[ Page 1275 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 1275

Oral Questions

Government policy on gaming. Mr. Sihota –– 1275

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Rose

Mr. Barnes

Delisting of International Tillex Enterprises Ltd. Mr. Sihota –– 1276

Lyell Island logging. Mr. Kempf –– 1277

Motions –– 1277

Oral Questions

Prince George mortality rate. Hon. Mr. Dueck replies –– 1278

Presenting Reports –– 1278

Property Purchase Tax Act (Bill 17). Second reading

Mr. Stupich –– 1278

Mr. Rose –– 1280

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 1281

Division –– 1282

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

On vote 12: minister's office –– 1283

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Miller

Ms. Edwards

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Blencoe

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, probably a lot of the new members don't know that all of us in this room and many hundreds of thousands of elected people — such as we are — from throughout the world belong to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It's interesting to note that over one billion citizens in the world are represented by elected members who are members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. So it's an exclusive but rather significant club.

We're pleased to have with us, in the precincts today, the former Commonwealth Parliamentary Association librarian and chief information officer from Westminster, the mother of parliament. Would you please welcome Mrs. Miriam Alman.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if I could add my word of welcome to our visitor from Great Britain. I personally, with delegations studying rules and regulations and changes in parliamentary reform, have been hosted by this office, which is attached to Westminster, and as a parliamentarian have for years now had a great deal of assistance through the various conferences that this organization sponsors throughout the Commonwealth world.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: In the galleries this afternoon is a very dear acquaintance of mine and a gentleman whom I would characterize as a good friend of British Columbia. I'm referring to Mr. Eugene Nesmith, president and chief executive officer of the Hongkong Bank of Canada. For those members of the House who might remember the difficulties surrounding one of our premier financial institutions about six or seven months ago, it became very evident to me, as part of the government negotiating team, that around the table discussing British Columbia affairs were many individuals who had the province's interests at heart. Mr. Eugene Nesmith was one of them.

I refrained from describing Gene as a friend of government; I didn't want to offend him. He is a friend of British Columbia, and I ask the House to welcome him to the House this afternoon.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Today in the diplomatic gallery, if I may call it that, is the consul-general of the Polish People's Republic, Mr. Grodecki, who is a lawyer. He operates on behalf of his country, Poland, and he is here today visiting with government officials. I'd ask the House to make Mr. Grodecki welcome.

MR. DIRKS: In the public gallery today, from the great constituency of Nelson–Creston, I have the pleasure to introduce Valerie and Bill Sutherland. Accompanying them is Flo Mackay from Scotland, a retired headmaster. Would the House please welcome them.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House today, in your gallery, the entire Langley constituency Social Credit executive. If the House would bear with me — this is their first visit in this term — I would like to name them: Mrs. Fern Wilson, Mrs. Wendy Wallace, Mrs. Ida Fallowfield, Mr. Ken Thompson, Mr. and Mrs. Mike Radakovich, Mr. and Mrs. George Dyck, Mr. and Mrs. Jim Greenwood, Mr. Harry Fassbender, Mark Tremblett, Kathy Mason, Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Snell and Mr. Steven Dornian. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the precincts today we have 60 students, teachers and parents from the Duniway elementary school in Portland, Oregon. They're here as a class, studying our country and our province, and I would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, today in the gallery are David Paterson, a chartered accountant and chairman of the government affairs committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C., and a number of members of that committee. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. CHALMERS: This afternoon in your gallery is a gentleman from the constituency of Okanagan South to whom I would like to ask everybody to give a warm welcome; a man who has a distinguished record of service to the community, being involved in many organizations such as the hospital board and others. I'd ask that you give a warm welcome to Mr. Jim Stewart, please.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the report for the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for the period ending March 31, 1986.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON GAMING

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Attorney-General. The question is this: given the claim by the Attorney-General yesterday that the government has no policy on gambling until the report of the commission comes in, and given now the evident divisions in his own caucus on the wisdom of expanded gambling, would the Attorney-General advise this House as to his own views on the question of expanded gaming in this province?

HON. B.R. SMITH: I don't think it's fair to characterize my comments as saying that the government has no policy on gambling. The member opposite has tried on a number of occasions to construct a policy for us, but our policy on gaming I think is well known, and that is that we favour very limited gaming in this province. The only gaming that is permitted is under government supervision, save for that done by recognized charities in the casino and bingo field, and we do not favour an expansion of gaming at this time. We have set up an independent Gaming Commission which will be making recommendations to us later in the year, and those recommendations will be made public and there will be public debate. But we have taken a very limited and extremely conservative view of gaming in this government, and we will continue to do so.

[2:15]

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Attorney-General. The charities first lost lottery revenues to Expo debts. Now they've lost revenue from the at-sea casinos

[ Page 1276 ]

to B.C. Steamships. What assurance can the Attorney-General offer charities that they won't next be squeezed out of the on-land casino operations by for-profit gambling?

HON. B.R. SMITH: Well, everybody thinks that they lose revenues due to someone else. I can't imagine that there is a loss of revenues to anyone in that area as a result of gaming devices on a ship, which are played by 90 percent U. S. visitors. So I completely disagree with that assumption in your question.

As for the loss of money that charities have received from gaming, it was that very reason that prompted the government prior to setting up a Gaming Commission to change some of the rules which would ensure that a clear 50 percent of those proceeds from casino gaming would go to the charities. We believe that that policy will work and will restore revenues to the charities. We are very much in favour of charities having a source of revenue of this kind, and making sure that the money goes to them and isn't just taken by others.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if we could just dwell a bit on terms. Is it policy that there should be no for-profit public sector gambling in B.C.?

HON. B.R. SMITH: No public sector gaming does take place in B.C. for profit, save and except . . .

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. B.R. SMITH: Now just a minute. Let the poor, beleaguered questioner have his day.

. . . save and except the operation on the Princess Marguerite and Vancouver Island Princess, number one; and number two, the lotteries branch of the government, which produces some $140 million in revenue. I will of course he absolutely delighted to read, hon. member, the charities in your constituency that are beneficiaries from that and all other sources.

MR. SPEAKER: I just might mention, before the next question, that we're into the third question on this issue. I understand that the minister will be before this House this afternoon in estimates. I just wonder if it's fair to other members to continue in this, when his estimates are there.

MR. ROSE: I understand your concern, Mr. Speaker. My question is really a new question, but related to this issue. It's very controversial, and the views on this subject cross party lines. Misgivings have been expressed by the first member for Boundary–Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) and others — the member for Yale–Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) yesterday. I'd like to ask the House Leader of the opposition — of the government, soon to be opposition — whether or not he has decided to allow any legislation dealing with any further expansion, or the justification or legalization of the current practices that come before this House . . . . Will a free vote be allowed?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I hate to see the opposition take so much time in question period, because it's their question period.

The only legislation that I would initiate, Mr. Member, would be legislation from the Ministry of Environment and Parks.

MR. BARNES: Supplementary to the Attorney-General. Notwithstanding the Attorney-General's assurances that there will be no proliferation of gambling outside government control, the Premier has said in the past that all government activities and operations will be subject to sale under the privatization policies of this government. What assurances does the Attorney-General give this House that at some time in the future the Gaming Commission will not itself become available under that privatization program?

HON. B.R. SMITH: Would you buy a commission that had to try to reach some kind of consensus on an issue like that in this province that there isn't even consensus over here on?

DELISTING OF INTERNATIONAL
TILLEX ENTERPRISES LTD.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Finance, whom I'd like to welcome back to the House. During the course of the investigation into the Tillex affair it has now become a matter of public record that one of the main promoters of the Tillex scheme was an ex-convict by the name of Sam Ford, who was convicted in 1977 of wire fraud and perjury. A simple scratching of the surface would have revealed that information. Has the minister determined why it was that that information was not secured by the VSE and why it was not forwarded to investors for their protection during the course of the Tillex matter?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the questioner didn't give me any dates in terms of when this individual might have been associated with this venture. In the absence of that information, of course, I have some trouble dealing with it extemporaneously. In any event, I'm happy to take the question on notice.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll provide the information right now to the minister. Mr. Ford was involved right from the outset with the promotion of Tillex. Accordingly, would the minister now answer the question?

MR. SPEAKER: I think, hon. member, the minister took the question as notice. If you have a new question . . . .

MR. SIHOTA: A new question, then. The minister is aware that there is a self-regulating committee that determines whether or not brokers or brokerage houses should be fined in instances like the Tillex affair. In the case of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, the principals of the brokerage houses themselves sit on the committee that passes judgment on themselves and their own brokers. In light of what happened in the Tillex affair, what regulatory changes is the minister reviewing which will ensure that this potential for conflict is eliminated?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I can agree with the questioner that there's an ipso facto conflict of interest. Dealing with the question of the apparent disparity on the penalties imposed on the respective participants, it's evident, as a result of the examination I had in the matter and questioning the staff involved with monitoring that operation, that there were varying degrees of complicity involved, and those varying degrees were reflected in the penalties imposed.

[ Page 1277 ]

I do understand that, as a consequence of that affair, there have been continuing discussions, which are still going on, in terms of regulatory devices that might be put in place to minimize the risk that they may reoccur; but at the same time, I think we all must realize that no stock exchange anywhere in the world is without its problems in terms of abuse. The New York Stock Exchange attracted much media attention a few months back with a well-known case.

So the fact of the matter is that I am not aware of any legislature anywhere in the world that can legislate honesty. That is something that we have to monitor and penalize when we see its absence. But to suggest that it is within government's power or authority to do anything in a meaningful way to ensure that dishonesty is totally eliminated is absolutely ridiculous, and I trust that the questioner himself would be the first to concede that.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister clearly does not have the facts at hand. In the last 45 cases investigated, in only three instances have these brokerage houses been fined. In fact, in many of these, the principals in the brokerage houses are famous bagmen for the political party that the minister represents.

Has the minister now decided to put the interests of the small investors ahead of protecting the interests of those friends of government?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the questioner does not make it clear whether he finds offensive the title "bagman" or the party that the person was alleged to be raising money for. We should first of all define what the offence is.

In any event, to suggest that these kinds of relationships have any impact in terms of how violations might be treated I find offensive in the extreme; offensive not only to the House, not only to the government and the minister responsible, but most importantly probably to those innocent staff members who find themselves in a position of being held up to ridicule and abuse and unable to present any defence. I think that is beneath the dignity of any member of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, if there are positive suggestions that might be made, that might assist in dealing with these kinds of situations, we would be delighted to hear them. But let me assure the House and the questioner that serious efforts are ongoing, not only with the staff of the securities commission but also the staff of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, to address the concerns exhibited by the series of questions we have just heard.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, the minister would have us believe that there is no connection or interplay between these bagmen of that political party and ministerial activities.

Would the minister confirm that prior to the dismissal of Miss Bodkin he received representations from such individuals as Mr. Brown, head of Canarim?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: When the Premier appointed his cabinet and held his first caucus meeting, one of the first points he made was that this is an open government. We welcome participation in the process of governance not only from our own members and supporters but from all the citizens of the province. To suggest that I, as a minister responsible for a function, should deny a hearing to anyone who asks for it, because of his name or his particular business connection, I find somewhat ridiculous. We are elected to represent all the people of this province. I have met not only with key principals of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, but key principals of every industry with which my ministry is involved. I'm quite happy to provide a list of those individuals I've met so far in the brief six months we've been in office. I can tell you that it would exceed many hundreds.

MR. KEMPF: I'd like to table a document of which I spoke last week in question period.

Leave granted.

LYELL ISLAND LOGGING

MR. KEMPF: I have a question for the Minister of Forests and Lands, Withdrawals for non-industrial use of forest lands in Washington and Oregon have reduced the annual allowable cut in those jurisdictions by up to 35 percent. In British Columbia the potential of various land claims and withdrawals from resource use may appear insignificant on an individual basis, but collectively they're disastrous. In fact, they could be proportionately more serious than those in Washington and Oregon. In light of this, my question is: has the minister decided to issue further cutting permits on Lyell Island — emphasizing the fact that logging should continue on Lyell as it has been carried out there for over 50 years?

HON. MR. PARKER: The answer to the question is no.

Motions

MR. ROSE: I believe the appropriate standing order is 69(2), and I'd like leave of the House to move a motion substituting a couple of names on a standing committee.

Leave granted.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: It's resolution 66. Is that agreed? I move resolution 66, which says, under the provisions of standing order 69(2), that Messrs. Stupich and Lovick be substituted for Messrs. Rose and Williams on the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The government has no reason not to approve of the motion by the hon. opposition House Leader. I'm going to miss him at the Old Bailey, I can assure you of that, but outside of that . . . .

MR. ROSE: Old Bailiff.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Old Bailiff, is that the place? I could never remember, it was always so much fun. So we will agree with this resolution, Mr. Speaker, but with regrets.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Parker tabled replies to questions on May 1 and May 12.

[ Page 1278 ]

PRINCE GEORGE MORTALITY RATE

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a question asked me yesterday in the House. It was from the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), who asked a question about high death rate in the Prince George area. The medical health officer for the northern interior health unit reviewed available health unit data and major causes of death for the union board of health submission to the liquor policy review commission hearing in Prince George.

The findings he obtained require his further review to better define the problems, determine the causative factors and recommend means of prevention which can be implemented in the community. I would like to say that it is under review further, but at the present time the figures that were quoted are perhaps correct.

[2:30]

Presenting Reports

Mr. Crandall, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services, presented a report, which was read as follows and received:

"Report No. 2, May 21, 1987:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services begs leave to report as follows:

"That the preamble to Bill PR405, intituled Vancouver Museum Foundation Act, has been proved and the bill ordered to be reported, as amended in committee, and to proceed to second reading.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. D. Crandall, Chairman."

MR. CRANDALL: I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 17.

PROPERTY PURCHASE TAX ACT
(continued)

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition said in his opening remarks, the opposition will be voting against this legislation. I'd like to advance just a few more thoughts on the subject.

We spent all morning discussing six bills which in total will positively affect the provincial government revenue by some $37.1 million, but at this point we're getting into something that is much more important from the point of view of the Minister of Finance. With this one bill alone we're doing almost four times as much, from the point of view of revenue, as we did all morning. The revenue from this source alone is expected to be $140 million.

It's a new tax, Mr. Speaker. That gives me some cause for concern. I don't intend to talk about the sales tax legislation at this time at all, except to ask the question which I'll be asking several times, I would think, unless the first answer convinces me. The minister is giving up one point from a source of revenue that to my knowledge wasn't really attracting any negative attention — I haven't heard one comment about it for some years — and is exchanging that one point for a brand-new tax. It makes me wonder whether or not he did that simply so that he could say he had effected a tax reduction and thereby ease the blow of a new tax being imposed, with the thought further down the road that the rate of tax on property purchases might be increased, and indeed the sales tax itself might be increased. Then he's not doing anything new.

So really, from his point of view, he said that what he was doing was replacing ad valorem fees with the property purchase tax — and just by the by and by the way, in the course of changing one thing for another, which would make one think, if he weren't listening and weren't reading, that all we're doing is changing the way of collecting a certain amount of revenue. But the net effect of that, as the minister pointed out in the budget speech, is to bring in a new $140 million of government revenue — quite a neat exchange. If he can do that with a few more exchanges, perhaps the minister will start reducing rather than increasing the . . . .

MR. ROSE: Sounds like a shell game to me.

MR. STUPICH: Well, it's a pretty healthy shell game from the point of view of the Minister of Finance.

The minister did say in his remarks and in correspondence and during his speech, I think, that it's not the first time that this kind of tax was imposed, and indeed that's true. There are many such taxes imposed even in Canada.

Nova Scotia, for example, does have a property purchase tax. It's not called exactly that, I think. In Nova Scotia it's the municipal land transfer tax, where municipalities may approach the government and ask for the right to impose this kind of tax on property within the municipalities and raise money for municipal purposes. Now certainly municipalities, as the minister knows from his previous experience, are always looking for new ways to raise money, and in Nova Scotia they dealt with this to some extent by giving the municipalities the right to impose this tax up to a certain limit. Of course, the government has to approve the bylaws, and the government still has the reins of control. But the rate there is a maximum 0.5 percent, which is just half of the rate that's being imposed at the lowest levels here in the province of British Columbia.

New Brunswick has a real-property transfer tax. There the rate is 0.25 percent — significantly lower than the rate being imposed here in British Columbia, and the exemptions in New Brunswick are much more extensive than they are, as proposed to date, in the legislation before us.

In Quebec they have a much higher rate of tax, Mr. Speaker: a 33 percent rate. But it applies only to the transfer of raw land to non-resident speculators. There they are getting at a real source of revenue, and I would find it very hard to argue against that kind of thing. If raw land is being traded to non-residents — speculation involved — there it's a very healthy 33 percent. As I say, I'd find it very hard to argue against that. But that is not the principle in this legislation.

Quebec is the one with the 33 percent. Ontario has a rather similar one, I suppose, except there again the rate is 0.5 percent on the first $55,000. I think the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) said 0.05 percent. I

[ Page 1279 ]

believe it's 0.5 percent — unless we're reading different dates or something like that — with a higher rate on additional transfers.

There's one more thing I'd like to say about the Ontario legislation. When it's dealing with the exemptions, it raises an interesting wording: "The registration of a conveyance of land where the whole of the value of the consideration is natural love and affection is exempt from tax." Now the minister might want to look at just what Ontario means by that wording.

The minister in his remarks referred to other provinces, in particular Manitoba. I think the hon. member for Maillardville–Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) dealt quite adequately with the fact that in Manitoba there is a significant exemption so that people who are buying residences, for the first time or not necessarily for the first time . . . . There is a significant exemption which does not apply in the province of British Columbia under the proposed legislation, with the exception of transfers to direct family members. The minister, I thought, might have listened to that argument earlier — the argument that has been put to him by many people — and might have made some change in the amendments. So far the amendments tabled have not indicated that he appreciates that concern about first-time residential buyers with limited money at their disposal and limited available properties. I think the minister mentioned Washington state, but Washington state is another jurisdiction where it's something that municipalities can impose if they want to increase their sources of revenue. I have information here about what's being done in England as well, but I'm not going to bother with it.

I'm sure all of us have had representations from many people — from individuals and also from the real estate industry — about their concerns as to what effect this tax will have. It hasn't been there long enough to really measure it, but there are concerns. Here's one story from the Province: "Tax Troubles Industry. The commercial real estate industry has lost out on millions of dollars in property deals." As I'm speaking now, though, who can say they've really lost anything? We don't know. But their concern is the one that was voiced by the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke on this before lunch. I'll read from this story:

"While saying the tax itself is not out of line, what is out of line . . . is the arbitrary way it was introduced. 'If a tax had to be imposed to raise revenue, that's fair. But what is patently unfair and inequitable is the fact there was absolutely no consultation with the industry about the tax or how it was to be implemented."'

Mr. Speaker, this is a government that promised to be open, to listen, to consult, to discuss, and to cooperate with the people who were going to be affected by changes in legislation. In this case it's patently obvious that the government did not consult at all with the people involved in the buying and selling of properties.

Another story:

"'For those who are buying a new home, the sales tax reduction will more than compensate for the property purchase tax,' the minister said. 'Secondly, there are many players involved in real estate transactions — bank managers, mortgage companies, real estate agents, buyers and sellers — who can absorb the tax."'

We had discussions about the banks this morning, in other legislation, where it was admitted by the minister — at least, admitted in the budget speech — that the taxpayers are making a $6 million gift to the payers of corporation tax, which are the banks and trust companies. So we're giving them more money now. No doubt they could afford to absorb this in some instances, but I have yet to find a lending agency of any kind that is prepared to do as much as it could for the prospective purchaser — as much as they have to, sometimes, to make a deal maybe, but certainly not as much as they could. For the minister to say that it really won't matter because these other people can share the cost of that 1 percent fee is not doing one thing to help the people, in particular those who are purchasing a residence, and most especially those who are purchasing one for the first time.

There's no question but that it's intended to expand and diversify the government's sources of revenue — that's the point I was trying to make at first. It's bringing in one new way of making revenue, one more way, which I'm sure is in the minister's long-term goal of trying to reduce the provincial deficit. But doing that, and in hitching it to a sales tax reduction, is not giving any assurance that there won't be both increases in this tax and further increases in the sales tax, the income tax and all other taxes. It's leaving the door open for him to make a massive tax grab whenever he thinks the timing is right to do that, giving him one more opportunity to extract a lot of money out of the community.

The point that the Leader of the Opposition made, that others on my side of the House have made and that I'm making now is that it's a unique burden on the first-time purchasers of property, those who are buying their home for the very first time. Those who are selling and buying at least have some equity established in property that they can use to trade up, but for people who are trying to buy for the first time it's not just a 1 percent tax; it's an approximately 10 percent impost on the deposit that they have to be able to put up at the beginning. And it's little solace to them, I think, to be told: "Go to the real estate agent, go to the banker, go to anybody else like that, and ask them to share the burden."

I would think that the concerns have been passed on to all of us from . . . . One from Bar X Enterprises came addressed to the Minister of Finance, with copies, I suppose, to everyone. They're in the business of buying properties, working on them, improving them and then selling them. Yet in their case the tax has to be paid when they first buy the property; then they spend sales tax money. It's not as though these properties have been exempt from sales tax up to this point. If there is a building on them, unless it was built some time before 1952 . . . . No, the 3 percent tax came in earlier than that. Unless it was built before the imposition of a sales tax in British Columbia, sales tax was paid on the construction of those buildings. In this case, Bar X Enterprises pays the 1 percent tax — or more, depending on the value of the property at the time they buy it — they pay the sales tax on everything they put into that property, and then the purchaser of the property several months or even a year or more down the road has to pay the tax on the whole value at that particular point in time. Is that really what the minister intended? I suspect that it is, from the figure in the budget; but I wonder if he considers that fair and equitable.

National Land Inc. presented three scenarios. This morning one of my colleagues — I believe it was the second member for Point Grey — dealt with scenario one, about a developer buying a six-acre parcel. By the time it is divided

[ Page 1280 ]

into lots and the lots are sold, a tremendous amount of tax revenue from that one particular development has accrued to the government. The question of the amount of money involved in a commercial property transfer at the 1 percent and 2 percent rates may slow down some deals. I doubt that it will stop any in the long run. But once again, at this point in our economy does the minister really want to put that impediment in the way of property transfers, with new businesses possibly coming in to establish and buying properties, and hesitating, knowing that the cost has suddenly gone up?

The concern about the down payment is one I've voiced already. Carman Briscoe, another licensed real estate agent: concern again about the effect. A handwritten letter addressed to the two members for Langley from Glen Beauchamp. He has also addressed it to the New Democratic Party and to the B.C. Liberal Party. He doesn't seem to address it to anybody else in the Social Credit caucus, but at least it has gone to the other two parties.

[2:45]

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Someone says they remember. I wasn't looking to see who was speaking at the time. It doesn't matter; there is this concern.

I think the greatest concern, and the concern we have expressed since this Legislature first met, is the fact that the government, in spite of all its promises to the contrary, has been imposing new taxes, making changes, new legislation, without any consultation, without listening to the people in the community, without submitting its ideas to the community. I know there has always been this idea that you can't discuss budget matters in advance of budget day, but I really think that is old; it's no longer appropriate. I can see nothing wrong at all with discussing measures like this in public. Is the minister really afraid that people might complete the purchase of a house in advance of budget day in case this might come into effect? To warn people ahead of time that there's going to be a tax increase, or that there might be a tax increase, could have nothing but a good effect because it would spur the economy in the meantime. Then if it didn't happen, well, there's no harm done. If you were going to reduce, I can see the reason for not talking about it, not telegraphing your punch. That's another matter that we'll talk about later with another bill.

There would have been no harm at all in the government discussing this openly. If they discussed it with anybody, it certainly wasn't any of the people from whom we've had letters, like the one I have in my hand right now from Mitten Realty:

" The fragile recovery in the real estate market currently is fuelled by stable prices and low interest rates. I don't think the Minister of Finance realizes that deficit reduction can also be achieved through a rise in retail sales and a better profit level . . . for small business so that, instead of closing and failing, small business can profit, survive and pay taxes."

From the real estate board in Vancouver, an excellent letter: "Consider the young first-time buyer." I've talked about that already; I won't read any more. But it does go on to contrast this with other moves by the minister. "High-income earners have received an income tax increase of only 4.5 percent, while those with lower . . . incomes will pay 8.3 percent more. Those struggling to attain the basic privilege of necessary shelter will . . . be penalized, while those able to buy luxuries get a tax break." It would seem as though the minister is determined to go the wrong direction in the legislation before us right now.

The Leader of the Opposition and quite a number on this side of the House have said that we are opposed to this legislation. If it had to be done, it's the wrong time to do it. There is this suspicion in my mind that all it is is a new form of raising tax revenue so that the government — the minister — will have that many more options available to him when he decides the time has come to tighten the screws and to raise more money so that he can pull a plum out of a pudding and say: "I have been able to reduce the deficit."

Mr. Speaker, the opposition is opposed to this legislation.

MR. ROSE: I wouldn't want to let this opportunity go by without contributing my little bit to the debate. I won't speak very long.

I happen to represent a riding in which there is a good deal of building going on. Sometimes that is rather comforting when you look at the health of the riding; for a politician it's sometimes a bit unnerving, because you don't know who's coming in there. Nevertheless, we welcome them. As long as they behave the way they have been, I'm very pleased to represent them.

But all facetiousness aside, the fact is, I am concerned. I think it was mentioned in one of the letters; I'll use the same term. The fragility of the recovery is a very tender thing. We've had a down cycle for the past three years, ever since we brought in this restraint program. The instability created by that, the turmoil and the uncertainty, we were just getting over. We were looking forward to what was called euphemistically a fresh start. In many ways it has been a fresh start; in many ways it hasn't.

My concern about this whole thing is that the area that I represent is inhabited by a broad cross-section of income groups. We have everything in there from homes up to $500,000 being built right above Colony Farm, to townhouses, the future destination of many first-time homebuyers and young families. We're concerned that there may be a disincentive not only for the people to purchase . . . . They have to lower their sights in terms of what they can purchase. There's also the concern about the fact that the employment level in the house-building trades has begun to climb and recover, and we wouldn't want anything that threatens that.

Our main concern has to do with the first-time homebuyer, who buys a house now . . . . The median price for a home now . . . . The last figures I've seen in British Columbia, or at least in the lower mainland area, are around $125,000 to $130,000. That is what we would call, maybe 20 years ago, a $13,000 or $14,000 or $15,000 home. What we used to pay for a house we now pay for a car, so there have been vast changes in the numbers. But still it's possible for young families — first-time buyers — to get into a townhouse for under $80,000. But if you add 1 percent on, I think it will be a disincentive. It will mean people will have to wait longer, will have to remortgage or get a second mortgage, or will have to go without and lower their sights, I think I said. So we see this with some concern.

What the minister has done, in his attempt to seek greater tax revenue, really has moved into the area vacated by the federal Conservative Party when they put an exemption on capital gains of something like $500,000. This allows him to move into an area where people sell their house and try to

[ Page 1281 ]

upgrade, and they don't have to pay capital gains on that particular sale. The minister has moved into it with his own real estate transfer tax.

I think it's probably not worth the trouble. It seems to be a little bit of a shell game between lowering — which was a very good political move, I suppose; considered to be astute, if not crafty — the sales tax by 1 percent, and then taking the money somewhere else. At least everybody pays the sales tax. People have argued for years that it's regressive. It's not progressive, because the poor pay as much as the rich in a sales tax. But the point is that it's really a tax on consumption. So there is some argument about that, even among egalitarian economists. We'll argue forever, I suppose, about the equitability and the equity in terms of taxation.

It's the signals you send out that count more than anything. If your recovery is fragile, then people are going to be a little bit less confident about major purchases. They all remember the 23 percent interest rates and how many people got into very serious trouble. And they weren't just the flippers; they weren't just the people who work in the downtown office buildings. There were a lot of very, very modest income-earners who got burned. It was a very sad story.

I don't know why the government wants to do this, personally. I'm opposed to it, and I want people to know that I've spoken against it. Somewhere down the road, when we find a suitable spot in another stage of this bill, we are probably prepared to move an amendment which would exempt first-time buyers. We haven't discussed the level quite firmly yet.

It seems to me that all this has happened . . . . The government's got the teachers mad at them now. They've got the working people mad at them — at least the trade unionists. They've got the elderly mad at them for user fees. Now they've got the real estate industry mad at them. What the hell? Do you think they are going to forget in three years anyway? I don't know if they are. It seems to be an unfair imposition on the lower-income people, if your aim is to use your tax system to improve, enhance and nourish the economy. I think it is a negative signal, and for that reason, as well as the others I've mentioned, I don't think it can be supported.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the opposition opened this debate by its leader expressing the view that he was confused. He said the legislation was confusing. That's not surprising; he's a lawyer. To make matters worse, he's a lawyer from Vancouver. After hearing the other speakers from the opposition expressing their views on this bill, it's clear that they're all in that same sort of confused camp.

I find a little bit absurd the suggestion of the first speaker that there should be consultation on a taxation measure with the individuals who might be impacted. I ask: what sort of a conflict-of-interest position would that put those individuals in, for they would have advance knowledge of a tax change and subsequently have to deal, in the course of their daily affairs, with matters that they would be taxed on a day or two later. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, that suggestion was and still is inappropriate. You cannot, on a matter of a new tax initiative, invite comments or widen the circle of knowledge, for the very purpose that you must never extend a benefit to some insiders. I find it somewhat amusing that "the party of the common folk" should be suggesting that we should bring into a net of knowledge some privileged group of individuals who might thereby be in a position to benefit from that inside knowledge. I find that a little bit strange.

One of the questions dealt with the question of co-op shares and taxation on those shares. I suppose the questioner is aware that there are many devices by which co-ops are formed in this province. Some of them have share ownership in a larger building. Some of them have individual share ownerships in individual dwelling residences in a larger building. Similarly, a lot of them have different financial arrangements such that a simple answer to the question put would be impossible. You really would have to find the particulars of the instance to deal with the question, and I suspect the questioner knew that when he put it.

The opposition went on at length about the philosophy of this bill. I find it passing strange that the initiative or the philosophy behind a property purchase tax is in place not only in traditionally Tory country, Ontario, but, lo and behold, also in NDP country, Manitoba. I have some trouble understanding how it might be that members of the New Democratic Party would have some trouble with the philosophy when, presumably, the premier example of wise taxing jurisdictions, jurisprudence and leadership comes from Manitoba. If you could have heard the comments on the budget speech, that message came across incessantly: "Look at Manitoba." Well, as you know, I dealt with Manitoba at some length in my rebuttal. But in any event, Manitoba has a similar property purchase tax. So much for the objections to the philosophy from the members of the opposition party.

I heard some comment from the last few speakers that there is a fragile market. Can you believe it? The market is booming. It's never been stronger in Vancouver, Victoria or B.C. at large. It's fragile? My goodness, Mr. Speaker, have they been so long confined in this room dealing with two narrow bills that they've lost their wider perception of what's happening in the marketplace? Are you not aware of the fact . . . ?

MR. SIHOTA: It's fallen since your budget was introduced.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Let me tell the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, that the Vancouver market rose 143 percent this March over last March. The Vancouver market rose 45 percent this April over last April. Where have you been? A fragile market? That's absurd. My goodness, you would think that if we're going to have some valid debate it would at least be based upon some factual material other than pure emotionalism that doesn't deal with the issue at all.

The other point, dealing with the philosophy, is that this is a tax paid by the vendor. It is a tax on wealth. It is not a tax on shelter, as suggested by the opposition members. It's a tax on wealth. I find it astounding that a party that is supposed to be in bed with the principle that the wealthy must pay more would find some objection to the idea of taxing wealth. Because it's the vendor who pays this tax, not the buyer. Therefore it would be folded into the dynamics of the transaction.

[3:00]

Let's talk about the first-time home-buyer. I've heard ad nauseam about this first-time home-buyer, as if all of us would qualify. I suspect none of us would qualify in this room. In any event, there is no evidence whatsoever given to

[ Page 1282 ]

me that there has been any hardship regarding first-time home-buyers. I have challenged the real estate industry and everybody who has come to me to provide some evidence so we can deal with it in a constructive way, and I have not received one shred of evidence. I find it somewhat ridiculous to suggest that, given all the parties in a real estate transaction, for the sake of a few hundred dollars a deal will be lost to some young couple buying their first home. It totally ignores the dynamics of any transaction between buyers and sellers. If you add to that the number of players in a real estate transaction — the real estate agents themselves, the real estate company, the banker, the mortgage company, the buyer and the seller — there is all kinds of latitude amongst all those players to find the $100 or $200 that may be required to close the deal. And the fact of the matter is that anybody who has ever made a real estate transaction knows full well that it is a subject of negotiation. It is a subject of give and take, and frequently one of those players might give more than the other because it's in their interest to do so at any given time. That's a fact of the marketplace.

I find it startling to suggest that there is some simple way by which first-time home-buyers might be protected, and I've yet to hear a suggestion that is practical in that respect. On real estate transactions — if not for every kind of a transaction — the seller will get what the market will bear. That is the first rule of buying and selling. There's no indication whatsoever that a break for a first-time home-buyer is going to be reflected in a reduction of the asking price. None. The fact is, the asking price sought will be what the seller can get in the marketplace, irrespective of taxation measures, irrespective of the income levels of the purchaser, irrespective of anything other than the best possible deal for the seller. That's the first rule, Mr. Speaker.

I can appreciate that individuals who have not had the experience in governance, individuals who possibly don't have the business background or the broad-ranging overview of these kinds of affairs, might not understand that basic precept. But it's basic, it's fundamental. It's the first thing that a seller determines when he decides to sell: what will the market bear? There's no indication that you could write a piece of legislation that would capture any saving passed on to a first-time buyer and ensure that that first-time buyer received the benefit. None whatsoever. There is no model in place in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of that provides that kind of a safety net or umbrella which works effectively. The market will get what it can, when it can. There doesn't appear to be any remedy to that basic truth, so it seems to me that to continue to hammer away at that desire expresses a basic ignorance of how the marketplace functions. That's not surprising, of course, coming from across the floor.

There seemed to be some confusion about our cancellation of the ad valorem rates. We not only cancelled ad valorem fees for registration of sale; we also cancelled ad valorem fees for mortgage registrations. As a consequence, the sums of money involved were somewhat different than expressed by the Leader of the Opposition this morning.

There's another factor, Mr. Speaker, that has occurred at the federal level. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation announced on May 1 that they would be requiring lower down payments for certain categories of house purchases. For a house with a value of $90,000, the old CMHC rate was 11 percent; it has now been reduced to 10 percent. For a house valued at $100,000, the old rate was 12; it's down to 10. It was 13.6 for $125,000, and it's down to 10. For $150,000 it used to be 14.7 percent; it's down to 11.7 percent. We have said repeatedly that there is evidence that the possibility of the first-time buyer, if you like, purchasing a home will be enhanced as a consequence of the federal initiatives. Certainly we are closely monitoring the performance of the marketplace to see what effect that has on the marketplace. We've also said that after that monitoring it may be appropriate for us to examine our own mortgage assistance programs, but certainly not before we've seen a need and not before we can properly determine the consequences of any changes that might be contemplated. It's premature to talk of those things, and I certainly don't hint at or make any firm commitment to them now. I merely make the point that we are aware of changes that are occurring and have occurred at the national level, and we are monitoring them.

One of the speakers had the good grace to notice the sales tax cut. With the 2 percent cut that will be in place before the end of this fiscal year, the property purchase tax payable on a new home is more than offset by the savings in sales tax on the building materials in that new home. So we're tilting at almost a ghost here in the sense of its impact as it relates to new home purchases.

I heard some criticisms that this is a tax on the poor. The fact is, 20 percent of the taxation base comes from the commercial-industrial sector, and 30 percent of the revenue comes from that same source. Quite clearly it is not a tax on the poor at the expense of the rich.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I've answered the comments that I heard, aside from the repetitions, but I won't deal with those, of course. Therefore I'm pleased to move that this bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 30

NAYS - 16

[3:15]

Bill 17, Property Purchase Tax Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

[ Page 1283 ]

The House in Committee of Supply; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(continued)

On vote 12: minister's office, $219,629.

HON. B.R. SMITH: There are a few matters that I promised members I'd bring back to committee yesterday. One of them involved the questions on the Coquitlam area court facilities in School District 43, which the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) asked me about.

Let me just say for a moment that the facilities now in place in Port Coquitlam are only temporary trailer facilities. They are by no means adequate, and they are not facilities that we are content with. We have planning money this year to proceed to a facility and to construct a court facility there which we will need.

I have also looked into the adequacy of those facilities in terms of getting the cases out, and the cases have been getting out all right. There is no backlog in family or youth cases. The first appearances for youth occur within two weeks, and trials are set within a two- or three-month period, which is quite exemplary.

By saying that, I don't suggest that those facilities are satisfactory. We know they aren't, and we have planning money this year. We hope to get a site and to proceed. It is one of our justice priorities, to have a proper courthouse, a Coquitlam justice building of some kind to serve the area. I can't give the member an exact location, but I can assure him that it is part of our priority to proceed with that.

Another matter, while I'm on my feet, is that I thought I should give the total cost of outfitting the two ships for slot machines. Several figures were used in the media. I didn't have an exact figure; I gave some individual items. The total amount spent, including the rental of the machines of $106,000, was $280,000. That's the capital cost, cost of all parts, labour, installation, major purchase of tokens, computers, security equipment and so on. That is the total cost projected over the entire fiscal year; that is, right up to March 30. That's what it will cost: $280,000.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to thank the minister for his response to my question with regard to the family court facility. I would like to affirm what he has said, that the court and the staff there are doing an excellent job of processing the work coming through that facility. I think they deserve a tremendous vote of thanks for accomplishing a task in such a fine manner in such difficult circumstances.

On behalf of the people of my constituency and the Coquitlam–Moody constituency, I would hope that in the near future we would be able to have a very clear indication of when that project will proceed.

I would like to now move on to some other aspects for a few moments and discuss the issue of youth custody centres. Quoted both in the annual report and in the estimates of the Attorney-General, we find that in the accounting for youth custody centres, recoveries from the federal government for shareable expenditures are for youth custody. This is not a loaded question; it is simply a question for clarification and information. I would like to ask the minister to explain what the formula is, and how that recovery process for shareable expenditures functions. I would also appreciate it if I could have a breakdown with regard to each youth custody centre.

HON. B. R. SMITH: I could send you this material later — apart from telling you that the formula arrived at for Young Offenders Act construction was a 50-50 capital formula; that is, for things that had to be provided under the Young Offenders Act.

There is no other magic in it, and if you are seeing figures, those are amounts that are starting to come in under that formula. But we have to pay the upfront costs, and then we get these recoveries. I would be glad, though, to give the cost of each of the facilities, if he would like those. I will certainly send those to him.

Our attitude on young offenders, I think, is very similar to that of the other side, which is that we believe that the money should be spent in keeping them out, not in housing them in. We are most interested and anxious in the upfront expenditures that are made in the area of youth and in the diversion, rehabilitation and that end of it. We have had to spend a great deal of money under the Young Offenders Act on construction of facilities, not because we are wedded to more facilities to house young people but because we must comply with that act.

We think the money is always better spent in keeping them out and not having them in.

MR. CASHORE: Notwithstanding the point that the Attorney-General has just made, I think that we have to recognize that with the increase in construction of youth custody facilities, there is a simple truth there. That is that neither the federal or provincial government in the wisdom of either would proceed to construct unnecessary facilities.

In other words, the construction of these facilities is a recognition of an increase in the volume of the requirement of this type of custody resource. I think that is a fairly plain and simple fact. I don't think the Attorney-General is arguing that youth custody facilities are being constructed because there is a federal-provincial program. I think that youth custody facilities are being constructed because there is a significant increase in the number of youths requiring this type of service.

I wish to suggest that the evidence is very clear that this Social Credit government and its restraint policy has sown the wind. It has been sowing it for quite some time, but particularly in 1983, and is now reaping the whirlwind in terms of this very tragic and sad situation where, because of the lack of support services, because of the lack of preventive services, because of the lack of family counselling services, because of the lack of child care workers, we now find ourselves in a situation where we are having this tragedy of having to deal with our youth in the most alarming of circumstances within a custody procedure.

Just as I was cautioned during the estimates on Social Services and Housing that we were moving over the line into an area that was not within this issue, I come back to this issue now and say that there is a connection, and I would really hope that the minister in cabinet would use the evidence that is so plainly available within his ministry to argue for a new approach to real prevention that would be functioning within the government so that it would not be necessary, within the vote that we vote on when we are voting on the Attorney-

[ Page 1284 ]

General's estimates, that we would have to be putting resources into an area that would be far better served if those resources could be used for prevention.

When the minister began his remarks two days ago on this issue, he said that the building of youth containment centres is a major priority. He made the point at that time about meeting the requirements of the Young Offenders Act and he referred to federally driven regulations having "produced a considerable boom in the building industry in this province for youth containment centres."

Now, Madam Chairman, I find it very disappointing and distressing and disturbing to think that we might even see the burgeoning need for youth containment as something that is somehow fuelling industry, that it is seen as a growth industry, as something that we would somehow celebrate because of the requirement that that take place.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Maybe I could just interject, Madam Chairman, with your permission. I think he misunderstood me. I can tell you I wasn't cheering it. I'm not interested in make-work projects in this field at all. We have had to build a lot more than otherwise we would need to because we have had to house the 17-year-olds, and the 17-year-olds have accounted for a very major increase in our costs. In fact, probably it will cost us over the completion of our program about $100 million in extra capital cost expenditure just to take those 17-year-olds into our system.

Now in addition to that we do have, as the member has alluded to, some increase in the number of youths in custody over and above the 17-year-olds — probably about one-third up. We're up, I think, now to about 350 young offenders in custody in this province. But I am heartened, and I know you will be too, by the fact that we still have the lowest rate of custody of young offenders of any province in Canada. Our last StatsCan figures, which were a year ago, showed that we had 13.7 per 100,000 population compared to Ontario's almost 32 per 100,000 population and Alberta's 24.5. So I think we're on the same wavelength here. We see custody as a very last resort, and we see that these other things that we're talking about are very important to prevent custody.

MR. CASHORE: Madam Chairman, actually the figure is 362. According to our research, up to May 17 the average number of youths in custody including remands was 362. For '83-84 the average number of youths in custody was 140. So that is, as you have acknowledged, quite an increase there. That understandably did not include the 17-year-olds who would have been in adult centres at that time. In '83-84 there were 66 17-year-olds in custody on a daily average. So a good rough comparison would be 206 to 362, or an 80 percent increase. I think we can get into comparing ourselves with other provinces. Probably there are different types of regulations in each of those jurisdictions, but I think we have to be in a situation of comparing ourselves with ourselves on a longitudinal basis.

Now I just want to say that the number of youths in pre-trial services or on probation averages 3,867 a month. The human face that's on this tragedy . . . . I do understand, Madam Chairman, that the Attorney-General is very concerned that this is not the way to go about resolving these problems; but I think that we do have to call on the Attorney-General to use his influence so that a proper apportionment of resources goes into the kind of networks that are able to minimize the impacts on this type of facility.

[3:30]

For instance, if we look at . . . . I'm not saying here that this is the position of the minister, but it does appear, without this being the minister's statement, that youth containment custody services really are a growth industry. In '83-84, the actual cost was $4,895,000, after recoveries, for youth containment. I recognize that there was the change there with regard to 17-year-olds, etc. The estimate for '87-88 is $13,716,033 after recoveries. I think that's an indication that we are into a situation that while we have been trying to cut back in some areas, we're seeing a monumental increase in an area that we really don't feel . . . . I'm glad to know that the Attorney-General has said this: we really don't feel that this is the way to go; there are better ways of dealing with these situations.

Recently, just to put a human face on it, some of us were in Kamloops and were getting onto the plane. We saw two children — two young lads — handcuffed together, being taken onto the plane at far too great a cost, and sadly going down into a setting that is upsetting for all of us on both sides of the House. I know that you share that view.

We do have to look upon what is happening in this area as an indictment of the restraint program and its impact, and the way in which the Attorney-General, in some ways, is having to reap the whirlwind.

I would like also to tie this in with legal services, because I believe that legal services symbolizes prevention to some extent. So we can really talk about legal services in the context of this ministry's estimates. When low-income people have access to legal services to make sure that justice is done and seen to be done, and they are not in a situation of justice delayed being justice denied, we can see that this is a kind of preventive program in itself, because people have the opportunity to participate in the justice system.

According to the annual report, the actual cost in legal services in 1980-81 was $11,715,000, and in '87 the estimates were $8,637,000. Granted, according to the budget that's going to be increased to some extent. My friend the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) will be commenting further on this. What we have to notice here is that during restraint the resources for legal services went down, and the requirements for custody went up. I think that's telling us something.

Those who consider themselves very adept at reading bottom lines can draw the logical conclusions from that. I think that we have made a very strong case that there is a need to try to deal with some of the problems that the Attorney-General is having to face by dealing with them through the preventive process within the Ministries of Education, Health and Social Services and Housing.

I would like to conclude by saying that I believe that all the ministries are connected, and definitely we have seen a situation of sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind in dealing with human problems within our society. The time has clearly come, the evidence is clearly before us now on a longitudinal basis — not on the basis of the bottom line for one year's financial statements, but on the basis of what we can see over a period of five, six or seven years. We can see that an error was made. It is time for the Attorney-General to remind his colleagues that this error must be corrected, and that what is called restraint is not dealing effectively at all with the mounting social problems that we find in our society.

[ Page 1285 ]

MR. SIHOTA: Madam Chairman, I want to talk a little this afternoon about legal aid. I don't know if the Attorney-General has seen the report yet, but this morning the Law Society of British Columbia released a public opinion survey conducted by Goldfarb Consultants, which, I think we all know, is a reputable firm in this type of stuff. As I say, I don't know if the Attorney-General has had an opportunity to read that report, or to review its findings, but the Goldfarb report that was released on behalf of the Law Society this morning indicates that there is indeed broad public support for legal aid. In fact, that support is overwhelming, in the view of the Law Society. The basic finding in the survey was that the public opinion on legal aid in British Columbia is such that the people feel either very strongly or . . . . Ninety percent of the people feel strongly or moderately in support of legal aid, and when people were given a brief description of legal aid and how it's funded, support for the program rose to 95 percent, according to the survey. Just to quote some of the findings: 88 percent of the people surveyed said that legal aid is a necessary expense for the taxpayer; 90 percent thought a lawyer was essential to defend a criminal charge; 98 percent said it was essential that all people who cannot afford a lawyer be provided with one to ensure equal treatment before the law; 87 percent said it is government's responsibility to provide a lawyer for those who can't afford it; 91 percent said that without legal aid the justice system would be biased against the poor and the less fortunate; 98 percent said that funding legal aid is necessary in any society that believes in justice for all; and 95 percent said that it was essential that people who cannot afford a lawyer be provided with one in civil cases. Those are findings that come from the Goldfarb research report that was released today and prepared at the request of the Law Society of British Columbia. They're some very interesting findings.

The Premier knows as well as I do that the mandate to provide these types of services is of course under the Legal Services Society Act, and the mandate is to ensure that legal counsel is provided to people who do not have access to a lawyer for financial or other reasons. The Attorney-General knows, I'm sure, of the inadequacies in the current system. I'm sure that he has reviewed the report that came down in 1984. We know that there is a tremendous lack of coverage when it comes to legal aid, and in 1985-86 there were 18,000 applications for family law alone, of which 9,000 had to be refused. I'm told by the people at legal aid that for last year the numbers are a little bit more shocking, in that of the 15,000 requests for assistance for legal aid only 12,000 were approved. There is a shortage of coverage in other areas aside from family law.

Let me dwell a little bit on family law. It is also clear that there is inadequate coverage for those who do get legal aid, particularly in the case of maintenance, custody cases. The criteria only allow people to receive it in urgent cases, and in most cases they're finding that the people involved in maintenance cases simply do not get the type of legal aid coverage that's required.

There is an inadequacy of coverage in terms of administrative law — UIC, WCB, that kind of thing — which then of course forces people to perhaps bypass a UIC board of review or a referral to an umpire and fall back on social assistance for support. They do not get coverage for workers' compensation matters, and accordingly, as I think we all know, as MLAs we're inundated with WCB matters, in part because lawyers or legal coverage cannot be provided under the legal aid program,

There are very, very narrow eligibility criteria for legal aid. I believe that the number is . . . . I think you have to be making, depending on your situation, either $780 or $1,080 a month in order to be covered. So if you're making $1,081 you're not covered. There's no flexibility in the system to base the provisional legal aid services on real ability — the ability to be able to afford a solicitor or not depending on the real disposable income of people. I know, and I would hope the Attorney-General also recognizes, that the people who administer the legal aid program have said over and over again that if people do have some excess income they'll take that to defer some of the costs of legal aid, and that's not a bad approach from their point of view. But right now we have a situation where there is no coverage, for example, if you're $1 over the eligibility criterion, and I would suggest that very few people at $1,100 a month could afford legal coverage because of the absence of legal aid coverage. There is, then, a total lack of legal coverage for the working poor of this province. Clearly there has to be an improvement in the eligibility criteria, a broadening of those criteria.

The legal aid tariff is nominal. I think I was reading somewhere the other day — in fact I think it was in the news release that was put out today by the Law Society — that the revised tariff which is to come into effect on August 1 will still only represent 67 percent of the 1973 tariff adjusted for inflation. So you can see that no lawyer is going to get rich on legal aid. In addition to that, of the 5,500 lawyers practising in B.C., only about 1,500 even bother to take on legal aid cases, and of those 1,500, 80 percent accrue an income of less than $10,000 a year in legal aid billings. The point is that no one is getting rich on legal aid, and in fact the Law Society has estimated that in every case . . . . I know this is the case in my law practice as well. We subsidize all sorts of cases. I must confess that I've never kept a track record of the time that we've put into both legal aid matters and matters that we simply do for free, because we know that there is a compelling case there but no ability to pay. The Law Society has estimated that each year, through that method alone, lawyers subsidize the legal aid system in this province by $21 million.

Although I think the tab should be increased, I'm not suggesting that the goal ought to be to make those practitioners rich. But to have something that represents only 67 percent of the 1973 tariff speaks for itself.

There is no legal aid office in some larger communities, and the Attorney- General, I am sure, is aware of those problems.

In any event, much of this was highlighted in the task force report that the Attorney-General commissioned in 1982, I believe, and which reported in August 1984. Really, the bottom line of that report is that they're asking for an increase in funding. In 1984, it was suggested that in order to make the system just adequate, bare bones, it required support to the tune of $33 million, and now, in today's figures, we're talking about $38 million.

My question to the Attorney-General is this: what plan does the government have to realize that target of $38 million?

HON. B.R. SMITH: I think the member has quite well and fairly described the situation in legal aid. It is certainly far from the perfect objective that the task force set out, and it is some distance away. But it has improved, and there has

[ Page 1286 ]

been, I think, a real and considerable improvement in this present budget, which I won't dwell on because I mentioned it last day, but it will amount to the $3 million added into the base that was short from last year, and then the $2 million plus probably $600,000 in new money.

[3:45]

Probably the member and I agree that the real area in need of help is the family law area. It is certainly true that it is a very arbitrary set of criteria which they use, which I guess they have to use to be able to administer the thing readily and speedily. But it does penalize that great area of working poor. I have absolutely no quarrel with what he says. We're in discussions now with legal services on some ways this year that we can improve in the family law sphere by expanding the eligibility and by allowing some greater flexibility in the application of criteria, in restructuring the family law tariff, which is probably the worst of all tariffs, and in providing some duty counsel in the area of family law. This will probably involve as well the need to open some additional service in some areas that don't have that service now, where the services are being provided out of law firms or others and where we do need some assistance.

I quite agree with you that we have to make progress. We're going to be some distance from that ideal world of $38 million. There has been tariff improvement last year, 12.5 percent tariff restoration, the criminal law side. The Legal Services Society this year decided to increase the tariff as of August 1, on the criminal side, of 25 percent. I wasn't particularly thrilled with that decision, because I felt that before they did that, decisions should have been made to improve the coverage in family law. To me, extending that coverage and providing some broader base of access to family law legal aid is a much higher priority than another 25 percent going to the practitioners who are already doing criminal law.

As the member knows from his more recent days in practice, and as I remember long and hard from my days in practice . . . . I did a number of legal aid murder cases. I never paid my overhead on them. I never did them to make money; I did them because I felt I had a duty to do them, and when I was first practising it was a very good means of getting experience and access into the courts myself. I may be idealistic and out of touch in this — and some have said that I am — but I do believe that those still are the overriding criteria in the field of criminal legal aid: that is, a willingness to give some service. Unfortunately there are a few lawyers — a very few in terms of all the lawyers in this province — who give the most sacrifice. So, service and experience.

The tariff should be something that allows you to go in there and not lose money, and perhaps make some return. You don't expect ever, even with the improved tariff . . . . Even if we went to the task force recommendations, people would not get rich off legal aid. Our legal aid tariff is a very modest one indeed. But more to my concern has to be that the public gets service, and that it cannot be said that we are turning away someone who is very much in need of a lawyer in a case of necessity. I'm happy to note that legal aid do not do that: they do not turn people away in cases of necessity, where someone's job, health or livelihood is seriously threatened. They do provide coverage. We provide coverage now, under the Young Offenders Act, for those young offenders who require legal counsel. They have a special higher right to that counsel than old offenders do, and we provide that coverage.

The member's remarks are generally fair-minded and I don't quarrel with them. I wish we could do better. People like himself and myself, who know the importance of legal aid, will work away at improving it.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, on your behalf, I'm very pleased to introduce a visitor in the gallery today from Langley. I would ask the House to please welcome Peter Fassbender.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm glad that the Attorney-General agrees with me that there's a problem there. We can argue about whether or not the 12 percent increase in the criminal tariff did the trick or not. I think he knows, and I know, that the decision to implement the tariff on August 1, 1987 . . . . Although the decision is made at that time, he knows and I know that that legal work won't be completed for some time, so that money won't have to be paid until sometime after August 1. And that's how it works. It's no great victory, no great solace, for any of the lawyers that work in this field. Sure, maybe there's an argument it shouldn't have gone up in the criminal field, and there should have been eligibility increases in family counselling. But I don't want at this stage of the game to get into protracted debate, especially given the time constraints that we're operating under.

My question to the Attorney-General, which I'm looking for an answer to, is: what specific plans does the Attorney-General's department have to achieve the task force recommendations, to take us to the figure of $38 million? Are there or are there not any plans in place?

HON. B.R. SMITH: If I could make promises in this place to double the budget in any particular area, I would indeed be unique. We are working to improve it; that I have said before and that I will say again, particularly specifically working to improving the eligibility and the restructuring and access to family law counsel. But I cannot tell you that I am going to be able to get to $38 million next year or the year after; I'm not, but I intend to try to improve it each year.

The improvement we've made this year, while it doesn't seem a great deal to a legal aid lawyer who is handling a murder case and working probably for about $5 an hour, still represents a major increase for government in the field of legal did. That was achieved, I think, by and large by the visit over here of the entire hierarchy of the bar, not just the legal services people but also the master treasurer and the head of the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch. They sat down and they had three-quarters of an hour with the Premier, which in my experience in this place, which is not as long an experience as my friend the member for Vancouver South, who's an old hand in these things . . . . When did your dear former Premier ever have a meeting with anyone on legal aid? I bet you it was a frosty Friday. They don't usually meet on things like legal aid. It was a breakthrough and we did get major improvement. I'd like to be able to say yes, next year we'll be at $25 million, and the year after we'll be at thirty, and then thirty-eight. I guess if I was parceling out the money, I'd probably get there a lot quicker, as would you. But

[ Page 1287 ]

the realities are that we do our best, and I will try to improve it each year.

MR. SIHOTA: Am I then to take it from the Attorney-General that there is no three- or five- or seven-year plan to meet the financial target, as placed in the task force report?

HON. B.R. SMITH: There is a continuous plan to do better.

MR. SIHOTA: I think we could debate that answer, but the point is this. The Attorney-General made reference to the meeting between the people from the Law Society, concerned about legal aid, and the Premier earlier on. During the course of their submission they put forward a plan that would see the funding go from $21.7 million in 1986 to $38.5 million in 1990 to reach that target. Is the minister saying that he is not prepared to follow that plan?

HON. B.R. SMITH: Yes, he is.

MR. SIHOTA: Is that to mean that the minister then intends that over the next three years at least, while he's in the chair, and after that, when he's replaced, I hope . . . . Is the Attorney-General then making a commitment that he will go to Treasury Board with those figures each year: for '86-87, $21.7 million; for '87-88, $27 million; and for '88-89, if we have an election by then, $33 million, which were the figures that they put forward?

HON. B.R. SMITH: No, he's not making that commitment at all. His commitment is to fight for improvement of legal aid and expansion of eligibility and access to legal aid, and to do what can be done within the system. But blueprints of target figures — ideal target figures — are certainly for the Legal Services Society to put forward to us and for task force to recommend. But they are not for ministers to deliver on, and I don't like to make promises I can't deliver on. If indeed you're in the same position sometime, I dare say that you'll strive as I do to improve it. But you will find that you cannot double legal aid allotment within two or three years.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, first of all it's not a doubling. Secondly, he's correct: three years from now I will be striving to do that. But the point simply is this: the people who practise law, who do legal aid work, and the society itself are looking for some indication from this government that it's not only willing to make verbal commitments but that it's willing to take some steps. If they've got an assurance that you're taking these things to Treasury Board, Mr. Minister, then of course they know that at least there's a signal of support, and they're looking for that. And right now, in my conversations with them, they don't know what the intentions of the government are. They don't know whether or not there's a plan or whether it's a three-, five- or seven-year plan. They don't know why they went to the exercise and came down with a report in August 1984, because they don't see the government moving towards those recommendations.

Having said that, let's go back to comments that the Attorney-General made earlier on, which were as follows. The argument is that there was more money put in this year, and I guess I'm trying to figure out exactly how much money was put in. According to the information with the budget, if I recollect it correctly, it indicates that the money went up from $14 million last year to $19 million this year. But is it not true there was about $4 million in extra warrants and expenditures on top of that $14 million last year? I could be wrong on the formula; it could have been $3 million. Am I not correct in that?

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The Attorney-General has confirmed that. So if it was $4 million, then really the actual expenditure last year was $18 million, and if we've gone up to $19 million this year, then the increase is only $1 million. Am I not correct that half of that increase is paid for by the federal government?

HON. B.R. SMITH: Yes, substantially correct. Let me just try to deal with those figures more exactly. The last budget was $14.04 million and there was a special warrant of $3.9 million. Of that $3.9 million, $3 million was an expansion in service and tariff, which we have permitted since the budget was drawn up last year. Just under $1 million was to retire a carry-forward deficit, so it was a once-only, nonrecurring expenditure. So if you discount that, then $3 million was put in to enrich service after the budget last year, and that $3 million has been given again this year and put into the base. So we have that $3 million and then we have another additional $2 million of new money plus the deficit that will be accumulated, which is projected at $600,000 as a surplus, which we've said that they can keep. So in reality, it's $2.6 million of new money plus the $3 million that we agreed could be rolled into the base for new programs and tariff.

That's the increase. There's a letter that I wrote to Lenny Doust, the chairman of the Legal Services Society, that sets all that out, and I'll give you a copy of that; I'll file it — no, I'll give you a copy of it; nobody else wants it.

MR. SIHOTA: The point is this. It is not $5 million of new money that they are getting this year. I was a little frustrated when the budget came down. It is not even $2.6 million, because the $600,000 is an accumulated surplus from the previous year, as I understand it; I am just using the words that the minister used. Therefore there is $2 million that is new, and of that, one-half is provided by the federal government. Is that not correct?

HON. B.R. SMITH: That probably would be their total cost-sharing, yes. They don't give us very much, as you know.

MR. SIHOTA: I think the figure is 93 percent, or something like that, which would translate into 46.5 percent of the amount. In other words, would the Attorney-General agree with me that at the end of the day it is really an increase of approximately $1 million in new money, given the federal contribution?

HON. B.R. SMITH: I think you can scour the barnacles off the bottom of the boat until you have no boat left, and you continue doing this sort of thing. I have set out what the figures are: $3 million for tariff increases and new programs, which we agree to accept, is new money, as we see it. We provided the money last year by warrant, and now we have agreed to provide it on an ongoing basis. So we have made

[ Page 1288 ]

that commitment. Then there is $2 million of entirely additional money, and there is a $600,000 surplus that they are permitted to retain.

But you know, we have to pay the deficits of the society, and it doesn't mean that they keep all their surpluses. That is not an automatic thing. The collection of federal moneys that you talk about and the contribution of federal moneys to legal aid, of course, are woefully inadequate in the field of civil law.

[4:00]

MR. SIHOTA: Okay, I think the Attorney-General is correct in sort of saying that the figures speak for themselves. When they are looked at, I think the frustration is that the public impression that went out there when the budget came down, a big announcement by the Premier and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) that we are putting $5 million into legal aid . . . . That is simply not true. We can quibble about whether it is two-fifths of what was announced or one fifth of what was announced. The fact was that it wasn't $5 million in new money.

Before I leave legal aid, I just want to make one quick point, and that is that yesterday there was an argument put forward by the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen). I just want to put on the record that that complaint that he put forward yesterday about his concerns about abuse of the legal aid system . . . . The Law Society, in its report today, said that in its investigation of 100 cases, it could find only one case of abuse within the legal system, and that is stretching the word "abuse."

On the specific matter that the second member for Richmond raised, I am told by the Law Society again that they have corresponded with him on it, and they are satisfied that there were enough checks and balances to make sure there wasn't any abuse. I say that on the record, recognizing that the Attorney-General also came to the defence of the system.

I want to switch now from legal aid to another matter: corrections in this province. I want to spend a little bit of time talking about the corrections system. I want to start off by asking a question of the Attorney-General. We know that there is indeed a committee of government looking at the matter of privatization. Can the Attorney-General assure this House that the correction facilities in this province will not be privatized?

HON. B. R. SMITH: No, I can't make the assurance that they won't be privatized, but I think it unlikely that there will be privatization. There has been a fair bit of privatization already. During the restraint period, we tried to find ways of doing the essential things that we had to do in this ministry and others with a leaner component of staff, and also doing them efficiently. We were able to find some parts of the correctional field that we felt were well done under private operation. We have always put out a certain number of youth work contracts to non-profit organizations, but we found that there were some things that we could privatize. We did privatize such things as food services, and we even went so far as to privatize the chaplain operation.

I don't think there is a whole lot there now that is likely to be privatized. But there are some jurisdictions in North America that have experimented with and actually do operate some privatized containment facilities. I don't think one can close one's mind to that. But we don't have any committee out studying those or actively considering going that route.

Take the containment of young people, for instance. I don't think we'd be much interested in privatization in that field — as a government or at all. With adult prisoners it may be that some programs could be run in the private sector, not programs of close confinement but some of a more community or work-oriented nature. My mind's not closed to that. But I don't have a ministerial task force looking at it. I'll await, as other ministers are, the suggestions of my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Rogers). I'm not actively drawing up privatization agendas. I looked at that with a fine-tooth comb in '83.

MR. SIHOTA: The reason I asked the question is that the Attorney-General has acknowledged that not only is there a trend within the present government to take a look at privatization of correctional facilities, but there has also been a trend in the United States. According to my reading on the matter, if my recollection isn't faulty, about nine states have now gone the full route of privatizing correctional facilities for adults.

I recognize that food services have been privatized — and I have some problems with food services being privatized, which I will get to in a minute; I think there is some downside to that. I also recognize that non-profit societies — John Howard, Elizabeth Fry and so on — have been involved in one way or another, and that there are probation facilities as well.

I've been reading quite a few studies, I must confess, on privatization of correctional facilities. In September 1986 in a volume of Federal Probation — which is something I am sure the minister reads from time to time — there is quite an article on privatization of correctional services which defines the issues. I think it's worth reading, because in a very fair and balanced way it lays out the pros and cons of privatization of these types of services. It really tends to conclude that privatization is not the way to go, and that there is indeed a movement towards . . . .

There is always a tension between maximization of profit and the provision of quality services. There are certainly concerns about accountability and liability when there are problems with services that have been contracted out. There are really serious problems with peace officer powers, especially in privately-run facilities, in terms of who will do the disciplining, who will deal with criminal responsibility in some of its aspects, and who will be responsible for the conduct of searches. There are some real questions in terms of the costs of privatization and the long-term benefits. The short-term benefits are obvious; the long-term benefits are certainly nebulous.

I'll take the Attorney-General's point at face value and not quiz him any further on government's intentions to privatize. I can understand the argument that there may be . . . . I don't want to pin the Attorney-General down exclusively to saying he won't privatize anything, because I don't think, realistically, I can achieve that. I take the comments to mean that if there is to be privatization, it will be very, very limited. That's how I interpret the comments, and I see the Attorney-General nodding, so we'll leave it at that.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's falling asleep.

MR. SIHOTA: No, he's not falling asleep, Mr. Member, and the question to the Attorney-General is this . . . .

[ Page 1289 ]

MR. BLENCOE: He's asleep.

MR. SIHOTA: That silly — but intelligent — second member for Victoria is interrupting my train of thought.

MR. BLENCOE: Take that back.

MR. SIHOTA: I take that comment back. I don't know what prompted me to say that.

At any event, the question to the Attorney-General is this. I have some concern about individuals who are given the authority to issue food or provide food services. If my reading of the Correction Act is correct, the people who provide these food services are deemed to be correctional officers. If they are correctional officers, approved under the Correction Act by the commissioner of corrections, my concern is: given the fact we're placing these people in food services in a prison environment, and given the fact that they're deemed to be, as I understand it, officers under the act, what training do these people have to deal with the kinds of situations that arise in prisons?

HON. B.R. SMITH: There is an orientation training. You couldn't call it a peace officer training. The peace officer function is performed by other correctional officers, who supervise the preparation of the food and are there for the serving of it on the tiers. We've had pretty good results, I think, with the privatization of food services.

You always have complaints in institutions, not just correctional institutions, about food. You know that. I remember that from my institutional evening days, too. You always get those complaints. Generally, I think the results have been that they've been happier. If we did a survey, if we were to get Goldfarb into our institutions and get him to do some meaningful surveys — something solid to get his teeth into like the privatized food in our institutions — I think he'd find that the results were more favourable.

Privatization agendas this ministry doesn't have, as I said. Our view on it always was that it might be do-able in some of the support service areas, but it really isn't do-able when you have somebody performing the core functions of a peace officer, as you and 1 know those duties. That is something you can't privatize.

I don't think that there has been any privatization in the U.S. of core custodial secure functions, save and except perhaps in the field of federal immigration holding custody for immigration detainees. The states haven't gone to a private prison system.

MR. SIHOTA: I really don't want to get into the debate of that last point, but my information is that in Montana they seem to have gone pretty well the full gamut in terms of privatizing the whole thing. But that really doesn't matter. I'll provide the Attorney-General with a copy of the study that I have that looks at a number of American experiences, and Montana is one that they point to. But it doesn't really matter; that's not my point at this stage of the game.

My concern is this. It seems to me that these people who are involved in food services and providing those programs do not have a lot of training, and the information that I'm getting from people within the field is that there is a tremendous amount of concern about the inadequate training. Instead of once again standing here and trying to make a lot of political Brownie points out of the issue, I think the point is made that if there is one area that the ministry should be looking at within that food services area, there ought to be better training of these people who come in and provide that food service. It was interesting, because I was reading a 1986 or '85 ombudsman's report — once again I'm operating on memory — which talked about the connection between quality food services and problems in correctional facilities, saying that if there's decent food and decent food services, that in itself is a preventive mechanism against ongoing problems.

I'm wondering if the Attorney-General could provide me with a little more specific detail in terms of the orientation program that they have for people in the food services program.

[4:15]

HON. B.R. SMITH: No, I don't claim it's a training program. We're not training security guards who are working in the kitchen. I guess there will always be some feeling on the part of correctional staff that there shouldn't be anyone working in the place or in the kitchen who doesn't have the same training or experience that they have. We can judge it not on the basis of some of the complaints, but on the basis of incidents, and there have not been security incidents or others arising out of having privatized staff in the kitchen. But I guess it's always a matter that one has to watch.

I always have concern about the quality of food. The ombudsman did comment on this in his annual report in '86 about food services. He said:

" . . . we have made it a point to dine with residents in the institutions we visit. We are pleased to report that most of these meals have been perfectly acceptable, some of them have been outstanding." 

Gosh, I shouldn't be reading this; everybody will want to get in.

"The cook-managers at Boulder Bay and Stave Lake camps, for instance, have in the past year prepared meals that would go a long way toward satisfying the most discerning of palates."

I don't know why I'm reading this. I'm trying to show you that this was the privatized food service program which saved us money and was well administered, yet the results from the standpoint of the inmates and those who sampled it were very good.

I hear what you say, that security is terribly important as well. If we had any indication that there was some lack of security arising out of privatization, we would intensify our training and orientation. Orientation does deal with security. I recognize that when you bring a privatized service into a system where it used to be done in-house, you're going to have some tensions from that, but it seems to have worked quite well.

MR. SIHOTA: Continuing on the line of correction and correctional facilities, as I understand it we have some correction facilities that the government intends to phase out, and obviously Oakalla is one of them. There are also two female containment facilities that I understand will be replaced over time as well. If I'm not mistaken, they are Twin Maples and Lakeside. Could the minister advise whether or not those facilities currently house federal inmates?

HON. B.R. SMITH: Yes, they do by arrangement with the federal government. One day very soon we will have a

[ Page 1290 ]

joint federal-provincial institution to house female prisoners in this province, so that federal prisoners — that is, female prisoners serving over two years — will not have to go to Kingston. But by agreement we do have federal prisoners in those institutions.

MR. SIHOTA: That being the case, I take it there will be more federal prisoners at that one joint facility than there are now at Twin Maples and Lakeside simply because we're bringing in people from Kingston.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Considerably more.

MR. SIHOTA: I take it, of course, that the federal government will be providing additional money with respect to those federal inmates. There will be a payment from the federal government, I assume. My concern is this, and before I label the concern, let me also say this: am I correct in assuming that the same will occur with respect to Oakalla — that when Oakalla is phased out and replaced by, I believe, three facilities, we will be seeing a greater number of federal inmates in that regard as well? Or am I wrong in that?

HON. B.R. SMITH: Wrong in the last conclusion. That is simply a decentralization of provincial prisoners — Oakalla, male. The other is a repatriating of female British Columbians serving federal sentences who will now be able to serve them in a federal institution. The joint facility for women that we propose to construct here in the province will have capacity for about a maximum of 40 federal prisoners.

MR. SIHOTA: First of all, I have some concerns which I think are self-evident about housing federal inmates next to provincial inmates, given that federal inmates are of course convicted of more serious crimes and provincial inmates could be in there for nominal crimes.

If you increase the number, will the federal government also be providing additional funding for parole and probation services to deal with these new federal inmates?

HON. B.R. SMITH: I don't think the member has to believe that there's going to be a general uniting of people serving very short sentences with those who are serving long sentences. Unless there's a specific personnel and behavioural record of compatibility, that's not going to occur. Any prisoners who are considered to be dangerous or a bad influence on others will be kept separate from the provincial prisoners. I guess that what we're doing is sharing some land, and some joint staff for sure, but it doesn't mean that we're going to mix dangerous long-term female offenders with non-dangerous short-term provincial offenders. We are certainly not.

MR. SIHOTA: It seems to me that there's going to be a limit to the number of prisoners that the ministry is able to house in any of the facilities. More provincial inmates will then probably be released and out on probation. What I'm trying to get at is the capability of probation services to handle that. And who is going to pay for that? Is that going to be federal dollars or provincial dollars? Are we or are we not going to increase the staff load of probation people? The reason I raise that is because in the last while we've seen a 30 to 40 percent increase in the caseload of these probation officers. We have seen them provincially doing all types of custody, family and maintenance matters as well, and now we have this potential influx of federal inmates down the line. It's my submission, and I trust the Attorney-General will agree with this, that the probation services in this province are already overtaxed and that someone is going to have to pick up the influx of people coming out and requiring probation services. Hopefully we're not going to be putting electronic bracelets on all of them, so I'm wondering what it is that the province is proposing.

HON. B.R. SMITH: No, we're not going to do the latter and we're also not going to follow the Alberta system where the province takes over the responsibility of parole facilities and monitoring that for all these federal prisoners that will now be housed here. That will be dealt with by the National Parole Service in Alberta. The province is taking it all over on some cost-recovery basis. We'll be dealing with our own prisoners and they'll be dealing with theirs.

MR. SIHOTA: If that's the case, then it still remains the fact that there will be more provincial prisoners requiring probationary services. My question now is: what plans does the Attorney-General's department have to increase the number of probation officers and people involved in the probation services program to deal with this problem of increased caseload? Apart from the new ones that we're going to have out there, currently their caseloads have gone up 30 to 40 percent, and currently they are required to do custody, family and maintenance matters as well. So what are the plans?

HON. B.R. SMITH: Madam Chairman, my recollection of the last time the auditor-general looked at this within the past year is that he found that our probation staffing levels were about right and our caseload has been recently stable. But if there were suddenly to be a marked increase in our caseload, there would have to be an increase in probation staff. I don't quarrel with that, but I don't think that the analyses that have been done bear out that we're understaffed.

MR. SIHOTA: It just amazes me. I guess we can all fall back on the auditor-general's report, which I've also had a chance to read, but when you compare that with what people who work in the system tell you, it just doesn't seem to match. I know, both as a social worker, when I was doing that, and as a lawyer and someone who operates next door to some of these facilities, that there is a tremendous demand there. We'll continue to track it and if we need to we'll ask questions on it later as well.

I want now to move to the matter of inspections and standards within the Attorney-General's department, the internal policing arm in inspections and standards. I've always been a little troubled to see that it's essentially an internal or self-regulating body. Can the Attorney-General tell me whether or not he has any plans in place to set up a neutral committee with lawyers, guards, and perhaps even prisoners to deal with that type of regulation?

HON B.R. SMITH: No, we do not intend to establish further esoteric levels of process within the system other than what we have now; but anyone who feels that they have been aggrieved by internal review not only has the right to go to court, but also has the right to go to the ombudsman, as some

[ Page 1291 ]

have done. The ombudsman usually deals with these matters very thoroughly.

MR. BARNES: Is the Attorney-General saying then, with respect to internal reviews and the problem that some people feel exists with respect to police investigating themselves, especially in matters of conflict . . . ? You know the most recent one, Clark Winterton — and others. The Attorney-General was quoted in the Times-Colonist of November 27, 1986, when he suggested that a police watchdog might be arranged with a citizens' committee, and I'm just wondering if the Attorney-General still intends to pursue that approach to a serious problem. I think he would agree that in a society that believes in due process and fairness, perceptions are as important as any facts that might appear. So I think his suggestion was a good one. There have been quite a few inquiries — certainly through my office — wondering whether the Attorney-General has in fact pursued this idea of a citizens' body that would hear complaints against police and would be participating in the investigations that might follow.

[4:30]

HON. B.R. SMITH: I said no, we aren't planning that for internal security into our custodial institutions; yes, for police we are. The reason I haven't brought a bill into this place up till now is that we've been having some heavy consultation about various proposed ways of doing this with the constituency out there: that is, the local police boards, mayors, the police association, the chiefs, and all those who are directly affected. But I can tell you that my target is still to get a bill in here this session in which there will be a mechanism to ensure that ultimately the police don't just investigate the police — that there is some sunshine into that system. I happen to believe that there needs to be this; the time has come.

There's no better time than with the introduction of the new process under the RCM Police Act, which does have such sunshine. I think we need that provincially. I think that's the experience that many have had; even if the police do an exemplary job, as they usually do in these internal investigations, the poor guy out there who's aggrieved, who watches this . . . . It doesn't sit right with him; there's something wrong. People suspect a coverup when there's no coverup — in fact, when the police have gone overboard, sometimes even to victimizing officers, possibly, in doing so, to try to ensure that there isn't a coverup. But still there's a gnawing feeling out there in the craw of people who watch it; they say no, these guys are just self-serving. I think that we've got to dispel that. I definitely am committed to bringing in that bill. I'm sure going to try to get it in here in this session, with some sunshine in it.

MR. BARNES: I certainly want to commend the Attorney-General for his response and for reassuring those people who are anxiously awaiting his actions pursuant to his promise of some sunshine in there, with police investigations of themselves, and complaints, etc.

I want to commend the Attorney-General, though — this isn't entirely a session of doom-and-gloom. I had the good fortune to visit the Willingdon school not too long ago, and met the director, and had a tour of the facilities. I must say, in all candour, that I went looking for business. You know how it is when you're in the opposition. At the time I was concerned about the growing degree of teen suicides that seem to be quite exceptional in British Columbia, and that was part of my investigation, to check some of the facilities where teens were being detained. I think at this particular time, at least at that school, there are cyclical problems with respect to facilities being available. At the present time, however, it seems to be a very well-run institution. The staff are highly committed. I think the Attorney-General should be given any credit that he may be able to glean from that situation, because certainly there are times when we're not as happy with the activities of the government.

This is sort of a miscellaneous series of things that I want to bring to the Attorney-General's attention. I'd like him, before concluding his remarks for today, to bring us up to date on the situation concerning the One Way Adventure Foundation in Hedley. Perhaps he has already, but I missed that.

HON. B.R. SMITH: You have not missed it — through you, Madam Chairman. The report is not yet concluded, but we expect it soon to be. We should have a report, I would hope, maybe sometime in the latter part of next week, and it will be a report that I will be making public — no question about it. I'll make public the report, together with response to it.

MR. BARNES: I guess I should as well give the Attorney-General a semi-commendation for his response to an inquiry I made concerning B.C. Tel's Teen Partyline program. There were some concerns, as the Attorney-General, I'm sure, knows. No doubt he had quite a representation from different quarters of the province. He did respond eventually to a letter. I imagine he's pressed for time. I don't know if the Attorney-General is aware, but I understand that that service will no longer be continued by B.C. Tel. Your most recent correspondence indicated that you were looking into the matter — you know, the usual approach. But I think they have concluded that there will be no program, so you might be interested in knowing that.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Yes, sort of like that. He got a response back to me, although it wasn't exactly up to date; but it was better than one I got from the Health minister (Hon. Mr. Dueck) recently. I'll deal with that one later.

Okay, if you want to respond to that, I'll give you a chance. We're having some light exchanges here; nothing too heavy. It's up to you.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I think your comments on that are correct. I understand that it is being discontinued. I was so flushed with the commendation mood that was radiating from that side of the House that I just put on a tiny little sort of commendation pin for that.

MR. BARNES: Madam Chairman, just one final matter. I'll start by saying that I wrote the Attorney-General on May 5. Did you get my note telling you I was going to raise this? I hope you have it, because I wanted you to have a chance to reflect on it. It's to do with a Doug Collins comment.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Yes.

MR. BARNES: You do have that? Okay.

[ Page 1292 ]

Well, as you know, I wrote you on March 5, simply stating:

"Enclosed is a copy of a Doug Collins column, "Get This Straight," published in the February 15, 1986, edition of the North Shore News. It was sent to me by a citizen concerned that the contents are in violation of the hate propaganda section of the Criminal Code of Canada. Please undertake to see if this is so, and advise of your findings."

For the benefit of the House, Madam Chairman, I think I should read to you the correspondence that I received from Mr. Colin R. Jones. It's a very brief letter dated February 15:

"Dear Mr. Barnes,

"I am writing to you concerning a column written by Doug Collins in a recent edition of the North Shore News, and I am enclosing a copy together with a letter that I wrote to the editor.

"I am personally against censorship, and I believe people have a right to express their views. However, this article is outright promotion of hatred and prejudice, and as such needs to be stopped. I have read of your concern for human rights and dignity, and I wonder if there is any more that can be done to protest against this man and his diatribes in a positive way."

"My wife and I were so incensed by this article that we felt we had to do something about it. I will be writing to Ian Waddell, John Turner, Pat Carney and Grace McCarthy."

And it is signed: "Yours truly, Colin R. Jones."

I wrote a letter to the editor of the paper. I won't go into that, but the column is in your hands, and I will just mention briefly what he has to say in some of the contentious parts. I won't go through the whole column. It just starts off in part: "For what do we hear now but that another boatload of bulbous-eyed bug-hunters from Sri Lanka is on its way to Canada by way of Germany, all yelling 'alms' and claiming to be refugees — the liars." And with reference to the United Nations protesting any action by the Department of Immigration, he says: "Do they give a good god-damn if this country becomes another Third World stew-pot? Do they pay our bills? Tell them to shut their traps."

He's talking again here about the Immigration department:

"For years now, you've been keeping white folk out and letting every other s.o.b. in. It's all the same to you if we all wind up wearing loincloths. All you care about is kissing Third World ass at cocktail parties. What we get from you is a lot of dog's vomit . . . ."

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, could I just intervene for a moment? I'm not absolutely certain that some of the language in that letter is appropriate under our parliamentary rules.

MR. BARNES: I would agree with you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate your bringing me to attention. But it shows you the seriousness of the subject. I will be pleased to withdraw if those terms are unparliamentary, but they were written by a columnist in this province. This is why I'm raising the issue with respect to whether it violates the Criminal Code of Canada.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. A point of order has been called by the Attorney-General.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Perhaps the member would consider filing a copy with the committee so that other members can read it. I might just say to the member that I think it's the most appalling stuff that I've read for some time. I read it only yesterday, and I was quite appalled by it, and appalled that the newspaper would print it. We're going to have a legal opinion on the thing, but it's an appalling piece of journalism.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Could I suggest to the second member for Vancouver Centre that he table the letter after committee. It can't be done during committee.

MR. BARNES: Madam Chairman, I appreciate your suggestion. I accept it. I want to thank the Attorney-General for his undertaking to look into this matter. My only regret — with some understanding that he's quite busy — is that he hasn't been able to reply before now. Nonetheless, I will conclude my remarks.

MR. MILLER: I'm raising an issue that really is of concern to me locally, but it's probably an issue of concern around the province: the treatment of juvenile offenders. I raise this, and I intend to raise it again under the Minister of Health's estimates. I raised it originally under the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond), because as that minister indicated in his remarks, there are children who fall between the cracks.

If I could sort of broadly outline the problem, we have a serious problem in terms of street kids in Prince Rupert. Generally there is a correlation through the three ministries, in that we find that some of those children, or a good number of those children, really come from homes where parents are reliant on social assistance, and it's a vicious circle with respect to these children and their families. We also find in the area of health care that there is a severe shortage of professionals to offer assistance in dealing with these children; for example, psychological counselling. There is a really serious problem in the community.

I'll ask the Attorney-General a question. It seems to me that there is a need to go beyond the norm in terms of the three ministries interconnecting, and trying to deal with this question on an interministry basis. I was assured by the Minister of Social Services and Housing that the deputies meet once a week and are cognizant of the situation. I want the minister to respond to that general concern in terms of the approach in dealing with that question, the approach that his ministry is taking and perhaps should be taking with regard to the other ministries in attempting to reach some solutions in terms of delivery of services.

Secondly, we had a situation there where the supervision of community service work was contracted out to a private individual. I'm perhaps more aware of this than others might be, because that individual had his office down the hall from mine. It was a daily, common occurrence for young kids, tripping up the stairs, going to the door, to find the office locked, with a little note on the door: "I'll be back later." It's a serious matter. The sentence they received was to do some community service work, yet the individual who was responsible for administering that work and the children fell short of doing an adequate job.

[4:45]

It might raise the whole question of contracting out, but if a service like that is to be contracted, what kind of monitoring does the ministry do to ensure that an adequate job is being

[ Page 1293 ]

done? From the point of view of the people carrying out the terms of their sentence, and also from the point of view of . . . . Hopefully the sentence has some impact on them; it's not treated as a lark and just another way of avoiding responsibility, but there's some serious direction involved in terms of maybe trying to turn some of these kids around.

Thirdly, the minister may have received a letter from two individuals in Prince Rupert with regard to facilities. Really, the thrust of their arguments is that it's ludicrous in Prince Rupert, and it's very frustrating for the officials involved to go through the fruitless exercise of picking kids up on the street for violations of the law, consigning them, perhaps, to a group home, and having those same children depart from that group home back onto the street. Really, nothing is being accomplished. These guys are just running on a treadmill; nobody is getting anywhere.

I just wanted to quote briefly some excerpts from this letter, because I think it does detail some of the frustrations and problems. The letter is written by two individuals, Clive Bickley and George Kirkbright, who are running a group home. They say:

"The RCMP, judiciary, probation officers, social workers, group home parents, child care workers and foster parents are in a state of overwork and utter frustration. The RCMP must be heartily sick of apprehending the same juveniles on a nightly basis, processing them through the judicial system, only to see the repeat offender on the street again the following day, more often than not to repeat the process."

It goes on to talk about the fact that facilities capable of dealing with these youths are full to overflowing; the situation in the group homes, where moderate behavioural difficulties are placed with much more extreme offenders; the situation where the children who are really not deeply mired in this system learn bad habits from the worst offenders; and the need, really, to develop more wilderness-type facilities where children can be removed from the community, from the setting where they are constantly getting in trouble, and hopefully can go through some kind of process — I think some of these facilities actually do some good work — where you can, when they're young enough, start to grab some of them and turn them around.

I'm sure everybody would agree that to see young people in this province embarked on a life that many of them will be losers at is worthy of some extra effort. I don't want to take a lot of time up, but I really am concerned about this. Perhaps the Attorney-General could respond to some of those complaints.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'd be happy to respond to each of those. The first concern about this group of youths that slip between the stools of the various ministries is extremely true. We now have an interministerial committee of cabinet under the Social Services minister, who is heading it up, and we are going to be presenting a program called Reconnect, which will try to reach out and deal with these young people. We are not daunted by the fact that they don't fit into a specific ministry program. They present a real problem, and there is a need to do something with them, so my colleague the member for Kamloops, the Minister of Social Services and Housing, will be the one who is the lead on that.

If there are problems on your second point — the administration of youth community service orders in your area — I hope that you would take those up with the local staff. It is their responsibility to monitor them. Mostly in the north and the interior, we have had these community service programs done by other than in-house staff. We have for some years, and the privatization we did there was mostly in the Fraser region and the lower mainland part of the province. We had many of these services performed by contract agencies before, but it is the responsibility of our local staff to monitor them, and if they are not working, we certainly want to hear about it.

What you say about the youth recidivist, who so frustrates the authorities, and seems to be in and out of difficulties, and there is never any improvement . . . . I guess for that youth — I'm trying to think of your region and your plight in Rupert — the best facility we have would be the residential attendance centre in Smithers, which would be able to handle between 15 and 20 young people, and would draw from your community. That is a last resort for some of these kids, but I guess it's a resort that we have to look to.

MR. MILLER: Quickly, dealing with privatization, I guess it's difficult for local officials, who are probably overworked themselves in terms of dealing with this very frustrating situation. In monitoring the performance of someone who contracts to provide that kind of service — for example, in Prince Rupert again, this person also contracted for the group home — a pattern shows up in these situations. It's really one of less than adequate wages for the staff, which results in a pretty high turnover. So when you're monitoring, you might say: "Given the constraints, the person may be doing an adequate job; but overall it's really a less than adequate performance, a less than adequate service."

It seems to me that the people who will suffer the most because of that are the people who are supposed to be served by it, and that's the children. So there has to be a better way. Perhaps it can be done through the stipulation of wage rates or things of that nature. If you're running a group home and your staff is turning over at a very quick rate, you don't establish anything that's stable, that can really get on with the job. If you're running an office where children are supposed to report, and the door isn't open when they show up, you're not really doing an adequate job. Sure, the community work might be carried out and they can file a report that says, "Yes, it is being done"; but the overall performance is not really good. There has to be a much better method of determining quality of service than I've seen to date, at least in my community.

[Mr. Bruce in the chair.]

MS. EDWARDS: I want to follow along a bit on that because of some of the experience in my riding with group homes that were established under contract with people operating privately. I might say to the minister that my talks with people before they established a group home indicated that one of the parts that made you have some hope for it was that the people who were going to do the contract had already worked for the ministry and had run across the normal frustrations that I think people find working in government. You know, there are always these standards and these patterns that you have to meet. They were looking forward with great enthusiasm to the possibility of doing some kind of work that they hadn't been able to do within the structure. So they got the contract to run a group home. Well, it didn't last very long, and the suggestion is . . . . I put this out purely as

[ Page 1294 ]

speculation, Mr. Minister, but I'm interested in your response to this. These professional counsellors, social workers and probation workers were evidently not so good at running the books and running the business, so of course the group home went down. Then the area was again back with no group home and no facility for the young people in our area.

If you're going to look at this business of contracting out and so on, what kind of criteria are you going to use? What are you going to look at? What do you think should be a requirement so that this service is not interrupted by the fact that the people giving the service were not trained to run a business — in other words, to do the business part that comes with contracting out? I'd like your response to this kind of an idea.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'm trying to figure out exactly what program you're talking about locally, but if it was an attendance centre, which we did have outside Cranbrook — not in Cranbrook — we do quite a bit of inspection of those programs. I don't know whether this one was a non-profit society or whether it was somebody operating it for profit, but they have to deliver, and I'm not talking about balancing the books. They have to deliver programmatically or we get rid of them. We go out and look for others.

There are many such programs that are well operated. Any difficulties you have with that program, or complaints in that program, you should let us have, because we're not wedded to one operator. I just had a question from the member for Vancouver Centre on a program in another part of the province. We've had a special evaluation done in the middle of the contract, and we're awaiting that report now. If that program isn't being properly run programmatically . . . . I'm not talking about balancing the books; I'm talking about programmatically. If they're not doing the supervision, if they don't have the background and the training to do the program, we'll find somebody else.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Attorney-General, I was trying to keep it general, because I think it indicates a general weakness. That is, you are going to require that the program is there — and I'm not saying that you don't do that. I'm saying that possibly the program could have been there if these people who are trained to be counsellors were not also trying to do the business side of it as a private contractor. As far as I know, there was a combination of things, and I think that in general this kind of private contracting . . . . And it was not a non-profit association. It was a private company that had already established a group home in another part of the province, and they came in to do this program.

I think I would like to see something about your experience with these kinds of contracts and some ways that you think you are going to overcome the objections that I think are pretty obvious and, as I understand it, that show up fairly generally across the province.

HON. B. R. SMITH: Well, for many years in the interior we have been operating programs of this kind outside government service. Sometimes they are operated by John Howard or Elizabeth Fry or the Salvation Army, it's true. But other times they are operated by people who run this service for a profit.

We do have quite a bit of experience with non-governmental operation of these programs. There is a great variety of success with them. Sometimes they are not successful; I know that. That is not always because somebody is operating them for profit, either. Sometimes they are not successful when they are operated by a non-profit organization.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

So I take your point that the basic thing is that you've got to be able to do something to supervise and help kids; that's the bottom line. You're running that, not a business. If you can't run it in terms of its program objectives, then it is not being run properly and we will have to get it run differently. So please feed us any information you have. I realize that you are carefully being general, and that is probably better for the purposes of this debate. But when we leave this debate, if there are specific things, please bring them to our attention.

[5:00]

We are committed to try to run these programs exceptionally well. There is nothing more important than preventive youth programs that will not become statistics at a youth containment centre, which we may build in Kamloops, or have to be taken on a plane in handcuffs — as one of the members said earlier — and sent down to Willingdon. That is the last place we want to be. But good programs of an attendance centre nature or group home nature are the ones that keep kids out of formal custody, so they have to be well run.

MS. EDWARDS: I just want to hammer again to make one more point, and that is that when the government is in charge of this kind of service without that arm's-length business for the private contractor, there is a much better method of seeing that there are professionals there to deal with the young people. Whereas when you're waiting for somebody to bid on the possibility of having a job in an area like ours, where in fact they did not operate within the city because of the kinds of difficulties that may have been aggravated by the fact that they were private . . . . I don't know, but because of these things, in our area it becomes much more difficult to be able to provide the kind of service that our young children need. It doesn't matter what community it is. There are communities where there are young people who need this kind of service.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 12 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

Interjections.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: My apologies. I was engaged in a conversation with a member on the other side. I do appreciate that courtesy. I know we are winding down here, but I am thankful for that discretion.

In the remaining hour that we have, I want to deal quickly with a smorgasbord of issues, some local and some provincial. I will start with one of my and, I am sure, the Attorney-General's favourites. Could the Attorney-General please advise this House what progress, if any, there is with respect to the construction of a courthouse in the Western Community?

[ Page 1295 ]

HON. BR. SMITH: The project certainly has some community support; there is no doubt about that. I have had some meetings. In fact, I went out and spoke to the chamber out there a year ago or more. There is support for it. As a practitioner in this area for some time, and someone who cut his teeth in criminal law by prosecuting and defending in this region when we had courthouses not all centralized, I used to go and do all the prosecutions in Central Saanich. I used to go to Ganges and do the prosecutions there quite often, and defend there. I also used to go to Sooke, where we had a courthouse as well. So I know that system, and I have some affection for it.

On the other hand, it is my duty to try and ensure that people get quick and adequate court service in a region. I don't think that we can go back to a system of total decentralization of courthouses. Not only would it cost us a lot of money by building courthouses and duplicating court facilities around the province, but I'm not sure that it would accomplish what we would like to see it accomplish: that is, speedier justice. It would certainly be convenient to local police not to have to drive into central court in Victoria, and it's always nice for local officials to have a courthouse and for local lawyers to be close to a courthouse. I understand all that. But it's my duty to ensure that justice is swift and that we get these cases dealt with quickly.

What I've said to them, and what I'll say to you, is that I don't have a closed mind to a court facility in the Western Community, particularly if that community is growing and the demand is growing. But we can't go early to a major facility there, and I am reluctant to make a commitment and the government is reluctant to make a commitment to build a three-courtroom facility, which is what the advocates out there would like. I maintain that if demand continues to grow there and if there is a demand to have some kind of facility for traffic cases and others where we have witnesses in that community . . . can be more efficiently served, we would look at a courtroom, but to build a courthouse . . . . I'm not prepared to promise to build a $3 million courthouse.

MR. SIHOTA: I can understand the minister's reluctance to construct a courthouse out there at this time. I was wondering if the minister would be willing to consider a proposal to utilize existing facilities to provide a courtroom. It's clearly not a three-room courtroom, but the minister knows as well as I do that there are, for example, council chambers that sit vacant during the days, and in addition to that, other facilities: churches that have facilities that would be suitable, and perhaps even schools and theatres — I don't mean movie theatres — in the Western Community would be available for this purpose as well. I'm wondering whether or not the minister would be willing to consider that approach instead of the construction of a courthouse facility.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I think that that approach, which was certainly the old approach used in places like Central Saanich and Sidney, which does have its courthouse back . . . . That's something that's do-able in the future. I'm not opposed to considering that.

What I want to say to the member, though, is that this dilemma of small communities on the fringe of an urban area wanting individual court facilities and having their trials in their local community, while understandable, doesn't always produce the most efficient justice. If you want to set down a case for a resident in Metchosin and you've got one judge there available on a part-time basis, you've got a limited number of dates that you can get as a trial and a limited calendar that you can operate. But when you come into central court, when you've got economies of scale and a number of judges, you should be able to get along a lot faster.

If I'm wrong in those assumptions, yes, by all means let's look at going back to providing some court access to those communities as the demand arises. But it was for good efficiency reasons that we went to a central setup. I can remember — I was in practice at the time — the terrible howls and screams when we did that. We had a separate courtroom in Saanich, in the old municipal hall, that we used to operate, and we had all these other ones around here, and suddenly they left and it caused a lot of concern. I didn't like it either. I was a practitioner. I got really cross at it. But it has given us a better and fairer way of dealing with it. You can't pick your judge; you have a pool of judges. The facilities generally are better. The defending lawyer isn't in a phone booth somewhere interviewing his client; you have the pool of a larger facility.

So there are arguments for not doing it. I just put those to you. I'm probably not the best Attorney-General to be standing firm on that approach, because I come from a system where I liked all those small court facilities in the smaller communities, so I'm probably emotionally predisposed towards it. But I have to put the other case, which was the case that . . . . Actually it was the case that David Vickers came to and pushed very strongly when he was Deputy Attorney-General. But yes, I can be convinced to being a little bit impure and opening courtrooms in places where there is tremendous growth; and there is growth in the Western Community, there's no doubt about it.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister would do great things for the standing of his political party in the Western Community if he were to agree to the establishment of some type of court facility. Let me ask the minister this: will he then agree to put a small amount aside for a study, to take a look at the feasibility of establishing a courthouse facility in the Western Community, together with consideration of using existing facilities? Will the minister consider funding a small amount of money for that kind of study?

HON. B.R. SMITH: Knowing that there was a community study done a few years ago, I certainly will. Yes, I think we should review it, and a study would be a good idea.

MRS. BOONE: My question is to the minister regarding the need of court workers. Native court workers provide a most worthwhile service, particularly in our area.

My question is particular to the area of Mackenzie. I'll relate a problem that exists in that area. When natives are arrested in Mackenzie, frequently, if they live in Fort Ware and Ingenika, they then have to travel to Mackenzie for court. This sort of bounces back on what my colleague was talking about. They have to come to Mackenzie for court. The problem arises when the court worker goes up from Prince George into Mackenzie to deal with these native people. Frequently there's a problem with regard to the natives getting out of their communities of Fort Ware and Ingenika due to fog or what have you, and the court worker then has no direction from the native that they're working on behalf of. They turn up in court and the native is not there, and a bench warrant is then issued on that individual because they haven't

[ Page 1296 ]

turned up. Sometimes it is not their problem; it is because of the climatic conditions. Once that bench warrant is issued, then the RCMP do go in and pick them up. What happens as well is that sometimes natives just don't turn up, because then they have to be responsible for the $95 cost of flying in and out of Fort Ware and Ingenika. So they wait until a bench warrant is issued and then the police go in and pick them up.

The question that I have to the minister is with regard to having a traveling court that would go in. I'm not asking you to build a courthouse in Fort Ware and Ingenika, but just to take your court into Fort Ware and Ingenika so the natives can be tried in their home community, and they don't have to have the waiting or the transportation problems. Apparently the judge in that area was willing to go in there, but some of the workers were unwilling to go in because they may be stuck in Fort Ware or Ingenika for three or four days due to fog. That very same thing happens to the natives when they come out: they are then stuck in Mackenzie for three or four days due to fog.

I would request that the minister look into this. Or has he looked into this? Can he give me some assurances that this problem will be dealt with? It's a very real problem up there, something of concern to the native population. The native court workers are very concerned about this as well.

[5:15]

HON. B.R. SMITH: We've already given some attention to that problem with Fort Ware. We have made representations to the Chief Judge that we would like to have some service into that region, but because of transportation difficulties, which are severe, it hasn't occurred. My deputy also notes the police problems.

I guess what I can say to you is that we will redouble our efforts to get some service in there so we don't have the situation you've described — and I have no doubt it's a correct description of what sometimes happens, that they don't come because they can't find a way or afford to get in, so they wait for a warrant. That is not the way to be compelling attendance before the courts. That's exactly the reverse of the way we would want to see it. A travelling court in there occasionally would be the answer. That's the approach to much of the court facilities in the north. In the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, the whole system is like that. We are anxious to get some travelling court services in there.

MRS. BOONE: On a broader scale, then, my question is also with regard to the native court workers themselves. They've had considerable cuts over the past years, and the service is greatly required. Will the minister look into returning some funding to the native court workers so that they can increase their staff in areas? Right now they are down to levels that are not sufficient to handle the caseloads that they have.

HON. B.R. SMITH: My recollection is that this service did have some reduction in 1983, and it has come back a bit. It certainly is an important service. I know that service because I used to be on the provincial legal aid board as a director for a number of years, and that was a service that we were closely connected with. So I know it's important.

I just don't have my facts and figures on personnel. I did have a meeting with the native court workers, not within the present year but a year before. I am impressed with their work and their importance. So I'd be very pleased to review that service to see if we can't strengthen it.

MRS. BOONE: Relative to any kind of a joint agreement . . . . This is due to a problem near the Yukon border, which is serviced by the Yukon RCMP, and they have their courts in there. When the people — and this came about as a result of speaking to the native court workers, so that's why I was talking about natives — go into the Yukon to have their court dates and are looking at serving a weekend sentence, apparently there is no reciprocal agreement. They cannot serve weekend sentences because they have to go into the Yukon, and so all of them virtually are left having to be sent to Prince George, which is away from their communities, to serve out a full-term sentence rather than having the ability to do this on a weekend. Is there any plan from the ministry to get some reciprocal agreement with the Yukon so that persons in trouble with the law do have that ability to serve a sentence on a weekend and not be taken away and incarcerated?

HON. B.R. SMITH: The answer is yes, and it's a timely thing to raise because just in the last week we have had some discussions between my staff and the correctional staff in the Yukon to try to bring about that sort of thing. It's a perfectly reasonable arrangement to make. We have arrangements now where we trade some judges back and forth between the Yukon and British Columbia, and the British Columbia court of appeal is the court of appeal for the Yukon as well as for British Columbia. It makes no sense not to pool our resources geographically in the north, for sure.

MRS. BOONE: Is this something, then, that we can expect in the near future? Do you anticipate a solution in the near future?

HON. B.R. SMITH: We've already had talks this past week to try to work out some arrangement along those lines. That's the object of it. This was brought to our attention by the Chief Judge a little while ago.

MR. SIHOTA: That's something else the member for Prince George (Mrs. Boone) can take credit for.

I have a question dealing with the native court workers. My conversation with the B.C. Native Courtworker . . . . I know their board of directors met in April and asked for a meeting with the Attorney-General simply because they . . . . It's my understanding and I'm advised that they have some difficulty living within their budget. I don't know if they have met with the Attorney-General or not, but the budget was cut by around 26 percent in 1981-82, and as a function of that a number of staff were lost. They have a deficit of about $180,000, and they feel that they need a 37 percent increase to bring the services back to '81-82 levels. They cannot replace workers in Quesnel, Terrace, Prince George and the Main Street office in Vancouver. I'm just wondering what steps, if any, the ministry is taking to remedy this problem with native court workers.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I think that they have been doing some work on their budget for a while and trying to get a handle on it. They've had some difficulties, as I remember, with deficit. I did meet with them a year ago. I have not met with them yet this year, but I certainly will meet with them

[ Page 1297 ]

during the life of the session. There will be ample opportunity to do that. I think my staff meet with them monthly. But quite considerable effort was made to try to get a grip on their financial situation, which wasn't all that good, as I recall, back in '83-84.

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Yeah. So, yes, I will meet with them.

MR. SIHOTA: More importantly, is the Attorney-General prepared to make some commitment with respect to increases in their budget?

HON. B. R. SMITH: No, not without meeting with them and having an update on where they're at. But I did express support for their service, and that wasn't idle support. It's support based on some knowledge of what they do and the importance of what they do. But I'm quite prepared to look at their budget and re-evaluate it and how they're doing.

MR. SIHOTA: On the matter of natives, Madam Chairman, and the matter of youth: if my recollection of the matter is correct, the Young Offenders Act and the master agreement that was made with the federal government left out the matter of — and I'm operating by memory here — native youth court workers. What provision has been made to provide native youth court workers in the youth detention facilities that are being built? As I understand it, there's quite a need right now in Kamloops and Prince George. What steps are being taken to deal with that problem? Perhaps the Attorney-General could give some light on that.

HON. B. R. SMITH: I'm told that that deficiency in that agreement — you're absolutely right — is about to be rectified. We're having a joint meeting next week of provincial Attorneys-General along with the federal Minister of Justice and the Solicitor-General. I can't tell you at this second whose domain this falls under, because they are switching authority all the time back there. I think all of this is just about to land in the lap of the Justice minister from the Solicitor-General. That may account for the fact that they haven't moved before now on this, but they have indicated to our officials that they will be making some announcement on that to us. We will be discussing it, and that area will be taken care of.

I'm also told that it was withheld from the agreement at federal request.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm feeling the pressures of time and will move on to a different topic. Suffice it to say that there is indeed a need for those types of youth workers in the areas that I've mentioned, and of course in Burns Lake, another area from which I received a call — people upset about the inadequacy of that. I look forward to an announcement from the Attorney-General on that matter. Of course, if it's not forthcoming, I'll have it on my bring-forward list as the session progresses.

Another question to the Attorney-General, once again to flip into a totally different area. Some time ago the provincial government announced the establishment of the international arbitration centre, which I take it is under the auspices of the Attorney-General. Could the Attorney-General provide the House with some figures as to how that is going? How many cases, for example, have we had since it was established?

HON. B. R. SMITH: We always knew that it would be a three-year startup operation, and it has been. It's an expensive startup operation, because we have chosen to go into very prime space in the World Trade Centre.

It has become a favoured centre for a number of domestic arbitrations. By domestic I simply mean local. A lot of them have been labour. We've had an increasing number of commercial arbitrations, because last year we changed our provincial Commercial Arbitration Act, which made arbitration more attractive.

We have not had what I would call a leading-scale international arbitration held there yet. We have had one or two arbitrations of an international character with international parties. But we haven't had any of these ICC or commercial institute arbitrations from Britain, or AAA arbitrations from New York. That is a matter of considerable chagrin to me, and I'm very impatient about it. I expected them to flow by now. Everyone I talk to in this international field says that I am too impatient and that all new centres have taken a few years to get known.

One thing we're doing, actually, is quite an active program to try to promote the centre. We have an excellent promotional program. But on a practical basis we're trying to get arbitration clauses into a whole lot of international commercial transactions that this province or British Columbia firms can effect. To get these clauses written in requires that where there are disputes, those disputes will be decided in the B.C. arbitration centre.

We've also come up with a very good set of workable rules based on the UNCITRAL rules, which are published. I believe we're going to have some major international arbitrations within the next year. But it's been a slow business. We've made this investment, and we've passed a legislative regime. We're there and we're open. So I can tell you that we'd be delighted to see any business help you can give us, any international work you can throw our way, and we'd be delighted to see anyone you send there. Whether it's a labour arbitration or a commercial arbitration, we're happy to have the business now, but we want the international work.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, the Attorney-General knows full well that those of us in the New Democratic Party are broadening our international horizons, and we've had our leader travelling all over the world to assist in securing business activity here. I'm sure that by the time we're government, if there is a need, we'll maintain the centre.

I could make a lot of comments, I guess, if this was question period, about the promotional campaign and so on, but what I really want to ask is how much money we have spent to date on that facility. And how long have we actually had it in place? I can't remember if it's been a year or two. How much money and how long?

HON. B.R. SMITH: It's been there for a year, and I'd have to get you the exact cost figures; I can't tell you that. We have high-cost rent in that location. We have a director, Bonita Thompson, who was a legislative counsel — you probably remember her — and she has one secretary. We have a support system that we call in on contract as we need them — translators and so on. But I can give you the exact amount that we've spent. The government's policy was to

[ Page 1298 ]

support it from a period of a minimum of three years to a maximum of five years. We're going to hopefully get some support from other than this government — not just from the money we get in, the fees — but we're looking for other sources of foundation. We underwrote the startup costs, and we're locked in for three to five years. Now I can't tell you whether we've spend $500,000 on that or not, but we may very well have spent that during that one year in the promotion, the startup, the salaries and the lease space.

[5:30]

MR. SIHOTA: I would expect the Attorney-General will table those figures at some time in the House so that we can have access to them. Perhaps he could tell me how much is in this year's budget for that purpose.

HON. B.R. SMITH: It's $430,000, the bulk of which is lease cost, which is very high. But that's in the budget for this year, and I would think that we spent probably a little more than that last year in the startup year.

MR. SIHOTA: Perhaps the Attorney-General could advise what the projected revenues are for this year.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I cannot give you that. I think what I'd have to do is give you the revenues that we've taken in to date, or give you some statement of projected revenues. But I cannot give you that today. I'm sorry, I don't have it in the book.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll look forward to having that information once it's tabled, and put that matter also on my bring forward system.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Call-forwarding, sorry. For these non-lawyers here, Mr. Attorney-General . . . . Some of them are familiar with it. I really should stop criticizing my members, because you can see they immediately start to heckle me.

The next important issue that I want to touch on, as we wind down here, is this whole issue of banning of knives. I'm just wondering what representations the Attorney-General has made or intends to make to the federal level with respect to amendments of the Criminal Code on that issue.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I raised that issue with several Justice ministers, and have not had a very sympathetic response to the Code changes. There doesn't appear to have been a desire to change the Code. I'm going to a meeting next week, as I said, with both the Solicitor-General and the Justice minister, and that will be one of the issues in the Code amendments that will be before them. Maybe I can tell you some more when I come back, but there really has not been a willingness to broaden the offensive weapon provisions of the Code to deal with the knives question.

That's about all I can say. I have made representations twice.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll put that also on my bring-forward system and look forward to a report from the Attorney-General on the matter after the meeting.

Jumping now to another issue — I realize I'm not going to be able to hit all the ones that I intended to — I have a question with respect to the Charter. The Attorney-General and I and everybody else know the Charter came down in 1984, and at that time there was to be an audit of all the statutes. I may have overlooked it, but is that audit now completed? If not, what is the status of it?

HON. B.R. SMITH: It's complete, but we have had, I think, every session since . . . . We had a Charter bill the first time, in which we had a comprehensive list of changes that we made. But the policy has been that where Charter issues are raised, we will consider remedial action rather than court deliberation. We don't take the view that everything should go to court, so we can be proactive.

I will just give you an example of somewhere I think we should be proactive, and that is in the Identification of Criminals Act, which was just ruled, about a month ago by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, to be unconstitutional because it violated someone's right to be presumed innocent to have his prints taken. I happen to be a believer that the police should be able to fingerprint somebody who is accused with an indictable offence and not yet convicted. But I am not a believer that they should be able to hang onto those prints for posterity, put them in a museum and use them later, particularly when the guy is maybe discharged, acquitted or not proceeded against. So I think that is a violation of process, and I am going to ask the Minister of Justice next week to move and change that bill now and make it more Charter-sensitive and do that sort of thing to it so that we can still fingerprint people who stand charged with an indictable offence. If that person is convicted, the prints stay. As soon as that person gets a pardon. the prints go. If he is acquitted, the prints are destroyed immediately.

I think that governments have got to be somewhat proactive in this field and not just wait for the courts to do everything.

MR. SIHOTA: I am not too sure if I want to get a debate going at this stage on that issue — and I think we could have quite an interesting one on that one. But I am still not clear as to what the government's intentions are with respect to this audit, which now I assume is....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Oh, it's completed, then. Okay. I take it then that there will be amendments coming through in the form of a bill to clarify some legislation that needs to be clarified.

HON. B.R. SMITH: There will be some Charter-driven amendments in the next miscellaneous statutes amendment act, Mr. House Leader, which are being brought in for reasons of Charter problems. But we don't have an audit committee out there revising and reviewing. We deal with them on a specific basis. So if a member believes there is a Charter problem with some legislation, please bring that to the attention of my ministry or legislative counsel. We look at those; we try to be proactive.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll bring one to the attention of the Attorney-General right now: the legislation which deals with GAIN in the age-26 figure. Will the Attorney-General therefore now bring forward changes to that act and those regulations to deal with that problem?

[ Page 1299 ]

HON. B.R. SMITH: No, I guess we don't believe that violates the Charter. In that one we're going to wait for the courts. I sort of asked for that, didn't I?

MR. SIHOTA: I'll let the Attorney-General off the hook, because we're winding down, and move on to another issue that is also of importance. The auditor-general, during the course of her last report, made some comments with respect to the operations of the public trustee's office, with respect to handling cash deposits, recording things and affidavits filed to the Attorney-General's ministry. Certainly, as a practitioner dealing with the public trustee's office, I know how slow it can be. I know of the difficulties that people often have if they want to do something as simple as a committee application. Usually the material from the trustee's office shows up five minutes before you're supposed to go into chambers in front of Judge Hutchison or somebody and make the application.

I'm wondering what steps are being taken by the ministry to deal with the matters raised by the auditor-general with respect to the public trustee's office.

HON. B.R. SMITH: We've had some changes in that office in the last while — a new public trustee and a deputy as well. I've had my share of experiences and complaints as well. When you take on the responsibility of dealing with protecting the rights of children in these matters, it's maybe not always as efficient or as speedy as you'd like it to be, because the emphasis of people who work in that field is to protect the rights of children and the rights of those who are disabled. I think it's an important priority to have that office working more efficiently; I can't put it much more bluntly than that. It is an important priority, and we think that we're on that track with some of the changes that we've made.

MR. SIHOTA: I guess the question is this: did those changes flow from the auditor-general's report, or were they changes made prior to the auditor-general's report? Because she certainly makes some specific comments, and I can tell you, as a practitioner in the field, that it's sometimes difficult even to get a phone call through to that office, it appears to be so understaffed.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I think both prior to and since that report we have made some changes. I'm told that the new public trustee has made a number of changes. We're putting in a new computer system in that operation. We're mindful that it has not always been as efficient as it should be. We know that, and we agree that the changes have to be made.

MR. SIHOTA: Moving to another issue — I'm trying to go through quickly on these ones — I see from the budget that the Attorney-General has now inherited, I believe from Environment and Parks, the responsibility for emergency assistance. I've got a lot of problems with the emergency assistance capability that we have. I noticed the other day that the member from Nelson was talking a little bit about the problems at Hanford. I'd hate to even begin asking questions about our capability to deal with a problem should it happen at Hanford, or should there be a problem with the transportation of dangerous goods here in the Victoria area or some disaster in one of our local harbours. Time will not permit me to get into debating that point.

I notice that the amount allocated for emergency assistance is $2.4 million, according to the budget. According to the material available from last year's budget, there was considerably more — I believe another $1.9 million, if my memory serves me correctly. I also see from the budget documents that the amount for police services has gone up. Can the minister confirm that that additional $1.9 million, which appears to be missing if you compare last year's budget with this year's, has gone into police services?

HON. B. R. SMITH: I'll have to bring a response back to you or give it to you directly tomorrow. I just can't give you that on a thumbnail.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, we may be at risk if this money hasn't been allocated in the budget, Mr. Attorney-General. It's my understanding that there was $1.9 million in the provincial emergency program last year. We see $2.4 million here in emergency assistance, but there's no clear indication as to where the $1.9 million has gone. Does the minister now have the information in his hands? Can he confirm my assumption, which looking at the budget suggests to me, that the money seems to have gone to police and inflated the budget allocation for police?

[5:45]

HON. B. R. SMITH: I'm sorry, I didn't understand your question. But yes, it has gone under the police services part of the budget — absolutely.

MR. SIHOTA: The police services budget, if my memory's correct, has gone up by something like $5 million. If $2 million of that is simply money transferred from another budget, it creates a kind of misleading assumption as to the increase in funding for police services in the budget. Why was the $1.9 million not simply allocated under the emergency assistance provision, as one and the same, so it would be easier to follow?

HON. B.R. SMITH: The police services branch are administering it. The increase in provincial policing, when you take out all the other items there that we're allocating money to, like the Police Commission, CLEU and programs in security . . . . The provincial policing figures are up last year from $79,485,000 to $86,390,000. So there has been an increase there. But most of that increase will be due to the policing formula with the federal government, whereby our share has gone up and theirs has decreased. Until very recently it has been: hold the line on more police. I have noticed some changes in the last three or four months. We're getting requests now from communities for additional policing. Those are going ahead federally, and we support them. But until very recently the federal Solicitor-General wasn't receptive to those. There hasn't been a marked increase in policing, for sure; but we never suggested there was. The emergency program was put in there not to try and show that we were spending more money on more police, but because the police services branch are running it. That's all.

MR. BLENCOE: Just a quick point, Madam Chairman. Yesterday during the debate on gaming, I asked the Attorney-General about those groups that were eligible to participate in achieving funds from the gambling casinos that exist today. I asked the Attorney-General whether they had to be registered

[ Page 1300 ]

charities. Registered charities, of course, come under heavy scrutiny by Revenue Canada and are monitored and supervised. It's very hard to become a registered charity.

In this morning's paper, the Great Canadian Casino company advertised where the proceeds were to go for their gambling operation. I note that many of the organizations listed there are clearly not charitable organizations, registered or otherwise. For instance — and no reflection on the organizations here — an organization I'm sure the Attorney-General is well aware of is the Victoria A.M. club. They're well-known business people in this community who are obviously . . .

HON. B.R. SMITH: Supporters.

MR.BLENCOE: . . . supporters of yours, yes — who are gathering funds from casinos but are clearly not a registered charity.

Given my comments that I was concerned that anybody could established a non-profit society, which is different from a charity, and given that the screening process currently in place by your ministry is virtually non-existent . . .

MR. WILLIAMS: Be charitable.

MR. BLENCOE: Be charitable!

. . . it's quite clear that behind the scenes those involved in crime could establish a non-profit society and profit by revenues generated by these casinos. I'm wondering if the minister could comment upon that, and if indeed he's considered that kind of situation.

HON. B.R. SMITH: You're certainly correct that they don't have to be charities registered for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. But we have some perfectly good charities, such as NCHS charity society in Nanaimo, which runs a commercial bingo operation, and a very successful one, and it gives its profits, after it gives money to charity, to another very worthy cause. I don't protest that. Okay?

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question that does not relate to gambling. I think we should move on to other issues.

Shortly before the election campaign — in fact, on September 12, 1986 — the Attorney-General announced that he had established a Provincial Committee for Police-Visible Minority Relations, and all sorts of wonderful people involved in ethnic communities were appointed to that, and they were to give the ministry a report with respect to the recommendations of the Provincial Symposium on Multicultural and Multiracial Policing hosted by the Attorney-General in March 1986. Could the Attorney-General please advise the House of the status of that committee? When can we expect a report? Have they even met to date?

HON. B. R. SMITH: I know that this committee is active and that it meets regularly and currently. The committee is chaired by Robin Bourne. It has had a number of meetings, and I'm sure that it will be reporting. I haven't received a report from that committee, but I expect to do so. I know that its goals were to increase the opportunities for visible minorities and women to become police officers, to reduce the possibility of racial prejudice affecting police duties, and to enhance community understanding of the law and the role of the police and promote visible minority participation in programs. Those last two were of particularly acute concern in this province in the past two years.

I can remember having meetings with Mr. Sharma — the consul-general, whom I spoke to again last evening — about difficulties that his community faced, real difficulties of considerable bigotry on the part of other communities toward his community. We are most sensitive of those problems, and particularly desire — as I said the other day — to recruit more police from all visible minority communities.

MR. SIHOTA: I was surprised that the Attorney-General did not make reference to this committee the other day when I asked the question during question period, and I thought perhaps it had been forgotten.

I want to quickly raise an issue that flows from that. You talk about Mr. Sharma — an issue that relates to the Sikh community. One of the difficulties faced by that community, which wishes to have people join a police force, is that there are regulations in place with respect to beards and turbans — particularly beards. It is against the regulations to have a beard and be a police officer. As a consequence of that regulation — and I'm not sure if it's provincial or local — there is a limit on the number of Sikhs who consider themselves eligible for this job. Will the Attorney-General make a commitment to review that regulation, to allow for people to wear turbans and beards in the performance of police duties?

HON. B.R. SMITH: I think it is one of the things being reviewed, but it's not just being reviewed by the committee on police-visible minority relations. It's also being reviewed, I'm told, by the police chiefs, and it is also a matter that the Solicitor-General is considering. I know; I made inquiries as to what the RCMP were doing with exactly the same policy. I do not wish to have a different policy on these matters from the RCMP. It makes absolutely no sense to have one policy for them as contract provincial police and then a different policy for the city of Vancouver. So, yes, we are reviewing that.

MR. SIHOTA: It just seems to me to be silly, if one is indeed interested in greater recruitment, to be waiting to see whether or not the federal level acts or doesn't act. I've pointed out, in the case of at least one ethnic community in this province, the way you can increase recruitment, and I don't think there is any need to sit back and wait, if I understood the comments of the Attorney-General correctly.

Madam Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Attorney-General for his forthrightness in handling some of the questions that we raised today, and also his officials for being in attendance and being able to provide some information at a moment's notice during the course of the estimates. I have no further questions on vote 12.

Vote 12 approved.

Vote 13: ministry operations, $281,398,956 approved.

Vote 14: Attorney-General, emergency assistance, $2,403,500 — approved.

[ Page 1301 ]

Vote 15: Attorney-General, judiciary, $16,223,941 approved.

Vote 16: Attorney-General, corrections, $125,553,653 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Mr. Barnes tabled a document.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.