[ Page 9781 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministry of International Business and Immigration Act (Bill 37).

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Introduction and first reading –– 9781

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 12: minister's office –– 9781

Hon. Mr. Smith

Hon. Mrs. Gran

Mr. Serwa

Mr. Sihota

Ms. Marzari

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

MINISTRY OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
AND IMMIGRATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Veitch presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Ministry of International Business and Immigration Act.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, this bill continues the Ministry of International Business and Immigration, which was created by order-in-council in 1988. It defines the purposes and functions of the ministry as extending to and including matters relating to international trade, investment and immigration for British Columbia. The bill also repeals and replaces the Agent General Act.

Bill 37 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.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 12: minister's office, $267,471.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, on vote 12, I have the honour to rise this morning and present the 1991 estimates for the ministry I serve, the Ministry of Attorney-General.

The past year has been a very busy and, I believe, successful year for the ministry. Implementation of our Access to Justice initiatives has been a priority, and that priority will continue. The bench, the bar, community organizations, universities and the ministry are working together to bring us closer to the ideal that I believe all of us share, which is one of greater access to justice for our citizens. The Access to Justice report identified some major systemic barriers to that ideal. It also presented ideas to both lower those barriers and to provide ramps of access. I am going to take the next few minutes to tell you how we have addressed some of these issues and the process for creating a better system for all British Columbians in the area of justice.

There have been two major themes underlying our Access to Justice initiatives. One, we've been seeking to simplify the system and to make it more understandable — in all the ways we might think of that word — for all who have to use it. Secondly, we've been reaching out and attempting to provide ways in which people can develop more and better choices in relation to the justice system.

In terms of simplifying the system, I'm pleased to advise the House today of the establishment of a Plain Language Institute in British Columbia. This institute, which will receive joint funding of $500,000 annually from the Law Foundation of British Columbia and from the ministry, will oversee the introduction of clearer language into legal documents that are used by citizens throughout British Columbia. The mandate of this institute is to promote the use of plain language in government, business and the legal community in order to make the law, legal and commercial documents and legal information documents more understandable to the public they serve. A 14-member board of directors will oversee the institute. This board brings together people from business, our universities, community organizations, multicultural groups, government and the media. The board held its first meeting in April, and it will be undertaking the hiring of its staff soon.

Obviously there is more to accessing a justice system than just being able to read legal documents. The courts must also be more accessible to people. We have opened our courtrooms more fully, through a series of community-focused programs. First of all, when I took over this ministry and toured the province, it became very readily and obviously apparent to me even in 1988 that our courts were not physically accessible to all of our citizens. So we have undertaken a priority program of improving that physical access, providing money for our courts so that they become wheelchair-accessible throughout the province. They indeed have not been in all cases in the past.

We have also implemented a disclosure court program. We began that with a pilot project at 222 Main Street which started in November 1989. This program allows for more effective use of court time. It reduces costs to the system and to the people involved with the system; most importantly, it reduces the systemic inconvenience visited upon witnesses, including police officers. To date we have had a significant amount of success reported from that program by all of the means by which we have done our evaluation.

We have also begun a program in Surrey and Victoria of weekend and evening court sittings, so that we can determine whether or not there will be a demand for our courts to be available to citizens at those hours when they now are not. I must tell you that the preliminary information we have received from those pilot projects suggests that there hasn't been as big a demand for the service as some had thought there would be.

Mr. Chairman, we have introduced a system of municipal bylaw ticketing. That system reduces significantly the cost to our municipalities of being able to enforce their own laws. It was the case previously, because of the process through which bylaw enforce-

[ Page 9782 ]

ment tended to go, that enforcement was not given as high a priority as it deserved, and as a result many people came to the conclusion that municipal bylaws did not have to be obeyed as rigorously as others, because there was a likelihood they might not be enforced.

By undertaking the program that we have, in consultation with the municipalities, we have ensured for municipalities an opportunity to find a more effective way of enforcing their bylaws. I believe that as a result we have made certain that their laws are seen to be as important as they should be. We began that program through amendments to the Municipal Act and the Vancouver Charter which were proclaimed in November 1989. Kelowna and Prince George, Port McNeill, Terrace, Nanaimo and Saanich have so far taken advantage of these new provisions, which make it easier for municipalities to enforce their own bylaws. As well, Mr. Chairman, a justice of the peace sitting in Kelowna and Prince George will be hearing bylaw matters covered by this new ticketing system.

[10:15]

Further, Mr. Chairman, masters were appointed in seven communities in the province to specialize in chambers matters and to reduce the waiting-time for trials. They also travel the circuit from their primary location to other communities so the service may be provided more fully around the province.

On July 1, with the indulgence of the Parliament of Canada, we will be able to merge the Supreme and County Courts of our province. This change, I believe, will have a tremendously significant impact on access to the system for British Columbians, because what it will mean is that all matters that can be undertaken only in the Supreme Court of British Columbia will now be able to be heard in all regions of our province.

We have also moved to make available in more areas the service provided by our British Columbia Court of Appeal. A new registry office for that court opened in the city of Kamloops on April 1, and sittings will start there in September of this year. This is the first time in our province's modem history that the appeal court will have sat regularly outside the cities of Vancouver and Victoria.

I should advise the House as well that we are working with the member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan), who has pressed me for a similar justice system to be developed in Prince George to serve the northern part of British Columbia. In that regard he has been working with the city of Prince George, and upon determining the location for the court facility that we have said will be available, the service of a permanent Court of Appeal registry, with regular sittings in Prince George, will be provided.

Mr. Chairman, economical litigation as well is a matter which we have taken forward in our justice reforms. We expect that this fall we will have in place the system that is necessary so that the economical litigation program can proceed in our Supreme Court, that program being one in which matters subject to litigation up to $20,000 will have a quicker and lower-cost process through which they will be heard.

In terms of the small-claims division of the Provincial Court, we passed a new act in the spring of 1989, which I anticipate will be fully operational shortly, but in any event before the fall of this year. Extensive development of plain-language rules and public education materials for our small-claims court users is nearing completion. The testing of the process and the materials will begin very shortly.

I should advise the House as well that I am examining at the moment and discussing with members of the bar, the public and the bench the possibility of raising monetary limits in small claims to as much as $12,000. That move would certainly make available in an access way the services of the courts as a forum for the resolution of disputes in a greater number of locations throughout the province of British Columbia.

On the land titles side, we have introduced a series of documents into our system that we expect will make it much easier to use and much more accessible to citizens. Among those are the one-page mortgage documents which were introduced into the system earlier this year. I think everything within that document is in the plainest language possible. Certainly there is a lack of the usual legal jargon that previously went with those documents.

Other documents are being developed in the land titles system with a view to making our land titles offices into fully electronic registration centres over the next two to three years. By fully electronic registration centres, I mean "fully," including signature-ready registration centres using the electronic devices that are available to us now.

Mr. Chairman, we have also undertaken a series of changes in our Supreme Court rules, which we think will speed up the process of litigation. Rules and guidelines are being developed which are intended to speed the movement of cases through our superior courts.

As well, we are examining rules and changes which will provide for the hearing of maritime law matters which are now heard only in the Federal Court of Canada. In that regard we will exercise concurrent jurisdiction over these issues in conjunction with the federal court. And from my discussions with other Attorneys-General across the country, I have no doubt that this progressive step will be followed by several other Canadian provinces.

It is important to make sure that court rules, procedures and systems are not only there but also work well. We have therefore undertaken some prudent experimentation with many of these initiatives. Each and every one of them is subject to an evaluation process, and it will be changed as needed to meet the goals of making our justice system more accessible to all.

An accessible justice system must also reach out to the community and offer choices to those constituents who have traditionally had difficulty accessing our justice system. We have to lower barriers that the

[ Page 9783 ]

system may have created, and I am pleased to say that we are doing that in a number of carefully measured series of community-based and legal programs. One of these relates to troubled families, which have been given assistance through changes in the law and through the family maintenance programs.

I announced earlier the introduction of a wife assault coordination program. This program will allow the agencies involved in helping battered women to coordinate a more effective response to wife assault. I have received tremendous support in that regard from the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran), who has been very much involved with the project. We agree that women in these situations should be helped and not hindered by the multiple systems that assist battered women in this province. It is our responsibility to make sure that these women are offered the help they need, and that the gaps in the service delivery system are closed so that incidents are brought to a long-term resolution wherever possible.

In order to fill these gaps, resource people have been drawn from a number of ministries and agencies, including Crown counsel, municipal police forces and the RCMP, transition houses, family violence treatment groups for men who batter, diversion centres, victims' services and social workers. So far we have committed $150,000 to five centres to work in this area, including Nelson, Williams Lake, Dawson Creek, Vancouver and Courtenay.

My goal is to have every community benefit from this program once the coordinated program is established in a community, and to have it running smoothly and able to maintain itself so that the funding will then be able to be moved along to other areas to get them up and going. We want women in every part of this province to get the help that they need. I believe this program will also promote greater understanding of the needs of wife assault victims within the criminal justice and social service systems

In regard to family law, on November 1 we proclaimed the Justice Reform Statutes Amendment Act, which implemented important reforms in the family law area. These reforms provide greater financial protection to families who are most in need, through easier, more effective and less expensive procedures for enforcing legal obligations upon separation or divorce.

The Green Paper on court jurisdiction and procedures in family law entitled, "Better Access for All," which was released in November 1989, described problems faced by individuals who were seeking to resolve family disputes, and proposed a court model for family matters which would address those problems. Features of that suggested model include designating provincial court locations as Supreme Court registries for family matters, which of course will allow for much greater and more convenient access to the Supreme Court in a far larger number of localities in the province, particularly smaller communities. Secondly, for providing interim orders where litigants whose case is in the Supreme Court can obtain interim orders for maintenance and custody and access at those designated registries around the province through the Provincial Court. Thirdly, to develop a system of court intake officers, who will provide information on the court system, on mediation availability and on other services, as well as with assisting unrepresented persons with court forms and the general process about which they are about to be involved. Fourthly, to develop and provide duty counsel and to have them available at the court, to provide legal advice to family law litigants and to the court intake officers themselves.

Mr. Chairman, pilot projects will be set up in a number of different locations to test and evaluate those programs and to see where we can improve them before we provide them provincewide, and those projects will be getting going very shortly.

As well, Mr. Chairman, we now are one year into the program in this province for enforcement of family maintenance orders. I think, Mr. Chairman, it is fair to say that it has very much been a year of some significant accomplishments. The program began in September 1988, and it went provincewide in January 1989. There were and have been and will continue to be a number of challenges associated with starting up a program for which the need has been around since 1871. It is a new program to British Columbia. Its legislation was therefore not tested in this province, and it was a program to which literally thousands of people seeking assistance came in the very early days.

It is a program that will have to do the collection work for thousands of maintenance orders, particularly thousands of them that have had arrears outstanding for a large number of years.

[10:30]

It is a program that is continuing to develop, train and develop experience for its staff, for its job descriptions, for its training programs, for its policies and procedures, and for a computer system that is being developed and, indeed, is being copied now by other jurisdictions.

I think the program has met those significant challenges very well. We have in place an extensive network of retained lawyers who provide representation in any court in the province as of March 1990. We are currently collecting over $1 million per month on behalf of women and children in this province.

I want to say as well that it's fair and appropriate to note that most of that money being collected would not have been received by the families if it were not for this program. As of May 19, the program is monitoring and enforcing 9,871 maintenance orders.

The program has qualities which are unique in Canada as to the range of services it provides. One of them is that it obtains certified copies of court orders. It may seem insignificant to some, but it is very significant in order to be able to fulfil the mandate of the program, as well as the amount of time it takes, particularly where those orders have been around for a good long time and where there is difficulty in

[ Page 9784 ]

getting them out of the registry systems where they have been located.

The program, uniquely, completes affidavits of arrears. That does not happen anywhere else in the country. It encourages voluntary compliance.

The program defends applications to vary orders. That is unique to British Columbia, and is a very significant part of the program, and one from which I get a great number of letters expressing significant gratitude.

Because we are undertaking that part of the program, defending applications to vary, we are developing data which will be used and be available to the courts, to people seeking maintenance and to the bar so that we can establish some framework about the amount of maintenance appropriate in certain cases, and what the court should be looking to in terms of the relationship with other orders granted around the province.

Over the next year the maintenance enforcement program has further plans for the streamlining of enrolment procedures; the development of a one page application form that will be easier to use; programs and procedures for the better processing of payments themselves in terms of what is taken in and what is paid out; and faster responses to inquiries on the status of claims that will be introduced and are being introduced, based on the experience that has been developed over the last number of months.

Mr. Chairman, we have developed further services of legal aid for families. Last year we expanded the range of issues covered by legal aid to include virtually all family law matters. That, as you'll recall, was very much a priority and continues to be.

This year, funding increases broaden eligibility requirements so that financial considerations such as debts, assets and income are also considered when determining financial eligibility. Those more flexible guidelines allow the working poor much greater access to legal aid than previously was the case.

I want to say that since I took office in July 1988, we have been steadily increasing our funding for legal assistance and services throughout the province. Our 1991 budget, subject to the will of this House, will be $44.3 million, an increase of 51 percent since fiscal 1988-89. The legal aid portion of that funding has a 1990-91 budget of $32.1 million, which is an increase of 45.2 percent since 1988-89.

Legal assistance services that we provide include legal aid, public legal education and community programs such as victim assistance, family maintenance enforcement, Native Courtworker and Counselling Association services, and services that we provide and assist with through the Salvation Army court services — which services, I must say, are very good and serve a wonderfully useful purpose in this province.

As well, I can report that we have undertaken a number of initiatives this year in the area of native justice. Clearly, in order to better address our justice system and the barriers for native people in that system, there has to be, will be and is a much more coordinated effort being launched between the Ministries of Attorney-General, Solicitor-General and Native Affairs.

As a first step in that process directly, Crown counsel, probation staff and police....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. Your time has expired under standing orders.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, I am so enjoying the minister's comments, I wonder if you would allow him to continue.

HON. MR. SMITH: We were addressing the very important issue of native justice, and I was reporting to the House that there is underway a much more coordinated effort between the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and the Ministry of Native Affairs. As an initial step in that process, Crown counsel, members of the probation service, police and Provincial Court judges from a number of regions throughout the province met with native leaders and organizations in their areas.

The purpose of those meetings was to promote a better understanding between native communities and the justice system, to identify issues of local concern, and to implement local resolutions, local initiatives and local requests wherever possible. They were launched in Kamloops in November, at a meeting in which I had the privilege to be very much involved. Since November there have been 34 such meetings around the province. I can report to this House that on every occasion there has been a positive response from the results of those meetings.

As well, a number of senior-level interministerial committees were formed in the spring of 1989. They address a number of policy issues raised as a result of those local consultations.

The committee also has a $1.25 million annual allocation to fund projects and programs proposed by native communities around the province which are able to be put into place.

Representatives of native communities have expressed at those meetings a variety of concerns about their difficulties with the justice system, and we have listened to and heard them. The areas that are most commonly identified, where there is a need for solutions to native justice issues, include increasing the use of traditional conflict-resolution practices in our system and in native communities; developing a better understanding of native traditions and culture among justice personnel, while also increasing native people's understanding of the workings of the justice system itself; providing resources and support to native communities which are themselves taking responsibility for a number of justice-related programs; and seeking resolution of longstanding claims from native communities.

A report and action plan resulting from these native justice consultations are now being developed and will soon be provided. In the meantime, local changes which address some of those local concerns have been implemented. They include the native community in the Chilcotin area, the ministry, the

[ Page 9785 ]

judiciary and the police working together to establish and develop a local justice council as well as a local justice centre at Alexis Creek. In that centre at Alexis Creek we are establishing a local native law office, for which, I am pleased to report, a lawyer has been hired who not only is a member of the native community but was raised in that area and is very familiar with the issues. On Tuesday evening last, I attended a meeting at Riske Creek in the Toosey band hall, where we signed an agreement to begin funding that project, which will be an ongoing one.

As well, in that area we're developing sentencing alternatives and trying to make them available in some areas where programs have been established by native communities able to undertake them. For example, in Bella Coola and on the west coast of Vancouver Island we've had some alternative community resources made available which judges can now utilize, and non-residential youth programs are now available in the Williams Lake, Quesnel and Mount D’Arcy areas of the province.

In the last year, there have been two cases involving child sexual abuse which have been dealt with, recognizing the value of including members of the native communities with the courts and with the bench. At Nitinat Lake the judge heard directly from the victim and the mother during a court session that was held on the reserve.

The presence of the court on the reserve, and the opportunity for the family to speak to the court, allowed the individuals personally involved, as well as the entire community, to address the issues in a most direct and, we were told, purposeful manner. Community members felt that the court process and the sentencing was more relevant to the community as a whole, and they indicated that being a part of the process would allow for better resolution of the situation for the entire community over a longer period of time.

Last June, a priest who had been convicted of child sexual abuse in the Williams Lake area was required, as a term of his probation, to visit the Alkali Lake, Canim Lake and Williams Lake bands, where most of his victims live, "to hear members of the bands concerning matters relevant to his offences." That was part of the sentence. The meetings, I might say, will not take place unless the bands request them, but he must comply with those requests if they are made.

The Cariboo Tribal Council held a cross-cultural workshop for justice system personnel in the Williams Lake area recently. That workshop was designed to increase awareness of native traditions, values and culture, and it was held on the Alkali Lake and Canim Lake reserves. There are going to be many more of those cross-cultural workshops held around the province, because they are enormously valuable and instructive processes for all members of the justice system.

As well, we introduced an amendment last year to the Jury Act, expanding the geographical radius from which jurors could be called to duty. That change has resulted in a number of reserves being included in jury polls, when previously they had not. Of course, because they had not, it meant that systemically there was a real problem in terms of our courts and the sense of justice that they could provide.

[10:45]

There was a meeting held in Parksville last March which brought together seven Provincial Court judges and approximately 25 representatives of the native community. That — I think, historic — meeting allowed participants to exchange information and ideas on how justice cases involving natives can be more effectively handled by the courts, by judges themselves and by native support groups. The meeting laid the groundwork for a major presentation on cross-cultural education at the upcoming Western Judicial Education Conference workshop, which will be held in Lake Louise, and from which we hope to gain a valuable perspective and suggestions on where we'll be able to move next to improve the delivery of justice in this very important area.

We have also introduced ongoing meetings across Vancouver Island to establish local native justice committees to deal with diversion issues and with proposals for how we can more effectively use diversion, particularly in relation to the native community. In that regard, we are reviewing our prosecution procedures manual, and we will incorporate more attention to diversion in the improved system that I am having developed. In that regard, I invited Ron George, president of the United Native Nations, to assist us in that review, particularly as it relates to urban issues directly impacting on the native community, and especially impacting on the potential we have for utilization of the vehicle of diversion. I'm pleased to report that President George has accepted my invitation to be involved.

As well, movement is being made on a number of land-claim issues around the province. I should tell the House, by way of report, that we will continue to develop processes for more consultation, to solve problems — and they are not unitary; there are many diverse problems. Hopefully, with the reduction in those processes, and those methods of consultation and those systems for resolving disputes, we will continue to see a parallel reduction in the extent and the amount of litigation, which, I am pleased to report to this House, has been the case over the last year and a half. I'm of the view that upon completion of argument in the Delgam Uukw case — and I said this at the meeting I attended in the Musqueam longhouse with the chiefs from around the province — there will be provided thereby an opportunity to move forward on the many complicated issues that surround these claims.

In that regard, though, by way of information to the House, I would like to point out that several times in the last year politicians — and, indeed, opinion-writers — have stated that the province is spending $100 million per annum litigating native claims. Mr. Chairman, let this House know that that number is false, and anyone who continues to use that number will do so in the certain knowledge that they are consciously and deliberately spreading a state-

[ Page 9786 ]

ment that is false. Common sense alone would tell you that our total budget of $226 million would not have directed from it a full 44 percent to this one form of litigation.

In fact, last fiscal year — including the Gitksan, where we spent the majority, approximately $1.9 million of it — we spent slightly over $2 million on that form of litigation. In fact, last year, excluding Gitksan, we spent just over $250,000 on that form of litigation. The Gitksan case costs were $1.875 million, and the total cost for litigation in that area was $2.125 million, not $100 million, as has been stated by a number of newspapers over the....

MR. JONES: For what time-period?

HON. MR. SMITH: One year. It's not $100 million per year, as is stated frequently by politicians and opinion-writers. That statement is false, and it is not helpful for it to be continually repeated. To put that number in some perspective, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, if my memory serves me correctly, spends something in the order of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General's time is up again. I'm sorry.

MR. SERWA: I too am enjoying the Attorney-General's discourse here, and I would give my time to the Attorney-General and ask him to please continue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I would assure the opposition critic that he will be extended the same courtesy.

HON. MR. SMITH: I was trying to put that number in perspective, because it is so important in our system that when facts are bandied about rhetorically they be reasonably accurate.

To put the litigation amount in some perspective, I will refer to the Insurance Corporation, which would expend in defending actions something, I would expect, approaching $31 million or $32 million per annum. I would think it's certainly over 30; 1 think it's in that range. But I'll get the exact number just to make certain that the comparison can be properly made.

Also in the area of public legal education, we have undertaken a number of initiatives. British Columbia, in my view, is a leader in the field of public legal education, and has been for some time. Last year, government funding allowed the Law Courts Education Society to expand into the interior and open their offices, as well as developing a regional office and appointing a coordinator for the lower mainland region out of the Vancouver office. An office serving the northern region was opened in Prince George at the beginning of April. The Fraser Valley regional office will open in Surrey this coming September, and the Vancouver Island regional office is slated for opening in the spring of 1991.

The Law Courts Education Society provides education on the law courts to our schools, and to university students for that matter, as well as reaching out to a number of specific communities — the native communities, for instance, by working with band councils, and to new Canadians through a variety of multicultural materials that are developed as well as programs at the community level.

I have initiated many of these programs over and above the recommendations of the Justice Reform Committee, because every one of them has been directly influenced not only by our desire to improve access to justice but as a result of the extensive consultation that we have undertaken over the last year through the implementation process. These programs will directly or indirectly affect the lives of every resident in our province.

With regard to the Justice Reform Committee's report and the implementation that has come from it, I would like at this time, if I may, to take a few minutes to express my gratitude to my Deputy Attorney-General, Ted Hughes, who's here with me today, for his work on the committee. As the chairman, he guided the committee through a series of provincewide hearings into the justice system, its problems and strengths. The result of those hearings, as we in this House all know, was a report on accessing justice that is changing the justice system in this province. I might say that his professional leadership set the stage for the very timely implementation of those reforms which has taken place.

I also want to express my thanks to all those who assisted me last year in implementing the recommended reforms as well as the many major additional reforms that we have made. Judiciary, members of the bar, community leaders and interested citizens have all been listened to and have been heard through a very heavy schedule of consultation which I led during the last year of implementation.

I might say as well, Mr. Chairman, that I had the benefit on almost every Thursday evening, for four or five months, of a group of extremely dedicated people from the bench, from the bar, from the ministry and from the community at large, who sat and diligently went through proposals, policy initiatives and proposed legislative changes in order to assist me to make certain that the changes that were being made would be made in a way that would enhance the system rather than cause disruption to it.

I can tell you that others who have tried this process of reform have said to me that they were very mindful of what was done in that regard. As I was traveling last week in the Prairies with the Attorney-General of Ontario, who has been going through almost the same process, he said that the exercise of drawing those people together in that way, in his view, was doubtless one of the reasons why we have had the success we've had with implementation here in British Columbia. They have had the challenges that he is facing in the province of Ontario.

A few facts about the activities of the past year, if I may.

We judged some 72,000 trials, and that does not include the Supreme Court civil cases, because no records are available in order to tell you how many of

[ Page 9787 ]

those were in fact judged, although we know that fully 45,000 civil cases were filed.

We received and kept track of 280,000 court cases. We prosecuted 110,000 cases in the provincial criminal and youth courts. We registered 1,220,000 land transactions. We are now collecting over $1 million a month in family maintenance payments, and we expect this to continue. While we collected fully $7.9 million last year, we expect our collections this year will exceed $13 million for the women and children of the province who are accessing that service.

[11:00]

We helped 24,000 people manage their legal and financial affairs through the office of the public trustee of British Columbia. We represented the superintendent of child welfare in the courts over 3,000 times. We drafted 92 bills that were introduced in this Legislature. We assisted over 50,000 British Columbians through our legal aid program, and we are assisting 4,000 victims of crime each and every month.

We have also, over the past year, appointed special Crown counsel in every region of the province to prosecute offences under our environmental legislation. To date, 210 conservation officers in seven locations across the province have received special training in the gathering of evidence, the preparing of reports, and testifying in court about matters under environmental legislation. These enforcement officers meet regularly with environmental prosecutors in order to keep that knowledge and expertise current and available to assist us in successful prosecutions.

The executive Crown counsel for environmental prosecutions is the chair of the Ministry of Environment subcommittee that works in that area. This group is developing policies and protocols for dealing with the ever-changing nature by which our legal policies are being used to support our environmental enhancement initiatives.

A special prosecutors' committee meets regularly to compare case notes and to look at efficient and effective ways of prosecution. They review all major cases involving environmental law and develop improvements as they go along.

Last year, as you will recall, we increased the maximum fine under the Waste Management Act from $50,000 to $3 million. Of course, as one might expect, with that level of fine there is an increasing tendency to have more extensive defences of those being prosecuted. But I am pleased to say that we have successfully prosecuted all major cases that we have taken to court involving environmental law transgressions.

We have represented the people of the province through a number of issues with the federal government. We involved ourselves in the E&N Railway case. We are before the courts by way of a reference involving the Canada Assistance Plan limitations, which is a constitutional matter. I hope our position will enjoy support from all members of this House, because it is a very important issue, not only to this province but to all provinces, and that is why we have been joined by Alberta and Ontario, but more importantly by Manitoba, which is not directly impacted by the changes this year. As well, we have been joined in that regard by the United Native Nations, who see the same impact on their own relationships. It's a very important matter of principle and it is one that we think has to be resolved, not in a win-or-lose way but in a way that defines the limits of agreements that we enter into with Canada, so we know, when and if we enter into agreements in the future, what those limits are and therefore what steps we should take to protect the interests of the province.

We have also discussed with Canada proposals for merger of the Federal Court of Canada into our provincial superior courts, and I might say that those proposals will again be visited at the Attorneys' conference this June in Ontario.

We have supported the federal government in areas of mutual interest, such as the enhancement of our capacity to deal with the international aspects of crime. On January 24 of this year, the Canada-U.S. treaty on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters was ratified. This treaty will improve our ability to assist each other in criminal cases, including investigations, enforcement of fines, and forfeiture of the proceeds of crime.

Respecting the proceeds of crime, in January of 1989, Bill C-61, which is federal legislation, was amended to facilitate restraint, seizure and forfeiture of criminal proceeds and was proclaimed. This act also makes it an offence to launder the proceeds of crime. It gave the government new powers to seize and freeze property believed to be the proceeds of crime, pending the trial. These very extensive powers obviously have an impact on some of our fundamental notions of civil liberty, but are also a tool we must contemplate using simply because the questions of organized crime are increasing all the time in our society. This act gives the court power to confiscate the proceeds of crime after the accused has been found guilty or absconds or dies.

In July 1989 we created the forfeited crime proceeds fund. We can now receive the value of property forfeited in cases of enterprise crime for use in the administration of criminal justice and law enforcement in the province. The federal government receives the value of property, of course, that is forfeited in drug cases.

In keeping with opening the doors to justice provincially, federally and internationally, I would like to close with a few remarks about the upcoming western Attorneys-General conference which will be held on June 21, 22 and 23, where Attorneys-General from the western United States, Canada and the Territories will meet here to discuss issues involving matters of parental abduction of children, organized crime, native justice issues and the impact of the free trade agreement between Canada and the U.S. on our application of law.

By working together, we will be able to ensure that jurisdictional differences work for the lawmakers and not to the benefit of the lawbreakers. This

[ Page 9788 ]

conference will set the stage for developing strategies to combat crime on both sides of the border. This is the first time that Attorneys-Generals from the United States and Canada have met to work on common problems, but I don't think it's going to be the last time. I look forward to reporting to this House on the outcome of those meetings.

The policy of this government is to enhance trade and make this province competitive in international markets. We are also working to ensure that British Columbia is a jurisdiction with a legal system that is designed to support that system.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The time has expired.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, I am given to believe that the Attorney-General has many more interesting things to say, and I am looking forward to hearing them.

HON. MR. SMITH: With such sincerity.

To that end, of making our legal system supportive of provincial policy respecting our competitiveness in the international markets, we've expanded reciprocal enforcement of our civil law, and we're having preliminary talks now with other Commonwealth jurisdictions about a further continuation of that. We're also talking with other Commonwealth jurisdictions about furthering continuing legal education initiatives.

We're exploring proposals for the establishment of an institute dealing with reform to the criminal law here in British Columbia, and we're working to support B.C.'s hosting of the 1996 Commonwealth law conference which will be held in Canada. I might add that this conference attracts some 3, 000 delegates from around the world.

Next year we will continue the major initiatives that we have so diligently been implementing this past year and, indeed, since I took office in 1988.

As well, I want to say that 1990-91 will be the year for law reform in British Columbia. Over the last several years, our very capable Law Reform Commission has produced several important suggestions for legislative reform. I have instructed the ministry to examine the Law Reform Commission's reports in total, with a view to developing appropriate legislation where we deem the reports consistent with provincial policies.

In closing, I want to say that I have every confidence in the integrity, role, dignity and competence of my staff, who have recently suffered through some very unwarranted innuendoes in a proper, ever-difficult, but always dignified silence. I wish to thank my staff for their support. I wish to assure them and the public that I will continue to guard their independence from those who would abuse the process for any purpose, but most especially for partisan ends.

We have a good and strong justice system in British Columbia, which is indeed part of our liberty in this wonderful Canada that we all enjoy and serve. May our efforts here be only to build on and improve that very real strength. Thank you.

MR. SIHOTA: The Attorney-General, during the course of his comments — which we'll be dealing with, I guess, through the estimates — made reference to a number of dialogues that have been occurring with the federal government, including litigation on the E&N Railway and extending to matters relating to drugs.

I was interested in the Attorney-General's position on another matter, and I would like to ask him what representations he has made to the federal government with respect to the abortion legislation that is before the House of Commons.

HON. MR. SMITH: I will dig out Hansard for the member, because I think for some four or five hours last year the same question was asked. Rather than give four or five hours' worth of response this year, I'll simply dig out Hansard and present to him what was said then.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA: It would seem to me that the Attorney-General would have had a year to reflect on the comments he made last year. Given the importance of this matter, he should be able to tell us what position his government is taking with respect to that very controversial legislation.

HON. MR. SMITH: The most important duty of the Attorney-General is to make certain that at all times he is in a position to enforce the laws of our land, whatever they may be. That is my most important duty. When and if the Parliament of Canada, which has the responsibility for making changes in our criminal law.... I will do my duty. Beyond that, my views on the subject were canvassed at great length last year. If it assists the member, I'll simply put into the record what was in Hansard. But I do not have any intention of using four or five hours to do this year what was done by the opposition last year — I might add, without getting the headline they sought. And I suspect it will be same this year.

MS. MARZARI: The nature of the estimates is not headline-seeking. We sincerely and genuinely want information about the stand of this government on the abortion legislation now in the federal House, which is coming to third reading next week. It is important. Mr. Minister, in the last 20 minutes you have talked about three or four areas where we are in direct partnership — or in conflict — with the federal government, most notably around the CAP.

[11:15]

I think it is important, therefore, that you and your government make a statement about your stance on the abortion issue and the abortion bill presently before the federal House. It is not that you do not have a stand; it is that that stand has not been presented to this House. Our attempts to elicit that stand from you and your government have thus far not been successful. What we have tried to do with

[ Page 9789 ]

about seven hours of this House's time is to find out what your opinion is.

I will come at that in a number of ways. If you would like the question phrased in 15 ways, we will find 15 ways in which to phrase it. For example, do you believe that this recriminalization of abortion, now in the federal House, will preclude any actions by you at the provincial level to produce or develop legislation which will influence or affect access to abortion?

For example, does your government, as the government of Quebec did previous to the Chantal Daigle case, suggest that in fact abortions should be kept within the purview of provincial courts? In fact, in the Chantal Daigle case, had the provincial court been allowed to rule without going to the federal level, we would have seen a very unhappy situation where an irate, angry boyfriend, whose girlfriend had sought an abortion, would have won the day. Do you feel that the action by the federal government precludes action by you and the provincial government? Do you believe that this will influence access to abortion?

Under the federal legislation, it's an interesting twist: it will be the Attorneys-General of each province in this country that will be basically put on the line. You will be asked somewhere down the line, if this legislation goes through — and there's every evidence that it will.... You will be basically put in the position of making a choice as to whether or not you will prosecute. Charges will be brought by irate men, I would guess — boyfriends, perhaps, of women seeking abortions, who are exercising their right to choose. Charges will be brought by individuals against doctors, against women, that will be brought to your doorstep.

Do you have any thought at this point about what you will be doing with those charges and how you will be dealing with them? Have you thought it through? Have you thought through what the federal impact is going to be on the workload of our provincial courts? These are the very specific questions that I think should be asked now. When the legislation goes through, there will undoubtedly be, in British Columbia particularly, which always ends up being a lightning-rod for these kinds of cases, a waiting-list at the door to test the federal legislation out. It will be tested here in British Columbia on our turf.

So, Mr. Attorney-General, I think it's appropriate for you to begin to inform this House about what actions you have taken, what communications you've had and what your thoughts are on this issue that has to do with the right to choose of 52 percent of the population of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the Attorney-General, I would just like to read about what is proper or improper in Committee of Supply. It says very clearly in standing order 61 that only 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.

I would now like to recognize the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the member referred to conflict with the federal government. I'd like to point out to her that in the area of criminal law — and this is very important in our nation — the government of Canada passes laws constitutionally for the Criminal Code, and we have the constitutional responsibility for the administration of justice. So with great deference to your views, Madam Member, it's not a matter of conflict between governments,

You asked for my opinion on these things, hypothetically. I say to you very candidly that not just in this matter but in all matters it would be extraordinarily unwise for someone charged with the responsibility of enforcing the law to indulge in hypothetical speculation about matters which may or may not occur, based on a law which may or may not exist.

Your questions I will address, as I would and will and do each time I have before me a set of facts upon which I have to make a decision based on a known law.

MS. MARZARI: You were talking about the Canada Assistance Plan; that's what I was referring to when I was talking about conflict between governments. The Canada Assistance Plan has been terminated. Any expansion of the Canada Assistance Plan, which basically funds 50 percent of all the targeted programs towards poverty in our province and amounts to some millions of dollars.... This province, to its credit, has taken a move — which I heartily agree with and endorse and would have advocated myself had the Attorney-General not jumped into the breach and done it himself — which is directly in conflict with the federal government, by taking the federal government to court. I call that a conflict. I don't know. Is there a special legal term that we should adopt instead of "conflict," one that has nothing to do with conflict or the adversarial nature of our relationship on the Canada Assistance Plan with the federal government? Anyway, it's a moot point.

The other issue that the Attorney-General has raised is that we don't want to get involved with the debate or discussion on laws which may or may not be in existence, because it is not the purview of this provincial government to even begin to discuss the possible implications or consequences of something the federal government might do.

The GST comes to mind. In fact, this government was an exemplary, fine example of not planning or thinking ahead. So it may be true in the case of the GST that this government did not in fact take a planning stance or consequential stance or begin to think it through.

MRS. BOONE: Free trade.

[ Page 9790 ]

MS. MARZARI: Oh, thank you for mentioning free trade, member from Prince George. Free trade was another area — an agreement, mind you; perhaps not an act of government but a signed agreement — in which the government of this province did not think consequentially about the nature of an agreement which, depending on what happened, might or might not impinge on the activities, the economy and the strength and wealth of this province.

You're quite right, Mr. Attorney-General, we have the GST and free trade to suggest that we don't want to plan. We don't want to think about consequential possibilities. We don't want to think about what might happen. But then, you yourself have raised native land claims and our $2 million involvement in the courts just in the last year. You have raised the Canada Assistance Plan. You have shown that you are concerned, that you have put money in the budget and taken an action in the courts on the Canada Assistance Plan. You have suggested to me that in certain instances you do get involved with planning for what might be coming down from the federal level. My goodness, isn't that amazing!

Given that you do do some planning, that you do read the bills that come out of Ottawa and that you ostensibly have some staff who care about what the implications might be for our province, the question is: then where do you draw your line? Which bills do you pay attention to, and which agreements do you not pay attention to? I guess I'm asking you once again: are you willing to pay any attention to a bill which is soon to become an act, and which will directly impinge and have an effect on every woman in this province in terms of her ability to choose and to gain control over her reproductive life? Is the minister willing to draw the line at that point? Is the Attorney-General willing to draw the line to start thinking about the implications of a federal bill which will affect half our population?

AN HON. MEMBER: They're involved with Meech Lake too.

MS. MARZARI: That's right.

If the answer is yes, then I would like to know the minister's opinions of that, and what has been discussed with the federal government and within our government.

If the answer is no, then I think the minister should state categorically that the Attorney-General and the government of this province has nothing to do — and will have nothing to do — with the implications of the abortion bill until the lineup begins to form.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the Attorney-General, I wish to remind the member, who has referred again to legislation, that in Committee of Supply we're just not permitted to discuss the necessity of legislation or matters involving legislation.

MS. MARZARI: It's federal.

HON. MR. SMITH: There are a number of issues referred to in there. The member again — I will repeat for her — has invited me to comment about what might or might not happen in a specific hypothetical circumstance based on laws that do not yet exist. I would say to her, as I would to anyone on any law or any set of facts that might impinge upon our criminal justice system, that it would not be wise for any Attorney-General to begin some speculative journey about matters which maybe will come before criminal courts. I have taken that view on all issues that could or might come before criminal courts. You can disagree with me as to whether I should take that view, but I should tell you that that is the view I take.

Do you raise CAP, the GST, free trade, and so on? I'll touch on those in a minute, but I think it's important for you to understand that in the criminal field our courts must deal with facts in individual cases. My job in relationship to those courts and to the justice system is to be certain that we have in place a process that is fair to all and evenly applied; that we have in the system people who are honest, honourable and filled with integrity to make the judgment calls and decisions they must make; and that the system itself has its independence maintained and is protected from any external influences, particularly and especially political ones. That is the role of the Attorney-General in relationship to the prosecution of cases. So in terms of speculation about what I should, shouldn't, would or wouldn't do in some hypothetical case, I can just tell you that it's not on from this Attorney-General to go off onto a speculative journey as to what that may or may not be.

Regarding CAP and the dispute and conflict taking place between this province and Ontario, and indeed all of the provinces.... Although only three others joined us in this particular reference, if it should go beyond our Court of Appeal, I have been advised that most of the other provinces — if not all — will join us.

[11:30]

You're right, it is a very important matter. The conflict arises this way. The CAP program was established as a result of an agreement entered into by two distinct constitutional jurisdictions, each of which has full authority in its own sphere to enter into those agreements. It was entered into in 1967 by the governments of W.A.C. Bennett and Lester B. Pearson. The CAP program, in my view, has been one of the most successful mechanisms for providing social service support ever developed in our country. The conflict, dispute or head of the disagreement, if you like, is this: we believe that when governments enter into those kinds of agreements and they are operated over an extended period — particularly as they have in them a specific mechanism for review and for change — there is developed thereby what is called in constitutional terms a legitimate expectation of how it is going to operate and what will be undertaken when any changes are made. The Supreme Court ruled on that issue, I should tell you, on

[ Page 9791 ]

another matter in 1982 dealing with constitutional reform

So you are right. There is a conflict or dispute which flows out of a specific agreement signed by the government of this province and the government of Canada, which agreement was voluntarily entered into, which agreement flows from our constitutional authority and Canada's. As in any form of contract, often — or sometimes at least — there is conflict, and that conflict we are seeking to resolve, I think, in a most dispassionate way rather than going through a trial and waiting for damage to develop and trying it at the trial court.

We have referred the process of reference to the Court of Appeal to ask the question so that we will know what those limits are on Canada's ability to unilaterally make changes in an agreement where there are two levels of jurisdiction involved. I think that is a very important matter. It bears, as you mentioned, on the GST. As I have said publicly several times, I think it would be a very foolhardy minister of finance anywhere in Canada who would enter into an agreement to collect the GST for Mr. Wilson in the face of Mr. Wilson's unilateral decision to amend the CAP agreement, which has been in place for 23 years.

I think you're quite right. There is linkage there for those jurisdictions that are contemplating entering into some such agreement, and I might point out that British Columbia is not one of them. So there are times when disputes arise between our two governments and we seek to resolve them. As I say, the role of the Attorney-General is unique to our system and is one that I think we have to really understand clearly and guard jealously. If we don't, I think the injury to our liberty can be very serious.

MR. SIHOTA: The question really does relate to liberty and the liberty of women to make a decision on their own. It really isn't a matter of speculation but a matter of policy. I'm sure the Attorney-General understands that it really is a matter of policy. Let me just put it to him this way: as a matter of policy, does he think that the matter of abortion should be covered under the provisions of the Criminal Code?

HON. MR. SMITH: As I said last year, Mr. Chairman, the question of policy relating to the Criminal Code is a matter that is exclusively that of the government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada and is not a matter that impacts on this legislative chamber in terms of policy, because we have no jurisdiction over areas of criminal law.

MR. SIHOTA: The Attorney-General knows full well that the provincial government makes representations all the time with respect to policy at the federal level vis-i-vis the Criminal Code; that changes to the Criminal Code do not operate in a vacuum at the federal level with no input at the provincial level. That is why we have meetings of provincial Attorneys-General and the federal Minister of Justice on all sorts of issues — it could be drugs, the gun issue, which I know will be coming up later on and which you'll also touch on during estimates. But they'll be meeting on that.

The federal government listens to those who enforce the provisions of the Code as to what matters ought to be enumerated in the Code. Most recently we've had a discussion in this House about tree-spiking and the desirability or lack of it to have a specific provision in the Code that deals with tree spiking over and above the public mischief provisions.

These are matters that cut both ways. The province makes representations, and federal people make the determination at the end of the day. It is certainly within the purview of any province and certainly an obligation within the office of the Attorney-General to express an opinion as to whether a particular matter ought to be incorporated into the Criminal Code. That's a matter of policy, direction and input. The question to the Attorney-General is: what representations, if any, have you made to the federal level on the matter of the incorporation of abortion into the Criminal Code?

HON. MR. SMITH: As I said right at the outset, that issue was canvassed last year for four hours, and I'll dig up the responses. I'm just not prepared to waste four hours of the Legislature's time answering questions on an issue that was dealt with last year at great length and which involves the Parliament of Canada. If the members want to keep asking questions, that's quite fine by me, but I will provide them the response by way of the records of this House.

MR. SIHOTA: It's just a simple matter: the Attorney-General, as chief law enforcement officer of the province, expressing an opinion one way or another on a matter of importance to women and men in British Columbia. I don't know why he's shy or reluctant to profess an opinion. Is it because he doesn't want to offend the Premier? Is it because he thinks his opinion is counter to the mainstream of opinion in this province? If that's it, then say it, and we can move on. But you have an obligation to express an opinion.

You have often made comments about the desire of the province to enforce drug laws, to prosecute on drug matters, to ensure prosecution on gang matters, to ensure — as you said in your introductory comments — prosecution on environmental matters.

That raises the question: what policy directives to counsel is the ministry in the process of developing to guide them with respect to the proposed provisions of the Criminal Code?

HON. MR- SMITH: I guess that's where the member and I have the most profound of differences. I don't believe it is my role to indulge in gratuitous opinions, as much as that would doubtless get me all the headlines the member covets. It is my job to uphold the law and to develop policies and procedures that are based on law. That is what I will do.

MRS. BOONE: It's not a law.

[ Page 9792 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: You are quite correct, member for Prince George North: it is not a law yet. That's precisely the point.

MR. SIHOTA: The Attorney-General is correct: it is the province's responsibility constitutionally to uphold the law. There are some proposals to changes in the law.

A number of people, including myself.... I'm not afraid to say that I don't think the matter of abortion ought to be covered under the Criminal Code. That's my view. I don't know why the Attorney-General finds it so difficult to state an opinion. If he is going to be asked to uphold the law, then he has an opportunity and also an obligation to tell the federal government that in his view he would prefer that a particular matter not be incorporated in the Code, and he not be put in the position of having to uphold those provisions of the Criminal Code that may relate to abortion.

Let me ask him this then. He says he won't address head on the matter of representations that he has made. Has he been asked by the federal government to forward an opinion as to whether or not these matters ought to be incorporated into the provisions of the Criminal Code?

HON. MR. SMITH: Again, Mr. Chairman, the matter of representations was asked about for four to five hours last year in this chamber, and the answer was given. It's the same today as it was then.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't think the Attorney-General heard the question. The question, again, is: has he been asked by the federal government to provide an opinion as to what he thinks about the incorporation of this matter into the Criminal Code?

HON. MR. SMITH: The Attorney-General does not provide legal opinions to anyone other than the cabinet of British Columbia; that's part of the legislation under which we operate.

MR. SIHOTA: We'll come back to that in a minute. But he talks about legal opinions. The Attorney-General knows full well that section 32 of the Hospital Act allows the Minister of Health to control bylaws and rules of a hospital or society, so as to ensure — and I quote — that "the operation of a hospital...meets changing conditions and policies, and...provide for greater uniformity and efficiency in all matters concerning the administration and operation of hospitals."

Has the Attorney-General prepared a legal opinion for the assistance of the Minister of Health in this matter?

HON. MR. SMITH: I believe the answer to that would have to be no, although I will have to take a look and see what opinions have flowed over. It's unlikely that an opinion would be either sought or provided in advance of a law being in place.

MR. SIHOTA: That makes no sense whatsoever. Is the Attorney-General saying that the way his ministry functions is for them to wait for the federal government to proclaim laws and then develop a policy as to how they intend to deal with those laws? If that's the way the ministry works, it's astounding in terms of the lack of proper management and administration you would expect from a ministry. Obviously the ministry must be anticipating the changes at the federal level and, therefore, proceeding to develop a policy with respect to prosecutions in the area of abortion.

After all, if the law were to be proclaimed tomorrow, and at that moment a boyfriend were to walk up and make a complaint under the federal provisions, the province would find itself in a policy vacuum. Crown counsel would not have any direction in how to proceed with those matters. Of course, there would be a level of uncertainty, if not chaos. Therefore it's only prudent and, I'm sure, the practice of the ministry to develop a policy in anticipation of legislative changes. Is the Attorney-General confessing that his ministry is not even preparing a policy directive around the prosecution of these types of matters?

[11:45]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue, hon. member, the second member for Richmond asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOENEN: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome some very special visitors from Japan. We have 41 exchange students, along with their teachers and some of the people from London Junior Secondary School, the hosting school. Our community has a wonderful relationship with the city of Wakayama, Japan, and I would again like to ask the House to please make these visitors welcome.

HON. MR. SMITH: It's interesting to listen to the member on this issue, because there really is operating here a fundamental difference in values about how you manage a justice system.

The one I subscribe to, and the one that has been around for 200 or 300 years, accepts the notion that your liberty and your rules of procedure and your protections and your application of the law are very much bound up in known process.

The one I am listening to, and the one I've heard related in other issues over the last number of months, subscribes to the theory of ad hoc reaction to specific events. Indeed, the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) has just confirmed that the policy of the NDP is a matter of ad hoc reaction as a process for the application of the law.

[ Page 9793 ]

I am being asked, simply: what is the prosecution policy for the province of British Columbia? I can answer that question very simply, because it is well known, it is time-tested, it works, and it is even able to withstand the vicissitudes and the whims of those who might want to subvert it for partisan ends. It is a strong system. It is very simple. It is this: individual cases are brought by investigators before the Crown office, whatever it is, be it in environmental issues, be it in wildlife protection matters, motor vehicle issues, security matters or whatever is the investigative process.

Those information sheets are evaluated by Crown counsel either on staff or outside, and they determine whether or not they're going to ask a justice of the peace to issue process, based on the test they use of there being a substantial likelihood of conviction based on the facts before them, and whether or not such prosecution is in the public interest.

Unless they get an answer to question number one in the affirmative, they never ask question number two. That's the policy on prosecutions that the province of British Columbia has adopted and applied since the mid 1970s. There are other models in our country that have a situation where investigators themselves swear the information before a justice of the peace. That information, either sworn by the investigator or a private citizen, requires the justice of the peace to determine whether process should issue on the basis of whether there are reasonable and probable grounds that an offence may have been committed.

That is a vastly different test; it also is a much lower test, in terms of what is required. It means that the liberty of the citizen obviously is not as enhanced as it is in the test that is used and established by the Crown.

Mr. Chairman, that generally is the process — or policy, if you like — that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew asked me about in terms of the decision-making we use when initiating a process to bring a matter before the courts. I think it's important for me to say that that process is followed in all cases, be they matters that flow from the Criminal Code of Canada, the Waste Management Act, the Securities Act or the Wildlife Act — whatever. That is the process that is used, and it is rooted in that policy. If you want to know the policy that we have, use and continue to use, I can tell you that that's what it is.

So when the member says to me that if Canada changes its law in the area of the Criminal Code, for instance, which we have the responsibility to administer and in some instances enforce — or, for that matter, the Food and Drugs Act, which sometimes has an impact on the province — we wouldn't know what to do that day, and we wouldn't have any policy to be able to enforce Canada's laws, that's just consummate, fatuous nonsense. The policy used in British Columbia is singular for all prosecutions, whatever the source of the law from which that prosecution and the investigation leading up to the prosecution might flow.

It's important for us as members in this chamber to understand that, because in our legal system we do not, nor should we, indulge ourselves in ad hockery based upon our attitude towards a particular political philosophy, based upon our desire to in a partisan way go after and hound our political enemies outside of the chamber or the forum in which we have legitimate debate, or based upon some righteous notion about what we think we should or we should not have as a body of law. We cannot in the system designed for the administration of justice succumb to those pressures. We cannot indulge ourselves in the request that comes from the opposition in this House frequently that we have exceptions continually visiting themselves on the rule of law. That is not the rule of law. That is the ad hoc prosecution, or even persecution, of individual people by those who do not understand that the integrity of our liberty is bound up fundamentally in the processes that we choose to use.

Mr. Chairman, you need only look to what has been going on in eastern Europe to try to understand what that means. Where you have regimes, whatever their degree of socialism might well be, that subvert the rule of law and replace it with the cult of personality, the cult of persecuting and prosecuting individuals based upon expediency, partisanship and philosophical contingencies, then ultimately the system becomes perverse.

It is not overstated to point that out in this House. We have a system in our society that we have known for 200 to 300 years in which the rule of law has been the foundation-stone of our liberty. The processes that we have carefully designed and which it is the Attorney-General's responsibility to uphold and protect are the embodiment of that liberty.

We should not respond ever, nor will I, to the invitation of individuals in this House or anywhere else to systemically alter that process, that rule of law, for a system of ad hockery that would take us down the path that other regimes have gone.

All of them started from the purest of motives. All of them started from ideals that were easy to articulate, easy to understand, attractive to all kinds of citizens. All of them started from that premise. Every single one of them that denied the fundamental understanding that liberty and process are totally bound up together — every one of them failed. And in the course of their failure, Mr. Chairman, every single one of them visited upon citizens the most perverse debauchery in the name of the law that ever had been known to humankind.

It is never overstated to say that however little you are invited to exchange the rule of law for ad hockery, do not in this chamber ever accept the invitation. Never accept the invitation. No matter how well intended, no matter what the rightness of the philosophy from which it flows — or the wrongness — do not accept it. Remember that our liberty is bound up in the rule of law, and the expression of that rule of law is very much the process that we use. Let us not fiddle with the process by following the kind of ad hockery we are invited to follow from

[ Page 9794 ]

time to time in this House by various members opposite in a whole host of ways that they present to us — both inside this chamber and, might I say, outside.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise and report substantial progress.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.