[ Page 6341 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

National sales tax. Mr. Harcourt –– 6341

Discriminatory entrance limits in independent schools. Ms. A. Hagen –– 6342

Sale of New Westminster property. Mr. Williams –– 6342

Speed limit on highways. Mr. Crandall –– 6343

Lease of former Highways camp. Mr. Guno –– 6343

Highways maintenance. Mr. Barlee –– 6343

Ministerial Statement

Fish-farming. Hon. Mr. Savage 6344

Mr. G. Hanson

Low-level military flights. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm replies to question –– 6345

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

On vote [3: minister's office –– 6345

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Guno

Mr. Clark

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's a pleasure for me to introduce another visiting minister today, from the Northwest Territories. Would you welcome Hon. Tom Butters, who is Minister of Housing and Government Services. He makes his home in Inuvik. I know you'll all want to give him a warm welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Sitting in the Speaker's gallery today are the Belgian Ambassador, His Excellency Count Jean-François de Liedekerke, and his wife Countess de Liedekerke, and also the consul-general of Belgium, Mr. Michel Delfosse and Mrs. Delfosse. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It's a pleasure for me today to introduce two friends from Dawson Creek, seated in the members' gallery. His Worship Mayor Bob Trail is a strong supporter of mine and of this government and an enthusiastic supporter of our decentralization initiative. With Mayor Trail is the city administrator, Harald Hansen. Please join with me in giving them a warm welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: May I be the first to welcome to the Legislature today some of the members of the British Columbia Professional Firefighters' Association, many of whom are here. I particularly want to give a welcome to Keith Watson from Fernie, Jack Watson, who is with the Cranbrook fire department, and Ken Skretting, who is with the Cranbrook-Kimberley Airport fire department. Please join me in making them welcome today.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, from the government side of the House, I too would like to welcome the British Columbia Professional Firefighters' Association and the executive members who met with us this afternoon. I was going to be cheeky and ask how many of them had made the calendar, but I won't. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, each year we have in association with Law Day a contest for essays and debates on topics relating to the Law Day ceremonies. Today in our gallery we have a number of winners of the Law Day essay and debate contest. They are: Suzanne Kennedy of North Vancouver, Tai-Li Letendre of Prince Rupert, Craig Moseley of Surrey, Erin Lemmon of Kamloops, Jason Ford of Victoria, Duncan Moore of Nelson, Cindy Van Ginkel of Coquitlam, Nicolas Nadeau of Nelson and Ira Parghi of Kamloops. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. PARKER: In the gallery today are three regional managers from the British Columbia Forest Service here to watch the goings-on. I'd ask the House to welcome Ken Ingram, the Vancouver regional manager; Peter Levy, the Kamloops regional manager; and Mike Carlson, the Cariboo regional manager.

MR. RABBITT: Today in the gallery I have two longtime friends from the great little city of Merritt in the beautiful constituency of Yale-Lillooet. They are independent lumbermen, and I would like the House to give a very warm welcome to Tara Singh Ghog and his son Surinder Ghog,

MR. SIHOTA: I have several introductions I would like to make. Firstly, following on my good friend the member for Yale-Lillooet, Tara Ghog is with us today. Tara came to Canada in 1940, and settled, as many people in the Sikh community do, in Paldi, and established quite a reputation for himself in Hillcrest, where he worked with most of the pioneers in the Punjabi and East Indian community. Mr. Ghog subsequently moved to Kamloops and ultimately to Merritt. All of us in our ethnic community are very pleased with the accomplishments of Mr. Ghog, who has established himself as an outstanding businessmen. It certainly gives me a great deal of pleasure to give a bit of a tribute to Mr. Ghog and his son Surinder. I'll tell my father-in-law about this later.

I would also like to welcome Julianna Stefanescu, a hard worker during our campaign, who is here as well in the galleries. I also note that Bob Clark, regional director for Sooke, is here as well. Would all members please join me in welcoming both of them as well.

MR. PETERSON: On behalf of the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) and myself, I'd like to introduce a very good friend, the very dynamic president of the Aldergrove Kinsmen Club, an individual who in his own mind thinks he's a chef extraordinaire, Mr. Rich Coleman. Please join us in giving him a very warm welcome.

Oral Questions

NATIONAL SALES TAX

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question to the Premier. Two times this month I've asked the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) to communicate the strong opposition of British Columbians to the Mulroney government's national sales tax, and the minister refused. Now the federal government has decided to proceed unilaterally. Is the Premier now prepared to pick up the phone and call Michael Wilson to tell him once and for all that British Columbians are opposed to the national sales tax?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Leader of the Opposition must be aware that there have been numerous discussions, not only between the Minister of Finance for British Columbia and the Minister of Finance federally, but with all of the other provinces as well. All along, our position has been that we would listen, but we would not commit to or be party to any new tax that would affect the economy of British Co-

[ Page 6342 ]

lumbia in a negative way or be regressive in its application. We continue to take that stance.

As I have pointed out to those who have asked me — not only those involved in government, federally or otherwise, but people from the media too — if the federal government took a lesson from what our government did in 1983, 1984 and 1985 and since then they wouldn't have to consider these massive tax increases now. The Leader of the Opposition should be aware of what action we took then through restraint and cutting back on the size of government. I recognize that the opposition was very much opposed then to the restraint program and the actions we took which put us in such good fiscal shape now — the best in Canada.

Hopefully, the recognition by the Leader of the Opposition, through the phrasing of the question, that such tax increases — federal or provincial — place a tremendous burden on our people and cause inflation to occur, will see the NDP support what we have been attempting to do all along: to establish for us in British Columbia an example to the rest of Canada of what fiscal responsibility in government is really all about.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT: The Premier has caught the Minister of Finance's gobbledegook disease. We know where Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Alberta are at; they've said no. We don't know where B.C. stands. This government's refusal to say no has led to the unilateral action of the federal government. Once more, to the Premier: are you prepared to stand up and say no to the national sales tax? Yes or no?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will stand up and repeat it. We have all along taken the position that we would not support a new federal tax that is regressive or that would somehow affect the economy of this province in a negative way. I've said it before, I'll say it again, and I'll continue to say it.

At the same time, we recognize that the federal government and governments elsewhere in Canada have not been as effective as we have in bringing the budget under control, and they've allowed things to go to the point where they are faced with some terrible choices. The choice, as I see it, and as I read in the paper — and I assume, since you get much of your information from the paper, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, that this is correct.... The position of the Leader of the Opposition is that we should continue to spend, that there shouldn't be cutbacks at the federal level, and that a deficit, even a growing deficit, is in fact okay. I've heard the same thing from the finance critic. We don't view it this way. We say deficits at the federal level such as we see today are very destructive and will need to be paid for one day by our children or our children's children.

My recommendation to the federal government, since I've been asked the question, is that they look at what has been done in British Columbia over the past number of years, that they learn from what we've done and do likewise. They can then prevent these massive tax increases and bring about a balanced budget and a strong economy for the country, such as we have here in our province.

DISCRIMINATORY ENTRANCE LIMITS
IN INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

MS. A. HAGEN: Yesterday the Minister of Education denied that funded independent schools that refuse Canadian students admission on racial grounds are practising racial discrimination. Since the schools in question admit that they limit enrolment on racial grounds, can the minister explain why he exempts such discriminatory behaviour from his policy?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would suggest that the member read the legislation rather than interpret it for her political reasons.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would like to ask the minister whether he endorses the use of public money for schools that practise racial discrimination, and whether he will use his power over accreditation of these schools to ensure that racial discrimination is not practised in publicly funded schools.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member has interpreted their limiting of students as racial discrimination. They limit all kinds of students in the independent schools. They are only partially funded by public money; they have to raise the rest of the money themselves. They have some choices about enrolment, and they limit their enrolment for all kinds of students; it's not just the racial discrimination that the member chooses to point out. Unlike the non-democratic party, we think people should have some choice.

SALE OF NEW WESTMINSTER PROPERTY

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Government Management Services. Last week you indicated that you would provide detailed appraisal information from the Enterprise Corporation on the New Westminster waterfront land flip. Can you advise the House when you are providing that information?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I'm sure if the member would read the weekend paper, he would see that an analysis was done with the B.C. Assessment Authority. At the time of the sale, the property was valued by the B.C. Assessment Authority in the neighbourhood of $800,000. The corporation sold the property for $2.2 million. At a later date, in March 1988, on rezoning, the property was reappraised by the Assessment Authority at $2,120,000 — $80,000 less than the sale.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister doesn't seem to understand the difference between appraisals and assessments. The appraisal would be by professional people regarding the value, not an assessment with respect to taxation. The Bank of America indicated at the time of sale that the value was over $11 million.

[ Page 6343 ]

Do you have any material of the same date that would indicate otherwise?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Our internal valuation indicated a value slightly less than the sale price. If the member has any information whatsoever that the property was valued at $11 million, I'm sure the House would appreciate it being tabled.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we would be more than willing to provide the telephone number for the Bank of America Canada. They have that information. Could the minister provide the House with any copies of the advertisements for the sale of the site?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I would have to take that question on notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, keep looking, Mr. Minister.

SALE OF WESTWOOD LAND

MR. WILLIAMS: To the same minister, Mr. Speaker. Hundreds of acres are now for sale at Westwood Plateau. I think it's some 400 hectares. Can we be assured that none of the privateers involved in the New Westminster land flip will obtain the Westwood lands?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Dirks), I'm sure, will be making an announcement on the sale of Westwood sometime shortly. The various proposals are currently being evaluated, and the minister's staff are currently negotiating with one of the lead proponents.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can we be assured that you are not going to make the same errors that you made on Expo and the New Westminster waterfront? Can we be assured that it will be sold in more than one parcel, and that we will keep at least 20 percent of it for social housing?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The Minister of Crown Lands will make all that information known to this House shortly; it's future action at this time.

SPEED LIMIT ON HIGHWAYS

MR. CRANDALL: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. A couple of weeks ago I asked if the speed limits on the highways across the province that are presently 90 km/h could be raised to 100 km/h. I would like to know if we have a decision on that matter.

HON. MR. VANT: I can sense that's a very important question. I'm not too sure how urgent it is, but currently....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANT: Yes, I guess some people are in a hurry to get from point A to point B. But as this government constantly improves our highway infrastructure, there are certain sections of highway.... Because of this government over many years, I can say that certain sections of highway, even in the interior of the province, are in such good shape that the speed limit — subject to safety concerns and proper signage — certainly could be raised. One section of highway that comes to mind, in the neighbourhood of Sicamous, is a very wide, straight highway, and certainly a higher speed limit would be in order.

LEASE OF FORMER HIGHWAYS CAMP

MR. GUNO: I have a slightly tougher question for the Transportation and Highways minister. The former Highways camp on Meziadin Lake has been leased by the local highways contractor. I'm told that the camp is being developed as a trailer court and used for maintenance of forest vehicles. Has the minister decided that this is unfair competition to local businesses, and is he taking steps to recover a level of effective public subsidy so that all businesses in the Stewart area can compete on a level playing-field?

HON. MR. VANT: I believe the camp that the member is referring to is the one very close to the Meziadin junction, where Highway 37A takes off from Highway 37. I find the question amazing, because a lot of the contractors have complained about the very high rent paid to B.C. Buildings Corporation for some of these facilities. I'm happy to hear that the facility they're renting is fully utilized to be of service to the total community, and I don't think it is unfair competition.

HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE

MR. BARLEE: This is a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways concerning privatization. The minister has repeatedly claimed that service would be maintained after privatization. Would the minister confirm that this is not entirely correct and that British Columbians in isolated areas of contract area 9, which is around Grand Forks, who used to have the road cleared by ministry crews on a fee-for-service basis, are now not being served by the local contractor for any fee? He absolutely refuses.

HON. MR. VANT: I'm quite surprised to hear that allegation by the second member for Boundary-Similkameen concerning the Grand Forks area. I will certainly take note of that. It's the policy of this government that the contractors provide all the services previously provided by the government. Perhaps the member is referring to the plowing of private driveways in the area. Indeed, for senior citizens and the disabled it is the policy that these services be provided absolutely free of charge, as was the case in the past. Regarding other potential customers, most of the contractors are very happy to take on any of that additional work on the signed plow-board basis, such as the ministry did in the past.

[ Page 6344 ]

Ministerial Statement

FISH-FARMING

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, today I have received a copy of a report commissioned by the British Columbia branch of the Consumers' Association of Canada. This report is entitled "Recommendations From the Task Force Studying the Changing Production of Fish." I would like to commend the Consumers' Association at the outset on the extensive work that they and the associated task forces have undertaken in order to prepare this report.

The task force makes a number of recommendations in four broad areas: (1) the concern for safe food; (2) the need for consumer education; (3) increased inspection; and (4) environmental protection. This report reinforces my commitment to an action plan for product safety that I had been working on in conjunction with my federal and provincial colleagues. I have undertaken several initiatives in this regard.

As I announced in January 1987, a comprehensive regulatory framework for the inspection of B.C. farm salmon is being implemented. I am pleased to report that parts of this program are already in place, and that it will soon be fully operational.

I have provided a $50,000 grant to the B.C. Salmon Farmers' Association to implement a quality-assurance program. This program includes independent laboratory analysis of random samples of farm products by an international firm so as to ensure that consumer confidence is warranted and maintained.

I have also provided financial support for the development of rapid on-farm tests for antibiotic residues. These tests will supplement the current system of monitoring by allowing the farmer to ensure fish stocks are free of residues before they are slaughtered. This will ensure that treated fish are not harvested and delivered for processing.

[2:30]

1 have been working closely with my federal colleagues — in particular, the Hon. Mr. Siddon, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans — and I expect that Canada will soon take some initiatives regarding the existing regulations controlling fish-feed composition, antibiotic residue testing and registration of drugs for use in aquaculture. In addition, two new provincial initiatives will be before cabinet very shortly: the first is regarding aquaculture licensing; and the second will require additional affidavits of antibiotic use that will require reports be provided at time of delivery of fish to the processing system. Draft regulations and an order-in-council are being prepared.

I'm sure you will all agree that this government acknowledges the paramount right of the public to food quality in the marketplace. We are concerned about safety for our own consumers, and food quality is an essential component of our strategy for export marketing.

As a further demonstration of our commitment to environmental and consumer concerns, this past weekend saw a cooperative federal-provincial enforcement effort relative to the proper harvesting, handling and transport of fish and shellfish to processing plants. This enforcement effort will remind industry that rules governing harvesting and safe handling of seafood, particularly shellfish, are in place, and must be followed if companies are to continue in the food business.

The aquaculture industry must comply with all existing legislation to protect the environment and the consumer. There are extensive testing, monitoring, licensing and public input processes governing aquaculture. We are fine-tuning all these to better serve the consumer and the industry.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I again commend the task force of the Consumers' Association for its undertaking. The concerns of the association are duly noted, and systems are in place to safeguard the consumer interest. As recommended in this report, we are continuing to refine these systems in a timely manner to ensure they continue to protect the consumer and the foreign markets for our fish products.

MR. G. HANSON: With all due respect to the minister, this statement falls far short of the action required to protect the wild stocks of this province and to protect the consumer.

We have very serious concerns about the disease transfer that may be occurring from pen-reared fish that have been released, as a result of storms and accident, into the wild stocks that are traveling through the Strait of Georgia at the moment. We are very aware of the Norwegian experience, and they put far more resources — scientific and governmental — into protecting and administering fish-farming in Norway. There's totally inadequate protection for the consumer. One step is to require that pen-reared aquaculture fish be labelled. That would ensure that the consumer would know precisely what is occurring.

Recommendations to the minister. First, label fish in the marketplace that are pen-reared and not wild stock. Second, there must be an administrative framework. As the ombudsman pointed out, there is no legislative framework within which aquaculture is administered. The consumer is not well served; the environment is not well served. The Norwegian experience in the transfer of parasites from smolts to adult stocks and infestation of rivers, which has killed entire river systems in Norway that had to be poisoned with rotenone and then restocked with other fish, is an experience we don't want to have in British Columbia.

We have another concern on the brink of being entertained by this government: the whole issue of offshore fish-processing. We want all our fish processed onshore. We don't want them.... The Alaska example was to start by having floating fish-processing plants and moving to aquaculture farms. Now those fish processing plants process both wild stocks and aquaculture-reared fish, and the shoreworkers' jobs have gone offshore. We don't want that to happen in British Columbia.

[ Page 6345 ]

The point of the Consumers' Association of Canada is well taken, as is the ombudsman's and the United Fishermen and Allied Workers', that the people of this province are not getting protection for the wild stocks, nor are they getting a legislative framework for aquaculture. The whole area of antibiotics and the use of drugs.... This effort between you and the federal government is totally and completely inadequate.

In Norway there's legislation on the size of fish farms, density, proximity to estuaries, rotation time — they must be rotated every two years to a different site. There are umpteen different things that you could do to serve the people rather than give us a little press release like this.

LOW-LEVEL MILITARY FLIGHTS

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Last Thursday the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) asked if I had contacted Ottawa about a proposal to have low-flying U.S. reconnaissance planes at Comox. I responded then that I had not heard of this, and that probably it was another rumour, but that I would take the question on notice and get further information.

I now have the information after speaking to the minister responsible in Ottawa. There is no such proposal for Comox, but there will be reconnaissance flights from Seattle to the Northwest Territories. They fly over non-populated areas as they cross B.C., except that they will come within 20 miles or thereabouts of Houston. These flights will occur four days per year. I thought perhaps that, in order to put the people of Comox more at ease following the question and the impression, it should be answered now.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Before proceeding to Committee of Supply, I would ask leave on behalf of the Select Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for that committee to convene at 3:45 p.m.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 13: minister's office, $254,015 (continued).

MR. SIHOTA: I want to continue with the comments that I was making this morning to the Attorney-General with respect to his estimates. I want to continue to respond generally to the comments that he made this morning before asking some fairly specific questions with respect to different components of his budget. Before we left, I was talking about the recommendation of the Hughes commission.

Now I want to move on to the matter of family maintenance and the enforcement program that has been established by the province. As the Attorney-General fully knows, we on this side of the House supported the introduction of that legislation and the implementation of that program. Indeed, I offered several suggestions during the debate on that legislation to the former Attorney-General with respect to ways to improve the family maintenance enforcement program.

Over the past year or so, we've had the opportunity to assess the effectiveness of that family maintenance enforcement program. I think it is fair to say that the program is going through a number of growing pains. I don't want to stand up here and be wholly critical of that program, except to say that it is now emerging that there are some serious gaps with respect to enforcement of maintenance orders in British Columbia. During his opening comments on this matter, the Attorney-General, in response to comments made by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), alluded to his comments as they relate to family maintenance.

I want to tell the Attorney-General what my experiences were as counsel who practised in Esquimalt. That experience led me to believe that there is indeed an inordinate demand placed upon counsel in this province to deal with the incredible galaxy of maintenance orders in British Columbia that remain unenforced. Women particularly, and single parents generally, often get maintenance orders from the courts that they have no ability to follow through on or act upon. Often, as the Attorney-General has admitted, there is default with respect to those maintenance orders. Once default occurs, the injured party — usually a woman, a single parent — then has to go to court to seek enforcement of those orders.

All of us in this Legislature believe that there must be a better mechanism to allow for the enforcement of those maintenance orders so that single parents do not have to engage expensive counsel or go through incredible delay, litigation and harassment from the respondent in order to secure their enforcement order.

I can think of literally hundreds of examples that I had to deal with when I was practising law, where inevitably the client had no means to pay for legal services. At that point, counsel was left with a choice. They could turn their client away, which I would say is wholly inappropriate; secondly, they could do it for nothing, which most counsel did; and thirdly, they could canvass the possibility of legal aid, which was generally unavailable. So it really left the second alternative available to both counsel and the women.

I would suggest that most counsel in British Columbia took it upon themselves to deal as much as they could with the myriad of enforcement orders, regulations and other matters ancillary to maintenance orders. I don't know if anybody has ever calculated out the level of those pro-bono services provided by counsel.

The hope was that the family maintenance enforcement program would fill that gap to help both

[ Page 6346 ]

single parents and children in need of custody payments. We will, during estimates, be building a case that there are serious deficiencies and gaps in the family maintenance program. I'm not going to suggest that the program is a failure. I'm going to suggest that it's going through some growing pains, and those growing pains require two things: (1) better resources to that program and (2) legislative intervention from the Attorney-General's ministry to make that program better administered.

Our comments today about that program will be about the type of legislative and policy changes that ought to be embraced by the Attorney-General's department.

If there was one issue which motivated me to get involved in politics, it was this issue: the number of clients I had to deal with in a street-front office and the incredible volume of cases.

Over the years, this government has paid incredible lip-service to that volume and has said they will do all sorts of things. If one was to refer back to speeches made by the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy), by the former Attorney-General and by the current Attorney-General it would become evident that it's taken seven or eight years to arrive at the program we've arrived at now. I will be pointing out specifically, later on in estimates, how that program has still not met the need.

The point I want to make now is in relation to what the Attorney-General said this morning. He said, with some level of surprise, that there were 17,000 calls to their toll-free number in relation to requests for family maintenance.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I didn't say that.

MR. SIHOTA: The Attorney-General denies that there were 17,000 calls on the toll-free number. The Attorney-General says that he wasn't surprised.

It seems to me that the government ought not to have been caught as if that number is large. Take out the element of surprise, and let's just deal with it head-on. Anyone who knew the extent of the problem would have designed a family maintenance program that was capable of dealing with the volume of work that has now come to the government's attention. Surprise or no surprise, the point still remains that 17,000 is what one would have expected.

When you compare the measure of calls that this province has received with the measure of resources that the province has put into the family maintenance program, and add to that the gaps that exist within legal aid and within the legislation itself, it is obvious that there still remain a large number of single parents and children out there who are not being covered by either the enforcement program or legal aid and who find themselves in the same bind that we were endeavouring to correct in the first place. Indeed, one could argue with some persuasion that the sole purpose of the family maintenance program has really been to try to deal with that element of the population that is on social assistance and not with those who are not on social assistance but remain as families and parents of modest means.

[2:45]

To be fair, I would congratulate the government on the decision to provide some additional funding for legal aid to provide for some flexibility in the criteria. I will grant you that. The Premier looks astonished. I think the Premier, if he has read previous debates that we have had in estimates, will understand that where credit is due, I have been prepared to give it to that ministry.

What that allotment will provide for — and I don't want to get into the quantum of it, be it $500,000; I don't want to belittle the amount — makes only a minor dent in the full breadth of the problem. In fact, many of those 17,000 people who have called the toll-free number will continue to remain unserviced. We will, through example, go through this during the course of estimates and point out to the Attorney-General where those gaps exist. In fact, I find it somewhat disturbing that only 900 clients, according to the Attorney-General this morning, have been serviced in that six-month period under the program, after the issuance of some 5,000 kits.

The comments that I have made to date of course focus only on the difficulties faced by applicants who make their reference to court to seek maintenance. Again, there are difficulties that ought to be attended to by the government in fairness to the respondent of the application. I would venture to say — and I think the former Attorney-General and I have shared our views with respect to respondents — that someone earning $700 or $800 a month, living in Vernon, who is faced with a variance order to increase maintenance ought to be entitled to the same level of access to the courts as someone who is seeking to vary that order upwards. In that regard, the program is totally inadequate. The program is also inadequate in terms of the type of documentation it provides to the respondent as a way of ascertaining the quantum of that individual's assets. In any event, we shall be dealing with the matter of family maintenance and the enforcement program in some depth.

Turning to other comments that the Attorney-General made in his opening remarks as we launch into these estimates: the government talked, through the minister, about victim assistance programs in British Columbia. I would agree that if there was a trademark to the previous Attorney-General, it was indeed his work in terms of trying to make something out of the victim assistance program in British Columbia.

I have a couple of comments that I want to make with respect to victim assistance. First of all, I want to put the Attorney-General on notice that during estimates here we will be very specifically pointing out to him where there are horrendous gaps in terms of victim assistance programs in British Columbia and where the priority in respect to allocation of resources ought to be but is not directed.

One of these areas.... I would serve notice to ensure that we have full and frank debate in keeping with the kind of tradition we developed with the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith). I

[ Page 6347 ]

will be talking in some depth about sexual assault. In my view, and I will be elaborating on these comments later on, I cannot think of another crime that offends me as much as sexual assault. I cannot think of another behaviour pattern that we are seeing emerging more and more in society and that seems to be more prevalent, and where we are simply not putting in adequate resources. There is inadequate funding for assisting the victim of sexual assault, be it a woman or be it a child, who has been left with the scars and trauma of that experience. During our presentation we will be talking about the inadequacies of funding around various regions of British Columbia in that regard. I want to put the Attorney-General on notice as to that aspect of the government's victim assistance program.

I also want to put him on notice that we will be talking during these estimates about the Criminal Injury Compensation Act. I know that the Attorney-General has received representations from groups respect to amendments to that legislation. Indeed, I was somewhat disappointed that during his opening remarks the Attorney-General preferred not to talk about the requirement for expanded legislation. I will be canvassing the Attorney-General in that regard, as we will in the matter of youth gangs in British Columbia, in particular, the actions of the government with respect to the termination of funding to some groups. Also, what I see as a real problem in British Columbia is the amount of ethnic tension that exists, particularly in urban centres, and the inadequacy of response through community programs by the Ministry of Attorney-General.

The other comment that I have, with respect to the Attorney-General's opening remarks, deals with legal aid. I don't think it is a hidden matter that I have put considerable stock on the matter of legal aid and over my two and a half years have encouraged the government to take action. Again, it is my intention during the course of the estimates, which will take us the next couple of days, to talk about very specific gaps in legal aid funding in British Columbia and the matter of who actually gets access to the courts.

The case that we'll be putting from this side of the House is that those who can afford to go to court got access to the courts, and those people who are eligible for legal aid get access to the courts, but in between remains a large....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I see my time is up. Would one of you guys just tell me....

MR. BARNES: I would just like to give the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew an opportunity to continue. I have some remarks I would like to make myself, but I think it's appropriate that he be allowed to continue without interruption at this point.

MR. SIHOTA: In response to legal aid, there is a series of deficiencies. As much as the Attorney-General would prefer to provide us with statistics with respect to 56 percent increases over a five-year period, the fact remains — and I note that the Attorney-General did not refer to this — that the government has not acted upon the recommendations of the 1984 task force to date, and again has not acted upon the recommendations of the Hughes commission with respect to full funding for a comprehensive legal aid program in British Columbia.

The Attorney-General and I are both aware of what the statute requires in terms of coverage to individuals. It is certainly — and I would grant him this — an improvement with respect to the family area. I can remember debates we had two years ago in the family area. But there remain incredible gaps still within the family area where legal aid is not provided, and we will go through each one of those. There remain incredible gaps with respect to civil litigation. There remain incredible gaps with respect to administrative law.

One example of that is looking at someone who has to deal with a bureaucracy like Workers' Compensation. The person is injured at work and has no income coming in. That person can ill afford to go to a lawyer to seek counsel and guidance in dealing with a huge bureaucracy that is full of legal entanglements but cannot then get access to legal aid to assist them with that type of a problem. So in the area of administrative law there are incredible gaps with respect to legal aid. The point is that none of that should come as news to this government. Since 1984 they have received representations with respect to legal aid and have failed to act.

Most noteworthy — because I see he is here — of course is the representation the bar made to the Premier shortly after his election in December 1986. I still remember, with clarity in my own mind, the bulletin coming out from the Law Society at the time with a great picture of the smiling Premier shaking hands with all the representatives of the Legal Aid Society.

In the honeymoon period, after the 1986 election, people believed that there would be consultation; people believed that there would be open government; people believed that there would be a government that would listen. The government at that point had a tremendous opportunity before it to act on the recommendations of the 1984 task force; to listen to what the legal community wanted in terms of services for people — not fees for lawyers, and I want to underline that point — and this government chose in the subsequent fiscal year, 1987-88, not to provide increased funding for legal aid.

Shame on the Premier! He violated that trust that was established with the legal community and himself during the course of that meeting in December 1986. At that point people honestly felt that this government was prepared to make some commitments to make sure that people in this province who are not covered by legal aid get those basic coverages.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier says that that is a pretty weak argument. I would invite the Premier to

[ Page 6348 ]

enter into this debate if he says that this is a pretty weak argument. It is not weak to say that this government reneged on its promise. Indeed, that is the record. It is the truth, and I would defy the Premier to show otherwise.

The Premier has, if he remembers, the actual submission made at that time to the Premier by the Legal Services Society and the bar association. But the Premier again chose to ignore it and gloss it over with some type of public relations imagery that would be transmitted on the airwaves to create the impression that the government is interested. Nonetheless there was no action taken that year, the following year and even this year, as we will prove during the course of examination of the Attorney-General's estimates. The only reason we see some movement on the legal aid budget this year is that the society on its own initiative increased the tariff and forced the government through its actions in August 1988 to cover both the increase in tariff and the expansion of services.

[3:00]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Very poor debate, very poor argument, weak debate.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier says it is weak debate. I want him to know that I will be taking the liberty of mailing these comments to the bench — to the bar — so that they're aware that the Premier now considers the arguments they made at the time to be weak.

While the Premier is here, maybe we should go one step further and talk about another issue which the Attorney-General did not touch upon, at least to the best of my recollection — albeit, I missed a portion of his comments — and that is the matter of native title. I want to serve the government with notice that we intend to deal with vigour during the course of the estimates with the matter of native title.

I would hope that the Premier, as a consequence of his encounter at Musqueam, has now had his eyes opened with respect to the need to deal with that issue. There is before the government, I'm sure, a report by the Canadian Bar Association, which highlights....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier wonders why he's getting the flak instead of the Attorney-General. Let me explain why. He's getting the flak, first, because he's seldom in the House, and secondly, because if there was another example of violation of trust on behalf of this government with respect to aboriginal title, it occurred shortly after the call of the last provincial election, when for three days the Premier spent some time with the aboriginal people of this province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Let's hear it. It's been weeks so far; maybe you'll improve with age.

MR. SIHOTA: Three days in a secluded area — with the hope that the Premier would begin to have some understanding not only of native culture but of their claim to title in British Columbia. If the government was not able to see it through the sharing of that information and the understanding of different cultures in matters of title, it could from the economics of the argument understand why.

It is noteworthy that during the Attorney-General's comments in his opening remarks, there was no reference to the matter of native title. Yet both the Attorney-General and I are well aware that there are studies showing that billions of dollars of investment are being held up in British Columbia because of the unresolved nature of native title. We will canvass the extent of this with the Attorney-General. Millions of dollars are being unnecessarily tied up in litigation through the courts by the Attorney-General's ministry.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What do you propose?

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier asks what I propose. Third, the matter of title ought to be negotiated instead of litigated. Instead of a policy of legal harassment and legal confrontation, the government ought to be engaging in a process of negotiation. That's the positive alternative.

If he has not yet seen it or come to understand it during the opening days of the 1986 election campaign and all the discussion that we have had in the House, and if he has not yet seen it in the representations that the Musqueam made over the weekend, surely he will.... If he takes the time to sit through what I would suggest will be measured debate in this Legislature with respect to that matter.... I would encourage him to sit through it, because maybe that educational process will allow the penny to drop and the government to shift its policy in dealing with aboriginal title in British Columbia.

That concludes my opening remarks on what the Attorney-General had to say on setting the beginnings of what I'm sure would be a good debate on the Attorney-General's estimates. Let me say this as well: I take great pleasure in the fact that over the past few years the former Attorney-General and I have tried to keep the level of debate in keeping with what, I think, many would like to see in this House. It's my intention to try to make sure that that happens during these estimates with the new Attorney-General. I would, of course, expect the same from the current Attorney-General in terms of style and sharing of information.

I want to start now with some questions to the Attorney-General about portions of his budget. I note that the allocation for the Expropriation Compensation Board in British Columbia is some $315,000. The total payment for salaries is in the neighbourhood of $155,000. My first question to the Attorney-General in relation to the Expropriation Compensation Board is: could he advise the House how many cases were heard last year?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the Attorney-General answers the question, the second member for Richmond requests leave to make an introduction.

[ Page 6349 ]

Leave granted.

MR. LOENEN: On behalf of the Premier and me, it's indeed a delight to welcome a group of ESL students from Palmer School. I had occasion to be in their classroom recently to talk about government and democracy, and I can tell you that these students, new arrivals though they are, have a great deal of appreciation for our democratic processes. They are accompanied by their teacher, Miss Hislop. In addition to that, Mr. Kuo, the father of one student, is here from Taiwan. Would the House make all of them very welcome.

In addition, with us in the precincts this afternoon from Point Grey are two strong supporters of Social Credit and our government, Bill and Gladys Nesbitt. I ask the House to welcome them.

HON. S.D. SMITH: just before I get to the question relating to the Expropriation Compensation Board's activities, there are a couple of things I want to refer to. I know the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew was in and out of the chamber this morning, and there may be things he missed. By his remarks, I think perhaps there are.

May I start with the last first with respect to my style and that member — and indeed other members of this House — in relationship to the office of Attorney-General. I know the member was out this morning at the time I said this, and I know he would want me to share with the House that I extended to him, as critic for this portfolio, the opportunity to work cooperatively with me where he considers it appropriate. The day after my swearing in, for instance, I spent a considerable amount of time in my office with the member, sharing my views about the challenges that were then before the system — and there were some — and giving him assurances that he could avail himself of my office and our support staff for the supply of facts about matters that may be of concern to him.

As well, I had the pleasure of hosting the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew for a light breakfast but a full briefing by myself and the deputy Attorney-General prior to the news conference relating to the release of the Justice Reform Committee report, so that the member would have the opportunity to be briefed in response to the media. In addition, I invited the member to submit his nominations for the designation of Queen's Counsel. I was pleased to provide participation for him beside me at a public hearing of interested persons convened to discuss court facilities in the Western Communities and greater Victoria

I say this simply because I want to be certain there is no doubt in anyone's mind about my view of my role in this job and my style of operation. In the last couple of days in the media there has been occasional castigation of members in this House, apparently for not correcting quickly enough statements that were made which may have tended to misinform the public. The media picked up on them and ran with it; subsequently they were corrected, and there was some scolding from the media that perhaps members ought to have done that a little sooner.

With that in mind, I want to say that I know the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew issued a press release last week referring to comments I had made about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I know the release had implied.... At least, the inference drawn from it by the media was that I had been referring to Madam Justice McLachlin's decisions specifically, rather than to the Charter — as indeed was the case — in relationship to what I said about the Americanization of Canada, which is something about which I feel very strongly. I want to correct it again today. I know that this statement was made in the House again, and a cursory glance at Hansard would disclose that what I said was to suggest that the Charter does more to Americanize Canada than any other single document I could ever imagine in this country. That was the reference.

Last Friday one of the major radio stations in Vancouver picked up on that following the press release and corrected the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. I simply want to put it on the record, so we know what was being discussed.

In addition to that, today I did indeed refer to 17,000 applicants for the family maintenance enforcement program, but most certainly I did not say that it surprised me. Indeed, it didn't surprise me at all. I wouldn't want that to be left on the record.

Mr. Chairman, it's interesting that the member refers to the Gitksan case and others as legal harassment. These cases are now before the courts and were initiated by the native community in this province — very important cases. In fact, in terms of the Gitksan case, the Chief Justice of British Columbia, Mr. Justice McEachern, referred to it just yesterday or the day before as perhaps the most important case ever tried in the province of British Columbia. I find it odd that it would be characterized — or at least could be characterized — as legal harassment. I don't think I would ever characterize what's going on in the hon. Chief Justice's courtroom as legal harassment. I don't think it would be fair to him to have characterized as legal harassment what is taking place in his court and what he has called the most important case ever tried in British Columbia. I think we can do better than referring to something that important as legal harassment.

Mr. Chairman, the member referred to the Workers' Compensation Board. As I said this morning, pleased as I am with the progress we've made in relationship to legal aid, I understand fully that access to justice requires a well-funded legal aid system. And pleased as I am to have been able to persuade my colleagues and get the support of the Premier of the province and my cabinet colleagues to enhance our legal aid program as much as we have this year, I don't — by any stretch of the imagination — rest satisfied that we are doing enough. Indeed, I think we can be doing more, and I'm going to work hard to ensure that we are doing more with the understanding always that the money we are spending is sent to us by the people, and there are obviously limits on what they can send us.

[ Page 6350 ]

In relation to the Workers' Compensation Board, I should also advise members in the House — it's perhaps timely — that recently there was a decision of a pretty important nature constitutionally in the Supreme Court of Canada. I'm referring to a reference to the validity of Newfoundland's compensation act, in which the court unanimously and without hearing from the respondents or the interveners dismissed an appeal and thereby sustained the workers' compensation schemes of Newfoundland and other provinces which were being challenged.

The challenge was based on an argument that somehow depriving workers of their right to sue in the courts for accidental injury in the workplace — which is the essence of the compensation scheme — violated section 15 of the Charter of Rights, because it amounted to unequal treatment. That was the guts of the argument.

In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday relied on its earlier decision in the case of Andrews v. the Law Society of British Columbia as supporting the proposition that section 15 of the Charter deals only with discrimination based on the grounds that are enumerated in section 15, or grounds akin thereto, reflecting similar personal characteristics.

[3:15]

Mr. Chairman, this is important because this is an interpretation of section 15 which lawyers from this ministry had advanced in these and other cases, and it has now been endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada. It means that the courts will not scrutinize every distinction drawn by this and other legislatures in enacting legislation which treats one group differently from another. After all, almost every piece of legislation you can imagine treats one person differently from another. That's what legislation does; it passes legislation which enhances rights for one and consequently presumably diminishes them for others. Virtually all legislation does that. Our legislation will be now much less susceptible to judicial scrutiny under the Charter, leaving it to this and other legislatures to make the kind of public policy choices that should be left up to legislators to make without the necessity of advancing arguments to the courts justifying our enactments.

So I think, Mr. Chairman, this interpretation of section 15 is very important to our workers' compensation system and to ensuring the capacity of that system to be adequately funded and to act as the insurance scheme it was intended to be — to act on behalf of workers. It is also a strong constitutional case which I think is a sensible and commendable decision that leaves free from judicial scrutiny many social programs, such as workers' compensation, which have been enacted by legislatures in this country, including the British Columbia Legislature, for the overall benefit of our society. That decision will stand well for all of us who are interested in workers' compensation programs, because it would have been extremely difficult to operate that system had that interpretation of section 15 been accepted. I was pleased to see that.

I will be dealing in due time, as the member has requested, with my views on the effect of the Charter. Knowing full well, as I do, that the easy thing, because it is popular and the way the tide moves, is to go along with the mob and pursue notions of perhaps more judicial activism.... I understand fully, perhaps better than anyone, that it is politically unpopular to take the other point of view. It will do one political harm to take the other point of view, but I will continue to take that point of view, because I believe it to be right. If I am the last person in this province articulating that point of view, I will continue to articulate it, because I believe fundamentally that it is a position of caution, knowing as I do that the Charter is here to stay and that there is nothing we can do about it. It cautions people that there are two sides to these stories — two sides to Brown v. the Board of Education in the United States, where the same court that was given credit for opening up....

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH: If the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew will reduce the chatter, I will tell you what the other side is.

The same court that made the decision in Brown v. the Board of Education, which advanced human rights in a fundamental way, had made the opposite decision for the previous 80 years. That is what is wrong, Mr. Member, with leaving it to people who are appointed, rather than to people who are elected, to make fundamental decisions. It's a subtle distinction, but it is one that is worthy of notation.

The 1984 task force report, for the member's edification.... Indeed, I did discuss it in my opening comments, and I pointed out that in some instances we exceeded it. Of course, the Justice Reform Committee report with respect to legal aid talked about implementation over three years. I think we will be able to meet that target; certainly we have in family law already.

With respect to the Expropriation Compensation Board, the number of cases received in '88-89 was 28; the number of decisions rendered in '88-89 was three; and the number of hearings scheduled to date for '89-90 is six. The anticipated trend is to have an increase in the caseload because of the number of capital projects going on in the province relative to highways and other public works which may require expropriation.

MR. SIHOTA: The comments of the Attorney-General invite many comments in response, particularly with respect to his curious reading of history on Brown v. the Board of Education and his desire to ensure — which I also do — that the Legislature remain supreme. I was most interested in hearing his comments with respect to the notwithstanding clause. I am also most curious, as we will canvass later, about his reaction to the striking down of the Sunday opening legislation.

The question to the minister is this: if I heard correctly, then, that there were only three cases heard in

[ Page 6351 ]

'88-89 by the board, when there were 29 received.... I take it that 26 applications that were filed were resolved without the necessity of a hearing. Is that correct?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I can confirm that. In fact, what I said was that there were three decisions rendered. The board, of course, works with the parties as well to resolve the disputes.

MR. SIHOTA: It's my understanding that in '88 there were three cases heard: the Feldman decision involving the township of Langley, which was heard on October 4, 5 and 6; the Hughes decision in the city of Victoria, which was heard on November 1; and the Nygaard decision, which involved a case in the district of Surrey and was heard on December 13, 14 and 15, 1988. There was only one other case on which they actually had a hearing, and it was resolved on the fifth day of hearing. Apart from that, the remaining 25 cases were resolved without the necessity of a hearing. Would the Attorney-General agree with that interpretation?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I would not, Mr. Chairman. I would like to defer to the member for South Peace River, who wants to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It's a rare pleasure for me to have the opportunity twice in one day to introduce visitors from Dawson Creek. In the members' gallery are two very good friends from Dawson Creek, Mr. and Mrs. Heinz Goldbach. Heinz is publisher of the Peace River Block News, the daily newspaper in South Peace River.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PARKER: A very good friend from Terrace is here, Ray Tremblay, a firefighter in Terrace and one of the sponsors of the Terrace air cadet squadron. He has made the Terrace air cadet squadron tops in British Columbia, with their own aircraft, their own glider and their own headquarters and instructional hall. He's a tremendous citizen in Terrace. Would the House please make him welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the minister: of those remaining 26 cases, how many required hearings?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'll have to get the number that will be requiring hearings from the expropriation board registry.

MR. SIHOTA: To reiterate, it's my information that there were three cases where there were decisions arrived at — I've already enumerated those — plus one more where there was a hearing that sat on the fifth day. The minister gave us the '88-89 year; would he agree with me that there were no cases heard in the '87-'88 year?

HON. S.D. SMITH: What we see going on here is the following: there is a transition period in the legislation from the old Expropriation Act to the new Expropriation Act. In fact, as the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew as an up-to-date practising lawyer would know, the act was not proclaimed until December, 1987, so it would be somewhat unlikely that there would have been any matters heard under it prior to its proclamation. But there is a system, a transition period, going on and some people in fact have elected to stay under the old arbitration system, for reasons which I'm not quite certain of but which would be best known by them and their counsel. We had actually quite a backlog of old arbitrations, where we had to bring on people in the usual way by ad hoc appointment, but we're now 100 percent under the new system, or it would appear that that is the case. We don't have a backlog of those old arbitrations any longer.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the Attorney-General for confirming that there were no cases heard in the year '87-88, that in the year '88-89 there were three cases heard, and that in the year '89-90 there are six cases that may be heard. Could the minister tell us, as to the portion of the budget which is broken down as salaries, what the compensation payable to Mr. Heinrich is?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the salary is what is called — we have it recorded by way of levels — level 12, which is a deputy minister's range, but I'll get that converted. I don't have the table to convert it right at my fingertips, so I'll get it converted for the member before the hour is out.

MR. SIHOTA: While I wait for that information, could the minister also confirm, with respect to that salary level and range for deputy ministers: if a deputy minister is engaged partway through the year, would his salary then reflect a percentage of that salary paid to a deputy minister? In other words, if he worked for half a year, is it reasonable to assume that he would get a half of a year's salary, and if he worked for a quarter of a year, he would get a quarter of a year's salary?

[3:30]

HON. S.D. SMITH: That would be the usual practice. I presume that there could be contractual arrangements that might provide for a different arrangement, but that normally would be the practice, yes.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the Attorney-General advise me whether or not there are contractual relationships with Mr. Heinrich? Or is he paid the salary payable to a deputy minister?

[ Page 6352 ]

HON. S.D. SMITH: Certainly since I've been Attorney-General it's been on the basis of a level 12 payment in the normal course.

MR. SIHOTA: In a year in which there were no hearings — '87-88 — or for part of that year... The legislation was introduced in December 1987, if I remember correctly. For the fiscal year '87-88, it is my understanding that there were no hearings, which the minister has confirmed. Would he agree with me that the payment made that year to Mr. Heinrich totalled some $51,000?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Yes. In fact, the act was not introduced in December '87; it was proclaimed in December'87.

Although it predates my time in this ministry, it is my understanding that prior to the proclamation of the legislation and his taking on the responsibilities he now has, the gentleman you're referring to was with the ministry — or at least on contract, presumably to the ministry — to put together a number of things associated with start-up; for instance, putting together rules of procedures and getting in place the somewhat modest facilities they have for hearings and the like.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA: Assuming that he was working for a four-month period, he would have been paid approximately $12,000 for four months' work. Actually, he was only there for three and a half months, because the legislation was proclaimed on the day before Christmas and the office opened on December 15, 1987. Assuming that he worked from December 15, 1987, through to March 31, 1988, he would have been earning somewhere in excess of $12,000 per month to get this modest office established and to set the rules of procedures. I find that an incredible amount to pay a former cabinet minister for those types of services.

First of all, does the Attorney-General believe that it is an appropriate expenditure to open up an office and draft rules of procedure?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I guess, Mr. Chairman, we had understood that we were coming in here to debate votes 13, 14 and 15 for the fiscal year 1988-89, not matters that took place in fiscal '87-88 prior to my becoming the Attorney-General of the province.

I'm certainly not going to accept the positions being advanced by the member as fact, because for obvious reasons I simply do not have any way of corroborating them instantly. I will get that. If one wants to get information from a previous fiscal year, I think the courteous and appropriate thing to do would be to let us know so we can dig it up, or to raise it at Public Accounts, where that information is readily available. It seems to me that to pursue this line of questioning, which I think may well be out of order to begin with, is really somewhat inappropriate; but we'll do our best, if that's what the member wishes to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On that point of order, Attorney-General, the Chair is aware that you are only responsible for those expenditures in your term as Attorney-General. Sharing that with the member, we'll proceed, keeping that in mind.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will then move on to the '88-89 budget, as it relates to the expropriation board.

My point simply is this: an examination of Public Accounts, which is tabled, reveals that for that short period of time Mr. Heinrich earned a salary of $51,633, plus traveling expenses of $1,855. The following year, as the Attorney-General has indicated, the board actually arrived at decisions with respect to three cases it heard. I've given the dates of those, and my information from the board is that there was only one other hearing. So for four hearings we have this person being paid a deputy minister's salary.

Again, it seems to me a rather extravagant expenditure of taxpayers' dollars to pay someone at a deputy minister level to arrive at three decisions and hear a fourth case. Again, if I am to take the figures that the Attorney-General has provided me with for the upcoming year, it is my understanding that there are six cases that may be heard. In fact, it is my information from the board itself that no more than two hearings per month are scheduled by the government. It seems peculiar and a rather extravagant expenditure of taxpayers' dollars if we are paying someone with Mr. Heinrich's skills a deputy minister's salary to hear half a dozen cases this year.

The question to the Attorney-General is: is he prepared to re-examine the arrangement that the government has with Mr. Heinrich to assure the taxpayers that we get better value for our dollar, and that Mr. Heinrich is not kept on salary at that level to hear only a handful of cases, but rather either on a case-by-case or hourly basis, commensurate with the salary paid to counsel for this type of work? Given the number of cases we're talking about, that would take us into a much lower range of cost to the taxpayer.

The question to the minister — while I await the actual salary paid to Mr. Heinrich — is: would he agree that the arrangement ought to be changed?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The short answer is no. Perhaps a longer answer might be appropriate and it is this. The simplistic recitation of statistics often can mislead one, and it is important to know that there are activities that take place in that kind of quasi-judicial process other than simply the numerical rendition of cases actually decided.

Of the 28 cases that may be before the board now — and other matters that are going on  I think there is a fair amount of work done not only by the chairman but by those who work with him.

More importantly, I would reject out of hand the notion of a piecework process for payment of a person in the high responsibility of a quasi-judicial position. One of the reasons why this Legislature specifically and deliberately set up the expropriation board in the way it did, one of the reasons why the debate

[ Page 6353 ]

took the course it did and one of the reasons why Garde Gardom, who formerly sat in this chamber, was a strong advocate of that kind of board, was to set up in that very important area a system whereby we can have some certainty and consistency of decisions. In order to do that, we have to have some independence.

That process has generally been very well received. I don't think you can get that kind of independence by going, as the member suggests, on a kind of hire-a-judge or piecework basis for someone in the judging business; I don't accept that. I don't think that's the right way to go, and therefore the short answer to him, as to whether we would go on a piecework basis, is no.

MR. SIHOTA: Several comments in response to what the Attorney-General had to say. First, in relation to his comment that there are he, Mr. Heinrich, and others at work.... just for the Attorney-General's information, the public accounts indicate that there were payments made to other individuals who worked with Mr. Heinrich. He is the chairperson of the board and there are two part-time board members — interestingly, part-time. So other members are part-time but Mr. Heinrich is full-time. The other part-time members, public accounts would indicate, received: $33,247 in the case of Mr. Todd; and as best as we can determine, $35,125.00 went to Mr. Grover, who through his firm would have received payment.

We saw in the first year, '87-88 — which, granted, the Attorney-General is not responsible for — payments in excess of $110,000 for dealing with not one case by the expropriation board. We have seen similar payments — and I wait for the exact number from the Attorney-General — for having resolved three cases in '88-89 and having six pending.

Putting aside whether or not there were three cases decided, there may well have been 30 cases received. To be doing one case per month at that kind of salary is an incredible expenditure of money.

The fact is that there are other members of the board engaged on a part-time basis, and it would seem to me that Mr. Heinrich could also be engaged on a part-time basis. He does not necessarily have to be paid on a piecework basis, but can be to ensure that the continuity and consistency of decisions that the Attorney-General speaks to can be engaged again on the same basis that other board members are engaged. Mr. Heinrich — as I am sure the Attorney-General knows — enjoys a legal practice in Prince George. Therefore I am sure he supplements his income as a full-time board member through that employment. If he doesn't, I guess he is receiving a tremendous amount of consideration for his services on a full-time basis in his capacity as chairperson of the Expropriation Compensation Board.

If one takes a look at the estimates for this year, it is also evident that most of these people get payments with respect to fees and travel expenses and other allowances to supplement that income as well.

[3:45]

Within that budget $178,680 is allocated to operating costs, which includes an additional $88,000 for fees, allowances and expenses. I was wondering if the Attorney-General could explain to me what that additional $88,000 goes for? Is it in any way further remuneration to the individuals involved? Or is it fees for outside professional help? If so, what type of help?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The $88,000 for this year is the anticipated cost for the two part-time people on the board. I have tried two or three times, but obviously I am not very skilled at getting my point across. To characterize the six pending cases as somehow the only ones that are going to be heard this year could be erroneous. The number of cases received in '88-89 is 28. Six matters have been scheduled for hearing. That means dates, times and places are given out. The other matters are in various stages in the process and may show up.

The member also said that the expenses somehow supplemented income. In my view, expenses reimburse someone for out-of-pocket costs. They are not designed to supplement income. That is the way the system is supposed to work. If there is some other matter that we can deal with, I would be happy to do it. But expenses don't supplement income; they reimburse you for your costs.

With regard to the member's plea to me to put the chairman on a part-time basis, that's one philosophy of doing it, and that's fair enough. I think that would be a retrograde step. I think this board — now that it has gone through the transition stage — did a very good job of putting together its procedures and procedure manuals and pieces of information they have for people who are in this very specialized area. The chairman worked with Cliff Watt in the drafting of the regulations in the transitional matters that had to be dealt with. The office and the support systems that are there are quite acceptable in relation to other quasi-judicial tribunals that I have been familiar with around the province.

I am concerned that in this very important area of our society there be a certainty about the appointment of the chairman because he is in an important quasi-judicial role. I think we have to have some way in which we can maintain continuity of decision-making in a way in which they can have the independence they ought to have for making the kind of decisions they do.

I think the fixed five-year term of appointment process that we have adopted is one which is appropriate; we will just have to agree to disagree about having a part-time chairman. The member asked me if I would contemplate making that change and the answer is no, I won't.

With regard to Mr. Heinrich running a law practice in Prince George, I think it would be unfair to leave this House with the impression that Mr. Heinrich is doing anything other than working full-time as the chairman of the board he serves.

[ Page 6354 ]

MR. SIHOTA: Has the minister yet come up with the number as to the actual salary allocated to Mr. Heinrich in this year's budget?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Yes, the salary is $3,451.12 biweekly.

MR. SIHOTA: Does the minister have an annual figure there, or do I have to multiply it by 52?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I believe it translates to just over $90,000 annually.

MR. SIHOTA: Again, if we want to get onto the issue of whether it's six cases, 16 cases or 29 cases, as the case may be, the point remains that we have here a payment of approximately $90,000, to take the minister's figure, being paid to a former Social Credit minister. In my view, it is an appointment which has all the attributes of a patronage arrangement. To provide someone with that level of salary for that nominal number of hearings and decisions is an unnecessary expenditure of taxpayers' dollars. The minister has admitted in his comments that the other two people are paid $88,000 a year on a part-time basis, and that may or may not be more realistic. But we are now paying three people about $170,000 per year to hear no more than two cases a month — because our information is that they won't book more than two cases a month. For the first year there were about $110,000 worth of payments and no cases heard — none.

I can understand that there is a need for legislation to evolve and for determinations to be made by the expropriation board, and it takes time for the hearing roster, so to speak, to fill up. But it isn't filling up; there isn't a tremendous volume of business, and we shouldn't be paying these people, and particularly Mr. Heinrich, that level of salary for that little work. It is not far removed from the salary that we pay to judges who are required to hear a greater volume of cases.

It's not a matter of agreeing to disagree, because I would beg to differ with the Attorney-General on that matter. It's a matter rather of trying to make sure that the administrative structure of the expropriation board works efficiently, and that the taxpayer gets the best value for the dollar. But to pay a former minister $90,000 a year to hear what may be no more than six cases, and certainly has never been more than 29 cases.... Indeed, our information is only four, and I've provided the minister with the exact dates, for 1988. To put those on the record again: the Feldman case, heard October 4, 5 and 6, 1988; the Hughes case, heard November 1, 1988; and the Nygaard case, heard December 13, 14 and 15, 1988; and one other case that went on for five days and was settled after the fifth day of hearings. There were only four representations made before that board, and we're paying people $90,000 to hear those cases.

I think rather than trying to simply defend that decision, it would be welcomed if the minister took the alternative view and chose instead to recognize the folly in that approach and agreed that these people would be engaged by government on a part-time basis so the taxpayer would secure better value for the dollar.

I want to now turn away from the expropriation board and to deal with another matter. That matter is legal aid, which, as the minister knows, I have some considerable interest in. It is my view that there are all sorts of gaps in legal aid coverage.

I want to start with the situation faced by duty counsel in British Columbia, because I think it exemplifies the neglect that this government has shown towards the provision of legal aid. I said earlier that we would build a case. In 1984 the provincial government received a task force report which made certain recommendations as to the level of services that ought to be provided for legal aid. The government has been reminded in the Hughes commission report that it has an obligation to fund at the level of that 1984 task force report.

Duty counsel, who work in certain courts in B.C., are paid a fee of $30 per hour, which can go up to $100 in some communities. The point is that that $30 an hour fee has not changed since 1974, notwithstanding the recommendation of the 1984 task force and the Hughes commission. The failure to provide duty counsel in these courts means that some accused people will remain in custody unnecessarily, which places a further drain on provincial resources in terms of having to house them in provincial institutions. Some accused, with a valid defence, will plead guilty to get the thing over and done with, and others will elect unnecessary trials when the case ought to have been disposed of through a guilty plea. It simply adds to the burden of the system.

What is more worrisome for me than the latter point is the fact that there are no duty counsel in communities like Alert Bay, Ganges, Cold River, Sidney, Tahsis, North Vancouver, Pemberton, Sechelt, Squamish, West Vancouver, Langley, Mission, Ashcroft, Castlegar, Chase, Creston, Fernie, Grand Forks, Invermere, Kimberley, Lillooet, Lytton, Nakusp, Oliver, Princeton, Revelstoke, Rossland, Sparwood, Fraser Lake, Kitimat, Mackenzie, McBride, New Aryans, Smithers and Belmont.

Under the legal aid package of increases announced this year, what are the government's intentions for this fiscal year with respect to increasing, first of all, the rates paid to duty counsel and, secondly, providing coverage in those courts which I have enumerated.

HON. S.D. SMITH: In respect of the expropriation board, I just want to revisit it for a moment, because I think one of the most compelling arguments for independence for people who have to make quasi-judicial decisions was just heard in this chamber a couple of minutes ago when there was a not-so-subtle personal attack made on the individual who sits in the chair of that organization. That is why, I am sure, this Legislature — if I am not mistaken — passed that legislation unanimously. That is one of the things they had in mind under section 52(3) of that act where it provides

[ Page 6355 ]

that members may be appointed part-time, which of course implies that the chairman is to be full-time.

In any event, I am satisfied that the chairman ought to be a full-time appointment. Among other things, it is because of the need for the independence in that very important position. I also want to restate that the workload of that board is expected to increase, and I can say without qualification that it will increase. It will increase because of the transition, as I stated earlier, from the old arbitration procedure to this new legislation.

[4:00]

It will increase as well because there are more capital projects being undertaken — Highways projects particularly — which will require expropriation. Inevitably, that seems to mean that we end up with disputes that need a program and a process for resolution. It's not unusual nowadays for the cost of property acquisition to build a mile of highway to be substantially higher than the cost of construction. When you are talking about those numbers, you are talking more often about disputes.

So it is unfair to leave the impression in this chamber, even though we're talking about matters which occurred prior to my assuming responsibility for this portfolio in terms of expenditures which took place in the previous fiscal year.... I must say that the chairman of that board has done a very good job of bringing that new program into place, of providing the assistance with regard to the rules and the procedures that are to be used, of setting up the processes and doing all of that in a way that has not incurred, to my knowledge, a single bit of public criticism in an area where, I can tell you, there often is criticism.

Under the old system, I spent a fair amount of time dealing with expropriation matters, and it was a system that did not work well. It was a system that for many years was heavily criticized in the province of British Columbia, and it is why I supported that legislation. I think it was good legislation. It was well-thought-out legislation. I think the people who are serving — Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Grover and Professor Todd, who I know well from another movie — do an outstanding job and serve the province well.

If the member for Esquimalt wishes to heap criticism on them in a personal way because of the nature of their former employment and their former service to this province, then fair enough. I don't play the game that way, nor do I think it should be played that way.

With respect to the matter of duty counsel, the member asked me our intention with regard to the provision of duty counsel. We are dealing with the issue of duty counsel now in the exciting reforms that will be put before this House by way of legislation in relation to the Justice Reform Committee's report The member can have the same certainty about that matter; indeed, I have had lengthy consultation with the Legal Services Society board a fortnight ago. We will be expanding considerably the coverage of duty counsel in the province. We're presently covered in 60 percent of the areas where we have courts sitting, and we will extend that coverage to 100 percent. In addition, we will be increasing the amount of remuneration paid to duty counsel. I will have to ask the member's indulgence to wait another week before I can provide the amount, simply because of where it is right now in the process through cabinet.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, it's certainly welcome that — if I understand the minister correctly — duty counsel will be expanded to 100 percent of the courts that sit in British Columbia. With respect to that fee, I want to make it clear to the minister that we're talking about a fee that has remained stagnant since 1974. It's a fee that ought to be increased by more than just a nominal amount. I want to get some clarification with respect to that and the other question that I asked the minister. So I'll phrase them into two separate questions.

First of all, with respect to the minister's comments about regular duty counsel — where the courts are sitting on an ongoing basis — expanding to about 100 percent: will that be done within this fiscal year?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The answer is yes.

MR. SIHOTA: And with respect to the fee increases, will those fee increases...? I'm not worried about whether they'll be announced this year, but whether they go into effect this year.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Not only will they go into effect this fiscal year, Mr. Chairman, they'll go into effect this calendar year.

MR. SIHOTA: Does the minister know how much the increase is going to be, or am I going to have to wait two weeks for that?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I do know how much the increase is going to be, and you are going to have to wait.

MR. SIHOTA: That's fine. I want to serve the minister with notice that I'm going to be listening with great interest to see what the payment is going to be. So will those who haven't been paid an increase since 1974. I would expect it will be more than just $10 or $15.

Turning to another range of coverage, the minister made reference to legal aid coverage in family matters. He also made reference to injecting a sense of flexibility into the criteria that now apply. It is my understanding that currently a single parent who is living in an urban area in British Columbia with an income of about $1,200 per month and is facing an application to have maintenance varied or reduced or arrears cancelled is not eligible for legal aid. Would the flexible criteria that the minister foresees this year allow for coverage in an instance such as that?

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, we now have coverage for urgent custody matters, matters bearing

[ Page 6356 ]

some urgency with respect to the protection of children and matters relating to restraining orders and the need for designation of urgency there. Quite frankly, I think it's safe to say that there's a certain amount of administrative flexibility in evidence today. Nevertheless, it is our goal to have discretionary flexibility for approving people in the Legal Services Society for all family law matters that are otherwise now covered. So I think the answer to the member's question is that the example he came up with would in all likelihood be covered.

MR. GUNO: I'm glad to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on the Attorney-General's estimates. I listened with great interest to the opening remarks of the Attorney-General, and I will be addressing a number of areas he has visited, but I really want to focus on some very specific areas right now.

I live in a riding that is fairly rural and sparsely populated, so there are some problems in terms of the delivery of justice to many of the communities I represent. I've looked through your Justice Reform Committee report, and I agree with my colleague. I think it's a fine piece of work that has focused on some very important problems relating to the delivery of justice.

However, in the community of New Aiyansh, for instance, whenever there are court hearings there we of course have to import duty counsel. Often there isn't enough time for any kind of preparation. Generally speaking, the kind of representation those people have is very cursory, and it sometimes results in unfairness in terms of people who have to deal with those kinds of conditions in places like New Aiyansh and further north in Stewart and Cassiar.

I wonder if the Attorney-General may comment on some of those shortfalls and the fact that they were not addressed in the commission's report.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Some of the issues you raise, which ought to be dealt with and in fact will be dealt with, have been raised subsequent to the publication of the report entitled "Access to justice, " and it is for that reason that they aren't dealt with in the report itself.

We have brought together a cross-ministry working group to look at some of the issues you raise in their broader sense, and specifically the matter you raise with respect to the lack of preparation time for duty counsel in a place like New Aiyansh, or for that matter Clearwater in my own constituency or Valemount in the constituency of the member for Prince George. That is a matter which we are pursuing, and we'll be hopeful of finding ways to improve the system.

MR. GUNO: I was somewhat interested in your concluding remarks where you referred to the serious problems that exist in the Chilcotin area with regard to the whole range of issues surrounding the justice system, the police, the courts and the native people. While you were correct in labelling it as a very serious problem, you were rather sparse in any kind of detail as to how you plan to address that very serious problem.

[4:15]

HON. S.D. SMITH: The member is dead on when he says I was quite sparse in any specifics about how to deal with the problem. It is for that reason that I have undertaken to immerse myself in the communities following this House completing its work — or certainly my completing my portion of the work in estimates — to begin to assess directly, myself, in which directions we might want to begin to pursue some of these issues. I take the matters that have been raised very seriously, and I have some knowledge of the area and the people and the issues from my own life's experience. It is the case that we must do something to try to rekindle the kind of trust for the system that is enjoyed virtually everywhere else in the province. I'm sure that that process is going to take on many complexions which we might not be able to identify in advance. If we could identify them, I can assure you that we would deal with them. But I want to begin that process directly and personally as the representative of the justice system in the province, because I think it is important to that community in the Chilcotin to understand that the problem is taken seriously and that it is going to be dealt with as a serious problem; but most importantly, that it is going to be dealt with.

MR. GUNO: I think it's fair to say that the problem in the Chilcotin is serious, and I am glad to hear that the Attorney-General has reiterated his commitment to deal with it directly. But I think we have to look at it in the overall context of the delivery of justice to native people. As you examine the public inquiries going on in Canada — the Marshall inquiry and those being conducted in Ontario and Manitoba — it is very clear that there is a problem and that the existing justice system does not work for the native people of Canada.

The recent report of the committee of the Canadian Bar Association on imprisonment and release, "Locking up Natives in Canada," certainly focuses very specifically on many aspects of this problem. It gives rise to the question of whether or not we are going to be piecemeal in our approach to this, or whether we will maybe contemplate a broader inquiry. In that context, I wonder if the Attorney-General has any plans, or has allocated any resources, for a more comprehensive, broader review of the justice system as it pertains to native people in B.C.

HON. S.D. SMITH: We have allocated resources through the Justice Reform Committee's report, which recognizes that we have to provide ways to deliver justice services to the native community that are acceptable, understandable and fair-minded. I would not want us to mix up the Donald Marshall inquiry, quite frankly, with any of the activities going on in British Columbia.

I don't think it is the case that there is an even concern around the province about the way the delivery of justice impacts on native communities. There

[ Page 6357 ]

have been specific examples in the province — for instance, in the Duncan area, in relation to family law — where there has been some progressive decision-making and innovation. There have been a number of examples where native leaders themselves have insisted on helping to improve the justice system. I think we can and should do more, and ought to be doing more, in the creative use of diversion programs to deal with the native community. I agree with the member for Atlin that our jails have a sizeable number of people in them who ought not, frankly, to be there, and who also happen to be members of our native community, One has to use care in saying that, because there is a great body of opinion that thinks that the way to mete out justice is to be tough with people, and that jail is the best way to demonstrate toughness.

There are a number of innovative ways in which we can handle some of the matters that come before the courts. I think the diversion program lends itself to the creative use of relationships and the development of relationships in the native community. We ought to be making greater use of the wisdom that can be provided to all of us — and particularly to our justice system — by the elders in the native community. They could provide us — in many areas of dispute resolution, not only in relation to the courts — with a great deal of assistance with how we might better serve those citizens who now are in conflict with the law in a way that is of concern to them not only because of the conflict, but because the process of resolving the conflict does not seem to be one with which they are in tune and is not one that, in many instances, makes any sense to them.

MR. GUNO: Just arising out of the comments by the Attorney-General about the readiness to take a look at some of the alternatives, that is certainly a very interesting avenue to look at. There are some very effective resources within the Indian community. You named one of them — the use of the elders; also, the recognition of cultural values and methods of dealing with some of these problems. In light of that, I wonder if the Attorney-General has contemplated and allocated any resources to deal with looking into an alternative mechanism to deal with native people.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The answer, Mr. Chairman, is yes. We have spent a considerable amount of time, and will be spending more, in the implementation of the Justice Reform Committee report. I would invite the member, if he wishes, to participate with us to whatever extent he would like and to give us his views on some of the avenues we might pursue. I think it is obvious and perhaps even trite to say that the system does not apply itself well and evenly to all members of the native community, and that we ought to put resources into seeing how we can improve that. To answer your question specifically, yes we are and yes we will.

MR. GUNO: Earlier I talked about the different processes going on in the rest of Canada in terms of looking into some of these problems. I mentioned the Marshall inquiry, but in no way was I trying to say that that sort of thing exists in B.C. However, I think we have to recognize the fact that there is still a disproportionate number of our people in the jails. I think the figure for British Columbia is.... Of the total prison population, 16 percent are native, while native people represent something like 3 percent of the population. By any measure that's a fairly overwhelming statistic which would show that there are some real problems with regard to our people.

You also mentioned in your opening remarks your administration for the role of the court workers in the justice system. I certainly join you in that. As a matter of fact, before I got into law school, that's where I got my start. Although I didn't do actual court work, I worked in the administration of that fine organization. So I do know the service they provide in the major centres of British Columbia, in assisting native people who are before the courts to wade their way through the complexities of court problems.

I know there was a period — I shouldn't say of "inactivity" — when the allocation of funds to court workers was given a fairly low priority. I understand they're being built up now, and I'm glad to see that, because I think it's a very valuable service. I just spoke to some of the people involved, and I understand that they want to focus on family cases and prevention work. I just wonder if the Attorney-General has any thought of expanding the services of the court workers to start looking into some of the very serious problems our native people have in family court and into dealing with some of the preventive work that can be done.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, yes, we are contemplating doing that. But one of the things I want to undertake as part of the JRC implementation is to consult somewhat more extensively with members of the native community who would be affected by improvements to the service, to find out if that's the best way to deliver those improvements — through the native court worker system. In any event, the answer is yes. We have allocations for the implementation of our justice reform recommendations, and they do include augmenting that service.

MR. GUNO: Mr. Chairman, I hope the Attorney-General is not telling us that it's going to be an either/or proposition. I recognize that the role of the court workers is going to be ongoing for a while and that the examination of alternative methods of dealing with native justice, if you will, is also going to continue, but we're not going to get to a situation where we're going to be playing one concept off the other.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, if I left the impression that it was an either/or situation, then by all means let me assure the member that that is not the case. I think we should examine the possibility of

[ Page 6358 ]

fresh approaches to augment and buttress what we have, and that's what I intend to do.

MR. GUNO: I want to shift the focus now onto the whole question of land title and land aboriginal rights. I listened with some interest to the response of the Attorney-General to a series of questions posed by my friend from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, and I think that the issue is sufficiently complex or important to go over again, that being the concern that this government has chosen litigation as the only vehicle in trying to resolve the issue of aboriginal title.

My colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew referred to a study done by the Canadian Bar Association entitled, "Aboriginal Rights in Canada: An Agenda for Action" — you probably have read this, Mr. Attorney-General — and I think it does provide a fairly realistic agenda for action. The policy of going just by way of litigation, I think, is rather unfortunate and expensive.

[4:30]

Yesterday the Attorney-General talked about deciding in 1976 to deal with cut-off lands, and since then having dealt with 22 and fully and successfully negotiated 14 of them. I think it's very important that a distinction be made between what we call specific land claims and comprehensive land claims. I quite agree that in 1976 the Social Credit government did a 180-degree turn and reneged on their promise to sit down — or as the then Attorney-General Williams said, "take their historic place at the negotiating table" — and negotiate along with the federal government with Nisga'a people. Shortly after that promise was made, the government returned to its policy of stonewalling the whole thing.

When you talk about the cut-off lands, I think the term itself should indicate that it deals with a very specific kind of claim, those that arose out of lands illegally acquired because there were insufficient surrender documents or there were more lands than were actually in the surrendered documents. It's important that we distinguish that process from the comprehensive land claims process, which involves the larger issue of aboriginal title and deals with groups whose aboriginal title to traditionally occupied lands has not been dealt with by treaty or superseded by law. It is sort of a provision for modern treaty-making.

As I said, in 1976 this province reversed its earlier commitment to take its historic place in the negotiating process and since then has decided to embark on a very expensive policy of litigation.

I would like to know if the Attorney-General would, in view of the growing cost, the growing confrontation and the uncertainties it is creating in the province.... I think my friend from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew pointed out a reference to the Canadian Bar Association's report, which stated:

"This uncertainty means that appropriate aboriginal groups can initiate litigation challenging the legitimacy of Crown mineral, timber and petroleum leases in much of the country. The current allocation of fishery resources could also be thrown into disarray, as could much of the hydroelectric activity in Labrador, British Columbia, Manitoba and parts of Quebec."

"In other words," the report goes on, "litigation could be pursued under current law that could freeze billions of dollars of investment and affect tens of thousands of jobs. Aboriginal groups have been reluctant to force these issues to date, in part due to their sensitivity to the impact on third parties and public attitudes."

So it does point out that the potential is there to increase the confrontation between aboriginal groups and the government in the courts, which could have some very dire consequences for the investment climate in British Columbia.

In light of that, I am wondering if.... This morning the Attorney-General talked about mythology in terms of the amount of money that they are allocating for legal aid. I want to turn to another myth that has been created to try and steer away from the whole process of negotiation: that is, if the government were suddenly to say "Let's negotiate," suddenly there would be a huge transfer of land that would mean a huge transfer of dollars, and the third-party interest would be affected. I think that is a serious distortion of the whole thing, and it really does not serve the government while they continue to hide behind those kinds of myths.

Yesterday, as I said, the Attorney-General talked about the 22 outstanding cut-off claims they've been dealing with. I would like to remind the Attorney-General that the process of dealing with and negotiating cut-off lands began with the New Democratic government in 1975. It was a process brought about by the fact that the native people had been fighting for it for some time. In his reply to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) he talked about 13 timber agreements that have been reached. That sounds impressive until you compare it with the huge resource extractions that have been going on in the same period in areas that are under claim. So you see, it just doesn't stand up.

The Attorney-General also referred to the land use agreement with the Tahltan people which was reached this year. He failed to mention that such an agreement was brought about only after the Tahltan people closed the access road to protest the fact that they were not being considered for jobs at that mine site.

Another mythology, or another way of trying to create the illusion of serious negotiation: the minister trotted out the Sechelt agreement. We on this side of the House have indicated that as far as the agreement goes, and as far as the Sechelt people are concerned, it is, I would concede, a very worthwhile step to take. But I certainly don't think the government would contemplate that as a precedent or some kind of model that they visualize other aboriginal groups as accepting.

Last, you mentioned the Nisga'a School District. I want to remind you again that it was not the Social Credit government that extended the right to Nisga'as to create their own school district. In fact, it was in 1974, under the leadership of then Education minister Eileen Dailly, that the government made that

[ Page 6359 ]

unprecedented move to allow certain groups of native people to have a say in educational priorities in their areas.

Really, what I am outlining to the Attorney-General is that yes, there are opportunities, and I think this demonstrates that there are opportunities. If we can somehow get over some of the fears that our own rhetoric creates, we can see that real possibilities exist. My first question in light of this is: can the minister tell me how much was expended last year to deal with aboriginal titles in courts?

HON. S.D. SMITH: If I may, I want to spend a little time on this subject. The member has given me a potpourri of issues to touch on, and I shall try.

Let me begin with the business of how much is spent by the ministry on aboriginal title claims. I was invited to respond the other day in the House to a suggestion by a member that well in excess of $10 million had been spent in the last two years fighting aboriginal title claims. The total is $3,632,501 in the last five years. The overwhelming amount of that money has been spent in the Delgam Uukw case.

As you know, a number of cases are involved there. The major Delgam Uukw case and the Gitksan case, which the Chief Justice of British Columbia has correctly, in my view, characterized as the most important case ever tried in the province, has been ongoing for some five and a half years now; it was referred to today in this House by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew as legal harassment by us. I don't think it is a fair description to so characterize a matter that was initiated by the native community following the Nisga'a decision, which was split at the Supreme Court level. Unfortunately, Mr. Justice Pigeon did not decide on the merits of the issue but, rather, on a process issue. Had he done so one way or the other, we probably would not have had to have some of the litigation that we now have. Nevertheless, we have been, as has Canada, in this litigation to establish a very important question in this country: whether or not aboriginal title is a notion known to our law. Up till now, I think it is reasonable to say that in Canadian jurisprudence the answer to that question has been no.

There is a case, as well, going through the Ontario Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada which will presumably get there before the Delgam Uukw. I think they've made an application for leave now. I don't know if it's formally being made, or if it has been made and has been granted. It's the Bear Lake case, which will have an important impact on how these matters are dealt with and, ultimately, depending on the decision, how and whether they are negotiated.

I do not find that process to be somehow illegitimate. I must tell you that. I think that our courts, trusted as they are by all citizens, may very well be the appropriate forum in which to decide the issue of aboriginal title, the notion of title, the extent to which it may or may not have been taken away by the acts of Confederation, and, if so or if not, the consequences.

We have out of the cases that I gave you for that total, not only the Delgam Uukw case — the main body case — but the Delgam Uukw lis pendens case, which was important to the province of British Columbia. In that decision, there was a lis pendens — which means litigation is pending — attached to a title of property, a free-standing title in the Prince Rupert registry. Had that lis pendens been allowed to stand in the face of an application for an aboriginal claim, it would have had extraordinary implications for the land title system in the province of British Columbia and for commercial activities that go on anywhere a claim is made. We litigated that matter, and the court agreed with us that the lis pendens ought not to stand. As well, in the Delgam Uukw case with respect to Westar, there was a separate case involving a road into some timber, and of course there was the Tsawout matter.

We've had litigation with respect to Meares Island included in that total, a litigation which now is generally stood down pending the disposition of the case His Honour Chief Justice McEachern is hearing. We've sought and received consultation only with Regina v. Sparrow, which is an important matter before our highest courts. We have out of that money, which is right up to the moment, expended some funds with respect to a matter taking place in Kamloops involving a land claim which deals with federal matters — the Dominion survey claims involving the Kamloops band and Harper Ranch.

[4:45]

The member said he wanted to seek some advice from me on my position generally with respect to how I deal with a number of issues in terms of litigation. I want to make very clear that what I'm saying stands aside from what I call the generic aboriginal land-title issues, because I believe we ought to pursue that matter, through the process that it is now in, to a resolution. I think it is in the interests of all citizens not only of this province but of Canada that the matter be resolved in our law with finality so that whatever the result, we'll all be singing thereafter from the same hymn book and not writing our own script as we go along, as tended to be the case — on all sides of the issue, I might point out — in the past.

I said this morning, with regard to my view of how to deal with matters that create some dispute, that as a matter of my own habit and practice I came out of the solicitor's side of the business of law, as I believe the member for Atlin did as well. I'm therefore inclined to seek resolution of disputes otherwise than through litigation. That's my inclination, and I think that that is a phenomenon you will see impressed upon this ministry more and more as time goes along. Obviously there are times when one is sued and one has to respond, or where it is clearly in the public interest to use the litigation process. But that is my inclination. I think, as you probably have seen over the last number of months, there have been situations where we have been disinclined to pursue certain matters on appeal and thereby, as a result of that decision, to in fact change the course of our public policy.

[ Page 6360 ]

I am also, I may say to that member, somewhat impressed by the successes that have been found in dealing with a number of these disputatious kinds of situations that arise in the states of Idaho and Oregon. I think that there is something to be learned by me and perhaps by my ministry and our society by looking at some of the ways they have found to resolve disputes.

I might also say that in the document from which the member quoted, "Aboriginal Rights in Canada: An Agenda for Action," the foreword and part of the compilation is put together, as you know, by a very well-respected barrister from the city of Vancouver, Mr. Bryan Williams, QC, who you will doubtless be pleased to know serves this ministry and me as part of the advisory committee that is assisting with the implementation of the Justice Reform Committee report. I will be pleased to introduce members of that ad hoc committee to this House in due time.

This issue is very clearly many things, but one thing it isn't is a partisan issue, and I don't think anyone in this chamber wants to characterize it as such. When I have responded as I have over the last number of days to questions that have been put to me on these matters, I have been attempting to try — because I think it's one of your responsibilities, my responsibilities and every member in this House's responsibility — to provide good, clean, solid information to the public about what we are doing. There is no doubt in my mind that the press coverage you get about the position between government and native communities in this province says we never negotiate about anything. That just ain't true, folks, and I think it's very important that we set out for the record very clearly that it is not true and what the truth is. When I laid that out in the House, one of the things that I certainly did not want to engender was some kind of partisan response.

On the one hand, people say to me that we don't negotiate; on the other hand, when I lay out a whole list of things about which we have successfully negotiated, the response comes back, "Well, maybe it was someone else who started those negotiations, or maybe it is the case that you aren't doing enough," or whatever is the case. It's a critical response. I think that one of the very important things we have to do in this society to deal with those issues about which I've spoken is to start to build some simple blocks of faith, trust and goodwill. I think you do that by negotiating successes. Another way you do that is by ensuring that those successes are seen to have happened and are seen to be positive responses to problems that existed.

Yes, it is true that in the case of the Tahltan peoples the agreement that was negotiated came about as a result of a dispute or the threat of a dispute. What is important, however, is to note that the response to that threat of dispute was not to go to court; the response was to negotiate an agreement. We don't have to take ownership of that, any one of us, but I do believe it's important that it be pointed out as a response that was one that led to a negotiated success.

Indeed, when I pointed out the other day that we have successfully negotiated over half of the cut-off land claims in this province that date back to the McKenna-McBride commission, which, no matter how you slice it, was nothing more nor less than an expropriation without compensation.... When I pointed out we have negotiated half of those — and I am hopeful that the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) will be successful in negotiating the rest of them, even this year — I did so to point out to the people of British Columbia that, indeed, we are negotiating in the area of land claims. People don't understand in this province that there are a whole host and variety of land claims. We are negotiating in terms of land claims in those areas where we have sole and prime responsibility; and where it is demonstrably the case that a wrong has been done, it ought to be corrected. That policy was initiated in 1976 and continues.

HON. MR. REE: The subject matter the Attorney-General is elaborating on is something that has to be said. It has been said many times, and I think he should be able to continue so the message gets out. I would ask the Attorney-General to continue.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Thank you. I know the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) is concerned that I finish up, and I assure him that I'll do it as quickly as I can. Sometimes when I speak with great rapidity I also speak with greater emotion, so perhaps there's a trade-off here that we might all enjoy.

In any event, you're quite right. I did mention timber agreements the other day and that we had done 13 of them. I was wrong about that; we've done over 30 of them.

I think the mineral agreements we've done are good faith evidence of where we can enter into agreements to share resources. I don't offer the view — and I hope the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) does not think I do — that the Sechelt agreement is a panacea for every native group in British Columbia. It would be extraordinarily arrogant of me to put that view forward, and therefore I would not. But it is indeed one of the most progressive pieces of legislated agreement ever undertaken in this country, dealing as it does with an issue that governments historically have not come to grips with, one that provides for a form of self-government at the local level and one that holds whole the jurisdictional integrity of both Canada and British Columbia. To me that is something we ought to be proud of and is something I know many native leaders and communities are taking a very hard look at to see if there's some application to their own area.

Many of them will reject it for reasons that it might impact adversely on claims for aboriginal title — fair enough. But it seems to me that the public of British Columbia benefits from knowing that these kinds of agreements are within our capability of negotiating when people of good faith sit down together, put their cards on the table and negotiate.

[ Page 6361 ]

Likewise the Nisga'a School District, likewise the work going on now in the tripartite discussions between Canada, the native fishing community and British Columbia, discussions which have the potential to help resolve some of the disputes that have occurred over the last number of years about the allocation of that very important resource.

The second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) led the way in resolving the issue that had been long — obviously too long — outstanding and kind of out-of-sight, out-of-mind forgotten in relation to the Ingenika. We can't be proud of the fact that there are problems there that haven't been resolved, but the fact that there is some attempt to resolve them and to seek resolution is something we ought to talk about and that we ought to put to the fore. We can always find a headline about the downers, and it is within that public milieu that we must resolve these issues. We must let the public see that there is a positive side to what is going on and that there is hope for resolution, because when we do other than that, we are being very unfair to the public.

So I'm very pleased to see going on in British Columbia right now a multifaceted discussion between the Ministry of Finance, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and the native community, led by Chief Manny Jules, in relation to the difficulties of transition which will inevitably occur from the decision by the government of Canada — I think it was Bill C-115 last year — providing an opportunity for local bands to get into the area of taxation. It's a very important issue that has the potential to raise all sorts of fears among local municipalities, even ugly fears. But indeed, it is also an area where there is great potential for resolution of some of our most intractable problems, practical problems that get down to the grass-roots level.

I can tell you that I think we all ought to have a measure of hope that we have people — including members of this Legislature and this government — who are prepared to sit down and work on those issues and move forward on some of them. I'm hopeful, and I want to leave with the member for Atlin the notion, as I said at the outset, that my inclination on a whole host of issues — not just issues involving the native community — is to jawbone more and litigate less, and that's the direction you will see us going.

[5:00]

MR. GUNO: I have just a couple of things to say in response to the Attorney-General's remarks. I think we're both in agreement that what we're confronted with is complex and will require not only litigation, but negotiation.

If you look at all the court pronouncements on aboriginal claim, you are aware of the concept of judicial restraint. They had been applying that particular concept when pronouncing on the concept of aboriginal title and so have not given a definitive statement as to the content of that concept. I think that is still in great dispute, although I don't think the existence of aboriginal title is in dispute.

In some ways, the courts tend to send signals to us as politicians that we ought to be prepared to run with some of the pronouncements they make, to try to work out some of the ambiguities and to not let the courts be the deciding factor. If we're serious in the belief that the political process is the most realistic way to deal with this, then I would agree with your assertion that less litigation and more negotiation is exactly the route to go.

It has some legal dimensions and certainly some very real political possibilities. To paint it in a positive way is fine in a certain aspect, but I think we also have to recognize that there is a sense of despair and hopelessness in the Indian community. There is the real perception that they don't have a handle on their own affairs. I think those are very real and very destructive within the Indian community.

We on this side of the House would be remiss if we weren't able to point out many of the shortcomings of the government's policy of concentrating their efforts on litigation and not on negotiation. I feel that if that's the direction the government is going, then....

I agree with you that it's a non-partisan issue. Nobody wins politically in fighting this whole thing. In the end, the possibilities and the opportunities are going to be greater than the problems that we keep visualizing in the whole process.

MR. BARNES: This is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate the Attorney-General, who was at one time — although from a different party — on this side of the House. We used to have many chats about the possibility of him one day sitting where he now sits and perhaps even going on to lead that group of politicians over there.

It has taken so long to get the opportunity to talk to the Attorney-General on a couple of questions.... I just have to say that his eloquence is sometimes difficult to categorize. I'm not sure if he was filibustering his estimates or trying to enlighten the House. It does have the effect of dampening debate somewhat. Knowing the Attorney-General and his previous occupation as adviser to a former Premier of the province, I know he is quite adept at tactics. One can never underestimate his utterances, regardless of how smooth, soft and gentle they may be.

I do want to ask the Attorney-General to respond to a few questions. He knows — and he has in fact reflected upon them himself — of the very fast changing demographics of British Columbia and indeed the country. He is fully aware of the initiatives by the federal government with respect to multicultural policy and constitutional change to ensure equality rights for citizens. I am sure he, being of the legal profession, realizes that we are faced with considerable adjustment as a society, now that multiculturalism has taken on a new dimension beyond the casual interpretation of its implications or meaning in our society.

It's not as if multiculturalism is a new phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination. We've often spoken of multiculturalism as being the backbone of

[ Page 6362 ]

this society, in terms of the diversity and the richness it has brought us.

If we reflect for a moment upon what has happened since the early 70s when the former Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, began to talk in terms of constitutional change, multiculturalism as a statutory right and amending the constitution — or at least ensuring that there is constitutional support for the concept — we now have quite a different situation, which leads me into my question.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

I want to ask the Attorney-General if his ministry, in recognizing the new multicultural act of Canada, has embarked upon any initiatives with the federal government or with his own cabinet to bring about those changes within his ministry which will accommodate those equality rights and which will reflect the spirit of multiculturalism from a provincial perspective; in other words, the kind of provincial policies that we need to ensure that things are happening provincially as well as federally.

It's a matter that I think is going to require considerable reflection, Madam Chairperson. It's not something I am presenting lightly to the House, because I think we're now talking about definitions. We are realizing that multiculturalism is significantly more than the usual important work that we do in terms of so-called race relations: the celebration of annual events within the ethnic community, the sharing of our cuisine, etc., and all of those kinds of social activities we involve ourselves in. We are now embarking upon constitutional rights. We are beginning to define citizenship in a broader or different perspective. It's pretty bold stuff we're talking about. What I want to know is: is the government itself recognizing the implications and the impact of this new direction on its ministry and the management of its affairs as far as a public agency is concerned?

Unless the minister wants to answer questions seriatim, I would like to continue to give you my potpourri of concerns, and perhaps you could reflect on them all at once. At this stage, I'm really asking for information. I'm not necessarily challenging the government.

The minister will recall, I'm sure, having been in touch with his colleague, the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond), who last week took on notice a question that I raised with respect to the funding of an organization in my constituency, the United Chinese Community Enrichment Services Society, called SUCCESS, that that organization applied to the Ministry of Attorney-General as well as to the Ministry of Social Services and Housing for funding to assist immigrant families — that is, mothers and young children, most of them teenagers — to adjust as new Canadians. The minister in his opening remarks referred to youth gangs and public education initiatives and the implications thereof. He talked about the law enforcement branch, which is also dealing with youth gangs and the seriousness of the situation — and is also, I think quite understandably, to be congratulated for the extent of successes they have had in prosecuting some 125 offences under that initiative. So there is every reason to believe that the minister is desirous of supporting, in a preventive way, societies that are trying to assist in that same desire.

I have another category I want to get firmed up now, because that basically is a statement that I would like you to respond to. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by improving or increasing the capital capacity of the court system in terms of new facilities. You mentioned that there would be some fairly dramatic improvements in terms of capacity. I would hope, most sincerely, that it does not mean the elimination of that great, beautiful facility in downtown Vancouver, the media centre, because I have heard — I hope it's only rumour — that there is a plan to eliminate the media centre in Robson Square. I don't think that's true. In other words, we're not going to see the end of that auditorium. We're not going to see the end of that great vast space that is used for exhibitions of the arts and gatherings of the people of the city coming together, having lunch and dinner and conversations and so forth. I am sure there is nothing to that rumour whatsoever, so I won't belabour that point; I'll just move on. I'm sure the minister will clarify that for us.

The other matter, as you know — me being of compassionate heart and you understanding that — is that I'm concerned about the fairness you spoke of earlier when you indicated that although you had been able to bring to justice a number of violent gang members in terms of their offences against society, it was done fairly. I noticed you emphasized "fairly," and I thought that it was interesting that you would point that out. What I want to know is: does your ministry recognize legal-aid assistance to those people who come into this country fleeing for their safety and their lives in a refugee category? I understand that in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec such a resource is made available at the designation stage — in other words, the second stage of the hearing and application — but in British Columbia this is not the case. I wonder if you would enlighten us on that situation.

I have one final question — and I am sure every member in the House has heard this one. It's to do with the evolution of the gambling business in this province. I know we have had a lot of fun with that, because it was in 1972 that our illustrious Provincial Secretary embarked into the field of lotteries. However, we have come a long way from providing resources for arts, culture and sports. It is a big business now.

We are seeing the end of the paper bingo game, the manually operated games that have been used successfully by non-profit societies in order to augment their operating expenses. They have been able to do this, of course, through the lotteries branch. There seems to be a problem developing. Maybe the Solicitor-General is the appropriate ministry for this. It doesn't matter; either one can respond. I just want

[ Page 6363 ]

to get it on the table. I know you will consult on the matter.

Was the matter of electronic bingo raised and resolved? I haven't mentioned the word "electronic" yet, but I was going to get to electronic bingo versus the paper bingo and the change that has taken place. Maybe I just woke up the minister. I should let him go back to sleep. I am sorry for disturbing you, Mr. Minister.

[5:15]

I have a final question to the Attorney-General. Is there any truth to the fear among the societies that there may be a complication in terms of regulating the bingo games once they are fully converted to the electronic system, which is a whole new way of dealing with the matter? There is some question about whether it should come under the Criminal Code. It may be introducing a whole new technology and a whole new set of problems. Also, will it be regulated under the Gaming Commission or will it remain under the lotteries branch? The concern is considerable in the community.

Many of these societies — and I don't have a list of them before me — are longstanding societies that have relied on their revenue and are now thinking that because this electronic bingo will so dramatically increase revenues that....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Madam Chairperson, I want to reemphasize what I am saying on the matter of the dramatic difference....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Provincial Secretary? Okay, well let me finish it and then you can read it in the Blues and you can come back when your ministry is up and deal with it.

What I want to say, Mr. Attorney-General, because....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Order, please, Madam Chairperson. I don't who is doing the speaking. I have the floor, I think. I am not sure anymore. I think I've touched on something; I don't know. I've got three ministers involved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We're just trying to help you out.

MR. BARNES: Okay. I would like a clarification on the questions I've raised. The main one is: tell us what you project to be the future revenues from bingos once they become fully electronically operated. Would the real motive behind any problems be that the revenue is so significant that the government may see this as a means of confiscating a source of income that before was left to the charities, and now it wants to reassess whether they should leave that good deal with the societies?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Normally I would simply point out to the member that the matters respecting gaming, electronic bingo and so on — depending on what part of the question he asked — are either within the responsibility of the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) or the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid).

I think they would not be upset if I were simply to, on their behalf, say in answer to the question you raised about whether the charities were at risk with respect to the amount of moneys they might receive in the event a decision is taken to go more to electronic bingos, that they are not at any risk at all. Indeed, the overwhelming probability is that they will get more revenue.

I want to get at some of the other issues that were raised, and I appreciate the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) and his gentle rebuke to me on the way I've been presenting myself today. I suppose he was really trying to say in a parliamentary way that perhaps on occasion I had lapsed into issuing a substance that might — in another movie — be described as resembling that which flows from the south end of a bull as it travels north. Nonetheless, the member asked me if the media centre was in danger of being displaced by us, as we are looking to reconfigure our courts. I think the part of the media centre you are concerned about is the auditorium, and there are some areas contiguous to it — the concourse area. The answer is no. We are not looking at displacing that.

In terms of the court configuration, it is one of the options that we might have as a result of the city of Vancouver booting us out of Yale Street at the end of this calendar year. We've got to find somewhere else to take family and youth court, and our options are relatively limited. You don't just flip up a courthouse at the wink of an eye.

One of the options we are looking at is Robson Square. I think the Buildings Corporation — if I may speak for the Buildings Corporation — has had some concern over the last number of years, as a trustee of the public dollars, at the limited revenue they get from the media centre as opposed to what it costs per square foot to operate the place. That's for them to deal with.

The answer to you is no. We're not looking at that auditorium. I know the member says he likes that auditorium and it provides a useful service. I can tell the member that there's another good reason why I would never want to see that auditorium displaced. I well remember April 7, 1983. In that auditorium we announced the issuance of an election writ that had great and positive consequences for the province. The kickoff of that election campaign took place in that media centre, and I had the great privilege of being there. I know how much you enjoyed that campaign, because we met up with one another over on Pender Street later on during that campaign, as both of us were campaigning — you much more successfully than us in that particular location, I might add.

The SUCCESS program you referred to in the course of your comments, Mr. Member.... I want to

[ Page 6364 ]

say that that program has had funding assistance from us. We assisted that agency by sponsoring a Cantonese parenting workshop on the issue of youth crime last November. I'm concerned that that program be maintained at its current level of service, as I think it's a very important resource, particularly for the Chinese and Vietnamese communities.

We did not allocate funds for the program this year, because teaching parents how to deal with their children, which is what the program is specifically about, is not really a traditionally appropriate role for the Ministry of Attorney-General. But I can tell you that I'm not going to stand by and see it sort of bounce from one ministry to the other and fall between the cracks if there isn't somewhere where it can go. I can tell you that I will make a personal commitment to ensure that the SUCCESS program has sufficient funds to maintain its current level for this fiscal year. I'll undertake to raise the matter with my cabinet colleagues, in order to ensure that the appropriate ministry actually finds the funding and that it's identified before the end of this fiscal year.

In relation to your questions with respect to preventive options, or at least facilities and services for youth crime, I think I laid them out fully; I think you were in the chamber earlier today. We have a number of services and, I think, some really innovative ways of delivering that information. I know it's often not the sort of thing that grabs politicians, because you can't cut a ribbon or put the mortar down for a bronze block or lay a foundation stone. But I can tell you that when you look into the eyes of the people who are there and involved in those services, and see the benefit they're getting out of it, it's real, it's important and it's something we're going to continue to support. It's something that I'm going to try to find ways to augment and buttress in advance, and to enhance.

I was very taken, for instance, with the utilization of live theatre as a vehicle for communication of those ideas in a preventive way. I can think of all kinds of ways in which live theatre as a tool for communication — God knows it is incredibly cost-effective — could be used to assist in not only that area but in other areas as well.

With respect to the matter you raised involving the immigration hearings, Canada supplies legal assistance for the first stage of the hearings, as you know. That's the very preliminary stage. We have, together with the Legal Services Society, made representations to Canada to supply funding for the second half of that. They have declined to do so for the second stage. We do not have in our budget funding for that second-stage service for legal aid. But in respect of that issue and the other issues you raised with regard to the changing multicultural character of our urban communities, the Premier's office is involved, as we speak, in a process to advance its intention to negotiate a more comprehensive immigration agreement with the federal government.

In addition to increasing this province's share of business immigrants, we need some agreement with Canada to reflect and to improve the cost-sharing arrangements with respect to the services provided to all immigrants to this province. Obviously, any agreement reached — not necessarily obviously, but hopefully and ultimately — on the provision of legal aid would have to be consistent with the overall agreement that we're trying to advance and develop, a process for negotiation right now.

Of course, it should not be left unsaid that one of the reasons why I support it.... I must confess I don't recall if the second member for Vancouver Centre supported the Meech Lake accord in this House. I believe you did. One of the reasons I supported that agreement.... As the Prime Minister has said, some people now are putting in jeopardy the good in order to seek the perfect. I should restate that one of the reasons I supported the Meech Lake accord in this House is that it will, assuming it is agreed to and implemented, give to the provinces — outside of Quebec, which now has this — a vehicle and a structure with which we will be able to develop our own programs, policies and priorities with respect to immigration generally. I think that's a useful thing not only in the area of business immigration, which seems to be the focus right now, but in terms of being able to give all our communities some sense of participation in the process of immigration.

[5:30]

I think it is a truism, and one we have to face squarely in the mirror, that there has developed, as a consequence of the rapidity with which there has been change in the immigration patterns over the last number of years in our province, a kind of anxiety among a whole host of people about how that is transforming our society in their eyes. I think it is important that we be thoughtful, frank and honest enough to deal with those kinds of issues. If we can, through the Meech Lake process, give ourselves as a society and as a Legislature greater opportunity to play a role in that area, then I think it's something we ought to pursue.

MR. BARNES: I know the second member for Vancouver East has some comments to make as well. I just want to summarize very briefly.

First of all, I would like assurance from the Attorney-General that the media centre — the whole complex; the auditorium, the concourse, all of the surrounding areas — is not going to be eliminated once the expansion begins. He has indicated that the theatre won't be removed or be in jeopardy. I didn't get a strong sense that you were talking about anything else in that general area. I'm talking about the whole area: all of the offices, meeting rooms, display area — the whole thing. You can address it. I don't want to belabour this, but I really hope that's what you mean.

I want to comment a bit on my concerns about careless campaigning with respect to race relations. I know you didn't say you had a special law enforcement agency dealing with Asian gangs as such; I think you probably deliberately avoided that. But that has come up in the media a few times, and we can't reiterate enough the danger of designating groups by race. I even make a distinction between

[ Page 6365 ]

race and other constitutionally protected rights: sex, for instance, which is a biological fact. Race is a biological fact. Religion, perhaps, is one of those grey areas where we can get into a debate and talk about how we feel about it, and about what may be right or wrong.

We have to begin to take a little more leadership and to be a lot firmer. I raise this because we also have constitutional rights with respect to offences against us by people involved in hate propaganda. Recently we had this little run with the skinheads, the Aryan Nations and the whole thing from the States, and about how British Columbia is a great fertile area for racism. We've heard that before from the KKK and all kinds of groups. It's something we had better not take lightly in terms of what we are talking about: the demographic changes taking place and the number of people who are going to be at risk and who have no defence whatsoever because of our view of fundamental rights — especially freedom of speech, which is one of the most difficult things in a democracy.

In my opinion, it is subversive, under my constitutional rights, for someone to attack me because of my race. Yet there is no redress; there is no appeal. People can say and do just about whatever they wish, and I know the Attorney-General realizes that. We went through that under the former Attorney-General, Allan Williams, and we brought in the Civil Rights Protection Act. Of course, we know it was never implemented. Who's going to take somebody to court for calling him a dirty name?

We have to realize that this is a potential powder keg for us, as we count down to 1997. It's not just Asian people; it's people. We don't talk about people enough; we talk about races. We talk about multiculturalism, but we'd better make sure we talk about citizenship as well. We're talking about equitability; we're talking about access to the whole system. That's what I mean about constitutional rights in the multicultural society of Canada being different than in any other place in the world. That is saying something. I think the experiment is going to take more than a cursory glance. We've got to look at what that means. This is why I am asking you and all of the other ministers what you are doing to accommodate the federal government's new policy on multiculturalism. What are we actually doing to bring about the changes that have to take place within the system? The access on an equal basis that we are talking about has nowhere near begun. It's not to condemn anyone; that's not my point. Let's realize that we are talking about a new kind of definition of multiculturalism.

That is sufficient for me today, but I want the Attorney-General and the other ministers to address this issue. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid) and I have talked about this many times.

MR. CLARK: Madam Chairman, the second member for Vancouver Centre has my speech notes, I think. I want to briefly canvass this area as well.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: No, he has my speech notes. Well, this is our caucus research, Mr. Member.

I was going to say that the minister's response has been rather lengthy. I haven't been around for most of the estimates. I see Madam Chairperson nodding a little. She is just nodding in her non-partisan neutral capacity. Maybe his answers expand in accordance with the number of staff that he has in the chamber here.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Oh, to fill the time. Excuse me.

Dealing with the question of racism, it is actually a very serious matter. I know that the member and I commend the minister for some of the remarks he has made with respect to that issue. We have a serious problem in Vancouver, and I think it's quite obvious. In Toronto there has been a blowup; in Montreal there have been virtual riots; in Nova Scotia there are problems.

Vancouver is just sitting.... I don't want to be an alarmist, but it is a very serious problem. Your ministry has done an excellent job on prosecution. Thanks to the former Attorney-General and the current one, there clearly are some results there, but it isn't enough. I will be raising this with the minister responsible for multiculturalism and with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet).

I think the time is clearly ripe for some leadership on the part of this chamber to deal with prevention in the area of racism. I think there is some with specific respect to this ministry in the area of youth gangs. I won't use the phrase "Asian gangs," because I think that is clearly a misnomer. There are lots of different kinds of gangs, and I probably will raise this as well under the Solicitor-General's (Hon. Mr. Ree's) estimates, because I'm not sure where it falls.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: It is the Attorney-General.

This is just from personal experience. The Renfrew Park Community Centre is two blocks from my house, and about one month ago there was shots fired — bullets flying around the parking lot. I can give you several examples within a half-mile of my home where there has been violence using firearms involving youth gangs, and this is all in the last several months.

When you tie that kind of problem in with the other problems that exist in Vancouver — and to the alarmist nature of some of the press reporting, in my view, — and with some of the real problems that exist in terms of housing and English as a second language in our school system, particularly in east Vancouver, you see the potential for really ugly experiences. Also, you can add the skinhead thing that we've just seen as well.

I think the government and this House has to come to grips with that very quickly. It's certainly not this ministry's responsibility to deal with this matter. I think it's one that we have to deal with collectively.

[ Page 6366 ]

There are areas that I think the government could do more in.

I'm very pleased that the minister has given us assurance today that SUCCESS will be funded somewhat. I don't know if the minister has ever been to SUCCESS; I know that some members have been. I ran into the member for Vancouver South at their open house last year. They have a big pie chart on the wall showing where their funds come from. About three-quarters comes from fund-raising, a huge chunk is from Secretary of State, and then this tiny little sliver comes from the provincial government. I think about 1 or 2 percent of their funding comes from the provincial government. That in itself, of course, is not an argument for more money. It does tell you that the province has not been funding that very worthwhile and outstanding volunteer service agency.

They have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 500 volunteers. They are working on the front lines dealing with the racial question. The program that the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) has mentioned — the youth workers — is a prime example of the kind of preventive programs that should be funded, in my view, by government. It is Chinese-Canadian youth workers working with Chinese-Canadians.

In looking at the youth gang question in my constituency, it's quite apparent, as I say, that there are lots of problems, particularly with respect to the school system. What happens is that new immigrants come here and don't speak English. I don't think the service is up to speed in terms of dealing with them. They get locked into a seductive lifestyle with other people who speak the same language, which becomes their peer group. That's how they get involved in the gangs. Prevention at that early stage is absolutely necessary.

As I say, this ministry has done lots of good work in terms of prosecution. Very clearly that has to be done. There is some work in providing school liaison officers for police, so there are now police officers in most high schools in east Vancouver. But I think there needs to be much more creative work done in outreach programs with respect to prevention, and I would hope that the minister would look at his own budget in terms of providing a focus for that. But much more importantly — and I mean this in all sincerity — the government as a whole, particularly the minister responsible for multiculturalism, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Social Services and the Attorney-General.... That's where the funds have to come from to deal in a multifaceted way with what I can only describe as a powder-keg in Vancouver.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the vote pass?

MR. CLARK: I'd ask the minister to respond to those remarks, seeing as we still have 15 minutes left before 6 o'clock.

HON. S.D. SMITH: As able as I undoubtedly am to fill up 15 minutes, I don't intend to.

Frankly, I couldn't articulate my own views much better than the second member for Vancouver East has, with regard to the potential for problems in a very sensitive area unless we get on top of the issues and in front of them and find various ways to address them. There's no question that the issue we're talking about goes to the root of any human being. It's a cross-cultural issue. When you go to a new land or come from another land.... I can speak particularly about the policing side. In countries in Latin America that I can think of, a policeman would be the last guy you'd go to in the whole flaming place to look for support, trust and help. It is important to be able to educate the person here that the police services are something that ought to be provided.

In a multiministry way, we are looking at those issues and trying to coordinate our programs to deal with them. One of the other sides to this quite often is that the left hand doesn't entirely understand what the right hand is about, and sometimes we have....

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Well, I have difficulty with that notion.

We do have programs, and sometimes the act of having better cross-ministry direction, implementation and procedures is helpful as well. But don't lose sight of what I said about the initiatives being taken by the government to try to reach some agreement with Canada in terms of services generally flowing from our immigration policy, because I think we really have to begin at that point. We know who's coming to Canada and to British Columbia, we know the kinds of needs they're going to have, and we know the sorts of services that we ought to have to meet those needs.

With that said, Mr. Second Member for Vancouver East, I'm going to ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, before adjourning for the evening, I would remind the House that we're sitting tomorrow in the afternoon. Having said that, I wish everyone a pleasant evening and move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.