[ Page 6505 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 21).

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 6505

Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989 (Bill 20). Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 6505

Oral Questions

Development in Boundary Bay. Mr. Cashore –– 6505

Gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. Mr. Rose –– 6505

Cominco pollution fines. Mr. Cashore –– 6506

Toxic effluents at Woodfibre mill. Mr. Cashore –– 6506

Naming of polluters. Mr. Cashore –– 6507

Sale of Expo lands. Mr. Williams –– 6507

Presenting Petitions –– 6508

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

On vote 13: minister's office –– 6508

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Sihota

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Miller

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Rose

Tabling Documents –– 6533

Appendix –– 6533

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. DUECK: In the precincts today are members of the B.C. Pharmacists' Society: Mr. Ed Reid, chairman of the society; Frank Archer, executive director; Gerry Lundgren, vice-chairman; Colleen Metge, director of pharmacy services; and Linda Conway, external relations officer. Would this House please make them welcome.

MR. ROSE: It gives me pleasure today to introduce two individuals from Coquitlam, Mr. Steven Lisik and Ald. Mike Farnworth. They're here today to deliver to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) and me some 10,000 signatures on a petition opposing the pipeline going through the Coquitlam River watershed. They also intend to meet with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) later today.

HON. MR. REID: In the galleries today are two very important people. First of all, the man who daily tries very hard to keep up with the expertise and the activities of the Premier, his assistant Bill Kay, is here taking a bit of a rest while the Premier attends the session this afternoon. Also, I would like the House to pay special recognition to a man who had a similar job under a former Premier: Mike Bailey. Would the House make them welcome.

MR. LOENEN: Just now I spoke to some students on behalf of the Premier and myself: 32 students from Walter Lee Elementary School in Richmond. They're accompanied by some 32 exchange students from Montreal, Quebec, and we would like to welcome them and their teachers.

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND
CULTURE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: This bill contains measures designed to improve the function of legislation pertaining to Cultus Lake Park, our fire services, the homeowner grant, the mobile home tax, revenue sharing and a variety of enabling and validating measures.

I move the bill be introduced and read for the first time now.

Bill 21 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.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1989

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: This bill contains measures designed to improve the administrative function of British Columbia's municipalities, and to increase the range of powers available to local government in keeping with our policy of decentralization,

It also contains a variety of measures designed to improve the financial operation of British Columbia's municipalities by enhancing their autonomy and increasing their flexibility. In addition, the bill facilitates the ability of local governments to guide development in a manner which is sensitive to economic, environmental and social conditions.

I move the bill be introduced and read for the first time now.

Bill 20 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. Yesterday you told the House that you would not be invoking your powers under the Environment Management Act to require a public environmental impact assessment of the internationally recognized Boundary Bay coastal areas, but you assured me that you would write to me about the lengthy review process that you say your ministry is involved in. Since Delta council last night approved the golf course development in this area, even though no proper public environmental assessment in the area had been done, could the minister assure this House that he will take action before rather than after the bulldozers move in?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: To the member, the issue is under review now with the Ministry of Environment.

GAS PIPELINE TO VANCOUVER ISLAND

MR. ROSE: I wonder if I could address a different question to the same minister, concerning the pipeline — the pipe-dream — through the Coquitlam watershed. This morning, the meeting of the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) with the GVRD appeared to indicate that he's willing to suspend his fast-track mania and consider the other routes for the Vancouver Island gas pipeline. I wonder if the minister could inform the House that he, along with his colleague, has decided to stop trying to con the municipalities of the lower mainland into falling in with the pipeline

[ Page 6506 ]

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Has the minister decided to stop trying to entice the municipalities of the lower mainland into falling in with the pipeline company's plans and consider seriously an alternative route — namely, Indian Arm?

[2:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The question was quite argumentative. I find it quite upsetting that the member would enter into that type of rhetoric when he's attempting to ask a legitimate question on behalf of his constituency.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You've got the next one, have you?

It's just a mild rebuke at this point.

First of all, let me respond to the language, since he used it. At no time when I was questioned by the media did I indicate that there would be a fast track

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Who said that? I get sensitive when I hear comments from that end, because there are some very inventive members of the NDP benches who sit there.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You ask a long question, you get a long answer.

Seriously, I think there was some misrepresentation by the media with respect to fast-tracking or going quickly, because I had said that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, pursuant to our legislation, has to initiate any energy certificate At that time, I would study it and I have no problem endorsing it, because I have seen draft certificate material that indicates to me there are sufficient environmental cautions in place. That's enough to satisfy me and the officials in the Ministry of Environment that the pipeline can proceed quite expeditiously and safely through that particular watershed.

MR. ROSE: I think the safety part of it is definitely arguable, and there are some other opinions out there besides those the minister has chosen to look at.

Could I direct my next question to the Minister of State for Mainland-South west (Hon. Mr. Veitch). I would like to ask this local czar who is responsible for virtually everything in the lower mainland if he's decided to lend his great weight behind the representations and demands of 18 local mayors in his fiefdom who want that pipeline routed around the watershed and not through it.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm lending a lot of my great weight — in fact, I'm losing almost a pound a week, in case the member hasn't noticed — and with that great weight I will be very careful to defer this question to the minister who is responsible for it, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I'll take it on notice for him.

COMINCO POLLUTION FINES

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Minister of Environment, who knows what it is to be the pot that calls the kettle black. For the second time in less than six months, Cominco has spilled metal-laced sludge into the Columbia River. After the previous spill last December, Cominco was fined $100. Did the minister at that time consider the $100 fine to be large enough to deter Cominco from repeating the offence?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Fines are determined by the court, and the question would have to be addressed by the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith). If the member has any real interest in Cominco, I'll be happy to respond to that — if he poses such a question.

TOXIC EFFLUENTS AT WOODFIBRE MILL

MR. CASHORE: A new question to the Minister of Environment, Mr. Speaker. About three weeks ago your ministry allowed the Western pulp mill at Woodfibre to dump 1.8 million litres of toxic effluents out of its clarifier tank into Howe Sound. The mill, instead of sending this into the sound through its effluent pipe, as requested by your ministry, dumped it directly into the sound. How can your ministry justify, in view of this government's rhetorical concern for the environment, allowing Woodfibre to dump large quantities of these toxic substances into Howe Sound in the first place?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Gee, I had an answer for that, but that was three weeks ago when it happened, and I can't find it now. Maybe the member could get the research people to be a bit more up to date on reading the papers. I'll take that one on notice and provide the answer to the member, but I'll just say that as in most cases when he presents evidence from Howe Sound, he's wrong.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Woodfibre discharge....

MR. SPEAKER: New question.

MR. CASHORE: All right.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, he's not only wrong on his evidence; he's wrong on his rules. You can't ask a supplementary to a question taken on notice.

MR. SPEAKER: I advised him of that. He has a new question.

[ Page 6507 ]

NAMING OF POLLUTERS

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago the minister promised to name the polluters who are out of compliance with their permits — 14 weeks after the Vancouver Sun requested this information. Have you finally decided to release this information?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I said I'd release the information, and I haven't made the decision as to timing yet.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the minister. Again, I think that is the pot calling the kettle black, and he has to do better than that.

SALE OF EXPO LANDS

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Government Management Services regarding the Expo land sale. I note there's a lease agreement, schedule 18.3, that refers to a 20-year lease for Mr. Toigo’s company at this location on the waterfront. Could you advise the House why Mr. Toigo got a 20-year lease when virtually nobody else did?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I will take the question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise us if anybody else got a 20-year lease on the Expo site?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: As notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: This lease is until the year 2007. Why would a hamburger stand do better than the Ontario Pavilion?

HON. MR. REID: You're the hamburger.

MR. WILLIAMS: We can always expect a class act from the minister of culture, Mr. Speaker.

Schedule 18.3 states: "The fixed rent payable pursuant to the lease is no dollars per month." Could you explain why that would be the case for Mr. Toigo?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: We'll take it as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: He is the minister who tabled these documents in the House. Does he not know anything about what he's dealing with in his ministry?

White Spot was given exclusive catering privileges for the entire Discovery building. Could the minister advise the House why Mr. Toigo and his company got those exclusive privileges?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: As notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: Further, Mr. Speaker, did White Spot or Mr. Toigo ever have to competitively bid for those 20-year privileges?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Question taken as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: At the same time, it appears to be clear that the British Columbia Club, which Mr. Toigo controls, is on the same incredibly generous terms as the White Spot. Could the minister confirm that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order. It seems to me that we've had a series of questions all taken on notice, but you keep allowing supplementaries on the same subject, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I keep allowing new questions. If the member goes into a different area on the same subject, it's a new question.

MR. WILLIAMS: I note that you have a spokesperson for the Enterprise Corporation, Mr. Rod Cameron. He is a private flack, and he misled the public last year on the cleanup cost obligations with regard to the Expo site. Could you advise the House why he is still the spokesman for the Enterprise Corporation?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Cameron is employed by the corporation on a consulting basis. He works on a fee-for-service basis in the field of public relations.

MR. WILLIAMS: And it's quite acceptable to have him mislead the public, I presume.

Further to the Minister of Government Management Services, Mr. Stanley Kwok received $170,000 — another golden handshake from this administration. Then he became the key player for the company that got the land. When you pay severance like that, Mr. Minister, do you have no rules whatsoever about the jobs that the people who get that kind of severance pay can take in, say, a two-year period afterwards?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I am not prepared to comment on personalities and accusations such as those. Mr. Kwok is a very reputable person in the business community in Vancouver. He worked for the Enterprise Corporation and did a good job. It's his free choice to leave the corporation and accept employment with a new employer, and I'm not prepared to comment on his decision to join a new firm.

MR. WILLIAMS: Why would you pay $170,000 when Mr. Kwok had a very cushy, remunerative job to go to? Can you explain that?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: It indeed would be extremely difficult for me to explain that, in view of the fact that I was not the minister at the time.

MR. WILLIAMS: Keith Mitchell, the director of the company, a lawyer... His firm received $572,972 legal fees on that contract, and he was one of the three people in the Farris firm at the closing. Could you advise us if there are any conflict-of-interest standards whatsoever with respect to any of the players on the Expo land deal?

[ Page 6508 ]

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I have investigated that question before. I am very satisfied with the conflict-of-interest disclosures practised by the B.C. Enterprise Corporation, and indeed, Mr. Mitchell made a full disclosure to the board of his interest in the legal firm.

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

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA: Joining us in the gallery today are a number of students from Dunsmuir School in the Western Communities, together with a group of students from the Northwest Territories. Would all members please join me in welcoming them.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: I would like to acknowledge the presence of a number of political science students from Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, along with their two faculty members, Dr. Donald Balmer, political science, and Dr. James Grant, economics. I would like the House to make them welcome.

Presenting Petitions

MR. CASHORE: I have a petition, Mr. Speaker.

"To the hon. Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in Legislature assembled, the petition of the 7,000 undersigned residents of Coquitiam-Maple Ridge area who are outraged at the plan to route the gas pipeline through the Coquitiam watershed....

"Whereas clean drinking water is essential to the health and well-being of all people; whereas the Coquitlam watershed provides the people of the lower mainland with some of the world's finest drinking water; whereas the construction of a natural gas pipeline route through the Coquitlam watershed will result in the potential for contamination of our drinking water;

"Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call for the Legislature to reject any proposal calling for the installation of a pipeline through the Coquitlam watershed."

This is dated May 2, 1989.

MR. ROSE: Without going through as lengthy an introduction to this petition, may I say that this represents the views of some 3,000 petitioners in the Coquitlam area. They too are concerned — more than concerned; they are outraged — at this proposal. They want to express it through the only way really open to them. I readily admit that the form of the petition may be such that a purist might quibble. So, acknowledging the fact that the form may not be perfect, although the intent is certainly there, I ask leave to table the petition.

[2:30]

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).

MS. MARZARI: For the last few days we have canvassed the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, we've canvassed the relative absence of sexual assault centres, we've taken a serious look at the Attorney-General's department, and we have asked serious questions about how women relate to the law in our province. I don't think it's any secret that women have been second-class citizens vis-à-vis the law for some time. Women and the law don't necessarily fit together well in this province. Women in our culture find themselves treated as second-class citizens, and as they approach the courts and the institutions of the law they find themselves in much the same position. Women are very often ignored in regulatory law by agencies as well as in the courts. For example, in pension law, women very often find themselves excluded altogether because eligibility in vesting requirements doesn't cover part-time workers, and many women are part-time workers. So there are points of the law in which women simply are excluded.

There are other points in the law in which women are included, but the law is not interpreted necessarily in their favour. When they approach the courts, although the law looks fine on the surface, and cosmetically it looks as if they're going to get a fair shake, very often the way the law can be interpreted can affect women adversely.

The Manitoba Association of Women and the Law recently — within the last month — put forward a report and said that because judges and lawyers do not fully value the work that women do, women are awarded less money in personal injury suits than men and are still unlikely to obtain a fair and equal division of property after divorce. They referred to the actual cost of raising children, the economic discrimination faced by women in the workplace, the prevalence of wife-battering, sexual abuse and additional barriers faced by marginalized women and women of colour. These are all complications. These are all connected problems which very often the courts don't take a serious look at, because judges, lawyers and the institutions themselves sometimes can systemically discriminate against women.

They cited a case where a woman's family approached the court for compensation because of the loss of a mother. The judge commented — this is in Manitoba — that there weren't enough hours in a day to accomplish all the work the bereaved family said the woman of the house had performed. Therefore he decided to compensate the family for the woman's lost income, but reduced the award given for the loss

[ Page 6509 ]

of a homemaker. This seems to be typical of how women get treated by the courts.

When the association turned to a discussion of British Columbia, they talked about the judge in the Regina v. Perkin case, who found the accused guilty of aggravated assault after he had forced the complainant into a shed where he had repeatedly sexually and physically assaulted her. The judge commented that the woman had exaggerated her evidence.

That seems to be typical in a society where women are treated very much as property in a marriage situation and very often as second-class citizens. In the last few days, as we have canvassed the Attorney-General's estimates, we've seen similar attitudes towards women in our province.

The family maintenance program, although young, has proven to be very cumbersome and very difficult to get at with massive backlogs, application forms that are almost impossible to comprehend, a vast number of those application forms being returned and with huge staff turnovers. We don't seem to be doing much better as the program advances.

We have a legal aid system which is largely starved, although its clients are mostly women. We have a situation where if a woman is making $1,106 a month, she is cut off legal aid and has to be making $1,105 a month or less in order to qualify at all.

My colleague for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew pointed out that the sexual assault centres are not comprehensively placed throughout the province, and access to service from those centres are not available. If we make these connections to the other ministries of our government, we find that services simply are not available.

We can look at the abortion issue as it came up in January and February in our province, and we find that it took 15 hours to get the action from our institutions in order to carry the demonstrators to court and to justice through a series of mishaps, mismanagement and mishandlings which the minister talked about this morning. We then had a situation in the abortion issue where Judge Finch was asking the Attorney-General for some direction and to bring his best offices to bear on a situation which seemed to be calling for criminal injunction, and our Attorney-General refused to get involved or to interest himself in the matter.

Consequently, I think we have a serious problem in this province regarding getting women and their connected problems to the courts. The problems that revolve around health, access to legal services, welfare, income security and all those things that I've mentioned before in this House are very much interrelated. We just can't seem to develop the technical expertise, the committee work or whatever it takes to make those connections to get coordinated, consolidated, comprehensive, accessible services to women who need them.

The courts play a large part in that. This is an example of that. I was at a conference two weeks ago of immigrant women talking about family violence. One of the people who spoke to that was a probation officer. He spoke to the fact that since 1984, in a situation of family violence, the police must lay charges when called upon.

What happens after the charges are laid seems to be very much up in the air, because as the woman approaches the court or the system to see those charges through, very often the woman will not show up. She will be frightened by the procedure, by her husband and possibly by her own relatives. Many women are very concerned about losing a husband who may be physically abusing them, but they are also very worried about their own relatives taking their husband's side.

The judge has to figure out whether the victim has consented to the violent act. Very often, I gather — according to the probation officer who spoke — the judge might say that there was consent when in fact the victim doesn't show up. This is a complicated process. On the surface of it, the court seems to be serving the woman's needs. just below the surface, you can see that there is a complicated set of events which brings the woman to the court in the first place. She doesn't necessarily want to put her husband in jail; she just wants him to stop abusing her, stop hitting her. She just wants him fixed, in other words, in some way so that the drinking and hitting will stop. We very often set a routine in motion which doesn't serve her needs or her interests. I guess the question then comes forward: given this rather systemic violence that we perpetrate on women, how can we best go about dealing with the fact that our systems don't meet women's needs? Other provinces, other jurisdictions, have come up with many different solutions, all of which are partial solutions but which might be looked at here.

Obviously, what we have to do has to do with prevention or with looking over our laws and making sure they don't discriminate against women. That might be the first step our Attorney-General could engage in. I would ask the Attorney-General to look, for example, at the GAIN legislation. As we approached the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the constitution in, I gather, the late seventies, our province put together a package of legislation or amendments to legislation that would make our legislation in this province compatible with the new constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, in the process of doing that, I gather that the GAIN legislation, our own welfare legislation, has no provision to prohibit discrimination against women. I gather there is such a provision even in the land registry act, but not in the GAIN legislation. That's simply one example, and I would ask the Attorney-General if he would comment today or take a look at that legislation and report back to this House.

A second possibility, a second way of approaching family violence that takes women to court, whether it be economic, psychological, physical or sexual violence: in Ontario there is a sophisticated education program which basically concentrates on television advertisements that talk about the effects of wife battering. These are very graphic, riveting advertisements which basically speak to the fact that women

[ Page 6510 ]

are daily abused in our society, much more frequently than we would even want to know about. The Attorney-General's department should perhaps be sitting down with other ministries and developing similar programs for the British Columbia experience to talk to people in their communities about the impacts and the real costs of family violence, and to talk to women particularly about where they can go and what they can do to deal with the fact that they may be being abused.

A third thing that obviously needs to occur in our community is a serious look at how we as a province approach the Charter itself. From my experience and discussions with friends in the Legal Education and Action Fund, it is my information that B.C. has not really prepared itself in any way to deal effectively with the Charter and with future Charter challenges that will uphold the rights of women. Sections 15 and 28 are undergoing a lot of perusal by the senior courts, but British Columbia seems to have defined for itself a very limited concept of what equality is about for women. It seems to me there are a number of amendments to be made to existing legislation which will bring us in concert with the Charter. We should be reviewing our legislation, such as this GAIN legislation, in order to ensure that we don't discriminate against women.

[2:45]

MR. WILLIAMS: He's not listening.

MS. MARZARI: That's all right. I'll be coming up with the questions. I'm sure he will want to comment on this.

This seems to be a time when this could well be done by our Attorney-General's department. In fact, it seems to me that between the Health ministry, the Attorney-General, the Social Services and Housing ministry and the Labour ministry a joint technical group could be put together to take a look at the systemic problems women face as they deal with the institutions, agencies and regulations that affect their lives daily. I would suggest to the minister that such a joint task force, which could well be done under the new ministry of state for women's issues in the sense that it has failed to materialize...that the Attorney-General might spearhead this effort and actually get it on the road. I would guarantee that if the fact that women are treated as second-class citizens was seriously looked at, and if you looked at this problem from the....

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

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I'm enjoying this interesting presentation by the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey and I would like to hear some more.

MS. MARZARI: I would suggest that we would be looking at, in the last analysis.... If we really took a careful look at removing a lot of the impediments to equality, at reviewing our legislation and our regulatory agencies, at developing social services, educational programs and a sensitivity in judges and in the courts towards women's needs and the connectedness of their problems, we would ultimately end up saving ourselves millions upon millions of dollars, just in the sheer business of dealing with women's poverty, concerns and problems as they try to find their way through the red tape and the morass of bureaucratic and regulatory rules.

I would then ask the minister about his comments on these suggestions, most particularly about the GAIN legislation, which should prohibit discrimination against women. I would then ask more generally about this government's attitude and its support of the review of legislation to make it consistent with the Charter of Rights, its support of organizations, such as LEAF, which prepare challenges for the Charter to help redefine what equality for women looks like in our province. Lastly, I would ask for a comment on the possibility of a joint technical committee between ministries to look at those interconnected problems that women have when they try to deal with the multiplicity of agencies and regulations.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Without dealing with each specific item raised by the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey, I want to say in a broad and general way that the tone of what she said.... I concur with many of the points that you put forward.

If I could, I would like to get from you.... I didn't quite grasp what you were getting at. You wanted a provision in the GAIN Act similar to the one in the Land Title Act. If you could just let me know which one it is, I would be quite happy to take a look at it.

MS. MARZARI: I was using the lack of a provision in the GAIN Act to prevent discrimination against women. In the late seventies there was a review of our legislation to bring it into compliance with the Charter. The GAIN Act, for some reason, wasn't included in that review. The Land Title Act, I gather, has a clause which prohibits discrimination against women; the GAIN Act does not. It is just one specific example of where our regulatory agencies and our laws let women down, and I wanted to know if you would rectify that problem.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I am certainly happy to look through it. What I am simply saying is that I am not aware of a provision in the Land Title Act which does that. If there was one, I would be curious to know some reason for it to be there but not somewhere else. That was the only point I was getting at.

You are quite right. As I understood it, back in '79, '80, '81 with respect to our own legislation in this province and then following the Charter, there was a tremendously broad-based review of all pieces of legislation to see if we couldn't make them Charter-consistent, as it were. Whether it is Charter-consistent will depend in part upon the way the Charter is interpreted. That's not just dealing with women's issues; that's dealing with all issues. The interpretation of

[ Page 6511 ]

the Charter is very much a moving target: the broader the interpretation, the more inconsistency there will be.

Just to touch on some of the issues and questions you have raised with regard to legal aid matters, certainly by any comparative measure over the last number of years, the increases that have taken place in the legal aid area this year, since I became the Attorney-General, have been significant, and they have been targeted fairly strongly to the family-law side of legal aid.

Primarily, family-law issues in terms of legal aid are matters which more frequently involve women than men. That is true with the family maintenance program. I know we've canvassed it at tremendous length, but the family maintenance program assists women in need particularly.

I know that every time I mention the words "family maintenance program," the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) gets into a heckling contest. I think that reflects attitudinally his views of the subject.

MR. WILLIAMS: Twenty years you've been sitting on it.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Including when he was a minister, twenty years is quite correct.

MR. WILLIAMS: Backroom boy.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Almost any pejorative he throws out is not going to have the desired effect, but we will let him continue anyway, because we've got all afternoon and tomorrow to do it.

On the issue of pension rights and contributions, I think the member is correct when she says there is a need to assist women, particularly, as a group. Generally there is a need for pension reform in our society We have to look at the issues of vesting, portability and contribution; it is very important that we deal with them. Those issues, in my view, will impact more frequently on women than they will on men, in part because the sector of our society in which women are frequently employed tends not to be one in which there are organized pension programs. I agree with the member that that is an area of concern

It is for that reason that we have referred those pension issues to the Law Reform Commission. As well, I want to advise the member that one of the things I know to be the case, certainly in the area of family maintenance, is that there is not a lot of information available for people to get consistency in awards. You may be right; that may have something to do with the attitude of some individual award makers. In any event, whether it does or doesn't, there is a very small amount of information available upon which people could make some comparative analysis and with which they could make their case before the courts.

As part of the family maintenance program, we are going to provide that service by way of keeping track of awards of any orders that are registered with that program. I suspect that most orders now registered will in fact be registered with the program -most orders now made by the court. That will keep us current and will keep data available. You're quite right; that data is not available now. That system has not been in place, and there is very little information of that type available. You're quite correct; it's a problem. We hope this will correct that problem.

I'm going to desist from commenting on the questions you raise with respect to some comments made by members of the Manitoba bench. I think I have enough to do in commenting or not commenting on the members of our own bench, without worrying about what goes on in Manitoba.

In the matter of the victim assistance program, I should tell you that we do have — and there is no question that we can do more — assistance for the women you referred to, particularly those from a different culture who have come to Canada and may have problems, therefore, with language or generally in proceeding against a spouse who is abusive. We do recognize that, and through not only the assistance program provided by the Solicitor-General.... Also, our Crown office has assumed some responsibility in that area and has assistance programs available to deal specifically with those areas. Indeed, the Justice Reform Committee has also identified that as an area of need. I can tell you that it's an area of some concern, one that we must address and will address.

Additionally, I can tell you that the prosecution of family violence cases has been given a greater priority and more resources in the Crown office. We have provided more Crown counsel, more senior Crown counsel and more training in that area.

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH: While I know there may be an expectation that I would have corrected all of these things in ten months, I can only report to you that ten months has not been enough. But I am alert and sensitive to those issues and have taken steps to put the resources where I perceive the needs to be. I am hopeful that we will see results. If we don't, we'll have to find out why and take steps to ensure that we do get results.

You referred to the comments by Mr. Justice Finch. I want to repeat what I said this morning: those comments did not — nor could they — through any fault of the justice, reflect what was indeed taking place at that time, and did take place, and was understood would take place. I have no hesitation in saying that the discretion of the Crown to advance charges or to prosecute any matter has to be protected and defended. It properly rests where it should; the court has the issue. You have to separate the issue of bringing criminal charges per se, as they've done in Ontario, from that of criminal contempt.

[3:00]

In Canada there is an ongoing debate about whether criminal contempt ought to be codified in the same way as all other matters. We in British Columbia have taken the view in the past that it ought

[ Page 6512 ]

not to be; that that discretion ought to rest with the courts in large part, so they can maintain the ability to protect themselves from contemptuous behaviour. What that means, on the other hand, is that there is an area in which the discretion of the Crown to pursue those matters is not sole. So we are reviewing that to see whether that discretion ought to be vested in the Crown through codification. I'm not so sure that that necessarily ought to be the only way to deal with it. But I think it is the case that when you don't have codification, you have uncertainty as to the nature of charges and timing. While that was certainly not the case in this instance, it is the case that the reason we have a Criminal Code at all was to bring about that certainty.

In terms of legislation, I will take what the member has said and review the pieces of legislation she's talking about. On the business of a cross-ministry approach to some of these issues, I concur with her wholeheartedly; in fact, we have had some measure of dealing with some of those issues. I have certainly taken that approach in a number of areas, and will continue to do so.

As well, the member quite correctly pointed out that the proposed ministry of state for women — I am confident — will do that by way of direction as a matter of course.

MR. SIHOTA: I've listened with some interest to the debate and the Attorney-General starting off by saying he's sensitive to the concerns of women. Those are hollow words indeed if we use the type of adjectives that were being passed around here this morning. This is the same Attorney-General who stood up in this House earlier in the course of these debates and said that he would not vote for the Charter of Rights; he would not vote for a document which gives women basic equality in terms of sexual rights. In light of that type of statement, and in light of saying that you would not vote for a document which says to immigrant women that they have a place in this multicultural society, I say to you, Mr. Attorney-General, that it's somewhat hypocritical for you to stand up in this House and suggest that you are sensitive to women's issues. Sensitive indeed! An Attorney-General who comes into....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General on a point of order.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I would ask the Chair whether the word "hypocritical" is acceptable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the word "hypocritical" is not acceptable, and neither are personal attacks on members.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I would ask that the member specifically withdraw the word.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew please withdraw.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll withdraw the word, Mr. Chairman, but the point is that the comments of the Attorney-General are no more than just double-talk. it's pure, simple, unadulterated double-talk for him to stand up in this House and on one hand say that he's sensitive to the concerns of women and on the other hand say that he would vote against a document which gives women some of the most basic rights one would expect under a constitution in a free and democratic society.

Where is the record in terms of concern for women? We went around this province yesterday and talked about funding for sexual assault. Sure, in a cavalier fashion the Attorney-General would have us believe we're going to see a bit more funding. But not one budget for sexual assault programs in this province was increased. From this Attorney-General, who says he cares about the interior of this province, three regions — the Kootenays, the Nechako and the Cariboo — were not provided with funding for sexual assault centres. It's second-rate treatment of the women of this province. When women in those areas of the province are battered or raped, and when they find themselves in need of transition house services, those services ought to be available to them in the same fashion as in Vancouver and Victoria. Yes, it's double-talk indeed from an Attorney-General who says he sensitive to the concerns of women. Hogwash, I say.

What kind of position has this government taken on the matter of abortion? A duck-and-cover, ostrich position by an Attorney-General who was unwilling and unable to act — at the instructions of the Premier — when we had the situation at the Everywoman's Health Centre. That was real leadership when we had the courts taking unprecedented action and asking this Attorney-General to move on the matter. At that time we saw the minister succumb to the wishes of the Premier when it came to abortion matters, and he was unwilling to stand up. What representations has this Attorney-General made to the federal government with respect to abortion legislation? Is he prepared to say today, in this Legislature, that he does not believe that there ought to be any amendments to the Criminal Code; that the matter of abortion ought not to be in the Criminal Code? Mr. Attorney-General, what is your position on that?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I would note that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew gets more fulsome and braver, and his voice pitch goes up when the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) sits beside him to hold his young hand. Nevertheless, I will do my best to answer his questions.

The member has asked the question about my view of the Charter. And in response to a question that was thrown across the House to me by the House Leader, I said that I would not have voted for the Charter at the time in the House of Commons. That's quite correct. He didn't ask why, so I'll tell him.

The reason I would not have voted for it at the time is because property rights aren't in it — and I've

[ Page 6513 ]

said that before publicly and privately. So if you want all of the answer, then ask all of the question.

You know, the member then said to me that this was some proof positive that I'm not alert to the issues raised by the member for Vancouver-Point Grey, which he seems to think was the case. He can have his own views, which he certainly does, and he shares them loudly and frequently; that's his right. I must say that my late grand-dad Bain used to say to me frequently, "beware of the righteous," and I think this afternoon I have a better understanding of what he meant.

Just last week in this debate this same member was on his feet talking about changing the terms of employment for Jack Heinrich because of his political beliefs — rank discrimination on the basis of political beliefs. I think it's shameful. The member thinks it's smart, and that's fine; that's his choice. But I think that anyone who's prepared to take the righteous attitude he does — and that's his prerogative, and I will always listen to his views — and takes that sort of overweening, righteous attitude that he does, ought to occasionally look in the mirror. He's a graduate of St. George's; and I'm sure those sorts of issues have been dealt with by him frequently there, and are the kinds of issues that he would want to deal with and show leadership about. That's fine. I know that he will give leadership in that area, and I look forward to it.

There is the matter of the location of the programs we have to deal with sexual assault throughout the province. As I have said several times over the last several days — and I suspect it will be over the next several days, so we might as well go through it again in some detail — some of the programs that we specifically fund are what are called sexual assault centres. Some of the victim assistance programs, because there is a lot of crossover in this area, are not entitled to that, but they do provide that assistance and we do fund them. I think that I should perhaps give a list of those to the member, because some of them are in the areas that he spoke about. I don't want to be in any way misleading. And, of course, this is from our ministry.

Abbotsford-Matsqui Community Services provides it. Chilliwack Community Services provides it. Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Community Services Council provides it. South Surrey-White Rock Women's Place Association provides the service. In Golden, the Victim Support Service provides it. In Kamloops, the Sexual Assault and Counselling Centre Society provides the service. In Kelowna, it is the Central Okanagan Elizabeth Fry Society and the John Howard Society. In Nakusp, it's the Nakusp Community Services Association. In Trail, it's the Women in Need Society. In Vernon, it's Victim Assistance Services; in fact, the Vernon transition house. In North Vancouver, it's the North Shore Family Services Society. In some of the lower mainland areas, in Vancouver it's Battered Women's Support Services, Women Against Violence Against Women and the Incest and Sexual Abuse Centre. In Dawson Creek, it's the South Peace Community Resources Centre. In Port Clements, it's the Queen Charlotte Islands Women's Society. In Prince George, it's the Elizabeth Fry Society. In Smithers, it's the Smithers Indian Friendship Centre. In Terrace, it's the Ksan House Society. In Campbell River, it's Campbell River Family Services. In Courtenay, it's the Comox Valley Family Life Association. In Duncan, it's the Cowichan Women Against Violence Against Women. In Nanaimo, it's the Mid Island Sexual Assault Centre. In Port Hardy, it's the North Island Crisis Centre Society. In Powell River, the agency is the Powell River Civil Liberties Association. In Victoria, it's the Victoria Women's Transition House, the Women's Sexual Assault Centre and the Child Sexual Abuse Society. So there is a full list of the agencies supported by this ministry.

There is no question that the need is growing for these community based specialized support programs that work with abuse victims. I have no doubt that there will be a need for more interagency support as time goes by. I have no doubt that there is a need for more money.

There will be a need as well, in my view — and there is need — for training, particularly for the very important volunteer sector involved with those agencies. Thankfully we have that volunteer sector, because quite frankly, I don't think we would cope very well if we didn't. As I said to the opposition House Leader the other day, I think that the volunteer sector is a very important component of the community base of these programs. I think it is something we should honour and pay homage to.

[3:15]

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with those matters really quickly with the Attorney-General. I note that he never did answer the question which we posed to him.

Dealing with sexual assault, if that's what he wants to deal with: does the Attorney-General think it's adequate in a community like Victoria, where the need has increased 1,300 percent, that the government decides not to provide additional funding? Does he think that it is adequate in this province that there are only two and a half full-time staff dealing with problems of sexual assault? Does he think it's adequate that volunteers have to deal with 200 to 300 calls a month? And in Terrace one and a half staff.... They have gone from 235 files in April 1987 to 497 files in April 1989. They are handling wife battering, adult sexual assault and sexual assault of children.

He looks at the statistics in Vancouver where the total calls have gone up from 483 per year in 1983 to 1,359 per year. Does he think it's adequate that the government over that time has chosen not to increase its budget to deal with victims of sexual assault? All of that talk about assistance, concern and compassion for victims is just that — talk.

My question to the Attorney-General which he chose conveniently not to answer dealt with the matter of abortion. We on this side of the House do not believe that the matter of abortion should be dealt with through the Criminal Code. What is the

[ Page 6514 ]

government's position in that regard? What representations has it made to the federal government?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the question of abortion is a matter for the Parliament of Canada to deal with. Quite frankly, my position is irrelevant to what the Parliament of Canada is dealing with.

I have stated my personal opinion on abortion for the record time and time again. I've stated my position in the House, and you can look it up in Hansard if you don't bother listening to what goes on here. If you wish to get my position, I would be happy to provide it to you. I don't think it is particularly part of the....

It's not unclear at all. It was stated publicly several times at an all-candidates meeting before I was elected, so that my electors would know my position on these issues. I don't have to find a taxi to decide which door I'm going to get out of on each issue. I am consistent with my position.

I'm glad to see the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) here, as well as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller). It may bring some decorum to the House; it usually does.

The issue of government policy, which is the important thing for the member to be aware of, is simply that the issue of abortion is before the Parliament of Canada, which will, in my view, have to deal with the issue. What vehicle they choose will be a matter for them to decide. They tried to do that prior to the last election, and apparently they were unable to get agreement in terms of the process.

I have raised the issue with the Minister of Justice and have offered him the view that the issue should be dealt with by parliament. The sooner they deal with it the better, because there is some expectation there — there has been by all the people who ran for federal office — that it would be dealt with, and I think that public expectation ought to be met. I've said that publicly a number of times as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Richmond has asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. LOENEN: It gives me a great deal of delight to introduce to the House a group of grade 7 students representing Richmond Christian School. It's a school that I attended as a youngster in the school year 19571958. I would like to ask the House to please grant a welcome to them and their teacher Mrs. Margaret Venema.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I am finding it a little difficult to even believe my ears about the Attorney-General's last statement. The minister, the chief lawmaker — perhaps I'll wait until the Attorney-General is paying attention — of this province said that his opinion on abortion policy is irrelevant. Mr. Minister, I would like you to tell a 13-year-old in this province who can't get good medical service that your opinion is irrelevant. I would like you to tell that 13-year-old, when she is turned away by an illegal therapeutic abortion committee in a hospital in this province — the very committees that were struck down by the Supreme Court — that your opinions are irrelevant on this topic. I would like the minister to explain that a little further for that 13-year-old.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Yes, I'd be more than happy to explain what I just said, because obviously when the member says she couldn't believe what was going through her ears, she clearly, first of all, didn't hear what was going through her ears. Therefore it doesn't surprise me that she couldn't believe it.

The point I'm trying to make to you is this. The issue of abortion which was asked of me by your colleague — whether or not there should be a law governing abortion — is a matter that must be decided by the Parliament of Canada. Even if you and I have the best possible solution to that issue, the one that has eluded person kind since day one, the one that would make everyone happy, then it is the case that it would be beyond our jurisdiction to bring that solution into the forum of law.

By that point, therefore, I say to you: it is a matter that the Parliament of Canada ought to deal with. Because I am a member of the Legislature of British Columbia and not of the Parliament of Canada, it is the case that in terms of their making the law, my opinion on their process of making that law is not relevant. If I were in the Parliament of Canada, it would be relevant. But it is not relevant, in my view, at this time until I see what the Parliament of Canada wishes to bring forward, so that at that time we have something to respond to that is not simply hypothetical.

MS. SMALLWOOD: What is hypothetical?

HON. S.D. SMITH: "What is hypothetical?" says the member. What is hypothetical is this: prior to the last election, most of the federal parties — I believe all of them; I stand to be corrected; maybe there were some members who didn't — were of the view that parliament ought to deal with the matter. They brought before the Parliament of Canada a series of possibilities as to how they were going to deal with it, as I understand it, and they did not get to the point of ever dealing with it. They went to an election. It was stated at that time that they would bring the matter back before the House of Commons following the election. I think they should, and I have said so. I believe they should bring the matter back before the House of Commons. It should be dealt with, because I don't believe we should be in a country that has no rules on the subject whatsoever. The appropriate forum for them to advance those rules is the Parliament of Canada, and parliamentarians should deal with it. I think that's the appropriate place for it to be.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The Attorney-General is shirking his responsibility. No matter how much he

[ Page 6515 ]

talks about the government of Canada, he has got to realize that here in B.C. we do not have a law on the books, now that section 251 has been struck down. We have a situation where hospitals in this province are refusing to provide a legal service to the people in their community. For the Attorney-General to talk in such detached tones from his ivory tower, not to understand that women's lives and women's health are at risk in this province, that the service that we are talking about is a legal service, is a shirking of his responsibility. I would like to know the minister's view on the functioning of these illegal therapeutic abortion committees.

The minister seems to have some difficulty understanding the question. Therapeutic abortion committees are functioning in hospitals around this province. Section 251 of the Criminal Code, the law that put therapeutic abortion committees in place, was struck down by the Supreme Court. In that decision, the Supreme Court justices said that those committees were unlawful, they were discriminatory, and should not be allowed to function. I would like to know the Attorney-General's point of view as to those committees that are currently functioning in this province and refusing to provide this needed service.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'm surprised you didn't raise the matter with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), quite frankly. Let me get back to the point that you're trying to get at and which you are obviously confusing. I don't know whether you're doing it deliberately or not, but I'll assume you're not, for the sake of answering your question.

The section of the Criminal Code that you're talking about which was struck down obviously cannot be enacted or re-enacted or dealt with by this Legislature. Criminal law is dealt with by the Parliament of Canada. If there are committees that you believe are operating outside the law, then you should either take that up with the Minister of Health in his estimates so that he can identify the hospitals or provide me with the names and I'll take it up with those people. I don't have the list. If you have a list of them, I'm telling you — over the din from the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) — to provide them to me and I will take up the matter. If hospitals have some internal medical policies, then it's obviously something you would have to take up with the Ministry of Health. If it's something that impacts on the law directly, then please provide me with the list and I'll take it up with the Minister of Health.

[3:30]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would first of all like to make it very clear to the Attorney-General that the minister, by not understanding that this is going on when it has been an issue of crucial importance to everyone in this province, is neglecting his job. This is a legal issue, and I'm asking the minister — if he is unaware, if he is not doing his job — to investigate, to look into the matter, to identify hospitals that are currently breaking the law, because they are flouting the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada by continuing to have functioning therapeutic abortion committees. I am asking the minister to investigate and take appropriate action.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'm not going to investigate into thin air. If you have the names of hospitals, spit them out. That's all. It's quite simple. You're making your strong statement. Name them. If they are in breach of the law, then I will have the matter looked at. I don't know why that is so difficult for you to understand.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Are you refusing the request?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'm not refusing anything. I'm simply saying to you that if you have information on anything in this province where someone is in breach of the law, then for goodness sake let me know and I will deal with it. But I'm not going to deal with it in the hypothetical, and I'm not going to deal with it from the point of view you're coming from here. You've just made a broad-brush statement that there are those locations, and if there are, I will deal with it. I have a suspicion that you might more usefully have raised the matter in the Ministry of Health's estimates, because it's my view that some of the locations you may be thinking about may not perform abortions at all inside the hospital, and I think that is a different matter. But if some breach of the law is taking place, then I would have no hesitation at all in looking at it.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, if the Attorney-General would prefer.... I'll wait.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 13.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to speak when the Attorney-General's ready to listen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member should continue speaking now, please.

MR. SIHOTA: I will continue to speak, Mr. Chairman, but the Attorney-General has certain obligations as the chief law enforcement officer in this province. He has an obligation to make sure that the statutes and the obligations of hospitals in this province are being complied with.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

This government, I would argue, would move quickly if the abortion laws in this country were consistent with where the Premier would like to see them. Well, that's not the case.

We don't know the Attorney-General's personal position on this matter. But we know that there's an absence of leadership from the government. It's not for the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) to tell the minister what hospitals are or are not performing their legal obligations. It's for the

[ Page 6516 ]

minister to investigate. When she has told the minister that there's a problem in this province in terms of services not being provided, the appropriate position for the minister to take is to say that he will investigate. I find it difficult to believe that this minister, in light of the public debate about abortion, has decided to pretend today in the House that he is immune to that debate and unaware of which hospitals are performing their obligations and which aren't.

I also find it difficult to believe that this Attorney-General, who often thinks that things revolve around his world — and in the back rooms they often did, when he was there — thinks that his position is irrelevant to the matter of abortion. This government and the Attorney-General always make representations to the federal government with respect to law reform; that's always been the case.

There are recommendations from the access report which talk about changes to the structure of our courts. Is the Attorney-General saying that he will not make those representations because his views are irrelevant? Of course not.

There are other matters with respect to laws on which the provincial government is asked by the federal government to make representations. Is the Attorney-General saying that he will not participate with the federal government because his views are "irrelevant"?

There are changes with respect to narcotics offences in this province that become evident after cases don't succeed, which requires changes in law. Is the Attorney-General saying that, with respect to narcotics offences, he is not prepared go to the federal government and make suggestions for reform because his position is irrelevant?

There are changes that are required with respect to financial statutes and income tax regulations in this province. Again, is it the government's position that they will not make representations to the federal government because their views are irrelevant?

There are changes which happen at the federal level with respect to federal policy; we've heard of those today in the House, with respect to forest policy and cancellation of ERDA grants. Is it now the position of this government that it will not make representations at the federal level because its views are irrelevant?

Its views on the Polar 8 are not irrelevant. They are not irrelevant on the matter of the gas pipeline. But the Attorney-General would have us believe that they are irrelevant on the matter of abortion. I say shame on the Attorney -General for not doing what he ought to do, which is to make those submissions at the federal level.

Why is the Attorney-General not prepared to make those submissions to the federal government on the matter of abortion when he is on other areas of law reform? And why is the Attorney-General not prepared to act on the suggestions made by my colleague from Surrey with respect to hospitals that aren't fulfilling their obligations as the law now stands?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The fulsomeness of the rhetoric seems to increase as we get further away from the relevancy of the facts.

What I have said, and I will try to repeat it clearly for both of these members, is that as I understand it — and it is something that perhaps more appropriately would have been addressed to the Minister of Health — there is no obligation upon a hospital to perform an abortion. That's my understanding of the law. My understanding of the Morgentaler decision was that the committees — the system that used to be there — were no longer allowed by law. But it's my understanding that no hospital therefore has an obligation to do it.

The second point is the one that I'm trying to answer for the member from Surrey North, because I think it's a very valid one. She has told me in this House that there are hospitals in British Columbia standing outside the law. She asked me if I would look at that, and I said: "Yes I will, if you can provide me with an example of one of the hospitals that you think is standing outside the law." If you're talking about the issue of whether they do not provide the service, then that's a matter that you ought to properly address to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck).

With regard to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew's continuing statements, I want to make the point again about what I'm talking about, lest he deliberately mislead the people of British Columbia by the kinds of things he says in the House, which is frequently his wont, as we have found from some of the people in the media who have received press releases from him in the past and have discovered to his discredit and discomfiture that he was wrong.

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Well, if you want to table those letters, Mr. Member, I'll be happy to do so.

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I will table the letters.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the members to make their remarks through the Chair.

HON. S.D. SMITH: In fact, what I will do after the matter is heard and the appeal time is gone is table the letters and simply let the issue be determined by the people who want to know.

MR. SIHOTA: Table the whole file.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Well, if it's relevant. We'll see. Maybe.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, to get back to the issues at hand, the member asked me what I do in addressing issues with Ottawa. I want to repeat what I do when we're in negotiations with Ottawa: I take the position forward; that is, the position of the government of the province of British Columbia. As a member of the

[ Page 6517 ]

government, that is my job. It's not particularly unusual when you're in government that the position or the policy of government is not the same as your personal point of view or your personal opinion. Your personal position is irrelevant; I don't have any hesitation in saying that. There's nothing particularly unusual about that, nor is there anything untoward about it, That's what one does when one is in government; likewise, in this particular chair you have to enforce the law, and you have to, to the best of your ability, do it evenhandedly. Again, your personal opinions are Irrelevant, That is very important to carrying out your responsibility.

I don't see anything very inconsistent about that at all. The member seems to think somehow that perhaps when you make decisions in law enforcement or otherwise, you should put the imprimatur of your personal opinions on them. I think there's a lot of danger in doing that. I think it's important, therefore, that my position be clear. I am a member of government. When I discuss issues with Ottawa, I discuss them on the basis of government policy, and my position is not relevant. If I get into a situation where I have to be involved in the enforcement of the law, I ought not — as hard as that is, and it is hard — to let my personal views impact upon my judgment and my duty to the office I hold.

MR. MILLER: With regard to the law — and I certainly don't stand as an expert in the law at all — in this country, it is that abortions are not illegal. We have a situation in British Columbia, it seems to me, where hospital boards are in essence creating their own laws, which I think is pretty wide of the mark, in order to register their personal opinions. The Attorney-General talked about not wanting to register his personal opinion with respect to the matter, because that wasn't in his jurisdiction and therefore was not valid. Do we not have a situation in British Columbia where in some hospitals the hospital boards are refusing to allow medical practitioners to offer a medical service, based on the board's personal opinion? That is a real mix-up, if you like, in terms of the law or the absence of law.

[3:45]

Hospital boards — I did canvass this issue last year, I believe, with the Minister of Health — were set up as boards of citizens to administer the affairs of a hospital and to make sure that that hospital was running efficiently, that the people hired by the hospital were doing their job properly, and that the laundry was done and the books were kept. Nowhere, at least in my view, and at no time were hospital boards set up to determine which medical procedures they wanted to allow to take place in their hospitals. That was something that was quite removed from the board. It only touched the board in this respect....

The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is shaking his head. Maybe he has some opinions he wants to offer. They were set up as citizen boards to run hospitals from a management point of view.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt the member for a moment. Certain topics overlap from ministry to ministry, but the Ministry of Health estimates have been canvassed and passed by this committee. I would ask the member to try and get a little closer to the discussion we are canvassing today, the Attorney-General's administrative responsibilities. Please proceed.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you were preoccupied by discussion with the Clerks and didn't hear me when I started my discussion. Clearly I am right on topic under the Attorney-General's estimates. Without a doubt....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just like to remind the member...

MR. MILLER: I think I've used the word "law" a few times for those people having difficulties interpreting me.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'd like to remind the member that even though the Chair may be inexperienced, the rules of the House do permit the Chair to make certain decisions. I would therefore ask the member to proceed on the estimates of the Attorney-General.

MR. MILLER: I was making what I thought was a fairly logical premise. I did discuss the fact that the law is federal. I'm trying to make an argument that in some instances in this province, hospital boards are stepping into a void and, in effect, creating their own law. This should be a subject of some concern to the Attorney-General. You may disagree with my arguments, but I don't think you can disagree that it's really on the topic. It's my view that that's what's happening. Are not hospital boards, in effect, frustrating — putting a barrier up to — the individual's right or opportunity of access to medical procedures that are not in fact illegal? Has the Attorney-General looked at the issue from that perspective? I know that, in dealing with that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am very disappointed to interrupt the member again, but I will read from Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, seventeenth edition, page 765, and ask him to either resume his seat or speak on the subject.

"General restrictions on debate in Committee of Supply. Regarding the general conduct of debate in the Committee of Supply, it may be observed that remarks on the conduct of a servant of the state, made on the grant containing his salary, must be restricted to his official conduct. The Committee of Supply does not afford the proper opportunity for discussing from which House of Parliament a minister should be chosen, or whether he should be in the cabinet or not, or which minister should represent the government in respect of the estimates under consideration.

[ Page 6518 ]

"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. Nor can the actions of those high public servants whose conduct can only be criticized upon substantive motions, nor the decision of a judicial court, nor action for which a minister is not responsible, such as the offer of a contribution to the navy by a colony.

"A Member cannot discuss a grant on which the committee have resolved, or a grant not yet brought forward. So also, when a proposal has been made to omit or reduce an item, debate is restricted to that item, and reference is not permitted to any other item...."

The reason I read that is that it goes a long way in getting the point across, the point I'm trying to make to the member, which is: if we deal with the ministry's estimates, then this debate will move along and the Chair will not have to get involved. Would the member please proceed.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order.... I'm glad you read the whole chapter.

I would also remind you, Mr. Chairman, that you referred to the official conduct of the minister responsible. My colleague from Prince Rupert is talking about the official conduct of the Attorney-General and the administration of justice in British Columbia. I think he is very much on target in terms of the issue. This is the chief law officer in the province of British Columbia. My colleague from Prince Rupert is drawing to the attention of the Attorney-General his concern that certain boards may be frustrating the administration of justice in the province. Therefore I think he is entitled to canvass that issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I now recognize the member for Prince Rupert, who will be strictly relevant.

MR. MILLER: I haven't really spoken much in the House this year, and I feel kind of picked on. The first time I get up to try and canvass a minister, I'm chastised by the Chair at every turn. I take some pride in trying to present arguments, I think, in a fairly logical fashion. I am somewhat dismayed at your statements. Nonetheless, I'll rephrase the question I asked before I was interrupted by the Chair. Has the Attorney-General ever looked at whether or not hospital boards are frustrating the law and in turn prohibiting citizens' access to certain medical care that they would otherwise be entitled to?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I am delighted that the member for Prince Rupert has taken his place in debate. To answer your question about someone frustrating the law, the answer is no. The logical reason I can say that is that there isn't a law to frustrate.

The issue that you are talking about is really local autonomy of hospitals. You are talking, I think, about....

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Well, I think you are wrong about that. That's why I want to get the information you claim is the case. The member for Surrey North says there are hospitals breaking the law. I want to say to her very clearly that if there are, I will have no hesitation whatsoever in investigating that and taking the appropriate steps. I have simply asked her to provide me with the name of one of these hospitals that she believes is breaking the law. I have also said — and I say to her, and I say to the member for Prince Rupert — that if there are hospitals who are not performing the service you're talking about, I don't think you can fairly call that breaking the law.

It is the case that hospitals are entitled to choose those services which they provide. Some hospitals provide certain services and some don't. Some hospitals do some kinds of operations and others don't. Some hospitals, I believe, are almost exclusively in the business of delivering children and looking after young children. Other hospitals don't deliver children at all. Those are decisions that are taken by the hospitals. I don't think it's fair to the hospitals to say that if they don't provide the service, they are in breach of the law.

If, as a result of the Morgentaler decision, there is someone who is still carrying on the process that resulted in that section of the Code being struck down — in the same way and with the same result — then I would want to hear about that. That's all I have asked you to apprise me of. I don't think there's anything unreasonable about that.

The question that you have raised referred to Vernon. I'm not 100 percent familiar with the Vernon situation. It is my understanding that in that hospital their society — their governing body; their local board — decided not to provide certain services. I could be wrong about that, but I believe that's what they did. You may say you disagree with their views. You may say to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) during his estimates that you want to do away with local hospital boards or not let them have that autonomy, but so long as they have that authority as a board to decide what services they will provide, they are not doing anything to break the law. I don't know how many different ways I can say that. You may disagree with their decision, but they are not doing anything for which they would have the sanction of the law come down on them.

Again I say to those members — because I don't want some more fulsome, rhetorical outbursts rooted in misinformation — that my job, and I take it seriously, is to make sure that the law is enforced. My job is to make sure I do that without having the imprimatur of my own opinions impair the enforcement of the law. We are talking about law enforcement, and I think it's important to make that point. I think as well that it's important to make the point — and I think it is the case with all ministers — that when you are dealing with policy and when you are negotiating with another level of government, you deal with the policy of government. You don't deal with your own personal opinions and whistle off — at least, hopefully you don't. If you do, you will get into a lot of

[ Page 6519 ]

trouble. You won't be doing your job properly. In that sense, the relevancy of your own opinions is secondary to: (1) the policy of the government you serve; and (2) to the office that you hold, particularly in the area of enforcement of the law. It doesn't do any good — although I recognize that it may be seen as a wise thing politically to raise personal attacks on one another in that regard — to try and take very serious social issues and politicize them. I understand that it's part of the game for the opposition. That's fair enough. We all understand what they have to do, Their job is to oppose in whatever way they can. The aisle here is a clear recognition of the institutionalization of civil war, and however they can destroy someone, that's their job. I know that.

What I've said in answer to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) — and I'll say it again — is that I'm happy to advance the policy of government on all kinds of issues dealing with Canada. The policy of the government of British Columbia has been to advise the federal government that because there isn't a law at all in that area since the Morgentaler case, because it's a matter that can only be dealt with by the Parliament of Canada, and because parliamentarians, many of whom are elected again, said they would deal with it, they should get on and deal with it. In fact, if I'm correct, the Minister of Justice has indicated that this is something they want to get on with.

[4:00]

MR. MILLER: I think it's a serious issue. If the Attorney-General wants to trivialize it.... I thought it was serious when I raised it last year, when a 14-year-old girl from northern British Columbia had to spend two weeks in a motel room in some city in the interior while people finally decided that she couldn't obtain an abortion. I guess she thought it was pretty serious, too.

The question I pose is in terms of the board creating its own law. If you go to the hospital because you've cut your finger, I presume that if the hospital said, "I'm sorry, we've decided as a board that we don't treat cut fingers here — go somewhere else," there might be quite a reaction. Maybe even the Attorney-General would feel moved to comment.

HON. S.D. SMITH: On a point of order, I think I have done more than my share today to try to be fair and open with this opposition and to answer the questions as they relate to this ministry. But I must say, Mr. Chairman, when we get on to issues of cut fingers and so on it is not really within the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney-General. I would commend to the Chair to keep order in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair agrees with the position stated by the Attorney-General and would ask the member to proceed with this in mind and be relevant to the Attorney-General's estimates.

MR. MILLER: Really, Mr. Chairman, my question is: are the boards creating their own law? I was trying to illustrate by using some analogies to back up my premise. If, every time I mention hospitals and some medical term, somebody's going to jump up and say I'm out of order, then it's going to be a pretty difficult argument to make, but I have to make it in the context of what we're dealing with. I was trying to advance the argument that the boards are making their own law. It's very selective. Hospitals don't refuse to treat cut fingers, appendicitis, heart attacks, you name it; but some of them do refuse to do this procedure. I'm suggesting that in that case the board is creating its own law and preventing citizens of this province, most of whom live.... Most of the people affected by that kind of activity live outside the lower mainland. We know the difficulty of transportation to medical facilities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wish to remind the member of my earlier comments. His point may be valid, but I would ask him to keep it relevant.

MR. MILLER: I'll leave the question at this, Mr. Chairman: has the Attorney-General looked at it from the point of view of boards creating their own law?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I thought I had answered that. Before I do, I want to say for the record that if the member believes I have sought to trivialize the issue, you are clearly wrong. I have not made a comment today or on any other matter in these estimates that did in fact seek to trivialize or resulted in the trivialization of anything, and I want him to know that. It's highly inappropriate for him to offer that view.

With regard to boards, I can only say to the member that our hospital boards set policy for the operation of hospitals. That is their job. They set the policy for what things will be done in the hospital. The member said that the boards do not set policy to not do certain activities. You're quite wrong. Some boards do set policies to not undertake some activities in some hospitals and others to take them on. Some hospitals are not trauma centres. The boards quite specifically...

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH: No, it's not equipment; it's the kinds of things they do — and procedures. So there are some procedures that some boards do, and there are some they don't do. Yes, the boards do set policies to make decisions about what things will be done in certain hospitals.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's sinking in that we're trying to talk about his attitude towards the administration of justice on women’s issues. I don't think that's sinking in to him. When he uses the language that we're playing games here, that were just trying to get people and that's the role of the opposition, I don't think he understands what his role is.

His role is to be the Attorney-General and to be involved in the administration of justice. It's not his personal opinion that we're particularly interested in.

[ Page 6520 ]

I've never mentioned my personal opinion on the issue of abortion. We are talking about his role as a politician and a political leader. I'm quite prepared to say....

I was asked what my role is. My role is to be the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party, and I'm very proud of both those roles. In that role, Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to stand up and say that I am pro-choice, and that's the position of our party. Yet we don't have an Attorney-General who is prepared to stand up here and say what the political position of this government is on this very important issue.

He dodges and weaves and dances around that very important issue. What he's not prepared to do is to go back over his track record. He can schmooze us all he wants here in the Legislature, but he's not prepared to say where he was and what he did in this Legislature. I don't think his response in this Legislature is in Hansard. His Premier defied the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of abortion, and the previous Attorney-General was mortified by that. But we didn't see the MLA for Kamloops stand up and express the Opinion in public that the Premier of this province couldn't defy the constitution and the Supreme Court of Canada.

The attitude of the Attorney-General towards the administration of justice, which is central to the estimates of the Attorney-General, is what we're talking about here. His attitude when he was sitting back here as an MLA is very important to the administration of justice. I think the people of British Columbia are entitled to know what his attitude is — that he not hide behind some veil or oath of secrecy. I think we're entitled to know what position he took in this Legislature, in public, when the Minister of Health and the Premier were going to defy the Supreme Court of Canada in terms of funding for abortions and the Supreme Court of British Columbia on the issue of funding for abortions under the Medical Services Plan. We're entitled to know his attitude and his position.

HON. MR. DUECK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that the Premier or the Minister of Health defied the laws of Canada. It was ruled that the law was upheld, therefore abortions became legal in this province. But we did not defy the laws of Canada.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, I can't rule on that as a point of order.

MR. ROSE: My role here is merely to assist the Chair. I think the Chair was about to say that it really was a point of debate, and if the minister wanted to get up on a point of personal privilege, that would be one thing. But a point of order it isn't; it's a dispute as to the facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to continue, but I would ask him also to keep his remarks relevant to the debate today, which is the estimates of the Attorney-General.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, I'm doing just that; I am talking about the attitude which the Attorney-General was not prepared to share with this House, and that he brings to these central issues in the administration of justice. They're before us every day. There are people who are prepared to go to jail for their beliefs in this area. It is an important issue in British Columbia.

Nobody is treating it like a game. I'm offended when the Attorney-General stands up and says that this is a game. It trivializes the position of the Attorney-General in this province, and it gets to my central point that his attitude., .. He's prepared to hide behind a veil of secrecy, as though his attitude as a public political leader isn't important, and that it's Irrelevant.

Mr. Chairman, this Attorney-General clearly isn't up to the job. He doesn't understand his role.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that the administrative responsibility of the Attorney-General is what we're supposed to be discussing, not the personal attitudes of the Attorney-General. Please proceed.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, the attitude that one brings to the job is very important. If you have a negative attitude, as some members of this government seem to have over and over again — just negative, negative, negative — it has a very unfortunate impact on the citizens of this province. So the attitude they bring to their job is fundamental; it's very important.

I think the attitude of the Attorney-General of waffling and whiffling and refusing to take firm action, when there is blockage of access to the Everywoman's Health Centre, is of fundamental import to this province. When he says that his attitude as a public leader — not as a private citizen — isn't important to the administration of justice and the representations that go to the federal government in terms of changes to the Criminal Code.... It's fundamental to his role. He's saying that he is once again, after all the examples I've given, trying to duck and pretend he's still a backroom boy. He's not a backroom boy. He's the Attorney-General of this province, and you can't duck tough decisions because of your own personal ambitions; that's what I'm saying, Mr. Chairman. He's ducking and bobbing and weaving even more when he reads the polls.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Point of order. I realize that the Leader of the Opposition is very new to this House, and that indeed he doesn't spend very much time in this House, but the administrative responsibilities of the Attorney-General are all that are open for consideration. Personal references are never in order, and I would ask you to bring this new member to order and have him understand what this place is all about.

[ Page 6521 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the minister for his comments. Would the opposition leader please proceed,

MR. HARCOURT: I'm not making any personal observations at all. I'm talking about the role of a political leader and about what the attitude of a person interested in justice should be. I am saying that there is a responsibility to make representations to a parliament that is considering this very important issue. We have asked over and over whether he, on behalf of this government, is prepared to make those representations, and he's ducking behind the constitution. It's the women of this province who are going to suffer because of his ducking. He may think that the rights of women to make decisions about reproduction are irrelevant; we don't. As New Democrats we think it's very important; it's a very serious matter. The Attorney-General may not, and I think the attitude he brings to this is very important. One of his colleagues, the previous member for Vancouver-Point Grey, was prepared to stand up and be counted. He wasn't, on this very important issue, and still isn't.

The point I'm trying to make is that the Attorney-General is not a backroom boy anymore. He's the Attorney-General, and these kinds of what he calls "games" of trying to set up the New Democrats and the Musqueams on the UEL.... He and his government trying to do that was one of the more disgraceful parts of this legislative session.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I would ask again that you bring this member to order and have him understand that the UEL is not the administrative responsibility of the Attorney-General. We are in parliament, and we are supposed to be in the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney-General.

[4:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the minister for his comments.

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, simply to assist the Chair in coming to his decisions, wide latitude is usually permitted on the ministerial office and vote. I don't think that things that are a personal attack or some sort of vendetta should be permitted, and I don't think that is what is being exercised here There is wide latitude permitted. The fact that he mentioned the Musqueams doesn't rule it out of order. If we are going to be that narrow and rigid, I think these estimates might even take longer. I could hardly imagine them taking longer, but they could.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the opposition House Leader for his comments.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The administrative responsibilities of the minister responsible for the University Endowment Lands transfer will be coming up in this House. Each member of this House will have the opportunity to question that minister. In assisting the Chair, I would suggest that the administrative responsibilities of the Attorney-General are the only thing at question today, and I would ask you to so rule.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the minister for his assistance. I would ask the opposition leader to proceed and keep his remarks relevant to the estimates of the Attorney-General.

MR. HARCOURT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the minister of defence over there made his point.

The point I reiterate is very simple: if the Attorney-General is not concerned about the rights of women, as we New Democrats are.... We're prepared to stand up and be counted and to express our opinions very clearly. We are pro-choice on the issue of abortion and are against imposing our own personal viewpoints, as this Social Credit government has done to the women of this province. I think the attitude of the Attorney-General as a politician and a public person is very important. He's refused to deal with it.

The Attorney-General is the prime person to give legal advice to the minister responsible for the UEL decision, which severely impairs and just about extinguishes the rights of the Musqueams to pursue their land claim; that was the ruling we had from the Chair when I was here. That was exactly the ruling we got, and it was this Attorney-General who did that to the Musqueam people. If the Attorney-General wants to continue to hide behind, "Oh, that's a personal opinion," and, "Oh, that's the federal government's responsibility," and duck and bob and weave like a backroom boy, that's fine. I want the people of British Columbia to see him like he is.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'm delighted and flattered that the opposition has paid me so much attention these last seven days, because clearly they don't shoot at dead ducks.

I want also to say that my late grandfather's suggestion to "beware the righteous" carries no greater meaning and understanding for me than it does today, listening to the Leader of the Opposition. He talks about attitude. I'll tell you the attitude I carry in this place: it's one of honesty. And I would ask you to do the same thing.

I want to say to you, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, that on the big issues we've seen you get out of alternating cab doors throughout your political career. We saw you on Expo; we saw you on ALRT; we saw you on the trade and convention centre; and we saw you five minutes ago in this chamber, when you said, "I'm not making personal representations." I wonder what representations you were making, if they weren't personal representations.

I say again: I try to bring an attitude of honesty. I try to ensure I do that on the big things as well as the little things. I suppose that whether it's five minutes ago or five years ago with Expo, it really doesn't make a lot of difference to the opposition, as long as

[ Page 6522 ]

it grabs a little bit of ink and a little bit of air. That seems to be the tone; that seems to be the position of the opposition leader, and that's fair enough. I understand that, because that is his role; and he plays that role of airiness very well. And I'm sure we'll continue to see him play that role.

On the issue at hand — which I think is the one we should try to deal with — I have no hesitancy in saying to this House that I believe it very important that I try as much as I can to diminish the political rhetorician, which rests in all of us, and understand that I have some responsibility to evenly demonstrate what it is that the office I serve represents.

I will continue to do that in the face of whatever taunts, no matter how cheap, or infrequently rendered they are by the Leader of the Opposition, who finds it difficult to put himself in this House.... I have no difficulty with that, and I will say to the opposition leader that as the person representing this office, I will not respond to those kinds of taunts in kind, because I don't think it's a thing I should do. If you wish to continue with them, for goodness' sake do so, but if you get some sort of satisfaction out of a response, you're going to be — as you frequently are — a very unsatisfied man.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, would you please address the Chair.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I want to say — through you, Mr. Chairman — that I will continue to do what I believe to be correct in the service of this office, I will apply to the best of my ability the law in an even way, and I will do so without having the imprimatur of my personal biases and my political biases placed upon it. That is what I was sworn to do, and that's what I will do. It's not — as I said earlier in this debate — an easy thing to do. It is something that I am responsible to do and I will do. And I will as well, in terms of government policy, continue to advance government policy If that is something that the opposition leader finds dissatisfying, so be it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just like to remind all the members of the House that I have made several rulings with regards to relevancy, and it applies to both sides of the House. Now may we return to debate on vote 13.

MR. HARCOURT: I think it's quite relevant to the women of British Columbia, what the policy of this government is. It has been dreadful in its first two and a half years. The Attorney-General has once again ducked that question. He wasn't only being righteous; he was being self-righteous to a massive degree, full of airy flimflam and righteous words that really didn't say a great deal at all to the women of this province on this very important issue.

He didn't have a great deal to say to the Musqueam on the UEL, because that bill, I would take it, was run through the lawyers who advise the government. It attempted to extinguish the rights of the Musqueam people, who have been around for centuries in this province. I think the native people of this province are entitled to know the approach this government will take with them through their Attorney-General.

I conclude by saying that they're no better off after this exchange, because the Attorney-General just kind of whimpered for about ten minutes, poor lad. The women and the natives of this province deserve far more than that. What they deserve from this Attorney-General is justice, for once and for all.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I know the Leader of the Opposition has not been in the House very much this session at all, and therefore he would not be aware of what I thought were excellent discussions that have occurred in this House on a number of these issues, particularly those relating to our policies and views with respect to native issues. Those discussions have been held with the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno), who I would say contributed more in 30 seconds than the Leader of the Opposition has in this House during this session and in his entire career. We also had an outstanding contribution from the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson). I thought those exchanges were very good, but for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps I could go over some of those areas for him. I think it important that the House be aware and that he perhaps has the benefit of that as he's travelling around the province.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, we in British Columbia — all governments since Confederation — have taken the view that on the issue of aboriginal title.... We are arguing this position before the Supreme Court now; it's a matter seized by the Chief Justice of our province, Allan McEachern. We take the view that aboriginal title did not exist; that it was a concept unknown to our law; that if it did exist, it was extinguished by the acts of Confederation; and that further, in any event, the matter, because of the way we joined Confederation, is rightly the responsibility, at least monetarily, of the federal government.

We have taken that position historically, leading up to the Nisga'a case, in which unfortunately Mr. Justice Pigeon did not decide on the substantive matter. Until that time, that position, I think it is safe to say, was also the one taken by Canada. Following that, the former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, offered the view that there might in fact be some questioning of that position. Since then the Gitksan case has proceeded, and it has been characterized by Mr. Justice McEachern as perhaps the most important litigation ever undertaken in our province.

[4:30]

I repeat that because the Leader of the Opposition and others have offered the view that there is legal harassment of native people by this government in those matters. I state for the record that I do not believe that to characterize what is going on in Chief Justice McEachern's courtroom as legal harassment.... I think that is a very improper position for someone who presumes to wish to serve this province as Premier — and who very well may If the people want socialism, then they'll get him. To char-

[ Page 6523 ]

acterize that most important case, for which, as the member would know, the overwhelming majority of the money we have spent on native litigation that gets referred to — the numbers were specifically tabled in the House.... To have that in any way characterized as harassment is just not right. I pointed that out to the members of the opposition who made that comment in this House, and I did so because I think that the Chief Justice of the province, who is not able — no justice really is — to defend himself against these kinds of things....

MR. HARCOURT: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I don't know where the Attorney-General got anything out of the words I have said today, or ever in this Legislature, about this case — or the Gitksan whatsoever. He is attributing to me statements that I have never made, and I think it's a point of privilege. I resent his bringing forward a position that I have not made in the Legislature, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I did mention this earlier today, and certainly the two speakers at this point are well aware that there are some elements in this discussion that are, I believe, being dealt with in the courts. While I wouldn't say that sub judice applies particularly, I would just remind both hon. members that in the course of this debate it's something we must bear in mind.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just to respond to the member's concern, it's clearly not a point of order in committee, nor a point of privilege, nor can it be taken as such. In committee, Mr. Member, you're allowed to speak and respond to a comment a member makes. If you are of a different opinion than him, you wait till he finishes his comments and then you can take your turn. That's why debate is structured that way in Committee of Supply. Your point certainly does not qualify, even by the remotest stretch of anyone's imagination, as a point of privilege or a point of order.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Environment was out of the room when another matter was raised from the other side using the same device to correct a misrepresentation, or what appeared to be a misrepresentation. While we might well do it upon the conclusion of the Attorney-General's speeches, his remarks have frequently been very lengthy today and the whole thread of the thing might be forgotten by then. So we felt it was appropriate to bring it up now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We thank all hon. members for the discourse and would ask the Attorney-General to please proceed.

HON. S.D. SMITH: It may be, Mr. Chairman, that my remarks have been lengthy, but in part that is because I've had to go over many of the same issues Governments open the House, oppositions close it down. I don't mind doing it, because members of the opposition aren't all in the House at the same time; and that's proper, as there are committees going on and the like. But the Leader of the Opposition has made some pretty strong statements about me personally and about government policy generally as it relates to native affairs. He has made the point that he thinks that I won't answer questions. Well, I'm going to answer the questions. If they're lengthy, then fair enough, they'll be lengthy; but they're going to be answered.

MR. HARCOURT: I asked about the Musqueam.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'll get to the Musqueam, but I'm going to answer the whole issue, because I'm not going to sit here and allow people to be picked off a chip at a time by an opposition leader who's sort of an itinerant visitor to this chamber. That is unfortunately what I'm going to have to do, and I'm quite happy to do it.

When I talk about the Gitksan case, which is being characterized as the most important litigation, and the one about which the greatest amount of funding by the province has been extended, and I talk about the proposition put to me on several occasions that legal harassment of Indians has been going on because of the amount of money that we spend on these issues, then it's not unusual that one would draw those two things together by way of conclusion.

I again want to say what I have said previously in this House, Mr. Chairman: that the matters before His Honour Chief Justice McEachern ought not to be characterized in that way, directly or inferentially or by association, because the Chief Justice and other justices are not able to defend themselves against those slights and attacks. It rests on the Attorney-General to defend our courts and our justices when that kind of suggestion is made about what is going on within their courts. I have no hesitancy in doing that, because it's extremely important to us.

I am also of the view that that case will indeed establish the law, depending on where it goes and whether someone wants to pursue it further. It will establish an area in the law which up till now has not been in any way specific.

In the meantime I want to let the Leader of the Opposition know that I believe there is a tremendous amount of room for negotiation in all kinds of issues relating to natives and native claims. In fact, government has been pursuing that policy, and I think it's important that the opposition leader be aware of that. Members opposite say there's no substance to it. I'll tell you, you may think there's no substance to it, but we have in British Columbia 22 outstanding matters relating to the cut-off claims. They came from the McKenna-McBride commission and they were expropriations without compensation. We have negotiated over half of those claims successfully. I anticipate that my colleague the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) will be successful in negotiating the rest of them. We were able to settle matters relating to the issues at Fort Nelson involving the

[ Page 6524 ]

Treaty 8 issue through negotiations. That is an important matter relating to land claim. We have as well, I think, been a party — and in fact we are leaders in it — to the most important and progressive piece of legislation dealing with self-government ever undertaken anywhere in the country.

I am sorry now that the Leader of the Opposition has left again, and the record should show that, because it makes it difficult to get through these issues when he refuses to sit in the chamber when people are debating. Nevertheless, that is the style of his choice.

In terms of self-government and the Sechelt matter, while it certainly is not going to be the pattern that all bands will want to pursue, it is one that creates hope for a lot of people and creates a point from which negotiations can go ahead. I know that there have been scores of bands who have attended at Sechelt, sufficiently that one of the chiefs I was talking to recently told me that there was a lineup, that you had to get an appointment several months in advance, and that, in fact, there were consulting arrangements now taking place. Those are some of the things which I think are very important.

Again, I'm sorry the Leader of the Opposition has left while I am trying to explain these things for the record. I will continue on in any event.

We've also negotiated solutions to certain water rights issues. Those matters have been very much in dispute over a long period of time. The second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) was very much responsible for initiating the work with the Ingenika That has been followed up with the Minister for Native Affairs. It would appear that those negotiations are coming to some conclusion.

We have negotiated — I said originally 13; I was wrong — over 30 timber agreements: everything from small business licences to tree-farm licences. It's a very important issue of resource sharing and one in which native leaders around our province are most interested.

In addition to that we have also negotiated an important resource issue involving mining with the Tahltan people in the northwest of our province. The chief of the Kamloops band, Chief Jules, is working presently with the government of British Columbia and the municipalities of British Columbia in a very important initiative: looking at some negotiated settlement to taxation matters that flow from an important piece of legislation that Chief Jules was instrumental in getting through the Parliament of Canada.

Again these are very important matters of negotiation, and it is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition has decided not to be in the chamber to deal with them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, but the Attorney-General's time under standing orders has expired.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: I'm finding this discourse very interesting and enlightening, and I would like the Attorney-General to continue.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will continue in the hopes that the Leader of the Opposition will return to listen to this very important matter about negotiations.

I have said that I am more interested in jawing than litigating, and that is the case. You will see that reflected more and more in many of the issues that are outstanding. In that regard, I had very productive and fruitful discussions with the Tsawout band and with the Claxton family and members of that band and their elders, as well as with members of that community. It was done at the insistence of the Minister of Parks, the second member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Huberts), who asked me to get involved and I have. I am hopeful those discussions will lead to more fruitful activities.

I should point out that I have had discussions about these activities with the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson). I believe that's a useful and important thing to undertake.

MS. SMALLWOOD: On a point of order, in the last hour we have had pointed out to us several times the need for debate to centre around the minister's estimates. I would just like to ask the Chair if this particular debate is relevant to the minister's estimates and whether the Chair would make a ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Relevancy, of course, is very important in debate. This debate on the Attorney-General's estimates has been fairly far-ranging. The Chair has allowed a certain degree of latitude in the debate going forward. I must say, it would appear to the Chair at this time, from having heard the questions that were posed, that I believe the Attorney-General is responding to them. If they are not relevant, then I would suspect that the questions were not relevant either.

I would just remind all members that relevancy is very important in debate, particularly when we're dealing with estimates. It used to be that we were allowed to debate only a particular vote, one at a time. But in view of expediency, we have made it possible to actually debate all the votes within an estimate at one time, which makes it a little more difficult to control relevancy. I'd ask the Attorney-General if he would continue, please.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I think these matters are most relevant, because not only was the question asked but the question asked is relative to the relationship between litigation and negotiation. Our ministry is responsible for litigation. There's a sizeable amount of expenditures. I don't think there's any question as to the relevancy. I know I'm doing this for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, who has decided to duck out of the chamber and not be here. Nevertheless we should carry on.

[4:45]

1 was on the issue of the Saanichton band, then of Chief Jules. I also mentioned the things that are ongoing with respect to issues raised with me very usefully by the first member for Victoria.

[ Page 6525 ]

Specifically with regard to the Musqueam band, at the request of the first member for Victoria, I met on very short notice with members of that band and its leadership. I listened carefully to what was said and agreed to meet with members of the band to discuss issues that they are concerned about at their own place of residence on their property on the reserve.

I must also say to the Leader of the Opposition — because he's not here, but I want to put it on the record because he asked the question — that the members present thanked me for the time taken to have such a meeting on notice of virtually one hour or less — and sometimes it's difficult to juggle yourself around to do that. I was very appreciative of that. I thought that the tone of our meeting, while the result was obviously not as requested — that can happen in meetings — was very productive and very positive. Quite frankly, I was encouraged by that, and I will pursue that opportunity to establish a relationship with members of that band.

In relation to the matters before us respecting the Chilcotin people, I have said that I will undertake to go there and to be involved with them in seeking ways that we can move forward the process of making our justice system work on their behalf.

In terms of the criminal justice section of the ministry — again to the absent Leader of the Opposition, who asks the question and then ducks out because he doesn't want to hear the answer — I want to say that we appointed Peter Ewert in January of this year to be responsible for native justice issues.

Peter Ewert is a very senior Crown counsel in this province. We're confident that, through his work ' we're going to be able to do some things that we want to do in relation to diversion projects. We have some pilot projects in mind and underway that will involve the native community. We're going to work closely with other ministries of government, and we're going to as well, through his offices, enhance and augment the amount of consultation going on with native leaders. Perhaps more importantly, we're going to exam line alternative justice programs. I think it's very important that we do that.

Having said that, I should add that the Justice Reform Committee recommended to us that we augment the funding for the native court workers program. Frankly, I'm very proud of the 38 field workers in the native court workers program around the province. They provide service to 60 communities and make an absolutely outstanding effort on behalf of the people of the province. As we've heard earlier in this debate, we have responded with more funding. I've met with many of the court workers, and I'm going to be meeting with more of them to see how we can enhance the delivery of services in that community.

I am closing out this section before I go on to answer the Leader of the Opposition — because he's not here — on the questions of some of the women's issues that he raised. The Justice Reform Committee recommended that native communities should be encouraged to develop their own diversion programs. We're going to put a lot of resources, thought and communication into that. I think that it's a really important area in which we can make progress.

As well as that, the Justice Reform Committee examined this whole proposition of having a separate justice system. They looked at that proposition seriously but abandoned it, and said it's something that ought not to go forward.

In terms of some of the issues that we've talked about specifically in relation to matters of concern particularly to women, but matters of concern to all citizens of our province — which the Leader of the Opposition raised but now is not prepared to stay here and listen to the answers about — we have the family maintenance enforcement program, which we think is an important initiative. We've heard discussion about some of the deficiencies in the program as it is set up, dealing with the backlog of people initially, and we are going to address those. I think it is a fine program for addressing the long-term needs — indeed, the short-term needs, but certainly the longterm needs — in that area because it provides a vehicle by which an agency will assist in the enforcement of maintenance orders. Like it or not, when there is family breakup, the maintenance section becomes very important. Our family enforcement program is unique in that it will defend against applications to vary, a common tactic used in relation to enforcement orders generally. That part of the program is unique to British Columbia, so we're pretty pleased with that.

Legal aid in relation to family law is where the bulk of the increases have been. There has been a tariff increase of 104 percent in family law matters. We've expanded coverage to non-urgent custody, paternity, and for obtaining and varying maintenance orders. There has been quite an expansion in terms of not only the funding but the tariff, which is really an access issue. I note that the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) yawns at that, but it is important to women that good counsel be available. In part, that will reflect itself in the amount of the tariff.

We've also, under that program, funded flexible financial eligibility criteria for restraining orders and custody and protection matters. That is an issue of considerable importance to women in this province. We are examining the proposition of how family duty counsel would work, and how it might work through a number of pilot projects that we're into.

There's no question that there's more to do, and I don't deny that for a second. I suppose one of the reasons I want to continue to serve in public life at all is because there's more to do. I think that probably motivates all of us.

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The member for Prince George North says there's more to say. The reason I'm going through this is because the Leader of the Opposition asked very specific questions and made a pretty substantial accusation that I would not answer questions. So I'm answering them for his benefit, even though as

[ Page 6526 ]

soon as I began to answer he got up and ducked out of the chamber, which wasn't very helpful; but I feel I ought to answer them anyway.

I note that my two minutes is coming up. Maybe there will be an opportunity to carry this on. I think it's important that I complete these answers for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, because he is very infrequently in this chamber. As I say, he's a bit of an itinerant member. I think it's important that we put on the record, for his benefit specifically, all the kinds of issues which have of course been put on generally for everyone else, and they've been able to get the answers like the rest of us.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The Attorney-General had just started to delineate some of the ineptness of the Leader of the Opposition. I'd like to hear more. He could go on for a long time doing that, and I want to hear a little more about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue, I would like to mention, hon. members, with all due deference to our Attorney-General, that I do not think the canvassing of one's attendance in the House on a continual basis really adds anything to our debate. I say that in the kindest possible way.

MR. SIHOTA: If the Attorney-General wants to filibuster his own estimates, I guess that's his prerogative. But I think he's repeating matters two and three times over, even within the response that he's given to the Leader of the Opposition. He does so at his own peril, in terms of us being able to get to these estimates or not. I would ask the Chairman to remind the Attorney-General of the rule about repetition. If he's got something new to say, let's hear it; if he doesn't, then he can say that he's already dealt with it on the record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General will continue, please.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I accept your admonition about my reference to the opposition leader not being in the House. I must say, in my own defence, that I've only done it simply because I felt an obligation to answer his questions They were put very strongly, and I wish he were here.

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew has on several occasions stood up in a kind of lecturing way and offered what can only be some veiled threat: if I don't speed up, he'll carry on as he has over the last number of days with these estimates. I must tell him that I respond to those threats without too much concern. I'm quite happy, as I said this morning, to be here until the cows come home, answering his or anyone else's questions.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

To continue with the answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question about services for women, I've talked briefly about family maintenance and legal aid.... I'm speaking specifically of this ministry.

The victims and witnesses services area is one that I think we have to pay greater attention to and in which we have made progress. Special attention is paid to abuse issues affecting women and children. I recited today a number of the kind of interministerial agencies involved in those, as well as the programs that we fund directly out of this ministry. I read out a list, in fact, of 27 funded organizations. I read that out earlier, even though it has been stated by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew that we didn't fund any. That statement, of course, was incorrect.

The special prosecutors in the Crown counsel office are dealing with this important and very sensitive issue. We are giving considerably increased priority to it. I think the Leader of the Opposition would be interested in that, because I know he shares those concerns that I do.

[5:00]

We also have seen in the justice system generally — though it's not directly related to the minister's office, but in part it is — an increase in the number of women on the provincial court. Knowing the number and quality of applicants who have gone through the process there, I think that as vacancies arise in the future, we'll see more women members of the bench. Quite frankly, I think that over time that will address some of the issues that were quite properly raised today by the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) in relation to the way certain issues are dealt with. Of course, that number going to the bench also reflects the number of practitioners graduating from our law schools and the number of women going to our law schools and graduating, who've been practising for sufficient time now that eligibility can take place. In addition to that, within our own Crown counsel shop now, there are more and more people in senior positions who have come up through the ranks in the same way.

These are a number of matters that I want to raise in specific response to the Leader of the Opposition, who asked the questions some time ago. I'm only sorry he wasn't here to hear the answer.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think the minister has just set some kind of record for estimates. I want to add my commitment to other members on this side: if it takes all the way to November of next year, so be it. Quite frankly, we think that it's rather important to deal with the people's business, and in particular we want to know what this minister stands for as far as women's issues, justice and equitability are concerned. The minister can no longer be silent; the minister can no longer avoid the issue. The minister can no longer claim that his position is irrelevant to the plight of accessible, equitable treatment of women in this province.

What I'd like to know from the minister is whether you have taken a look at the Supreme Court decision — the Morgentaler decision — and understand fully what it means for the people of this province.

[ Page 6527 ]

HON. S.D. SMITH: I find it a little odd that on the one hand the members opposite get up and claim that I'm speaking too long, then on the other hand claim that I'm not speaking enough. I guess you can take your pick.

The answer to her question is yes.

MS. SMALLWOOD: If indeed the minister has read the decision and understands it, then clearly the minister will agree that the central aspect to that decision was that section 251 of the Criminal Code posed barriers to equitable treatment for women in health care. Given the substance of that decision and given the reality in this province that there continue to be barriers for accessibility for women to legal, medical abortion services, I will ask the minister again: will you investigate — a fairly simple request, given the resources at your disposal, sir, and given your responsibility — whether the services to women are being hampered illegally in this province?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I've said several times today that if there is illegality taking place, the answer is yes. I am not, however, going to undertake some hypothetical matter. I just am not. If that confuses the member, I'm sorry about that.

I believe that the issue that she wants to get at — and fair enough — is one that she should perhaps have raised during Health estimates. She seems to confuse the proposition that hospitals can provide the services they choose. That is a function of their regulation under the Health Act and the role that their board of directors plays. If there is some illegal activity that she is aware of — and I ask her that because I am not aware of the illegal activity to which she refers — that she can refer to me, by all means it would be investigated. I don't know how more clearly I can say that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's a matter which you have canvassed. I would ask the member to move on, please.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister has agreed that if there is an issue brought to his attention, he will investigate. We have brought to the minister's attention our concern about functioning therapeutic abortion committees. I will add to that list that around this province there are, on a continuing basis, fights over hospital boards, communities torn apart where hospital boards are making decisions....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please take her seat for a moment. I believe the member was in the House when the Chair ruled on the overlapping of ministries and the matter of the hospital boards being that of the Ministry of Health's estimates. I would ask the member to continue but keep that in mind and move on.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly will continue and will continue to be relevant to the Attorney-General's estimates. For the Chair and other members in the House, I will remind the Attorney-General that the Morgentaler decision specifically talked about equitability, about barriers to access to this legal, medical service, What I am doing is pointing out to the Attorney-General where the barriers are and how the Attorney-General may become involved.

The Attorney-General, several times during this debate, has said to different members of this House: "Perhaps you should have canvassed it in the Health estimates." I don't know where the Attorney-General has been for the last three sessions, because, quite frankly, we have canvassed this issue in his predecessor's estimates, we have canvassed it during the Health estimates, we have canvassed it during the Premier's estimates, and we want to know where the Attorney-General stands and whether or not you will carry out the responsibility of your ministry.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, by the hon. member's own admission she is tedious and repetitious and I would ask you to bring her to order. This is an issue which is certainly of great importance, but it has been canvassed. By the rules of the House, it cannot be canvassed again under this debate.

MS. SMALLWOOD: On the Attorney-General's estimates, as I was saying, we are wanting the Attorney-General to make it clear what his position is as to the delivery of this service and whether or not there are illegal barriers being put in place to the women of this province. Do you support the Supreme Court decision? Are you prepared to carry out the essence of that decision under your responsibility?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The issue for an Attorney-General is not one of whether you support or don't support a decision. A decision is a decision. Your responsibility is to apply the law. The answer is yes, I've said in several different ways that yes, I will carry out the law.

I think, with the greatest of respect to the member, that you are confusing illegality with hospital policy. The two are quite separate. If there is a breach of the law, then I've told you that I will canvass it; I will see to it that it's investigated and I will see to it that it's dealt with. But when you raise the question of some hospitals not providing the service and others providing the service, it is not a question of illegality; it is a question of hospital policy, and it is that issue which I have suggested properly should come up in the Ministry of Health estimates. I don't think there's any other rational answer that I can give you.

I would say, as well, in terms of the Morgentaler decision, for your own information.... I think you're aware of this, because you've probably read t carefully as well. The court said that 251 of the Code was a barrier to access. It did not take the next step, which I think you are taking impliedly, which is that the court was somehow requiring hospitals to do something that they don't now do. I don't think that that is a reasonable interpretation of what's in the

[ Page 6528 ]

Morgentaler decision. However, I suspect you don't agree with me. That certainly is my reading of the decision.

Again I would say to you that if there is evidence of illegality I will certainly see to it that it is investigated and dealt with. But as to the question of local hospital policies, with the greatest of respect, Mr. Chairman, that is not something that should be or can be dealt with by the Attorney-General. It is a matter of health policy in the province. I am sorry if I can't give you some satisfaction in the answer, but it's the only answer I can reasonably give you.

MR. SIHOTA: The Morgentaler decision is built on the premise of equality of treatment. Hospital boards, by making a decision not to provide abortion services in their area, are frustrating the concept of equality of treatment. Does the Attorney-General believe, in relation to abortion, that equality of treatment ought to be provided and afforded to women in British Columbia?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, again we get into a hospital policy issue; they've somehow separated out this particular medical procedure.

Hospitals and hospital boards in this province have responsibility to make decisions about the services that they render, and they make all kinds of decisions about all kinds of services. Some hospitals, for instance, do not provide trauma services at all Other hospitals provide largely services for children and for the delivery of babies, and virtually nothing else. Some hospitals do not provide certain orthopedic services; other hospitals do. That is a decision made by hospital boards, and that decision, therefore, is not a matter for the Attorney-General's estimates.

If you wish to carry on with it, I will try my best to answer the questions in a different way, but I really think that I am not showing proper respect for this House by continuing to try to answer the estimates of the Minister of Health.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I agree with the Attorney-General. Your answer is becoming repetitious. Possibly I should not have allowed either the question or the answer. I would ask that the member proceed on relevant issues.

MR. SIHOTA: The question was never framed before. It's the first time the question has been asked in this debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please proceed on the estimate.

MR. SIHOTA: The question relates to the Attorney-General's decision in terms of applying the law and making sure the law is applied fairly and equally, in evenhanded fashion, across the province.

There are communities in this province where there is one hospital. Let's take Vernon as an example If the hospital board makes a decision not to provide those services, then the level of treatment available to a woman in Vancouver is not available to a woman in Vernon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I do not wish to interrupt, but the Chair has ruled that this line of questioning falls under the Ministry of Health.

MR. SIHOTA: You had better hear the question out, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of policy from the Attorney-General's department....

[5:15]

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is clearly questioning a ruling of the Chair, and that is not permissible in this committee. I would ask that you so rule.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is aware. If the member can phrase his question such that we're not debating a health issue that should have been debated in the estimates of the Ministry of Health, and we can get onto the Ministry of Attorney-General's office, vote 13, then I would ask the member to proceed. Otherwise I would ask him to take his seat.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, just a preface. We have asked questions in this House with respect to the application of environmental laws: the policy that flows through the Ministry of Attorney-General with respect to the enforcement, interpretation and application of those laws. We are now asking questions in the same vein with respect to matters that are predicated on a decision of the Supreme Court and touch upon health as opposed to environment. Those matters of environment were perfectly in order, and I would argue that these matters of health are perfectly in order in terms of the application of law and the administration of that law by this minister. It's a subtle but significant point, in my view.

HON. MR. VEITCH: My point of order is that this member is not in a court of law; he is here in a committee of this House and he is arguing with the Chair on a ruling the Chairman has made. I would ask that you would so rule and ask him to either cease and desist or take his place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister. That has....

The minister on the same point of order.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the member has raised the analogy with environmental law and said that it was appropriate to question the Attorney-General with respect to environmental law. I think the essential point is that in environmental law we have British Columbia laws that the Attorney-General enforces. In the issue at hand, there isn't a law.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has recognized the point, Mr. Minister, and that is why the Chair has made the decision. Would you please proceed.

[ Page 6529 ]

MR. SIHOTA: With all due respect to the Attorney-General, there is a law and that law is known as the Charter of Rights. The application of that law, as interpreted by the Charter of Rights....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Charter of Rights is not the matter we're debating; we're debating the minister's estimates.

MR. SIHOTA: In all respect, Mr. Chairman, we have dealt in the past with respect to the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has made the ruling. Would the member please proceed.

MR. CLARK: On a point of order, I would like to seek some clarification of the Chair's ruling with respect to the Charter of Rights. We have canvassed at some length the Charter of Rights and its interpretation and the government's response with respect to Charter decisions. The Ministry of Attorney-General is quite appropriately the ministry under which we can canvass all the ramifications with respect to the implications of the Charter of Rights decision. I want to be clear as to the Chair's ruling on canvassing issues with respect to the Charter of Rights before the Ministry of Attorney-General estimates right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not make hypothetical rulings; I make rulings on those issues that come before me, and I have so ruled. Would the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew please continue?

MR. SIHOTA: I want to ask a question, and it relates to the law of civil rights. That's the question I want to put to the Attorney-General.

Women in certain parts of the province have the ability to procure particular health services as they relate to abortions. In other areas of the province they don't. As a matter of law and policy from the Attorney-General ministry, does the Attorney-General find that to be an acceptable state of affairs, namely that services relating to abortions are available in some portions of the province and unavailable in other portions of the province?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The other day in this House the member for Esquimalt, in introducing his former principal, said that we could blame him for all those areas where we found him deficient in the law. Obviously we've now found one. I didn't think it would come up so soon.

The Charter applies to laws, and the Charter was applied to the Morgentaler case. Since that time there isn't a law. The issue that the member raises about the section — there may be some Section 1n the Charter where he wants to apply this — would be interesting to learn about to see how he would apply it and to which law he would apply it. When you deal with the Charter, that's the important issue.

All of that is interesting discussion about the Charter, but the essential point remains. Medical services, whatever they may be, are provided around the province according to the decisions that are taken by hospital boards. Some hospital boards chose to provide some services and other hospital boards choose not to provide those same services. That is a matter of hospital policy. That is a matter properly and fairly for the Ministry of Health. If I can analogize for a minute, there are all kinds of hospitals in this province which do not provide cardiac surgery. I don't think there is anyone who would stand up and make a Charter argument....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, I hate to interrupt, but we have canvassed this at length. We have heard your position on this, and the Chair understands the matter has been canvassed fully.

MR. SIHOTA: Are you saying he's out of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're out of order on that particular issue. You can move on.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must confess the only reason I'm trying to answer is because apparently the questions are in order and on the record but the answers are somehow ruled out of order. I know that's confusing. Certainly it's confusing to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) ; it's even confusing to the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) ; and I know it's confusing to me.

Nevertheless, I think the very real and essential issue in terms of these estimates is that while Charter issues may certainly be discussed in relation to specific laws we are dealing with, or the application of those laws, in this instance the issue we have been grappling with continually this afternoon — and maybe all summer — is properly within the Ministry of Health's estimates. What we are talking about here, Mr. Chairman, is a policy decision taken by hospital boards with respect to whether or not medical services are going to be available. Whatever my views may be about that, it is a matter to be dealt with by the Ministry of Health.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for a tedious and repetitious answer. Can we proceed with the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: We will try it a different way, As a matter of law, if he takes the position that these matters are to be decided by the boards, does he consider the actions of the boards in not allowing the provision of the services to be contrary to the Morgentaler decision?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The answer to that question is clearly no.

MR. SIHOTA: Could he explain why? The Morgentaler decision says that equality of treatment must be available to women. Hospital boards, through the implementation of their policies, are endeavouring to frustrate, in certain portions of this

[ Page 6530 ]

province, that concept of equality of treatment and equality of accessibility of abortions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind the member to stay on the legal half rather than on the board's decision to implement or not implement a decision. Will you please proceed.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister explain his rationale for the position that he does not consider the actions of the boards to be in violation of the intent of that decision?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The member asked me to answer why I said the answer is no. The answer is no for this reason: the Morgentaler decision struck down section 251 of the Criminal Code. It did not require some organization to take a specific action; it did not mandate that to be done. It simply struck down the Criminal Code.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister just gave a long explanation in answering the Leader of the Opposition's questions about programs in support of women's equality in the law. The minister went on and on and on; here again, there are more words, more verbiage. We see no action. The minister has an opportunity to deal with the issue of equitability and access to a service here, and he refuses to do that. Let me ask one further question on this issue. The minister has an opportunity — indeed a responsibility — to represent the women of this province in the debate going on in Ottawa right now. I would like to know what the minister's, and indeed the government's, position is: do you support the criminalization of abortion? Do you support that going back into the Criminal Code of Canada?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is out of order.

MR. SIHOTA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, that question was asked before. The minister never answered it. It was never ruled out of order then. We are now asking the minister to provide an answer.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, clearly you made a ruling in this House. That ruling must be obeyed. I am sure my hon. colleague the opposition House Leader would agree with that. This member cannot stand and argue with a ruling of the Chair. If he persists, I would ask that you ask him to leave the chamber. He's clearly out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair made the ruling on the basis that the question was asking about the necessity of legislation. That is clearly spelled out as a matter that can only be discussed by substantive motion. Do you understand the ruling?

MR. ROSE: Well, to be honest, it's too deep for me. I think it's very simple. The federal government is now considering the recriminalization of abortion in this country; whether we are dealing with it on a trimester system or whatever is neither Rimsky nor Korsakov. What is the issue, though, is that British Columbia, through its Attorney-General, is going to make representations, one would assume. Has the minister decided to make representations to the federal government on this very important matter of equality and equity?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The answer is as I stated earlier: government policy has been to ask the federal government to get on with doing what it committed to do: put before the Parliament of Canada a bill or a matter that would provide for the creation of a law in that area. Yes, I have communicated that to my colleague in the government of Canada.

MR. ROSE: Would the Minister be kind enough to share with the House the position that he would like the federal government to take on the recriminalization of abortion in Canada?

[5:30]

HON. S.D. SMITH: As I said earlier, I have put the position of the government of British Columbia forward. The position is as I have just put it. When the Minister of Justice, as he doubtless will, indicates what process they may undertake, then the government of British Columbia will undoubtedly take a position and communicate that policy position to Canada. Until then, obviously, it's a matter of future policy.

MR. ROSE: I imagine that the minister put this representation requesting some form of recriminalization of abortion in a letter. Or did he do it through a fax machine, or did he make a phone call? Would he tell us what his suggestions are in regard to this matter, for the benefit of the federal government and this House?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I did not, as you might have gathered from what I just answered you, address the issue of the process, the question of what vehicle they would use to develop a law. I put it to the Minister of Justice in his office, looking him in the eye.

MR. ROSE: What do we want? That's what I'd like to know. What do we want in the form of some sort of legislation regarding this very important issue? What does B.C. want? What is B.C.'s position? What are you asking for on our behalf?

HON. S.D. SMITH: As that member knows, the Parliament of Canada put forward a whole host of options last year or two years ago, none of which the Parliament agreed to, leaving, therefore, as many options available to it today. We have, as a matter of government policy, put forward to Canada the position that they must deal with the issue, that they cannot simply leave it undealt with, and that they must bring forward a law. That is the position that we have put forward and that is the extent of the position we've put forward.

[ Page 6531 ]

MR. ROSE: It appears that we can't leave it the way it is. Without saying so, the Attorney-General implies that the government is really dodging the issue and stalling and hoping it will go away and therefore is reluctant to bring in anything, when they found that their three-pronged kind of motion went down to defeat or at least was laughed out of court.

It's a very simple thing. The minister wants some law regulating abortion; that's what he's told us in previous questions. My simple question is: what does he want? just a law, some law? He doesn't give a damn what kind of a law, as long as it's the law? I'd like to know precisely. I think that he's being the artful dodger here, because he knows that this is an emotionally loaded issue and I don't think he wants to get burned; he wouldn't want to stand too close to the cannon on this one.

I would like to suggest that perhaps we would shorten our estimate time by a great deal if he would be just a little bit more candid with us.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I don't know how much more candid I can be with you, Mr. Member, than to tell you that I took to Ottawa the position of the government of British Columbia. I have just told you what the position was that I took.

MR. ROSE: I would close by saying that the position of the government of British Columbia at this point seems to be prone.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister has said very clearly that you do not want the law left as it is. Let's try it another way. Since the minister is not prepared to answer the question of whether you support it going back into the Criminal Code, let me ask you another question. Do you support amending the Health Act to ensure equitable delivery and access to that service across Canada, including British Columbia?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's question is out of order.

MR. SIHOTA: When the Attorney-General looked into the eye of the Minister of Justice and said, "You can't leave it the way it is," the Minister of Justice, I'm sure, looked the Attorney-General back in the eye and said "Well, what do you mean by the fact that you can't leave it the way it is?" If he didn't ask you that question, I'd like to ask you that question.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The Minister of Justice, as he has done publicly, said that it is a matter that the government of Canada is going to have to deal with and probably sooner rather than later. That is the position of the government of Canada, and he has stated that position publicly on several occasions.

MR. SIHOTA: When the minister looked him in the eye, he said: "You can't leave it the way it is." Am I correct then in assuming that the Attorney-General's view is that there ought to be a law saying that abortions should not be provided in Canada?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I guess I'll have to go back to the beginning, because it's sometimes difficult to communicate to this member. The member for Prince George says I've got to filibuster another 25 minutes. If you want, I'll do it for you. But if you want to carry on, it makes no difference to me.

If you will listen to what I have said to you frequently today.... I know you don't like the answer, because you would like to — under the guise of the Attorney-General's estimates — get into a debate on this issue. I suspect the reason is that for six or seven days now, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, who is my critic, has tried desperately to get himself a headline, and he's failed. He undoubtedly feels that he'll be able to get one this way. No doubt, he is probably right. If you can't do it in your own area, then jump into someone else's is the lesson to be learned there.

The issue that I must deal with here is government policy. I'm trying to express to the members opposite what that policy is. They would like that policy to be more specifically delineated. I can't, because it isn't. I've simply told you what the policy is in relation to the issue, and I've communicated that policy. Whatever the member may think my views should or should not be — and whether I should chip away at it from the back end or the front end — won't make any difference. I can only tell him that the policy is as I've stated it, and it's been communicated by me to Ottawa.

MR. SIHOTA: I see. We are to assume that the minister blurted out the words: "You can't leave it the way it is." There was no meaning, no essence, no intent, no message. There was nothing; just the words: "You can't leave it the way it is." Who are you trying to fool?

The question to the minister is this: given the fact that he did say, when he looked the minister in the eye, that he couldn't leave it the way it is, could the minister explain what he finds wrong with the way it is?

HON. S.D. SMITH: It would be misleading to leave the House with the impression that I have said that that's all I said to the federal minister. The member knows that. just for the record I would point out that it isn't the case. There are reams of material from today's debate.

Let me repeat the position and policy of the province, which I communicated to Ottawa. The position, which is concurred in by the Parliament of Canada, is that because Members of Parliament themselves have stated they will legislate in the area, and they will.... I have communicated to them on behalf of the government that they should put to the House, as soon as they can, the law that they intend to enact.

MR. SIHOTA: What is it with the current state of affairs that dissatisfies the minister? What's wrong,

[ Page 6532 ]

from the government's point of view? Because it's government policy. What dissatisfies the government in the current state of affairs?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The absence of the law itself. I have frankly answered this question, in one form or another, continuously for probably three and a half hours. I know I was criticized by the member for north Surrey for answering the opposition leader in a repetitious way, and I did so because he asked me a question and then ducked out of the chamber when I started to answer him. I'll take her advice. I've answered it several times, and I intend not to carry on with more of it.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says that he does not find satisfaction with the fact that there is effectively no law. He said those words or something to that effect; I couldn't quite hear, because of the noise on this side, exactly what he said.

What representations did he make on behalf of this province as to what ought to be the substitute for what exists now?

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, clearly both sides have canvassed this matter many times We've had several hours of debate on the issue. It has been canvassed. It is repetitious, repetitious, repetitious. I would ask that under the standing order you so rule.

MR. MILLER: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, it has been my limited experience — albeit, in this House — that it often takes considerable debate to elicit responses from ministers. That's a clearly acknowledged fact in this House. Sometimes it takes some persistent debate to unearth answers to questions. It's simply, I think, wrong to characterize that process as being repetitious. It's quite in keeping with the traditions of this House.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, with respect — and to help you, if I may, in your job — it doesn't matter how many times it is canvassed. If it is tedious and repetitious, it is tedious and repetitious. It has been canvassed by the very admission of the members that are speaking. Would you please ask that they cease and desist on this particular line of questioning. It has been completely and absolutely canvassed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With that in mind, I would certainly ask the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew to proceed.

MR. SIHOTA: The only thing that the member finds tedious and repetitious is the sting that comes from these questions. I notice that the Premier....

MR. BLENCOE: He's reading the polls.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier has been reading the polls, and he's back in the House now. He may wish to help out the Attorney-General on this matter. Maybe the Premier would like to help out the Attorney-General — who would wish to be Premier — on this matter of the government's dissatisfaction with the current state of the abortion law. I think all of us in this House understand that there is a fair bit of public interest in the matter of abortion. This government has in the past expressed its views on that issue. Those views have been expressed when we have been dealing with Supreme Court decisions through which the Attorney-General and the Premier have responded. It's in the context of that Supreme Court of Canada decision, not health policy, that I ask these questions.

[5:45]

The question I again want to put to the minister is simply this: when he made representations to the federal government that the law can't be left the way it is, what did he mean? What type of substitute situation is the government looking for?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I've answered the members faithfully as to the government's policy and the position that has been communicated. Members of the Parliament of Canada have made a commitment to bring in legislation, and I, like all members of society, will be most keenly interested when that comes forward. Quite frankly, I'll be more keenly interested than most, because whatever that law turns out to be, I will have the responsibility to enforce it. I will have no hesitation in that regard. I don't envy the parliamentarians who are going to be dealing with it, because they are in fact going to be dealing with an issue that transcends politics and goes to the very belief structure and soul of most individuals. But as I said earlier today, even if this House had come up with the answer to this matter that has eluded humankind since day one, I have no doubt that we have not the jurisdictional authority to implement it, because we don't make the laws.

I've tried, Mr. Chairman, to answer the members. They presumably haven't got the answers they want. I guess, as we're getting close to the end of the day.... I know there are a lot of people who want to get going on this; I don't know the House Leaders' position on this, but it may be time to rise for the day. Is that the House Leaders' wish? Because I'm happy to do so.

MR. ROSE: Well, no, I'd like to say something else. There may be in the next five minutes an opportunity to complete these estimates. If there is, I would like, first of all, to thank the government Whip and the House Leader for rearranging this business on our behalf, at great expense in terms of the debate being brought on tomorrow, because one of our members was ill. I apologize to the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, who was hauled off the plane at great expense and brought back here for this, because we thought we would have completed this by about 3 o'clock. These things are not always controllable. It's not my desire to shut off debate; neither is it my desire to carry on with it indefinitely. The minister, I

[ Page 6533 ]

think, will agree that some of his responses have been reasonably lengthy, and we've all added to the length of time — and perhaps even tedium — of this from time to time. These are important issues, though, that we've dealt with this afternoon, among many of our members. They feel them deeply. I think that this has taken on dynamics of its own. If it's agreeable to the minister, we will, having said that, be prepared to 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. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to what we normally do on Tuesday, I will advise the House that we will sit tomorrow for bills.

I have one more distinct pleasure on behalf of the Ministry of Environment and my colleague the second member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Huberts), the Minister for Parks. I would like to file the 1987-88 annual report of the old Ministry of Environment and Parks.

For the benefit of the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) and in regard to questions posed to the Ministry of Environment with respect to Crestbrook Forest Industries and the burning of resin soap, I would like to file those answers which were placed on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.

APPENDIX

25 Ms. Edwards asked the Hon. the Minister Responsible for Environment the following questions:

1. Has the Ministry of Environment, Waste Management Branch, issued more than one permit in B.C. allowing the burning of resin soap, a pulp mill effluent, in an open tipi burner?

2. Has the Ministry determined why the practice occurs nowhere else in North America, perhaps the world, when it seems such an efficient method for integrated forest companies who cannot dispose of all the resin soap they produce?

3. In view of the Ministry's assurances that the permit granted Crestbrook Forest Industries to burn resin soap from its Skookumchuck pulp mill in its waste wood burner at Elko is a one-time event, has the Minister made that assurance a directive to staff?

4. If not, what studies has the Waste Management Branch carried out to determine potential dangers to health and safety of residents as a result of unforeseen events, such as incomplete burning of the soap'?

5. How often will Ministry staff monitor practice under the new Crestbrook permit to assure complete burning of the soap and to avoid depending on a company employee to supervise the company's practice?

6. Has the Waste Management Branch carried out any studies to determine whether impoundment of resin soap in a landfill could have deleterious effects on the earth or water in the surrounding environment?

[ Page 6534 ]

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

The Hon. W. B. Strachan replied as follows:

" 1. Crestbrook Forest Industries is the first and only company to request or obtain approval to burn resin soap in a tipi burner.

"2. Resin soap is generated in all kraft pulp mills. It is normally either sold as a commercial product or mixed with wood waste and burned on-site in a hog fuel boiler. Crestbrook's pulp mill is unique in that it has a natural gas boiler rather than a hog fuel boiler for steam production. It is not feasible to burn resin soap in a natural gas boiler.

"3. and 4. The amendment to Crestbrook's permit contains a requirement that burning of resin soap be completed on or before September 7, 1989. Crestbrook will be submitting an application this month for a new incinerator to be constructed this year at their pulp mill. It will be capable of burning chip fines and any resin soap which cannot be sold.

"5. Permittee monitoring of emissions and treatment works with submission of reports to regulatory agencies has been normal practice throughout Canada for years. Auditing of the results and spot inspections is the role of regulatory agencies, with the frequency dictated by the potential for environmental impact or non-compliance. In this case, waste staff started with approximately weekly inspections. If no problems are evident, this frequency will be relaxed. Monitoring by the company will remain a permit condition.

"6. No specific studies have been conducted to test the effect of land filling resin soap. Based on its physical and chemical characteristics, burning is considered the most environmentally safe means of disposal."