deliver the service well. I think of the work that both the John Howard Society and the Salvation Army have done in these fields, which is quite exemplary. I know exactly what you're speaking of where there have also been experiences where societies in this province have done social service work on contract for government. They have not been cost effective; in fact, they have been exactly the opposite. We certainly intend, in this ministry, to try to manage that very closely, but I have some of the same trepidations which you have raised.

MR. BLENCOE: To change to another topic. A well known centre in this town is the Law Centre. The question of legal aid is creating some concern, and I won't go into that because somebody else may.

One area is creating some concern in terms of the Law Centre, and it may be that you cannot comment totally, because I believe it does come under another ministry, the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications. We understand that there is some question that the university law student program is in some jeopardy in terms of the students that are provided to the Law Centre. If that indeed happens and that law student program is eliminated, it will be a devastating blow to the Law Centre, Mr. Minister. I'm wondering if you could comment on that and whether you've had discussions with your colleague who is responsible for that particular funding. Are you doing your utmost to ensure that the law student program continues?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll look into that. That program started at the Law Centre at a time when I was one of the founding members of the board that ran that centre — in fact set it up. I was very much involved in it — both the university aspect and the aspect of being a legal aid director provincially, which I was at that time as well. It's been a part of the program at the UVic law centre that if you opted for the Law Centre program you got credit for it. It was a credit program.

If anyone was thinking of not having that program, that would be a decision that the law school and the university would make. It wouldn't be a decision that my colleague would make. I guess it might be argued that it would be as the consequence of some funding decision that he was to transmit to them. I certainly support that program and will make my representations. I'm glad that you raised this and will certainly make my representations, both to the dean and to the university, and I'll inquire into it. I suppose in the rumour mill that precedes any budget you get these kinds of notions. It may be that the university is looking at that as one of the things they could do to reduce costs. But I would hope they wouldn't do that, because it provides a great deal of expertise and assistance to the delivery of legal aid in Victoria. It's really vital, I agree with you.

MR. BLENCOE: This is my last question. You are quite correct in some way that the university has said it is having a funding problem, but the dean of the Law Centre has indeed said that it is a factor, and that they may indeed not have the funding to continue this particular program. Hopefully, Mr. Minister, you will be able to take that up with the dean and see if we can find the adequate funds to ensure that that program does continue.

MS. SANFORD: I as well want to refer to an ad which appeared in today's Times-Colonist, inviting submissions from private agencies, persons or corporations to provide a community service order program in Courtenay and Nanaimo. I think the minister is making a very serious mistake in attempting to make the kinds of changes that the ad indicates the government is going to undertake in replacing the current program in the Courtenay area — with which I am quite familiar — with something that is going to be carried out through some private agency or corporation.

The minister indicated to us that he is concerned that across the country there is not enough interest, enough financial support, for preventive-type programs. As my colleague from Victoria pointed out, when that happens society has to pay by putting up an increasing number of jails and cells in order to accommodate those people who have not had the kind of diversion program or the service that is being so well provided in the Courtenay area right now.

The particular program that I'm familiar with is one that has been supervised by the corrections branch. The employee in charge of that program has operated it for six years. It's very successful. The person who is in charge has been innovative. He's very respected in the community. Now you're telling us that in order to fulfil some perceived political or philosophical need — probably both — you are going to put in less money; you are going to award these private agencies the right to carry on these programs. Even you, Mr. Minister,

[ Page 3019 ]

have indicated that you have some concern about the kind of service that might be delivered through this new approach that you're taking. There's tremendous turmoil in that whole corrections branch right now because of the ads and the setting up of a new program of this type.

The probation officers in the Courtenay area have a huge workload. They have a large number of cases. They look to this program providing community service as one of great assistance to them. The job is being well done now. If the minister is concerned about the way in which the work is being done in some communities.... He has already indicated that he wants more money to put into corrections, to put into prevention. If he is concerned about some areas, then look at those areas and see what can be done, but don't eliminate a program that has been so effective in my area simply to fulfil that perceived political need that has been talked about so many times by this government.

I'm very disturbed by the actions of the minister with respect to that particular program. I am hoping that the minister will reconsider and will look at some of these programs. If they working well, let them be. Already we have young people in great turmoil because of the economic difficulties of their families, the lack of work, all of these problems. To add this kind of problem is to me a very shortsighted, shoddy approach by government in its political desire to carry out a particular philosophy.

HON. MR. SMITH: Having these orders and caseloads supervised by private individuals or agencies is not something new. In fact, one-third of the orders in this province are administered that way already, including the service in Campbell River.

MS. SANFORD: Not Courtenay.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, that's quite right, not Courtenay. But I hope the energetic individual in Courtenay who now provides that service will apply. But that is the intended direction that we are going to follow, and we'll follow that direction, bearing in mind, I think, the concerns we all have: to make sure that the service is performed properly and faithfully and cost-effectively.

[4:30]

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I just received a call from my constituency, and I believe this is the minister who is responsible for Indian matters and for negotiations with Indian bands to resolve the McKenna-McBride cutoff lands question. Am I right in that? Assuming I'm right in that, I'll carry on.

I've just received notice from the Ohiaht Indian band that they are concerned about the delays in negotiations taking place to restore to them the lands near the Sarita reserve in my area. I'll just read a release that the band has put out today. It says:

" In 1913 the federal and provincial governments set up the McKenna-McBride commission to 'adjust' the acreage of Indian reserve lands. It was felt the Indians had too much land for the number of people living on and using it. A meeting was held at Sarita Indian reservation between the Ohiaht people and members of the royal commission. All Ohiaht people were there and voiced their opposition to the removal of 600 acres bordering the valley of Mount Blenheim. The Indian act then and now provided for the removal of lands on one condition: that the majority agree to the said removal.

"The majority of the Ohiaht people at this meeting were against the cutoff of this 600 acres of treecovered slopes. The minutes of the meeting proved this. Since then the Ohiaht band has been negotiating with the federal and provincial governments for the return of this land, for compensation for resources removed, for the loss of use of the land and for punitive damages.

"The federal government has agreed to return the land to us. The provincial government must compensate us for the loss of 600 acres of top-grade virgin timber which was logged off. Both governments must pay us monetary compensation for legal expenses and loss of use of the land.

"To date the provincial government appears to be using 'stall tactics' " — and that's what I'm concerned about, Mr. Chairman — "to avoid their legal obligations. The Ohiaht people are a patient people, but every person has a limit to their endurance."

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister what meetings have taken place between his ministry and the Ohiaht people. What is the reason for the stall tactics by the government? They're avoiding their legal obligations to restore the lands to the Ohiaht people and to compensate them for the loss of the benefit of the use of that land over the period since it was taken away from them illegally under the Indian Act.

I am told that the Ohiaht band is now planning to block the road between Port Alberni and Bamfield, and I think this is a matter of some urgency. I hope the minister will at least meet with the band, reinstate negotiations and be serious about completing the negotiations for the restoration and compensation of this property to the Indians.

HON. MR. CHABOT: When was it logged off?

MR. SKELLY: It was logged off after it was taken away from the Indians, I understand. Perhaps the minister can answer that question when it is your turn to ask the minister a question.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the minister will advise me if he will meet with the Ohiaht band and make every effort to speed up negotiations so that the Ohiaht claim over this land will be resolved.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll respond in a few minutes when I have a report on that. We have completed negotiations on Indian cutoff lands with a number of bands, as I think you are aware. Those are tripartite negotiations which involved the federal government, ourselves and the band. Those negotiations were fruitful in relation to a number of bands. I actually attended some settlement announcements in Vancouver in the latter part of last year with John Munro and with the chiefs. I know that we have ongoing negotiations on other cutoff land claims that are outstanding. They are three-level. I don't know of any that we have refused to take part in or to be prepared to negotiate, because there is an obligation there under the legislation that was passed in the 1880s and under the constitution. It flows from the McKenna-McBride agreement. So we have participated in those. But I can't give you an exact answer on the specific concern of your band, but I may be able to do so in a few minutes. I think what we

[ Page 3020 ]

probably better do is pass this on to someone else, if you agree; then I will respond to you.

MR. SKELLY: Could I just add one more comment. If the minister has been a participant in the announcement of some of the settlements under the McKenna-McBride cutoff lands negotiations, would he become involved in furthering these negotiations so as to avoid any kind of cutoff of the community of Bamfield in my constituency, which may result from the frustration of the Indian band in pursuing these negotiations?

HON. MR. SMITH: Certainly I will look into the matter, but I would not respond to threats to block a highway or do anything like that. Neither would I accelerate matters because of that, nor would the member, if he had the responsibilities that my colleagues have on this side. I will get a report on those negotiations so that I can inform him through the House as quickly as I am able.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm really anxious to get the new budget and to look at the new estimates. A lot of the questions that I have to ask; in view of the fact that the money for this year has already been frittered away one way or another, seem almost like an exercise in futility. I'm going to do everything I possibly can to expedite the bringing down of that budget.

Rather than pursuing this, I am going to set an assignment for the minister in preparation for his 1984-85 estimates. I'm going to come back to the corrections question, Mr. Chairman. I will have had an opportunity at that time to see whether or not any of those recommendations and warnings issued by the commissioner were in fact heeded.

I have real concerns about the decision to privatize the community service order program. Mr. Ted Harrison said in the Sun, January 12, that the branch will probably hire an inspector to ensure the services provided by the contractors meet standards required by the government. However, I've been through this blue book, which was handed out at the meeting I attended, and nowhere can I find any indication that the government intends to hire an inspector or inspectors to do that, nor that there is going to be any preference given to non-profit organizations that apply for contracts. So I'd like a quick response on that, and would let the minister know I am going to be monitoring that.

I want to spend a lot of time in the upcoming estimates on the legal services to children — what is happening to the detention centres, the lack of remand centres, as well as camp facilities for young women offenders.

Maintenance orders. Now that the new divorce act is down and they're not doing anything about it, I want to know what the A-G is going to do about enforcement. It's now out of the hands of Human Resources and into the hands of the Attorney-General.

What are you doing to the funding of the Justice Institute? What programs are going to be eliminated there? Also, do you have a detailed historical analysis of the Vancouver Status of Women council and its contribution to the lives of women in British Columbia? If not, before you make a decision on their funding for 1984-85, I want to see to it that that information is in your hands.

My final question has to do with sheriffs. I have a report here with the questions marked, but since I can't find it.... My colleagues have been hiding stuff on me, Mr. Chairman. There were some questions having to do with sheriffs. That's the report that he was just handing you, and you said no. I have some questions on that in terms of their qualifications and the powers they were going to have. As I say, I have mislaid those questions at this time, but I'll be coming back with them. Also, a special plea to protect the funding for the native courtworker program — no further erosion of that program.

With those remarks, Mr. Chairman, I want to send the Attorney-General on his way with that little assignment, and tell him that I look forward to meeting again.

Vote 9 approved.

Vote 10: administration and support services, $65,728,532 — approved.

Vote 11: Superior and county judiciary, $1,894,887 — approved.

Vote 12: provincial judiciary, $9,078,651 — approved.

Vote 13: police services, $72,599,391 — approved.

Vote 14: court services, $42,906,470 — approved.

On vote 15: corrections, $79,176,813.

MR. HOWARD: From listening to the debate, obviously we need something corrected in the corrections branch.

Vote 15 approved.

Vote 16: legal services to government, $9,821,996 approved.

Vote 17: criminal justice, $15,053,323 — approved.

Vote 18: statutory services, boards and commissions, $33,660,320 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

On vote 41: minister's office, $143,879.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm not going to make a long introductory speech regarding my spent estimates. I would be very happy to respond to questions from the opposition.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I just can't believe the minister's statement that he is not going to make a speech introducing his estimates. We're spending hundreds of millions of dollars in the Ministry of Forests. The forest industry is having some of the most severe problems it has experienced in the last 30 years under this minister....

AN HON. MEMBER: Confine your remarks to the leadership.

MR. SKELLY: I am confining my remarks to leadership and the fact that this minister has done a terrible job as Minister of Forests. This minister, when he's outside the House, talks about accountability, and yet when he stands up in this House he says he's not going to explain his estimates.

[ Page 3021 ]

How much money are we spending in the Ministry of Forests? My first question is: how much money are we spending under these estimates?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, we don't spend money in the Ministry of Forests; we invest it.

[4:45]

MR. SKELLY: I suppose that's an example of the kind of flip and foolish response we get from a minister who is responsible for the most important industry in the province. People in the forest industry and the Forests ministry go around this province saying they're responsible for 40 to 50 cents out of every dollar transacted in the province of British Columbia. We just can't afford that kind of flippant response from a minister who has jurisdiction over the most important resource and the most important industry in British Columbia. It simply doesn't make sense that the minister isn't willing to provide at least an overview of what his ministry has been doing over the last year for which we've been expending this money. The minister may call it investment. Whatever he chooses to call it, whatever newspeak has been applied to the term, it's still expenditure from the point of view of the taxpayer, and the people of this province at least deserve some accounting from the minister as to his performance in this ministry. It simply isn't enough for him to stand up in the House and say he's not going to say anything about the tremendous amount of money that has been expended on behalf of forests in this province and that he's only willing to answer questions.

Mr. Chairman, this is my first opportunity as Forests critic to deal with the minister's estimates and to examine his performance, and there's not much in his opening speech against which I can measure his performance. So maybe what we should do is go back and look at some of the obligations that are placed on this minister by his legislation and by some of the statements he has made establishing goals and objectives of the ministry. The only thing we really have to work on are the objectives spelled out in the Forest Act and in the Ministry of Forests Act. I was looking through them a few minutes ago, and in the ministry act it says under section 4:

"The purposes and functions of the ministry are....to

"a) encourage maximum productivity of the forest and range resources in the province;

"b) manage, protect and conserve the forest and range resources of the Crown, having regard to the immediate and long-term economic and social benefits that they may confer on the province;

"c) plan the use of the forest and range resources of the Crown, so that the production of timber and forage, the harvesting of timber, the grazing of livestock and the realization of fisheries, wildlife, water, outdoor recreation and other natural resource values are coordinated and integrated in consultation and cooperation with other ministries and agencies of the Crown and with the private sector;

"d) encourage a vigorous, efficient and world-competitive timber processing industry in the province; and

"e) assert the financial interest of the Crown and its forests and range resources in a systematic and equitable manner."

Mr. Chairman, I think if you go through those functions and purposes of the ministry, as far as I'm concerned you'll find that this minister has not performed properly or in accordance with the functions and purposes prescribed.

The minister is also required under the Forest Act to manage the forests of the province in specific ways.

"'Subject to the regulations, a Provincial forest shall be managed and used only for (a) timber production, utilization and related purposes; (b) forage production and grazing by livestock and wildlife; (c) forest oriented recreation; and (d) water, fisheries and wildlife resource purposes."

So the minister has certain obligations in the management of provincial forests that are spelled out under the Forest Act as well.

At least during the opening of his estimates in the Legislature, the minister should be advising the people of this province through the members of the Legislature exactly how he has performed in the last fiscal year in accordance with the purposes, functions and objectives specified for him under his legislation. Yet we see no willingness on the part of this minister to be accountable under those sections of the act and to explain to the people of this province how well he has performed. Have the forests been returning the necessary funds to provide for the services that the people require? Have the forests of British Columbia over the last year been providing even the money necessary to replace the forests, to maintain them in good condition and to pass them on to future generations? Those are the responsibilities of the ministry, and the minister refuses even to stand up in this House and tell the members of the Legislature how well he has performed that function. Has he, in accordance with the requirements under this act, provided the economic resources that the people of this province require to carry on their services, and has he been a good steward of the resource on behalf of the owners of that resource, the people of the province?

Analyzing the material from the minister, the newspapers, forest companies and organizations concerned about this province over the past year, it is my opinion that over the past year this minister has failed to perform in a competent way on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia and to fulfil his role as steward of our forests. He has failed to manage our forests competently and to ensure their replacement for future generations. He has failed to improve utilization and to eliminate waste in the forests. He has failed as a competent manager of forest lands, recognizing that those forest lands consist of a complex ecosystem in which a number of values are represented, including those fisheries, wildlife and recreational values that are described both in the Ministry of Forests Act and in the Forest Act. He has failed to achieve an adequate return to the people of the province on the investments made in the forest industry and in our richest resource, the forests. He has failed to maintain employment for citizens of British Columbia in the forest industry and in the various programs required to replace the forests and make sure that the resource is passed on intact or in an enhanced condition to future generations. He has failed to provide adequate opportunities to small businesses in this province in order that they may carry out their objective of earning a legitimate profit while creating jobs in their communities. The minister has failed in that part of his role as well. He is managing the forests of this province, not from an economic perspective, not from the perspective of making an adequate return to the people of this province, but from an ideological perspective

[ Page 3022 ]

in the same way that this government is managing everything else.

Look at the way this government manages wolves in this province — in such a brutal and insensitive way, without providing information to the public, without consulting with the public. This minister manages the forests in about the same way. Totally incompetent. I'm talking about the process of management, the necessity for accountability and the necessity to provide information to the public. On the basis of good stewardship, on the basis of commitment to the people whom he was elected to serve, this minister has failed in his role as Forests minister. He has failed to consult the public in an effective way.

Look through the five-year forest and range resource programs and look back to 1980, when we first began to bring out some of these reports. The ministry's goals were clearly stated in these five-year forest and range resource programs. On page 3 of his first report he talked about the Ministry of Forests being responsible, as part of the government, for increasing employment opportunities, for increasing real incomes, for ensuring stability in employment and incomes in both the long and the short term, and for achieving a greater degree of regional balance in provincial economic development.

Will the minister even stand up at the first of his estimates in this House in a new year and explain how he has met those objectives in his ministry's functions over the last year? How has the expenditure of moneys by his ministry met those objectives of increasing employment opportunities, of increasing real incomes, of ensuring stability in employment, and of achieving a greater degree of regional balance in provincial economic development? He has been able to achieve none of those things. In fact, I think he's lost sight of those objectives that were first stated in his forest range and resource management programs back in 1980.

On the same page he says:

"In British Columbia the public seeks to establish a stable, diverse and healthy society which satisfies human needs and allows each individual to contribute in his own way. The ministry can contribute to the present and future well-being of residents of British Columbia. For example, through responsible resource stewardship the forest and range resources will be passed on in a productive state to succeeding generations."

The minister could have at least reported how well the ministry is doing in replacing the forests that have already been logged and in replacing the forests on lands that up to this point have been non-satisfactorily restocked. The minister has an obligation to make this kind of a report to the people of this province.

Just a few minutes ago I asked the minister when the annual report for the Ministry of Forests is to be released. The last one we have was for the fiscal year 1981-82. He answered that he's prepared to release that report now — when we're dealing with the estimates for 1984-85. There is a four-year gap in the information that has been provided by this minister to the people of this province. We want to know just what this minister has done during the past few years and how he has managed the forests in keeping with his stated objectives in forest management in the province.

He has changed a little bit in outlining the objectives of the ministry. In the most recent five-year report, 1983-88, instead of talking about improving real incomes, increasing employment opportunities, balancing regional economic development, the ministry now has a new and a more ideological objective. Here is what the ministry is now talking about in terms of its five-year program for 1983-88: "In this context the priorities for the Ministry of Forests have been set to reduce the size of the ministry." He could at least explain to us how that's going to contribute to the achievement of his objectives previously stated. "To increase the role of the private sector." How is that going to help achieve regional balance in economic development, real incomes and employment for the people of British Columbia? "To aid, enhance and support the economic recovery of the forest sector" — and he says that it is these priorities that are reflected in his five-year program. There is no statement of concern about the quality of the forests and forest resources; no statement of concern about jobs for the citizens of this province or about regional economic development or increasing real incomes. The only statement of concern we hear, the only priorities we see here, are that the government should turn the operations of our forests over to the private sector. That's the priority of the ministry. It's an ideological priority, rather than a priority that should be the priority of this minister, and that's to serve the people of this province through the management of our forest resource.

We see that there has been a fundamental change in the approach of the Ministry of Forests — a change from a commitment to managing our resources, a change from a commitment of stewardship of our resources, and that change has been to a commitment to serve the interests of the private sector. All of the stated priorities of the ministry in his last five-year forest range and resource report are to serve the interests of the private sector — none of them objectives that had been previously stated.

Mr. Speaker, everywhere you read today people are concerned about the state of the forest resource of British Columbia and of Canada. Every magazine you open today from Reader's Digest to Life Magazine, people are talking about the disastrous state of the forest resource and the disastrous state of forest management in British Columbia. Economists are talking about it, environmentalists are talking about it, foresters are talking about it, and there's the concern that if we don't begin to manage this resource in a more effective way and commit money to this resource so that it can be managed in an effective way, then we're going to lose the resource and lose a great deal of the economic advantage that this resource brings to the province.

[5:00]

And what does the minister say when he stands up to introduce his estimates? He gives absolutely nothing in the way of introductory comments about his performance as minister or about the performance of his ministry in exercising the stewardship that they are mandated to exercise in this province on behalf of the real owners of the resource, the people of British Columbia.

When you look at the real priorities of government, Mr. Chairman, those priorities aren't reflected in the words of the government. Half the time you can't believe those in any case. Those priorities are reflected in the money that the government allocates to different areas. Those priorities are reflected in the government's willingness to borrow money to serve certain uses. This government seems to be willing to borrow money to build stadiums, to develop B.C. Place in Vancouver and to build accelerated light rapid transit systems, and yet the very resources upon which those things

[ Page 3023 ]

depend, on which business in Vancouver depends, on which those citizens in Vancouver depend.... The very resources that provides the money to pay back the loans for those developments are going neglected as a result of the policies of this minister and this government.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Foresters across this province and people involved in the forest industry across this province and across this country are saying that billions of dollars must be invested each year if we're going to maintain our forests in proper and productive condition. If we're going to maintain our position as suppliers to the markets of this world, billions of dollars are going to be required across this country. Yet the minister and the government don't seem willing to establish a priority in replacing the forests of this province in maintaining their productive capability. He's not even replanting this year anywhere near the amount of lands that he's cutting over this year.

Mr. Chairman, I think members of this Legislature and the people of this province deserve much more from this minister than simply the flippant comment: "We don't call it expenditure; we call it investment." I'll bet, Mr. Chairman, that the minister doesn't even know how much money his ministry has been budgeted to spend in this fiscal year.

To give the previous minister credit, when we were dealing with the estimates of the Attorney-General, he came in with his advisers — people from corrections and his deputies — and he was prepared to answer questions and to consult with his staff on the answers to those questions. Yet this minister comes in with absolutely nothing in the way of advice.

Maybe he goes to Treasury Board with no advice to offer to Treasury Board either, because he has no people with him when he goes to Treasury Board to ask for money for his ministry. As a result they feel it's easy to cut him back. Under vote 42, forest protection program is down 39 percent from the last budget; research program, down 23 percent from last year; range program, down 10 percent from last year; and silvicultural program, down 9 percent from the previous budget. There are staff cuts throughout the ministry. What is this minister doing? It's our most important resource. It's our most important industry. It provides most of the work in our manufacturing sector. It's responsible — as you say and everybody else in the industry says — for 50 cents out of every dollar transacted in this province. Mr. Minister, you have a responsibility to come to this House and to tell us how your ministry has performed over the last year in expending the money that we're here to vote on on your behalf.

So I would ask the minister to reconsider and stand up in this House here and now and give us an indication of what the performance of your ministry has been. Tell us what you've done. Tell us what directions you're going in. Tell us what your objectives and your priorities are for this year. Express to us your concerns about the direction of the forest industry. But, Mr. Minister, no more flip comments. No more "you ask the questions and I'll give the answers," when you don't even have people there to advise you. We're told by the professional foresters of this province and by the people in the industry in this province that it's a complex industry. Problems facing the forest industry today are serious problems. If those problems and those issues are that serious, they at least deserve a little better treatment in this Legislature than they're getting from this minister at this time.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

So I ask the minister: at least let's have an indication, let's have some accountability. Don't just come into this House and say, "I have nothing to say about the ministry; ask a few questions and I'll give you a few answers," when you don't even have the people here to advise you. At least the Attorney-General had the decency to bring his staff in to assist the members on this side of the House and on your side of the House to answer questions that are of concern to them. At least have the decency to do that. Give us an idea of which direction the ministry is going in. Give us an idea of the situation in the forest industry. Give us your impression of it, in any case. But don't come in with some flip comment that you don't know how much money is being spent in the Forests ministry; that you don't call it expenditure, you simply call it investment.

I've got questions to ask of the minister, but I'd like to see what the minister has to say about his ministry. Is he that unconcerned that he has nothing to say about his ministry? I can remember estimate after estimate, when ministers in this House stood up, proud of the performance they've made in their ministry, proud of the objectives they've achieved in their ministry. The Minister of Tourism, over the years.... . how tourism has increased in the province, what we can do to increase it further. Yet this minister stands up and says: "I've nothing to say about my ministry." Other ministers have been proud of their performance. Mr. Minister, aren't you proud of your performance as minister? Aren't you proud enough to stand up and say what you've accomplished over the last year as Minister of Forests? This is a disgrace. And your performance is a disgrace, Mr. Minister. I would like to hear at least what you feel proud of in the things you've done in your ministry over the last year, before we authorize the expenditure of your budget.

Mr. Chairman, I guess we do have a number of questions to ask of this minister. The minister has brought no staff to the House. In general, when a minister comes into the House to deal with his estimates, he comes in with line staff of his ministry, people who can answer questions on such complex issues as silviculture or stumpage assessment, people who can advise him on matters of forest inventory and range resources, people who are hired and paid substantial sums of money by this government. Having talked to some of these people on occasion, I think they are worth the money that they're paid, yet clearly the minister doesn't value them enough to bring them into this House to answer some of the questions. Okay, Mr. Chairman, we'll ask a few questions and we'll see how the minister responds.

We see from the estimates for 1983-84, on which we are now voting a few months before the fiscal year ends, that the total revenue from the forests of this province was projected to be about $172 million this year, and that net of section 88 offsets of $59 million, that revenues were anticipated at the level of approximately $131 million. I'd like to ask the minister what the revenues have been for the current year. Also, what amount of money has been paid out for section 88 offsets? I'd also like to ask the minister if in some areas of the province the section 88 obligation that the ministry owes to the forest companies and to licensees for work that has been done in fact exceeds the stumpage and revenues available

[ Page 3024 ]

from those licensees. The information was made available at the CanFor tree-farm licence hearings in Chetwynd a few weeks ago that in some cases the provincial government owes licensees money under section 88 for approved projects, that we owe them more than we received from the resource in those cases. So we're actually paying people to log in this province. I would like to know from the minister, if that is the case, where in the province it is the case.

The ministry anticipated spending this year something like $137,180,000 on management programs and something like $55 million on silviculture. The loss anticipated by the ministry this year: that they were going to expend $61 million more than they brought in from direct forest revenue. I'm wondering where that figure stands. Are we spending more on the forests than we're bringing in, in terms of forest revenue? If so, how does the minister see that problem being resolved?

I see that the forest companies, when they contact the MacDonald royal commission or when they make their statements in the press, feel the taxpayers of the province should be subsidizing the replacement of the forest resource. Actually we pay virtually every cent, under section 88, for silvicultural programs and for intensive silviculture, and yet those licensees feel that we should be paying even more out of income taxes and out of other resources of the Crown. It seems strange, in a province with such a wealth in its forest resource, that the resource is insufficient — that the sale of the timber is insufficient to pay the costs of managing it. It seems to me this is also a reflection of the government's priorities or preferences.

When I used to deal with the Ministry of Environment estimates we noted that the budget of the pollution control branch, for example, was something like $7.8 million a year. None of that was charged to the licensees. The taxpayers financed all of the pollution control permits and monitoring of those permits in the province. It was done freely for those who pollute, and the charge went back on the taxpayers. The same thing is true of the issuance of pesticide control permits. Here we are with the Ministry of Forests, dealing with the richest resource this province can boast, yet it's costing the people of this province money to manage that forest resource. It simply doesn't make any sense. We should be receiving as much in direct revenue from the forests as we are paying out in managing the forests, and that simply isn't the case.

We are well through the fiscal year 1983-84 for which we are voting these funds. The minister probably has a day-to-day accounting of the timber cut, of the direct revenue from the timber that has been sold or from stumpage that has been appraised. What is the revenue of the ministry to this point, compared to your projections? What have the expenditures been to this point, compared to your projections?

[5:15]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I was delighted to hear the opening speech for the leadership race from the member for Alberni — a very good speaker, that gentleman. A very good speech.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I hear a bit of chattering from....

MS. SANFORD: Yes.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: And not even in your own chair.

MR. SKELLY: We want to hear from you.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Goodness gracious.

Mr. Chairman, after that tirade, which lasted about an hour altogether, I guess I did manage to pull a couple of questions from what the member said.

Latterly he seemed to be retrogressing into the ministry for which he was formerly the critic, and was talking about pollution control and that type of thing. I'm afraid those types of questions will have to be answered by my colleague.

The member asked how the forest revenue we have received this year compare to the projections when we made our revenue forecasts a year ago. I can advise the member that our projections and revenue received are almost identical. There is a certain margin of error allowed, of course, for that type of projection, but this year we were closer than we usually are. Revenues are coming in almost exactly as we anticipated in our revenue forecast.

The member asked about section 88 credits and if there is always enough value in stumpage to be offset against the credits which are allowed. I think the section 88 credit system is a good system. What it does, in effect, is allow the industry to finance the cost of government roads into a government resource. As to whether or not there is always sufficient credit for a particular road to be offset against the timber that is developed by that road, I guess the answer has to be no, that is not always the case, particularly when you consider that stumpage is a rather volatile thing. They range from minimum stumpages to very substantial stumpages, depending upon the state of the market. The system we have now, though, allows a company to credit timber development anywhere within the timber supply area against the revenues we receive from that licensee in that timber supply area.

The member asked if we bring in more in direct revenue from the forest industry than it costs to manage the resource. Over the economic cycle the answer would be yes. Year to year the answer cannot be yes. Some years we bring in an awful lot more. Only a few years ago we had direct revenues from the forest resource, from stumpage, royalties, from logging tax, in the $600 million range. This year and last year, and the year before, that hasn't been the case. It has cost more for the management of the resource through my ministry's budget than we have received in direct revenue. That member seems to say that what we have to do is extract more revenue so that each year we have a positive balance on that balance sheet. Well, the member at the same time read to me from the objectives of the Ministry of Forests in which one of my responsibilities is to help to ensure a healthy, viable forest industry in British Columbia. If we were to force that extra money so that each year we had a positive number on that balance sheet, I'm afraid we would be milking too much from that cow that provides so much to the province of British Columbia; we'd be taking more revenue than is in the resource.

The stumpage appraisal system, as the member may or may not know, provides that all of the value in a tree is accounted for in the system. The cost of delivering a product to market in the interior — the end value of the product — is the total value that's in that tree. The interior system is the most elaborate, so I'll describe that. All of the costs of developing the timber, harvesting it, hauling it to the sawmill

[ Page 3025 ]

or wherever it's used, manufacturing it and getting it to market are allowed for. In addition, we allow in the appraisal system a profit for the licensee. Then the government takes the extra value in that tree, and that is stumpage. When markets are down, there is not sufficient revenue to provide for all these things, so all of the costs can't be allowed. What we have in cases like that is what we call a minimum stumpage. The Crown always gets something, which is called minimum stumpage.

In the last few years our industry — the member could look at the balance sheets and annual reports of the various companies working in that industry — collectively has lost billions of dollars because we haven't been able in our appraisal system, because of market values, to allow all their costs. So the industry has been hurt tremendously. The member is saying that in spite of that we must extract still more revenue from that already badly suffering industry. I don't think that's what the member means. If he does mean it, and if he becomes the leader of that party, I'm afraid that he has doomed that party to forever be in opposition, because he would in effect be killing the forest industry.

MR. SKELLY: Nonsense.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: He says "nonsense." Well, perhaps he could explain to me how he can get additional value from that resource.

In the opening tirade from that member, Mr. Chairman, I made a few notes, but I don't think any of them led to any direct questions. I would say that he asked for some general statements. I think in the management of forests we do the best job of any province in Canada. We do as good a job as most areas in the world. We have examples of some exceptionally good forest management, as they have in other parts of the world, and we have examples, particularly in the past, of not-so-good management. I think on the average we do a pretty good job.

We don't plant all of the area we harvest each year, nor should we. I don't think any jurisdiction in the world does that. Our objective is ultimately to plant about 55 percent of the areas that we clearcut. That is not a mythical figure pulled out of the air; that is a figure dictated to us largely by the makeup, the biology, of the forests, the type of terrain that we have in British Columbia, and the other uses to which we put our forest lands. I think if you look at some of the countries usually used as examples of good forest management — Sweden and Finland — you'll find that that is about the area that they plant, and they have a much simpler forest than we do, much less interface with other resources, particularly game and fish resources, and much simpler terrain to operate on. However, we will be working toward — it's included in our five-year plan of last year, which is still our objective — ultimately planting artificially about 55 percent of what we harvest and preparing the balance of the clearcut areas for natural regeneration, which in many cases does a much more than adequate job.

I think that covers the areas of direct question by the member, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SKELLY: What I intended to do, Mr. Chairman, was to stampede the minister to his feet and to get his advisers into the House. I'm pleased to welcome Mr. Apsey, the deputy minister, to the Legislature. It increases the reliability just a little bit.

One of the concerns that's been expressed over the years about the forest industry in British Columbia — and it's been expressed by a number of competent authorities, including Peter Pearse — is the concentration of ownership in the industry. It's been a particular concern to the people of this province over the last few years. I'll go back over some statements that Pearse himself made a few years ago in which he expressed some concern about the concentration of ownership in the resource.

"In 1940, before the new policy of tree-farm licences and sustained yield was adopted, 52 percent of the four million acres under timber licences were held by 58 companies. In 1954 more than half the acreage was in the hands of just four licensees. By 1965 four major corporations held two-thirds of this acreage and eight controlled 82 percent. By 1975 six companies held 73 percent of the committed annual cut in the coastal region. In the interior the six top companies had over 40 percent of the committed annual cut locked up. Pearse pointed out that the introduction of the tree-farm licence system provides an opportunity for those holding Crown-granted forest land and old temporary tenures to add to these holdings substantial tracts of additional Crown lands."

Control over Crown lands is becoming increasingly locked up in the hands of a few companies. This process of increasing control and concentration of control appears to have been accelerated as a result of the creation of the treefarm licence tenures. It is a matter of concern to the people of this province that as time goes by more and more of those large companies, which control such a tremendous percentage of the productive forest land of the province, are now being gobbled up by larger companies, many of them with their head offices in the east. Many of these are finance companies and holding companies whose main concern is to funnel the profits of those forest companies outside the province and into the hands of their shareholders back east. In a recent issue of the Financial Times a diagram was drawn of the companies that are controlled by the Bronfman family through Edper Investments. They include Brascan and a few other companies. That company holds MacMillan Bloedel, a part of Scott Paper, a part of B.C. Forest Products through Scott Paper and a number of other corporate arrangements, so that a large number of these companies in the forest sector in British Columbia, when you trace them back, are actually operating under a single management or else feeding profits into a single small group of investors outside the province. Studies have been done of the Canadian society and economy for many years since The Vertical Mosaic was written; in fact, many people say that the Canadian economy is controlled by 600 families, and that we're comparable to some Third World countries such as El Salvador where they say the country is controlled by 14 families.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There's a tremendous concentration of ownership. As a result of that concentration of ownership, very few people control a tremendous percentage of the resource in British Columbia. Those companies have a tremendous power to influence what happens. They can influence the media. For example, I was again relating back to the tree-farm licence hearings that were held up in Chetwynd a few weeks ago.

[ Page 3026 ]

When CanFor wanted the government to be persuaded of its ability to use aspen, they created a media event around the selling of aspen to the Koreans to produce chopsticks. They say that now if they can only persuade the Koreans to throw the chopsticks away after they use them we'll then have a permanent market for our aspen from the northeast sector. Basically it was a media event, staged by the forest company that is seeking a tree-farm licence in that area in order to persuade the people of the province that they should get that licence. They have tremendous power to persuade the media, and they also have tremendous power to persuade the government; for example, the Council of Forest Industries, the representative of the big companies operating in the forestry sector, send lobbyists to Victoria. They are constantly meeting with the ministers of the Crown and with members of the opposition. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but when ownership of those companies is concentrated to such an extent then it becomes a matter of concern to the people of this province that those companies are able to transact business in private with the Minister of Forests and the ministry, and that they are able to transact business that can work to their benefit in the use of the public's resource. So there is a concern about the control of the industry and the extent to which the industry is controlled by a very few companies.

A few years after Pearse had written his report he complained that the tenure system promised to lock up most of the timber among established firms, — which could be expected to consolidate their holdings and positions through takeovers. What Pearse predicted to happen has happened and is continuing to happen. Jamie Swift, in his book Cut and Run, which was published just a short time ago, goes through a series of takeovers in the industry which he describes, and points to the fact that in the last little while $2.5 billion has been invested in the forest industry. But it's been mainly been invested by one company taking over another company taking over a series of companies, and from the point of view of the people of this province, that investment is totally nonproductive. It produces no jobs. It produces no increased manufacturing plant or capability. It produces no increased research or development. It doesn't make us any more productive, and in fact in some cases it causes us to lose tax revenue by allowing companies to write off the losses of the losing companies they pick up. The problem is that the $2.5 billion has changed hands and has produced nothing of productive value to the citizens of British Columbia.

[5:30]

That's another of my concerns. Whenever there is a takeover of a forest company operating in British Columbia, the minister seems to give carte blanche. He has never really rejected a takeover of the licences that a forest company in British Columbia holds. I'm concerned that the minister, by his lax policy in dealing with these large companies, is really allowing tremendous amounts of non-productive takeovers to take place in the British Columbia economy, and the people of the province aren't gaining anything from that investment. Yet we know because of the way the tax structure is established both in Canada and in British Columbia that the investment is written off by the companies that are involved in the takeovers and that actually the taxpayers are financing those investments in a number of ways.

When these companies are taken over by eastern companies, it means that control is taken out of the hands of British Columbia managers and British Columbia citizens and transferred to head offices back east whose priorities in investment are established back east. Management decisions are increasingly made in eastern Canada or outside the country. It becomes a serious problem. For example, as a person who represents a constituency that's virtually taken up by three tree-farm licences managed by two large corporations, both of which are owned in part by the same holding companies back east, it means that those companies, in their actions and in the way they manage the forest industry in my constituency, are more concerned about serving their shareholders in eastern Canada than they are in serving my constituents and the people who actually do the work and produce the wealth and benefits and own the resource in which these companies are operating. So there's a tension and a conflict there between the people that management serve in my constituency and the people that I must serve as a member of the Legislature. MacMillan Bloedel has about 10,000 shareholders, according to its last annual report. B.C. Forest Products has 4,000 shareholders, according to its last annual report. I've got about 25,000 constituents to serve. So there's a great difference in the priorities of the company as opposed to the priorities of my constituents.

In meeting the needs of the shareholders of the companies, the management in Alberni has cut back on staff. They've got back on production in Port Alberni. They buy their timber offshore and sell it into the export market. All of which puts citizens in my constituency out of work. Yet it does produce a profit for MacMillan Bloedel and for B.C. Forest Products.

So those are some of the concerns that I have about the concentration of ownership in the forest industry in British Columbia, a concentration that the minister seems to have no concern about whatsoever, since he regularly approves the transfer of licences. I'd like to know what the minister feels about this increasing concentration of ownership in the industry: if he feels that steps should be taken to reverse it, and if so, how he plans to go about that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I guess each year we get into the concentration issue, and we get into the corporation size. The opposition seem to think that big is bad and that all big companies are bad companies and are not good corporate citizens.

The concentration has taken place over a large number of years in British Columbia, and I would use as an example your most recent advisor in forest policy, whom I believe is seated up in the gallery now — Mr. Lloyd, who used to be a member of this Legislature. He has been involved in the forest industry for many, many years, and if you want to have an example of how concentration takes place, Mr. Lloyd and his two brothers a few years ago had a quota position in a sawmill up in the Prince George area and were doing a fairly good business, I understand. Mr. Lloyd's two brothers bought him out of the business and a few months later sold their business, including their timber allocation, to Canadian Forest Products — a part of that concentration process.

They, of course, took their money and continued on, and I understand that Mr. Lloyd has been quite a good and successful logger in the area for years. But after that period of time he and other partners got involved in another timber position in the Prince George area, in North Central Plywoods. They had a timber allocation, which wasn't that difficult to obtain at that time, because we were an expanding forest economy and timber allocations could be had for

[ Page 3027 ]

commitments by licensees to go out and do certain things in terms of establishing manufacturing plants.

After they had developed this plywood business — and it was a good business and employed a lot of people in the Prince George area — Mr. Lloyd, your advisor, and his partners sold that out again. And who did they sell it to this time? They sold it to Northwood Mills, another large company that you complain about.

MR. SKELLY: I didn't complain about Northwood.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, it's another company whose headquarters is in the east. You seem to be putting all those in one basket, my friend.

This type of thing has happened over and over again, and you are quite right: at one time there were a lot more licensees than there are today. The Okanagan area is another example. Fifteen or twenty years ago there were 90 or so licensees of which there are only a few of the original ones left. Many of them sold out to those very substantial companies which are doing a good job of managing the resource and employing people in that area now. Occasionally some of those people who had a timber allocation and sold out to these larger companies have come to me and said: "Where is my timber allocation, Mr. Minister? How come the big companies seem to have it all?" One of the reasons is that people who have been involved in the industry sold to the big companies.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the Lieutenant-Governor will be here shortly, so I move that the committee rise and report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Supply Act (No. 3), 1983

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) sought to move adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35 to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the inability of the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to participate in debate in Committee of Supply. The hon. member's application must fail on at least two grounds, which are to be found in the sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice on page 370, and in the twentieth edition of Sir Erskine May on page 373.

In accordance with these cited authorities, which have been followed in this House on numerous earlier occasions by a succession of Speakers, a matter raised under standing order 35 must be raised without delay and also must involve the administrative responsibility of the government. There has been a clear failure to raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity. Further, the Chair must observe that the matter would be one for the House itself to consider only after the appropriate action has been taken by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. HOWARD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could Your Honour advise me what course of action I could follow, inasmuch as Your Honour has misquoted what I said earlier today...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: ...and stated inaccurately what I claimed was the right.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member! Parliamentary language must be used at all times. Hon. member, such a reference to the Chair would be most inappropriate. Nonetheless, if the member has some matter he wishes to raise, either privately or otherwise, the Chair would be most happy to discuss the matter with him in chambers to see what other course might be open to the member.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:44 p.m.