[ Page 4243 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Costs of Expo 86. Mr. Cocke –– 4243

Rent controls. Mr. Blencoe –– 4244

Federal funding for intensive forest management. Mr. Gabelmann –– 4245

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill M202). Committee stage. (Mr. Ree)

On Section 1 –– 4245

Mr. Passarell

Third reading –– 4245

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

On vote 9: minister's office –– 4245

Ms. Brown

Mr. Passarell

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Veitch

Mr. Cocke

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Reynolds

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1984

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair. ]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have some guests in the gallery, but they're actually joint guests with myself and one of the Clerks of the House. We happen to have common friends — and I mean common joint friends, not common. I would like the House to join me in welcoming a friend of mine from Lantzville, Mrs. Dorothy Cameron, widow of the late Colin Cameron, who was a member of this Legislature and also a Member of Parliament in Ottawa. She's accompanied by her daughter Mrs. Isobel McKenzie and her husband Archie, who just happen to be neighbours of Mr. Holtby's in Ottawa. They are accompanied by Mr. and Mrs. Peter Johnson. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we are honoured to have in the galleries students from Vancouver Christian School in Vancouver East, who are divided into two sections: those who speak Scotch are presently in the galleries; et ceux qui parlent le français arriveront à trois heures. Bienvenue!

HON. MR. SMITH: I have an unusual introduction to make, Mr. Speaker, and that is to introduce to the assembly Women's Suffrage Day, which we're commemorating today. In this place on this day 77 years ago — April 5, 1917 — by an act to amend the Provincial Elections Act, chapter 23 of the statutes of that year bore the clause: "It shall be lawful for women to have their names placed upon the register of voters for an electoral district." I know all members will acknowledge this day as Women's Suffrage Day in British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: I suspect — I'm not absolutely sure — that it was my father who introduced the bill. The Attorney-General, who now belongs to a party that is still a little bit unsettled and disquieted about the fall of Babylon, might…if he did know that it was my father who did that, I suppose he would forbear mentioning it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the women, I would like to say thanks to all the fathers of the world who made it possible.

Oral Questions

COSTS OF EXPO 86

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, today I will direct a question or two to the Premier, who is so anxious to answer questions on Expo 86. Yesterday we noted that the minister in charge wasn't very anxious. Mr. Jeff Ketchum, communication director at Expo 86 and a former political aide in Victoria, has told the media: "Anyone who thinks Bill Bennett will not shut this down is wrong. They are preparing to face embarrassment now rather than later." My question is: did the Premier authorize Mr. Ketchum to make this statement?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is no.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier refused to reveal the extent of cost escalation in the Expo project. Has the Premier decided when he will reveal this information to the taxpayers of this province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I didn't refuse to reveal it; I said it would be more appropriately revealed by the directors of Expo, who are managing and directing Expo. I would hope, as well, that if it is appropriate after the weekend, the chairman and the directors would share with the people of B.C. the success they are having with Expo in the development of a budget which, I understand, has increased substantially, not through failure but through success. The fair which was bid for and accepted by the IBE was modelled after a size such as that which took place in Tennessee, which I know the member is familiar with. Those fairs, which are usually commercial in nature and sponsored in the private sector, have little international governmental representation.

What has happened over the years, particularly since Jim Pattison and a board of directors representing the community have taken over the fair, with commissioner Patrick Reid and a highly skilled management team, is that international participation has gone far beyond any fair of this class. It now approaches the international scale of fair — a full-scale fair, not as costly, but as internationally important as that which took place in Montreal. It is the involvement of major countries, which are not present in the smaller fairs, which has expanded the opportunities of the fair and the revenue that will accrue to the fair through rentals and customers. When you gather together countries like Russia, the United States, Great Britain, China and all the major powers of the world, plus the large corporations that carry out that work in the private sector, particularly in the areas of high-technology, future job-creation projects in transportation and communications, not just the normal Canadian or west coast of North America market will be attracted to the fair. It will be an international attraction, not only for exhibitors but also for visitors. I think it would be timely, and after this weekend I sincerely hope that there will be an opportunity for them to make this information public in a very positive way. I think the fair belongs to the people of B.C. and Canada, and they should take pride in the extent to which it is being developed. I sincerely hope, with all of my heart, that Mr. Pattison will have some reason to make this announcement, and not have any reason not to make it, after the discussions that are taking place now.

MR. COCKE: I guess we have coined a new phrase: "Success is another word for restraint."

In any event, will the Premier advise…?

MR. REID: They go together.

MR. COCKE: Do they? From $150 million to $750 million? Interesting restraint.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the Premier to advise us when he first became aware of the massive cost escalations — and I recognize that they're tied in with a different type of fair. The reason I'm asking this is that I understand that there is a good deal of nervousness somewhere east of us — in Ottawa — about this whole question of the Expo project. When did the Premier first become aware of this massive increase?

[ Page 4244 ]

[2:15]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, if there is any nervousness in Ottawa, it would not be over costs of the fair, because they're not participating. They might assist in Montreal, and they might intrude in the province's lotteries after they had an agreement not to to finance the Calgary Olympics, but they've chosen not to participate in what will be the largest international event that we will ever host in this province and which will be of major significance to our country. So there should be no nervousness there; only relief that somewhere in this country there's a government that gets things done, not through government but through harnessing the efforts and energies of people like Jim Pattison and others. I've said many times.... Pardon?

MS. BROWN: I said yes.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm glad to see you're positive today.

They have donated time and experience which could not be purchased in any normal commercial or governmental transaction. They're donating three or four years out of their lives, many on a full-time basis. So there should be no nervousness.

But there is a nervousness which I share with them: that is, the concern about whether we can deliver the fair on time. If it can't be delivered on time, the fair can't take place. Many people say that there's some fear about the cost of the fair and the finances, and that if it wasn't on time, that would be the only loss. Unfortunately, the major loss would be that we would be at a time in its development, if a disruption took place next year that prevented the fair from coming, when the countries that have signed up in good faith with our country and our province — whether Russia, the United States, China or others — would already have heavy costs invested in the fair in the development of their pavilions, and in the development of the technology and the preparation for what's not visible in concrete but is the very essence of the fair itself — the exhibits.

We must have the assurances now that that won't happen. We've got to be able to give those assurances internationally to the people who are participating. That's why it's important now that British Columbians have those assurances. I sincerely believe that no British Columbian would want to deny that assurance. I think every British Columbian, whether they're going to get a job there.... That's a direct benefit, and they have the most to gain — those who have jobs constructing it or working in it. Every British Columbian will get some benefit. I can't think of a single British Columbian who would deny, at this time, that type of assurance — which would not allow the fair to continue.

MR. COCKE: We're all very nervous.

HON. MR. GARDOM: At 11 percent you should be.

MR. COCKE: I'll ask that member a question later. Nice waste of question period. I'd like to ask that Liberal member: what percentage are they here in this province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nine, eight, seven, six, five....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: He's talking about the Socreds and their dwindling…. Anyway, its 11 percent more than the Socreds have federally.

Just one other question. In terms of financing, the Premier tends to blow smoke at this whole issue — that labour could be the ones who take it down the tube. The fact of the matter is that when Evan Wolfe presented the program, he said that he expected $100 million a year from lottery funds. Will the Premier now advise what the lottery forecasts are of what money will be raised?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can't give you that information today, but I'll be glad to bring the information of what Expo Lotto 6-49 has produced, will produce and will continue to produce until it makes its....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've never won a dime on that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Mackenzie says he's never won a dime. It's like anything else — you can't win unless you buy a ticket. You're always wanting something for nothing.

I would comment again on the member's preamble to that question, in which he said that Evan Wolfe presented the initial budget of a smaller amount than we'll naturally see.... If you can make a comparison, the difference between what would have been high quality but with less international interest in and exposure for all our intentions — not just tourism, but the international attention and marketing and investment and jobs that we hope will come out of it later, not just directly but also indirectly through focusing the attention of those who will make investments in the future in British Columbia in these areas They'll be here. But it's like comparing what is a very good fair in my area — the Peachland Fall Fair — with the PNE. What has happened is that this fair has grown. What's made it grow is that people are interested in coming to Canada and British Columbia and in gathering together this technology. But also, we happen to be in a very favoured spot which is attracting attention, the North American edge of the Pacific Rim. It's the first major opportunity that the European community and others will have to compare the technology that they have to sell and get a better understanding of the vast market and the technological changes taking place in the Pacific Rim. Obviously there have been major changes.

I give credit for those changes to Jim Pattison and his board. They've done a marvellous job of building this exposition into the world-class fair that it can and will be. I know that every British Columbian will march along positively in helping to put it on and no one will stand in its way.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that was a remarkable answer to a question about Evan Wolfe. Thank you very much.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, you're welcome.

RENT CONTROLS

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

[ Page 4245 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Oh! It's all right, you can stay seated, Mr. Minister; you won't answer questions anyway.

An analysis of the most recent census data shows a serious affordability problem in rental accommodation. Forty percent of tenants in the lower mainland are forced to pay more than 30 percent of their income on rent. Has the minister decided to finally reintroduce a program of protection against unjustified increases in rent?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, there is a bill before the House which deals with landlord and tenant rights, and I think it is a very good one. With regard to the statistical information the member has mentioned, I'd appreciate receiving a copy of what he has there.

MR. BLENCOE: The Tory government of Saskatchewan has just introduced a new system under which rent increases are limited to an average of 5 percent annually. If the Tory government of Saskatchewan can act to protect tenants, why does this government introduce measures to cast tenants to the wind and leave them totally unprotected?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the member before, we have on the order paper a piece of legislation that does not throw tenants to the wind, but provides for their rights as well as landlord rights in this province.

MR. BLENCOE: A supplementary. In view of the fact that the other provincial Tory governments in Canada recognize the need to protect tenants from unjustified rent increases, why does this government — and your ministry — continue to isolate itself and B.C. tenants under the most radical, right-wing economic program in North America, and indeed, throw tenants to the wind in the province of British Columbia?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question period rules advise us that questions should not anticipate orders of the day or other matters.

FEDERAL FUNDING FOR
INTENSIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT

MR. GABELMANN: I've got a question for the Minister of Forests. In September 1982 the federal government offered British Columbia additional federal funding in the amount of $50 million to $60 million per year for intensive forest management. Will the minister advise why B.C.'s commitment to this program has been limited by the provincial government to $5.5 million this year?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member is rather misinformed. The federal government has made a number of statements about money that could possibly be forthcoming for forest management. That money somehow has not appeared. As a matter of fact, our government has, in my budget, approved an amount to extend the current agreement of $5.5 million. We have signed an agreement with the federal government for that extension, pending negotiation of an overall agreement. However, unfortunately even the $5.5 million has not yet been forthcoming from the federal government. I hope it will be. It's not there yet. So far, as far as this province and most major provinces are concerned, the mass of money that was announced is purely mythical.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills in the hands of private members.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill M202.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill M202; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. PASSARELL: We'll be passing the committee stage of this bill very quickly. It's been a long time in coming. The last time there was an increase was in 1974. It's an excellent bill, and I thank the member who brought it forward. We will be debating it today, and the opposition will be supporting it.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support on this bill as I do the government side.

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill M202, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1984, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 9: minister's office, $200,506.

[2:30]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss corrections, and I notice that the Attorney-General is all by himself. I doubt that he would be able to handle these questions on his own, so I'm wondering if he would like a recess.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Are they on their way?

HON. MR. SMITH: You carry on, and I'll respond.

MS. BROWN: You'll tread water, will you, until they get here?

[ Page 4246 ]

Mr. Chairman — through you to the Attorney-General — I want to talk about the privatization of the corrections branch. I'm talking about the community service orders, the diversion programs and the youth programs. These went the tender route; they were all put out to tender.

Ads were in all of the newspapers asking for people to apply for the use of these services. Now it seems to me that that is not the correct way in which to deal with community resources and services to young people in our community. There should have been some consultation and quite a bit of community involvement, The volunteer sector at least should have been a part of deciding who should take over these responsibilities, which the ministry is no longer interested in discharging. For example, I want to compare this process with the one we were involved in between 1972 and 1975, when we were turning over social programs to the private sector. Public meetings and massive consultations took place beforehand, and the decisions were generally made by the community at large — not only by the people involved but by those who were going to be affected by these decisions.

It has been brought to my attention that some of the contracts such as the Fraser Valley community service order program have actually been given to a group which has no record of community involvement at all. Maybe the minister wants to set the record straight. Maybe this is just an ugly rumour and there is no truth to this fact. In any event, I would like the minister to comment on the fact that, despite the Premier's commitment that changes which took place affecting the public would be subject to public discussion, communication, cooperation and consultation, this has not taken place in the area of privatizing either the community service orders, the diversion programs or the youth programs.

I want to ask specifically why the community service order program was combined with the diversion program in Victoria, thus setting one agency against the other in terms of bidding. I know that there was an attempt to abolish the diversion program last year, and at that time the Attorney-General gave a commitment to visit the programs and re-evaluate and monitor them. I understand that he actually did do so, and that he agreed that the work done by the diversion programs was important and constructive, and that they needed to be protected. I wonder, first of all, whether he would share with us the report on the diversion programs. Would the minister be willing to table the report which was done by special projects? I understand that that report recommended the expansion of the program, and if my understanding is incorrect I would like to stand corrected. In any event, I would like to read the report. I am sure that the minister understands how important it is that he share these bits and pieces of information with me, in order that we can work together in the best interests of the community at large. As I said, the diversion program in Victoria, which is a ten-year community-based program, was recommended to be expanded. Instead we find it being combined with the community service order program, and both of them competing in the bidding.

One of the things that the Attorney-General likes to bring to our attention from time to time is that privatization is not going to save the ministry any money in the short term. What I need to find out from him is whether it is going to save us any money in the long term; and if so, perhaps he could expand on that and explain in what ways this is going to be a good long-term investment, because privatization is certainly not going to improve the quality of service. I doubt that he would suggest that that is going to happen. If it is not going to save us anything in the short term, what is it going to save us, if anything, in the long term?

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't think that premise is correct, hon. member. We would expect the quality of service to be maintained, if not improved, and we would also expect to have a saving in dollars in the long term. I'll try and give you some examples of the expected savings in privatization, and overall there are certainly going to be savings.

In the correction field you talked about diversion, and you made some comments about the diversion study. Your assumptions are generally correct: the recommendations are for more diversion, which is seen to be both a desirable and a cost-effective method of dealing with a range of first offenders particularly. The decisions have not been made as to how the Victoria diversion program is going to operate. The only decision that has been made is that it is going to operate. I might say that for community service work order privatization, for juvenile attendance programs, for diversion — for all of these — we've invited bids not just from the private sector but also from the volunteer sector. We do have examples where existing agencies have taken on contracts to do this work that was previously done in-house — organizations like John Howard, which has taken over a community service for North Island, and the B.C. Corrections Association in Vancouver, for instance.

You mentioned the one in Fraser Valley; it's correct that it is a private agency and certainly doesn't have a history in doing this work, but the principal of that was an employee of ours working in that field before that company was set up. Also, the Matsqui-Sumas-Abbotsford community services society has taken over some valley responsibilities for community service. So you're going to find that there is a mixture of existing agencies and some private firms that have people who have worked in the correctional field. I think it would be hard to give you a costing on that, but I certainly would be prepared to do so when the program has been in operation.

I'm trying to think of a privatization that is going to be clearly cost-effective, staff-reductive and provide better service. One is the privatization of court reporters. We're going to save a major amount of money there and have the staff flexibility from the private contracts, which will be primarily — at least on a first-choice basis — with the existing court reporters, if they wish to do that work for us on contract, and most of them have indicated that they do. They're going to be able now to work weekends and give service on a range of examinations and tribunals that they were precluded from doing before when they were on a Monday-to-Friday basis. They're going to make more money, the system is going to serve the public better and the cost is going to be an increase per transcript page. Transcripts are going to cost more, but we know that. I've always tried to be upfront with that. The cost of transcripts here still remains about one-half or one-third of what it is in a number of American jurisdictions.

That's an example of privatization saving money, but I recognize that our obligation is, I think, to carefully review all privatizations to make sure that they're not just saving bodies but that they're saving money and providing the same service as before — or even a better quality of service. I agree that that's a challenge. It's a major challenge, because there's no point in just privatizing for the sake of privatizing, or going around saying you're on a privatization kick if you

[ Page 4247 ]

can't get advantages and real returns from that. I acknowledge that that's what we must do. I think that we will.

We've been pretty careful with these contracts that have gone out in the correctional field. We've not simply let contracts out to a low-market bidder with no one in that firm having experience in the field or with no one with demonstrated ability to do the job. We're not going to do that. It's not going to be low bidder with no qualifications. It's going to be low bidder with some qualifications and with some moxie in the field and some experience. But give the change a chance. If some of these contracts are less successful than others, we can make changes with them. But the objective is to do it in a leaner, more efficient way while keeping the quality of service and being able to be more flexible.

MS. BROWN: The reason I'm really concerned about groups not having any community involvement history — for example, when taking over some of these programs — is because I attended the briefing that people applying for tenders to the A-G's ministry were invited to attend prior to submitting their tenders. I was concerned that in that fact directional thing that they gave us — I didn't bring my copy in with me — there really wasn't a good enough protection in terms of accountability. I think the only way we can get by without having really stringent rules in terms of accountability is to be reassured that the people taking over the job are like the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society — groups that have a long history of working in this area. We have learned to trust and to respect them in terms of the quality of service which they deliver. That's the real reason why I'm raising this issue and why I believe that a consultative process with the community and the volunteer groups would have been better in the long run, rather than just using the tender system. I know — and it will be repeated to me — that they're accountable to themselves and that they themselves have to check and be sure that they're delivering the service they promised to deliver and that kind of thing, but the accountability part of the system is just not quite airtight enough, unless it's been amended since that time. It's quite possible that it's been changed since that briefing which I attended in the Hotel Vancouver. If that's the case, fair enough; but in any event, I can't understand the minister's reluctance in terms of consultation and using the talent and the expertise which is out there in the community, which they're just dying to share with you.

As far as the court reporters are concerned, I recognize it's cost-effective to the ministry, because you have shifted the burden of cost onto the public. As you say, the transcripts are more expensive; the people using the service are now paying directly for it, rather than via their pockets into general revenue and out. So it's a more direct route; as to whether it's more cost-effective, it is to you, but not to the community at large.

[2:45]

Your colleague from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), speaking about the juvenile correction programs, alerted us to the fact that a number of juvenile programs were in clear and imminent danger of being either drastically reduced or wiped out. I wonder if the minister would either confirm or deny that we're about to see the demise of the DARE program, for example, in Vancouver and Victoria — that very important program that also operated in Campbell River. What about the DASH program? These programs, as you may know, Mr. Chairman, were very important in terms of kind of Outward Bound type of experience for what used to be called juvenile offenders and now are being referred to as the young offenders. They were a combination of education, recreation, community activities and generally trying to assist young people who had run afoul of the law in terms of making them better citizens before they were released from the program. So it is with some alarm that we hear that these programs may not be as secure as they should be.

I am working on the assumption that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, who has more access to the Attorney-General than I do, knows whereof he speaks when he tells us that it is quite possible that some of these programs are going to be closed down — the Metchosin Camp program, for example, which gives juvenile delinquents weekend experience in wilderness living; Crossroads, a work-experience program; and New Directions, a school-experience program. Are those kinds of programs in any kind of jeopardy? Is their funding being cut? Are they going to be severely curtailed, or are they going to be eliminated? Is the whole scheme being designed to fit in with the new Young Offenders Act? What is going to happen to those programs?

HON. MR. SMITH: They're not being eliminated at all; they are being privatized. The privatization in itself, which may be privatization to existing societies and agencies, I have no doubt prompted some of the alarm and concern that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound expressed in his report about these programs. But the programs are not being curtailed, Mr. Chairman; indeed, DARE and DASH are being continued. They will also be required to be adapted and continued, and maybe, in fact, to comply with the young offenders legislation, in some cases expanded. So you're looking at no diminution at all; in fact, that would be contrary to the thrust of the young offenders legislation.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Aye.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Forests should go out and plant some trees, because I'm going to be here for a while. Maybe he could do something useful in the meantime. How is that? I see he's taking my advice. Good.

Mr. Chairman, thanks again to the Attorney-General. I knew that these programs were contracted out, and I was worried about what was going to be happening to them, so I'm really quite pleased to hear that their funding or whatever is not in jeopardy and they're going to be okay.

I received a phone call from someone who is involved with securities. The problem this gentleman is having is that there are no specific guidelines laid out by the ministry in terms of what's involved in being involved in securities. He says there's nothing in writing. He contacted Mr. Simpson of the security agencies branch and asked for some guidelines, and was told there is nothing in writing; when an application is received, the Attorney-General does a record check through the RCMP prior to issuing a licence. But other than that, this poor gentleman has no idea just what is needed in terms of how security agents have to be trained or what kind of conduct is expected of them. He says: "There is widespread concern throughout the business, and attempts to have the Attorney-General provide some guidelines have proved futile." Would the minister comment on this?

[ Page 4248 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: I think I would have to get back to her more specifically. As I understand it, the director of the security programs division, Mr. Newson, deals with these on the basis of criteria, but I have my doubts whether those criteria have been promulgated in the form of a regulation or an instruction. You probably are correct that they're not. I'd better try to get back to you on the criteria that are followed, if I can. Certainly a pattern is followed, the same pattern in relation to each applicant, and some inquiries are made; but I don't think they're enshrined in a regulation. They'd be enshrined in a general power that's carried out by that official under the act. He is probably quite correct that there are no written regulations.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, if the minister could promulgate or enshrine or do whatever is necessary, I think all of us would be interested in finding out what the guidelines really are. This gentleman says that if there is a consumer complaint of any sort, the licence is lifted; not until they actually break the unwritten guidelines do they find out that although unwritten, the guidelines do exist. So I think that would be of use to us.

I just wanted to go back to corrections for a bit longer. Then I'm going to allow my colleague.... The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) wanted to raise some Indian matters but he asked me to carry on while.... He has a nicotine habit that he has to feed from time to time.

You've had an opportunity now in terms of privatizing nursing in the institutions, and the food services, which we touched on briefly this morning. I wonder if I could get a report from the minister in the meantime about the nursing situation. We've talked about the food services and we've agreed to give it a bit more time while he monitors it, but I haven't heard from him on the nursing.

HON. MR. SMITH: The health care privatization hasn't been done. It's being explored. We haven't done it yet, which I think should indicate that we're not galloping off. If we can't do it properly, I guess we won't do it. The intention was to put the nurses on contract, but we haven't worked that out yet.

MS. BROWN: Fair enough.

The forestry camp at Maple Ridge to be eliminated; day jail programs to be reduced; joint programs with parks branch expanded in the Kootenays and the Skagit. Would the minister like to comment on those things? Also, raised this morning by another of his colleagues was the possibility of using Ocean Falls as a minimum security kind of development. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether the Minister of — I think it was Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) — was just flying a balloon, or are there in fact plans to do that? How are we surviving without the forestry camp at Maple Ridge? Is this just straight restraint in terms of closing it down? Where are the young offenders who used to use that camp? How are we dealing with the other programs that are being reduced?

HON. MR. SMITH: Both the programs that you referred to — Kokanee and the Skagit one — are ones that we would like to do if we can find a way of doing them cost-effectively. The notion of wilderness programs appeals to us, and we do hope and expect to do those. If we did those two, one would not go ahead.... We would have to close the one at Pine Ridge.

MS. BROWN: I see. Is that because of community concern about it?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, it's not community concern. It's twofold: one is because of the need for some major capital improvements there, and also to move the resources elsewhere for different programs. There hasn't been a local feeling that we should get out of there. But we would have to rebuild.

MS. BROWN: I'm just going to allow my colleague the time, Mr. Chairman, and then I will carry on after.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a couple of questions. The first is in regard to the transfer of prisoners. I'd like the minister to look into this. We don't have the situation that's been happening in the last week or so — particularly on the mainland — talking about the sheriffs and such.... When we have prisoners transferred from the far north to the south, they're usually transferred on CP Air. Three weeks ago, when I was flying down, I saw prisoners. Usually they are handcuffed when they're put onto the plane. They take the last two rows of CP Air. On this flight there were chains on their legs; there were leg-irons on them. I was wondering if the minister would look into this, because to me it looks like a safety problem. Putting chains on prisoners' legs on an aircraft, particularly....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Just be quite there, Angus. We're trying to have a reasonable debate, okay?

I'd like the minister to look into that, because I don't think it should be legal to chain prisoners on a plane. I can see the handcuffs with the sheriff or the RCMP when they are escorting them down to the mainland, but not with leg-irons of a sort on an airplane.

The next topic I'd like to discuss, and it's much more serious, is in regard to the native issue. We really didn't have a chance to discuss what happened at the constitutional conference. This is the proper forum at this stage to discuss it. I'd like the minister's response to this, because the day before you went off to Ottawa there was a flurry of media reports in regard to the cutoff lands. The media, which rarely ever covers what goes on in this Legislature, sitting in their ivory towers someplace else, seemed to mix up the issue of cutoff lands with aboriginal title.

[3:00]

The way it came out in the media, and I think in a sense the native people were very disgusted with the reporting of that because it was reported.... I know the minister has no responsibility on what the press reports and on what they don't report, but I don't think we should fuddle up the idea here that cutoff lands are totally different from the aboriginal title question. What many native people in this province and across this country are asking for.... When we look at what happened in Ottawa a few weeks ago during the first ministers' meeting, we saw that the native people went to Ottawa with some hope. They came back in a mood of disgust and contempt, to a certain extent, Mr. Chairman. To them the constitutional conference was almost a total failure, because they had planned for a long time to finally get to the crux of the matter. It was probably the last constitutional first ministers' meeting that Prime Minister Trudeau will attend, and

[ Page 4249 ]

there was a lot of hope, because the Prime Minister....

I'm not a strong supporter of Mr. Trudeau but I have to respect what he's done in 14 years. I think the native people went to Ottawa with hope and came back almost in contempt. Unfortunately, it wasn't where we can lay the blame on Mr. Trudeau. Hundreds of bands went to Ottawa for the first ministers' meeting, and they behaved with dignity, with wisdom and with moderation all through that meeting. There wasn't the screaming that we often find happens in this House when we disagree on philosophical issues. In Ottawa the native people put forward ideas, and they themselves were ready to negotiate, and the federal government to a certain extent.

I can't speak for the federal government, but at this time I can't see that the blame should lie with the Liberals in Ottawa. Over the years they've stuck the knife in the backs of many native organizations — the Liberal Party of Canada and particularly this regime that we've had for 14 years. They've played dirty tricks on the native people of this country and particularly of this province. But the indications that came out of the meeting were that it wasn't the federal government's fault. That the conference failed to reach some type of negotiation to get the proposal entrenched in the constitution of this country has to be blamed on the provinces this time.

In a sense you could have called the proposal, what the native people were requesting, almost a motherhood issue. In fact this probably was less controversial than motherhood in these days with world population pressures when some people are almost arguing against motherhood. We found that the native people went with a less controversial issue. It is very difficult to find anybody who really knows and is concerned with the issues to argue against self-government. If a country enjoys political freedom, then any category of people has the right to organize and govern its own affairs, within the limits of the jurisdiction of other forms of government. The native people in a sense were not asking for a totally sovereign country when they went to the constitutional talks, and it shouldn't be muddled that the proposal put forth by the first citizens of this country was a sovereign declaration. That isn't the case when we're dealing with self-government with native people.

Mr. Trudeau proposed that the right of native people to self-government should be acknowledged. I'm glad that the Premier is in the House, because in a little while I'll be discussing some of the statements of the Premier at the constitutional talks. In a sense it is the same right that everyone in this country has, but since the conference was called especially to deal with concerns of native people — the first citizens' concerns — it made sense to offer a public relations gesture towards the native people. I think in a sense the Prime Minister attempted to do this. We all know that he is a crafty politician. I doubt if anyone will ever fault Mr. Trudeau as not being a crafty politician. He came in being crafty and he's going to be leaving crafty. What he proposed for this round of constitutional talks — his last constitutional debate with the first citizens.... The talks were a game in which every player could be a winner. Everybody could have been a winner in this game if the provinces had agreed to its proposals, and all parties at the conference would have gone home looking good. The provinces didn't look good. They had been given an opportunity and a signal to the people of this country that they came there in earnest, and that the next time, probably under a new Prime Minister, they would talk business by setting up in the agenda some positive resolutions to deal with the issue of self-government. Yet none of the parties at the conference would have given anything away. It wasn't like when we discussed before the first minister went to Ottawa and cutoff lands in which there was something given away.... What the native people wanted at this conference was the right that many people.... A municipality has the right to self-government.

It would have been the first step for the province of British Columbia to embark upon real negotiations with the native people. It would have been a first step. But the province of British Columbia could not see that it was worthwhile, and they' stonewalled the native people and denied them justice, but at least they would have seemed reasonable for the time being and would have kept the good will of the native people. That's what might have happened, Mr. Chairman, but it didn't. Let's look at what actually happened at that conference: three provinces — Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick — accepted the federal government's proposal. Seven provinces, including British Columbia, rejected it. We're talking about a proposal that's less controversial than motherhood. That's why many native people went back to British Columbia after that meeting with a mood of disgust and contempt. They didn't go home in disgust because of some kind of treachery; I would never accuse the government or any government in this country of treachery. The first citizens of this country and this province were used to a certain amount of treachery. When we see how we've dealt with native people across this country and in this province for the last 114 or 115 years — and for longer than that in other parts of the country, if we look at the way we have dealt with native people on the east coast.... It's obvious to me, Mr. Chairman, that the main cause of their disgust was the provincial government's attitude in dealing with self-government.

It's true that all provincial governments, including British Columbia, managed to defeat the native people and smother their hope for an honourable place in this province. In a sense they also managed to defeat themselves, because they have shown themselves to be incompetent in dealing with the issue. They displayed their incompetence, not just in this forum, where we are often referred to as "the animal house" of Canada, but on national television, in front of millions of people who watched the first citizens' constitutional debate on self-government.

I would like to read some words that were spoken by the first minister in a CBC report. Larry Stout was the reporter at that time. This is in response to a question about Trudeau's self-government resolution. Mr. Bennett said: "His proposals are new to us." I really don't think that's the case, but I really wish it was — that this was something totally new to you that just sprang up overnight. But it wasn't the case, Mr. Premier, and you know it wasn't the case.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, come on. You're wrong.

MR. PASSARELL: You know it wasn't new to you. You've known it for years. You've known it ever since you got into politics.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's like your statements about Governor Hammond.

MR. PASSARELL: Do you know what you've done to that young politician in Alaska, Mr. Premier? You've taken

[ Page 4250 ]

away his aspirations for the presidency of the United States, but we'll leave that for another time — when your estimates come up. Poor guy. It was just like what you did to the B.C. Lions when it came to the Grey Cup: you put the kiss of death on him.

We also look at the report of what Mr. Bennett.... Oh, he leaves. I don't know why you always do this. Every time it starts getting hot, you leave. Can't you face the facts?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That's it. Well, I know why now. Look at him, out the door.

Back to the debate and the report. I wonder where Mr. Bennett was and where his advisers have been — particularly in light of all-party committee....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. member still quoting?

MR. PASSARELL: No. When I said....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm just wondering about the use of names.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm sorry — "the Premier," I should say.

When it comes to the recommendation of self-government by the native people themselves.... It was a report that was widely sent around the country, and I'm sure the Attorney-General and the first minister have seen this. So in a sense, when they say that the idea of self-government took the first minister by surprise, it is hard, particularly in light of the fact that.... It was close to a veto when the province came to dealing with this problem. It was a resolution that was brought forward to be put into the constitution. It was a very simple statement; it wasn't a crafty statement or a statement to try to trick the provinces into accepting something that would have been detrimental to the country. It's a statement — one that in a sense Canada agreed to in the United Nations charter — of what the first citizens of this country had expressed at that conference. It's plain enough for many people to understand. Then there was a question — and I'll quote again. Reporter Larry Stout asked Mr. Bennett: "Are you in favour of some form of self-government for native people?" The first minister answered: "Certainly, but any suggestion to constitutionalize it before the people found out what form it takes is like putting the cart before the horse." That's the Premier's statement when asked if he was in favour of self-government.

[3:15]

We look at our neighbours to the south — the United States — and their statements when they made their constitution many years before ours, and their declaration and other constitutional documents. One of the basic ideas of the United States and their system is what they call the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, why this government is not looking — when it comes to dealing with the aboriginal title issue, the whole claim issue — with favour on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But let's get down to why we're not and why this government can't support aboriginal title — which it can't; that's very plain. You and your counterparts.... I should correct myself. Your counterparts have put forward statements of where the government lies when it comes to dealing with and settling the aboriginal title claim. I think most native people and people who are concerned about the issue in this province know exactly where the Social Credit philosophy lies.

I could talk on this.... When we were talking earlier about the McKenna-McBride commission and what happened prior to the minister leaving for.... It was the day before you left, if I'm not mistaken, that you stood in this House and talked about the cutoff lands. In a sense that was land that was taken from the native people — probably a more proper term is "stolen" — back in the early 1900s. At this stage of the game — 50, 60, 70 years later — we're starting to pay compensation for land that was taken. In a sense you've tried to take credit and make political mileage out of this in a rather crude manner. First, when you look at what native people are claiming and when we're dealing with the cutoff lands issue, they're not claiming something that they never had. It was taken from them 70 years ago. It's just being given back now.

Second is an issue for which I wish the Premier was still in here, because it was something that came out back in May 1983, when we were dealing with the aboriginal claim issue and the statements that the Premier made up north. We've seen enough ridicule when it comes to the issue. Rod Robinson of the Nishga — a good friend of mine and one of the chief spokesman for the Nishga, besides Chief Gosnell and the rest of the Nishga Tribal Council — has made it abundantly clear that the native people want to share the land and share in the gains of developing its resources. When we talk about the Nishga claim, which is about a very special and almost isolated area — and when they're talking about land claims, they're not asking for 25 percent of the province or 50 percent of the province — we're taking about the Nass valley. Often when we get into this, it gets muddied, because we feel that if we settle the land claims issue — the aboriginal title — it's going to make a sovereign country in the Nass valley, which isn't the case. People's homes won't be taken, as was said prior to the May 1983 election. The native people aren't going to take away people's homes and throw them off the land; that's not the case at all. The native people of this province, the Nishga, want to share in the natural resources of this province. We've seen mismanagement of our forest and fishing industries, and in a sense we've allowed large corporations to plunder our resources. What we and people like Rod Robinson are asking is a share in the decision-making. A perfect example is Amax. A special order-in-council by the federal and provincial governments allowed Amax to start dumping 12,000 tonnes of mine waste into the ocean — the food fisheries of the Nishga people — without it ever being debated in this House or in the federal Parliament. Can you fault the Nishga when they say they want a part of the decision-making when it comes to resources in their aboriginal title? At the constitutional conference this government demonstrated that it is incapable of accepting the position that was put forward, or of grasping simple ideas. It is no wonder that native people — and a great many other people — were disgusted with the performance of this government, at the first ministers' conference on aboriginal title.

I guess we could discuss this issue for years, and it probably will be discussed for years. As the youngest member of the Legislature, I doubt whether I will ever see the right

[ Page 4251 ]

of the Nishga succeed, or the other 25 bands in this province who have claims forward to the federal government. We can only hope and strive for it, and discuss it intelligently across this floor.

I would like the minister's response to the questions I raise.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the member for Atlin on the thoughtful and well-delivered speech on aboriginal matters. It is a pleasure to have some rational debate on this subject; in my experience we've not had any for some time.

The member is absolutely correct that the cutoff land settlements that were made with the numerous bands in British Columbia were made very differently from the thrust of the comprehensive claims that are outstanding. The cutoff lands were those which were taken after this province entered confederation — taken and severed from Indian reserves — and compensation was never adequately provided. Despite commissions and pledges to do so, that did not occur. However, I would remind that member that it was this government that honoured a commitment to settle the cutoff lands claims, and has been settling those claims. We have never pretended that we had a different obligation than to deal with those. I don't believe it was a legal commitment; it was a moral commitment which this government undertook, and along with Ottawa and the combination of cash and land, we have carried that out. The title transfer of those lands occurred just prior to the conference, and the reason for that was not any more than coincidental. It had to do with the fact that the settlement that was made in November had to be enshrined in legislation within a given time frame, pass Parliament in Ottawa, and then within 30 days the lands were conveyed. I think the member is right that the public quite often confuses the cutoff land claims with comprehensive claims. They are very different.

If I can turn to the first ministers' conference, I attended that conference. I also attended the two run-up meetings for ministers responsible for aboriginal matters. I attended the meeting with the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), and the Toronto meeting by myself, and we both attended the meeting in Ottawa with the Premier. The issues at the first ministers' conference were really twofold: (1) self-government and (2) equality rights. Unfortunately, I think the issue of equality rights occupied a good deal of unproductive time at that meeting. That is not because equality rights are not important. I am well aware of the terrible decisions that were brought about respecting band membership of Indian women who left their status Indian abodes to marry non-status Indians or whites and lost their status, the injustices that that brought about under the Indian Act. A number of high-level cases dealing with that went to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that had to be addressed. I must say, hon. member, that I felt that the constitutional provisions of the charter, together with the amendment to the charter that was made and is not yet proclaimed but will come into force later this year, laid to rest any possible doubts that equality now exists and will exist for native women, and that you will not have any more disfranchisement of native status by reason of the old Indian Act.

The old Indian Act is going to be changed. The federal government told us that and laid that on the table. But we had some people at that conference — conscientious people, I might say — who took up literally half of the time of the conference pleading the case that a further amendment was required to the constitution, an amendment to an as yet unproclaimed amendment to an amendment, which I think constitutionally constipated the conference, so that we probably did not spend the time we should have spent on the selfgovernment issue.

The background of the self-government issue was, as you know, that the Penner committee — an all-party committee of Parliament — made self-government recommendations last year, and the federal government was to respond to that. They chose to make their response to that on the eve of the constitutional conference, which they did. But they also dropped on the floor of the constitutional conference a resolution which would have had the effect of constitutionalizing and writing into the charter the concept of self-government, which is what the native representatives at that conference — not all, but most — would, I think, generally have been pleased with. That was dropped on the table at that conference without any warning. In fact, at the Yellowknife meeting that I attended, the federal Minister of Justice, Mark MacGuigan, took the position that it would be premature to constitutionalize this concept without some trial-and-error experience of models of self-government and how those models would operate. The position we understand he was taking was that he wished to go ahead and have some of these models in place.

In any event, if the federal government is serious about moving on self-government, they have ample authority under the existing Indian Act to amend that act and to provide the framework under federal law for self-government models. It is regrettable, I guess, that when you go to a conference like this and you decide you're not going to vote for a resolution enshrining a concept in the Charter of Rights, people will say afterwards: "My goodness, they're against the concept. They wouldn't suddenly vote for this motherhood resolution entrenching this wonderful notion of self-government. Therefore the're against native self-government." That, of course. Is utter tommyrot. I assure the member that not only are we not against the concept of self-government, we think it's decades overdue. We amended our own municipal legislation about ten years ago to provide for the Cape Mudge amendment, which provides for a type of self-government. It may not be the self-government model that is going to commend itself to many of the native communities. It may be that they will wish to have some broader self-government which will require some transfer of authority from federal and provincial jurisdictions to them. and they will have a unit of self-government. But for goodness' sake, why in the last ten years hasn't the federal department of Indian Affairs been working on such models? Why have we had this kind of paternalistic approach to native communities? Why has the thing been allowed to drift? Every federal minister who has taken this on, from Warren Allmand to Jean Chretien, has, I think, tried conscientiously to do something about it. But there has been a terrible morass in Parliament when actually dealing with this.

[3:30]

We're now finally dealing with it, and all we say is that the answer isn't to go out and write constitutional tablets, and lay out a general notion in a charter of rights until you have worked out at least some framework as to how that model is going to operate. You do that in the Indian Act, you have some self-government communities, and then you go and constitutionalize what you've got, which everybody agrees is going to work or is working. That's the approach we're

[ Page 4252 ]

taking. We are not against self-government; we're against premature constitutionalization.

I'm against it for another reason, which is that it raises really false aspirations in this country. It is deceptive to the native people to turn and point to a tablet and say, "Hey, we, the federal government, have put it in writing; you've got self-government," when on the ground they don't have any self-government at all — all they have is a wonderful concept. Don't give them the concept until you've tried it out in practice and seen how it's going to work. Ottawa could do that right now. They could amend that Indian Act right now, and they could do more than just providing for equality rights and removing those inequities that native women have suffered under. They could provide some kind of a framework of self-government — I wish they would. This province is not against self-government, I can assure you.

On the issue of the land claims, our historic position in this province is correct, as the member has said: that is, as a province we do not acknowledge or recognize that aboriginal rights to land ownership exist unextinguished. The position of the province has been that by the time this province entered Confederation — and prior to Confederation in the precolonial ordinances and the acts of the Governors — aboriginal title was dealt with, like all other title, into land systems and into colonial land administrations; that the land became the property of the Crown; that that occurred in British Columbia; that the Proclamation of 1763 does not apply to British Columbia — and I don't think there is a tenable argument that it does — but that aboriginal title, if it existed in British Columbia, was extinguished in pre-colonial days. It's interesting that that has been the position of the government of this day not just in 1984 but in 1974, when the then minister in charge of native matters, the Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Levi, took that position.

I don't blame any of this on the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) — he wasn't around then, and neither was I - but the NDP government of that day certainly took that position, and they did not attend meetings that were requested to be set up between the federal government and the Nishga Tribal Council. It wasn't until — strange timing, isn't it, Mr. Chairman? — a date in April 1983 that they suddenly, as a party, had a renewed interest in aboriginal title. Their leader then, in a letter to Mr. George Watts, set out that aboriginal title still existed and they recognized it. What I'm saying is that the position of every party that has been the government of the day in this province has been that the aboriginal title hasn't existed.

MR. PASSARELL: You'd better clarify what you were saying about the NDP.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, that's correct. You have one position in opposition and a different position when you're in office.

Having made those comments, I don't pretend, Mr. Chairman, that the issue of aboriginal title is an easy one; I also don't pretend that the noble band that he represents does not have a number of very real concerns of a related matter, but one thing I do know about the band that he represents — which is really one of the most advanced and sophisticated native bands bands in the country — is that they know how to work self-government models; they're streets ahead of other bands in this country, because they have already worked with self-government models; they know how to run their own school districts; they know how to set up their own curriculum and take the core curriculum of British Columbia and translate it into native dialect. They have done a great job. They're living proof that self-government can work in this country.

MR. PASSARELL: I have to disagree with what you were saying about the position of the government of the day from 1972 to 1975. It's not that I'm supporting this government because I'm a member of it now, but the facts did not, as you've said.... No way. If those were the facts, Mr. Attorney-General, I'd be the first one up saying that, but you were twisting them concerning those meetings.

Twisting is wrong?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's an improper motive to impute to another hon. member of this House.

MR. PASSARELL: I didn't say he was dishonest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that will have to be withdrawn. We can be of contrary opinions, but language such as this is not acceptable. Will the member please withdraw.

MR. PASSARELL: What would you like me to withdraw? "Twisting"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that will be fine; just simply withdraw the phrase, hon. member, and we can proceed, I'm sure, with parliamentary language.

MR. PASSARELL: Okay. "Deceiving"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, because that does impugn the honour of another hon. member.

MR. PASSARELL: "Distorting", Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have such a wealth of vocabulary available to us; I'm sure the member can point out that he thought that another member was incorrect. But a simple withdrawal, and maybe we can begin again.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, I already gave you the withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. PASSARELL: Do you want it twice?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Please proceed.

MR. PASSARELL: In regard to what you were saying concerning the meetings, particularly when you were talking about the minister responsible in 1974, no. I have to disagree with your statements about that, Mr. Minister. When you talked about self-government, and you were saying that the Nishga people are miles ahead....

AN HON. MEMBER: Streets ahead.

MR. PASSARELL: I haven't heard that before, but streets ahead.

[ Page 4253 ]

But let's look at some of the facts. You mentioned education: excellent. It was a good fact. But you should have given credit to where that came into conjunction with the government of the day, particularly to the Minister of Education when that was set up, Eileen Dailly, who's a member of this House today. That's what I think, when we look at these issues of self-government and we're talking about the aboriginal issues. Sure, it's okay to put it off onto the federal government's doorstep if you want to — as you tried to do. But sometimes we have to take the responsibility, as lawmakers in this province, of looking into issues of self-government and what we can do on the provincial level to do this, instead of throwing roadblocks up. We're throwing roadblocks up in front of native people of this province.

You said earlier that in a sense you want to try it out first. It reminds me of my friend who broke into a liquor store one time. He took a bottle out. Fortunately he didn't get very far. He sat out in front of the liquor store and drank it, and when the only policeman in this community came up and asked him what was going on — the door was broken in, and there he was sitting with a jug — he said he wanted to try it out first, the brand, to see if it was good. You know, you can't say you're going to try something out before you're going to do it. We could have a real fun philosophical debate about getting into other things in this country: marriage, Criminal Codes — you know, about trying things out before you want to make a law about it. And we have seen, in the issue of self-government in this province....

But in a statement that you made, I think you used the correct term when you were talking about a moral commitment — and I appreciate that term. I think many of us here know what is meant by a moral commitment. I appreciate those comments, but by the same token, when we talk about moral commitments — and I wish the Premier was back in the House, because it was a moral commitment made prior to you and I being elected in 1979.... There was a moral commitment made by the Premier in a letter. I don't know if you can call that a moral commitment or a legal commitment, but there was a letter made up with statements by the Premier at that time to the Nishga people. That's been over ten years now. So I appreciate the terminology that you used when you were talking about a moral commitment. But by the same token I think we have to look at the commitment the Premier made in 1975 to the Nishga people.

I'm sure we could go on with this. It's not that we're laying this important issue aside because we're not interested in it, but I think sometimes in this House it works a little bit more cooperatively and a little bit better if instead of dwelling on issues and going over the same speeches that we made three months or a year ago.... I think the facts have been brought forward in this debate, and I appreciate the minister's intelligent comments back.

MRS. WALLACE: I can't help but make a comment on the minister's remarks regarding our government's position between 1972 and 1975. I'm surprised that he's replaying the old song that has been repeated in this House before and has been refuted many times in this House before. They can't seem to get away from that old song. The facts are that as a government we refused to make a sweetheart deal with the federal government prior to meeting with the Native Indians. We absolutely refused to do that. It wasn't until — and I have seen a copy of the letter of the federal minister then responsible; I'm sure the Attorney-General has also seen it — the federal government finally agreed that we would sit down for a tri-party meeting that we were prepared to go ahead. But there was no way that we were going to meet with the federal government and come to some prearranged conclusion before the native people were involved, and that's why that was delayed. It was certainly not the way the minister indicated it.

I have a couple of items that I actually rose to deal with the minister about. They both relate to his duties as, I guess, the person responsible for the office of the fire marshal and volunteer fire departments. Regarding the fire marshal's office, I have raised this with his predecessors regularly, and I am now going to try again with him. Previously the inspections for both gas and oil installations were in the hands of the fire marshall's office.

Some little time ago, the responsibility for propane gas installations here on the Island was turned over to the Ministry of Labour for the gas safety branch to deal with. At that time there was a fair amount of correspondence and discussion about the possibility of including oil installations. Certainly the statistics indicate that we have a great many accidents, fires and faulty installations in the oil furnace industry. It is under the inspection of the fire marshall's office. I recently contacted the Ministry of Labour to see whether they would consider taking it on as an added responsibility under their safety division, because they seem to me very similar things that really need adequate inspection. If we have people in the outlying areas available to do the gas inspections, we should be using those same people to inspect the oil installations and to ensure that those installations are safe and adequate. At the present time it is still under the fire marshall's office, and there is not sufficient staff to do this. Those oil installations are going in pretty much without inspection.

[3:45]

There's also the problem of ensuring that the people who install them are qualified. Again, that is the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour it has nothing to do with the fire marshall's office.

So I'm making the plea again to this Attorney-General, to review that question and discuss it with his colleague to see whether it wouldn't be more practical and economical and a better arrangement — certainly from the point of view of safety and prevention of fire — to have that dealt with by the safety division of the Ministry of Labour.

Relative to the volunteer fire departments, I just have one question. Again, he will have to consult with one of his colleagues, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). I wonder if the Attorney-General is aware that a volunteer fire department that goes out and raises money through tax assessment, volunteer donations, raffles or however they do it, and then buys a piece of equipment such as a fire-truck or a pump, has to pay a provincial sales tax on it. It seems to me a wrong area for sales tax to be paid. Perhaps the minister is not aware that that is the case. I'm asking the minister if he will check this out with his colleague and make some representations to the Minister of Finance to see whether or not the sales tax could be removed from the purchase of firefighting equipment. Those are my two points.

HON. MR. SMITH: I thank the member, and welcome back to the chamber from a long absence in Liechtenstein the member for Vancouver Centre.

The last suggestion is an excellent one. I think it would be in keeping with the shift in the past two budgets to exempt from taxation various life-saving equipment. It would be

[ Page 4254 ]

good argument to took at that. I would be delighted to take that up with the Finance minister.

On the other matter that you speak of, it's my understanding that installation of oil-fired apparatus is not inspected. If it were propane or gas it would be, under the Ministry of Labour. We inspect operation but not installation. You think that installation should be moved as part of the standard provisions of the Ministry of Labour. I think you have made this point in this chamber before. I can't say that I quarrel with the suggestion; I don't know why it hasn't happened. I thank you for that one as well, and I will see what I can do about it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to add one thing to the statement by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell); I know it's not the minister's responsibility, but it has to do with the federal-provincial cost-sharing of money for social services to the native community. I know that the minister is the minister responsible for the native community, and I wonder whether he has made a presentation, on their behalf, to the federal government to send the money directly to them — this is something they have been asking for for a number of years — rather than having it filtered through the Ministry of Human Resources. The feeling is that they have no accounting when it is done that way.

On Tuesday evening of this week, I met with the chief of one of the bands just outside of Kamloops. Once again she raised that issue with me and wondered whether it was something that the Attorney-General could be raising again on their behalf with the federal government. They are not even told the exact figures, in terms of how much the grant is, and they certainly don't want the Ministry of Human Resources handling it on their behalf. As a person who speaks for Indians in Ottawa, I think that if he is not aware of that fact, it certainly is something he should apprise himself of. He should take sides in this particular matter.

I want to go back to corrections again, because I am little bit concerned about the 49 percent decrease in the operating costs for the adult correctional centres and the 37 percent decrease in the operating costs for the youth containment centres. I will probably talk about the youth containment centres in more detail when I talk about the Young Offenders Act, which I want to do later on.

Explain to me how that 49 percent decrease could take place and still keep the same quality of security, which you mentioned earlier, and the same quality in terms of food services, etc. You indicated that you have not yet privatized the medical services. We are talking of a difference of $5 million. Would that include, for example, the closing of the Lynda Williams home and the forestry camp and places like that? How is that 49 percent saving arrived at?

HON. MR. SMITH: I said 4.9 percent, not 49 percent.

MS. BROWN: Operating costs? If you had $10 million, and you drop it to $5 million, that's 49 percent. That's not 4.9 percent. In vote 12 under corrections, operating costs go from $10,026,355 down to $5,086,645. That's not 4.9 percent; that's 49 percent.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll address that later.

MR. LAUK: I want to talk about two or three general things with some warning: that the Attorney-General will accept it in good faith and not as a paternalistic gesture. I can't possibly be paternalistic, because he's much more senior at the bar than I am, but paternalism from the point of view that I have been in this chamber a little bit longer, at any rate. The privatization of legal services has been going on and causing some concern and fear not only with those people who are involved in the administration of justice but with those people who are familiar with the administration of justice. Their concern is justified, because changes to a system are often unpredictable.

I think in many cases we do overreact to change in an alarmist way, but I want to talk about two things generally. I think it is a big mistake to take a backwards step from legal aid. From all of my discussions with the criminal law subsection, with other groups and with the civil litigation section, which the Attorney-General was kind enough to visit and deliver a talk to, there is widespread and deep concern from otherwise non-political, non-vocal members of the bar, and I think it's justified. Their concern is that we are moving in a positive way under the charter towards providing legal counsel for those appearing before the courts, and in a negative way we are making it financially impossible for them, in many cases, to get legal counsel.

I think that one can eliminate the more strident criticism of the ministry's move that comes from those lawyers who rely most heavily on legal aid as their income. I am not one of those who believe that criminal defence lawyers should rely, even in a major part, for their income on legal aid. I've expressed that view privately to the minister, and I certainly want to put it on record now that I think that is a mistake. People who are selected for assistance under the legal aid scheme — and I'm talking about criminal defence — very often end up with members of the bar who have less than, let's say, five years' experience, and who, it seems to me, predominate and have predominated the legal aid rosters. There are very few senior barristers who are taking legal aid cases. I don't think you can resolve that matter by cutting back on the amount of money you pay in legal aid, and saying that now the bar is going to have the problem; the bar must respond and provide senior barristers on occasions for the defence, particularly in major crimes, on a legal aid or free basis.

We look back with nostalgia — however incorrectly — to the old days when it was assumed that senior barristers would take their share of legal aid. That was never the case. When I was in the criminal justice subsection of the Canadian bar, I remember receiving a scathing letter from a gentleman who will go nameless, because he is now on the Supreme Court bench and I still practise in that court. I'm sure he curls up with his copy of Hansard every evening, so I'll leave his name off the record for the moment. He sent me a scathing letter suggesting that we younger lawyers who were lobbying Les Peterson — the Attorney-General in those days — for legal aid were making a big mistake, and that we should provide a lot of free work.

HON. MR. McGEER: That's right, you should.

MR. LAUK: We did; he didn't.

HON. MR. McGEER: You should be doing it now.

MR. LAUK: I do; he doesn't.

Interjection.

[ Page 4255 ]

MR. LAUK: Oh, dear, this foreign 'flu that the Socred benches have been contracting is affecting the processes of the mind. The good doctor from Point Grey should calm himself. He should be taking greater care with these cultures he's working with. Some protective measures should be employed in his lab. In any event, I'll try to draw to a close on that point, because I've gone well over my five minutes.

The fact of the matter is that senior members of the bar, and large firms, have not done their share of legal aid. They don't go on the rosters or take the major crimes, because they say they can't afford to. I say that's nonsense. It is not in keeping with the traditions of a good criminal defence bar, and of the legal profession generally. They've never done so, and that's why there's been a demand for full legal aid, and it should be continued. To back-step from it now is a fatal mistake. I am not arguing for those younger lawyers who rely so heavily on that for an income; I think that's a mistake, and they should be encouraged to diversify their practice. You don't solve that problem by decreasing the rates and eliminating a lot of categories for defence work.

That brings me to the major point I wish to make under that area: native Indian persons charged with criminal offences. It is clear that less than 4 or 5 percent — I don't know the percentage — of the Canadian population are native Indian. In this province, even though they comprise a little bit more, they do not comprise a great proportion of the population; but they do occupy 40 to 50 percent of the space available in prisons. Now why is that? I've heard all kinds of ridiculous theories about why that is: coffee-table nonsense that you get from upper-middle-class types in Point Grey about why native Indians are occupying more than their share of the space available in our prison system.

[4:00]

It's clear to the practising bar, even to remotely knowledgeable law enforcement people, and to judges particularly, why they occupy this space. They occupy this space traditionally because they're not represented. I know the Attorney-General will get up and say in this chamber that of course we've improved over the years, etc., but we haven't improved anywhere near enough. Special consideration should be given to the native Indian population, vis-à-vis the administration of justice, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the appearance of racial bias. We must eliminate that appearance for all time by going through the red lights, by making an exception of the native Indian population and providing special legal representation at all times for these people, and it should be done at the provincial level. It's one of the most minimal things we can do for a people whose cultural background has in their younger years not properly equipped them to deal with white society, especially in an urban environment but also in other white environments in the rest of the province. We owe it to ourselves — law enforcement and the administration of justice — but above all to the native Indian people and their culture, to provide special representation, and always to have them represented by good legal counsel when charged with any kind of criminal offence.

There'll be the whispering that we're pandering to the native Indian, and so on: "You can't pander. You know these people have to stand on their own two feet with the rest of us." That's nonsense! The nonsense lies in the fact that the justice system is stacked against the native Indian from the first. Half the time the people who are educated on reserves cannot understand some of the nuances of the English language, to the extent that they cannot adequately understand what they're charged with and what a proper defence would be — much more so than the average person. The average person, white or native Indian, has a most difficult time understanding the procedures before the courts, what they're charged with and what's happening to them. I know the Attorney-General may reply that he doesn't know of too many cases where these people are unrepresented, but I want to assure him that in many cases native Indians charged, sometimes with serious criminal offences, are under-represented, and tend to plead guilty. They still do, and that has been the tradition in this province for a long time. That's why they occupy the prison system in a greater proportion than their population justifies.

It's just not good enough. These people should not be that eligible for prison settings, making their introduction to society at large in British Columbia and Canada an institutional introduction which they become used to. It seems to me that if we're in a recession period, it would be the greatest test of this minister's courage and commitment, and a debt of honour to the native Indian people, to provide the fullest legal representation and service from the government to native Indians charged with offences. Those in the white community who would resent such discrimination — be it positive — towards the native Indian population are, I could suggest to you, merely grumbling and don't understand the nature, the extent or the historical context of this problem.

It is with that in mind that I'm sure my colleague has raised the issue of native court workers and other programs. They've been beneficial. If there are inefficiencies in them, then of course they should be changed, but not to the extent of being cut away and cut back. It's the one serious area where I take issue with the minister's privatization approach. I don't say that I agree with the philosophy behind it, but I'm not that upset with some of the moves that are being taken. But in the area of native Indian representation before criminal courts, it has to be expanded, not cut back. It has to receive the special attention of the Attorney-General. A lot of people refer to him as the chief law enforcement officer. He's not the chief law enforcement officer only; he's the law officer of the Crown, and as such is in loco parentis to all of us and to the native Indians, and should acquit himself in that special responsibility. I think the current occupant of that chair is the most capable man to do so, and I urge him to take that to heart.

I don't need a reply. It would just be embarrassing to get up and shuffle around and say what you're doing now. I'm not criticizing what we're doing now. What I'm asking for is a review, and for you to vigorously take the opportunity to expand the services rather than cut them back.

MR. MITCHELL: It's interesting, when we enter into these various debates, how in many ways the statements we have made in earlier estimates all interlock. I can't help but think that some of the problems the Attorney-General is faced with at this time are indirectly because of the problems we have spoken about at great length, and that's basically the economic situation and the large group of unemployed. What the Attorney- General and all those on that side like to talk about most is their famous restraint program. I think I have said that so much of the legislation and the programs that this government is bringing down are eroding rights and services that have been provided to the community in different ways.

A big problem right now is that when I listen to what is coming out, I think the erosion of police systems is taking

[ Page 4256 ]

place. I was really concerned when I read that the Attorney-General was talking about shuffling some of the costs of police training onto the municipalities. I know it's easy to say that it is justifiable for a municipality and its taxpayers to accept a certain amount of responsibility for the training program that must go into policing. I think it's important, before we rush into that, to review some of the history of what has taken place, especially on the municipal level of policing. I believe that when you go through the history of municipal policing — and it doesn't matter if it's in a large city or a small municipality — you find that for so many years in British Columbia the training of policemen was not considered one of the top priorities. That happened only when the Police Academy was set up in British Columbia and the standard of policing at the municipal level throughout the province was standardized.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I think a lot of us who worked in the police field remember the old criteria when we first entered the police force. We were given a uniform, a gun, a ticket book and a quota. That was the beginning of so many police careers. You cannot send a person out to deal with the public in the manner that is needed — to provide protection, guidance, comfort and counselling — without a basic training schedule. When the Police Academy was set up — and it was set up by the NDP and it has been maintained very well by the present administration.... But all of a sudden now, under the guise of restraint, you are looking at shuffling some of this cost back onto the municipal level. I'm afraid that if the Attorney-General's department does that and relaxes in any way the maintenance of standards and the upgrading that is needed in policing, we are going to have problems.

I think it's important, when you look at policing as a business — if you want to call it that — or as a career or as a service to the community.... Policing today is something that has evolved. It has evolved from the days when the policeman had to enforce all the laws and do all the investigations. But within the police system there has to be intense specialization. There is some general policing, but when you get into investigations, whether traffic or drugs, the need for specializing the officers who are out on the road is imperative. Every day we are getting closer to the need for more intense investigations into the major frauds and bankruptcies that are taking place in our community. This is something that has to be coordinated by specialists within the police field.

It has often been said that crime knows no border. A criminal doesn't look at a municipal border to see whether it has a small police force or a large police force, whether it has an efficient investigative staff or not. This is why it's important that the coordination of training and of criminal investigation programs is carried out by joint forces. All of that must be maintained at a high standard. To say that we may save a little money on training, that we're going to shift some of the costs to the municipalities.... My great fear is that if we do shift those costs in the name of restraint, and those municipalities say, "We cannot afford that training," the community, the Attorney-General and the whole province are going to suffer, because there are not the standards that the administration has built up in improving the police service. We do specialize within the police field, but we also specialize in the Crown prosecutors. I'm really worried when I hear the Attorney-General make these off-the-cuff ideas that we're going to put the Crown prosecutors out to privatization.

HON. MR. SMITH: There is nothing off the cuff about that; it's being done.

MR. MITCHELL: Well, this is what bothers me when the Attorney-General says that it is not off the cuff, that it is being done. The Crown prosecutors are an arm of investigation type policing, and you cannot afford to take something that has been specialized within the criminal justice system, like the Crown prosecutors, and then put it out on a kind of a fee for service. I believe — and I say this through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General that the need to keep effective, strong and aggressive Crown prosecutors who work as part of the police system is imperative to provide the service that is needed. You must keep that team together, because if you break that team down — and I know the Attorney-General's position as a defence lawyer.... If you're in the middle of an investigation, you do need some legal advice from the Crown prosecutor on what type of evidence is needed for a particular case and especially for a particular conviction.

[4:15]

If you had to phone up and then end up getting billed for a fee for service for a five-minute interview or a phone call, and this starts to filter back down to the police department — "why did you phone the Crown prosecutor?" and "we got another bill for fee for service....." This is the danger that is going to take place within the police system, within the Crown prosecution, and it is going to slowly eat away at effective policing, effective criminal justice and how it is administered and enforced within the community.

There are certain sections of our community that must stay together; they must work as a team. Basically, proper policing within the community has to be a team effort, and that team effort starts from the most important person — those who are doing the general policing, through the juvenile sections, through the investigation, through the commercial fraud up to the Crown prosecutor — because no investigation is of any value unless it can eventually reach the courts and there is either a conviction or someone is proven innocent. This is a part of the team that I really don't think should be privatized. I think, as a lot of people have said, it does open the door for a certain amount of pork-barrelling that I don't think the community can afford, and I honestly don't think it's needed. I'm sorry that the Attorney-General has left the House at this time, but we must look at the overall effect it is going to have on our own little municipalities.

When I talked about training, I forgot to mention that the municipal forces depend on the police academy, where the RCMP have all their own academies, their own training facilities, and those within the forces do progress through the upgrading. If that upgrading which is provided to the RCMP is eroded in any way to the municipal police forces, the team that we have now of municipal and RCMP forces working together in many levels of investigation will deteriorate in the service that is given.

When I talk about a team, I believe the sheriff's office, when it was brought in in 1973-74, was brought in because it was something that involved.... Why should policemen who are trained in various facets of investigation spend their time running around trying to serve a subpoena or a summons on someone who is involved in one way either as the person

[ Page 4257 ]

being charged or as a witness? It was felt that if we could specialize — I say it's specializing — the serving of summonses, taking them out and locating the person who it's made out to.... In some cases, as one who has served many a summons and subpoena, it's pretty hard to find someone if they don't want to be found. I think the sheriff's office did specialize in that. I remember a year or so ago when the government started talking about their privatization. I talked to people within the sheriffs' offices and within police departments, and there was a certain amount of a relaxed attitude that that particular service would not be privatized, because it needed a peace officer to serve all criminal documents. I remember saying at that time: "All they have to do is shuffle it back into the police departments. The police departments could serve the criminal documents, and then the sheriff's office could be privatized, and it would go back onto a fee-for-service basis."

I think this is what the Attorney-General is working towards: abolishing that specialized department, which was one of the arms of providing criminal justice to the province, to the taxpayer and to the people who are unfortunate enough either to be victims of crime or actually the criminal. I feel there are many things within a community that we just can't break down under the guise of restraint when they are running effectively. When I talk about policing within my own community, I say you add onto police officers more duties....

Within any police department the number of officers on the job has been frozen for two and three years, but because of heavy unemployment and the desperation of a lot of young people, crimes are increasing. I don't think many people out in the community realize the amount by which it is increasing.

I just have a few statistics from the Western Community in my own riding: theft over $200 increased 206 percent in the last year. Theft under $200 only increased 64 percent, because it's hardly worth stealing today if it's under $200. B&E of homes increased 68 percent.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: You say: "Well, it only increased 68 percent." Until you've investigated a breaking and entering of someone's home.... In many cases it's some senior citizen or some person who has lived in a community for years and has never felt threatened, but they come home from a shopping trip or come home from a wedding and find their home has been broken into and ransacked. Unless you've dealt with the people who have been affected, or unless you've had your own home ransacked.... Especially if you're an older person or a woman, that fear of breaking and entering lives with you for years and years and years. Every little sound that they hear later on bothers them. They visualize the time they came home and their house had been broken into. It's not always what is stolen, but all of a sudden they realize that their home — their castle — has been entered and something of theirs which is very personal has been stolen.

Breaking and entering of businesses has increased 121 percent. Shoplifting has increased in the Western Community by 224 percent. It's easy to say: "It's the unemployed, and it's these rotten kids out there. They can't get along with their allowance." We can rationalize anything, but this is the attack that is happening in the community. Part of it is directly related to policing.

In the Western Community for the last five years there have been 53 policemen, clerks and support staff. The figure of 53 has been frozen for five years. What's happening is we're having a continual increase in crime, and then the Attorney-General says we're going to give the policemen more of the serving of all the criminal documents in court cases. Then they bring in another program that we're going to enforce impaired driving. These are the demands that are being put on the police department. There is pressure here: "We've got to get more convictions for impaired driving. We have to show that the BATmobile is working."

The police cannot do the protective work that the community and the public demand. We have situations now where people phone in when their house is broken into, and if they can't identify what has been stolen, the police do not have the time to go out and investigate it. What happens is that some family, some senior citizen or some single parent comes home from working or shopping to find someone has entered their castle and stolen something. Because they can't prove that it was identifiable, the police do not have the time, in many cases, to go out and do a little of the counselling and reassuring that is needed to be done. We hear of restraint: we're going to cut back on this; we're going to save money here. The effect it is having is dangerous and backward. We are putting policing back for something that I don't think is real, but they call it restraint. There are services that must be provided.

There are many times in the Western Community when policemen are just not available to do the work because of other duties, sick time or leave schedules. The most time-consuming occupation of the policemen, because there is more crime and because there are more investigations, is more days spent in court,

I think there has to be a better coordination of the time that policemen are forced to spend in court. I don't have a simple answer. I don't know if it can be arranged through the defence lawyers, the clerks of the court or with the judges. When you are subpoenaed to be in court at 9:30, and you don't go in till 2 in the afternoon, it not only disrupts the policeman's day off but when he's on duty it deprives the community of his services. It deprives the community of services that are being wasted. They can't go out and do general patrolling, basic investigation, counselling or reassuring people whose homes have been entered, because they are spending a lot of time waiting around in courts.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General, I don't know what studies have been made on coordinating court times and how they drag on. Both the Attorney-General and I realize that they do go on and on. There is a need for additional courts or additional services. I have sent the Attorney-General a letter, and I imagine it is with the multitude of correspondence in his files. He either has read it or will read it.

[4:30]

The Western Community is located ten miles from the city of Victoria, where the courts are located. I'm asking the Attorney-General to give serious consideration to opening a court in the western communities. Firstly, it will cut down the amount of time that is taken travelling back and forth — time when the police force is being taken out of the community. They could stay in the community and be available for certain emergencies. Also I believe that the cases that happen in the western communities can be coordinated through the Crown prosecutors and the police and the times could be set with a

[ Page 4258 ]

little more control over what takes place than when you have a greater Victoria police department with cases from the RCMP in the rural areas, along with city cases and Saanich cases. They get all jumbled up, and they tend to carry on longer than they might have. If the Colwood RCMP knew what cases were coming up, they would know what schedules they could call their men into; there would be an opportunity to have some control on it. I don't know if it could be done with a full-time court or with a travelling court. But to give that service, I feel that a serious look has to be taken at having a courthouse in the Western Community, so that the local police can coordinate it. Whether it's a travelling court or a full-time court is, I think, something that only the numbers can set up. It has been brought to my attention that there is a large room in the Langford fire hall that would be effective for a while until something was built. But if we are going to provide the service that is needed from policing, we have to have the support service to make sure that it is going to take place.

I share some of the concerns that the minister has about the new Young Offenders Act. I believe that as we progress, we will often wonder why it was raised to 18 when so many people today mature at a much younger age. I have real concerns about the need for legal counselling; I think legal counselling should be provided. It's just the time limit. What is going to take place as the various young offenders are brought into the police stations? A lawyer must be provided. Some of the coordination of getting a lawyer out of bed, when it's a lot easier to get a parent out of bed, is going to cause a lot of delays. I'm quite sure that when you're out at Sooke, and you have to bring a lawyer from Victoria.... Knowing some of the kids, if they decide they want a certain lawyer, and he's in Victoria, by the time you get him out to Sooke.... It's going to be a problem for young offenders. I guess these are problems we're going to have to face.

I notice my time is running out, and I would ask the minister if he would answer some of my questions and concerns. I have a few more points that I would like to bring to his attention.

HON. MR. SMITH: There's quite a lot to reply to, Mr. Chairman. I'll try and be brief and orient my....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Flattery as usual will get you everywhere.

One of the items you raised was a courthouse for the Western Community. That might be a desirable move in other times, but I think you must be aware that capital expenditure programs have been on hold generally in the social service field. It's not possible to give you any early commitment on that at all. The other side of that coin, of course, is whether it's desirable to further decentralize courts in this area. A move was made about 12 years, ago to bring everything under a single roof — first of all at Fisgard Street, then moving that into the law courts on Courtenay Street. The only exception to that really has been the reactivation of the Sidney courthouse, which was already in existence before. When I first started prosecuting in this region, I used to prosecute in Central Saanich. I used to hold court in North Saanich and in Sidney. I used to go and do Saltspring, and I used to go out to Sooke as well and prosecute out there in the police station. So I've been the other route. It's nice for the local community, I guess. But it's mostly convenient for the local police detachment, because it doesn't require the travel time and the witness time. I have to tell you straight, up front, that I cannot see that occurring within the next several years.

The Young Offenders Act is certainly going to be another strain on the police. I think you've expressed the frustration that police feel today about all the tasks that are put on them by government and society. One of the additional burdens that is going to be put on them is dealing with young offenders in a way which is laden with more process. In many cases, that will require, I suspect, the invocation of counsel, because no statements will be taken from them without that clear right under the act being put to them. I suspect that many of them will exercise that right, and we will be bringing lawyers to the local detachment office in the wee small hours. That will be provided for by legal aid under an agreement which is being worked out with Ottawa. But it's going to be more trouble to the police. Also, the other problem will be separate containment provisions. Seventeen-year-olds who are presently dealt with as adults will have to be dealt with as young offenders, and we have a high incidence of people in that age category. Unfortunately, in that category a lot of them are before the courts. So all those problems are acknowledged.

The thrust of your remarks earlier was your concern that a mixed system of prosecutions by lawyers in private practice was going to somehow undermine the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. I think quite the opposite. I think it'll strengthen it, because if you went on with a divided system where you had everybody prosecuting criminal cases being a lawyer who worked for the state, and ultimately everybody defending being provided ultimately as a public defender, which is the way some thought we were going in this province, you would end up ten years from now never having a lawyer who would ever work the other side of the street. He would appear only for the Crown or only for the defence. The result is that you'd have more adversarial criminal trials, as you do in some jurisdictions in the U.S. where the district attorney is trying to notch his score on his belt and so is the public defender on the other side. In a criminal case, if you've got lawyers who have been on the other side, that not only improves the atmosphere of the trial but speeds up justice and allows people to come to the court with the other point of view. I don't mean to suggest that some who never have don't have that point of view; they do. But I don't agree with your conception of the Crown prosecutor, hon. member, as part of a police team. I believe he's quite separate from that team. He has to advise the police — there's no question about that — and they have to have him available and be able to go to see him, but he's not part of that team and he doesn't act for them. He acts and uses his discretion sometimes to go ahead with their charges and sometimes not. Gosh preserve us from ever losing that system, or ever moving to the Ontario system where the police lay the charges and the Crown prosecutors simply go into court like automatons.

MR. MITCHELL: In many ways what the minister said is quite correct, but I think he's misinterpreting what I said. I don't believe.... Through attrition and through turnover we have in private practice many lawyers who have worked through the Crown prosecutor position. They have spent their three or four or five years within that team. To say that they are not part of the criminal justice team.... Crown prosecutors, sheriffs, police: all the way down the line they are

[ Page 4259 ]

part of a criminal justice team. They're not at the beck and call of police officers. I agree with the minister a thousand percent. If you didn't have the Crown prosecutor available to police officers to coordinate and to establish that there is sufficient evidence for a particular case, you could have abuse of police power. This is why I say they are part of a team and should remain as part of a team. To say that once they're Crown prosecutors they'll never get on the other side of the street is nonsense. Every day we can find lawyers who were at one time or another Crown prosecutors defending people at the bar.

I'm sorry that the minister is not innovative enough that he can hide behind the so-called restraint, that no major capital projects are going to take place because of lack of funds in the Western Community. I say there are facilities presently in the Western Community that can be used, and I say that it's not a case of giving additional money but of utilizing the moneys you have now more effectively. You are paying to keep policemen cooling their heels on Burdett Street, when by moving moving the court, the judge and some of the facilities out to the Western Community you'd still be paying for them in Victoria, but a lot of those services for special cases could be made available out there and moneys spent for policing could be better utilized. It's not something extra; it's just utilizing what we have now.

Just to refresh the minister's mind, he mentioned some of the municipalities. I remember there were courts in Sooke, Colwood, Esquimalt, and at one time there were justices meeting in View Royal on special cases. So we have a history in British Columbia where courts and judges did move around and services were provided. As I say, I'm not against the centralization of the courts, but where it is becoming a drain on the most important part is the services. I think we should be innovative enough to look at some changes.

[4:45]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

One other question: can the minister provide me with the status of Jordan River camp? I know it is shut down and a lot of the trailers and facilities have been auctioned or sold off. Is it permanently shut down, or is there any consideration of an open type prison in the Western Community or the Sooke area? Is that finished for time immemorial?

Also, with the Young Offenders Act coming in, I think we should look at some of the studies that have been made on juvenile crime, especially those who enter the criminal justice system via the juvenile records. There have been a number of studies, and from conversations with school teachers today, the majority of the young offenders who do enter the juvenile courts.... According to studies that I've been told about, and what the teachers in my community continue to tell me, the majority of them — I've been told at least 80 percent — especially boys.... I hate to say that; it might be classed as a sexist statement. But it can especially be identified that boys will progress into the criminal justice system at anywhere from five, six, seven or eight years of age. By the time they are in grade 8 these kids are identified by the teachers, by their parents, by their peer groups as the kids who....

In many cases they start off by stealing a sandwich from the girl next door, or her apple; then they move up to grade 1 and they're stealing pencils; and by the time they get to grades 2 and 3 they are going through the teacher's purse, and in many cases at home they are stealing from their siblings.

When they reach juvenile court — I believe now it's going to be 12 — and have a conviction or are charged with something, we look at it as their first offence, so we must treat them very quietly. Really, from a psychologist's point of view, it is not their first offence. They have been rewarded since they were five, six, seven and eight by the thefts they have perpetrated on their families or their school friends. To say, when they enter juvenile court at the age of 12, 13 or 14, that that's their first offence....

I think we must look at a study on predicting kids that may progress into more serious criminal activities a lot earlier than we are doing it today. I think it has to be in cooperation with education, with families and with the police departments. I think it's really important that families are brought to the idea, with the medical profession, that children who are entering very early in life on that path that is going to lead them into criminal activity, which is costing us $45,000 to $50,000 a year for every one we now have in jail.... If studies can be made, we can zero in on them a lot earlier and not leave it until the time that we are today in the way of waiting until they reach juvenile court, or reach the more senior courts, and at that point consider that this is their first offence. I think the first offence can be identified a lot earlier. I think we, both in policing and on the taxpayer basis, are wasting a lot of money and a lot of time waiting and postponing looking at people who are going to cost us a lot of money.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll respond on Jordan River, but I'm not going to continue the debate on the other matters. I appreciate your point of view, and I think you've expressed it well.

Jordan River camp was closed on the opening of the Nanaimo Correctional Centre so that we would have facilities in the upper part of the Island rather than concentrating our resources at the southern end of the Island. We don't have any plans for its reopening at present. We might conceivably reopen it if we had an enormous load on our hands, but the figures now don't indicate that we're going to. We don't have immediate plans, but the location is a good one.

MR. MITCHELL: But you have sold all the facilities?

HON. MR. SMITH: No. The trailers have been sold, that's all.

MR. NICOLSON: I have a multiple-choice question for the minister concerning the BATmobiles. I'd like to ask this question, and it is a serious one: on a given Saturday evening, where is one most likely to find the BATmobile? Are they near the neighbourhood pubs, in the police parking lot or in Bruce Wayne's garage?

HON. MR. SMITH: Say that again.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes. You obviously don't recall reading comic books in your misspent youth.

On a given Saturday evening, where is one most likely to find the BATmobile — near the neighbourhood pub or drinking establishments, in the police parking lot, or in Bruce Wayne's garage?

Interjection.

[ Page 4260 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: Be concise, answer swiftly. Multiple-choice will be graded promptly. All three, of course.

MR. NICOLSON: I'll give him 50 percent and a bare pass for that.

But seriously, Mr. Chairman, this continues to concern me. I was very optimistic and positive about the BATmobiles when they were first brought out, and I think they are perhaps playing a deterrent role during the holiday season and such, but I have wandered past police parking lots quite recently here in Victoria on a Saturday evening and there is the BATmobile. When there is more impaired driving going on at the critical times of Friday and Saturday evenings here — and also in the interior, where about every seventh vehicle coming at you has an impaired driver in it — we are not concentrating our efforts on deterrents. I see some harm being done by the BATmobile, and that is that it creates an illusion that we are really winning the fight against the impaired driver. I'd like to ask this very serious question: are there any reasonable number of convictions arising from breath analysis taken inside of a BATmobile, as opposed to that taken inside the controlled laboratory conditions of a police station?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll get those figures for you, but the general answer is most assuredly yes. They are not there to administer roadside suspensions; they are there to apprehend people who have a reading over .08. If they have that reading, they are charged. You tell me that BATmobiles are not being utilized in this town on Friday and Saturday nights at pub closing time, and I most certainly will look into it. As you know, they are operated by the local police. I was under the impression that the program had been pretty successful. It may be that you have observed occasions when there was something wrong with the vehicle, or it was not....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, no. That was quite uncalled for.

I'll be glad to give you the figures of the BATmobile leading to apprehensions and convictions. I think they're quite impressive.

MR. NICOLSON: It has been expressed to me by people who actually take the evidence, both in the municipal police and the RCMP, and below the rank of sergeant, that they don't want to take evidence in a BATmobile. They would sooner, if they had somebody who they suspected of being impaired, take them back to the controlled environment, because with the expert witnesses who are available and who can be called in on a case, it is sometimes very difficult to get a conviction because of the drafts and the temperature sensitivity.

I would hope the Attorney-General would look into that problem with a little bit of fresh insight. I think I was as optimistic as anyone about the advent of the BATmobile, but I am concerned that it isn't fulfilling the role and expectations that we had of it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to wind up corrections, because we seem to have been on it for quite a long time. The minister was going to get some information for me. Maybe in giving me the response to my question he could also give me a time schedule for that promise, which I think was made back in Anno Domini — the year of our Lord — 102 or something, for the phasing out of Oakalla. What is the timetable? How are we doing with that? This is more a question on behalf of my constituency than having to do with my responsibility as a critic on his ministry. We're still waiting for that promise, which has been made so often, to be kept. What's the situation with Oakalla? Could he answer that at the same time as he is responding to the questions about the 49 percent cut in operating costs of the adult correctional institutes?

HON. MR. SMITH: That move out of Oakalla has been delayed, unfortunately, because of the capital freeze on facilities. It is not a policy that is going to be abandoned or watered down. It will proceed. The first commitment on that policy was the opening of the Vancouver Pretrial Centre, which has removed some of the burden of Oakalla. We have other commitments, of course, to build further correctional facilities in the lower mainland, and we have taken a major planning step in relation to Maple Ridge recently. I can assure you that it is the government's intention to phase out and close Oakalla, but that has been delayed by budget freezes. I can't tell you when the capital freeze is going to be lifted. I have to operate under that. But I intend to resume that commitment. I acknowledge it now and I've acknowledged it before. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) is a very, very strong advocate and supporter of that policy and has given me a great deal of assistance in pressing forward with those plans. So it's only budget freeze.

Before you and I stopped our dialogue and other members had some time, you had pointed out to me what appeared to be in the estimates a considerable reduction under corrections in the item of adult correctional centres operating costs, where operating costs as shown in the estimates had gone down from just over $10 million to almost $5.1 million — a very major reduction. That is, unfortunately, brought about by changes in the method in which the items are allocated now in the budget. You will find that under "grants and contributions " if you look a little lower down, that appears to totally fly in the face of restraint. If you just read those as items from last year to this year, they have gone up from $1.9 million to almost $8.6 million. There has been a transfer there of those matters. The $6.6 million is simply a change in coding which put food and other services for inmate costs in the contributions category instead of in the operating category. But it's most confusing, I agree.

[5:00]

The reduction in adult institutions is 4.12 percent. I hope that explains that system. A new system of codification of contributions for Treasury Board expanded the definition of contributions, and that was put in a different category.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, what that means, then, is that when a service is contracted out, instead of being covered by operating costs it's now included in "contributions and grants." That's what happened to your contracting out services.

HON. MR. SMITH: Correct.

MS. BROWN: So that would explain the youth containment centre — the same thing is happening and that sort of thing. Fine.

[ Page 4261 ]

Just talking about the Young Offenders Act again as it applies to corrections, you mentioned that the federal government had agreed to pick up 50 percent of the cost in terms of the building, I guess, and development of containment centres. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but there is absolutely nothing in the budget as it now stands to cover the cost of implementing the Young Offenders Act. So what does that 50 percent mean in terms of dollars and cents coming from the provincial government? Your estimates have to be adjusted to include the funding for the Young Offenders Act. What is the new figure? Where is that now and where would it show up in the budget? You said that there would be a 50 percent cost to cover containment centres and legal aid for the young offenders, but that there would be no additional cost to cover police, prosecution or remand and custody, which means that there is a huge sum of money that suddenly has to appear somewhere in your budget. Have you calculated what that sum of money is and can you tell us what part of it is the 50 percent and what part the 100 percent that the provincial government has to come up with in order to implement that act successfully?

In addition to that, could you also tell me how the under-12-year-olds will now be dealt with, now that the Young Offenders Act is being implemented? You said that you were a little bit unhappy about the fact that they were not covered by the Young Offenders Act, which means that since the old Juvenile Delinquents Act is no longer operative, you have come up with a new scheme for dealing with young people under the age of 12 who run afoul of the law. What is that scheme? How is that going to be dealt with?

HON. MR. SMITH: You're absolutely correct; there is nothing in the budget. There will have to be — and there will be — a fresh appropriation. It's not possible to know precisely the amount of funding that is going to be required. But as a ballpark figure, this year it will require about $6 million of additional provincial money to implement the legislation. When I say that, too, I'm talking about a net to this province after recoveries and sharing.

MS. BROWN: It's got to be higher than that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, including the additional money for legal aid that we require, which will also be cost-shared. But that is a rough ballpark figure for what will be required this year.

MS. BROWN: Oh, this year.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, I'm just talking about this fiscal year. And that, of course, is considerably less than what we're going to require in the years to come, because we're looking at a cost to the province of British Columbia, net of recoveries, over a four-year period of something in the neighbourhood of $70 million. It's a horrendous increase, and again I'm talking net recoveries. We're covering a like amount, where most of it — say, 45 percent to to 48 percent in some categories they're not going to pay us for.

The under- 12-year-olds will have to be dealt with under the child welfare legislation; they will not be dealt with under justice. There will probably have to be some companion amendment to the Family and Child Service Act as well. We are not proposing to try to create some provincial offence for them, but there will be some machinery that will permit someone in that category to be returned to parental or guardian custody. But there is no justice model that we can put them into. Experience may require us to do more, but we have no authority, as I understand it, under the Young Offenders Act to do anything with the difficult or recidivist 11-year old; we're stuck. That's a failing of the act, as I see it.

MS. BROWN: I just would like to add a word of caution about using the Family and Child Service Act or any welfare legislation to deal with young offenders under the age of 12. Experience in other jurisdictions has been that the law doesn't operate as well in terms of protecting the rights of people when they're not dealt with strictly in terms of the law as it is. Other acts administered by human resources ministries and other things like that can in fact be more penalizing than the actual law itself. I'm a little bit nervous about that. Maybe my colleague from Vancouver East could talk to you about that. It seems to me that the reason for introducing the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the Young Offenders Act in the first place was because in many instances the young people are treated more punitively when they are not protected by law the way adults are. I have some concerns about that. I'm nervous about your saying that you're going to deal with them under different statutes. I may be wrong about this, but you may like to be more clear on what you are going to do.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. SMITH: I think that you've misunderstood me. By "deal with them" I don't mean bring them before the courts; I mean take them home to their parents or to their guardian. I don't mean setting up some separate process under provincial legislation and trying to deal with them in a matter which is really a federal justice legislative issue. I don't think I could deal with them. The field is occupied. They are clearly excluded by age, and all I can do is to make sure that there is machinery to get them home to the parents or guardian. I don't think I can do any more. That's all I'm proposing. I'm not proposing some offence or process in bringing them forward. which I think would be an attempt to get around the Young Offenders Act.

MS. BROWN: What would happen to those children under the age of 12 who are presently in containment centres? Do they go home to their parents too?

HON MR. SMITH: We haven't got any.

MS. BROWN: When I visited the centre in Victoria there were kids there under the age of 12. No? Oh, they just looked under the age of 12; I see. That's fine. I'm very happy to hear that.

I'm through with corrections for the time being, except to say how sorry I am to hear about the postponement of the phasing out of Oakalla. I don't know how I am going to go back and break the news to the people of Burnaby that once again the phasing out of Oakalla is being postponed, but I'm going to do the best I can in that regard. I see that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) is there, and his job is going to be even more difficult because it's right smack in the middle of his riding even though it's on my doorstep. As fast as you can possibly unfreeze it, Mr. Minister, we'd really

[ Page 4262 ]

appreciate it, because its phasing out is something that's been promised for a long time.

The Legal Services Society. I want first of all to congratulate the task force that has been travelling around the province. I had the honour and the pleasure of appearing before them myself, and I must say I was very impressed with the incisiveness with which the questions were placed and my brief was treated. I wonder if the Attorney-General will at this time give an undertaking that any amendments to the Legal Services Society Act which are being considered will not be proceeded with until that committee has had an opportunity to formulate its findings and make its recommendations to the Attorney-General.

My second question in that respect has to do with funding for the Legal Services Society. As a result of the Mountain decision, I know a commitment was made to continue funding until such time as the act was amended. Does that mean that the funding will continue through to the end of the fiscal year and into the next, if necessary, until the Attorney-General has had the chance to study the findings of this task force and to make some decisions as to what is in the best interest in terms of the delivery of public legal services at this time?

HON. MR. SMITH: I will decline the invitation to give those commitments, as I have done in the face of bar groups and others who have invited me to do similarly, and I also will reiterate that the only legislation that would be introduced while the task force is pending is legislation that would simply make the criteria now set out in section 3 of the Legal Services Act to be permissive instead of mandatory. In other words, it would free the society to do as it wished and not be bound by Mountain. I cannot give an undertaking not to do that. I don't think that that form of legislation, although the member and no doubt the bar as well would prefer that it waited, either hampers the work of the task force or precludes the Legal Services Society or the government from considering priorities for legal aid as they may be elucidated by the task force. We'll consider the task force's recommendations in a very serious way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, I'm pursuing a line of questioning with the Attorney-General on legal services which I started, it seems to me, as a matter of courtesy, if not of law. If I could be permitted to conclude the particular line of questioning that....

[5:15]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon defers to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. VEITCH: I won't take a moment, Mr. Chairman. I….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess you misunderstood the Burnabys. I understood that you had deferred to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. VEITCH: No, I hadn't done that, but I'll be happy to do that. I would be pleased to do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MS. BROWN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and, through you, thank you to the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

As far as the delivery of services under the Legal Services Society Act to the young offenders, is that going to be given at the level prior to the Mountain decision and through the decision to amend the act, or is that assistance going to be lowered to take into account all of the cutbacks in the delivery of legal services to adults in other areas? In other words, a number of cutbacks were introduced by the minister, in terms of the delivery of public legal aid to adults. Is that the basis on which the young offenders are going to get legal aid, or are they going to get legal aid based on the level that used to be given prior to the cutbacks of April, and so forth and so on?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, the legal aid that will be provided under the Young Offenders Act is something that will be separate from the legal services budget. It is a matter of negotiations which we've had with the Ministry of Justices in Ottawa, separate from the Solicitor-General. We had to deal with the Solicitor-General on all these other young offenders items, but on the legal aid item we've had to deal with the Minister of Justice. We're putting together an agreement on that, and we'll have to provide legal aid under that federal act. We have to set up a system of administering it. I suspect we'll try and administer it through duty counsel in some instances and in other instances through counsel being retained individually, depending on the nature of the case. It's going to be a considerable additional commitment and cost over and above the existing system. I can't tell you precisely what the criteria are going to be. We have federal constraints as well on this, but it's an entirely separate commitment from the budget here, if that's what you mean.

MR. VEITCH: I really appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the concern that the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds has for me and my welfare in getting re-elected again next time round, and I share the same concern for her. She may have a difficult time. We both would like to see Oakalla removed. It would aid and abet both of us, I'm sure, because it has been promised for a long time.

If I understood the Attorney-General correctly, he stated that he's still dedicated to the absoluteness of removing that blight from Burnaby and setting up new institutions in other areas. I guess that in order to do this some planning funds — a very small amount of money — are required. I have had discussions with the president of British Columbia Buildings Corporation as well as some officials in your ministry, and I'm told that approximately $50,000 would be required to finish off the planning function and to get the necessary documentation and plans ready to deal with the Coquitlam centre and, indeed, the Maple Ridge centre. My question to the Attorney-General is: would he consider taking this case forward — if he has not already done so — to obtain this planning money so that when the funds do become available we could get this thing going and there wouldn't be any untoward delays in removing Oakalla?

HON. MR. SMITH: I answer the member affirmatively that we do have planning money; I would that we had some money beyond planning.

[ Page 4263 ]

We will be spending some planning money. That planning money and the plans which the money will be spent on will clearly indicate that we are serious. We're not just sitting still, and we are serious about carrying out that commitment with the limited funds we have. You'll see some further steps which will reinforce the steps of the Vancouver Pretrial Centre, which was part of the first phase of the scheme of getting out of Oakalla. It's desirable to do so.

MR. VEITCH: As far as the pretrial centre is concerned, Mr. Attorney, I hope that you won't be building another hotel in Coquitlam or some other place. What you're telling me then is that very shortly the planning will recommence with relation to the Coquitlam and Maple Ridge sites, so there will be no delay and you will be able to move ahead with those two areas when the money becomes available. I think there's also one other site for the women's prison that you will be looking at, perhaps in concert with the federal government.

HON. MR. SMITH: In general terms, what you say is correct.

MS. BROWN: Just to carry on on the Legal Services Society, one of the recommendations made to the task force was to extend the representation to cover some people who were affected in areas where government programs had been cut — for example, working in the area of consumer protection, health care, the rentalsman and that kind of thing. Is this the sort of thing that would be possible in the future, after the amendment to the Legal Services Society Act has been changed — this extension of coverage and protection in that particular area?

Has any consideration at all been given to the tariff which is presently being paid to the people? In terms of the eligibility criteria, the one which is used by the Ministry of Human Resources is quite flexible and not as etched in stone as the one presently being used by the Society. I wonder whether the minister is thinking in terms of flexibility, because as the criteria stand at present, a large number of people who would be described as working poor are excluded from using the services of the Legal Aid Society. I wonder if the minister had taken those things into account.

HON. MR. SMITH: All of those things, of course, are possible under a revised Legal Services Society Act, under some changes in funding and under possible changes in the method of funding. All those are things the task force is looking at. I think every suggestion that you've made here has come before them in briefs in some form or another. Certainly I know tariff has, eligibility criteria have and also desires that people have to expand some of the family or civil law services, quite apart from criminal justice services. They're all there. Without prejudging any of those submissions, they're the kind of submissions we'd expect to get when we're trying to chart some sort of future for legal aid.

MS. BROWN: I think my colleague has five minutes, Mr. Chairman, and then I'll continue.

MR. COCKE: I wasn't going to take five minutes, but now I've suddenly got five minutes. What a gift. The bountiful member for Burnaby-Edmonds has allowed me five minutes on the A-G's estimates.

1 would first like to comment on the great news that we heard on Oakalla. I think I've probably been listening to the political announcements on Oakalla over the years, and I believe that the Socreds have promised to move Oakalla just prior to every election since I can remember — that's back to 1952. And the Liberals were doing it before that. Boss Johnson used to say that. As a matter of fact, Boss Johnson used to be the Premier of the province and was the representative from New Westminster some time before I was. But in any event....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: And the then Attorney-General, when we were government, was going to turn it into an art gallery. Oakalla has had a long life. I hope one of these days it's going to be snuffed out, because it's a poor place for it. It's in the wrong place, entirely. What a beautiful setting — sitting up there on that hill overlooking Deer Lake. It's the most marvellous park setting one ever saw. There it is; barbed-wire entanglements, walls and barricades, and so on and so forth; I think it's about time we started doing some serious planning.

Anyway, I'd like to ask the minister about one thing, and one thing only: the People's Law School. I have a letter in front of me from a person in New Westminster who, I think, sometimes likes to write to government members. I'd like to read a couple of words that she said here. This is a letter that the minister received. I'd like to know what his reply was, really, because this woman writes:

"The general public is still not aware of all their rights. The People's Law School is well known in all areas and should remain funded by your government. Surely, sir, you wish the poor and the downtrodden to have the knowledge of law, as well as the people with money. The poorer the person the more help is needed, and you should know that well."

I don't know why she would say that he should know that well, but maybe he should.

"You must have observed that the grey has now gone and we have rich and poor. We no longer have our middle-class people. So if you're poor you need to go to classes the People's Law School puts on and thus learn how to deal with situations that arise out of being poor or as an immigrant not familiar with the laws of the province."

I just want to ask the minister whether or not he's prepared to review that grant to the People's Law School, having cut it somewhat dramatically in the past.

HON. MR. SMITH: The People's Law School had simply the same reduction that other grant recipients had; that is, a 5 percent reduction from 1983-84 over 1982-83. It was down from $58,600 to $52,800. I met with representatives of the People's Law School in Vancouver and reviewed their work and examined what they do, and I'll have to make a funding decision on that very promptly. They also get support from the Law Foundation and the Legal Services Society, and they face some reductions there as well. They come well recommended and very well supported. They have not received notification. I can simply tell you that I've met with them and they've currently been funded on a short basis, but a decision has not been made on the funding for the balance of the fiscal year.

[ Page 4264 ]

MRS. DAILLY: I have one quick question to the minister. It has: to do with pensions, which I know one immediately might say is under the Provincial Secretary. But I did mention this to your predecessor, the former Attorney-General. When part of a public service pension is allocated by a judge in a settlement — say in a divorce case — and the judge says that part of that pension must go to one of the spouses, apparently until some act or regulation is changed to allow for it there is no way for the judge's order to be done through the government's facilities. I was told this came under the Attorney-General. If you don't have the information now, I can certainly discuss it later.

HON. MR. SMITH: I didn't think that problem still existed, but if it does we'll get back to you. I thought that problem had been rectified.

MRS. DAILLY: I thought so too, until I recently had a letter from a constituent saying that this problem still existed. So I would appreciate it if you could look into it.

[5:30]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the minister's response to the question about the People's Law School. I wonder what's going to happen to the Vancouver Status of Women, the native court workers and the rape centres, because they received an extension on last year's contract for two months — that's April 1 to May 30. I think they were told at that time that an announcement would be made and new contracts would be sent out for them to sign, dealing with their funding. At this point certainly they have not had a final word from the Attorney-General as to whether they are going to have to make do with the same as last year, less 5 percent, or whether it's less 10 percent, as the case may be. If the Attorney-General has made a final decision as to precisely what it's going to be, does it apply to all of the agencies right across the board? In other words, the Status of Women and everyone else can anticipate that they'll be getting the same as last year minus 5 percent. Is that what the Attorney-General is indicating?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, that's not it. That's what happened last year. All that's happened this year is that they've been given a two-month extension and nobody has been given any final answers. They will obviously have to be given answers very quickly. It's true for all of those agencies that received these special grants that no final decision has been made. Because of the problems that occurred last year when we had a very late budget and they had even worse uncertainty in their funding, what we simply did was to extend the financial arrangements for two months so there wouldn't be a hiatus, and we would notify them. But they can't assume from that — any of them — that they're getting 5 percent or 10 percent or whatever. I hope I can give them very early notification. They're all in the same boat — everyone of them.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: If I can put in a couple of special pleas, Mr. Chairman, I first of all would bring to the attention of the Attorney~General the comments made by my colleague for Vancouver Centre vis-à-vis the position of natives before the courts, and specifically say that the native court workers' program should be enhanced rather than cut in any way, if he is not making an across-the-board decision for all of the groups. He should certainly view that as a priority. Also I want to echo the words of my colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) as they apply to the People's Law School, and to put in my own pitch for the Status of Women and rape centres. As a direct result of so many of the basic services and basic resources being cut, these semi-volunteer groups are finding the pressure on them increasing. There are more people using and needing their services than ever. It seems to me that as a preventive service, which is what most of them deliver, it would be better to fund them adequately, at this level than to pick up the pieces at the other end of the correction stream as a direct result of people not having access to preventive services here. So I hope the Attorney-General will reconsider and that the extension might mean that he'd find some funding so as not to have to cut their resources at all.

I have just about completed what I have to say, Mr. Speaker, so I want to touch on two other topics. On March 19 of this year the Attorney-General made a speech at the UBC law school. At that time he said: "Our government will override the Charter of Rights if the courts come to a decision that the cabinet could not abide by." First of all, I want to ask whether the Attorney-General still stands by that statement and whether it's government policy that he was articulating at that time.

HON. MR. SMITH: I know that there are some who are horrified at the notion of any government using the override in the Charter of Rights, but I can assure you that the override is part of the Charter of Rights. It is just as much a part of the Charter of Rights as the fundamental freedoms are, and it was put in there so that a provincial government could, through its Legislature, override a court decision on a piece of provincial legislation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, I did, actually.

The use of that power was made in Quebec, and they did it in a blanket way. They passed legislation in a blanket way, notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights. They tried to make it applicable to all their provincial legislation. You asked me, really. I'm not articulating policy or future policy, but my own view is that that would not be an appropriate use of an override.

This government, in the constitutional negotiations, strongly supported an override as a vehicle that might have to be used if there were a court interpretation involving something like freedom of association or freedom of speech, something totally at variance with the wishes of the citizens of the province. Civil libertarians and others might just as well get used to the fact that that provision is in there and that would have absolutely no hesitation in recommending its use in an extraordinary case. But I would not recommend its use as a matter of course or in a blanket way. It was put in there, and virtually all the provinces supported it. I expect that it will occasionally be used.

The Charter of Rights is going to place enormous new burdens on the courts and require years of interpretation to work them out. I have tremendous confidence that our courts will bring sensible, reasonable and probably quite conservative interpretations to bear on the charter. It is also

[ Page 4265 ]

possible that when you ask judges to decide matters of social and economic policy you are going to get some decisions that may prove not to be workable in the social and political reality of a particular province. At that time a government will have to take the responsibility of bringing before this place an override resolution, and if it carries it will make the law of this province the law notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights. I happen to think that that's part of cooperative federalism, and I wouldn't shirk my responsibility of making that recommendation. But I would make it only in a very special and appropriate case.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister always takes into account that some very fundamental rights are being protected by that charter, some of which are quite controversial and were arrived at after a quite a bit of agony and struggle on behalf of a number of different segments of our society. Some of us who are members of various minorities, such as women, who really got protection into the charter simply by the skin of our teeth, are absolutely terrified by the fact that provincial governments do have that override and can use it whenever a decision is made by the courts with which they disagree. I certainly hope the minister is clearly aware of the concern which exists in some quarters about the fact not just that the override exists but that there seems to be such a willingness to use it. It took 2,000 years for women to get that protection written into the charter. We almost missed it, because the three men who met in the kitchen to make the final decision on it decided that women and native Indians weren't important, and almost left us out of it. There had to be a tremendous uproar in order to get that protection included in it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's bunk.

MS. BROWN: It is not bunk. You were one of those men in the kitchen who was prepared to bargain away the protection of women in this country for other kinds of privileges. The override is something that we stand in fear of. We certainly hope that the present Attorney-General is more sensitive to the kinds of protections which we fought for and finally had included in that charter, and would not abuse it through using the override in a careless or unconscionable manner.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, the last issue that I want to raise with the Attorney-General has to do with the matter of pornography. I appeared before the Fraser commission myself, and a number of other people did so, and the whole issue of enabling legislation on the part of the province was raised. As a matter of fact, a brief was presented by the municipality which stated that protecting corner stores, for example, from being harassed or intimidated if they refused to carry this kind of material was beyond their powers, that there was no way that the municipalities could introduce the kinds of bylaws which would prohibit corner stores from carrying pornographic literature. In fact, if they refused to do so and were intimidated by the distributors of this literature, there was no way in which the municipalities could protect them.

The other issue that was raised was the reluctance on the part of Crown counsel to lay charges and to carry through when matters were brought to their attention in terms of video material in circulation which very clearly contravenes our sense of common decency or, as the Attorney-General himself has said, certainly goes beyond the bounds that would be acceptable.

The third point I want to raise has to do with the exploration that the minister was making into the classification, again, of video material. Has there been any progress in this field? Is it now being covered by the classification officer, Mary-Lou McCausland? The business of British Columbia having the reputation for being the pornographic centre of Canada — the place where all of the pirated pornography comes from — is one that certainly the Attorney-General rejects. I think he should ask the Ontario Attorney-General to table the evidence that he has for accusing British Columbia of being the centre and the capital of pirated pornography. If that evidence does exist, we should at least have an opportunity to have a look at it.

The question of the government using the accusation levelled against the chairperson of Expo 86 by the North Shore Women's Group — that he is the 100 percent owner of a company which is responsible for the distribution of both soft- and hard-core pornography in British Columbia — is another question I pose to the Attorney-General. Has he investigated this accusation to see whether Mr. Pattison is being wrongfully accused of disseminating and distributing hard- and soft-core pornography throughout British Columbia? Is there any truth to this accusation, or should his name be cleared? I am quite sure that the government of British Columbia would not hire and make chairperson of Expo 86 someone...

MR. R. FRASER: Chairman.

MS. BROWN: Well, I still think he's a person.

...who makes his livelihood from the dissemination of pornographic material. I wonder if the Attorney-General has investigated this matter in any attempt to clear the name of Mr. Pattison or whether by some very remote chance there could he any truth to the accusation. If so, what is the Attorney-General going to do about the fact that there is one company in this province which distributes that material? How can we protect the corner stores who claim that they are being intimidated when they refuse to carry that material on their bookshelves? What is the Attorney-General going to be able to do about that, if anything?

[5:45]

HON. MR. SMITH: I have been following some of the briefs presented to the Fraser commission. I watched the presentation of some of that on the local cable when they were here in Victoria. I couldn't go to the hearing. We'll present a brief to them a little later. We're going to look at the briefs that they got from British Columbia; they seem to have gotten some quite good ones. I've talked to the chairman about making a presentation. I think one of the areas we'll be presenting on is the video question. It's true that we could go to a licensing system of some kind and probably exercise some effective control for legitimate dealerships, but we still would have the problem of the dealerships that aren't legitimate and the ones that are pirated, There are such videos, as you know. The feeling that people have that Crown counsel aren't interested in this subject I don't think is really borne out by the fact that we've had some pretty vigorous and high level prosecutions. We have some outstanding now. We've gone ahead with these at considerable expense, but we would

[ Page 4266 ]

like to have some stringent penalties imposed. We will continue to take these tapes and materials — where we find them — when they are clearly abhorrent, and to bring people before the criminal courts.

I'm just sorry that we haven't had more legislative assistance federally. It's all very well, I guess, for one level to say the other level isn't doing it, but I don't think that the answer, hon. member, was to set up an 18-month national road show task force, and I say that with good regard for the people who are on that task force. I think that was a real cop-out on the issue. We could have had some legislative guidance, some assistance in community standards, or we could even have had some delegation and allowed communities to make some decisions on materials. But we've had no guidance, and I'm concerned about that. I'm going to make a presentation — the government will — to the Fraser commission.

The other matter that you asked me about was the export to Ontario. That story didn't come from the minister, and it isn't the view of the ministry in Ontario, as far as I understand. It was the view of a frustrated official in Ontario. We have talked with the ministry and that is apparently not their view. But the notion that they're going to come out here to deal with our pornography problem.... That's very kind of them, if they wish to do that. I wouldn't wish to go down and deal with theirs, and I don't think Mr. McMurtry wants to deal with mine.

MS. BROWN:First of all, I want to say to the Attorney-General that the same comments made about the Fraser commission could be levelled against the Task Force on Public Legal Services. However, I disagree in both respects. I think that any opportunity to have public input is good. I welcome the opportunity to make a presentation to the legal services task force, to have some input at that level — and for all of the community to be able to do so — and I welcome the opportunity to have some input into the Fraser commission, and I know a number of other groups in the community also welcome that opportunity. It's very easy for us as politicians, because we talk to each other, to think that we can make decisions without listening to anyone else. So I don't share your opinion that it's a travelling road show. I think it's a legitimate attempt to hear what people in the community have to say about pornography and to make some recommendations as to what governments at different levels can do about it.

I agree with you that the federal government needs to do something about amending the Criminal Code in this matter, and the recommendations that I made certainly dealt with that. You didn't deal, though, with the classification thing, which is one of the things I raised with you. Where is that now, in terms of your…? I think it was the previous Attorney-General who started looking at it.

Also, you have not responded to my question as to whether you have investigated this accusation against Mr. Pattison and whether any attempt is going to be made to clear his name.

HON. MR. SMITH: My comments on the Fraser commission were simply on the 18-month delay in getting legislation, not on some group going out to get public feedback. This is a very slow process that they're going through, and we won't have federal legislation for another couple of years.

I have not decided to introduce the video classification. I've had my department and my classification branch look at it closely and consult with other jurisdictions. We may do it. I have some misgivings about it, but I'm prepared to move there if it's going to be of major assistance in dealing with the problem.

I'm going to decline your invitation to clear Mr. Pattison. I'm delighted that you're concerned about that, though. It's not the role of the Attorney-General to respond to allegations of that kind. I think that allegations of that kind are regrettable when made by organizations which are usually constructive. But to make them against an individual is, I think, regrettable. But it's not my role to respond to those. It's not my role to clear individuals. It's my role to try and administer the criminal justice system.

MS. BROWN: In the meantime what is going to be done about the comer stores who maintain that the reason they continue to carry this kind of material is that they're subject to intimidation if they refuse to do so? What is happening? What is the Attorney-General's ministry doing about the proliferation of this kind of material in the meantime?

HON. MR. SMITH: Enforcing the criminal law; prosecuting people who violate that law; tying up a great deal of time, of prosecutors, police and courts in trying to enforce the law, however inadequate it is in the field of obscenity; and having major prosecutions underway now. If you or any other group has material like that which they will bring forward to their local regional Crown counsel, prosecutions go forward where the case can be proved. In some cases they don't go forward, because the evidence is not sufficient. But the problem will remain until there are better definitions and a clearer understanding of what community standards are, I dare say. But we have cracked down, and we have prosecuted. We have asked for higher penalties. We'll continue to do that.

MS. BROWN: Is there any plan to amend the Civil Rights Protection Act to cover this kind of material as hate literature?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, because I think also that I would have concerns about the colourability of trying to legislate indirectly for a matter that's already covered under the Criminal Code. This is the whole problem when you deal with questions like street prostitution — or try to — by local bylaws. It may be temporarily reassuring to your local constituents or your neighbours that you are doing something by trying to legislate, but if you clearly don't have the authority to legislate and the courts later strike it down, what you do is lower respect for the. law instead of increase it.

MR. REYNOLDS: I won't take more than a minute; I don't want to hold up the Attorney's estimates, but I couldn't help but hearing the appeal from the member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown) to the Attorney with regard to the Status of Women. I would just like the Attorney to know that a number of people from my constituency have said to me that they wonder why we fund this group.

MS. BROWN: Oh, god.

MR. REYNOLDS: The member laughs, But my constituency probably represents as good a cross-section of this province as anyone's in this room — if you want to take it all

[ Page 4267 ]

the way up to the D'Arcy area — and some people are very frustrated when they see this government continue to fund organizations that are involved politically and doing functions that are served by other areas of the government and other private sources. I would hope that he would take that into consideration seriously. I would have no concerns myself at all if we were not to fund that group at all, but certainly I'd have no objections if there was a drastic cut. When times are tough there are a lot of people concerned about grants to these types of organizations.

I would close by also saying that I was sad to see the member for Burnaby-Edmonds tie herself into the accusations against a fine citizen of this province like Mr. Jimmy Pattison. There are people in this province who don't think Playboy, Hustler and some of these magazines are pornographic. Nevertheless, it's really a sad day when this House is used to attack people who have served this province so well. I wanted to put that on the record also.

MS. BROWN: We can't let that one go.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to let that go, because it doesn't warrant an answer, but I'd like to draw the attention of the House that the member called that member "the attorney." I notice it is happening all the time in this House, and I understood that he was the Attorney-General, and I think that says something demeaning. I'd rather that he'd be called the Attorney-General until he is demoted to an attorney again. Not that we would like to see him there, but nonetheless, while he's there, I think we should call him the Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member — we understand what you demean.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I thought my colleague was leaping to say that he certainly finds Hustler and Penthouse pornographic. However, he was dealing with what is a much more serious matter for him, I guess.

The thing I really want to respond to is the accusation against the Vancouver Status of Women. I wonder whether the Attorney-General needs me to give him detailed explanation as to the reasons why he should continue to fund that very worthwhile organization, because if he does, I'd be very happy to do so. Would the Attorney-General like me to do that?

HON. MR. SMITH: I think the whole House would, but we'll resist that tonight. I can tell her that the group made a full presentation in front of caucus, and caucus was well attended. I think everybody received the literature. I am aware of the work they do, and that they do run some vital services for us as well. We have important services that that group runs.

Vote 9 approved.

Vote 10: ministry operations, $224,410,418 — approved.

Vote 11: judiciary, $12,996,553 — approved.

Vote 12: corrections, $106,580,344 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.