[ Page 6439 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Mourning day for workers. Hon. L. Hanson –– 6440

Mr. Sihota

Private Members' Statements

Baisakhi. Mr. Sihota –– 6440

Mr. R. Fraser

Citizenship. Mr. De Jong –– 6441

Mr. Lovick

Workers' Compensation Board. Mr. Sihota –– 6443

Hon. L. Hanson

Sunshine Coast-Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. Mr. Long –– 6445

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Davis

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

On vote 13: minister's office –– 6447

Mr. Sihota

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Ms. Marzari

Mrs. McCarthy

Mr. B.R. Smith

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, on the floor of the House today we have a very distinguished Japanese visitor. I would like to introduce to the House Mr. Kamiya, president of the Matsukyu Group based in Tokyo. He is accompanied by his interpreter and consultant, Miss Hiroko Ono. In the gallery is Mrs. Kamiya and their son, who is the director of Matsukyu Development Co., and Mr. Suwa, who is the director of Matsukyu Capital Co.

The Matsukyu Corp. is a privately owned firm with assets of slightly over $1 billion. The various companies in the group are involved in the manufacture of electronic parts, automation equipment, communications technologies, food product wholesale centres, the development and operation of shopping centres and worldwide tourism.

After visiting Canada as part of a Tokyo chamber of commerce investment mission led by the Canadian government in 1987, Mr. Kamiya made an exploratory visit to British Columbia in January of this year to review investment opportunities. As a result of the meetings during that visit, he and other members of his corporation are visiting the province this week to negotiate further on some specific projects and to explore opportunities in other areas.

Mr. Kamiya is a senior member or governor of the 16,000-member board of directors of the Tokyo chamber of commerce and as such, has a close working relationship with the Prime Minister of Japan and other senior ministers. He works closely with Ambassador Steers, our ambassador in Tokyo, and senior officials within the Canadian Embassy in promoting Japanese investment in Canada and principally in British Columbia.

Mr. Kamiya and I spent several hours last night discussing opportunities in the province of British Columbia. He believes strongly in the opportunity to work together — British Columbia and Japan — to bring increased investment to British Columbia. At a meeting last evening he provided me with some useful and innovative suggestions as to how British Columbia can better communicate its development opportunities to Japan. I ask all members of the House to greet this distinguished visitor.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: All of us take pleasure in introducing guests from time to time; we always like to think that they are somewhat unique. I have the distinct pleasure, on behalf of the government, to welcome a very distinctive group of young people to our gallery this morning.

There is an institution in the United States called the presidential management interns' program, and we have delegates with us today from the western United States. This intern program is a highly successful initiative which attracts the brightest and the best graduate university students in public policy, administration and allied graduate degree programs.

This program attracts approximately 200 young people from across the United States each year.

We are fortunate to have with us this morning ten of these individuals. I should tell the House that all of them have their degrees and many have graduate degrees. It is a real pleasure for us on the government side, and I trust for all of us, to recognize the interest of these young people in the management of public affairs. The leader with us this morning is Laura Yoshii. We also have Leofwin Clark, Julie Dalsoglio, Inge McNeese, Christine Psyk, David Artadi, Susan Cort, Barbara Fallen, Diedre Nurre and Roy Ramthun. Would the House please join me in giving them a warm British Columbia welcome.

MS. MARZARI: This is the last day of Secretaries Week. Many of us did not give our secretaries or assistants flowers. In lieu of flowers, I dedicate this poem to all legislative assistants in the building. It's a poem by Helen Potrebenko. It's called "Would You Mind Typing This for Me?"

Of course I wouldn't mind, I am a typist.
I was paid to type.
I will not, therefore, fix your bicycle,
Re-upholster your couch,
Wash your windows,
Serve you tea,
Drive you to the airport, or
Prune your apple trees.
But I shall certainly type this for you.

MR. PELTON: In the members' gallery this morning is Mrs. Eileen James, mother of our Clerk of Committees, Craig James. She's visiting Victoria from Regina, Saskatchewan, and is accompanied today by Craig's wife, Patricia Somerton. I would ask all members in the House to make them both very welcome.

MR. MESSMER: In the House today we have visiting us 28 students and two teachers from the McNicol Park School in Penticton. They are social studies classes, which have been dealing with the provincial and federal governments over the last few months. I would like to welcome the two teachers, Lee Sutherland and Bob Brownell, and the 28 students. Would you please welcome them.

MR. LOENEN: This morning members may have noticed that the flag out on the lawn of the Legislature is at half-mast. The reason is that today is national mourning day for workers who lost their lives on the job. I would like to draw the attention of the House to this, because we want to recognize those people and their families, and the contribution that workers make to our province. I hope that all members will express today in a special way, in thoughts, deeds and words, appreciation for those members of our labour force who have lost their lives in the past.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm pleased to make an introduction on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) and the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson). In the gallery is a group of teachers

[ Page 6440 ]

from North Delta Senior Secondary School: Gary Bennett, Matt Rogers, Gary Fehr, Vic Tracy, Tyler Kushnir, Sig Kuehn, Bev Barnes, Nick Kanakos and Brian McGill. On behalf of the members for Delta, I would ask the House to make them most welcome.

Ministerial Statement

MOURNING DAY FOR WORKERS

HON. L. HANSON: I would like to bring to the attention of the House that today has been proclaimed as a day of mourning for workers injured or killed on the job. Despite the overwhelming commitment shown by both employers and workers to workplace safety, tragic accidents still occur.

[10:15]

It is a sad fact that close to 1,000 workers in Canada were killed while on the job last year. Many more were injured and permanently disabled.

My ministry and the Workers' Compensation Board will continue to work with all parties to promote and improve job-site health and safety conditions for workers. Legislative changes to the workers' compensation system in response to the recommendations in the Munro report will allow for increased participation by workers and employers in developing Workers' Compensation Board policies, programs and procedures. The new workplace hazardous materials information system also provides a positive step in the right direction. The regulations cover three areas: labelling of hazardous materials; material safety data sheets; and worker education and training.

While we can work together to reduce workplace accidents in the future, nothing we could say here today can reduce the sense of loss that results when a loved one is killed or injured. The lives of families, friends and coworkers are permanently affected. I ask the hon. members to join me in a moment of silence as a sign of our respect for workers injured or killed on the job,

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I will be making my statement during the course of statements on this issue. I'll reserve my comments until that time.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I wonder if I might have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to advise all members that tomorrow, the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) and the lovely Jone Brodie will be married. On behalf of our caucus and, I'm sure, of all members, we wish Russ and Jone the best.

Private Members' Statements

BAISAKHI

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, in his absence, I'm filling in for our party's critic on multiculturalism, the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), who unfortunately had to attend a funeral this morning.

I want to make a number of comments on multiculturalism, particularly as it relates to the Indo-Canadian community. My colleague had chosen the title "Baisakhi." Baisakhi is an annual East Indian festival from the Punjabi community. It is the most critical and important of all matters in the Indo-Canadian — particularly the Sikh — community, I simply want to talk a little bit about that festival.

That festival has been celebrated in Canada ever since people from the Punjab came to Canada in the early 1900s. In fact, the first historical note of someone from the Punjab having arrived in Canada was actually in 1858 in Barkerville. How that individual arrived in Canada is a matter of some historical debate, although the consensus is that the first Sikh settlers in British Columbia came up by way of Mexico.

However, during the early part of the 1900s, particularly around 1908, there was an increase in the amount of people coming from India; British subjects were coming through Hong Kong and directly into Vancouver. Early in the 1900s we also saw an incident in Vancouver known as the Komagata Maru incident, which was the flashpoint with respect to the federal government having to deal with British subjects from India coming into Canada.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Slowly but surely over time, the Punjabi Sikh community gained a greater presence in British Columbia. The first temple that history notes was opened by the Sikh community in British Columbia, which I remember as a child, was on 2nd Avenue in Vancouver. Subsequently there were additional temples established throughout Vancouver Island — Paldi in the Lake Cowichan area being the most notable.

Ever since Sikhs came to Canada they have been celebrating their most important festival and religious holiday, which is the holiday and festival of Baisakhi. Baisakhi is in many ways the most important date in the Sikh calendar, in that it represents the birth date of what Sikhs call Khalsa, and that is the first day of baptism for Sikhs in India.

In North America that celebration occurs during the middle of April. I'm sure that there have been celebrations in many members' communities, particularly in Vancouver in terms of large gatherings, and last week in Sikh temples through most of the province in celebration of the baptism for Sikhs. That is celebrated, as I said, in April, which is a customary time for most people of other religions in North America to celebrate religious holidays.

Fairs are held all over India to celebrate this day, which is also the day when the harvest first starts in northern India. There is always at least a ceremonial conducting of the harvest on Baisakhi Day. The Sikh religion has ten gurus, and it was the tenth guru who was responsible for the commencement of Baisakhi. At that time, when the first five Sikhs were baptized by our tenth guru, Guru Gohund Singh, there was a

[ Page 6441 ]

consensus within the community that Baisakhi would be used to celebrate not only the opening of the harvest but also the baptism of Sikhs.

At the same time, Sikhs came to be known through five very important symbols. I think that most members of the Legislature are aware that there are five symbols that distinguish us as Sikhs. For the edification of members, I want to explain the significance of those five symbols.

In Punjabi, they are all words which begin with the letter "k." There is first, of course, the sword; second, the wooden comb; third, a steel bangle; fourth, the uncut hair; and fifth, the shorts or underwear. I will explain the significance of each of those five symbols, mindful of the time. If my time does expire, I will continue what I am about to say as we go on.

Uncut hair is one that I have mentioned. It is kept because of a belief that the gods or gurus and lords have provided us with hair and it must be kept for some reason. As a consequence, the Sikh religion has decided that one ought not to engage in cutting of their hair; God has provided us that hair for some purpose.

The other symbols I will comment on later after response from the government side.

MR. R. FRASER: It's a great pleasure for me to be able to respond on behalf of the government, and I enjoyed the presentation of the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, who gave us a historical elaboration of the Sikh religion.

When you come from a riding like Vancouver South, of course, which is one of the most ethnically rich in the province of British Columbia, you know that there are a number of Sikhs living and working in that community. If you care to enjoy some of the Punjabi market flavour in British Columbia, you can go to the 49th and Main area where the Punjabi market functions and enjoy the food and flavour of the Sikh community. In fact, it was not too many weekends ago that I took part in the Baisakhi celebration starting at the Sikh Temple on Ross Street and ending up at the Punjabi market at 49th and Main.

One of the most interesting things about the Sikh community in Canada is the celebration of the harvest festival in the spring. They bring with them to Canada, as all of us have from wherever we happen to come from, the joys of their religion, the celebration of special events. The other thing that they've brought to Canada is hard work. The members of the Sikh community in British Columbia, many of whom live in Vancouver South, have made extraordinary advances personally. I know of members of the community in Vancouver who have literally started out their careers driving a wood truck and ended up as multimillionaires running big forest companies There is a strong work ethic in the Sikh community that is celebrated on harvest. That is a typical example of the success of the harvest: the success of the hard work wherever it might be done, and the success of the business community that is made up of the Sikhs in British Columbia. They make a significant contribution to Canada, and on behalf of the government I welcome this presentation of the Baisakhi festival.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, if I may I will continue explaining to members the significance of the symbols that Sikhs identify with and I'm sure the rest of society identifies Sikhs with.

The second is the wooden comb, which is, of course, a poor conductor. It is used for one to clean their hair when they rise in the morning and go to bed at night.

Third is the steel bangle which many Sikhs wear, and which I'm sure most members have noticed that I also wear. That, of course, is a constant reminder of their religion and also a reminder in the traditional scripture of the fact that we represent God and are servants of God.

Fourth, there is the sword which I'm sure most members are aware of. It is not designed as an offensive weapon but one rather in the name of defence, should it arise, and that ought to occur in the most extreme of circumstances.

There is, finally, a particular dress or underwear that people in the Sikh community are required to wear. That serves as the fifth symbol to identify a Sikh.

The Sikhs, during the course of their time in British Columbia from 1908 till today, have made considerable achievements, as my friend from Vancouver South has noted. Sikhs have come to be represented in all walks of life, and within the Sikh community a considerable amount of pride is taken in the fact that we have managed, as a community, to have appointed the first Sikh Supreme Court judge in Canada, Justice Wallace Oppal, whom I know the member knows quite well. Of course, Sikhs have been very successful in other endeavours of life, be it business or sports.

Hopefully, by explaining a little bit about the culture in the short time that's allocated under the rules, we have been able to begin what I think is an important lesson in sharing our culture so that people have a better understanding of some of the symbols of the Sikh religion and perhaps a better understanding as to some of the principles for which the community stands.

CITIZENSHIP

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, the subject that I have chosen to speak on is really dedicated to last week, Citizenship Week. However, due to some difficulty, as I was not able to be here last Tuesday, my statement did not get into the record. I would still like to deliver it today, because citizenship does not end with the designated week of citizenship.

[10:30]

When the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) made the ministerial statement about last week being Citizenship Week, it struck a special cord with me, as I'm sure it did with many others inside this chamber, as to what it really means to be a Canadian, The ques-

[ Page 6442 ]

tion that immediately came to my mind was how I rate as a citizen of this great country, being one of those not born Canadian. How do I and many others who are in similar positions stack up against those in terms of patriotism and sharing the benefits of being a Canadian as well as taking on the responsibilities towards the country and the Canadian people.

I was personally afforded the privilege of becoming a Canadian citizen some 35 years ago, along with a number of people who had their origins from seven different countries. We were presented our certificates by the then Judge Grimmett. Judge Grimmett was a handicapped person; however, his handicap at no time diminished his enthusiasm and dedication for his country and its people.

Following the official ceremonies, he spoke to us about the many privileges we would now be sharing, as well as the many responsibilities we were assuming in becoming Canadian citizens. The contents of the speech of Judge Grimmett have undoubtedly made a lasting impression on all of us as we assumed our Canadian citizenship, and not only his speech but the acceptance of us as new Canadians by the Canadian people has been overwhelming. As new immigrants to this country we have truly experienced the love, concern and willingness in extending help to us in a great variety of ways.

Monday, April 17, the date when the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture spoke on citizenship recognition, was also the date when the community we lived in back in the Netherlands was liberated by the Canadian army after almost five years of German occupation. Those five years were five long, difficult and trying years, especially for my parents and the people of our community; five long years of suffering, torture and injustice to many innocent people who felt the need to protect the freedom of expression of opinion, press, religion, private property and people.

All of this suffering and injustice, which cost the lives of many innocent people, resulted from a power grab and the insanity of one person who was determined to conquer the world and the lives of the people. I clearly recall the worried looks on the faces of my parents on May 10, 1940, and at various times throughout the German occupation. But I also very distinctly recall the happy and joyous looks and expressions on April 17, 1945, when freedom was ours again.

My thanks to our Canadian people and allied forces, but especially thanks to the many Canadians and British Columbians who voluntarily joined the armed forces. They joined because they had a deep respect for peace and justice in their own country and they knew that peace and justice could not be retained or captured without fighting for it.

In fact, many Canadians placed their lives on the line not only to protect that freedom for Canada but they placed the freedom for people like me, my parents and countless others throughout Europe and other countries ahead of their own lives.

As a British Columbian and a relatively new Canadian, I — along with many others — will never minimize the sacrifice made by the many British Columbians and other Canadians who have fought for the freedom of others and, of course, have the deepest respect for those who have lost their lives in the pursuit of peace and freedom.

In conclusion of my first part of this statement, I have to ask myself the question: have I fulfilled my obligation as a citizen of this great country in sharing the privileges as well as accepting my responsibilities to the point of doing service beyond the call of duty? Having been accepted by the people of our community and being allowed to serve in public life for the last 17 years, I again must ask myself the question: have I done everything possible not only to be a better citizen but rather to be a stronger Canadian, recognizing the many cultural, religious and nationality backgrounds the people of this great province have, and the freedom they are entitled to?

MR. LOVICK: I take some pleasure in responding to the comments of my friend the second member for Central Fraser Valley. I am sure all of us in this chamber were touched by that description of the immigrant experience — as some have referred to it. It's nice to be reminded then of just what it is we in this country represent to those who have not had the good fortune to be born in this society.

I agree with the member that Citizenship Week is a vehicle to force us all to pose some questions about precisely what living in this community means and what the responsibilities attendant on living in this community are. It seems to me when I hear references to our past and the marvellous sacrifice and struggle we made during the war years — in terms of trying to end that scourge that struck Europe — that the fundamental lesson that arises from that is that what we must avoid, above all, is intolerance. What Hitler and the fascist ideology represent above all else is intolerance: a sense that one has somehow got truth in one's own hot, little hand and that all others are misguided and therefore can be coerced to come to our point of view, can be forced to believe what we happen to.

The great beacon of Canadian society, in my mind, and a brighter beacon than anywhere else in the world, is tolerance. We have in this country, thanks to its diversity, its history, perhaps indeed the geographical nature of this society, a number of forces that militate against a monolithic culture, against a narrowly defined value system. What makes our society rich and wonderful is precisely its diversity.

I am fearful when I look around today and see what is happening in Quebec. I am fearful when I see what's happening in my own constituency: individuals lobbying for the preservation of the English language and so forth. We are confronted with a narrow view of what this society and this culture ought to be.

I'm happy to hear, when I listen to my colleague from Central Fraser Valley, that his conclusion also would seem to be that Canada's richness, diversity and above all capacity for tolerance are what make us unique, what the principal lesson of citizenship

[ Page 6443 ]

ought to be after all, and I am looking forward to hearing the rest of my colleague's remarks.

MR. DE JONG: I appreciate very much the comments of the member of the opposition. I agree with him. Certainly in the last few years in Canada there has been a lot of stress on people. There has also been a lot of desire by people to do things for themselves and to minimize the needs of others. As people elected to public office, I believe we have a duty especially to recognize the differences of people and their different needs.

The people of our communities — it doesn't matter from which community we came — have placed a tremendous trust in us, specifically to maintain law and order, as well as preserve the freedom for people in all areas of life, recognizing the variety of backgrounds, nationalities, cultures and religious values in labour, business and every sphere of life.

When present laws are outdated or fail to represent these basic values, the legislators have a duty to make changes. On the other hand, when laws and policies are appropriate to today's situation and appear to be fair and just, we have a responsibility to uphold those laws. More than that, we have a responsibility as legislators to deal effectively with those who do not wish to obey those laws. In fact, we have a real responsibility not to interfere with the process of justice for all; we should provide justice.

I haven't touched on the multicultural aspect and the uniqueness of the many different people in British Columbia. There has certainly been a great change in people throughout the province over the last 15 years. It makes me think of a song which I'm sure many members in this legislative building have sung or perhaps have heard their children sing. The song was played from the carillon just across the street last night. It goes:

Jesus loves the little children....
Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight....

Recognizing these special qualities, needs and unique differences of the people we represent and serve, I would like to conclude with a short poem The author is unknown, but the poem reflects on people as ships on the ocean of life.

Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
We know what master laid thy keel,
What workmen robed thy ribs of steel,
Who made each mast and sail and rope,
What anvils rang, what hammers beat
In what a forge and what a heat
Were shaped the anchors of thy hope!
Fear not each sudden sound and shock.
'Tis but wave and not the rock.
'Tis but the flapping of the sail,
And not the rent made by the gale!
In spite of rock and tempest's roar,
In spite of false lights on the shore,
Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea!
Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears,
Our faith triumphant o'er our fears,
Are all with thee, are all with thee!

Mr. Speaker, I trust that in fulfilling our....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair let you go on so that you could complete the poem, but your time is up under standing orders.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

MR. SIHOTA: Today, as the minister noted in his statement, is the official day of mourning for men and women who were killed or injured while working in British Columbia. In my mind, it is troubling for three reasons that we should even have a day such as this. There are too many injuries and too many deaths in this province that are, in my view, preventable.

Even more troubling is that this year the number of injured workers and fatalities in this province has increased. There were 150,000 such injuries or fatalities in British Columbia this year. In the forest sector alone, there was a 27.5 percent increase over 1988. In the construction sector, there's a 36 percent increase over 1988. The total increase in respect to all industries in this province is 15.7 percent. In terms of comparing it with 1986, between 1986 and 1987 the increase was 23 percent, and between 1986 and 1988 — that two-year period — the increase has been 38.7 percent.

[10:45]

The minister has explained that by saying that there has been an increase in the workforce — an increase in employment. I find that very difficult to swallow or accept. The problem is that we just don't have the regulation and leadership that we require from government to decrease the increase of fatalities.

Recent statistics show that 54 out of every 1,000 paid employees in British Columbia received compensation from Workers' Compensation Boards across Canada between 1982 and 1986. Compensation is only part of the cost of these types of injuries. Other costs include wages, productivity declines, overtime costs associated with accidents and, of course, damages to property.

Looking at the problem sector by sector, this year there were — and this is what causes me grave concern — 27 more fatalities in forestry and logging than there were in 1987. It happened to people right across the spectrum. Just looking at the statistics, I notice that in one instance a faller with only four days' experience was fatally injured. In another case, it was a helicopter hook tender with 14 years' experience. A loader operator with 30 years' experience lost his life in the forest industry.

Union sites in this province, particularly in the forest sector, have a far better record than non-union sites. Again, I think that tells us something in terms of the requirement for better training, better education and better dealing with these matters.

[ Page 6444 ]

The third tragedy, in my view, is the fact that many of these accidents were obviously preventable. In this province we need more workplace inspections, a better record of workplace inspections and appropriate legislation. We require increased on the job safety training, and we need heavier penalties for employees who disobey rules. By bringing forward the schemes and alternatives that I've suggested here, perhaps next year we will be able to speak of a decrease in the statistics.

One area which I've raised in this House before that causes me grave concern is with respect to farmworkers in British Columbia. In 1952 the Sloan royal commission on workmen's compensation recommended that the Workers' Compensation Act be amended to include people in the field of agriculture.

In 1966 the Tysoe royal commission on workers' compensation observed: "The desirability of covering agricultural workers for compensation is generally recognized by most authorities." Following a series of public hearings held around the province in the fall of 1974, the select standing committee of the B.C. Legislature recommended in April 1975 that compulsory workers' compensation coverage be extended to include domestic and agricultural workers.

In early 1972 following an intensive review of the industry, the WCB announced that compulsory coverage would be extended to agricultural workers. On September 21, 1982 the Workers' Compensation Board declared that farming was an industry within the scope of the act and announced that compulsory compensation coverage for farm workers would be in place and take effect as of April 1983.

Under farm employer pressure, in my view, in March 1983, the board announced that it would not enforce health and safety regulations on farms. Subsequently the Canadian Farmworkers' Union took the board to court to attempt to force the board to enforce the general industrial health and safety regulations on farms. The court hearing was scheduled for March 29, 1984.

On the day before the hearing — March 28, 1984 — the board repealed the portion of the regulations which extend health and safety regulations to farmers. In order to deflect criticism, the board went on to declare that health and safety regulations specific to agriculture would be developed with implementation and adjustment periods appropriate to that industry.

Such promised regulations have yet to be implemented in the farm industry. Why has this government not ensured the implementation of such regulations, as the WCB appears to be unwilling to exercise its mandate as regards occupational safety and health for farm workers?

Other groups such as the British Columbia Medical Association and the Consumers' Association of Canada have asked the government to extend protection to farmworkers and consumers. We have seen injury after injury in that sector, and the government has refused to move at all. If the government has an ounce of sincerity behind the comments it made in the course of the ministerial statement, it could send a signal with respect to its.... I say to the member for Richmond in particular, who commented on this, that if the government had an ounce of sincerity, it would signal its change in attitude tomorrow by directing that occupational health and safety regulations apply with respect to farmworkers. Then we would know there is indeed some commitment and a level of sincerity on the part of this government. To date, we haven't seen that.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The challenge that I throw out to the minister is first, of course, to work in the general way I described earlier to bring about the type of legislative and regulatory changes, inspections and on-site training that I've talked about in those areas that are covered. But in those critical areas that remain uncovered, such as farmworkers, the challenge to government is to begin to provide that type of coverage. I look forward to standing up next year and seeing a decrease in those statistics — and coverage for farmworkers in British Columbia.

HON. L. HANSON: I don't think anyone in Canada today, including all jurisdictions in Canada and all ages and beliefs, would have any argument with the statement that any fatality in industry is unacceptable. We as the Ministry of Labour, and certainly the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, agree completely with that statement. I might also add that any fatality of any kind, whether it happens in the workplace, on our highways or just in our general everyday life, is not acceptable.

In his statement the member made several comments to the effect that mandatory coverage should be in place. Lest the House be confused, I would like to clarify that coverage is required for employees in the agricultural field. I'm sure the member would agree that he was referring specifically to the application of safety regulations in the farming community and that there is no argument that workers' compensation coverage is in place for all of those employees in the agricultural field.

About 150,000 more people have been working since 1980. In fact, there were 52,000 more people working in 1988 than in 1987. While not condoning any increase in fatalities, there certainly is more exposure as more people do work. Last year, workplace inspections increased by 14 percent. In terms of actual numbers, there were 5,000 more inspections than in 1987. As a matter of fact, the compliance orders issued by the Workers' Compensation Board increased by some 17 percent in 1988 over 1987. That, in terms of numbers, equates to 9,000 more compliance orders.

In the logging industry last year, fatalities increased from 34 to 38, with quite an increased amount of activity in the workplace. But there is no question that any fatalities in the workplace are not acceptable. The work of the safety committees, generated usually in organized labour contracts and encouraged also in other segments of industry that are not organized, has contributed a tremendous effort and amount of knowledge. In fact, the committees

[ Page 6445 ]

have had some substantial effects by actually working in the workplace with their fellow workers to ensure safety.

It is unfortunate that we are not able to legislate the level of awareness of people working in hazardous industries. Again, we in the ministry and in the government agree completely with the member opposite that any fatality is not acceptable. In the formation of the new board of governors for the administration and policy-forming ability — or at least procedure — of the Workers' Compensation Board, we will continue to strive to bring that number down to absolute zero. We should continue to take that same effort in all segments of our society, because any fatalities, regardless of where they are caused or created, should not happen.

MR. SIHOTA: Words, just words; but no commitment. Let's take a look at this government's record.

Take a look, first of all, at WCB. Over the last few years British Columbia has experienced the systematic decimation of services and benefits in the Workers' Compensation Board. The audiology branch was dismantled; regional offices were closed; the budget for vocational rehabilitation has been underspent; and boards of review appeal have restricted worker access. Industrial health and safety regulations have been waived in a whole number of areas. I brought to the minister's attention correspondence in terms of what has happened with workers at Overwaitea and nurses in this province. Employer assessment rates have been frozen since 1983. A WCB surplus of $99 million was transferred to employers in 1987.

The government record is one of wilful neglect. On March 11, 1983, a New Westminster coroner's jury investigating the pesticide poisoning death of an individual in the agriculture industry recommended that the WCB board should enact regulations to safeguard farmworkers from pesticide danger. Why has the government not moved in implementing those recommendations? This is from the coroner's inquiry.

The board has ignored the recommendations of another inquest, in July 1984, with respect to an incident at a Saanich daffodil farm. If WCB industrial health and safety regulations had been implemented at the time, the problem would have been resolved. Again, why did the government not act on that situation?

Why has the government not moved with respect to the incident which occurred in 1983, when a mushroom-worker in the Fraser Valley had his chest ripped open because a machine did not have just a simple cover or protection on top of a toggle switch? We're not saying that all family farms.... In fact, we draw a distinction between family farms and corporate farms. But certainly in some of these large mushroom farms, as the minister is aware from the 1983 incident involving a Mr. Gerwal, the government could have and should have taken action, and chose not to.

It is all words, Mr. Speaker. There's not one iota of assurance from the minister today in his comments that we will take action in the one area which in my view remains grossly underprotected and unregulated. Isn't it about time that this government opened its eyes to that neglect? Isn't it time that that blindness came to an end? Isn't it time that we began to provide coverage to workers right across the board? Isn't it time that we moved away from hollow excuses, such as increases in employment levels, as justification and explanation for increases in fatalities, whether it be in the forest sector or the construction sector or other sectors? Surely at this time the government can move on some of these things. Surely in 1989, as we move toward the year 2000, the government can begin to provide the type of coverage that groups have been asking for since as far back as 1952.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member his time is up under standing orders.

SUNSHINE COAST-VANCOUVER ISLAND
NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the natural gas pipeline through Squamish, which is to serve Squamish, the Sunshine Coast and Vancouver Island. Historically it has been known as the Vancouver Island pipeline, but I think the other areas, the Sunshine Coast and Squamish, are very much in need of that service.

[11:00]

I'd like to bring to the attention of the House and of people in British Columbia how important it is to the area that I mentioned earlier and how environmentally safe it will be to replace the heavy oils which travel in our gulf and up the Strait of Georgia, the heavy oils which have polluted the beaches of Alaska and the beaches on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Now we have an opportunity to stop those tankers, to stop those barges and to use a clean natural gas with less pollution, less acid rain, new industries and jobs and lower costs to all the workers and the people of the area, something they can count on. For 30 years, Mr. Speaker, this has been talked about and has never gone anywhere. Now we have the opportunity to move ahead, to make it viable for all those people in the areas I mentioned: Squamish, Sunshine Coast, Powell River, Gibsons, Sechelt and all of Vancouver Island.

There has been a bit of a stumbling-block, it seems, in that the GVRD.... In one location the pipeline must go through a watershed. With all the data that I can find for the BCUC and so on, there's nothing to say that this will pollute their water, not one shred of evidence. The only thing they speak of is turbidity, and turbidity is the amount of silt or organic matter which comes off the hills normally in streams and filters into the water system. It is not hazardous to health. It does nothing but possibly make the water a little discoloured.

We have one of the mayors — his name has just slipped me right now...

Interjection.

[ Page 6446 ]

MR. LONG: ... Sekora, who has made a big issue out of the turbidity in the water, saying that the watershed is a pristine area. What is the fact, Mr. Speaker? The area already has a logging road from one end to the other. It is consistently being logged. It is consistently traveled by logging trucks. All they're asking is to put a ditch alongside the road, which will only be opened to between 600 and 900 metres per day, and refilled, covered with plastic at night and resealed. If that was a waterline brought from the Sunshine Coast down to the lower mainland to feed them water, believe me, you would not hear one iota of complaint, not one. But as soon as the socialists hear that there is going to be a natural gas pipeline that's going to enhance our environment, they're all upset. In fact, if the turbidity from the left was as great in the watershed, they would have a major problem then, believe me.

I'd like to bring to the attention of the Vancouver people that these politicians who are posturing — and I mean posturing — just for attention when the fact remains that it's no threat to them.... It's just a little inconvenience until this settles down, the pipeline is in, and they will never know it's there. They seem to forget, these politicians, that the gas they use in Vancouver comes all the way from the Peace River. It covers everyone's watershed all the way from the Peace River to Vancouver.

I take a little offence when I see what the GVRD has done in the past and what it's doing today: using this as a red herring which will not harm them. Yet I see them shipping garbage up to Cache Creek; I see this same GVRD pumping raw sewage into the Gulf of Georgia. And they're condemning a little turbidity We're not talking the good stuff that I mentioned a minute ago; we're talking organic waste from the hills, the normal thing. Every time one of those people go into the country, come into our riding to our lakes and streams, when they come camping and fishing and they drink our water, guess what? They're getting untreated turbidity in it, and they think it's great. Believe me, they think it's great. In fact, I'll tell you how bad the turbidity is: the fish eat it. It's incredible.

I would like to set the people of Vancouver at ease when we speak of this, because we're not trying to muddy their waters, so to speak. Temporarily we would like the opportunity to bring that natural gas pipeline through for the people of our area, to service all the things that I mention, and it's only a temporary inconvenience to them. I wish the politicians In that area would quit making a mountain out of a molehill and realize it just for what it is: a pipeline to enhance the environment, to enhance people's opportunity in the Sunshine Coast and all of Vancouver Island, and to make it better for the whole province of British Columbia — not just for the ones that are chosen in the lower mainland but for the whole province of British Columbia.

I think most of the Vancouver people realize how important it is to us, and they back us. All we have to do now is convince the opposition socialists and also those in the Vancouver area that are posturing for their own political gains.

Interjection.

MR. LONG: If we're not treating who...? I don't know what he's speaking of.

Even when BCUC did their report and took it to the GVRD, they admitted that this could be done with very little disruption, with very little cause for concern.

I would like to see a little more cooperation in the province of British Columbia between the different areas when they benefit from all the outlying areas. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROSE: We have a problem with the rules in this one. When we have an opposition person speaking, it doesn't normally give this side a chance, according to the rules, and we must change that. However, we have agreed, my colleague across the way, to split the time available to us and maybe shave a little bit off the member for Powell River. I would like to tell him his speech will play well in Powell River; it won't play very well down in Coquitlam.

AN. HON. MEMBER: No ride.

MR. ROSE: That, Mr. Speaker, is an in joke and we won't discuss it here because it might cost me my seat — or him.

This is, I think, no laughing matter, nor is it a minor matter at all. I don't think there's any issue in recent years that has aroused the members of my constituency to the point where they are pouring into my office to sign petitions — not only mine but also other people's, notably the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam's (Mr. Cashore's).

We're talking now about $250 million worth of public money in times of restraint, where everybody is being cut left and right in terms of services and taxes being heaped upon them. It may very well be part of the Wilson restraint budget which won't change much, because this thing has been promised for years and years, and even the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) has come out in past years as being opposed to it.

Just let me say a couple of words on it because I can refute each of those points, but I don't have time because of our agreement. We're not opposed to Vancouver Island having a pipeline or Powell River. We know it would be of immense benefit, I think, on the Sunshine Coast and it would be some benefit, especially to people who are faced with heating bills, in Victoria. The mills don't want it. I don't know whether we change one environmental thing for another. What we are going to do with the hog fuels when the gas gets here is another question of pollution for the mills.

Let me say that I think that ultimately, because of the process that's been handled here in terms of environmental assessment and the like, I'm pretty sure that there will be a court challenge like the Rafferty

[ Page 6447 ]

Dam one, because of the vast amounts of federal money.

Before I close, it's not the company that's putting up the money; there is a guaranteed loan. There's a cash grant of over $100 million plus a guaranteed loan of another $50 million, and we want to know how you can really justify it. It's not the line; it's the route through the best watershed in British Columbia.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, first I thank the House Leader on the opposite side for the time.

The project certificate which will be issued to the pipeline company contains many pages of terms and conditions. The terms and conditions that will apply to the Coquitlam watershed will be written by the mayors on the lower mainland. Any terms and conditions for eliminating any risk to do with the crossing through the watershed will be their terms and conditions — no problem.

The cleanest operation you can put anywhere is a gas pipeline; it's much cleaner than a logging road There's a very good logging road all the way along that 12-mile-long reservoir. It was authorized by the mayors. Clearcut logging right down to the reservoir was authorized by the mayors. If there were a problem with the gas line, gas goes straight up. It's safer than a waterline, which would cause flooding down into the reservoir. It's far cleaner than an oil line.

It's a foot in diameter, and it will run along the logging road. No additional right-of-way is needed other than the logging road right-of-way. It's the cleanest conceivable operation. The builders of the line can live with any standards that the mayors want to set out. There is no risk to the reservoir or the water supply of Vancouver.

MR. LONG: To start with, I'm shocked and appalled by the member for Coquitlam's statement that federal money used on many occasions for many other projects, and B.C. money used in many projects on the lower mainland to help the people in the GVRD.... B.C. Place, the Alex Fraser Bridge, SkyTrain, everything that attributes to money from government.... Then they turn around and say to us: "No government money to help the environment on the coast of British Columbia."

Where are they on environment? Do you believe in environment? You spell it out; you say it, but you don't believe in it. Where are the members for Vancouver Island? I'm ashamed of them. Where are they standing up and saying for the people in their ridings that they believe that their people should have cheaper fuel, a clean fuel, a cleaner environment? Where are they? They are not even in the House to listen. All they want to do is muddy the waters. The turbidity is getting so thick in here I can hardly stand it.

The pipeline is necessary for the reasons I have given. I would like to find out where they sit. Where are the members for Vancouver Island, Victoria, North Island? Why don't they stand up for their people? When will they stand up for the working person who is going to get his fuel at half the rate he pays today? I challenge them to step forward and tell all their constituents where they stand on this issue. I'm for my constituency. I'm for gas. I'm for the Sunshine Coast, Powell River, Gibsons, Sechelt, Squamish and all Vancouver Island.

Maybe on the restructuring, you'll understand that if they take more seats away from you and put more in Vancouver, you'll be walked on even more in the future. You back that up as well. Let us carry on. Let's get the things we need for our ridings. I thank you very much for the time, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

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

MR. SIHOTA: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA: I note that in the precincts today are a number of visitors. First of all, the secretary of the Victoria Labour Council, Mr. Steve Orcherton. He is joined by Mr. Bill Fowler, also an executive member of the Victoria Labour Council. In addition, there is a group of grade 5 students from Oaklands School in Victoria. In the absence of the members for Victoria, I would like to ask all members to join me in extending a warm welcome to their teacher, Mr. Laughton, and the two interns with him.

[11:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 13.

MR. SIHOTA: When we left off yesterday I was asking the minister to let me know, after reflection, what the government has decided to do with respect to civil injunctions. I know we finished around 6 o'clock, and I don't know whether the minister wanted to add anything beyond what he said. If not, I will come back to that matter later today, because I was anticipating that the member for Point Grey wanted to raise a couple of matters at this stage.

We've talked on a number of matters to date. I've tried to go back and reflect on some cases that have been in the limelight over the past few years. One area which caused me some concern with respect to the Attorney-General — I want to ask him some questions about this — relate to the oil spill which occurred on the west coast of Vancouver Island earlier this year over the December to January period.

There was an oil spill which caused considerable economic damage to many of the local people involved in various facets of the economy—people in the fishing industry who had their livelihoods inter-

[ Page 6448 ]

rupted by that oil spill, or tourist operators who had their income interrupted during that portion of the tourist season.

The provincial government incurred expenses with respect to the provincial emergency program, as did the federal government with respect to cleanup costs. There was, at the same time, some discussion with respect to actions which had taken place in Washington State by their Coast Guard which caused the oil to come up here to the west coast.

At the time, I canvassed the possibility of the Attorney-General's ministry considering legal action against Washington State. I am wondering whether the minister will confirm that his ministry has studied that matter. Could he advise us where the government now stands with respect to commencing litigation against Washington State?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Following the spill, I instructed the ministry immediately to pursue the options for remedies that might be available to the province of British Columbia in its own right. We have done that both here in our own jurisdiction, and in looking historically at the Cominco circumstances where there was a major cross-border pollution matter that also resulted in action.

The province and Canada together have concluded that because Canada, the United States and some of the potential defendants in the matter, if it were to be litigated, are now looking at resolution of some of the costs and the quantifiable damages.... We have taken the position of working with Canada to see if we can get resolution that way.

Certainly we have studied our options, and we have options. If need be, we will exercise our options

MR. SIHOTA: So one of those options, I take it, that is still under consideration by the ministry is litigation against authorities in the United States. Is that correct?

HON. S.D. SMITH: As I said at the outset, my style is to try to pursue resolution rather than litigation. We looked at our options right away, and we have them. But the long and the short of it is that Canada and British Columbia's goal is to recover the cost or the damages available, or at least that impacted on this province. That's what we're working to do.

We have examined the options that we would have independently, if that were not to take place. If we can't find resolution through the negotiations now going on, we will at that time make a decision about which of those options we ought to pursue.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says that there are negotiations. Could he elaborate in terms of the form and the forum of those negotiations?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I am sorry. Could I hear the question again?

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says that there are negotiations ongoing. I am wondering who is conducting those negotiations, where they are happening and what British Columbia is claiming.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The ongoing negotiations are a matter of public record. They are not within this ministry. They are being conducted by the government of Canada through — I am going to make the assumption, though perhaps I shouldn't assume — External and Environment. A more appropriate place to discuss environmental issues would be with the Ministry of Environment.

MR. SIHOTA: Is British Columbia, through the provincial government, represented at the table with respect to those negotiations?

HON. S.D. SMITH: We have been involved. Yes.

MR. SIHOTA: What is the nature of that involvement?

HON. S.D. SMITH: We have been there to make certain that our concern, our claim and what we consider ought to be a part of that would form part of the discussion.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister say what damages the province is seeking, or has asked the feds to seek on our behalf?

HON. S.D. SMITH: No, I can't. I'm not going to, in this chamber, enter into the negotiations that are going on between Canada and the United States.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not asking the minister to explain what you're negotiating or what position you're taking. I'm trying to find out what your claim is for. Maybe you can elaborate on that.

HON. S.D. SMITH: As I said, Canada and the Ministry of Environment in British Columbia have quantified, have put down in terms of specifics, what they want to receive compensation for. That process of negotiation is what is going on. We have, independently of that, examined our options lest that process not succeed. If the member wishes to get the specifics of what the ministry of environment is doing, I would urge him to raise that issue when the estimates of the Minister Responsible for Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) are up.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That would probably be a more appropriate time.

All our costs are not in yet. We are still burning debris, and as we burn, costs are incurred; and there are many other factors to consider. So it's pretty premature at this point for either myself or the Attorney-General to try to arrive at a number. Our meter is running, and we're keeping good track of all the expenses we are incurring.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

[ Page 6449 ]

Leave granted.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have the pleasure of welcoming and introducing to the House my oldest daughter, Natalie Smallwood, and her friend Paul Nygren.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll take up that matter with the Minister Responsible for Environment.

The minister says his ministry has independently taken a look at the options available to it. Apart from litigation and dealing with the federal government, what else are you looking at?

HON. S.D. SMITH: There are generally only two options. One is to negotiate a settlement, and that is what's going on with the Ministry of Environment. The other option is to pursue some remedy in the courts. We've looked at those options.

MS. MARZARI: Today is a day of mourning for workers who have died or been injured on the job. I have been working on the case of Stephen Dent, who was killed on May 6, 1988. This 27-year-old native man was diving for scallops from a small commercial boat, and he drowned in 70 feet of water a mile and a half off Breakwater Island in the Georgia strait. The jury that reported on July 29 was very concerned about this case and stated something to the effect that due to contradictory and incomplete evidence, they strongly recommended a complete investigation and a review of the circumstances surrounding Stephen Dent's death. Stephen's family have been following this case, obviously in great grief, for a year now.

I gather that as a result of this inquest, changes have been made to the standards around scallop fishing and the industry, which I would imagine is very small. But the Crown counsel's office has yet to look at the case, has yet to talk with the family, has yet to talk with the lawyers, has yet to really communicate with the coroner. It seems to be a situation that could lead to charges being laid. That seems to be what the jury was concerned about. The jury found undetermined causes of death, but they did express deep concern.

I would like to ask, especially on this day when we are looking at death and injury of workers, what has happened to Stephen Dent.

HON. S.D. SMITH: If the member had given me notice I could have had the details. I'll get someone to go out and dig up the facts. I simply don't carry them in the top of my head.

MR. SIHOTA: The same may apply with respect to the next matter I want to raise with the Attorney-General: that is, the matter of private prosecutions.

The Attorney-General may be aware that my colleague for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), our environment critic, raised the matter of a private prosecution at Woodfibre by a Mr. Ryan, who is a barrister in that area, with respect to an application The action was commenced by Mr. Blair with respect to pollution and the release of significant effluents, contrary to both federal and provincial regulations and enactments. By way of letter dated October 5, 1988, Crown counsel wrote back to Mr. Ryan and said that it was their intention to quash that proceeding. I have a copy of the letter here, for what it's worth.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

This raised a concern in my mind as to what the policy of the ministry is with respect to quashing or staying in these types of private prosecutions in environmental matters. When my colleague raised it, it was referred to your ministry. In his absence, I just wanted to raise that, and perhaps he could advise as to what the government policy is with respect to these matters. Have you decided that you're just not going to allow citizens to bring forward private prosecutions on environmental issues?

[11:30]

HON. S.D. SMITH: The answer is no, we haven't decided that. The Crown exercises a two-part test in any prosecution. One is the likelihood of conviction, and the other is a public-interest test. That is the case in all prosecutions.

No, there is no blanket policy that precludes that. Obviously the Crown retains unto itself its ultimate discretion with respect to prosecution and its exercise.

Again, if you want some details as to the reason, it would be helpful if I could get that sort of thing in advance, and I'd simply have it here so we'd be able to get the questions answered.

MR. SIHOTA: Fine, we can deal with this on Monday. In the interim, I'll send everything I've got to the ministry staff so that they can deal with it.

Perhaps, while I'm doing that, and in fairness, I should also let you know that I also want to deal with the Sandra Dick case that comes out of Prince Rupert. I don't know if the minister is aware of that case. I'll deal with it on Monday, if his staff could be prepared to bring forward information on that case as well. It's a case involving a direct indictment on a sexual assault charge. The name of the Crown counsel escapes me at this time; it's a woman, but I just can't remember her name. In any event, it's a fairly notable case, and I'm sure the ministry and their officials will be aware of it.

Yesterday I talked in some depth about access to justice and the ability of individuals to secure access to the courts. I enunciated my concerns about legal aid and the "Access to Justice" report dealing with the equality of access to the courts. Now I'd like to turn to the equality of treatment before the criminal courts in this province.

It seems to me that there's a tremendous variation in the range and nature of sentencing across British Columbia as administered by our courts. I had some difficulty securing more recent statistics, but I did have access to 1986 statistics in this regard. When I started to go through the material, the variations across B.C. struck me as peculiar.

[ Page 6450 ]

Let me say at the outset that I'm not expecting that sentencing across British Columbia will be constant — that in all cases one must allocate the same sentence. Indeed, one would expect variations across the province, depending on the nature and record of the individual before the courts and the nature of the crime.

I think it's fairly safe to assume that no one community is more violent than another and that the nature of offences that come in front of the courts over a year are balanced out and relatively the same. However, the statistics across the province really caught my eye. With the help of some people at the University of Victoria, I took a look at the median jail terms for all offences across the province, the percentage of people jailed of those convicted in a particular matter. I must give some credit to Keith Jobson, a professor of law at UVic. The findings for the 1986 statistics are really quite astounding. The bottom line is that, by a ratio of three to one in the most extreme case, the median jail term varies from one community to the other.

I'll just tell you what the numbers show. In Nanaimo the median jail term for all offences is 21 days; in Victoria, 30 days; in Kamloops, 60 days; in Vernon, 90 days; in Prince George, 45 days; in Vancouver and in Port Alberni, it's 30 days. Therefore, if you are coming before the courts in Prince George as opposed to Vernon.... The median jail term in Vernon is 90 days, compared to Port Alberni's 30 days.

If you take a look at the percentage of people jailed — of those that are convicted — the statistics are a little bit more even, but again, have tremendous variances. In Nanaimo the percentage is 28 percent; in Victoria, it's 35 percent; in Kamloops, it's 38 percent; in Vernon, it's 45 percent; in Prince George, it's 36 percent; in Vancouver, it's 45 percent; and in Port Alberni, it's 19 percent. The range between communities like Port Alberni and Vernon is 19 percent to 45 percent. That seems to be a rather extreme variation in the rates of incarceration. I would assume that people in Vernon are not more violent than those in Port Alberni or Vancouver, and that overall, the nature of the crime tends to balance out from one community to another.

I'm wondering whether the Attorney-General's ministry is aware of these variances, because I would feel for someone who is brought before the courts in Vernon; on the other hand, someone in Port Alberni may well have a lighter time of it. I'm wondering if the Attorney-General's ministry is aware of these variances, and what it is intending to do to deal with this issue.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I trust and hope, as sincerely as I can, that the member, who hopes to be the minister some day in this portfolio, is not suggesting that we fetter the independence of the judiciary and start telling them how to sentence. If that is not what he said, that is certainly what it sounded like he might be implying.

I want to say very clearly and very specifically that I will not, under any circumstances, interfere in that process or, more importantly, appear to be interfering in that process or do anything other than, through the Crown counsel office, make submission at the time of sentencing. That is one of the most fundamental foundation stones of our whole justice system, and I do not want to get into that line of discussion.

If the member is asking what we have for information, when I was sworn into this portfolio, I met with the member and invited him to avail himself of my office and the information we have in terms of public policy discussions, so that he could always be current on any issues he wished to raise politically. I don't know the data you are referring to from the University of Victoria, but I can tell you that when you talk about averages, obviously one case can throw averages all out of whack, to say the least.

It's very important that we try to be up-to-date. We have, in that regard, a sentencing database in the province of British Columbia that is very current. Material in my office, if the member is interested in this stuff, is up to 1989 — not 1986, as he is referring to. It's done at the University of British Columbia; it's funded in part by this ministry and is available to all Crown counsel, all judges and all defence counsel through a modem hookup in the province of British Columbia. Indeed, it's available to that member in his own office where he practises law.

We support that, and we think that kind of technological application to information will make for greater consistency in the range of sentences not only asked for, but sentences rendered by the court.

In addition to that, we are supporting a provincial judiciary who are, as we speak, themselves preparing manuals on procedures and sentencing so that they can, through their own independence, develop some consistency in sentencing around the province. Those are two very important areas we are currently funding and about which we're making certain information is available to people. Up-to-date data and procedures that are being designed to help get consistency in sentencing can be developed.

But let me repeat, because I do not want to leave the impression with any member of the public that even though we are supporting that, even though that sentencing database is there and up-to-date and current, even though we are supporting the procedures the judges themselves are now embarking upon and even though through our own Crown office we try to have some consistency in the kinds of sentences that are asked for.... Every single case that comes before the court is heard independently, and the judiciary must absolutely be left the discretion to make those decisions on sentencing themselves. While we, through the Crown office, will make our submissions strongly in terms of what we think are appropriate sentences to deter criminals, to protect the public and to advance community values, I am certainly not going to get into the business of trying, through direct or indirect action, to interfere with the independence of the judiciary in that regard.

MR. SIHOTA: Look, I think the Attorney-General knows full well that my comments weren't designed

[ Page 6451 ]

to ask him to interfere with the independence of the judiciary. He knows that all too well, and for him to interpret those comments and to take it to that extreme is wholly inappropriate. If we want to get into playing those games, then I guess we can get terribly full of rhetoric in this House during debate. We've tried to avoid that, and I would encourage the Attorney-General to avoid it for the balance of these estimates. I think we've moved along quite well on these issues without getting into those extreme positions and misinterpretations of what's being said. The Attorney-General knows full well that there's no intention on this side of the House to begin to fetter the discretion of judges. The Attorney-General knows full well that on this side of the House we understand the importance of Crown counsel being able to go into courts and freely make submissions as to what they think appropriate with respect to sentencing. The Attorney-General knows full well that it's not our policy to try to direct either Crown counsel or counsel for the accused in how they ought to deal with sentencing.

[11:45]

This is a discussion that's based upon data I've got, which I think is important information and raises significant issues in terms of public policy and policy within the Ministry of Attorney-General. Of course, in his secondary comments the Attorney-General comes to the acknowledgement of exactly what we're trying to get at: that whole matter of information-sharing. The purpose of the study — which is funded publicly, so I would think the Attorney-General would have access to it — is to deal with communication and information with respect to courts and judges and the types of manuals he's talking about. That's the purpose of raising it. He ought not to deflect from that into some type of extended, exaggerated, unnecessary and, quite frankly, unprovoked comment. Let's just get on with the job of these estimates in a relatively efficient and businesslike manner, instead of engaging in the type of exaggerated comment that flowed from the other side just now.

My question to the Attorney-General, who of course doesn't like this now, is: if you've got figures for post-1986, perhaps you could be kind enough to tell the House what those figures are and whether or not there has been.... Eighty-six may have been an extreme year. It's the last year I could get my hands on. Has the situation changed?

HON. S.D. SMITH: If the member feels provoked, I'm sorry to hear that. I understood him to be making a point with respect to sentencing. Under no circumstances do I want anyone to come to the conclusion that I would participate in any way, in any discussion even...that could be left in the public mind to draw that conclusion. If that is provocation, then so be it.

I can only say to the member, as I did on July 7 or 8 last year, that anytime he wants this kind of data I invite him to come and get it. It's available through a program that we're very pleased to be involved in. The sentencing database is well known and supported by the bar association, by the judiciary, by the University of B.C., by this ministry. Indeed, as I say, most law offices — actually a significant number in British Columbia — are hooked into it by modem, and it simply sets out.... For instance, I could get the range of sentencing for virtually any kind of criminal matter, right up to late 1988 or early 1989. So if he tells me what he wants, I'd be happy to get it for him.

MR. SIHOTA: My question, which was not answered, is: have you statistics beyond 1986 in this form that deal with, on a community-by-community basis, information on the median jail terms for all offences? If you can, I'd appreciate being provided with it. If you have it there, let's hear it to see whether or not those initiatives which you say you're taking have assisted in curbing the type of variances that I spoke of during my comments.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Well, I will certainly provide him with what information we have. I don't have the form that he's reading from over there from 1986, but I'll provide him with whatever information we have. There are vast quantities of it that deal with the issues of sentencing specifically. It is called a sentencing database system. It's a major part of the system in British Columbia. It shows variances and....

MR. SIHOTA: How extreme are they?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's do it through the Chair. It was fine for a while there, but it's slipping.

HON. S.D. SMITH: If the member requests specific areas that he's interested in, I'll get it for him. I don't know that there would be any utility served in bringing it into the House, but if he wishes me to do so, I'll be happy to. All the reams of paper on each section of the Criminal Code for which they have sentencing material.... I will bring it in if that's what he wants. If he wants something more specific than that, I'll do that as well.

But I think we ought not rely on 1986 information when we have 1989 information.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I too would like to speak to the question of sentencing. I do so recognizing, as does the Attorney-General, the independence of the judiciary. I do so not to in any way reflect upon the independence that we all observe, appreciate and know is a necessity.

I also understand the tremendous burden that we place on judges in our society, and the comparison and the weighing of their sense of responsibility in that courtroom and their sense of compassion both for the accused and for the victims. I appreciate all of that. I also appreciate that they have to reflect and should reflect the mores and the value system of our community, and that they try very hard to do so.

The subject that I'm going to raise today in terms of sentencing has to do with the justice system as it pertains to children and infants who can't speak for themselves in most cases. I've been grateful to the Attorney-General for giving me some statistics which

[ Page 6452 ]

were brought together by the University of British Columbia. These trial decisions between January 1984 and September 1988, which were provided by the Attorney-General, were much appreciated. Without going into all the details of this report, it should be noted that suspended sentences and sentences between one and two years on sexual assault cases alone were the greatest proportion of the sentencing in this report. They go from suspended sentences, fines and one month right up to 15 years to life. The preponderance of these sentences is captured by that suspended-sentence category and the one- to two-year category.

Today I want to bring to the Attorney-General the concern that I believe is out there in the community for the compassion for this tiny, defenceless, vulnerable child — in many cases, an infant. I feel that this is very much a non-partisan situation. I frankly believe that we have a responsibility in this House to bring that concern to the attention of the community. That's why we were elected; that's why we sit in this chamber. Today I want to speak for those children, and I want to speak for all of the people in the community who are, quite frankly, outraged by every case they read about. It is, in most cases, because the unbelievable situations that are reported are sensationalized, and because they are sensational in themselves.

I want to share with the House some cases which I, frankly, have found very difficult. These have all been publicized. So nothing I am sharing with the House today hasn't been in the newspaper — and you've probably read more than one a week, unfortunately.

This one is from the Times-Colonist and was reported on June 29, 1984. It tells about a baby's death. The report said: "There is no justification for anyone to shake or assault a tiny baby." This is a B.C. Supreme Court judge handing Michael John Gregory a sentence of two years less a day: "'You have killed your seven-week-old infant.' Following a three-day trial, a jury found Gregory, 21, guilty of manslaughter in the September 27 death of Jessica Gregory, who was born July 31."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I quote from a Province article of February, when a child was beaten by the common-law husband:

"After one beating left this child's entire body bruised, the five-year-old had to spend several days in intensive care, and Hugh Grant, who had twice beaten this child, won't be spending one hour in jail. The judge" — in this case a Provincial Court judge — "said yesterday: 'Grant would be better off in the community where he can receive counselling for his hot temper."'

We can look at other sentences and other examples. Shawn Miller was convicted of long-term sexual assault and indecent assault on multiple victims. Approximately eight were known. In the sentencing of two years, which this person received, the sentence was not appealed because of the uncertainty of the actual number of contacts and the unwillingness of victims to testify. So we understand that sometimes the Crown cannot appeal.

Then there is another case where two girls, age ten and 14, were assaulted by Earl Wyegard, and he was sentenced to one year.

Then we have the case of a five-year-old boy who was sexually assaulted by Ian G. Robertson. He admitted to performing several sex acts on the boy at least a dozen times while babysitting. His first sentence was six months for molesting an eight-year-old boy before that. This sentence was for three years. The judge described his behaviour as "abhorrent and repulsive."

This is not the kind of thing that one wants to refer to the House, but there are several other cases. I will just give you a couple more.

Wayne Vincent sexually assaulted a six-year-old girl over a six-month period, and received a one-and a-half-year sentence, plus three years' probation, and is not to associate with children under 13. The judge even took into account that Vincent had spent one month in jail awaiting trial, so of course his sentence was reduced by that month.

Mark Clifford sexually assaulted two young girls, age seven and ten, and received a two-year sentence.

William Harrison. A six-year-old child and a ten-year-old child were assaulted by him. The judge said the case was more serious because of an element of trust between Harrison and the victims. The sentences were concurrent on three charges and he received one and a half years.

Then there is the following unnamed case. This case was received from the Ministry of Social Services. I can't give you the name, but it has been publicized. I just don't have it at hand right now. A few years ago this person was given two years' probation for sexually abusing stepdaughters who were approximately five to six years of age at the time. After the probation period was finished, he attempted to set up a child and family counselling service specializing in sexual abuse cases and continued his pedophilic pattern. He had taken no therapy, obviously learned no behaviour control, and society certainly was not protected from him. Because of media exposure, this counselling firm was finally shut down.

Lastly, I want to refer you to the Bohnenkamp case, which was a matter of great publicity a couple of years ago. Both the mother and her boyfriend were sentenced. The child died from abusive beating, abusive assault. The mother was given two years; the boyfriend was given six years. A child was dead, and the mother was given two years and the boyfriend six years. The Crown appealed that, and the sentence was increased to 12 years.

[12:00]

Michael Gregory is the last case that I am going to refer to. This is about an infant who in 1982 was shaken and thrown, resulting in head injuries resulting in death. The sentence: two years. That sentence was appealed by the Crown and increased to four years.

I want to say this. I know that we can appeal and that we have appealed. I know that the Ministry of

[ Page 6453 ]

Social Services and the Attorney-General work together in that regard. I do appreciate that we do that. But I wanted, just frankly, to get the opinion of the Attorney-General and to get the feeling of the House, and the outrage of the community, when this kind of sentencing is given — this light sentencing for murder. I want to put it on the record. I feel strongly, as a parent and a citizen, as a British Columbian. I really believe, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly in the province of British Columbia, that I speak on behalf of people who read of these cases, week in, week out — and they have no criticism of our judicial system, Mr. Chairman; nor do I.

We had a case a few years ago, or a few months ago, even: Robert Noyes. I think Robert Noyes was sentenced to quite a heavy sentence. Everybody knows the Robert Noyes case: in a position of trust, a schoolteacher over many years assaulted children, changed their lives forever. He influenced the way that those children will live in our society forever. I think that he got quite a strong sentence because there was a great deal of publicity surrounding that case. There are many cases that don't receive that kind of publicity. But the quite heavy sentence that he received — it wasn't really heavy, but it was a quite heavy, responsible sentence, I would think — is a reflection of what the community is thinking now.

Sometimes I think that we have to remind the people in the judiciary, whom we entrust to do that balance of compassion and responsibility, of what the community is thinking. We have to catch them up a bit, maybe, on where we are today. There is far more awareness today about child abuse, and I have to tell you that that is because our government has brought awareness to the community, and the community itself has done so. With that greater awareness, I believe, comes the responsibility that when we do have these people before a court — and years ago they never got before a court; this problem was hidden — it's incumbent upon all of us to make sure that those offenders receive the kind of sentencing they deserve. We're talking about murder, rape, beating. We're talking about crumbling a child's body so that they will never live a normal life again. We're talking about defenceless, vulnerable children. I would really like this assembly to give that message loud and clear to all of those who have that kind of responsibility.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I want to thank the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain for that contribution and for the discussions that she and I have had about this very important issue. I also want to acknowledge that she is keenly aware of the need to respect the independence of our judiciary, and as well, from her work and her contribution as Minister of Human Resources in this province, has an understanding of the gravity of the issue and the impact that it has particularly on young people's lives and their families' lives, the way people are destroyed by these kinds of actions. While I cannot ever remove my hat as Attorney-General, the body that holds that hat on shares that rage. The kind of mentality and activity that results in these sorts of actions being taken against the most innocent in our society, little children, is incomprehensible to me.

I think the contribution that the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain has made, not only today but before today, in bringing to the public's attention these kinds of issues and in enhancing and broadening the debate so that we face the fact that these issues are very current in our community and that we must come to grips with them, is something that will and does contribute to their resolution. It is the case that the public looks at the measure of sentencing not only for the crime that is committed but also for the kind of person who commits it, and wonders aloud why someone receives what may appear to be a light sentence for an action that is taken; or they will look at the person's stature in the community when these kinds of actions occur and wonder why those persons may not have had as strong a sentence as they thought they might have. The public is entitled to wonder that.

What we have to do, and what we can do, is to keep the debate alive and the information current. I think it is safe to say that the judiciary themselves are not unmindful of the abhorrence in the community. I'm certain they take that sort of thing into account when they are performing their duties in sentencing. We have taken a number of cases in this province to the appeal court, which we must do and should do when we consider that sentences are not appropriate. In fact, the Court of Appeal of British Columbia has, I think, begun to lead the country in terms of the degree of sentences imposed in those situations where appeals go forward from the trial courts. The sentences, and sentencing generally, and the reflection of the community's view, is, I think, moving more towards the position that the member would believe to be — indeed, I think most members of the community would concur with her — more appropriate.

As well, I can tell the member that where I have been asked, as the Attorney-General must be, to participate by signing an application that a person be declared a dangerous sexual offender, I have not refused any of those applications. I can say without hesitation that I would be hard put to refuse one of those applications that come forward to me, unless the circumstances were very clear that it was one I ought not to sign, because it is in the area of getting a declaration of someone as a dangerous sexual offender which allows for an indeterminate jail sentence. I think that is the greatest protection we can give our society, rather than have some of these people out, as you indicated earlier, on some non-jail time sentence or suspension or probation in the hopes they will receive some sort of counselling in the community. Perhaps more effective for the community would be to have them receive that counselling within the security of the walls of our jails.

When those applications come before me I look at them carefully, as I must, but in all cases I have in fact agreed that the application to have them declared a dangerous sexual offender proceed, and to my knowledge they have succeeded in each instance.

[ Page 6454 ]

I appreciate what you have put to this chamber today, Madam Member. That kind of discussion is important, in my view, because the community's attitude must be reflected — and is reflected — in the sentencing process; otherwise, a cynicism develops within the community about the ability of our justice system to protect the interests of the community from these kinds of people, who after all we need protection from.

MR. B.R. SMITH: I'm going to make some general remarks today, and say that it's a pleasure to be able to stand back a little bit and look at these estimates from a slightly different perch than the last six years when I had responsibility for them.

I have tried to follow this debate and to read the Blues when I was not here. I would be remiss, I think, if I did not acknowledge that I consider the people who work in the Ministry of Attorney-General, including those who are now in the other ministry, and whom I worked with for the last five and a half years, to be really a very high calibre of public servant, right from the top to the bottom. I spent a great deal of time in the field getting around in what would now be the two ministries, and the level of dedication of these people was never more apparent than during the times when we reduced manpower, tightened our belt and did all kinds of innovative things to try and keep essential services going. Those were very tough days, and the dedication, morale and professionalism we got from people in that ministry I will always remember. Maybe it's easier to acknowledge that now today because it doesn't sound quite so self-serving, so I'm going to make that acknowledgment. I think it's a very high-calibre ministry.

I will add my voice to the tributes to Madam Justice McLachlin, the latest appointee to the Supreme Court of Canada. I had the honour to address the court when she was sworn in as a Court of Appeal justice and to know her from the Canadian-American legal exchange and other conferences I was involved with her on. She is a very high-calibre jurist. As one wag said: "She went through the judicial system faster than most litigants do." She has had one of the most meteoric rises in Canadian judicial history, and to have her on the Supreme Court of Canada is definitely an adornment.

I would like to acknowledge as well the judge she replaced, Mr. Justice William McIntyre, not the least because he was a Victoria barrister of top quality who practised here in the sixties. He sat on the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, and I appeared before him in all of those tribunals and knew him personally. He has made a huge contribution to the jurisprudence of Canada. His common sense and scholarship will be sadly missed.

[12:15]

Not too many British Columbians have become jurists in the top court, and lest anyone think that that is a judicial plum, I can assure you it is not. It is a judicial workhouse, and the load those judges have in the Charter litigation area is quite astounding.

On Monday I'm going to speak about justice reform at some length. I'm going to talk about a few other issues today, some of which have been canvassed.

I just want to say that I'm very pleased that the government has increased the legal aid allocations by 20 percent. I happen to believe that that is a very good initiative. While I would always like to see more money devoted to legal aid, if we had an ideal society and sufficient resources, I would like to see the British system of legal aid, where a lawyer is paid at his going rate for doing a case and not at a rather miserly tariff. The notion of legal aid was not that lawyers were to do this as a business; primarily they were to do it as a public service and a learning experience. A lot of very fine barristers have cut their teeth on legal aid.

We have improved the legal aid funding: $5 million in additional money was put in, as I recall, two years prior to this budget, and there's a very good lift in this budget. I'm glad to see that more resources are being allocated to family law; I think that's where they're needed. I also think that we have got to make stronger strides to provide some civil legal aid. The federal government's contribution to that is not great, but there's some contribution.

The reforms in the field of family law, I think, are excellent. The maintenance project is off to a very good start. Sandra Edelman is a very good choice to head that up — an extremely competent, hard-nosed, dedicated lady who worked on the pilot project — and I think it is going to be successful.

The maintenance project is only part of the problem of all the spouses, mostly women, in this province who are left with limited resources because they cannot recover from the other spouse. I don't think that maintenance enforcement is by any means the whole picture. It's very important, I think, that we encourage more settlements in matrimonial cases that don't involve maintenance but involve distribution of assets. There is nothing particularly pleasant about someone being dependent on a spouse for many years with maintenance payments. It is often a very unpleasant relationship on both sides. It is much better, particularly where small children are involved, if that marriage can be dissolved on the basis of a distribution of assets, so that the two can make a clean break.

Therefore I applaud the initiatives of counselling and mediation that are improving and multiplying around the province. I think they should be encouraged more. We should be encouraging spouses after a separation to become self-sufficient, not more dependent. The cleanest way of doing that is to have an asset distribution. The wife can then make a fresh start with dignity.

I also want to say that when we debated maintenance in the past, we heard another point of view, which was from the father. I am not speaking about fathers who tried to avoid maintenance or didn't want to pay maintenance, because I have scant sympathy for them, as does this House. I am talking about fathers who always raised another issue when

[ Page 6455 ]

we raised maintenance enforcement. That other issue was access — not custody, but access.

Custody had already been decided: it was with the mother. But they had this problem with access. Those of us who have practised matrimonial law, as I did in the sixties and seventies — a considerable amount of it — time after time had the experience where one spouse uses the children to get back at the other. The custodial spouse — usually the wife — is in the driver's seat with the children. There may be a perfectly reasonable order for access; it's all nicely spelled out. But there are so many ways of thwarting that, of being miserable and of ensuring that the children don't turn up or don't go, or don't look forward to it when they do go.

It is absolutely imperative that there be some better commitment in the system to allow fathers to get these access cases on in a summary way — at very fast speed and very low cost. It should be possible to make summary chamber motions for access very easily. We have got to make some strides in that.

I'm going to yield to the Finance minister for an introduction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Finance minister asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to my colleague. I do appreciate the opportunity to introduce to the House some very important visitors to our province in the form of senior executives of Daiwa Securities Ltd., which, as you might know, has recently opened an office in Vancouver. We are very pleased to have in our presence Mr. Isoda, senior managing director responsible for North America and Latin America. With him is Mr. Watanabe, the chief representative in Vancouver. I ask the members to join with me in expressing our appreciation of their interest in our affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Yale-Lillooet has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. RABBITT: I, too, have some very important visitors from the great little jewel of Yale-Lillooet. In the gallery today are Mayor Ben Roy, Ald. Anita Moore and Ald. Wyatt McMurray from that great little town of Cache Creek. Would the House give them a warm welcome.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head for his indulgence and ask him to continue, please.

MR. B.R. SMITH: I'm going to continue by moving away from that field. The issue is access to access The issue really is that we have to do a better job, and maybe that can be embraced in the justice reform package, or what flows from it: access to access hearings for these fathers. Having said that, I do not believe that manipulation of access is grounds for interfering with maintenance. I think the two are absolutely separate.

I would like to speak briefly about law reform — not justice reform, which has been amply covered by the commission, but law reform. We have a Law Reform Commission in British Columbia. It was established many years ago, and during my early time in this chamber it produced annual reports. In fact, I can remember reading those reports through the 1970s; they made very useful recommendations for law reform. One of their reports in the seventies was a second attempt at bringing in an expropriation law. What we used to do in this place was to receive those reports annually, thumb through them and not do very much with them: put them back on the shelf, appoint more people to the Law Reform Commission and get more reports.

In about 1984 1 thought that we should give a lot more attention to the work they did, and that each year we should pass some law reform legislation. I think it's very important to do that, because we can get woefully out of touch in certain areas of civil law and allow it to go by year after year. Some of the legislation — the Statute of Frauds, for example — goes back to medieval times, and some of the litigation on that legislation certainly needed attention for many years. It's important, I think, that each year there be some dedication to law reform. I'm glad to say that we were able to do that between 1984 and 1988, to change the Statute of Frauds legislation, the law of agency, the performance of contracts under protest and many things like that that do not, of course, directly affect people in a wide sense perhaps, but have a great deal of effect on people who end up in litigation.

One of the issues we had to address in law reform last year was problems with the hangover of old mortgages on properties which were detrimental to the subsequent purchaser. We passed law reform legislation to remedy that.

Another piece of law reform that I think deserves some praise, particularly to the profession, is the new Legal Profession Act which was passed last year and represented the work of many people in the bar over many years. Also, a considerable amount of work was done in the ministry to get a new piece of legislation to govern the profession. It took many years of work.

One of the features of that law reform is that we now have three lay benchers. I appointed two, and one was appointed by the current Attorney-General. From reports I have received, those three lay benchers have made an outstanding contribution already to the affairs of the society. It's important that there be daylight in the operation of public societies, such as the Law Society, which have a number of special prerogatives and special privileges. It's very important that we have lay benchers.

We have lay benchers like Webster there. I think that many sleep a little safer in their beds as a result of that.

The Law Society, under its new legislation and new procedures, is going to have a considerable

[ Page 6456 ]

amount of additional authority to deal with discipline, credentials, competency — this kind of thing. I have noticed that as of late, there is considerably more advertisement from the Law Society in disciplinary hearings. You used to have to look pretty closely to find out the results of a Law Society disciplinary matter. You had to really explore at great length to find out the disposition of it, let alone any of the facts.

Other organizations, like the nurses, have been publicizing these things for years. Now the Law Society has started to do that. As long as they give the same kind of publicity in an even-handed way as they've been doing, I think the public....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member, but your time has expired under standing orders.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue to hear the discourse from my colleague and friend the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

MR. B.R. SMITH: I will move on with the subject of law reform, the expropriation reform that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) was speaking about several days ago. I heard his comments on that.

[12:30]

1 think it's most important to bear in mind that the commission needed about a year of start-up time and needed to draft procedures and rules and to get its feet wet before its caseload, because it is the first time in this province that we have had a tribunal of this kind dealing with compulsory taking. It was proposed in the sixties by the Clyne commission and again by the Law Reform Commission in the seventies, and it took us all that time to get this new act in place. Some 20 years of fiddling around, and we finally got a commission.

I think that the last person in this chamber who would want a commission like that to just get up and running the day after it started, without any rules or procedures and without knowing where it was going, would be the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. If he appeared before that commission for one of his wealthy landowners out in Esquimalt, one of his supporters, he would be the first one to complain. I can tell him and tell this House that Jack Heinrich has put in very long days familiarizing himself with expropriation law and that he is, I believe, a first-rate appointment.

The reason he was given a term appointment for five years was so that he would be independent of this chamber and of government. If he made a decision on an expropriation involving a Crown corporation that everybody in government thought stank because it was too high a payout, he couldn't be disciplined. The object was to have somebody who would be above interference, would have a set term of five years. That's the only way to go. I hope the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is listening.

HON. MR. REE: No, he left.

MR. B.R. SMITH: No, he's outside listening.

I want to speak just briefly about the role of Crown counsel. I'm delighted that the Hughes commission and the Attorney-General have given an indication that they are going to strengthen and professionalize more the operation of the Crown counsel office, because I think that following restraint, when many Crown counsel who were in government left and many went out on contract, there was an unsettling period. And during the middle of that unsettling period we started to make most horrendous new demands on Crown counsel, demands that they'd never had made upon them before, certainly not in my day of criminal practice. Crown counsel were not expected to do the things that we expect them to do now. We expect them now to be victims' counsellors, witness preparers. We expect them to spend time individually with every witness and every victim. And we expect them to donate a considerable amount of care to preparing people to go to court not just as witnesses but also emotionally -and that takes a lot of time. In making those demands on Crown counsel, we've got to give them the kind of resources they need. And strengthening and professionalizing that service, I think, is an excellent step.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair]

I must say, though, Mr. Chairman, I do not like the recommendation in justice reform to give the police some kind of formal appeal procedure of a decision to prosecute or not to prosecute. I think it's absolutely appropriate that the police should be able to make representations always — and they always have and always could — but I hope that the package will not enshrine a procedure. The notion in this province that police lay charges has never been part of the practice of criminal justice in British Columbia. They don't lay charges; they swear information. They recommend charges but they do not lay them. Those charges are laid by prosecutors who, after looking at the evidence and considering the matter, decide whether it is an appropriate case to go to court, based on the evidence and all considerations.

That has not been the rule in Ontario and has not been the rule in some other jurisdictions. As a result of that kind of a different approach, you have situations arise such as the Nelles case. It is important that a neutral prosecutor makes that final determination. There are some cases, of course, which are going to go higher than the prosecutor anyway; they're going to involve the Associate Deputy Attorney-General and the Deputy Attorney-General and maybe even the Attorney-General himself, but very few decisions will go that far. The Attorney-General's discretionary decision-making resides with direct indictments and resides with decisions to start proceedings for a dangerous sexual offender and things like that. But the prosecution decision has got to be made by Crown counsel.

I want to make another pitch. We have to keep some basis of ad hoc prosecutions in this province. When I say ad hoc, I mean someone prosecuting in

[ Page 6457 ]

each community from time to time, not doing all the prosecuting and maybe not even doing the majority of it.... It's not realistic to have the majority of prosecutions, at least in major urban centres, done by ad hoc counsel anymore. The load is too great; the Crown counsel offices are too large.

It's important that there is always a cadre of people in the private bar who do not regularly represent the Crown, who have represented the defence, who have a balanced approach to criminal law, who have not just worked one side of the street, and who are plugged in from time to time to criminal prosecutions, to appear as senior counsel on the assize and to appear, maybe in other stages, as junior counsel on the assize to do some of those cases.

I know that view will be regarded in some circles as old-fashioned. It is not old-fashioned. It is balanced. It is necessary that we keep an ad hoc system alive. I am not speaking about prosecutors on contract who earn a fair amount of their livelihood doing that. As far as I'm concerned, they are out-of house/in-house. I'm talking about people who practise in other areas of law and who are equipped and competent to do senior criminal work. They should always be used, particularly in the major communities where you have a jury system. I think that's imperative.

Asian youth gangs. No initiative was more fraught with risk but more necessary than the steps we took a year or so ago to try to stop the grip of terror that a small, very dangerous gang of lawbreakers was beginning to have on parts of the ethnic community in Vancouver. It was a very serious problem. It was a very small group of people — maybe a couple of hundred at the most — but the fear that gripped parts of Vancouver last year and the year before was very real.

I salute the McBride prosecution team, the police and that special force, the educators who put together the preventive programs that have been aired and shown on various language TV and radio shows. I think that the preventive part of the program was excellent as well, and I think that this initiative is one of the most important things the department was ever involved in. It broke the back of that terrorism, stopped that fear and gave some hope back to those communities and parents that their kids were not going to be at risk and were not going to be recruited.

It also had some very important repercussions in some of the cases. You remember the attempted-murder case where the 16-year-old man went into a theatre and fired a gun point-blank at the head of someone who had refused to be recruited to a gang. That juvenile was dealt with in young offenders' court The original decision of the first court was not to raise him to adult court, but the appeal court handed down some pretty strong words about offences of that kind, and that young man was raised to adult court and dealt with as an adult. So I commend the work that has been done by the prosecution team and by the members of that joint force.

There has got to be more vigilance in this area, and it's going to be very important that Vancouver police, the joint force and other forces that have this problem are able to recruit Asian members of their force and also, preferably, people who have had experience with this kind of problem in Hong Kong, San Francisco and other places where they've tackled and beaten it. We've got to work on that.

I want to speak briefly about northern justice, remote justice, and justice not just being the prerogative of large centres. It's very easy to think of the justice system in terms of the law courts in Vancouver or Victoria, but in many parts of this province, where they don't have large courthouses, resident Crown counsel, social workers and probation workers and where they have court on an itinerant basis, maybe once every six weeks or once a month, justice has a very different meaning. Justice there is people — not fancy facilities, but people — and the availability of these people to go into regions.

If you want to see northern justice in action, you should go on the northern justice circuit, the circuit that every six weeks from Whitehorse goes along the Yukon border and sits in Atlin, Lower Post, Cassiar and Dease Lake, and so on. It consists of about six or seven professionals, including a native courtworker, a fabulous probation officer from Terrace, Rob Watts, and a judge who usually comes from Vernon, who presides at that circuit. You can see what justice means to these communities. It won't take you very long to find out that about 95 percent of the cases in those communities involve natives and crimes of violence and alcohol. That tells you what your problem is. It tells you that this ministry is correct in devoting more time and attention in the future to the problems of native justice, in supporting strongly, as they are, the work of the native court worker system and in having their eye on a decentralization of services.

It was only last year that we amended the County Court Act to provide for a resident county court judge east of the mountains in the Peace River country for the first time. I can remember the wails of the bar in Prince George: "Oh, you can't do that. They are all supposed to live in Prince George." Nonsense! Why can't 60,000 people who live on the other side of the mountains have access to a resident judge as well? I think that was a right step.

Last year we arranged for a Provincial Court judge to hold court in Tumbler Ridge in a municipal court room. They didn't ask for a courthouse. "Please build us a courthouse, Mr. Minister. We would like to have one. All sorts of other communities have one." They said: "We've got a council chamber we hardly ever use. We will donate that council chamber. Here is a place for the judge to sit; all the facility is yours. Please bring in a court once a month, so that juveniles — and their mothers — whose fathers are working in the mine don't have to drive 60 miles to Chetwynd to have their court there. They can have it here." So that court was brought in.

These steps of decentralizing itinerant court services are the right steps to take. You cannot concentrate and run a justice system just from major centres. Justice is not just for people who live in Vancouver, Victoria and Prince George. It is for all these other

[ Page 6458 ]

people who live out in the communities that create the resources and the wealth of this province. This government has made a terribly important commitment to do something for northern justice.

I'm going to conclude my remarks now, and I am going to resume on Monday on one or two matters on justice reform. I thank the chamber for their attention.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Before we wind up today, I want to touch on a couple of matters flowing from some of the remarks that have been made this morning.

First of all, I want to respond to the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), who raised a question with respect to the Dent matter, and advise her that the regional Crown counsel is in the process of reviewing the circumstances and the information associated with that incident. No final decision has therefore been taken. Upon conclusion of the review by regional Crown, he will communicate with the family and their counsel.

We heard mentioned today the name of Sandra Edelman, who is director of the family maintenance program. I think it would be appropriate to record that we may congratulate Sandra this morning on the birth of her daughter yesterday, and I would like to do that.

Reference was made to the gang-activity unit in Vancouver, as we now refer to it. In the context of those discussions the unit was referred to relative to Asian youth gangs. Because questions were put to me earlier in this chamber, I want to confirm that the ministry does not see it as only an Asian youth gang matter. In fact, it is a gang activity problem usually associated with youth, but not always. It is certainly so much more broadly rooted now that no single ethnic description can really obtain.

[12:45]

As well, although the recommendations of the Justice Reform Committee refer to the charging practice in the province, I want the record to show very clearly that the recommendation itself does not, in my judgment, presuppose any change in the current practice and, in fact, in any event there will not be any change in the current practice. What there will be, however, is an opportunity — and it has arisen — where the agency supplying Crown with information from which they make a decision in exercising their discretion, which properly they do.... Sometimes there is a need for explanation about that decision-making process and we will find ways in which we can make certain that that practice is done in a way that is seen to be a process — although I think it has been the practice in the past. That is something that I think we ought to do, because if we're going to maintain the effectiveness of the process we have, which is in fact a good one, then we ought to be certain that those who sometimes resist it and are concerned about the decisions feel they have a way in which they can get good, useful and sensible explanations about why decisions are taken as they are taken.

On the matter of retention of ad hoc prosecutors, I want to say that I have said publicly now for a number of months that we will be keeping a good system for ad hoc prosecutors in this province and we will be doing so for a number of reasons. In many instances, it's an effective and efficient way to serve the public. As well, I think it's beneficial to members of the criminal bar, both from the Crown side and the defence side, because it enables them to participate in certain circumstances.

All of those things said, Mr. Chairman, I will now move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I wish everyone a most pleasant weekend and a safe journey home. With that, I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:49 p.m.