[ Page 6459 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Increase Pollution Penalties and Create an Environmental Protection

Fund (Bill M210). Mr. Harcourt

Introduction and first reading –– 6459

Oral Questions

Development in Boundary Bay. Mr. Cashore –– 6459

First Vancouver Securities Inc. Mr. Clark –– 6460

Day care funding. Ms. Marzari –– 6460

Sale of Jericho land. Ms. Marzari –– 6461

Cuts in federal transfer payments. Mr. Bruce –– 6461

Mr. Clark

Federal budget and B.C. forest industry. Mr. Miller –– 6462

Presenting Reports –– 6462

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

On vote 13: minister's office –– 6462

Mr. Sihota

Ms. Marzari

Mr. B.R. Smith

Mr. Rose

Mr. Clark

Mr. Jones

Mrs. Gran

Mr. G. Janssen

MONDAY, MAY 1, 1989

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. DUECK: Somewhere in the precincts today is the former Health minister, Jim Nielsen. When I travel around the province and talk to people about health and the Ministry of Health, people tell me again and again that he was tough, but he was fair. Therefore I would like this House to welcome the former Minister of Health, Jim Nielsen.

MS. MARZARI: In the gallery today are three visitors from across the sea who are professors of public administration at Thammasat University in Bangkok, Thailand: Dr. Vuntanee Vasikasin, Woothisan Tanchai and Elaine Harvey from Texas. Blanche Dillon has chaperoned the other three here today. Please welcome them to the House.

MR. PETERSON: In the galleries today are a Canadian studies class visiting us from Western Washington University's Centre for Canadian-American Studies. They are accompanied by their professor, Don Alper. We had a very interesting meeting just after lunch. I want the House to join me in giving them a very warm welcome to British Columbia and Canada.

MR. PERRY: I would just like to second that welcome to the students from Western Washington University. They may not know this — I can't see them — but I remember the role played by students from that college in the Skagit Valley controversy many years ago. They had a very constructive role on their side of the border.

MR. RABBITT: I have two former constituents now residing in Calgary who are visiting the capital city of British Columbia today. I would like the House to give a warm welcome to Terry and Lorne Stoneman, who are sitting in the public gallery.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO INCREASE POLLUTION
PENALTIES AND CREATE AN
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FUND

Mr. Harcourt presented a bill intituled An Act to Increase Pollution Penalties and Create an Environmental Protection Fund.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, this act increases penalties for violations of the Waste Management Act to a maximum of $1 million for the following offences: failing to report a spill; transporting or accepting delivery of hazardous wastes without a proper manifest, licence or permit; allowing wastes to be introduced into the environment without a proper permit; operating a hazardous waste facility, storing hazardous wastes or disposing of hazardous wastes without a proper permit; and noncompliance with an air, effluent or refuse permit.

In addition, with this bill the court will have greater leeway to make all orders necessary to stop the polluter from continuing or repeating offences, including: publicizing the offence; posting a bond; paying for preventive action and cleanup costs; performing community service; funding research into ecological effects; and disclosing financial records.

The court may also order the polluter to pay compensation to persons injured by the pollution, saving such aggrieved persons the expense and time of having to file their own civil action. In situations where it appears a polluter is about to commit an offence, the court is given the power to issue an injunction ordering the polluter to stop.

All fines collected from polluters are to be paid into an environmental protection fund which will be used for environmental enhancement projects, preventive environmental action, research and development of non-polluting technology and environmental cleanup.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M210 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

DEVELOPMENT IN BOUNDARY BAY

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Have you decided to invoke your powers under the Environment Management Act to require that an environmental impact assessment be supplied prior to any golf course or housing development taking place in the Boundary Bay area?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

MR. CASHORE: Boundary Bay and the surrounding wetlands habitat are recommended by the Canadian Wildlife Service as a wetland of international significance pursuant to the Ramsar convention, and are known to sustain the largest populations of raptors, shorebirds and waterfowl in Canada. Since both the minister and the Premier have in the past written to the international waterfowl and wetlands research bureau, acknowledging the conservation value of this area, what are you doing just to assist these areas through a public review process, let alone to protect them?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, there is an extensive review and application process in place by the Ministry of Environment. But it is extensive, Mr. Speaker, and I will send the answer to the member in written form.

[ Page 6460 ]

FIRST VANCOUVER SECURITIES INC.

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Finance. A few months ago First Vancouver Securities Inc., a company that purchased a seat on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, was found to have links with the deposed Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos. In fact, if it wasn't for the indictment in New York, they would still be doing business today in British Columbia. Could the minister inform the House how it was that this fact eluded the B.C. Securities Commission?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Unless I'm mistaken, it's my understanding that questions put to this side of the House should be timely and urgent. The hon. member refers to an issue that's months old. I didn't notice any reference in today's newspaper, which is the normal source of their inquiries. If I understand the rules of this House properly, the question is out of order.

MR. CLARK: That's a flippant answer to a serious question about laundering dirty money through the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Two individuals, George Delmas and Toto Mabanta, arranged the financing for this Marcos company. Could the minister explain why the Securities Commission took no action against them and they are today still doing business in British Columbia? After all, they're the ones who put the deal together in the first place.

[2:15]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I anticipated all kinds of newsworthy, timely questions today, but that certainly wasn't one of them.

In any event, the hon. member, who came to his critic's portfolio relatively recently, probably isn't aware of the tremendous progress made by the Securities Commission and the Vancouver Stock Exchange in terms of altering their assessment of applications for listing. Certainly this government has considerably expanded the funding available to the regulatory authorities. I personally am extremely proud of the job being done by the Securities Commission, and I can tell the hon. member that the board of governors of the Vancouver Stock Exchange is cooperating closely with the Securities Commission as it carves out and protects this very important niche in our economic strategy.

This government made a priority. We think that the regulation of the exchange has tremendous potential, particularly as our province attempts to relate with the Pacific Rim. Therefore the occasion referred to by the member — which is ancient by question-period standards — certainly doesn't need to be revisited by this House or by the administration in the Securities Commission. They are doing their job, and I am very proud of the job they are doing.

MR. CLARK: I realize that it's progress for this government to see Ferdinand Marcos in the Vancouver Stock Exchange, but it's not progress anywhere else in the world. That Marcos company, before they were shut down, arranged financing for 12 companies. Can the minister assure the House that no money in those financings was stolen from the Philippines by Ferdinand Marcos or his associates?

DAY CARE FUNDING

MS. MARZARI: A question to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Last Thursday I asked you about what you were going to do now that the federal government has bailed out of day care. You said that you were going to go back to the government and try to get funding under CAP for commercial day cares. Well, I've checked CAP; there isn't any provision in there for capital sharing for spaces, let alone commercial or non-profit. The question is: what are you going to be doing with the federal government? What are you going to be asking for? And if you're going to be staying in B.C. and going it alone, are you going to be funding non-profit centres as well as commercial ones?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, the reason I said I'd be going back to negotiate with the federal government is precisely the reason she says: because they don't have provision under CAP to fund commercial day care as well as non-profit.

To answer her second question, we have always funded non-profit day cares in British Columbia.

MS. MARZARI: We haven't created any new day care spaces in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: They don't provide for spaces under CAP; they do provide for supplementing incomes and eligibility.

Considering that this week is provincial Day Care Week, will the minister finally give a commitment to this House that he's going to provide for direct operating grants for the day care centres we have, so that we can keep them alive for the next year?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member knows full well that since the federal government has put their child care legislation on hold, we now must seek alternative methods of financing child care; I said that last Thursday. We were fully committed to participating with the federal government, with their new act; but since it's on hold, I have said that we will now try to expand the financing available to us under the Canada Assistance Plan, which at the moment doesn't provide for capital to build spaces or for commercial or unlicensed day care.

We will be attempting to negotiate with the federal government to get them to expand the whole CAP program so that we may enter into agreements with day care centres for capital funding and for the funding and subsidizing of people so that they may shop for their day care. We believe that persons looking for child care should have a choice. They should be able to shop for the best available day care, be it nonprofit, commercial or family unlicensed day care.

[ Page 6461 ]

SALE OF JERICHO LAND

MS. MARZARI: This is a new question to the Minister of Government Management Services. Mr. Minister, we have indications that the Jericho Hill School for the Deaf will be moving to Burnaby. The land that it sits on is extremely valuable, overlooking English Bay. Can the minister tell the House whether his ministry or BCEC, BCDC or BCBC have done a market appraisal on this land in the last year?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: There has been no final decision made yet on the moving of that facility. Further than that, it's future action.

MS. MARZARI: It isn't future action, because there are rumours around Vancouver, coming from a number of sources...

Interjections.

MS. MARZARI: It's a small community, so rumours count.

...that this land has already been informally promised to someone and that architects are already putting the drawings on the board. Has this property been tendered for bids on an informal basis by any one of the agencies of this government?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Future action.

CUTS IN FEDERAL TRANSFER PAYMENT'S

MR. BRUCE: To the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. In response to last week's federal budget, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) gained headlines for a statement that cuts in federal transfer payments would cost British Columbia some $69 million. However, the Premier estimated that the 1 percent cut in established programs financing payments would cost British Columbia less than half the amount cited by the NDPs finance critic. Could the minister tell us: is it $69 million or $30 million, or what is it?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm very pleased to have that timely and urgent question put, Mr. Speaker. It's unfortunate that we poor creatures in this House, in our grasp for media attention, frequently make comments which are later embarrassing. It strikes me that this may be one of those occasions.

Not only did the hon. member for Vancouver East have the year wrong, he had the sum wrong. As a matter of fact, as I now resurrect how he might have calculated the figure, it would appear he had the page wrong in terms of the report.

There are some positive things about the hon member's comment. He did accurately describe the federal budget as being the subject under which he wanted to discuss the matter. But the truth is that the Premier was closer to the mark than the hon. member. Unfortunately, I wasn't here to straighten out the member. He obviously will require quite a bit more training before he can handle this kind of a load, and I'm pleased to offer my assistance.

The fact of the matter is that the fiscal impact on our budget — effective next year, Mr. Speaker, not this year — will be in the order of about $24 million.

MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the Minister of Finance on that last question. Will the minister not agree that the impact of that formula over time, when you count inflation, will be far greater than the $69 million I referred to?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I suppose if you want to take a program change and extrapolate it over a number of years, the sum of those changes will be more than one year's change. To that extent the hon. member is correct, and I applaud him for his perception. The truth of the matter is that the $69 million he fed to those who were inclined to listen to him was wrong; it was an inaccurate figure. As I say, wrong year, wrong sum, wrong page and wrong program. However, the correct sum for next year is about $24 million.

I might point out to the hon. member, if he's interested at all, that there was a change made to EPF about two years ago. The combined effect of that change has been to reduce our transfer payments by something in excess of $300 million. Clearly we're not comfortable with those changes. But if we're going to talk about dollar figures and if there is a person who aspires to be Minister of Finance, he should at least try to be accurate. I offer that advice in the proper spirit.

MR. BRUCE: Since it's now apparent that the second member for Vancouver East has a little trouble with his numbers, I would further ask the minister to address the NDPs assumption that provincial taxes will have to be raised to cover the shortfall in anticipated revenue. Is the member for Vancouver East right when he says that taxes must be increased in the current fiscal year in order for the province to succeed in its plans for a balanced budget? And if the cut in federal transfer payments is a hardship for British Columbia — I might add, the only province in Canada with a balanced budget — will the minister affirm that our province will probably be better able to cope with the cut than every other province in Canada?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, when I saw that quote I wondered whether it was full and complete. I know that the hon. member had made the comment that if elected to government, they would raise taxes. As a matter of fact, the hon. member referred specifically to corporation tax, as I understand it. The fact of the matter is, though, that this government is in good fiscal shape, and we will not be required to make any taxation changes as a consequence of the reduction in EPF transfer payments — that may be unlike other provinces in the country.

To the question of whether we will have to raise taxes, this administration will not have to raise taxes, although I must point out to the House that the hon.

[ Page 6462 ]

member seems to have a belief that if an NDP government were elected, they likely would raise taxes — he's quoted as saying so.

FEDERAL BUDGET AND
B.C. FOREST INDUSTRY

MR. MILLER: A question to the Minister of Finance on some numbers that really do mean something to the people of this province. Last week the Premier said a 25 percent cut was a good start; yet we learned on Friday that the federal budget did not earmark specific funds for a second forest renewal program. Has the government made any specific representations to the federal government on this point? Secondly, has the government made a decision to continue this vital, necessary work for the future of the forest industry in this province, regardless of the level of federal funding, if we're in such good shape in British Columbia?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) isn't in the House. The member makes an assumption which I'm not satisfied is valid. But in any event, the Minister of Forests is closer to this issue than all of us, and he's had discussions at length with his federal colleague on this subject. I think it would be more useful for me to take this question on notice, and I'm pleased to do so.

Hon. Mr. Reid tabled the annual reports of the Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture for the years 1986-87 and 1987-88.

Hon. Mr. Michael tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services for 1987-88.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the annual report and financial statements of the B.C. Assessment Authority for the 1987 fiscal year, in accordance with section 17 of the act; statements regarding borrowing, loans and special payments, in accordance with sections 41(6), 43(2) and 45(3) of the Financial Administration Act; and the 1988 annual report of the compensation stabilization program, in accordance with section 8 of that act.

Orders of the Day

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: I wish to start off the week by talking to the minister about the family maintenance enforcement program and then to pick up later in our deliberations about some of the matters raised last week.

I'll just give some time for the minister's assistants to work their way into the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are so many of them.

MR. SIHOTA: He requires them.

Because I want to spend some time talking about family law matters, maybe I should start off by making some general comments and then turn to the family maintenance enforcement program.

[2:30]

The general comments I would like to make on family law relate primarily to comments which were made on Friday by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith). More specifically, with respect to the provisions of the "Access to Justice" report, I've had the opportunity to review the "Access to Justice" recommendations with respect to family law. I must confess that I'm really quite impressed with the conclusions of the committee when it deals with matters of family law. Generally speaking, those matters have my endorsement.

I certainly concur that the British Columbia Supreme Court ought to be the exclusive court of jurisdiction with respect to family law matters in British Columbia. After reading the report and looking at the geographical availability of Provincial Court judges, I would also have to concur with the recommendation that judges who make up that court ought to be appointed masters of the Supreme Court.

The other point which flows from the family law recommendations in there, to which I would like to add my voice and opinion.... I want to emphasize that if the government were to come forth with some very tough rules on procedure with respect to family law and time requirements, they would certainly get my support in principle for that. Family law is one area of law where very tough rules need to be put on counsel to move along a family case as expeditiously as possible, to allow for case management by the court and to allow for interference in terms of pre-trial applications.

There should be tough rules that push through, on an expeditious basis, matters of custody — both interim and final. It's my view that the court ought to have a repertoire of all options available to it in terms of interim and final custody orders. With respect to interim orders, the services of mediation, access reports from family court workers and family counsellors and the support that can be provided by a network of family agencies in the community are all things that I would imagine being available as options to judges, to make sure that they have before them the opinions of a lot of experts as to what would be an appropriate order for custody, but with some very tough time rules so that we get on with the job.

I know the Family and Child Service Act tried to put some tough rules down in terms of coming down with reports and determinations as soon as possible. Although that system hasn't worked to perfection, as the report correctly notes, I think that, on the whole, the basic idea ingrained in there ought to be referred

[ Page 6463 ]

to or applied generally in matters of custody and access.

With respect to access, I agree that there should be a lot of liberty in the rules. I look forward to seeing what comes from government in this regard, with respect to the ability to enforce access rules in some informal or formal way to resolve disputes of access on a highly expeditious basis — not two, three or four months down the line, when the issue has either become a red herring or one party has tried to secure an order or an advantage in access in order to force the other to renegotiate another provision.

In that regard, I think there has to be some very clear understanding, set out in the rules, that maintenance is to be distinct from custody and access. I am in support of tough rules of a compulsory nature with respect to procedural pre-trial matters; counsel explaining why it isn't taking advantage of some of the pre-trial options that are available and why it isn't proceeding on an expeditious basis — in other words, an opportunity for the court to call counsel onto the carpet and ask some fairly tough questions; and dealing with costs in a more punitive way than we've seen in the past. I must say parenthetically that I agree with what the committee had to say with respect to general costs on family matters.

Those are the kinds of things in terms of custody and access that I would be supportive of, and I look forward to seeing that. On the maintenance end of it again the report is fairly clear. I would, of course, look forward to the implementation of the Law Society's recommendation with respect to corporate disclosure, which I didn't see in the Justice Reform Committee's recommendations but did see in the Law Society's report. I look forward to what the government has to say on family law. I've got some questions that I will ask later with respect to family law in general.

I want to turn to the family maintenance enforcement program. Access to the program right now is a critical problem, in my view. I want to look, on the one hand, at the difficulty of those within the program and trying to get an order enforced or acted upon, and on the other hand, at those who do not fall within the program, with a view to hoping that the Attorney-General would see fit to provide coverage for those not covered by the family maintenance enforcement program.

The program is hopelessly backlogged in terms of access. I understand from earlier comments the Attorney-General has made that they intend to apply more funds in June. I take it the amount isn't fixed. If there are any indications as to the amount, I'd like to know The program is hopelessly backlogged and I get that from just about anybody I talk to, outside of correspondence I have received from the Attorney-General's department and the administrators of the program.

I just want to read into the record one letter I received from an individual in the province. I have a stack of them, but I don't particularly want to read them all into the record. Over time I have developed quite a file of people who have had difficulty getting their cases attended to, and this is just one of them. This letter is dated February 1, 1989:

"In October 1988, under the family maintenance enforcement program, I did file a maintenance order with your offices for enforcement. So far I have received a form letter stating that your department was overwhelmed with applications and that my file would be processed in due course. Today I called your Burnaby office, and aside from learning that I now have a number...I was offered no encouragement whatsoever that my file would be dealt with in anything resembling an expeditious manner.

"Frankly, I think my children and I have waited long enough. I suggest that this sort of a delay was precisely what the statute was designed to remedy. I must notify that should the current situation remain unchanged, I shall be obliged to consider bringing an application to the Supreme Court of British Columbia under the Judicial Review Procedure Act for a mandamus and/or mandatory injunction to order that you do your duty under the law. Surely a creditor like myself should not be compelled to take such measures."

That's from a mother who has a maintenance order outstanding and wishes to see it enforced. It falls within the provisions of the act. I wrote to the administrators of the program, and ultimately received another letter on March 23 — not that long ago — from the parent involved. I am not going to read the whole letter, but I'll read the critical portions of the letter. It's addressed to me. It says:

"Thank you for your letter of March 15, 1989, with respect to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. About four days after I sent the letter I copied to you, I received a letter from the program director advising they would be processing my file right away. I'm sorry I cannot find the letter. Several days after that I received numerous phone calls from one of their staff lawyers, who asked various inane questions.

"On February 22, 1989, the program sent me the affidavits necessary to file my claim. These I executed immediately and returned to their offices. Since then I have heard nothing. I have a case number...and a creditor ID number.... The enforcement officer who has my file...." She provides the name. "I have not received any correspondence from the Attorney-General.

"As of February 1989, I believe there is approximately $19,000 in arrears and, of course, this builds as each month goes by. No doubt you can tell by the tone of my letter that I am very skeptical about the sincerity of this government with respect to the program. In my heart I know that the whole thrust of this new level of gobbledegook is aimed solely at lowering the numbers on income assistance checks parsimoniously doled out to poor women and their children. As I am employed, I'm sure the only reason for any action on my file is a direct result of your knowledge of its existence. For that I thank you. However, the day I see any money is another thing altogether."

She goes on:

"I could write pages and pages with respect to my total frustration with the system. The orders of a British Columbia court relating to maintenance of our young citizens are not worth the paper they are written on. While our governments have the power to empty a bank account for unpaid taxes or charge workers with sedition for withdrawing their labour,

[ Page 6464 ]

they are not predisposed to ensuring that parents meet their legal and moral obligations to their children."

I'll end there.

Despite the rather colourful language in that, I'll say that that is one of several letters I have received. In fact, I haven't bothered to count them. But the tone of the letters seem to be the same. I think it's an unfortunate tone. I think we all set out with good intentions with respect to this program, and it troubles me, too, as I'm sure it does the Attorney-General, to read about the skepticism people feel about the program. I'm sure that there are letters about the other side of the coin, where the program is starting to work. But whether it's the Legal Services Society or agencies such as the Westminster Legal Services Society — to whom I was talking today — or counsel, it appears as if the common theme to this whole program is that it is hopelessly backlogged.

I think the Attorney-General's letter to me, dated March 15, 1989, points to that, when he points out that of a total of approximately 5,000 filing kits received, there are 900 programmed. Secondly, if you look at the amount of money picked up in payments to date, the average order is about $150. It seems to me that the program is backlogged, and that's a major problem with it.

That's only one. Another problem which during the course of my analysis into.... I want to emphasize that this is a program that our side of the House wants to see work. We want to see it work efficiently and effectively so that we solve this problem we have with maintenance orders, a problem which I think we've all talked about in relatively eloquent terms in this House. So this is not to try to blast away at the program and say that we ought not to be doing it.I've got some questions that tie in with the administrative efficiency of it.

Getting assistance is another level of problem with the program, apart from backlog. It seems that those who fall within the Ministry of Social Services and Housing get coverage fairly straightforwardly, because of the amendments to the GAIN Act, although it appears from the correspondence I've received to date — and I would invite the Attorney-General's comment on this — that the program with respect to GAIN and Ministry of Social Services is operative primarily in the lower mainland and is slow to get off the ground, if it does at all, in the interior of the province. So those outside of it are not receiving coverage to the extent that is required in terms of those within the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

Second, many of those who require access to the program can't get it. I don't want to repeat a discussion that we had earlier on, but they can't get it because of the absence of legal aid coverage to obtain an order or vary an order that has been provided. I want to go over the criteria. I know the Attorney-General has twice said that people are covered, and yet I've checked twice now with the Legal Services Society and they tell me that in Vancouver the eligibility criterion for a single mother with two children is a net income of $1,105 per month. The flexibility that the Attorney-General says is available they tell me is not available in that type of situation. If you are $1 over that $1,105, you're not going to get legal aid coverage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, but your time has expired under standing orders.

MS. MARZARI: I think that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is doing a very good job here. I think the seamy underside of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act should be brought to light.

MR. SIHOTA: I thank the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey for that expression of confidence.

If you're $1 over the $1,105 per month, the flexibility criteria are not available unless, of course, you are tied in with custody. If it's both custody and maintenance, then it's available. But solely for maintenance, in order to procure the order or to vary an existing order, you are not provided with coverage. That means that those individuals — and particularly we are talking here about women who are the working poor, people who have modest incomes — simply can't derive the benefits of this backlogged program because they can't get the financial resources to get the order into the system in the first place.

[2:45]

The program serves well those who are on GAIN, so long as one overlooks the backlog and the fact that it's operative primarily in the lower mainland with respect to GAIN and doesn't touch those who, from my life experience, are the ones who really need coverage.

I don't want to go again over old territory, but I was in my law office on Sunday primarily to talk to the lawyer in our office who does family law. We are doing, through our law office — just one office in one community of the province — about a dozen cases a month which aren't covered by legal aid and where the client simply cannot afford to pay for the services. I'm just trying to pick the example of one office; I haven't phoned around to other people in Esquimalt, but I'm sure that if we're doing it, then at least one or two of the other firms in the community would be doing that much as well. It makes one think about the $20 million figure that the Law Society referred to in terms of pro bono criminal work done in the province.

So the program is limited in its application to those who have modest income and cannot be provided with legal aid coverage. It's limited to some GAIN recipients. Third, it also, of course, does not provide assistance to debtors. I didn't bring it, but I have some correspondence from a small business man in an Interior community whose business is failing. He has an income of about $700 and wishes to secure some financial assistance, but can't get it in terms of the application. I think elementary fairness would require some coverage in that regard, albeit that my sympathies usually don't go too far with debtors.

There are other problems with the program, and I think they become evident if one looks at the forms that are the basis of the computer-driven program,

[ Page 6465 ]

which are very difficult to follow. I tried filling them out myself, and I must confess that I didn't have a lot of trouble. But if you talk to people who are involved in the area — and I've talked to quite a few around the province — the point that comes back over and over again is that individuals whose first language is not English and who have limited skills in English, or people who have literacy limitations, are having a tremendous amount of difficulty in filling out the forms that drive the program. I don't want to table that form — I'm sure the Attorney-General has seen it — but it's easy to understand why people have difficulty filling it out. It asks some very detailed questions with respect to payment histories, the status of maintenance orders, the date of filing.

The Access to Justice report talks about language; this form uses language that lawyers would understand, but I'm not too sure the average person would be able to follow it. There should be some glossary of explanations, because I'm sure that people do get.... In fact, we know, from experience in my constituency office, that people even get confused with terms like who's the creditor, who's the debtor, what do they mean by arrears, and other language such as appears in here. There are questions like: "Have you ever agreed with a debtor in writing or verbally that you would accept less than the full amount of maintenance, or accept anything else instead, such as groceries, gifts or holidays for the other children?" It's just full of questions that are very difficult for people to fill out.

Again, if one would simply take the time to canvass the groups that are trying to deal with the people who deal with the program, it's really amazing how common that concern is about the complexity of the form. If you combine it with someone who has limitations with respect to literacy skills and English, it's a real problem. I think the government should pay some attention to remedying that situation. And it's not sufficient, in my view, and as indicated by everyone I've talked to, to deal with it over the phone. That just doesn't appear to be working.

The next component of problems that I've been able to identify — and I'm not picking out isolated ones, I'm picking out things that keep coming up — is with respect to the experience of GAIN recipients. There are some people on GAIN, particularly women, who have a perfectly good reason why they do not wish to be re-associated with their husband. Those situations often have to do with violence, or sometimes with private arrangements that the former spouses may have made. The act allows for some type of waiver in these situations, but the criteria aren't clear. I would be interested in knowing from the Attorney-General what the criteria are.

That is an overview of some of the areas of concern that we see with respect to the family maintenance enforcement program, areas where we'd like to see some attention. I have a series of questions I want to ask the Attorney-General on this, and I guess the first one is this: will the government be expanding the flexibility criteria for legal aid across the board to deal with all family matters, beyond what you've done to date?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Most of what is being presented today we dealt with last week from one or another member of this Legislature, so I won't attempt to go back over it. The questions with respect to the Ministry of Social Services and Housing ought more properly to be addressed to the minister when his estimates are up.

With respect to the legal aid criteria of eligibility and flexibility, the answer is that we've made some initial moves this year, and we are working with the Legal Services Society. We are looking at the various costs that would be involved in advancing flexibility, and when we have all that, we will take a decision as to how far we can go and what we should do.

MR. SIHOTA: Again, I don't want to get into an extensive debate on this, but if you want to adequately drive the program, it seems to me that you are going to have to adequately provide legal aid coverage to make sure that those who ought to have access to the program get it — to deal with the need that this government talks about over and over again in terms of enforcement of maintenance orders with respect to single parents. It is a critical problem out there. Last week the Attorney-General talked at some length about the government's desire to assist these parents, usually women, and about ensuring that children benefit from orders. An incredible number of orders aren't enforced. One would think that if there is an intent there to make sure those orders are enforced, then of course that would be dealt with by the provision of appropriate legal aid for those who require it. Those two go hand in hand. The words are one thing; the financial commitment and the action is another. I look forward to seeing what the government has later this year in terms of providing a flexible criterion for all matters, and particularly maintenance matters, which is where I think you should be starting from.

What is the government's policy or rules with respect to waiver in those types of GAIN situations that I referred to?

HON. S.D. SMITH: As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, matters relating to GAIN ought to be addressed not in this vote but to the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond).

MR. SIHOTA: Under the program, then, how many waivers have been granted since the program commenced?

HON. S.D. SMITH: If the member is referring to the GAIN waivers, you have to again address that elsewhere. As to the program under the operation of the non-GAIN component, I will have to get someone to go and get that rather specific detail, which I am sure he wouldn't expect one to carry in one's head.

[ Page 6466 ]

MR. SIHOTA: I would like to have that information before we wrap up, because I want to see to what extent the government has provided those waivers.

Could the Attorney-General advise what communication they've had with the administrators of the program with respect to remedying this problem with the forms? It seems to be a recurrent one.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Extents of discussions, direction, changes and so on.... I would again point out, as I have several times in this discussion, that this is a new program. There is a tremendous backlog, because there has been a good deal of neglect for goodness knows how many years. The program is three months old in Victoria and the interior, and just a little over six months old.

Yes, there is a big backlog, and yes, we are working hard on it, we will work continually harder on it and we are concerned about it. No, we don't think this is the seamy underside of the family maintenance program, as the member for Vancouver-Point Grey said. We don't look at the family maintenance program in those terms. It is a program to help people, it will help people and we'll continue to support it helping people. But it starts off with a backlog of goodness knows how many decades of neglect. It ought not to come as a shock to the member that there would be a backlog. I don't know how many different ways I can say that to the member, but there is a large backlog, and we are going to get it reduced.

We're very pleased with the program, quite frankly. The member has brought in some letters which indicate severe criticism of the program, an attitudinal thing and great laudatory lines about the member himself. Fair enough. I suppose we would go out and get a number of letters which are very thankful for the program's assistance. I don't think that's the point. I don't think it's a useful use of our time.

MR. SIHOTA: I went out of my way at the beginning to talk about how we on this side of the House have supported this program; we think it's a relatively good program; and yes, we understand that there are some growing pains with it. I think that's the language I used when we first got into estimates.

The question is: what is your plan of attack with respect to that backlog? What do you intend to do, what schedule have you worked out, and what kinds of funds are we seeing committed to clean up that backlog?

[3:00]

HON. S.D. SMITH: As I said last week, we are putting together a special enrolment unit that we expect will be able to clean up the backlog over the summer.

MR. SIHOTA: Can the Attorney-General identify through his budget exactly how much money they're putting into it?

HON. S.D. SMITH: As the member should be aware, it's a contract, and there will not be additional moneys required.

MR. SIHOTA: If I've got this clear, it's the Attorney-General's position that they won't require additional funds to remedy the backlog other than those allocated this year.

HON. S.D. SMITH: That's our position. We're working at this time with the contractor on that basis, and we expect to be successful.

MR. SIHOTA: Is the ministry providing additional legal services out of its own budget to it? You say there's a special enrolment plan that the government has come up with. Perhaps you could elaborate on that and tell us what it is.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The program is contracted for; it's not run by the Ministry of Attorney-General. We have some standards that we want met, we want the enrolments dealt with, and we're working with the contractor to give them advice on our views about how that can happen — and it will happen.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA: What is your advice?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, about three minutes ago, I said: a special unit to deal with enrolments.

MR. SIHOTA: All I'm trying to get at is that I'd like some detail on what you intend to do. One line, saying that it's a special unit to deal with enrolment, doesn't tell me much unless you tell me exactly what the plan of attack for that group is and what it intends to do, so that we've got some measure of confidence other than one line saying that we have a special team to work on it. I'd like some degree of elaboration and some specifics on what it is or how it intends to approach this problem of backlogs. And what is the time parameter? At the end of the summer, do we expect to have all the backlogs remedied? Do we expect to have only those dealing with GAIN applicants remedied? What is this group specifically to do?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I think I've answered it as many ways as I can. The GAIN portion you'll have to ask the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) about. There's a special unit put together for enrolments, and I'm confident that it will be able to clean up the backlog by the end of the summer.

MR. SIHOTA: Does the special unit consist of lawyers?

HON. S.D. SMITH: No.

MR. SIHOTA: Perhaps you could tell us who are the individuals on this thing?

HON. S.D. SMITH: As I indicated earlier, this is a private organization which hires its people. They are putting together today a special unit to deal with enrolments. We are confident that the ongoing changes

[ Page 6467 ]

to the collection of information, the way they're processed, the fact that the special unit will not have to deal with telephone calls from people looking for their cheques and so on, will allow them to concentrate and enable them to get the enrolment problem cleaned up.

MR. SIHOTA: One of the problems we seem to have identified in talking to people around the province on this thing is that the program is driven by a telephone system and that there are no community-based programs or offices. Is it the intent that there will be community-based offices so that people who particularly have difficulty dealing with the forms will have access to offices around the province so that they can get on with the job of filing and getting into the system?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The answer is no.

MR. SIHOTA: Has the ministry not identified this as a concern?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Yes, we have, but we believe we can deal with it through the process we have.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister say why?

This is a fairly significant problem with the program. The toll-free concept just doesn't seem to be of benefit to people with literacy problems, who have some difficulty with the forms and with English, and a good number of people fall within that sphere of problems.

Therefore it seems to me that one of the problems with the program is the nature of its centralized location. This government, which is all hepped up about decentralization, ought to give some consideration to decentralizing this program to ensure that people have access in their communities — I don't mean every community in the province, but on some reasonable level of coverage — around the province. Could the minister explain why they rejected that as a possible remedy?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, we want to get the program up and running as it's now configured, get the moneys now put into it used effectively and efficiently and get the program working. Then in due time, suggestions like the member's will undoubtedly be given their appropriate consideration.

MR. SIHOTA: The point I'm trying to make to the minister is that the program as it exists with that flaw in it is going to add to those volumes of telephone calls that the minister complained about in his comments when he identified the difficulty with enrolment.

With respect to this enrolment unit that the Attorney-General referred to, is it already in place?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Yes, it is in place, and people are now being interviewed for hire.

MR. SIHOTA: So I take it I'm correct in assuming that it isn't off the ground, but that you're starting to engage the people necessary to get the system going. So I take it we can't ask any questions about its progress, because there isn't anything to report at this stage. Is that correct?

HON. S.D. SMITH: As I've indicated, Mr. Chairman, the whole program is only three months old in most of the province and six months old in the rest of it. So I think that's a reasonable assumption on the member's part.

MR. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to resume some of the remarks I was making on Friday. I was speaking about the importance of access to justice in the north, the interior and parts of the province that don't have the court facilities that we enjoy here in Victoria and Vancouver and in the urban areas. I think a very good case could be made for more itinerant justice.

I was very pleased that the Justice Reform Committee report had a good proposal to use justices of the peace to deal with bylaw cases on an itinerant basis. I see absolutely no reason why we can't use municipal council chambers to do bylaw cases. I don't think that's a retrograde step. I know that there are people in the system who think that every community should have a courthouse, and that a courthouse is a symbol of law and authority and so on, but that's just not practical in many of these communities.

Many communities that have good municipal council chambers don't use them a great deal and are delighted to have the presence of a judge and a courtroom in that facility. So I'm very pleased with that recommendation.

I also thought that there was an excellent idea in the Justice Reform Committee recommendations, and that was the idea of having economic litigation in the county court for cases involving only $20,000. I am an advocate of merger and merger now, and if that does occur, then there won't be a county court. I do not think that the economic litigation proposal is appropriate in the senior court. When you're drafting your reform package regulations, I think it's better to go back and maybe look again at the small claims model.

Rather than putting that economic litigation in the merged senior court, I think it's better to have an expanded small claims court. I recognize that good thought went into rejecting the small claims model. There was that fear that if you have an expanded small claims jurisdiction to $10,000, the lawyers will take it over, particularly those who aren't as busy as they might be in other courts. But we can guard against that by preparing a small claims model that is truly a people's court, that makes it easy to get into that court and that doesn't give an advantage to people represented by counsel.

Since that is one of the major themes that goes through the Justice Reform Committee report, and one that has found favour, another theme, of course, is to demystify language and demystify the court pro-

[ Page 6468 ]

cess. This is an ideal opportunity, in this session, to bring in a true people's court and to expand small claims to all civil matters under $10,000. I think that should be done despite the risks there are to section 96 challenges, and despite other things that may militate against that. I think it's very important that we strive towards a people's court. We're going to have to find more civil judges, for sure, to hear these cases, because there aren't enough of them.

I totally support the structure that was envisaged for economic litigation: pre-trial mediation opportunities, no examination for discovery, no strict rules. It's exactly the way to go. That model could be done under the Small Claim Act, into a new people's court. It would be very popular. It would be easy access; swift, demystified justice for ordinary people who have claims under $10,000 — and there are an awful lot of them.

I hope that's the route the ministry will take if it carries out a merger, as I hope it will. There's been so much talk on merger, I'm not going to weary the chamber with much more discourse on it. The commission brought in a compromise recommendation of delaying merger; it represented, I gather, several points of view on the commission. Probably it is the time to have merger; it's the time to have a single superior court that can deal with all matters now dealt with by the County Court and the Supreme Court. I think the public would support it. The bar supports it. It's an idea whose time has come. If it is going to come, then I don't think it requires a great deal of lead time and reassigning caseloads and dates. It could probably be done quite swiftly, and I hope it will.

The commission had some very sensible things to say on the subject of arbitration and alternative dispute resolution — not a subject that attracts much attention, but one of great importance to people who want to see how we're going to get cases resolved quickly and cheaply and how we're going to lessen the load on the courts.

[3:15]

A very good model that I commend to everybody is the experiment that's been going on in the international arbitration centre with a number of ICBC claims that have been mediated and have had a very good settlement result. One case for a quarter of a million dollars was settled after about seven hours' mediation at a cost of about $1,000; there's an example. I would like to see ICBC — if the minister agreed — moving even more vigorously into this field and to see more and more of these motor vehicle damage cases being dealt with at this level by mediation.

I believe also that that approach is going to help avoid a recurrence of the proposals we had in the province a few years ago to set up the no-fault automatic system they have in other jurisdictions, where you ultimately have your damage claim settled on the basis of administrative comity and you don't have a proper adjudication in a court of law. That proposal was very unpopular with the bar, but when you see the soaring costs that go into motor vehicle litigation and the rise in those costs — even though there is an excellent mechanism controlling those costs — you can see how arguments for a no-fault system with automatic assessment are very tantalizing.

One of the safeguards against that is to have more and more of these cases settled by mediation; and so they should be. I think it's preposterous to have trials taking five, six, seven or eight days, involving liability and assessment of damages, in the civil courts. It's an unnecessary cost, particularly assessment of damages; that could be done at a meditative level, and should not require endless parades of medical witnesses, actuaries and consultants who are going to compute future loss of earnings to the nearest thousand dollars. That kind of thing has got to be shortened if we're going to survive and not groan under the weight and cost of litigation.

One area the Justice Reform Committee tackled — and I'm delighted that they did — was the area of criminal law reform. I'm glad that they went into that area and made some recommendations and didn't just simply say: "It's not under us; it's mostly under Ottawa. They are the ones that pass substantive criminal law. They are the ones that pass new evidence legislation." They actually went into this, and the recommendations are very good, particularly the recommendation, that didn't get an awful lot of attention, which was to have a special disclosure court in Vancouver as a model, as they have done for some years in Montreal. That's a superb first step. There is no reason why these criminal trials in this province are taking weeks and weeks, even at the trial level, and maybe the same amount of time or longer at the preliminary hearing level.

Much of the focus on justice reform and most of the initiatives are going to deal with civil cases. The criminal courts are the ones that most people come into contact with as witnesses or as members of their families are involved in those courts. Those are the courts — the criminal courts — that I think, particularly for superior court trials, take far too long.

Why should a simple criminal trial take a preliminary hearing of three or four days and a trial that's going to last a week or a week and a half? One of the reasons is that the procedures are outmoded. We're still having evidence at the trial looked at and examined in the absence of a jury. The jury goes out for a couple of hours or maybe a day in order to get a ruling on a matter of evidence, and then they come back in.

This is very disruptive and very time-consuming. All those matters should be dealt with at a pre-trial hearing, before the jury is empanelled. The only things that should be argued in the course of the trial are matters involving admissibility that arise and couldn't have been foreseen. We could cut an awful lot of time.

If anyone has watched criminal trials in the Old Bailey in England, you would know the difference in the speed and efficiency with which they run these trials. Murder trials are quite frequently over within two days. Ten or 12 witnesses are called for the Crown and maybe for the defence, because they have their process much more streamlined.

[ Page 6469 ]

Every case I've heard over there that's been like that has been an acquittal. You can't argue that under their system people's rights aren't safeguarded. I think they probably have a very high level of acquittals over there. The cases are put in with great speed and without counsel arguing all of the time on procedural matters and admissibility matters. Those are either dealt with elsewhere or counsel proceeds on the basis that something is going to be all right; and if it isn't, their whole case is done anyway. I notice far more efficiency in the presentation of trials in that country, and we should be adopting that system.

Ottawa has not addressed in a serious way — to my knowledge — reforming criminal law procedure They have had literally hundreds of people studying changing the substantive criminal law and producing welters of reports trying to be revisionists. There is a guy who has made a life study in justice redesigning new evidence acts. Every two or three years, a new draft federal evidence act emerges because this guy has a huge vested interest in this work.

All the provinces have to look at this darned thing and comment on it. These are the sorts of things that the revisionists and the students in Ottawa are concerned about in criminal law. There doesn't seem to be the same kind of commitment in getting the criminal law streamlined and in getting reforms and procedures. I hope the ministry will do all that it can within its own sphere to adopt those recommendations of the Justice Reform Committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, I must warn you that the green light is on. You may wish to terminate your remarks or wrap them up.

MR. B.R. SMITH: I've got a few more remarks to make, so I'll defer to somebody and then resume in a few minutes.

MR. PETERSON: I'm very interested in the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head's remarks, and I'd like to hear him carry on for a little longer, if that's possible.

MR. B.R. SMITH: On Friday, I was speaking about Crown counsel from the private bar and ad hoc counsel. I should have mentioned and paid some tribute to the Crown counsel interchange which has been underway in the ministry for a couple of years which gets Crown counsel working on the other side and conversely. I think that's a very good step.

I want to emphasize again — and the provisions of the Justice Reform Committee report allude to this kind of thing as well in the parts on criminal procedure — the importance of always having some lawyers from the private bar — not people who are working on contract or doing this as a major part of their work, but having those people plugged in on criminal cases and doing criminal cases from time to time. The old system of having a junior in an assize from the private bar junioring somebody in the Crown system, or someone from the Crown system at a junior level junioring a senior counsel from outside of the bar, is still — resources being available — a good system; but as much as you fight, and as much as you try to ensure that this kind of system is operating when you are Attorney-General, and as much as you're assured by officials that it is, I can tell you that on the ground it isn't. Not nearly enough cases are being dealt with by people who are practising other litigation in the bar. Most of the Crown counsel work is being done by people who are on contract or by people who are in the system. There has got to be more true ad hoc work, in my opinion.

I thought the Justice Reform provisions to streamline civil litigation were very well thought out. If they're going to be accepted, they are going to involve a great deal of cooperation. They are not something that can just be mandated by a minister or by rules; it is going to require the cooperation of judges and lawyers and people working in the system to make those changes happen.

Like the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), I would encourage the ministry to go a little further to give those tools to the judges which they need to encourage this kind of cooperation. I think pre-trial conferences can be very useful. They can also be mere formalities. In the hands of a proactive judge, and a judge who is backed up by rules that allow him to impose sanctions, you can have a great deal of streamlining of issues; you can shorten the time of your trial. I think we've got to have more of that. We've got to put that into the hands of the judiciary and encourage the judiciary to be very firm in trying to move cases along on relevant points of law and relevant facts and try to eliminate some of the prolixity in the delays that are taking place.

[3:30]

In the United Kingdom this year the Lord Chancellor proposed a number of quite revolutionary ideas for the consideration of the bar and the public. He has challenged some long-held traditional views of legal practice, one of which is the old rule in Britain that the barrister doesn't talk directly to the client. That's now under review — and so it should be, because he talks to the client all the time if his client happens to be out of the country or in some Common Market country. Also, the United Kingdom is looking at the implementation of contingency fees, which do give access to good counsel and to the courts for people who cannot afford legal fees. I have always been a supporter of contingency fees, provided there are firm controls with those fees. As well, they're looking at expanding the areas of lay advocacy. So they're challenging a number of traditional notions, and many of their proposals are not popular with the bar. They're very controversial.

I think these proposals had a much better acceptance. I was impressed with their general acceptance from the bar; if it were ever unanimous, you would be suspicious about them. There was very good support. I think there is a will and a willingness to try to streamline the courts and make some major changes. The time to do that is now, in 1989. This report will not improve with age. I hope we are going to have major changes that will put those sanctions, those carrots and sticks, into the hands of the court to move

[ Page 6470 ]

cases along and shorten the time being spent. This may well require some revision of costs and the method of awarding costs, but I think that should take place. There is a great deal of public support for that approach. People who work in the courts and earn their living there often forget that the courts exist not just for the benefit of those who work there, but primarily for the public. Making the courts more accessible was the object of the Justice Reform Committee, and I think its report is excellent.

When we first proposed and announced the Justice Reform Committee constitution in November 1987 at a bar and bench dinner in Vancouver, I think there was some skepticism; that would be an understatement. When the names of the people who agreed to serve on that commission were announced early in January 1988, I think some of those concerns were already allayed, because a very balanced group of people went around the province on that committee, including some excellent laymen. The proposals produced by that committee are largely pragmatic and are ones that can work. I, along with other members in this chamber who have talked about it.... I'm not going to talk about the committee's recommendations anymore. I'll just commend the committee and a speedy implementation of a reform package, which I think will have broad public support.

MR. SIHOTA: Just one question I didn't ask the Attorney-General on the backlog in the family maintenance enforcement program. Could he tell me the numbers he has with respect to the extent of that backlog?

HON. S.D. SMITH: It's 5,500.

MR. SIHOTA: How many cases have been processed to date?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Completely, 1,300.

MR. SIHOTA: I take it that the number of kits that have been received is 14,000.

HON. S.D. SMITH: It's 6,800.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the Attorney-General confirm...? If it's in the wrong ministry, he can let me know, but I would assume that it falls within the parameters of the program. In terms of the backlog, is there any indication of how many cases fall under GAIN?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I don't have the breakdown.

MR. SIHOTA: Can that be provided through his ministry, or would Social Services and Housing have those numbers?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'm sure it could be, but quite frankly, the priority is to get the backlog done, not to try and make those kinds of arithmetical distinctions.

MR. SIHOTA: Could he tell us how much money has been recovered under that program to date?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Yes. Cheques representing $276,043 have been collected and passed along to creditors. Of that amount, $133,594 was for the month of March alone, and monthly cheque disbursements have doubled each month since December. I repeat that this program is very new, and it is growing.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to turn to another issue, and that is the one we were dealing with on Friday as we wrapped up debate in this House. During the course of the debate, I think it was the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy), whom I was telling afterwards that she must have been aware of what I was going to be dealing with next.... It's the matter of sexual assault. I think she made the case quite well with respect to sentencing in sexual assault and expressed her feelings with respect to the fact that the sentencing did not always reflect what she thought would be appropriate in various circumstances, particularly those dealing with children. I want to say that I certainly tend to get the same kind of feedback on sentencing in matters of sexual assault.

I have concerns to a larger degree with respect to the other side of the coin. There are two sides to that coin: rehabilitation of those who have been the criminals.... More importantly, I want to deal with the matter of victims of sexual assault. It's a matter that I raised in the House last year and that I want to raise again during the course of this year's estimates.

I raised the matter of sexual assault and issues surrounding victims of sexual assault because, as I've said before, I cannot think of another crime as repulsive and repugnant as that. There is no doubt that the commission of that type of crime leaves the victim with a tremendous psychological scar, whether it be a child or, in most cases, a woman. That scar obviously takes quite some time to heal, and it requires the provision of all sorts of services for the victim.

It is the absence of services to that victim that causes me concern, particularly when I take a look at the allocations this year within the ministry's budget. Across the province, it is estimated that about 3 percent of all female victims of violence receive assistance, and it is my information that there is a lack of coverage available for sexual assault victims in British Columbia.

A little short of a year ago, I raised this matter in the House, and I went around to various parts of the province and talked about the situation. I want to just go back and revisit what I said last year and compare it to what is happening this year and to the assistance levels provided by the government this year.

I am disappointed to see that despite all the talk about assistance to victims in British Columbia, despite all the magazines and publications that I see coming across my desk from both the Attorney-General's and the Solicitor-General's ministries about this government's concern for victims of sexual as-

[ Page 6471 ]

sault and victims in general, it is obvious that little or no progress has been made in assisting victims of this incredible crime. It is hard to believe.

Last year, when I was dealing with this matter in the Legislature, I used Terrace as one example. At the time, they had one funded position for a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week service. By their own estimate, to get the job done in that community, it requires eight staff people; however, they have four full-time and one part-time staff, and they have to rely on auxiliary staff to fill the gaps.

They have 23 beds. About two weeks ago they had to turn away two families who required this type of assistance. That was just one example. The information this year about the sexual assault centre in Terrace is that Terrace now has one and a half staff: one full-time and one half-time. In April 1987, just to indicate the extent of the problem, they had 235 files open; in April 1989 there were 497 files.

Files are opened for people with whom they have an ongoing contact; files are not opened just for information. They handle matters of battering of women, adult sexual assault, sexual assault of children — men, women and children are in that category as well. They handle approximately 200 calls a month for information. In a minute I will be highlighting for the Attorney-General the allocations of funding for these centres this year, but it's safe to say that the problem is enormous in a community the size of Terrace.

That's just Terrace. Vancouver is another area of concern. Last year in the Legislature I raised the matter of Vancouver, and I don't really intend to go into that in any depth, except to say that the statistics in Vancouver are most alarming. They have three and a half paid positions provided for by the government. In 1983 they received only 438 calls per year. In this last fiscal year, '88-89, the total calls were 1,359. They have a 24-hour crisis line, which functions due to the 27,000 hours of free volunteer time allocated to the sexual assault centre in Vancouver.

Victoria is another area of the province which is suffering and which we referred to last year in dealing with this issue. I mentioned that in Victoria they had received, admittedly, a 40 percent increase in funding but had a 1,300 percent increase in requests for services over the same seven-year period. Victoria now gets approximately 200 to 300 calls each month dealing with sexual assault. As I said, that is up 1,300 percent from seven years ago; yet their funding level is identical to last year's. They have two and a half paid staff, who provide counselling and a support system, and there are waiting-lists for counselling and support groups. When you think about a crime such as sexual assault, it's amazing that individuals would have to wait for counselling and support group assistance across the province.

If you take a look at the seven development regions in the province, it's astounding that three of those regions in British Columbia have no services at all with respect to sexual assault centres. The information I've been able to pull from the Attorney-General's ministry indicates that the Kootenay area, the Cariboo area and the Nechako area have no assault centre whatsoever.

Most agencies in those areas that exist do not have a broad base of financial support. Often it's the province or nothing. Most handle problems which require public education. They handle problems which accompany survivors through legal and medical systems and deal with family members as well.

There is a tremendous need in this province for transition facilities and second-stage housing. Often these facilities have to deal with usually a wife who shows up at the doorstep and is in dire need of accommodation, and the facilities just aren't available on a provincewide basis.

When I was taking a look at the Attorney-General's allocations for funding for the '89-90 year, I was astonished with what I read. I went around the province and took a look at allocations. The North Island Crisis Centre last year received a funding allocation of $15,000, and this year they received the same. The Cowichan Women Against Violence Against Women program deals with sexual assault, has a 24-hour crisis line, provides follow-up contact and counselling, accompanies people through police proceedings and the courts, reports information to the police with respect to attacks and deals with counselling. Last year they received $33,000, and again this year they received $33,000 — no increase.

We're talking about an enormous service that requires assistance. When you consider this government's stated commitment to its concern about victims, it's astonishing that with respect to this crime there is no increase in any funding whatsoever from the nominal rates of funding that existed before.

[3:45]

The Women's Sexual Assault Centre of Victoria received $70,000 last year, and this year they received a reduction in their budget to $61,800. The Battered Women's Support Services in Vancouver last year received $70,000 and received the same amount this year. Again, they do many of the support and counselling programs in cooperation with victims to provide them with assistance. Women Against Violence Against Women in Vancouver received $105,000 last year, and this year they received a cut down to $88,000.

Last year in the Legislature I mentioned the Kamloops situation. I'm sure the minister, being the representative for that community is aware of the enormity of the problem in Kamloops. It's interesting, again, to reflect back on what was said about Kamloops. Last year it was pointed out that the Kamloops Sexual Assault Counselling Centre had a two-week waiting period for non-crisis counselling, as they call it. It's something they refer to as actually crisis counselling, but because of the inadequacy of funding they just simply could not provide the level of counselling required for victims. You would think that with the problem being as extreme as it is in Kamloops and with the minister's knowledge of the situation there, some attention would be provided to the crisis program there, the follow-up contact and counselling and the accompaniment through proceed-

[ Page 6472 ]

ings that's required. Again, in Kamloops the allocation last year was $37,000 plus change, and it's the same allocation this year.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

As I said, in region 4, Kootenay, there are no sexual assault centres, nor are there in region 5, the Cariboo region. I mentioned Terrace a few moments ago and spoke of the enormity of the problem there and gave statistics, which speak volumes with respect to the enormity of the problem. Again, last year they received $33,000 and they received the same amount this year. North Peace, which has tremendous problems — and I won't go into the details — last year received $40,000 in funding and this year again received $40,000 in funding.

With respect to these matters of sexual assault and given the need to provide services to victims of sexual assault across the province, did the government obviously take the view this year that they would not provide even as much as inflationary increases to the programs I've referred to?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Well, the member is in error. We're now in the process of finalizing the amount of the increases. I believe there will be increases to each and every one of the locations he mentioned. We're in those negotiations now, and I will be going around the province, assuming we get out of estimates sometime this month, to consult and provide that additional assistance.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, this is material provided by your own ministry, dated April 6, 1989. It comes off your own programs, and it talks about the 1988-89 funding and the 1989-90 funding. We are dealing with the minister's budget, so the minister perhaps will go one by one, and he can tell me exactly in which areas we're wrong, and what the government's intentions are with respect to each one of these, so we have an idea as to what your funding allocations are.

HON. S.D. SMITH: You're quite right, the information you got is dated. We're in the process right now, and have been for two or three weeks now, of discussing with each one of these agencies what would be an appropriate amount. I will be going around in the next ten days or two weeks to every one of these centres, or almost all of them, and at that time will finalize what increases are going to be. But there will be increases, and I know the member will be delighted to hear that.

MR. SIHOTA: We're looking at materials provided by your ministry after this budget came down about three weeks ago. If there's a change, I'd like to know if it's coming out of some sort of supplementary estimates, or is it coming from your main budget? If it's coming from your main budget, then I would assume.... First of all, tell me where it's coming from. Is it coming from supplementary funding that you've secured?

HON. S.D. SMITH: It comes out of the section dealing with community programs.

MR. SIHOTA: So I take it that the minister is not in a position now to tell us what the increases are going to be, but each one of them is guaranteed a minimum of what I've outlined already.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'm not in a position to tell him precisely what the amount will be, and therefore, of course, I'm not in a position to use his numbers; nor would I use them, for that matter.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm trying to find out from the Attorney-General.... It seems to be difficult to deal with. If we can't find out the numbers and if we're just told that there's going to be a general increase, is the increase going to be inflationary? Is it going to be substantial? I don't have here with me the budget; I've left it in my office accidentally today. Perhaps he could tell me what the overall global increase in that budget is, so that we have some idea in terms of what level of services are going to be provided. Are there priority areas? Will services be provided in those areas that aren't covered, in terms of the three decentralization areas that aren't covered according to the information your office provided to us?

MR. S.D. SMITH: We're dealing with the areas that are currently served, to help them with increased demand.

MR. SIHOTA: Will services be provided in those areas — the Kootenay area, the Cariboo area, the Nechako area — that have no assault-centre facilities right now?

HON. S. D. SMITH: There are no new centres being planned, but certainly in terms of services to victims of sexual assault, there are a number of ministerial actions that take place involving Social Services and Housing and Health and Education, the Solicitor-General, the Attorney-General. But to my knowledge, there are no new centres planned to be opened this year.

MR. ROSE: Well, I'm a little bit confused as well. Since the minister has told us there are increases for certain services in certain places, which he at the moment is not prepared to name or to examine in any detail with us — which is what I thought the purpose of estimates was — could he tell us whether or not there is going to be an increase in the budget, which means a supplementary estimate, or is it going to come out of the global total of the existing budget? If so, what's going to go down if these other items go up?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'm sorry the opposition House Leader wasn't in or wasn't listening, or both. It's out of the existing budget. It's out of the community services portion of the existing budget.

[ Page 6473 ]

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the other half of my question could be addressed now then: if this is going up and there's not going to be.... If the community services part of the budget is going to increase, and the total budget is unchanged by a supplementary estimate or an addition, what sections of the budget decrease?

HON. S.D. SMITH: It's part of the community programs budget.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister could be a little bit more explicit. Certain services rendered by the community services budget, we're told, are going to increase. Or is this increase already part of the budget? And if they are, why won't he tell us?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The amount is already part of the budget. It's not a matter of not telling you; we simply haven't tied down the specific amount with each individual organization. That seems to be an appropriate thing to do before you announce what the number is going to be for each individual organization, There's nothing unusual about that.

MR. SIHOTA: We will come back to that in a minute. I want to know from the minister why the government has taken the view that no new services ought to be provided in those areas without services.

The Kootenays are not immune to sexual assault problems and sexual assault victims. I don't care what other ministries are doing; we can canvass that with other ministries. I don't think it's fair for the government and then for the minister to come in here and say: "Other ministries are going to cover that void." First of all, I want to know why this ministry is not prepared to provide these services in the Kootenays. Could the minister explain?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, that member may not care what other ministries do, but I do, and most people in government do. We in this ministry are concerned primarily, and as a priority, with ensuring that there is adequate funding of those services that we now provide, prior to adding to them.

I tried to explain to that member that there are other agencies that deal with victim services. For instance, the Social Services and Housing ministry funds shelter for assaulted women. It deals with the protection of children involved with problems of abuse and neglect. Frequently it is associated with the kind of abuse he is talking about.

The Health ministry offers support through their mental health services. As well, the Solicitor General’s ministry has programs through their victims' initiatives and criminal injury compensation program.

Some of these services — which the member was concerned don't exist and which, in fact, do exist — are provided in Cranbrook through the victim witnesses service agency in that community; likewise in Invermere, through Communities Against Sexual Abuse, which is funded as well. There is a whole host of them providing that. In answer to his question, our priority is to make certain that money is allocated to support the programs we now have. It's not a matter of being indifferent to other or new programs.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister could help us to understand the reason these services which we've just been discussing are provided by his ministry in some centres, yet the efforts are taken over by other ministries in other parts of British Columbia.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The services that you are referring to are provided by our ministry in all the centres where they are provided. In addition to that, other services, which people involved see as complementary, are provided by other ministries. We try — and will continue to try — to bring all those various services together in an interministerial way in due time, both at the service level and hopefully at the funding level.

MR. ROSE: I have no difficulty in accepting the fact that the comprehensive or interministerial services are provided. That's not a problem to me. I think they should be provided, because the impact even of illiteracy has profound implications for prisons, for crime, for psychiatric services — for all kinds of other things — and even for housing. So I don't have any difficulty with a comprehensive interministerial attack on social problems. That's not the question.

Obviously the Ministry of Attorney-General is applying certain services in some areas of the province, but it has left it to the comprehensive approach in other areas. I'd like to know why it is done this way, because it looks as if it might be some form of benign neglect in areas such as the Kootenays that do not receive the fine efforts of the minister and the ministry.

[4:00]

HON. S.D. SMITH: Let me try to explain it again. We have provided these services in some areas of the province. In other areas of the province, similar services are provided by other agencies. This year we are addressing ourselves to increasing support for those areas where we now have service, rather than adding new services.

We have taken a look at trying to establish how to do that because, as members would agree, you often aren't able to do everything you want to do every time you want to do it; you have to establish some form of priority. In some of those areas where there are no ancillary services, we're increasing the support to the assault centres we fund, because they will undoubtedly have to pick up some of the slack. In other areas where there are ancillary services, the opposite will be the case. That's how the funding is allocated.

MR. ROSE: I think we're getting closer. What the minister is telling us is that for the moment, because of lack of funding and because there is no assault centre in the Kootenays or the Cariboo or the Nechako — even though the needs are probably just as great in those areas, if not greater — he is farming

[ Page 6474 ]

out the services to existing government agencies, whether or not they have the skill to handle them, and he is leaving the rest of it up to volunteers in those areas and in those agencies desperately in need of his support. It seems to me that it's probably not a very good policy decision.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Well, it's fairly difficult to know where to begin with that rationale. It's obviously not much supported by any useful research, but it's useful for filling in time, I guess.

What we are trying to do is to provide the service. Where we have agencies that we fund directly for this service — which, not incidentally, will provide other services as well, just as a matter of course; it's inevitable in these kinds of things — we are, as a matter of priority, seeking to be certain that our funding is increased. In other areas where there are other agencies, which may not be called the "whatsit local sexual assault centre," but which provide victim services that touch on that.... Where they are funded by other agencies, that is not a priority for our funding this year. That's how we've established it.

MR. ROSE: Is the minister aware that many of these services are actually funded by volunteers who go out on fund-raising drives because the need is so great and the present support is inadequate? Has he looked into those centres and areas in which this is the case?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Not only am I aware of it; I support it. I think the volunteer sector is incredibly important to these kinds of services, not only in their delivery, but for participation in the community. Indeed, I've been involved in those kinds of fund-raising efforts myself. I don't see them as parallel lines, where somehow you badmouth government and glorify something else, or vice versa.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Frequently, the areas where you'll find the most successful service to the community are those where they have the highest amount of community involvement from the volunteer section, both in providing the service and in the commitment to fund-raising. I don't see anything wrong with it at all; indeed, I congratulate them.

MR. ROSE: I had no intention of badmouthing the volunteers. I think that's been the story of social services throughout our history.

Some of you may or may not know, but the word "conservatory," which we associate with music, really came from "a place to keep orphans." Many of them, of course, became choir singers — some of them very able ones, as a result of some interesting little operations; but we won't go into that. What we can go into, though, is that at the same time as you laud the volunteers, we may be sloughing off government responsibilities for adequate funding in these areas — especially the rural areas, which don't permit volunteers to travel. I think that's an important thing as well.

As long as government has a responsibility in these areas — as long as there are victims out there — I think we should do everything we can to ensure that there's adequate service. Obviously if there are funding difficulties and we're forced to have bottle drives and bake sales in order to do this, while those are laudable enough ventures, there comes a time when.... In our history, charity has been taken over by government; what was at one time considered a charity now becomes a social need. I guess what I'm concerned about is that the things we need the least should be the charities, not those we need the most.

MR. CLARK: I'm going to change the pace a little bit, just for a little while.

I'd like to deal briefly, if I can, with white-collar crime, and follow up somewhat some of the things I asked in question period today. I'm kind of fascinated by the broad question, so I'm going to ask some generic questions around white-collar crime. Before I do that, I'll just give you an example of something that piqued my interest. I was watching television about six months ago and saw a bank which the Americans said was essentially a laundry for Panamanian drug money. You saw the principals of the bank all being rounded up with their coats over their heads and thrown into a van on a tremendous sting operation by the American FBI.

Then I was downtown the next day and I saw the bank here in Vancouver. The Bank of Credit and Commerce has an operation right there on Burrard Street. I found that, in fact, the bank was raided as part of this American sting operation. It turns out that in the evidence at the American bank, the evidence I saw, the search warrant.... One incident mentioned was that a shoebox with about $100,000 in small bills was brought into the bank here in Vancouver, which was clearly drug money.

The question arises about the government's role in policing this activity, and I think it's particularly important, given the increased international trade and relationships that we have. We must be vigilant that the trade is in commodities that we desire, not in commodities that are illegal in this country, and that the profit from the trade in that commodity isn't laundered through Vancouver. There seems to me a whole range of questions, and I haven't seen any evidence from this administration and this minister of a concerted attack on this kind of white-collar crime and this laundering of drug money through Vancouver banks, the Vancouver Stock Exchange or Vancouver companies.

I wonder if I could start with a generic explanation from the minister regarding the ministry's role in white-collar crime and just how that works, what their budget is, how the breakdown is between CLEU and the RCMP and how we police this kind of nefarious activity.

HON. S.D. SMITH: First of all, there isn't a specific budget item that I can identify that you could

[ Page 6475 ]

reasonably point to white-collar crime, but there are a number of things that you would be interested in. The work of the Securities Commission has been beefed up significantly over the last number of months or couple of years, I guess, and that frequently ties into what you are talking about. The primary agency for dealing with investigations of white-collar crime in British Columbia is the RCMP commercial crime squad, and I think they do a pretty good job, quite frankly. They've got a pretty sizeable body of expertise built up, and I think they are on top of the organized activities that they're aware of in the province.

We have as well, inside the Crown counsel shop, six senior Crown counsel involved primarily, or largely at least, with dealing with such matters. They are senior people with special expertise and background in that area.

In terms of the proceeds of crime, you may be aware that Canada passed a bill last year — I think it's Bill C-61 — which is a proceeds-of-crime bill. I can't remember the exact title of it. We will be introducing some arrangement in British Columbia in the next number of weeks which will complement that and augment the proceeds-of-crime legislation. Whether it will be necessary to take the form of legislation directly or whether it will be simply a protocol of how to handle the moneys that come in.... Because, remember that there have to be certain ways to deal with those moneys, not the least of which has to recognize that they aren't yours until there is a conviction. Those are some of the ways we are putting resources in the area.

MR. CLARK: That's good news that the minister has made an announcement that there will be some kind of companion action. I would encourage a bill, by the way, if for no other reason than to raise the profile of the fight against white-collar crime, because I don't think the government has done enough in this area, simply by looking at what's going on in Vancouver. I'm sure it's a difficult area and that the drug money is difficult to trace, but it seems to me that the increased links that Vancouver has with certain countries might elevate the prospects of increased drug money coming through, particularly in light of the twin goals of government — and I don't think this is unfair — foreign ownership and deregulation. The twin approach is what concerns me if we are to entice large volumes of money from places like Hong Kong, South America, Panama, which are known to have some problems policing narcotics. It seems to me to heighten the possibility that we become a kind of laundry here.

The minister didn't take the opportunity to comment on the specific bank, but I'll leave that at this point. I appreciate the sensitivity of specific allegations, or specific cases, but there seems to be gaps in the investigation with respect to Marcos's involvement in Vancouver. The First Vancouver Securities company, which is a securities company, is, as the minister knows, not simply a listing; it was bought a seat on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I will be canvassing this with the Minister for Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) — I know it's quite properly his — but clearly there was an error in terms of the regulators missing the fact that this company is linked to Ferdinand Marcos. If it weren't for the bank account being frozen in Vancouver by the American grand jury indictment in New York, they would still be in operation. The question arises, however, of the people involved in that case. No action whatsoever was taken, other than to close the company and move the accounts to Georgia Pacific, which has an interesting history in itself. But we won't go into that either. Some other members of this chamber....

[4:15]

It seems to me there are disturbing elements with respect to the Marcos connection to Vancouver. As the minister knows, there are thousands of Canadians of Filipino descent in Vancouver and British Columbia. The vast majority of them are incredibly hardworking people and contribute a great deal to our society and to British Columbia. But names pop up: José Campos was listed in Newsweek magazine. I don't know whether Newsweek is a great investigative journal, but it talks about José Campos, who lives in Vancouver and is a known front man for Ferdinand Marcos. An admitted front man who helped Marcos take billions of dollars out of the Filipino economy illegally is living quite safely in Point Grey. What is he doing in Vancouver? I don't know. I don't have any evidence. I wish I did; I would say it today. But it is an interesting question.

Dewey Go Dee lives in Vancouver. He is fighting an extradition hearing right now. Originally he was allowed to stay in Canada, but partly because of press furor he is having some difficulty staying here. He is living here. So is a relative of his. I'm not quite sure what the relationship is, but Simeon Dee lives in Richmond, as I understand it. These are known Marcos associates. I am not libeling them. These people admit to being front men for Ferdinand Marcos. They associate with an individual named Toti Mabanta, who arranged the financing for First Vancouver. Mr. Mabanta currently works for Georgia Pacific and is doing the same thing he has been doing here for several years. It strikes me as passing odd, to say the least, that the company can be the subject of an American investigation, that the company can be folded by the regulators because it's known to be a Marcos laundry, for want of a better word — it's known to be associated with Marcos — but all of the people who arranged the financing from this source seem to walk away without any sanctions.

I wonder if the minister could comment on the broad question of the role of the commercial crime squad or his ministry in monitoring these kinds of disturbing foreign nationals now living in Canada who have these links to clearly disreputable people in other countries, in this case the Philippines.

HON. S.D. SMITH: You put me at a disadvantage for two reasons. First of all, the activities of the commercial crime squad obviously come under the authority of the Solicitor-General as it relates to this

[ Page 6476 ]

place. The second — and more important — reason is that it would be highly inappropriate for me to make public comment on what may or may not be being investigated at any given time. It is simply not right, and I can't do it. I think it's fair to say that the agencies are aware of a number of people who from time to time migrate to Vancouver. They are doing their job. Beyond that, I don't think I can say anything, nor shall I say anything.

MR. JONES: In the words of Monty Python, I think maybe we should look into something completely different. It's a subject that I think is important to the public of British Columbia. I have a suspicion that the Attorney-General shares my concern in this area, the area of freedom of information.

The Attorney-General may be aware that I have put forth a private member's bill dealing with freedom of information during the last two sessions, in the hope that it might provoke government to investigate this area and join most of the rest of Canada — to join the federal government and six other provinces in Canada. I understand that the Filmon Conservative government has recently proclaimed freedom-of-information legislation that was drafted during an NDP government.

This is an issue that crosses party boundaries. All parties represented in this Legislature have from time to time expressed interest in such legislation There have been Conservatives: Dr. Scott Wallace. There have been New Democrats: Alex Macdonald, Eileen Dailly and myself. There have been Liberals who have converted to the Social Credit Party — Garde Gardom — as well as Liberals who haven't — Gordon Gibson — who have all proposed similar kinds of legislation before this assembly.

I believe it was in 1984 that we came very close to approving such legislation. One of the Attorney-General's predecessors, Allan Williams, was looking very closely into access for existing and new government information and documents. I understand that it was the restraint program that precluded the possibility of that legislation coming forward.

Even the current Premier has in the past expressed interest in such legislation. He had a rather strange focus; he wanted freedom of information for municipalities when he was Municipal Affairs minister Nonetheless, I think it was an important step and still is an important step to have that kind of open approach to local government.

I understand that the Attorney-General's predecessor was not too enthusiastic about this kind of legislation, but the current Attorney-General, when he sat two desks away from mine two years ago, I recall one day in late June rose in this Legislature and spoke quite strongly to the importance of this kind of openness and accountability and the public's right to know when it came to the Board of Internal Economy. This Attorney-General was most vocal, strong and articulate in expressing those concerns as they related to our board.

Clearly the Attorney-General knows that we are, as a province, in the backwater. We are in the Dark Ages. Certainly we are behind the times. The United States has had good freedom-of-information legislation since 1966. I see some potential for movement here with the new Attorney-General.

About a year ago I ran across a press release. It happened to be the day of the sale of the Expo lands. The press release was from the office of the Premier, and it indicated that documents relating to business transactions between the provincial government and the private sector would not be made public by government on a blanket basis. The press release further pointed out that this policy did not mean a freeze on information. Very recently we saw that sale document being tabled in this Legislature, and I'm hopeful that that is a good sign. Perhaps that's a sign of a thaw, in terms of letting some sunshine into information as it relates to government transactions.

Even as recently as a week or so ago, the Attorney-General rose in this House, when we were dealing with the New Westminster land deal — and it was a heated debate — and played a very instructive role, suggesting that when we're dealing with government transactions, particularly land transactions, those be debated fully. The Attorney-General emphasized, particularly as it related to the opposition, that those transactions be debated on the facts. Having the facts from the government side is important to this debate, and the Attorney-General was playing a moderating role at that point, I think to his credit.

I think the Attorney-General understands that a better scrutiny of government has the potential to ensure fairness and to make government more efficient and more effective through that public scrutiny. I'm hopeful that the Attorney-General shares my concerns that we want to enhance accountability of government through freedom of information, and that the Attorney-General accepts that it's fundamental to our democratic system.

I'd just like to ask the Attorney-General if he shares my concerns and if he can advise this House if any of his staff are looking into freedom of information.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The simple answer is yes. I want to say I'm glad the member raised the issue of the Board of Internal Economy. I'll have more to say about that body later on in the session, if I am in the House when the matter arises, because I have some special concerns about both it and the way it operates in the public interest.

With regard to access to information, there are a couple of things the member might be interested in. First of all, the Financial Information Act is now providing a sizeable opportunity for people to seek and get information, particularly about the expenditures of government. On the larger issue, I have some very real concerns and have said so publicly — both before and after being asked to serve in this office some ten months ago — about access to information and about the protection of information; I believe them to be parallel streams.

I don't believe that we ought to put all our eggs only in the basket of access to information, as impor-

[ Page 6477 ]

tant as that is. I think there's a very real and emerging problem, particularly for citizens today who, through agencies both in government and outside of government, can have what is called a "psychological profile" built on them, simply by someone putting together the data that is available, I gather, to virtually anyone who knows how to operate a computer system. To me, that is spooky — to say the very least about it — and needs far more attention.

I know that the focus has been, and continues to be, on access to information as between citizens and their government. I don't have any difficulty with that. But I think, as we look at it, and we are looking at it.... Shortly after I was named to this post, I had a member of staff begin to look at both of those issues: access to information, how it can be improved and enhanced; and the very real and pressing need for people to have some assurance that information about them may be kept private. It may be that with the way the information society has gone, that task is going to be far more apparent than real. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the privacy of individuals and the amount of information that is scattered about to all and sundry, some of whom have reason to have it, some of whom don't but have it anyway. It is something that troubles and concerns me greatly.

You may ask next why you haven't seen a bill introduced in this House this session, or whether you will see one. The answer is that you won't, and the reason is that in the ten short months I've been in this ministry the focus has been primarily on the justice reform package and some other legislative initiatives that will come parallel or in association with that.

Yes, there are people working on it now; and yes' it is something that concerns me. But in addition to the concerns about access, I must tell you that I am equally concerned about privacy.

[4:30]

MR. JONES: I want to thank the Attorney-General for his response: a very candid response, and in my view a very positive one.

I share with the Attorney-General the dual aspect of freedom-of-information legislation: that there be privacy as well as access to information. It was about a year ago that a social services minister in the Maritimes was charged under freedom-of-information legislation for releasing information on a welfare recipient. That shows that it is possible to use the protection as well as the teeth of that legislation to ensure that all members of society operate properly under that kind of legislation.

I would like to raise one other small point with the Attorney-General, and it's very much an analogous point. I don't know whether it relates to his ministry specifically or not, but it certainly relates to the topic we're dealing with: that is, the concern for accountability in the spending of public funds.

Probably the majority of bodies and agencies that spend public funds under the aegis of the provincial government do not come under the scrutiny of the ombudsman, because of the lack of proclaiming of those sections of the Ombudsman Act that deal with schools, school boards, universities, colleges, college boards and hospitals. It seems to me that the kind of scrutiny that the Attorney-General wishes for the Board of Internal Economy also applies to those agencies that spend vast sums of money on behalf of the provincial government in the service of the people of British Columbia.

That same kind of scrutiny and access to information should be there and should also have the broad powers of the ombudsman's regulatory bodies to intervene and to investigate in a non-partisan way — as the ombudsman does — into the operations of those boards, agencies and institutions.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I realize that I am skirting on future policy, but I was very encouraged by the Attorney-General's response to the freedom of information question — even though it's not high on the immediate agenda — that legislation existing in most other parts of Canada is being looked at. I am wondering if the same kind of encouragement might come under the Ombudsman Act.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Sections 3 to 11 in the schedule of the Ombudsman Act — if we were to include them — would dramatically change the way the ombudsman operates. I am not so sure the ombudsman's function is a kind of audit function in terms of expenditure, although I suppose they do touch on that. I think the ombudsman's function, more appropriately, is to deal with the evenness with which administrative decisions are or are not made, the certainty or fairness of process and the like.

I shouldn't say this unless I check it, but it sticks in my mind that the auditor-general has pretty wide power to delve into matters and to trace expenditures of provincial moneys into other agencies. Just how far that goes I am not 100 percent certain. In terms of the expenditure level, I think some of that power exists now to follow the trail of the public dollar in that sense.

The proclaiming of those sections of the Ombudsman Act to include all manner and means of agencies, the Law Society and the College of Physicians and Surgeons and so on, to make their agencies reviewable.... Government has not done so without some acceptance from and some consultation with the organizations to find out how that process would work.

You may say that that has been an 11-year process of consultation, and I guess the answer is that it has. Likewise, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities has been under-whelmed — shall I say — by the prospect of having those sections proclaimed with respect to the ombudsman. No doubt, if they were proclaimed, the ombudsman as well would have some concerns about the tremendous increase in resources that would be required for them to operate.

I can tell you that it's not about to happen, but it comes up from time to time and gets reviewed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to just join in for a moment. Both the question and the answer revolved

[ Page 6478 ]

around the necessity for and matters involving legislation. I would like to remind the members of standing order 61, and I quote:

"The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply...."

Bearing that in mind, Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Member, I would ask the debate to continue.

MR. JONES: My understanding is that the auditor-general does have powers to, for example, go into school districts and look at expenditures of schools and school districts, I don't think that has been done because of the very reason you mentioned: the auditor-general's department is tremendously understaffed. He has raised these concerns in the past.

I recognize that all these things we're talking about have a price tag to them. But when I suggest that vast sums, perhaps even a majority of the provincial budget, are spent in those areas — I think you quoted 3 through 11.... The Attorney-General is quite right that it's his to ensure evenhandedness of treatment of individuals by those agencies of government.

But when we are spending vast sums of money on public policy, it is important to ensure through the ombudsman's office when the occasion arises that the citizens of this province are treated fairly and evenhandedly. It's important to our democracy. In both those areas, yes, there's a price tag. Clearly that was the argument of Allan Williams as Attorney-General not to proceed with freedom of information, because it would require a bureaucracy to man that. But it seems to me that in the interests of the citizens of this province and in the interests of our democratic system, it's still very worthwhile to proceed in those two areas. I would encourage the Attorney-General to look further, to not hesitate in delving into these areas. I'm very pleased that he's interested in it and has been investigating, at least in one area.

MRS. GRAN: I want to ask the Attorney-General a very general question. I recognize that the jurisdiction for what I'm asking about may well lie mainly with the federal government, but I'm sure that through the lobbying of the provincial governments, our Attorney-General could make a difference. My concern lies around sexually abused children and women who are victims of rape and violence at home. I'm particularly concerned with the sentences handed out in the courts. I'm wondering if the Attorney-General could expand on how he feels, as Attorney-General, on the sentences that are handed out — in a general way — and whether they're fair.

It's my feeling that there is no punishment, or very little punishment, for those crimes anymore. We read daily about children being sexually abused, and the comment that I hear more often than not is: "Oh, well, it's always been like that. We're just hearing about it." I don't think that's true. I think that those kinds of crimes are on the increase due to drugs and alcohol abuse and a society that has become accustomed to violence. It doesn't seem to matter where you turn, there's violence. And the violence, when it's directed at helpless victims like children and a woman who is beaten senseless and raped by one man or a gang of men, is a crime that no society should tolerate and no one should be proud of. I'm sure none of us are. But I don't think that enough focus has been put on those two subjects by any government. I wonder if the Attorney-General could just expand on that a bit.

HON. S.D. SMITH: We discussed this a little bit on Friday, actually, in relationship to child abuse cases: the whole business of sentencing and the appropriateness of some sentences.

Clearly I have to recognize that sentences are meted out by the courts, and they are, of course, subject to a number of things. They're subject to the facts of the case as the judge sees them; primarily that is what they should be subject to. As well, they will be subject to submissions of both defence and Crown, and one of the things that Crown seeks to do in its submissions is deal with the protection of the public and address the court with some sense of the disapproval that society feels towards those kinds of crimes and activities.

In this province, because we have put some priority on those particular areas over the last number of months, we have also appealed several sentences that were extended at the trial level and at the trial judge level, and we've been successful with respect to our submissions on appeal to the Court of Appeal. So in British Columbia I think the level of sentencing and the conformity — or at least the evenness — of sentencing is moving more in a direction in which that member, and certainly I, would be satisfied to see it go.

In addition to that, I have not hesitated in swearing the material required by me to direct a direct indictment in those instances where it was considered to be appropriate for dangerous offenders, or to at least have them classified as dangerous offenders. If one is successful in getting that declaration, it means that the sentence is indeterminate. They then do not get out at a fixed time or a fixed time less parole; they are there at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. That means that this whole business that some people get concerned about is where the counselling ought to take place. And it ought to. With some people it ought to take place behind the security of bars. That's the appropriate place and indeed the only place. Society is quite justified in wanting that to take place. So over the past year we have had more applications than previously.

MRS. GRAN: I thank the Attorney-General for his answer, and I recognize that he is very sympathetic to those concerns. I want to thank the Attorney-General for a lot of the funding that has come forward for assistance to victims in the last couple of years. I also want to applaud the money for legal aid, particularly where women and children are concerned.

[ Page 6479 ]

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'd like to address the question of civil disobedience, which seems to be sweeping our province, particularly in my riding.

Interjection.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Encouraged by some part of this government which doesn't seem to want to become involved in the issues until the matter is too late, Mr. Member.

The amount of civil disobedience in the province is escalating, as I'm sure all members of this House are aware. The government seems to be allowing it to happen, and there's no involvement to ensure that matters are taken into hand by various ministries of the government, not just the Ministry of Attorney-General, to avert some of the protesters that are taking issue with the laws of British Columbia.

[4:45]

As we live in a democratic society, everybody should have the right to stand up and be a dissident — if that's the word to use — and not agree with some of the practices carried out in a society that may consider it its right to do. We must always be very diligent that the law does not step on that democratic right to display civil disobedience and to protest. However, when the RCMP has to become involved and sometimes is hesitant to become involved — as was the case in the Clayoquot Sound area and Sulphur Passage — because the laws are not clear as to their role or as to the effect they might have in calling a protest a civil disobedience between two groups, I think it's time the Attorney-General took a more direct role in seeing that those people, on both sides, have a more equitable way of settling their differences. Confrontation shouldn't be allowed to go on beyond reason, where the safety, health and working conditions of people are affected.

I'd like to hear from the minister what action his ministry or the government will be taking to allay the fears of some of the people involved in these disputes, whether they be on behalf of the protesters, so to speak, or those who feel that they must go beyond the writing of letters to ministries and to MLAs and must use a more direct way of voicing their disapproval of actions taken either by government or by private companies.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The member for Alberni really touches on one of the more difficult areas that one has to deal with in exercising discretion in this particular ministry.

What am I going to do to allay the fears of those who protest? I guess the short answer is that I'm not going to allay their fears; if they break the law, then the law will take its course.

What I can say to the member is this: there is always an area of discretion that must be exercised about how one ought to respond to civil disobedience, whatever its form. In our society we don't deny civil disobedience in some ways they do in more totalitarian societies. We are very tolerant of people who protest and who are disobedient in varying degrees. What we have to do ultimately, however, is protect the public peace, and that includes ensuring that those whose lawful activities are impacted by those who don't want them to carry on can in fact carry on.

Where you have to be cautious in the exercise of your discretion is in how you respond to that. We have developed in this province a pretty sizeable body of experience about dealing with civil disobedience. I don't know whether it's the nature of the province or whether it's the nature of the issues that arise in this province or what, but we seem to have more experience in it than some other jurisdictions. It is my view, and it is certainly the emerging experience of this ministry, that civil disobedience ought to be responded to through the civil process. That's the better way to respond.

We have had examples of where we have not done that. I think we will learn from those examples. Generally speaking, where there is a dispute between private parties who own property individually and have some licence to carry on a certain activity, and there are those who would not let them carry on that activity, then we are of the view that the civil process is the appropriate place to begin that response.

Certainly there are those who say you ought to start with the criminal law, and you should go in and make arrests immediately for this, that and the other thing. I say to them, in part: what do you do for an encore if that doesn't work? That's one thing, and I think it's a worthy question to ask.

More importantly, when you are trying to have in the back of your mind the maintenance of peace — primarily of the peaceful society — then I think you should try to respond to those kinds of incidents in a way that reduces the level of heat; certainly don't respond to it in a way that amounts to pouring gasoline on hot embers. Sometimes the process you choose can do that inadvertently.

It's my view that while it's an exercise of judgment, and there are certain cases where you would clearly have to respond quickly and perhaps heavily — you can think in the hypothetical — generally speaking, civil disobedience should beget a civil response at the outset to try to bring the parties to resolution and to separation to keep the public peace in that way first.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I want to thank the minister for those remarks, particularly at the end where we have to find a solution. I'm sure he's familiar with the Meares Island dispute which broke out a few years back and eventually went to court because of the Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal Council declaring it a tribal park. In fact, the company that had a licence to log on that island — MacMillan Bloedel — is still waiting for a resolution of that court decision.

After going through that experience, apparently the government did not learn a lot of lessons, as a similar dispute arose last year in the Clayoquot Sound-Sulphur Passage area. We went through the same process again, without a solution coming forth this time, and with the Nuu'chah'nulth Tribal Council taking that matter to court on a lands claim issue.

[ Page 6480 ]

We allowed the issue to ferment for close to six months, until finally the civil disobedience took such a toll that arrests were made and, in fact, people ended up going to court and injuries were sustained by both sides — by the workers who were involved in the legal activity of carrying out their job actions and their work performances and also by those people who viewed that work and that practice of earning a living as an infringement on their rights.

I realize that perhaps the Attorney-General ministry could not enter that fray directly at that point; however, I think at some point ministries of the government, with direction from the Attorney-General ministry, could become involved to offset those disputes before they happen. Again, I draw the minister's attention to the Meares Island dispute, which apparently this government didn't learn any lessons from because it allowed it to happen again on the Sulphur Passage issue.

HON. S.D. SMITH: One of the things that is critically important about this whole process is getting our facts straight. The Meares Island matter has not gone forward, because the parties agreed to await the outcome of the Gitksan case to determine the issue of land claims. There's the Meares Island case. There's a case that's called the Pasco case, which goes through the area that I live in, where the CNR.... And there's a third one that escapes me at the moment.

They are all awaiting the outcome of the Gitksan case. Why? It has been described as the most important trial ever undertaken in British Columbia. The other day in this House I said it ought not to be referred to as legal harassment. To my knowledge, the Sulphur Passage matter did not involve a land claim. The court proceedings did not involve a land claim issue at all.

What is occurring in that area, which I think is welcome.... Ultimately, in some of these straight cutting issues where you have a dispute over cut, a dispute over visual corridors, a dispute over competing interests in terms of recreation and tourism and our resource base, as broadly based a process of community involvement in establishing how to cut and where to cut and when to cut is a desirable thing. I think it's to both Mac-Blo's credit and that of the people in the Tofino area that to some extent, as I understand it, that has begun to take place.

We cannot, to answer your question, anticipate that X action is going to take place in Y location, and prevent it from happening. I think that as long as we try to ask that to be done, we are just kidding ourselves and avoiding what might be a resolution of the problem. The problem is going to get larger in British Columbia. There are going to be more resource conflicts, not fewer, because there are more roads and more people using what they consider to be unharvestable areas for their own recreation. People go in with harvesting permits because they've had them for a long time, and recreational vehicles, boats and so on make areas more accessible to a broad range of the public. So we're going to see more of that, not less, unless we are prepared to do more to try to draw together the various competing groups and find some resolution.

That is why the process of the round table that the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) has adopted and advanced is a worthy one for us to all get involved in, not just on the level of sustainable development as a larger issue, but for sustainable enterprise in our communities. The principles are quite the same. But to get back to the issue you asked me about specifically, in terms of our policy, we really are responsive in many ways to the activities that take place, and our experience tells us that the civil process is the better way to perform.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I thank the minister for his comments. When the protesters and the dissidents turned themselves in last week to the authorities, and went forth to serve the sentences meted out by the courts, one of them was pregnant and another was, I understand, slightly ill. They were put into maximum security prisons, and I understand from the press that Lakeside was the only facility available for the female protesters. The male protesters went to the authorities and were placed in other maximum or near-maximum facilities.

I wonder if the minister could explain why these rather severe facilities were chosen to put these people in — and they were put in with the general prison population — when in fact they could have been dealt with in a much lighter fashion. These weren't violent people; they were simply expressing a viewpoint that they held very dear to their hearts. Many of them could well afford to pay the fines, but as a matter of principle they decided to go the way of the jail term, probably to bring attention to their cause. I'm willing to admit that, and I think they are also. I think the sentencing was rather severe, considering the type of crime they committed.

[5:00]

HON. S.D. SMITH: I don't think the sentence of seven or eight days in lieu of a $500 fine is particularly severe, but the question of classification of prisoners is something you should properly address to the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree). Prisons are part of the Solicitor-General's ministry. I am sure he's listening, and maybe this will give him an opportunity to be prepared when his estimates come up.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I'll take the matter up with the Solicitor-General, as you suggest.

Turning to another matter, in late January of this year you happened to come to Port Alberni to address our excellent chamber of commerce. You spoke on the family support program, which you said was working and up and running, as a matter of fact, in Port Alberni. The Alberni Valley Times, the local newspaper, ran an article the week before you came that the program was still up in the air and that complete information had not been received to ensure that the program could be enacted. In fact, the program wasn't enacted until March 1.

[ Page 6481 ]

The women's resource centre is still sort of appalled at the backlog in that system. Each interview takes about an hour and a half or two hours, and after the interview, a client receives a notice of filing. Then there is a two- or three-month waiting period because of the backlog.

I wonder if the minister could ensure that the backlog doesn't continue to pile up, that we don't end up with a longer period of backlog and of enforcement as more people get into the system to have the enforcement brought forward and to make sure that the type of maintenance that the government is attempting to get the husbands and fathers of these women and children to pay doesn't end up being thwarted for a year or longer down the road. In fact, many of the workers in the Alberni riding are migrant workers, as they are around the province, and they may be more difficult to reach in the future.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The matter of the Port Alberni court services that the newspaper person raised.... I did deal with that earlier on, either with the individual or with the newspaper, or both. In any event, they were corrected and were pleased with the information they got, I'm sure.

We had a delightful and stimulating discussion most of the afternoon in this chamber on the issue of the backlog, and I'll try to repeat a little of that without going into too much detail. The program has been up and running since last October through a toll-free line and in Victoria and Kamloops since January 1.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

We think the program is an excellent one, and we think it will do the job. You might reasonably expect, Mr. Member for Alberni, that after decades of neglect of enforcement, fully 85 percent of the court orders issued by our courts were ignored or otherwise not dealt with properly in the first year after they were issued — usually by men.

After decades of that kind of neglect, it does not surprise me in the slightest that when we start up a new program and invite everyone to apply, there will be some backlog. We admit that, and I have said that. I have said today that we have put a process in place to clean up the backlog.

We think the backlog will not be an ever-increasing one for a lot of reasons. First of all, the many orders that have been put in are by people who have had arrears and had no hope, but now have hope again. That is why they are coming to the program. It is taking time for a whole host of reasons to get them registered and sorted out. Orders now being made by the courts will go through much quicker, where the lawyers or the individuals involved are registering them automatically. There won't be arrears attached to those new orders, because they are new orders.

Initially, there is a backlog. Initially, we are having problems with people who may have instant expectations and are not having those expectations met. I am hopeful their expectations will be met because they need the money. One of the things I said about the program since day one is: "Let us not create expectations we can't fulfill." I would say that to all members of the House.

It's not a partisan issue; it's not a praise and blame issue. It's an issue of trying to get a system in place to help women and their children — particularly single mothers and their children who are most in need because usually their male counterpart refuses to live up to his obligation to his own kids. Among other things, it is quite a disgusting but all too prevalent phenomenon in our society.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I want to thank the minister. He seems to be — after years of neglect, as he said, on behalf of the party now in government — taking the bull by the horns and is in fact bringing forth this much needed legislation.

I'm rather disturbed that Port Alberni was the last one on the list to actually get up and running. That seems to be the case too often in the Alberni riding. I took the trouble of contacting the Social Services office in my riding this morning to make sure that, in fact, the program was going. I was told that it was the last one to actually get going to the full extent. I just want to impress upon the minister before I go on that Alberni shouldn't always be last.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Just before you do go on, Port Alberni was not last with this program. If you are talking about a program in the Social Services ministry side, that's something quite different. In the program that I am talking about, the services were available to Alberni at exactly the same time as they were available to the rest of the province. I know that issue came up in the press, and there was a great kafuffle about it. I got the facts out and available. It was just not correct. The program services were available in Alberni at exactly the same time as they were available in other locations in the province where the program started up.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I don't know exactly what dates the minister is referring to. Perhaps he could enlighten us as to why Harold Doucette, regional director of court services for Vancouver Island, said: "Orders for maintenance can apply for a kit, but forms will not be processed in Port Alberni until March 15." Is the minister referring to March 15 as the magic date? I referred to March 1, so obviously the system worked a little better than Mr. Doucette promised at the time.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I will take that information and.... I went through this already once and I don't have it at my fingertips. I'm sorry, I don't remember the details. I am not going to rely on what is in a newspaper report, I can assure you of that. I've picked it up; I've gone through it; I'll go through it again. In any event, the program is a good one. It is there to help women and their children, hopefully not to make debating points for politicians.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I appreciate that, Mr. Minister, and I agree with you. I said earlier that it is a good

[ Page 6482 ]

program. I just wanted to impress upon the minister that, as happens so often in opposition ridings, we end up last. With Port Alberni being at the end of the road, I guess it happens.

I'd also like to address to the minister some questions on small debts. His ministry has promised to review the small debt courts. As small business critic and being a small business man myself, I welcome this new proposal from his ministry. Far too often the small debts owed to small business men — particularly if they are $200 or less — aren't worth the time, effort, paperwork or dollars needed to pursue them. There tends to be a great loss. It's very easy for business to say, "Well, don't give credit in the first place, " but if you want to compete in the modern-day world, you have to compete against the large corporations and businesses that can afford to give credit because of their volume and to take the resulting losses. I wonder if the minister could give some indication of how the new program would work and how soon we can expect it.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Assuming that you're referring to the economical litigation program associated with the Justice Reform Committee's report, you can expect to see legislation about that in the not very distant future. The member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) and I were admonished earlier today to not discuss legislation. I guess that's the best I can say to you. It's in the hoops and will be part of that legislative package.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I thank the minister for his prompt response. We in the small business community are looking forward to a better way to collect debts owed to us.

If the minister has been following the press along with the rest of us, he'll have seen that recently there have been a number of thefts, particularly in the Vancouver area, of fairly high-priced items, such as fur coats and recently some cowboy boots in the area of $300 or $400 a pair. The perpetrators of these crimes seem to be very selective, not going through an entire inventory of goods on the premises but selecting very specific items. As mentioned in the press, it seems to be a type of "theft to order." Small business is having to spend more and more money to protect itself. I know that in my own business I spend many thousands of dollars putting in safety glass, Lexon windows, security and sound and movement detectors to protect my business.

I believe that these crimes are a direct effect.... I notice, with my own business being harassed and broken into a number of times, that the sentencing of the perpetrators, if and when they're caught, is very light. Very few times is restitution given to the particular business which loses not only the goods but also has a great loss in the form of replacing broken glass and doors. In many cases the perpetrators ransack the premises, and thousands of dollars are needed to rebuild the premises after one of these devastating break-ins. It places a great burden particularly on the small business operator and the family operator. I'd like to see the ministry put greater emphasis on seeing that these activities are curtailed.

[5:15]

HON. S.D. SMITH: The member has really got my attention now, because he talked about the theft of cowboy boots. I had a pair of my own stolen out of my apartment. If those show up anywhere that you can get information about, please let me know.

The issue about which you speak, the theft-to-order rings that seem to be prevalent.... You touch on something important: the assurance by the individual businesses of the best detection and prevention systems that they can have is obviously helpful, not only to insurance costs but to the police in apprehending these people. We in the Crown shop are putting greater emphasis on that issue. Also, through the Crown-related victim procedures, we are attempting to do more in terms of restitution and bringing back the status quo, especially as it relates to those small businesses where a good pair of boots is no small piece of change.

MS. MARZARI: I was listening over the box to the canvassing of the family maintenance enforcement program, and I got the impression from the debate that it was a young program and was having a few administrative difficulties, but that basically things were straightening out.

The evidence I've collected over the past few months suggests that the problems of the program have very little to do with the fact that it's a young, aspiring program. In fact, some of the statistics and suggestions that I have received suggest that this program is a very poorly managed one, that it's not going to come anywhere near to meeting expectations of women who actually need it and that it is in fact holding a gun to the heads of those women who don't need it but are being forced to inform on their husbands. Statistics as of January — and I haven't updated these — show that of 2,000 applications, only 500 people had been enrolled.

Now, that has nothing to do with whether or not those cases had actually been acted upon, because I gather there are three processes: the enrolment process, the enforcement process and a court enforcement process. Different teams were assigned to do different tasks. No one person was assigned to follow a case right through. No one officer was allocated to see an applying individual, a woman, right through the program. Case files were passed from person to person, very often set aside, very often lost, and very few acted upon. At this rate, it's been suggested that we won't even begin to take a look at the cases that were enrolled back in December of last year until late this year. There is a suggestion, too, that those people enrolling who presently live out of province are receiving very low priority indeed, and there are complaints around that.

Of all the affidavits of arrears that were sent out for signing and swearing by the creditor, which in itself, I gather, is a very cumbersome process — and most cases do have arrears; most of the debtors are in

[ Page 6483 ]

arrears — approximately one-third are returned incorrect. So by the time we've processed those, it takes an additional one or two months, and this once again holds up the whole process.

I gather that inefficient procedures are making it very difficult, and in fact that staff is turning over very rapidly inside this brand-new program. This is not an indication of a young program striving; it is an indication of a program at sea, desperately trying to keep its head above water and not really meeting the needs of either the administration or of the clients. I gather that clients are phoning daily. Only one in ten cases seems to have any success at actual collection. Given that kind of statistic, that kind of problem, I'd suggest that we're dealing with something a little bit deeper here than a young program having some troubles.

I have also discovered that the senior legal counsel and the senior enforcement officer both left within the first five months of this program, and that there were very unrealistic expectations put on staff as to what could possibly be accomplished with the few people they had. In Ontario, I gather, there are six clerks per officer; here, there is barely one. Consequently the enrolment procedure alone has its complications; then the enforcement procedure similarly has its complications. There have been staff turnovers and changes in administrative detail and structures — three over the winter months. With this kind of evidence coming forward, I think it's very important for the Attorney-General to take a serious look at the management of this program.

Obviously the opposition supported this program when it was first put forward, and I want to see that it is at least meeting the expectations of the clients; that is most important. Similarly, it's very important that we run a decent shop and have a half-decent operation. It's been suggested to me that a few good collections officers might make a big difference. These are just a few of the comments that have been made.

The additional comment that has to be made at this point is that mothers on welfare are becoming increasingly concerned. There is concern, obviously, about women who want the service, who actually want to get their husbands to pay up. They are having to wait months and months. They are not being properly served, and after they sign up, they don't have any recourse but to wait.

I gather that special priority is not being given to mothers on welfare, and they are not being allowed to find any flexibility in the program whatsoever. For example, last year when we approved this program, we talked about the possibility of a woman with a violent husband who was quite frightened of him, and whether or not she was going to be forced to go after him for maintenance. There was a suggestion at that point that there would be a waiver written into the social services act that would coincide with this program so that the woman would not be forced to go into the program.

I am interested in knowing whether any of those waivers have been granted by the system. It is my information that not one has been granted. In other words, women on welfare are being told that they have to go this route, that they have no option, whether or not they are faced with the possibility of a violent spouse. They are not finding much help or support from the program, even though a waiver possibility was included in the legislation. My question to you right now is whether waivers have been granted to women on welfare.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I've had this question put to me four times this afternoon, and I'll say again that those issues must be addressed to the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond). I'd be delighted to get the information to you. I don't have it. It has to come from that minister. The issues of subrogation, of the waiver and so on, are issues that properly should be — and I have no doubt will be — addressed at some length when that minister's estimates are up.

I'll take a look at the management issues that you've raised. I'm always interested in making sure that our money is properly spent. I want to be certain that we're getting value for our dollars from management. The other thing I should say is yes, there are members of staff who have left, some voluntarily and some not, frankly. There's nothing particularly unusual in that, where you have 60 staff members in a new program.

To give you some comparative sense of the backlog we're seeing here, when a similar kind of program came in in Alberta, the backlog lasted for a little better than a year. Alberta chose to give some priority to people, so that income assistance earners didn't begin to get enrolled until a year after the program was in operation, and even at that they had a backlog of over a year. In Ontario the backlog potential was so great that they didn't proclaim part of their legislation which would have transferred cases then before the courts to the program. Consequently, even today in Ontario they're still running two parallel programs.

We have put in place a program expressing a desire on the part of this Legislature to deal with a very real and pressing social need. The fact that it has not been dealt with for decades means there is a backlog, and I readily admit to that. I don't take any comfort in it, and I hope that members of the opposition don't as well.

There's great ammunition to leap up and pillory the government for everyone who has a complaint about the program; no question about that. I've heard lots of it today. But the program is only up and running since January 1 in all the province and since last October in greater Vancouver, and there are literally thousands of people who want to use the program's services and want to embark upon an initial registration. They aren't used to the system and have to fill out forms they haven't dealt with before. They have to dredge up matters where they haven't tried to collect this maintenance in the past because they felt there was no hope for them to get it, and they would have to go through all the lawyers and all the whoop-

[ Page 6484 ]

de-do they had to go through before. Now they are coming in contact with a system where it takes some time to get the information correctly. The worst thing you can do is be in a rush and stick it in and get it half right and half wrong and have to go back at it again, all of which takes time.

As I say, we are going to have people in place to try to make certain that the backlog is dealt with over the summer. As the practising bar and others involved in this process register things automatically as they come out of the courts, as they are not in arrears, then you'll see less and less.... The backlog won't be an ongoing problem

As I said earlier this afternoon, each month they are doubling the amount of money they are actually collecting. The program is beginning to take hold and beginning to work.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to pick up from where we left off. Unfortunately, I had to attend a committee meeting, so I didn't get to deal with fair boundaries in the province. I didn't get a chance to hear...

[5:30]

I want some answers from the Attorney-General with respect to the absence of coverage in the Kootenays, the Cariboo and Nechako with respect to sexual assault. If I missed something in the comments that our House Leader made, that's fine; I'm sure the response I get back from the Attorney-General will be abbreviated. But as I was following the debate before I left, the Attorney-General was saying that there was coverage of some services by other ministries in those areas. Of course, that also exists in Vancouver to the same extent. I would like an explanation of.... The government talks about its concerns with respect to the needs of the interior. We've got three areas here that aren't covered for sexual assault. What is the minister's intention in terms of providing those services, and why has the ministry decided that those services will not be provided this year, when other support services are available through other ministries in Vancouver, Victoria and the other four regions of the province? The question is self-evident. Why is it that the Kootenay area, the Cariboo and the Nechako have not been provided with funding with respect to those services?

[Mr. Barlee in the chair.]

HON. S.D. SMITH: I have given all the answers that I have to give. I don't know what else I can really add to the member's questions. We've gone over it repeatedly and I have given the answers. I really don't have much more to add.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to know from the minister whether or not the government is prepared to.... Well, no, I am not going to ask the question. We'll get on to another matter. But I will say that my expectation from the ministry is that assistance would be provided with respect to victims of sexual assault in those areas of the province that aren't covered; namely, the Kootenay area, the Nechako area and the Cariboo region. I look forward to next year's budget providing for assistance in those areas.

Last week, before we wrapped up, I told the minister that I wanted to deal with the Sandra Dick case. I'm sure the Attorney-General knows of it. It was referred by way of direct indictment immediately to trial. The case involved allegations of sexual assault. The Crown, I know, was under a tremendous amount of pressure to proceed with the prosecution; that pressure emanated both from the Attorney-General's predecessor as well as from the community.

I don't particularly want to go over the entrails of that case — or the specifics of it. It's clear from the analysis of the case that there was no investigation beyond initial statements from the children. All of a sudden, as things progressed during the course of the investigation, it became apparent that perhaps everything wasn't as the original investigation would lead one to believe. However, it is my understanding — and the Attorney-General can correct me on any of these facts if he thinks me wrong — that the appointed prosecutor came to the view that there was no need to reconsider the situation in the laying of the charges, despite the change in the nuances with respect to the evidence. There were originally 22 counts; this was dropped to five. The accused took two steps here which were particularly salient in my mind when I was looking at this case. She agreed to engage in a polygraph and to take advantage of a truth serum, both of which were rejected by Crown counsel.

I don't want to go into the details of the case; I just really want to get into, on reflection, what we have learned from the Sandra Dick prosecution. Obviously, when one is dealing with sexual assault, there are some judgments that have to be made. In some instances it's fairly clear that a direct indictment is appropriate, particularly when there is videotaped evidence or when there is evidence of children. In other cases when there is evidence of children, perhaps a direct indictment is not appropriate. When one has the accused offering to take the types of tests that the accused did in this case and when there seem to be changes in the evidence that is coming over from the kids, I don't understand why a direct indictment was proceeded with in this situation. Needless to say, the individual was acquitted.

What I'd like to know from the Attorney-General is just what analysis his ministry has done as a result of that acquittal and what changes, if any, they intend with respect to their policy of direct indictment on these types of matters.

HON. S.D. SMITH: First of all, there was one acquittal and one conviction.

MR. SIHOTA: I was talking about Sandra.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I understand that, but the whole episode started as a matter in which the charges went ahead together, and they were ultimately severed. It would be misleading to the House and to the public to leave the impression that there

[ Page 6485 ]

was not a conviction involving the general incident. There was a conviction against the son, but there was an acquittal against the mother. There were 22 original charges, and the member said they were reduced to five. There were 22 original charges involving the whole matter. Ultimately five were proceeded against the mother.

Why was a decision taken for a direct indictment? That, in no small part, reduced the number of times that the children would have to testify. As it was, the children had to testify several times. But by proceeding by direct indictment, it eliminated the need for a preliminary, so that reduced the amount of time the children had to testify. It was very difficult for the children testifying, as it was. So that was the primary reason.

MR. SIHOTA: If the Attorney-General would care to listen.... I'll pause, because that wasn't the question that I asked. In fact, I went out of my way to say that it was clear that children were involved. There are some cases involving children where direct indictments make sense. But there are peculiarities of this case which one does not normally see. Because of those peculiarities, in terms of where the accused was coming from and the offers that the accused made, it seems to me that a couple of things would have made sense.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

My question to the Attorney-General at the time, and I ask the question again, was: as a consequence of this case and the Attorney-General's internal ministerial review of this decision, has this ministry developed new policy with respect to when and on what basis it proceeds with direct indictments?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The matter of direct indictments revolves around the facts of each case. I don't think it's something about which you could have a blanket policy known in advance. The Dick matter was prosecuted from very early on by a senior Crown counsel, Wendy Harvey — who is, I think it's safe to say, one of the leading counsel in that area in the nation.

So to answer the member's question about direct indictments, they're reserved obviously for very serious matters in the judgment of the Crown. The information comes forward in each individual case, it's weighed, and a decision is made. I think it's safe to advise the House that they are very much the exception; certainly they aren't the standard form.

MR. SIHOTA: It's my information that B.C. actually leads the country in direct indictments. I haven't gone and canvassed every province, so I could be wrong on that point.

We're talking about a seven-week trial; we're talking about considerable costs to the taxpayer, probably in the order of a couple of million dollars, when you think it through. One obviously has to wonder, in light of the acquittal.... I want to make it clear, so there is no misunderstanding here, that the acquittal of Sandra Dick was on all counts; if there were convictions, they were not of Sandra Dick. But it seems to me that after this case, the ministry should have had a discussion with Wendy Harvey — and I have a lot of respect for her; I am well aware of her skills — as to how it intends to deal with direct indictments in the future. I understand the appeal period just passed, so you may not have had an opportunity to do that. But it so happens that our estimates are now instead of a little bit later on.

If the ministry has not had discussions with respect to how it wishes to handle direct indictments in the future, it seems to me that there are some lessons it ought to have learned from this case. It would be my view that the Attorney-General ministry should be sitting down and having some discussions as to how it weishes to deal with dirct indictments in the future, based on this experience. Is the Attorney-General saying that you haven't even had that much of a discussion yet?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Of course the Attorney-General didn't say that we haven't had those discussions, and to infer otherwise is wrong.

To my knowledge, since I have been Attorney-General, I believe I have had to deal with two direct indictments. It's not something that is a frequent occurrence. It may be that there have been three over a period of ten months. The Dick matter may be the only one that's been dealt with in the last six months.

The way they are done — those extraordinarily infrequent times when they are done — is that the Crown has primary responsibility. In this case, Wendy Harvey, whom I would have no hesitation seeking to have qualified as an expert in her field, consulted with regional Crown. A decision is taken based on the evidence before them and the severity of the crime. Then it goes to the associate deputy minister for criminal justice, and the same process takes place. Thereafter it goes to the desk of the deputy minister before it proceeds. Certainly the people in this particular case whom I've mentioned are all individuals who I think have outstanding qualifications in their own right, and I'm certainly happy to be able to rely on their advice.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister suggests it would be misleading to suggest there haven't been any discussions. I'm assuming, then, that there have been discussions. What are your conclusions from those discussions in terms of how you handle direct indictments?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I hoped I had dealt with that the first time I stood up in this series of questions. Each case depends upon its own facts.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll tell you something: I think the minister ought to be hauling some people on the carpet with respect to this case and asking some fairly pointed questions in terms of what transpired here, because it seems to me that somewhere, somehow, the process we have in place didn't work appropriately. It may have been that right at the very beginning, from the highest levels, there was a decision

[ Page 6486 ]

that this case had to proceed by way of direct indictment. I don't know what the former Attorney-General.... I'm not in any way making any negative comments with respect to him. I don't know whether pressure was emanating from there or whether there was pressure emanating from other sources, but it seems to me this is one case where one has to....

[5:45]

I'm aware that there have been other prosecutions by the ministry on sexual assault, and I don't question the way in which those cases were handled. This is one where there are enough signals to the contrary to warrant asking some fairly serious questions as to what the pressures were; why it was that we proceeded with direct indictment. This is not the only case that deals with children giving evidence; this is not the only case that involves small communities; this is not the only case where we can deal with evidence by way of videotape. But direct indictments are an extraordinary remedy, and they aren't taken always — as the Attorney-General has indicated. In this case it seems to me that a major error was made in terms of deciding to proceed that way.

Okay, that's fair enough; these things happen. But it seems to me that someone ought to be going back over the territory and asking themselves how it was that this one got through the gaps, so to speak. I find it difficult to understand what pressure.... There must have been some pressure in this case to proceed in this fashion. It may well have been that the pressure emanated from the community. It may well have been that the pressure emanated from those who did the investigation. It may well have been that it emanated from the higher levels in the ministry, including the former minister's office. But I think someone has to sit back and ask some questions with respect to how the Dick matter was handled.

Having said that, perhaps the Attorney-General could tell me who it was. Was it the RCMP that did the investigation on this case, or was the decision to lay charges based upon the opinions of some of the social workers that were called up into the community to take a look at the allegations of sexual assault?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The Dick matter generally involved two direct indictments, as I indicated. One resulted in an acquittal, one resulted in a conviction I don't know what flows by way of consequence from the case the member is trying to build.

The process is this. The police provide the Crown — in this case, the social workers as well — with information and the Crown makes a decision whether or not to prosecute. That is the case in all prosecutions. The matter simply proceeded in that way, and there's nothing unusual about this case in terms of how it proceeded. To try to make, out some case that it is unusual is wrong, but if the member wishes to do that, fair enough. I can only advise him that he's just flat wrong.

It is the case that two people were charged and their cases were advanced by direct indictment. In the one case there was a conviction; in the case at hand there was an acquittal. Generally it is thought that the case in the acquittal turned on evidence that came from witnesses called by the defence who during a preliminary inquiry were not ones who would have been called by the Crown or the police.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says the police investigated. Could he tell me what the recommendations of the police were with respect to proceeding on this matter?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'll have to go back into the file and find out their specific recommendations. But I don't want to give any assurance to the member that I will disclose publicly the police recommendation in an internal matter such as this investigation, in any event.

MR. SIHOTA: The appeal period has expired. It's a case which is no longer in front of the courts. Could the minister explain on what policy basis he is not prepared to disclose that recommendation?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The decision to prosecute is taken by the Crown. The Crown looks at all manner and means of information and facts and so on that come forward from the police or from the social workers. In this case, a decision was taken to proceed against two individuals, one of whom was convicted and the other acquitted.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to make it clear to the minister that we're focusing on the acquittal, not the conviction. We are talking about Sandra Dick and not the other individual who was charged. Could the minister explain why he takes the view that he cannot tell this House what the recommendation of the RCMP was?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I didn't say that. I said that I didn't have the information here, but in any event I wanted to advise the member that I would not necessarily disclose the recommendations of investigative officers or the information that comes from them. I just wanted to apprise him of that in advance, that's all.

MR. SIHOTA: The question to the minister was: why not? It seems to be the habit today to choose not to answer. We'll come back to it in a minute; I want to ask the minister again. You didn't, so don't shake your head at me and suggest you did.

The next question to the minister: was this a case where the accused agreed to take a polygraph? If she did, could he explain why it was rejected?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'll get the information, lest the member be able to leave the impression that there was a disinclination to answer his questions — there isn't.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister advise what the recommendation of the individuals who...? We're going to go back. Let me just say this: it seems to me that this may well have been a case where the deci-

[ Page 6487 ]

sion to proceed.... I'm not basing this on anything but just a gut feeling from my reading of the transcripts and what transpired during the case. I must say... No, I won't say that; I'll just get to this point.

If there is a lesson to be extracted from it, it seems to me that this may well have been a case where emphasis was placed on the opinions of the treatment people as opposed to those who would normally do investigations. Investigators ask different questions than people who do the treatment. One lesson that may flow out of this — and I will give the minister ample opportunity to correct me if I'm wrong — is that perhaps it would have been a bit more appropriate at the beginning of this thing to send up the investigating people to do the investigation, take a look at what they had to say and balance that with what the treatment people had to say. Somewhere along the line someone crossed that very important distinction between where the treatment people are coming from and where the investigative people are coming from.

If the minister wants to go back and refresh himself on the file, I would be more than happy to pick this up and hear more from him tomorrow on it. I put that out in fairness so that the minister has an idea where I'm coming from. I'm trying to build a case, I'm trying to go through this situation, and I wonder how in a case where we've had an acquittal and some fairly strong language throughout the decision.... It just doesn't quite make sense why in the front-end people decided to go on a direct indictment. If the minister would care to address that issue in terms of the reliance on treatment versus investigation.... Does he consider that, upon his review — if he has had one on this file — that is a concern?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I am not certain what strong language he is referring to. A jury trial heard the matter and made the decision on the facts. Whatever lessons it may be appropriate to learn from this case — and we certainly learn from everything we do in this life — I can assure the member that we won't be seeking to learn lessons based on gut feelings of what went on. We will try to be somewhat more empirical — and we have been. The matter, it is felt, turned on evidence, as I explained earlier.

MR. SIHOTA: I want the minister to understand that there has been a lot more than just gut feelings on this matter. There has been a lot of discussion in terms of people who were involved in, effectively, a witch-hunt. If he wants to skate around the issues, fine; we will keep on asking questions about it. But I want some answers on this case, because I think it's one that is worthy of being raised in this House and asking some questions on.

I find it difficult to believe that the minister himself hasn't asked for some type of internal report on the handling of this case. If he hasn't, he should; and if he has, he should share with this House what conclusions his own ministry has come up with. If he thinks the views that I am articulating are simply shots in the dark, then he has ample opportunity to explain where I am wrong.

To date, I haven't heard him say anything in terms of the advances made by the accused as to whether those happened or not. If they didn't, I look forward to hearing what he's got to say about that. I haven't heard anything from the minister with respect to the recommendations of those who investigated. I want a separation from the police as opposed to the treatment individuals.

I notice it's close to 6 o'clock. Perhaps it would be a good time to rise and report progress until the next sitting. Is that exactly how you're supposed to say it?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I wouldn't want to leave the day without responding again, because I am not prepared to accept the fishing expedition that the member is obviously on. I am not prepared to let him, by innuendo or otherwise, cast aspersions on the quality of work done by any of the people involved, and then suggest that he can throw out that kind of stuff and that somehow we have an obligation to correct him if he's wrong. That's not the way the world operates. If he's got something to say that's factual, then let him bring the facts. In finishing, I want to say as well that this whole circumstance involved the conviction of one person and the acquittal of another.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.