[ Page 10691 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act (No – 1), 1990 (Bill PR402). Mr. Mowat

Introduction and first reading –– 10691

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act (No – 2), 1990 (Bill PR404). Mr. Mowat

Introduction and first reading –– 10691

An Economic Bill of Rights for Women (Bill M226). Ms. Marzari

Introduction and first reading –– 10691

An Act for Better Child Care (Bill M227). Ms. Marzari

Introduction and first reading –– 10692

Food Products Standards Act (Bill 57). Hon. Mr. Savage

Introduction and first reading –– 10692

British Columbia Wine Act (Bill 58). Hon. Mr. Savage

Introduction and first reading –– 10692

Tabling Documents –– 10693

Oral Questions

Air ambulance service. Mr. Gabelmann –– 10693

Naming of polluters. Mr. Cashore –– 10693

Transportation of oil. Mr. Long –– 10693

Earthquake-resistant schools. Ms. A. Hagen –– 10694

Apprenticeship training. Mr. Jones –– 10694

Securities Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 56). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 10695

Mr. Sihota –– 10696

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 10696

Statutes Repeal Act, 1990, (Bill 2). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Smith) –– 10696

Third reading

Foreign Money Claims Act (Bill 6). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Smith) –– 10697

Third reading

International Sale of Goods Act (Bill 7). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Smith) –– 10697

Third reading

Conflict of Laws Rules for Trusts Act (Bill 8). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Smith) –– 10697

Third reading

Offence Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 53). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Smith) –– 10697

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 12: minister's office –– 10697

Ms. Marzari

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Sihota

Ms. Edwards

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: July 4 is Independence Day in the United States. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome all our American friends and neighbours who may be in the gallery today. Independence has always been a hallmark of American society, as was most evident many years ago when they rebelled against an unjust tax imposed by a distant government. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, Boston is probably as far away from London, England, as Victoria is from Ottawa. Bostonians showed their displeasure with this unjust tax through the famous Boston Tea Party. In Victoria the tradition is somewhat different; we have our tea at the Empress. However, we too have a tax problem with a distant government — the unpopular goods and services tax — and maybe we too should have our tea party in the Inner Harbour.

In any event, I welcome all of our American visitors here today and those who are visiting our beautiful province. I wish them a happy Independence Day.

MR. SPEAKER: It's nice of the Premier to do that but I would ask the Premier and all other members to read Standing Orders where it deals with introductions. Today we have really stretched the bounds of credibility of introductions.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, to the many guests visiting our Legislature from the United States, I too would like to bring greetings and to wish them well in their day of independence. Just as a point of information, I'd like to say that we did have the equivalent of the Boston Tea Party in the Vancouver harbour. Brian Calder and a number of others have already had that party to deal with that distant tax, and I think that it should spread to the Victoria harbour and up to the Kelowna lake and throughout this province to get rid of the GST.

MR. SPEAKER: Members may be advocating something which will be environmentally unacceptable.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: In the gallery this afternoon I'd like the House to welcome my son Rob Reynolds and his friend Marc du Brule, who are over here on vacation.

MR. JONES: Visiting today is a young man from North Burnaby whom I'm proud to introduce to the Legislature. His name is Matt Csordas. Would members give Matt the usual warm, desk-thumping welcome accorded visitors.

MR. BLENCOE: In the House today are two constituents of mine, Ron Acton and his son Michael Acton. Will this House please make them very welcome.

MR. ROSE: For at least one person in the gallery, this is a very important day: her birthday. She's a former constituent of mine. I don't know how old she is, but I'm told that she's just about old enough to vote and go out with men. Her name is Justine Hunter, and she's a correspondent for the Vancouver Sun. Would you all wish her a happy birthday.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'd ask the House to make my spouse welcome. She's here not to clean my apartment, but to offer me policy and organizational advice. Mr. Speaker, she's in your gallery: Susan Zirnhelt.

Introduction of Bills

VANCOUVER CHARTER AMENDMENT ACT
(No. 1), 1990

Mr. Mowat presented a bill intituled Vancouver Charter Amendment Act (No. 1), 1990.

Bill PR402 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

VANCOUVER CHARTER AMENDMENT ACT
(No. 2), 1990

Mr. Mowat presented a bill intituled Vancouver Charter Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990.

Bill PR404 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

AN ECONOMIC BILL OF RIGHTS
FOR WOMEN

Ms. Marzari presented a bill intituled An Economic Bill of Rights for Women.

MS. MARZARI: This bill endorses the provision in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensuring equality for women, and expresses the belief that all British Columbians will benefit when both men and women have equal and fair access to security, opportunity and choice.

The bill establishes equality, freedom and opportunity for women as prime goals of public policy in British Columbia, and recognizes that the lack of economic independence continues to prevent women from attaining equal status. Women working fulltime, full-year, make only 60 percent of men's wages. Families headed by single mothers are five times more likely to be poor than two-parent families.

Bill M226 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.

[ Page 10692 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Could the Chair please have a copy of the bill?

MS. MARZARI: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Several members are standing wishing to introduce bills. I would just advise all members that the Chair recognizes members in the order in which the Chair is advised that bills are to be introduced, and therefore I will go through that procedure. The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

AN ACT FOR BETTER CHILD CARE

Ms. Marzari presented a bill intituled An Act For Better Child Care.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, this is a perennial bill. This is its second appearance before this House. It introduces a comprehensive, adequate, secure, safe, licensed childcare system and puts it firmly within public policy in British Columbia. This bill recognizes that many childcare spaces that now exist are unlicensed, but provides incentives for those people operating unlicensed centres to license their centres. This bill guarantees properly monitored, properly trained, properly open, and geographically accessible childcare throughout this province.

Bill M227 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.

FOOD PRODUCTS STANDARDS ACT

Hon. Mr. Savage presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Food Products Standards Act.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, this legislation will be used by the processing and manufacturing sectors of the food industry to assist with developing marketing strategies. When standards are adopted or established for a food product, content and quality information will be made available to consumers. Consumer awareness will be beneficial because of the information that is required by consumers; this will educate them to the quality of the products that are contained therein. By this bill, consumers may well become more loyal to the products meeting these standards.

Content and quality standards will be set by adopting standards of food quality or content for particular foods and classes of foods that are set by the Food and Drugs Act of Canada. The province will only establish standards when it is clear, after full consultation with the sector to which a standard applies, that such standards will benefit that sector.

The legislation will encourage the food-manufacturing and -processing industries to develop marketing strategies based on standards programs, and it will increase product quality information available to consumers through implementation of standards programs.

Bill 57 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.

[2:15]

BRITISH COLUMBIA WINE ACT

Hon. Mr. Savage presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Wine Act.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, this legislation will enable the B.C. wine industry to develop a place in the premium wine market and enhance its competitive position. It needs to develop a market in which it can compete without preference.

This bill creates a British Columbia Wine Institute which will represent the industry and have the power to set and enforce wine standards for wines made of 100 percent B.C. grapes and B.C. grape products. The institute will have the power to levy grapes and wine produced as well as to charge fees for testing and the use of a B.C. wine trademark. The institute will spend the funds raised on promotion, research and education on behalf of our B.C. wine industry. The institute will create enforceable standards, allow B.C. wines to be promoted as meeting those high-quality standards, and thus make it possible to charge the high prices needed to meet production costs.

The industry needs a way to create and enforce premium standards to gain access to the premium market. This legislation will be an important step in the creation of a competitive and internationally recognized B.C. premium wine industry.

Bill 58 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.

Hon. Mr. Davis tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for the 1988-89 fiscal year; the annual report of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1990; and the annual report of the British Columbia Utilities Commission for the calendar year 1989.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Transportation and Highways.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, it must be the weather. I note you're a wee bit testy today.

MR. SPEAKER: I would advise the member that you will really know when I am testy. Today I'm not testy; you're just trying me a bit. [Laughter.]

HON. MRS, JOHNSTON: Likewise. [Laughter.]

[ Page 10693 ]

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented the 1989-90 annual report of British Columbia Transit.

Oral Questions

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

MR. GABELMANN: Yesterday in question period the Minister of Health, in response to questions concerning the air ambulance, said: "I am not aware of hours being cut. Generally what happens is that the service is related to demand for that service." Later he said: "The question of aircraft utilization is based on patient needs, and that is the primary criterion for allocating aircraft." The Emergency Health Services Commission annual report says: "The government air services branch again reduced their committed service hours." I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he would confirm that the air ambulance service is governed by patient demand.

HON. J. JANSEN: The opposition members seem to have a jet-set mentality. I would like to indicate that it is not the airplane that determines the call; it is the call that determines the airplane. If the patient needs are distinct, are separate, related to an airplane type of supply.... I mentioned yesterday that there are a number of reasons why the utilization would differ. It relates to patient needs; it relates to geographic calls that are different from year to year.

Again I indicate that my primary concern is the patient. My concern is getting to the patient as quickly as possible and from different parts of the province, and my concern is to provide whatever aircraft is necessary for that patient.

MR. GABELMANN: In the past five years, calls on the service have increased by some 37 percent Airports in British Columbia are better now than they were five years ago, in terms of the ability of Cessnas to land. Yet the government air services diminished by some 34 percent. Can the minister explain why the demand has increased, the airports are better, yet the service has decreased?

HON. J. JANSEN: For one thing, Mr. Speaker, it's the number of aircraft that are different as well. But I don't understand what the member is talking about If we have a call from Castlegar and we have a private contractor in Castlegar providing service, why would we phone Victoria to deliver a jet to that patient when he's in trouble? Why are we talking about airplanes and runways? Why don't we talk about people for a change? I have indicated several times in the House that my mandate is to provide patient care as quickly as possible from whatever part of the province I need and with whatever type of aircraft I need.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Government Management Services. The government air fleet has six jets — five Cessnas and the Challenger. Last year these six jets each flew 264 hours, on average, for emergency health services. That's five hours a week each. Take the Challenger out of it, because it may not be so appropriate; that's six hours a week each for emergency health services. Would the minister still agree that the primary purpose of the government air fleet is emergency health services?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the priority of government air services is for ambulance use. If one or all of the airplanes are needed for ambulance purposes, that's what they're used for. That is the priority.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to ask the minister if she agrees that it is in the taxpayers' best interest to have six aircraft each operating five hours a week on behalf of the emergency health services in this province. Is that a good use of taxpayers' money in this province?

NAMING OF POLLUTERS

MR. CASHORE: I have a question to the Minister of Environment, Mr. Speaker. At the beginning of last week, the minister promised to release within a week the list of polluters that are not in compliance with their permits.

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, I want the minister to hear the question. This promise was first made 15 months ago by the minister's predecessor, and it was repeated in July of last year and in February, March and on April 23 of this year in this House. Has the minister finally decided to quit stalling and release that list today?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't have planted that question any better with one of my colleagues. I'm pleased to tell the whole House that I'll be releasing that information at 9 o'clock next Tuesday morning.

TRANSPORTATION OF OIL

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Environment. In view of the continuing danger of oil spills on the B.C. coast, will the minister commit himself to implementing the recommendations of the oil spill task force, including requiring doubled hulls for tankers and replacing tanker traffic with a pipeline where possible?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, that urgent question I would have expected from the opposition.

Nevertheless, I would advise the member that I have had an opportunity to review the interim report from the task force which was set up by the Premier of this province a number of months ago in his initiative with the Governor of Washington. I can tell him that we expect, when the final report is ready in

[ Page 10694 ]

September, that this government will support all the recommendations of that task force, especially the ones to do with the pipeline and with double-hulling and the other important issues that the task force has worked on so diligently.

On behalf of all members of this House, I'm sure, I would like to congratulate all the members of that task force from every state and the province of British Columbia for the good job that they're doing.

EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANT SCHOOLS

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Education agreed to support school districts that must make major changes in their schools in order to make these schools more earthquake-resistant. In light of the Vancouver School Board's recent report, has the minister decided to make additional funds available to the Vancouver School Board so that they can begin structurally upgrading the schools that need the additional change?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member asked me if I would review the situation, and I said yes, I would support boards in their efforts to deal with earthquake preparedness. We have already put quite a bit of funding towards improving schools. As a matter of fact, in the last couple of years about $151 million went towards fixing up schools — additions. In any case, where there is a major addition the school is always earthquake-proofed.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, the moneys that the minister is suggesting are allocated to schools are for regular maintenance and upgrading. We're talking about earthquake-resistance upgrading.

Given that a third of Vancouver schools now face the prospect of high risk of death to students, teachers and others who use those schools — in the event of a large earthquake — is the minister now prepared to commit additional funds to meet the needs of that school district to upgrade those schools? An amount of $200-400 million has been suggested specifically for this need and not for the regular capital costs of schools. Can the minister tell us how much money will be available specifically for this extraordinary need of Vancouver and other school districts?

[2:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I can't give an answer on the specific amount of money that will be available. Unlike the member in the opposition, I'm not clairvoyant.

We have put $500, 000 — 50 percent of the funding — for engineering studies to see what needs to be done in those places. Of course, we will proceed as expeditiously as possible, but not by earmarking a certain amount of money in advance before the engineering studies have determined the cost.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

MR. JONES: To the minister responsible for job training. Effective apprenticeship training requires a hands-on consultative process, whereas the Open Learning Institute is geared to providing effective but modular distance learning. Can the minister explain his decision to transfer apprenticeship field operations staff from his ministry to the Open Learning Agency?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As the member should be aware, this move is part of a major review of apprenticeship training. The purpose of the review is to determine the best structure for providing job training, apprenticeship and vocational rehabilitation services in the 1990s. The work force across Canada and in British Columbia is facing new challenges emerging from international competitiveness...

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I was ready for this question.

MR. LOVICK: That's clairvoyance.

MR. STRACHAN: That's clairvoyance, yes.

... application of technology in the workplace and changing patterns of work. We need to be in the right position to increase our efforts in the community to ensure that our workforce is able to respond to these challenges.

We have strong partnerships in the community now, and we want to build on them. One of the major partnerships we have in this province — and one of the best instruments we have for providing distance education — is the Open Learning authority, Mr. Speaker.

We see this agency as probably the best instrument that we can provide for this distance education. They have an extremely good reputation. They have been very, very effective. They are currently the second largest training educational institution in the province. At 22,000 students, they are second only to the University of British Columbia. I have every faith that the Open Learning Agency will provide a superb service and meet the needs of our province in terms of apprenticeship and job training.

I have more, if the member has a supplementary.

MR. JONES: You bet I have — a supplementary to the same minister.

Why is this minister wasting taxpayers' dollars on a Price Waterhouse review when in fact — according to the Open Learning Agency staff — they can expect as many as 60 FTEs being transferred in? Why is he wasting taxpayers' dollars on this review when the decision has already been made?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll read the rest of the answer now.

[ Page 10695 ]

I don't consider a review of the apprenticeship system wasting taxpayers' money. It's really easy for the buttoned-down mind in Burnaby to believe that the centre of the universe is at SFU. But there's more to the province than the lower mainland. There's a huge apprenticeship system out there that does need review, that must be looked at.

We are giving it our best resources and we are determining in our own fashion the best way of delivering the service. It's very, very important to us. This is not the nineteenth century anymore, my friend; this is the twentieth, soon to be the twenty-first century. We must have the best resources available to us. We must do the best review we can. It's a very, very important facet of training for the twenty-first century, and our government is looking forward to providing it in the best possible fashion.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 56.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This bill represents another major step in the program to update and modernize B.C.'s financial and corporate regulatory legislation. In the past three years this government has led the country in developing and implementing innovative legislation designed to strengthen the legal and regulatory infrastructure of the province's financial marketplace.

We have made major amendments to the Securities Act, giving British Columbia the most advanced securities legislation in Canada. We have overhauled the legislation governing insurance companies, trust companies and credit unions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps those members who wish to leave or to have private conversations would do it elsewhere. We'll let the minister continue with second reading.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The regulation of all financial institutions will now be consolidated under the new Financial Institutions Act when it comes into force this summer. We have brought in new legislation to facilitate the establishment of international financial businesses and captive insurance companies, making Vancouver more competitive as an international financial centre. And we have brought in a new Personal Property Security Act to give B.C. a comprehensive and effective framework for the registration of interests in personal property. That legislation will come into force in the fall.

There is more to come, beginning with the bill we are now considering. The primary purpose of this bill is to modernize the legislation governing trading in exchange contracts. Exchange contracts are complex financial instruments that provide a mechanism for the transfer of market risk. Typically they are used by persons wishing to limit their exposure to market price fluctuations, called hedgers, and persons willing to assume risk in exchange for an expected return, called speculators.

Exchange contracts are generally of two types: futures and options. In order to qualify as an exchange contract, an instrument must be traded on an exchange on standardized terms and must be guaranteed by a clearing agency.

Trading in exchange contracts has been growing rapidly on a worldwide basis over the past decade. This growth reflects the increasing sophistication of investment and risk management strategies and the search by investors for new investment alternatives, particularly following the equity market crash of October '87.

The Vancouver Stock Exchange currently trades two types of exchange contracts. Equity options backed by a clearing organization called Trans Canada Options are traded on the VSE as part of a cooperative arrangement with the Toronto Stock Exchange and the Montreal exchange. Options on precious metals backed by the International Options Clearing Corp. are traded on the VSE under an arrangement with the Montreal, Amsterdam and Sydney exchanges. In the future it may be possible for the VSE to diversify into other types of exchange contracts, particularly related to commodities produced in British Columbia.

To ensure that international investors will have confidence in the VSE as an exchange-contract market, it is important that B.C. have effective legislation for the regulation of trading and exchange contracts. In addition, there are a number of dealers in the province that provide their clients access to the trading of exchange contracts on the major world exchanges in Chicago, New York, London and other centres; effective regulation is needed to ensure that clients of those dealers receive appropriate protection.

Regulation of exchange contracts is currently provided for under the Commodity Contract Act, which was originally passed in 1978. Because of the deficiencies in this legislation, it was not brought into force until 1985, after some significant amendments were made. Despite those amendments, however, the Commodity Contract Act is not adequate to deal with the exchange-contract industry as it currently operates and is organized. In particular, the registration requirements are outmoded; in light of the changes in the structure of the industry, the financial reporting and filing requirements for registrants are inadequate and difficult to monitor; and the enforcement powers are limited in comparison with those in the Securities Act.

The effect of this bill is to repeal the Commodity Contract Act and incorporate provisions for the regulation of exchange contracts in the Securities Act. In developing this legislation, we began on the assumption that we would continue to regulate exchange contracts under separate legislation, because that is the practice in other jurisdictions. However, because of the similarities in regulatory structures for securities and exchange-contract dealers and advisers, it

[ Page 10696 ]

became apparent that a new act to replace the Commodity Contract Act would contain a great duplication of what is now in the Securities Act. We also observed that as new financial instruments have been developed in the United States, considerable controversy has arisen as to whether they should be regulated under the securities legislation or the commodity contract legislation. In light of these facts, we concluded that the simplest and most efficient way of updating the legislation governing exchange contracts is to combine it with the Securities Act. This bill will give British Columbia the most advanced legislation in Canada for both securities and exchange contracts.

In addition to the exchange-contract-related amendments, Bill 56 contains a number of minor amendments to the Securities Act and a consequential amendment to the Personal Property Security Act. The latter amendment will facilitate the operation of the book-based system for the holding of securities by ensuring that securities held through a clearing agency can be pledged as collateral. I propose to leave discussion of these items to debate in committee.

I move second reading of Bill 56.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have taken the view for some time now that Vancouver has the ability to become the best venture capital stock exchange in the world in all areas, including the area of commodity trading. There's no doubt in my mind that the provisions with respect to commodity matters ought to be incorporated as a whole into the provisions of the Securities Act, as opposed to being left distinct, as they were previously under the Commodity Contract Act. I have no problem with that whatsoever, and I think that the steps taken by the minister in that regard are prudent.

I'm no longer the critic for securities, so it has been some time since I've looked carefully at commodity matters. Our critic is not here today. I understand the minister has made a commitment to deal with this legislation in principle during third reading if necessary, and we appreciate that offer from the minister. At that point I am sure we will be making further comments.

There are a number of other housekeeping changes to the Securities Act that I think are welcome. The minister knows full well that we have had exchanges in this House with respect to securities matters and differences of opinion as to how well security matters in British Columbia are being regulated. There have been some rather heated exchanges with respect to the inadequacies of regulation monitoring, compliance and enforcement in the securities area.

Be that as it may, I think we're all interested in making sure of — and seeing the need for — appropriate legislative provisions to regulate the market so as to prevent some of the abuses that have occurred in the past and also to make sure that the legislation reflects contemporary trading practices. What is being proposed here tries to do at least the latter. With that in mind, I have no difficulty with that intent of the legislation.

Because of the rather lengthy debates we've had on securities matters over the past three and a half years — almost four now that we've been members of the Legislature — I welcome the fact that the government is prepared to bring forward some amendments to address some of the issues we've raised and some of the issues we haven't raised that I think still need attending to. Again, I see some of that occurring in this bill.

There is a recognition that both sides of the House wish the stock exchange to become the best that we can possibly make it to attract investment from throughout the world, because that augurs well for enterprise in B.C.

Having said that and knowing that the minister has agreed that we may comment on it further when our critic is here, I'll conclude my comments at this point and leave it up to our critic to embellish further on the legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to the standing orders, the House is advised that the Minister of Finance closes debate.

[2:45]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I note the comments of the member opposite and will look forward to further discussion during committee stage. I just want to make the point that while the member commented that there had been heated exchanges in the House about "inadequacies" in the regulatory system, I want to add the word "historical" — historical inadequacies. In that respect I think we may not have too much disagreement.

I think it's less than accurate to describe the current regime as being inadequate. Indeed, they are perceived across the country as being the best, the most sophisticated and the most capable of all the regulators active in Canada with the responsibility to manage the securities industry. So I am proud to be the agency through which they report to the House.

We will have further discussion during committee stage. Therefore I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 56, Securities Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. SMITH: I call committee on Bill 2, Mr. Speaker.

STATUTES REPEAL ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 2; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[ Page 10697 ]

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 2, Statutes Repeal Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. SIHOTA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, maybe you didn't hear me, but I did not agree to leave with respect to....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. member, leave is not required to bring a bill forward for third reading.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 6.

FOREIGN MONEY CLAIMS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 6; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report Bill 6 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 6, Foreign Money Claims Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 7.

INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 7; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report Bill 7 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 7, International Sale of Goods Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 8.

CONFLICT OF LAWS RULES
FOR TRUSTS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 8; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 8, Conflict of Laws Rules for Trusts Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. SMITH: I call committee on Bill 53.

OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 53; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 53, Offence Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

[ Page 10698 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

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

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Chairman, one of the recurring themes that I've raised in a number of estimates throughout this session has been that of child abuse and violence against children and women. What I've tried to do is, as each ministry has come forward to have its budget investigated, ask questions of the ministers about what and how they are plugged into active coordination of programs and services and budgets related to child abuse.

In my approach to the Attorney-General, I must say that his ministry is probably one of the most important in terms of providing guidance, leadership and assistance to ensure that in the connections that bring justice to a child or woman who has been sexually abused or assaulted, his ministry is the one which ties the courts and the judicial system into the process.

One of the things I've discovered in the last few months is that although each individual ministry has great words to say and a lot of rhetoric about how we want to fight child abuse and sexual assault, in fact, a number of isolated programs have been developed, but in reality those programs are not coordinated. They do not perform in any systematic, cohesive way of approaching the problem. In other words, a child or woman approaches the system, having been assaulted or having remembered that, they were offended at some time in their lives, and finds a series of piecemeal programs and services which may or may not exist in their communities and which very often prevent them from having access to the full course of justice. We find that while, there may be a sympathetic teacher at a school ready to hear a disclosure, there's no appropriate access to the courts; or we may find that there's no appropriate treatment or follow-up after the fact for the mother or the child. We may find that there's only three months of treatment paid for under workers' compensation, when in fact there might need to be two or three years of assistance offered. 

My questions to the Attorney-General, as they have been directed to other ministers, have to do with one database. We can't develop a cohesive integrated program until every ministry knows what they're dealing with. So my first questions to the Attorney-General have to do with building a database and whether we actually know what we've got: what we have in terms of charges pressed against offenders, or child abusers; whether we know right now if that information is available; whether cases have been properly concluded; whether we know how many cases there are in which the offender has been prosecuted and is serving time or doing other community service, and what the nature of that service or time looks like — in other words, whether the punishment fits the crime.

[3:00]

I would be interested in asking the Attorney-General now whether he has a database which would help us to develop a comprehensive program and which would plug his ministry into Health, Social Services and Housing and the women's programs ministry — if it's capable of contributing anything to this debate. So I would ask the Attorney-General: how many charges have been pressed in the last year? How many sexual offenders have had cases concluded in the courts? How many children have been brought before the courts to be heard? What kinds of sentences have been brought down on offenders who are found guilty?

HON. MR. SMITH: The member raises some extremely important, timely and good questions on this whole issue. As I said yesterday and have said previously, one of the things that occurred to me when I began implementing the reforms that have been implemented throughout the entire justice system in the last year was the extent to which there wasn't good, solid data relative to most aspects of the system that could be utilized in some really meaningful way to assist in policy development. As a consequence of that, I was of the view that far too much of what we did relied on anecdotal information and statistical references which may very well have been inappropriately unrelated.

One of the important initiatives we have undertaken through that process is to develop systems for evaluation of all matters pertaining to this ministry. This includes matters related to the topic that the member is referring to: the very serious issues of child abuse and sexual abuse, which may not involve children.

To that end, we have done a number of things that the member might be interested in through the office of information technology, a coordinating body which in part involves us, but more significantly involves the Ministry of Government Management Services. The deputies from a host of industries have developed and are developing programs to pull together the appropriate data from each organization, exactly as the member suggests. I know that that is an important step forward and a major improvement over the way information has been handled in the past.

Specific to our own industry, we have a number of matters in which we have made changes. First of all — and, I think, significantly — I instructed that prosecutions of spousal assault be treated, and be seen to be treated, no differently than assault by a stranger. There certainly was the perception — I'm not going to suggest that the perception was correct, although I have my own views on that — that indeed it was treated differently. I am of the view that spousal assault is just as serious a matter as any other assault and that, insofar as the criminal justice system is concerned, it should be treated thus. I announced that change last year, and it is now part and parcel of the system.

Inside the Crown counsel office we now have prosecutors who specialize in dealing with child

[ Page 10699 ]

abuse matters, and we are adding more to that team as time goes along. They are recognized by the courts, and by the agencies that children may have to deal with, for their expertise. They take special courses in psychology and the like, dealing with matters that would pertain to child abuse cases.

We have also developed and are developing victims' programs, working with victims of child and sexual abuse. To some lesser extent, we have developed and are developing programs that deal with the offender who, I think it's important to recognize, must be dealt with as well. That offender typically will be on the street after the sentence is served and, equally typically, has to have some resources available to try to alter the behaviour patterns which sometimes lead to the offences.

In terms of the specific questions you asked about the number of information’s sworn or cases initiated, I can't provide you with that information. I could, however, get the number of cases that have been prosecuted.

Of course, we now have a comprehensive sentencing database in British Columbia from which we can and do get sentencing data. That assists not only the Crown but the bench in the training that they have undertaken and are undertaking with respect to these matters — as all other matters. Of course, we have available the number of cases that have been dealt with by the victim assistance program.

I would like to say, parenthetically, that sentencing is one of the areas to which I intend to give some priority in the next months, in terms of working with all who are involved to try to develop some common thrusts in terms of examining appropriate sentences and alternative means of dealing with people who are going to be sentenced.

If I sound hesitant about that, it is simply because sentencing — as I'm sure the member is aware — is the purview of the bench, of the judiciary. I can offer a view, but the long story made short is that sentences are determined by judges based on the facts before them. It is a matter that they and we are alert to.

We're trying to develop ways that we can perhaps put the considerable resources that are in the system now to work in a way that will not only protect the public interest and the public's concern for safety, but also do a better job of assisting and rehabilitating the offender.

MR. CHAIRMAN: just before we proceed, the Minister of Native Affairs seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It's a rare pleasure for me to have an opportunity to welcome guests in the House, and an even rarer opportunity to introduce friends and relatives. Joining us today in the west gallery are my sister Lorna Billings, her husband Lloyd and their son Logan, who's certainly one of my very favourite nephews. Would the House please give them a very warm welcome.

MS. MARZARI: The situation is an urgent one. It's one which has come to our attention in the media more and more in the last few years. Specifically, since I have been researching, I cannot open the newspaper on any given day without seeing print jumping off the page about another case of child abuse, another case of assault or another case where victims are being created in our society — a society which should be doing everything it can not to create victims, and which certainly can afford not to create them. So it's urgent.

The Attorney-General has suggested a database might be on its way, but it is not here yet. You have a couple of tools there that you can work on and work with, but basically you don't have that stuff before you.

Until you can label it, measure it and name it, the problem cannot be defined. That is my chief frustration as I stand in this House. We know that there is a problem, but we have not defined it or looked at its magnitude. Because we haven't looked at its magnitude, we are developing small, piecemeal programs to deal with what we think may be a small problem, and we aren't connecting those programs and realizing that what we have in terms of abuse of women and children is mainstream activity going on in our community. It's an awful thought, and until we measure it, label it and define it, we don't have a case to talk about developing mainstream programs to deal with it.

Some of the things that have come across to me, Mr. Attorney-General, have been that the police are overloaded and that what is required is close integration with the school systems so that those systems which do introduce child sexual education and streetwising.... Very often these programs — one called the CARE program — are introduced in June of each year. Therefore, because they remember that they have been abused or they feel brave enough to say that they are being abused, children disclose in June of each year. The police are not able to handle the amount of complaints and disclosures that come at one time of the year. Then when the police are finished with the case or are ready to proceed, the courts cannot take the overload.

Very often the courts find that they're dealing with a child who has been interrogated too often, and there is a problem with something that they call contaminated information." In other words, the child has been questioned so often that the child's memory has become contaminated — if you can imagine the use of the word, but that's the word that's used — so that the evidence is not admissible in court.

Another problem has been discussed, in fact, by some of the very staff that you've talked about. Prosecutor Wendy Harvey, a very competent individual, has talked about the necessity to create a child sensitive, child-friendly courtroom. I would ask you how you are proceeding along those lines. It seems to

[ Page 10700 ]

me that if there was a study to be commissioned , it's that very study: what you can do now, tomorrow, in the next few weeks, to ensure that you set the tone. You obviously can't set the sentence or tell the judge what to do, but there is a tone that you can set by making the courtroom friendlier, by advising judges on what might be available to them, and by providing the training to the judges so that they are sensitive to a child's testimony. We've all suffered through the adverse comments made around Judge van der Hoop — I think that was his name — on the three-year-old last year.

[3:15]

So you can set a tone, Mr. Attorney-General. You can deal with the backlog. You can even off, perhaps, the rate at which cases appear before the court. You can make the courtroom friendlier. You can perhaps make the business of prosecution and of bringing a case to the court an easier one. These are things that you are capable of doing. Perhaps by commissioning a report on each of these stages in the process, you can integrate them and find yourself with a comprehensive program rather than with a loose-leaf group of individual small steps. You can actually perhaps pull together something a little more comprehensive than you've done thus far.

One of the other comments that has been raised is about the Statute of Limitations. Are you prepared to introduce legislation which would in fact make it possible for a child to disclose? I believe that the Statute of Limitations is now two years between the time a child has been offended or abused and the time when that child must report. Is the Attorney-General prepared to make the necessary changes to increase the amount of time that a child has?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'll just deal with the last issue first. I'm unaware of a Statute of Limitations in criminal matters at all. Indeed, we prosecute.... Oh, goodness me, I'm familiar with a case earlier on that was prosecuted involving an alleged sexual abuse in the late 1950s; that case was prosecuted about six months ago and a conviction entered and a sentence rendered. So I'm not quite sure what the member is referring to with a Statute of Limitations on criminal matters, but maybe it was something else she was referring to.

I think we have a somewhat more comprehensive view of the issues than the member is aware of. I agree with her that it isn't a matter of ad hockery, of one program versus another, or something. There's a whole range of issues that have to be dealt with right across the gamut of social policy considerations.

One such program is dealing with the sexual abuse committee that is chaired, or at least coordinated, by the Ministry of Health and to whose budget we contribute. It involves as well the Ministry of Social Services and us, and it deals with the very issue that the member was referring to — young witnesses who are overwhelmed by the process of testimony.

We are in fact examining the issue of a child friendly courtroom. As you know, we are taking steps to get rid of the Yale Street court facility and are consolidating the family court and small claims divisions at Robson Square. At this location we're providing child care services with a framework in which there will be better coordination between the Supreme Court and the Provincial Court in terms of jurisdictional issues. This is a very comprehensive program. One of the things that we are looking at is the configuration of courtrooms with the user clearly in mind.

The other matter that the member referred to is the amount of time it takes for trials to come to the courtroom. Again, we are dealing with that on a comprehensive basis to the extent that we can. I must tell you that one of the very important factors in that whole equation in our system is the role of defence counsel. They have the right and the ability to use — and indeed do use — the system, as is their duty, to the best advantage of their client. Sometimes that may mean awaiting trial time to provide an opportunity for their client. So it's not, by any stretch of the imagination, entirely a matter that can be dealt with from the prosecution side.

Having said that, we have moved, through our reform process, to a disclosure court system at 222 Main, which has been extremely successful. This disclosure court system has reduced the amount of witness time required by police and by others. It narrows issues down, and it focuses on the issues that are truly in dispute. It's been an extremely successful program and will be expanded when the evaluation of it is completed. It is not yet a year old,

I have just come back from a conference of Attorneys-General in Peterborough, where, interestingly enough, it turned out that the turnaround time of criminal matters in British Columbia is one of the best in Canada. I know the people in Ontario were quite amazed at how quickly our trials come to court and are dealt with. That isn't to say there isn't room always to improve.

In terms of training the judiciary in these issues, I think it's important to note that the judiciary don't advertise what they're doing and hold press conferences. That puts them at a considerable disadvantage when they're criticized and attacked, as they are from time to time. The judiciary are undertaking a whole range of training issues dealing with exactly the matters that you'll be talking about. I'm talking now particularly about the Provincial Court matters relating to sentencing disparity, sentencing of aboriginal people, sexual assault sentencing, the role that gender bias plays in the court and in the system generally and issues relating to victims.

As well, they have undertaken a number of cross-cultural workshops, which were sponsored by the Western judicial Education Conference, a group that we contribute to handsomely, both in terms of money and personnel, involving judges from all across western Canada. That cross-cultural workshop has involved not only people from the judiciary but also people involved in the judicial system.

While I don't pretend that we cannot always improve, because I am the first one to admit always

[ Page 10701 ]

that we can, I think it must be said that there is indeed a comprehensive program ongoing, dealing with the issues you raise, that involves cross-ministry coordination, changes to policy relative to prosecution, education for people in the judiciary and for those who deal with the courts, reform of the rules of court, changes to the physical makeup of the court and advances in resources and in availability in terms of sentencing and victims programs.

That involves, as well, an ongoing development of a comprehensive data system so that we can make sound choices on policy issues as we move into dealing with this issue which has been around us since time immemorial. In fact, it hasn't been dealt with publicly until recently for a whole range of very complex societal reasons. Thankfully it is now being dealt with in the open, and resources are being committed to deal with the worst aspects of the problem, which in my view — and in that of others — is the fact that, statistically, those who are offended tend themselves to become offenders. If you think that through with any degree of seriousness and understanding, you are going to have an exponential rate of growth. I think that is the most significant and important issue we can and must focus on.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to take a few minutes during the estimates of the Attorney-General to discuss an issue of significance in my riding. I'd like to begin my comments by picking up on some of the remarks the Attorney-General made yesterday as we resumed debate on his estimates. He was specifically commenting on the work of legal services in the province and on the initiatives his ministry has taken in that regard.

One of the paralegal organizations that comes under that broader service is Westminster Community Legal Services in New Westminster, an organization that provides very important and extensive service. I mention it at the start of my remarks simply to note that one of the reasons that organization is able to provide such good service is its location in the city of New Westminster, where people not only from my city but from surrounding suburban regions have ready access to it. Indeed, one of the characteristics of New Westminster as a county seat and as a judicial, administrative and financial centre over the many years of its history has been its strategic location.

At present the city is very much concerned about the land title office in New Westminster. I have had opportunities to discuss this issue both with the Attorney-General and with members of his staff. The Attorney-General has announced that there are going to be some changes in the land title districts of the province, brought about in considerable measure by changes in the Robson Square Media Centre and the expansion of the courts there. The Vancouver land title office is going to have to move because of the expansion of court services in Vancouver, and the Attorney-General has indicated that it is his intention that the Vancouver land title office will be amalgamated with the New Westminster office,

The amalgamation has been received with some concern. I don't think there's universal support for that amalgamation in my community, but there is an acceptance that, since that decision has been made and the Attorney-General has indicated his intention to go ahead with it, we will proceed from that knowledge and from that policy decision.

The issue of concern in the riding, then, is where the amalgamated office will be located. I just want to spend a few moments this afternoon making some observations on the reason that New Westminster and the surrounding areas very strongly support the continuation of that service within the city. I don't want to belabour the point, because the minister has received a considerable amount of correspondence from the city of New Westminster; surrounding municipalities, including the district of Surrey; the cities of Langley, Port Moody and Port Coquitlam; the district of Abbotsford; the city of Maple Ridge, the Chairman's home city; and the Dewdney-Alouette Regional District. He has also received communications from the chamber of commerce, the Downtown Business Improvement Association, the legal profession, the New Westminster bar and the land title search companies. The list is quite extensive.

[3:30]

The reason those people are writing is that, for them, not only is this office a place of historic significance but it also has a very practical economic significance. I've done some work on the number of jobs that are directly related to the location of the land title office in New Westminster. I think a reasonable estimate is that pretty close to 300 jobs are directly associated with that office. There are almost 100 jobs in the land title office itself, The title search companies clustered around the current location of the land title office at 625 Agnes Street, adjacent to our beautiful courthouse, employ pretty close to 100 people as well. In one or two cases they are head offices for larger services that also have Vancouver operations which would presumably move to New Westminster. In one case I know of they actually operate also in the Victoria land title district.

The New Westminster bar association, representing 70 members — I have no idea, actually, of the total number — have given their unequivocal support to the land titles office continuing in New Westminster, because much of their business has a real estate component; they are dealing with land matters.

If we look at those positions that are directly related to the land titles office, 200-plus have a direct association with that office and its presence in New Westminster. I would note too that these are good jobs. Women are employed in significant numbers. Women in the land titles office, and also in the title search companies, have been trained on the job and have moved up the ladder in respect to the positions they are able to occupy.

It is a very sophisticated operation. British Columbia leads the way in much of the land titles procedures that are a part of our history. The office in New Westminster has been leading the way technologically as well.

[ Page 10702 ]

In addition, this office is located in the downtown area, an area presently undergoing a very significant change both as a result of the development of new housing along our waterfront and work that the business community is doing in the old Golden Mile and west along Columbia Street. There is a very significant business community that serves these people.

The Attorney has probably received all of that information very thoroughly. The letters I have received have outlined this information in various ways, shapes and forms. But there is an unequivocal expectation that New Westminster will continue to have that county–Fraser Valley function with the land titles office.

It has been some time since the community became aware of the fact that the changes in land titles office operations were going to occur within the next short while. I think all of us can recognize the anxiety of people whose jobs and businesses depend on the location of that office. There is no question that the people in the land titles office — many of whom have worked there for ten, 20 or 25 years — are eagerly awaiting an announcement which would ensure that the land titles office is going to continue to be an important service and an important part of the economy of New Westminster.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I would like to give the Attorney-General, during his estimates, an opportunity to comment. I believe there is merit in a policy decision being taken that gives New Westminster favoured status in respect to the relocation. My research indicates that the space required is available and economical. We know that New Westminster is strategically located. We know, too, that the historic tradition of legal, administrative, financial and land titles services goes back a very long time — 130 years.

I was at the cessation of the County Court ceremonies at New Westminster last Friday — some very impressive ceremonies, actually, with the ten judges of the New Westminster court joining the Supreme Court. One of the people who spoke at that session was, if I may use the term, young Sandy McQuarrie, who is president of the bar association in New Westminster and whose father and grandfather have served in that community. One of the comments made over and over again in the reminiscing about the history of this court was the very special relationship the court has held with the city of New Westminster. I believe the same perspective is there in respect to our land titles office.

I would hope that the Attorney-General might be prepared in his comments to acknowledge the overwhelming case, if you like, in support of the land titles office — newer, larger and technologically more sophisticated — to be continued in New Westminster I know it is the wish of this government that it continue to fill a very important role as a showcase office.

I believe there are some opportunities for the technology and the methodology of our land title operation to provide guidance to other jurisdictions, and I think that that initiative is to be supported and commended. I know that all of those many people who have advised the Attorney-General of their views and of their support for the land titles office in New Westminster are eagerly awaiting a decision. That decision has to come soon. I know the Attorney-General has the information in his industry at this time, and I am hopeful that that decision is going to be announced very soon.

I would invite the Attorney-General to comment on this issue for the people of my riding and, I might note, for many other ridings in the eastern suburbs.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, it's interesting that the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) is now in the chair, because — you're right — a number of people from the ridings are interested in our lobbying for the privilege of housing the land title office. I've even had recommendations from Central Fraser Valley suggesting that as the growth is moving more in that direction, that would be the appropriate location.

Obviously I would not have as good an understanding as the member does of New Westminster, its potential, its location and the tremendous things that have been done in New Westminster as a result of decisions taken by the government of British Columbia since 1976.

The reason I have that firsthand knowledge is because I had the privilege to serve on the board of the British Columbia Development Corporation and therefore by osmosis, among other things, on the board of the First Capital City Development Co. as well. There has been a good amount of resources directed to the city of New Westminster to redevelop what was a city in decline in terms of its downtown core. We have been extremely successful in doing that.

Not coincidentally, the development of the SkyTrain system has been an extraordinary boon to the city of New Westminster and indeed augments its position as the geographical centre — the physical centre — of the lower mainland and roughly the centre of the various transportation axes in the lower mainland.

It has historically been the place of various government services starting from the days when it was the capital of British Columbia. I daresay that, from a population point of view at least, it was a very convenient capital for most British Columbians. Some in New Westminster would argue that it still is. I suspect they would get a good deal of support from people not only in New Westminster.

The county courts that you referred to also were an important part of New Westminster. I had the county seat, and last week I had the privilege of attending a number of ceremonies to commemorate the role played by the county court as we followed along the decision that I took to merge the courts. On July 1 it was done.

[ Page 10703 ]

The idea of a county court system has been with our jurisprudential system since sometime in the mid-1300s. In the middle part of the 1800s it began here in the province of British Columbia. When the colonies were joined, it too was joined.

The county court system has served us well, and I expect that administratively the locations of the county court now will be drawn into the Supreme Court administrative structure. I think that all the benefits the county court provided us will still remain — even beyond merger.

In addition to that, there will be the advantage of the extension of jurisdiction into the domain of county courts which isn't there at present. While we were commemorating the end of the sittings of the county court in Victoria, New Westminster, Kamloops, Prince George and other places around the province, I don't think it is the end of the virtue of the county court system by any stretch of the imagination. It is part of the reform package I have undertaken.

There have been extensive reforms taken with respect to the land title system. One of them was the issue of moving the land title system to a fully electronic capacity which will be a signature-ready system in about 24 to 36 months from now. In fact, it will be completely electronic. And as we move to that, the need for physical locations diminishes. In fact, from a technological point of view, you could have one land title system office in Nelson, Kamloops or Prince Rupert, or New Westminster for that matter, to serve the entire province today, because electronically the system is capable of handling that. Historically those offices have been located so as to provide a place for people to go and get original documents, and that will continue. Even though the electronic capacity is there, there will not be that overwhelming centralization, with the exception of the lower mainland, where, more than a year ago now, I announced that we would be consolidating those offices — and we are. We've had a number of people and organizations and locations competing for that. It's a provincial decision. Obviously there are two locations in the lower mainland within less than 30 miles of one another, and the next one is almost 300 miles away. The needs can be served with a consolidation of those facilities.

[3:45]

So we have looked at how and where that can best be done, taking into account transportation needs public transit and centrality to the largest geographical mass we can find. We took into account the cost of space. That's very important to taxpayers and to all of us. We've taken into account the needs of the offices themselves and the personnel in them. Of course, part of it was spawned as well by the fact that we are making renovations to Robson Square in Vancouver. We're moving everybody out of Robson Square, starting with the cabinet — and we've moved along on that.

So we put out proposal calls to the public to come forward with suggestions of where this facility could or should be located, taking into account the criteria set out. We've had proposals from Surrey, Vancouver, New Westminster and locations east of Surrey, and we've had significant proposals from Burnaby. We have evaluated the proposals very carefully and have had the Buildings Corporation, which searches for our space, deal with them. I believe we had received six originally. Three of the six had difficulty with suitability — that is, the time-frame in which we wanted to have this up and running. We want it open by November of this year. And, of course, we had a whole host of proposals that didn't get themselves canned down into something specific and in writing.

We have now approved the location for the amalgamation of the land title system, which will be in a building almost immediately contiguous with and adjacent to the present land title office in the city of New Westminster. It will now require us to work with the staff and others to make certain that the transition is as comfortable for them as possible and that all the users and others can make the transition smoothly as well.

So that, Mr. Chairman, is the resolution of that issue. I want to thank all the members who have given me advice on that, and members of the public and mayors, especially the members from the lower mainland and the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), who spent some time with me in my office discussing the issue. I've had representations from virtually everyone you can imagine on the issue. But I think the decision is a proper one from the point of view of the land title system and of the provincial decision, which I must take in spite of whatever local considerations there may be. I know that in terms of cost-effectiveness, to the extent that it is the major criteria, it is clearly the best decision. Also, and I presume happily from the member's point of view, it will continue the historic role that New Westminster has played.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister is not noted for short answers, Mr. Chairman, but I must say I'm very pleased with his answer. I have just one other question.

There's no doubt that the people in my riding are waiting with bated breath for an announcement, and I'd just like to ask the Attorney-General whether this is the first indication he has made of his decision that the land titles office will be located in New Westminster, and if that is the case, when he intends to make that public, since it is indeed his decision, and I would respect his right to make the announcement. If he could just advise me of that I'd appreciate it.

HON. MR. SMITH: The staff involved, particularly in Vancouver, have been advised of the decision. I guess the answer to when it's public is that it's public now.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll return to where we left off yesterday and just make a quick comment with respect to legal aid. I pointed out a number of areas where the minister's reply yesterday did not deal with the concerns that I had. Those were my conclud-

[ Page 10704 ]

ing comments yesterday, and I want to pick up from there.

It was interesting to read the minister's response this morning and compare it with the response that he made last year. It was almost identical in terms of what he had to say, and one was left with the impression that not much progress has been made over the course of the last year with respect to the provision of legal aid. I find that unfortunate.

I was looking at the Hughes report later yesterday and note.... I'll just quote the commission: "The recommendations of the 1984 B.C. Task Force on Public Legal Services urgently require implementation.... The comments were almost unanimous in calling for immediate fulfilment of the recommendations of the 1984 Task Force on Public Legal Services." So we have this task force that went around in 1984 and we had another task force that went around in 1989, both of them asking for proper funding for legal aid, and it's clear that the government has not moved on it. Yet last year the minister said in the House: "I want to make it clear that I understand, perhaps as well as anyone in this House, that legal aid is a question of fundamental access to our justice system."

To be direct about it, the minister should put his money where his mouth is. We haven't seen the allocation of funds in the areas that are still wanting. There's no doubt that in terms of flexibility, the eligibility requirements have been attended to, and there is a greater level of flexibility than there was before. But with respect to the priority of coverage and broadening the amount of coverage for legal aid, that hasn't occurred anywhere near to the level anticipated.

Having dealt with legal aid — of course, if the minister wants to respond he can — I want to turn to another issue: sexual assault. It's an issue I raise every year during the debate on justice matters. It's an issue that I'm going to raise again this year because of my frustration with the inability of this provincial administration to attend adequately to the needs of victims of sexual assault, be they children — know there already has been some discussion in this House about children prior to my entry in this debate — or be it others; I know there hasn't been too much discussion around that aspect of it.

This government has to understand that, at least in my view, there is no other crime as hideous....

Mr. Chairman, if the Attorney-General wants to leave during the time that we have this discussion on sexual assault, then I don't really see it as my role to talk to him about it in depth while he's away. I want him to be here in the House and listening to the debate. We've gone through this before. When I stand to speak on justice matters, the minister somehow thinks it is his right to vacate the House and not listen to what we've got to say. In the past we got into a rather protracted dispute when he decided he was just going to turn his chair and talk to other ministers and not listen, and I guess today he's decided to go one step further and leave the House.

The minister should understand that the comments I'm going to be making with respect to sexual assault will be mailed to every sexual assault centre in British Columbia, as I have done in the past, so that those involved in providing counselling and assistance to victims of sexual assault have a full rendering of the debate.

I think they would be disappointed to see that the minister had left the House, and I would suspect, as I see now, that on that note he would make his way back in. Now if I may continue.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't agree, Mr. Minister, if you just think it's the usual.... I'm a "usual bum." Is that what you said?

HON. MR. PARKER: Your usual bumph.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, let me just put on the record that the member for Skeena, the Minister for Crown Lands, thinks the comments I have to make about sexual assault are "your usual bumph." Well, I must confess that I am somewhat offended but not surprised that that minister would try to belittle the subject with that type of comment. It only reminds one of the kind of debate we had on sexual assault in this House about two years ago, when I was speaking on the same topic and members of the Social Credit Party opposite, in a very lewd way, started saying: "Give us more details." We got that kind of comment two years ago and I can't remember what happened last year, but this year we get the member for Skeena.... I'll talk about his area and I'll talk specifically about what's happening in Terrace with respect to sexual assault in a few minutes. I don't consider this kind of discussion to be bumph, and I think those who read Hansard when it's mailed out to them won't consider it that way. I would, of course, expect the Attorney-General to distance himself from the comments made by the Social Credit member from Skeena riding.

As I was saying, there is no crime that leaves the type of psychological scar on an individual that an offence such as sexual assault does, be it committed upon a woman or a child. It is a very traumatic experience for individuals, of course, to be involved in this type of an incident.

It's one thing to prosecute the case and to take it to court and convict someone of the wrong. I don't want to really comment on that aspect of it, except to say that it's one thing to provide the individual who has been assaulted with assistance in dealing with the court process — which, quite admittedly, is a process which people aren't used to; they don't understand how the courts work, and when they have been the victim of a crime such as this, they obviously deserve to have assistance to the courts. But once the court case is left and done with, there is still the psychological scar, the trauma in the life experience of that person, and the fact that they have to be able to deal with life after the trial, life after the event, life

[ Page 10705 ]

afterwards to deal with the psychological scarring from the incident.

There is no doubt that in the past few years, in British Columbia in particular — and one only has to daily pick up a newspaper to see this — there has been a remarkable increase in the number of sexual assault offences and a remarkable increase in the number of complaints laid and convictions in the area. It's welcome that people feel now more able and, if I can put it this way, comfortable to come in and report the crime. I think it is appropriate that the matter be dealt with by the courts and that punishments be stiff and relevant. However, we are seeing a significant increase in this crime. There is a need, therefore, for ongoing counselling services as an inherent part of the treatment for survivors of sexual assault. That's where this government has been failing and that's where the provincial Ministry of the Attorney-General, in concert with other industries , should be providing more money to assist.

[4:00]

I was surprised when I went and visited a number of the sexual assault centres in British Columbia some months ago now — I think it was about eight or nine months ago — to see just how inadequate the resources are and how similar the stories are. In every centre there is a concern about the inadequacy of core funding. Core funding, of course, is that portion of funding that pays for staff and allows for an increase of staff. There is very little in terms of core funding, and, quite frankly, the people who are engaged full-time at these centres spend up to 50 percent of their time in fund-raising activities to raise more money for the sexual assault centre. Usually the staff of these centres consists of one or two people.

In addition to that — and what causes me a greater level of discomfort — is the fact that the term of the counselling available to the victim of sexual assault is limited either to assistance for the litigation process — that is, the proving of the offence in court and assisting the witness to deal with the court process — or to some six or eight weeks' worth of counselling Of course, there is some provision, and I will grant the ministry this, for short-term counselling. But when you talk to centre after centre in British Columbia, you find there is very little funding, if any, for intermediate or long-term counselling. There are very few spaces in communities for people to find refuge or shelter.

I recently dealt with a constituent who was assaulted in Sooke. The constituent involved has said that it's fine for me to share this story. Sooke, like many rural communities in British Columbia, has no such facilities. After being assaulted at home at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, the woman had to go to the bus-stop in downtown Sooke to come to Victoria for some counselling and to find out what she could do after the assault. She had to take her two kids with her.

When you think about it, it's terrifying to be a victim of a sexual assault. But as you are dealing internally with that, to be standing at a bus-stop for 45 minutes waiting for a bus to come; then to spend two hours travelling with your kids into downtown Victoria; to contain within yourself all of the emotion that must flow from that kind of incident; to end up at a service that is supposed to be there and then to find that there is a waiting-list of six or eight weeks for ongoing group or individual counselling is just a slap in the face to the victim. That's the reality of what people have to face.

When I visited these centres, I found that there is a greater concern and a greater inadequacy of services in rural centres throughout British Columbia. Often women can't get into a centre or don't live in a community that provides this type of service. Women in particular often find it difficult to travel to these areas.

I want to quote some statistics to give an indication of the extent to which the problem has manifested itself in this province. Here are some of the statistics that were provided to me. In Victoria there is a 1, 300 percent increase in the need for service over the last eight years. There has been a 56 percent increase in funding over that time.

In Vancouver in 1988-89 there were 5,577 total contacts compared to 4,614 — an increase of almost 1,000 contacts in the last year alone with respect to sexual assaults.

In Fort St. John between April 1, 1988 and March 31, 1989, 150 new clients were seen in that small community alone. In Terrace — the minister from that community who is now leaving might want to know; I see he's leaving appropriately at this time — the total clients in 1989 registered 631. In May there were 82 telephone calls and 42 in April of this year. In Cowichan, 583 initial contacts were recorded so far this year.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, there is an enormous problem. When you get contacts of that magnitude in communities as small as Fort St. John and Terrace or even in the Duncan area, you can see we have a major problem on our hands in this society. On the other hand, there has been very little done by this administration to provide financial assistance to victims of sexual assault or to provide them with the individual and group counselling that's required.

I make this plea every year to the minister in terms of more money. I must say that after three years of doing this....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, your time has expired.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear the remainder of the address on sexual assault centres by my colleague from Esquimalt.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the member for Port Renfrew-Esquimalt, I would just remind him that even though it's a very sensitive issue under debate at the present time, when we're in committee the Chairman is traditionally addressed as Mr. Chairman rather than Mr. Speaker. Please proceed, hon. member.

[ Page 10706 ]

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the member for Vancouver-Point Grey, who I know is deeply concerned about this issue, and express my gratitude to her for giving me some more time to talk about it.

Let me also say that every year I make this request of the Attorney-General, in terms of the need to provide more funding and more assistance, I find it disturbing that the government has allocated inadequate resources to assist victims of sexual assault. As I say, I don't understand why that is the approach of this administration, and why this administration cannot deal more sensitively or appropriately with respect to funding for sexual assault centres. I'm at a loss to explain. I can point to all sorts of other examples where we have raised issues year after year in this House and have seen some movement, but this is not one of them.

We have areas of this province.... I see my colleague the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) here in the House, and she knows full well that there has been inadequate attention paid to this issue in that community. We canvassed that last year in the minister's estimates. Again I see that there have been no substantial, significant changes.

I'm wondering what it takes for this administration to become sensitive to those concerns, show some compassion for the victims and attend to their needs. I'm troubled — I guess that's perhaps the best word — by the actions of this administration.

I'm also troubled by the way in which the Attorney-General has handled this issue, and I want to comment on that further. I'm making reference to last year's estimates. The minister knows that last year I raised the inadequacy of these services in the Kootenays and — as I intend to do again this year — mailed out the Hansard exchange between the minister and me on this issue to all the sexual assault centres and groups involved in the field. Of course, the minister last year during the debate on this very issue tried to suggest that the government was attending to the matter. He tried to suggest — as I'm sure he will again this year — that there was significant progress being made by the current administration with respect to this matter.

I think what troubled me in what he said last year — and what will trouble me in what he's going to say again this year in terms of the progress being made — is that much of it is just political rhetoric as opposed to concrete action.

Let me just revisit what we discussed last year. We discussed the need for the provision of this type of service in all areas of British Columbia — particularly in rural communities — for the reasons I've already outlined. The minister suggested that was happening I actually have the quote from last year in Hansard. If the minister wants reference to it, it's around page 6,513, on May 2, 1989. He went out of his way to admonish me and say to me: "Well, look, we're making all sorts of progress. We're providing services. You've got your facts wrong."

I just want to read this letter into the record, and I have consent to read this. It comes from the Communities Against Sexual Abuse in Invermere. I'm sorry to see that the member for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall), in whose riding this falls, is not here to speak to this matter. Seona Helmer, who's the chairperson and the volunteer coordinator of rights, says:

"I am writing to you on the advice of Cathy Green, the coordinator of the victim support services in Golden. She brought to my attention a letter that you had sent to her that asked for her input into additional funding that was to be provided for sexual assault services in British Columbia, as had been indicated by the Attorney-General's Access to justice report. The letter I'm referring to is somewhat dated — May 15, 1989 — but I would like to comment to you about the debate between you and" — then it mentions the name of the Attorney-General.

"You asked" — and again it mentions the Attorney-General by name — "the following question: 'First of all, I want to know why this ministry is not prepared to provide these services in the Kootenays — sexual assault services. Could the minister please explain?' In his response, the minister stated: 'Some of these services which the member was concerned don't exist and which, in fact, do exist are provided in Cranbrook through the victim-witness service agency in that community; likewise in Invermere through Communities Against Sexual Abuse, which is funded as well'."

Of course, the point the minister was trying to make for his political purposes.... He was trying to say: "Look, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is wrong. We provide these services on a broad basis right across the province." You don't. I told you that this year. You still don't do it now, and that's clear. But just to deal with what happens when you make those statements in the House and the reaction that that invites by those people who provide the services, let me continue to quote from this letter. It says:

"I would like to clarify the fact that although the A-G office did provide some funding for our organization — $5,000 in 1988 and $2,500 in 1989 — it cannot be fairly said that these services are covered by us in this area. We have no paid person and have never had a paid person. We are completely volunteer. I was disheartened when I read Mr. Smith's comment, as it indicated to me that he considered our area 'taken care of' when, in fact, he cannot by any stretch, with our present financial situation, make that claim.

"I sent a letter on February 28, 1990, to the A-G office requesting funds for a half-time person and an office for a period of two years. After that, we feel we'll have the credibility and stability to look into other sources of funding.

"I should also add that at the present time we have no office, as we had to close it down due to a lack of funds. We do, however, provide what services we can through a network of answering-machines and volunteers — hardly an ideal situation in crisis. You can understand, then, my concern when it is assumed our organization, as it stands now, provides adequate services.

"Thank you for your attention. Should you need to contact me further, please do."

That's an indication of the frustration that comes when ministers in this House, particularly the Attorney-General in debate around sexual assault, obviously don't understand the fact that there's an inade-

[ Page 10707 ]

quacy with respect to the services provided by this administration. They are unwilling to admit that there is that inadequacy and, for reasons of political rhetoric more than anything else, try to create the impression that services are provided. Obviously it offends people in communities that are required to provide the services and don't have the means with which to provide these much-needed services throughout British Columbia.

Therefore I'm wondering if the Attorney-General could, in light of my general comments about sexual assault, advise the House what additional funding has been provided, to what amount in this year's budget, and for what areas in this province, with respect to the kind of service I talked about: namely, counselling for victims of sexual assault and victim assistance around sexual assault matters.

[4:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, as I said last year and I will again this year, there is a great need for resources in this whole area. Whatever are the improvements, they will not for some good time be adequate.

It's not a partisan matter, because between 1972 and '75, frankly, there were no victim services in the province of British Columbia — zip.

The issue is that over the last number of years we have had a considerable increase in prosecution. We've had a societal change in the number of people who are prepared to come forward. We've had, in fact, a reasonably good record of drawing out people who have been abused and who are prepared to take the steps necessary to bring those who abuse them to justice. We have put a lot of effort and a lot of resources into that, and the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) quite sensitively, I thought, raised that issue earlier this afternoon.

In terms of the kind of counselling service that the member has raised, there are a number of agencies that deal with the issue. Unfortunately, he didn't raise it in the estimates of Social Services and Housing, because they have a significant role in this whole area.

Since 1987, including this year, we have added 93 communities in the province of British Columbia where we provide, through the Ministry of Attorney-General support for victim services. But that doesn't include all the services provided by various levels of government. In particular, the Health ministry — mental health — is taking the lead in an interministerial way involving the Social Services ministry, the Native Affairs ministry, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. They are taking the lead in developing programs for intermediate and long-term counselling, where there is a tremendous and growing need. I think that's an important step. It draws together the resources in a coordinated fashion, and attempts to make those resources more available, and more sensibly available, around the province.

In addition to that, the Criminal Injury Compensation Act, for which there has been considerable increase in resources and will be again this year in terms of limits.... That's the purview of the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser). But I can tell the House, so people aren't misled that there isn't anything going on from that source, that they are providing considerably more money for counselling as well, and are doing it for victims throughout the province of British Columbia.

The matter is one that is growing and will require more resources. I have absolutely no doubt that whatever the resources are this year, there will be an increased need for them next year and likewise the year after that, and beyond. We will have to do the best we can to find those resources, and we will.

More important than that, we have to coordinate the various ministries of government to make certain that we bring the resources to bear in the best way we can. As well, we have to deal with not only the victims but also the abusers, and provide resources there, because it's clear that those people are not being adequately rehabilitated. And when the expiration of their term occurs, as the first member for Point Grey and I discussed earlier on this afternoon in these estimates, they will be back on the streets.

It is a nasty problem in our society. It is not one that is new; it's one that has been with us forever. What is new, and increasingly so, is that people are coming forward with these complaints, and the resources have been put together to investigate and prosecute those complaints and bring people to justice. As that happens more and more, it's our experience — and that's why you see more and more of it in the paper, quite frankly — that it gives confidence to other people to come forward and issue their complaints and ask that the victimization they have gone through be addressed through the criminal prosecution system. And we do do that, and of course it requires counselling services that, as I say, the Ministry of Health is taking the lead on. I'm sure the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) would be happy to answer those issues for the victims. Increasingly we're going to have to have more and better coordinated efforts directed to the abusers as well.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, the minister sounds like a broken record. He talks about the need for more services and more interagency activities, and all that kind of stuff. I want to quote from what he said last year. I'll just pick one paragraph, in terms of the debate that we were involved in last year. He said: "There's no question that the need is growing for these community-based specialized support programs that work with abused 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." He said that last year; he's saying that again this year. What I want to know is: what progress has your ministry made in this area? What new money are you putting in and where are you putting it this year as compared to last year? That was a question, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member has asked what resources are going out for the very important need

[ Page 10708 ]

of counselling. I've said that that area is being led by the Ministry of Health on an interdepartmental basis, drawing together, through the social policy net of cabinet, the various agencies of government. There are considerably more resources going into it, and when the Minister of Health's estimates are up, I'm sure he'll be delighted to answer your questions.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA: I want to know from the minister, in terms of his ministry's responsibilities — he knows and I know that they have a significant responsibility in this area — what the increase is in your budget this year, and where that money is going.

HON. MR. SMITH: The responsibility began with the Ministry of the Attorney-General, because it initiated a number of the victims' programs. As that issue develops and, as the member for Vancouver Point Grey quite properly pointed out today, as the need arises for better and more coordinated use of the resources and services we have, those programs are in the long term being taken over by the Ministry of Health. Further to that, the Ministry of Health has been mandated to take the lead in this issue of that counselling service. Consequently the increases in budget for these services will show up in the Health ministry more than in other ministries.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I can see that the minister might be embarrassed to say how little money his ministry is putting into it, but we'd still like to know what pittance his ministry is putting into it. Last year shortly after estimates the minister issued a list, and it said that the Cowichan women's sexual assault centre was getting $34,675. I want to know: are they getting more or are they getting less? If they are getting more, how much more? Last year you said the Women's Sexual Assault Centre in Victoria was getting $64,890. Is it getting more this year or is it getting less? You've got your budget figures there, and you've got two staff there. You can damn well answer the question. Vancouver Women Against Violence Against Women, $92,468 last year — are they getting more this year or are they getting less? Kamloops Sexual Assault Counselling Centre. I know that you went out of your way last year to put out a beautiful press release — because it is in your riding — talking about how concerned you were. Last year you gave them $39,305. What are you giving them this year? The K'San House Society in Terrace; last year they got $34,879. What are they getting this year? The North Peace Community Resources Society got $42,449 last year. What is the amount this year?

What is the overall increase in your budget, if any, this year? And what other new areas have you identified in your ministry for which you think there should be more funding? Don't tell me to go to the Ministry of Health. We'll deal with those estimates when they come. I want to know what your ministry says, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the member says: "Don't tell me to go to the Ministry of Health." I can assure him I will tell him whatever I please. It's one of the benefits of a system that encourages free speech.

The Ministry of Health has taken the lead in these counselling services and is indeed being encouraged to coordinate them. The counselling aspect of it is logically and, I guess, medically as well, more appropriately a health matter than one for the justice system, particularly the criminal justice system. As a consequence of that, the Ministry of Health is taking the lead in the areas of counselling that the member is referring to. As I have tried to point out to him, this is also the case with their increase in resources in the Criminal Injury Compensation Act, which is part of the Solicitor-General's ministry, and there have been significant amounts and increases through the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

I was here for most of the debate on the Social Services and Housing Ministry, and I am sorry to note that the member declined to ask any questions relative to that in those particular estimates. The minister was more than prepared to respond with details about it, so we will listen to the questions. But those are the answers, and they will remain the answers.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, is this minister so inept that he doesn't know how much money is being put from his ministry into these kinds of programs? We'll find out what Social Services and Housing has done; we'll find out what Health has done when we get to their estimates. But is he that inept that he doesn't know how much money his ministry is putting into these matters? Or is he embarrassed to admit it? Or does he think that he's playing some kind of political game by not disclosing it and that somehow it's macho for him not to share the numbers with us?

Come on, Mr. Minister. You know what your budget is. You have an obligation — and you always say you understand the democratic process — to tell us what it is. Now tell us, and if it causes you embarrassment, so be it.

Let me also say this: There is no doubt in my mind that this government is anti-women. We've seen a particular posture from the Premier of this province on down through various cabinet ministers. There's no doubt about that in my mind. If it had a greater level of respect for the victims of sexual assault, this government would be trumpeting with pride the increases in budget for victims of sexual assault. It would be putting them on TV every night in those news updates we see on television. But it would rather spend $11 million on nightly television advertising than put some money into this kind of a program.

[4:30]

Shame on the government, and shame on the minister who's not prepared to state what his ministry is doing in this regard. He'll get another opportunity, but I know that my colleague from Vancouver-

[ Page 10709 ]

Point Grey also wants to speak on this issue and wants to comment on some of the debate that occurred in the Social Services and Housing estimates and on some of the information she has.

While the minister reflects on all of this and consults with his staff, perhaps we'll give the member from Vancouver-Point Grey an opportunity to address the issue as well.

HON. MR. SMITH: There's no need for me to reflect on anything that has been said by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, either today or since he came to this House.

The member asked me questions relating to counselling service, and I have attempted to answer those for him so that it would be done in an understandable way. For whatever reason, he chooses not to understand the answers that have been given to him on the change in the way that we deliver services. The change is reflected in the fact that, as the member for Vancouver-Point Grey correctly pointed out earlier, we should try to bring more coordination to the delivery of these services. That's precisely what is taking place, and the Ministry of Health is taking the lead in providing that. So that is the answer.

I must say that the member said parenthetically that this government was anti-something or other, and I'm not going to descend into debate with him on that particular issue, because it's demonstrably incorrect. But I do think it's important to point out that in this year there have been a couple of derisive sexist remarks thrust across this chamber. One of them was directed at the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), and it came from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). The other one was a derisive statement directed to the Minister Responsible for Government Management Services (Hon. Mrs. Gran) when the member for Esquimalt referred to it derisively and sarcastically as women's affairs. I think that kind of attitude is one that could well be changed. I think we should have a more enlightened one both in this chamber and beyond, because I think those kinds of comments do indeed reflect pretty accurately the values and attitudes of people towards a number of these issues, much more so than any pompous words or contrived anger or whatever else they might attempt to place on the record.

In terms of the intermediate and long-term counselling service that that member referred to, Mr Chairman, the Health ministry is taking an important lead and drawing together the various ministries of government. I think that's the appropriate thing to do and one that will better serve the victims. I know the member for Point Grey has some questions, so I'll be happy to take them.

MS. MARZARI: Before I begin my comments, Mr Chair, I must say that the most sexist comments that have been made in this House have been made by the Attorney-General himself. They ring in my mind as I think about them. I commented on them in the House yesterday, and I will repeat them for the record today.

When the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran) was making her estimate speeches and we were debating the issues back and forth across the House, the Attorney-General insisted on jumping in time and again ostensibly to protect the minister for women, who, in my opinion, did not need protection. And at a certain point in the debate the Attorney-General, in a moment of explosive emotion, suggested that the minister for women was indeed a good minister because "she doesn't mind who takes the credit." In other words, the minister for women is prepared to remain silent and let her male colleagues take the credit. This was the intent. This was the motive. This was the suggestion. In my mind, that kind of patronizing, condescending, overly protective sexism...

Interjections.

MS. MARZARI: ...and the fact that this House doesn't recognize it as such — suggests to me that what in fact we're dealing with here is a systemic discrimination which people don't even recognize they're engaged in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must remind hon. members that the debate is straying now from vote 12, which we've been dealing with. If we could stick to vote 12, we'd have a much more productive afternoon.

MS. MARZARI: I'd be pleased to return to vote 12, Mr. Chair, but I must say that it sort of gives a context to the whole debate to understand sexism and misogyny in the context of how we deal with women in our province, in this House and in this parliament, and then to try to relate that to the small budget dollars that are directed towards women as victims. It does set a context, and it does constantly remind me of why I'm here and why I am standing now to speak to this particular issue.

Two issues. One is the amount of money into sexual assault centres. I have never seen so much attention paid to such a paltry budget item as we have here. Sexual assault centres receive a great deal of attention in the media. They receive attention throughout the province. Women are drawing attention to the fact that they are victims, that they are assaulted, that they are raped in numbers we don't even want to contemplate, in numbers we don't even have on record, because to have them on record would be to suggest that rape is a mainstream activity in our community. Child abuse and abuse of women is a mainstream activity. Every time we open the paper we see another comment on another small program, perhaps a program from the federal or provincial levels of government, that tells us that another $3,000 has been trickled into sexual assault, that another $12,000 is being provided here, there and everywhere. Women are raped, women are assaulted....

My colleague from Esquimalt has talked about a woman in Sooke who was assaulted and forced to

[ Page 10710 ]

take a bus into town to receive counselling, with her two children in tow.

I am reminded here of a news item of May 3, 1990: a sexual assault team at University Hospital at the Shaughnessy site received $12,000 to do some follow-up counselling for services to women who are raped and hurt and victimized in the city of Vancouver. Says the coordinator: "Ideally we would need funding of $50,000 and a full-time social worker to properly handle the job." And what is the job? It's a job that's been handled for years by volunteers — women who come to the hospital and assist in the counselling of women who have been hurt, raped and assaulted. Victims helping victims very often; unpaid volunteers helping victims; women without pay helping women who have been hurt. That seems to be the way we run our social services in this province, and it's not good enough — $12,000 when $50,000 is absolutely the bottom line; $3,000 for sexual assault centres that have caseloads of over 150 telephone calls or contacts a month. It's not good enough.

What can they do? All they can do is talk to the women about their next step, whether charges will be pressed or a court case will ensue. But where, I ask, is the substantial help? Where are the women able to turn when the time comes to pursue a connected course of events that is actually going to assist them over the long haul?

I'm coming to my second point: the business of integrated services. Sexual assault centres, which fall in between the moment of assault and the helping network of services, ask: "Who's in charge?" Nobody is in charge. The services are not integrated. No one is offering any coordination on a long-term basis. The Attorney-General is suggesting to us today that things are finally coalescing under the Health ministry. But let me look at the news releases over the last few months. June 25, 1990: "Community Program to Reduce Wife Abuse." That's the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs. June 6: "Ministers Announce New Transition Houses." Who is that under? Women's Programs and Social Services. May 10: "Wife Assault Coordination Project Announced." Who is announcing it? The Ministry of Attorney-General. June 12: "Sex Abuse Interventions Project Targets Vulnerable Groups." Here's the Ministry of Health: $3 million to an interministerial sexual abuse interventions project.

Four separate ministries are involved here. And when we add to that the Ministry of Education, where kids first disclose that they have been hurt, and when we add to that the police department and Solicitor-General, where very often women come first to lay a charge or complaint that they have been hurt, you have seven or eight major ministries, each doing its own thing and none providing integrated coordinated support to the front-line workers. Volunteers are sitting in sexual assault centres, transition houses, schools and the Children's Hospital, where the kids come in with their broken bones and mutilated faces. Nobody is telling those front-line trench workers where to send the victims and what to do next.

People are literally left in limbo, stranded between systems and ministries, not having a connected link.

Finally, if they are lucky enough to get through the courts and through some healing process, compensation — the money that should be paid — isn't necessarily there through the victims' fund, operated through the Workers' Compensation Board and through the courts.

I have to say to the Attorney-General that I don't see evidence of coordination here. I would like to hear you say: "I take responsibility." Child abuse is the responsibility of Social Services. Let's keep it there. Let's put them in charge. Let's say: "You are in charge. You coordinate everything related to child abuse." When there's a family in which the children are being hit and pushed around and the wife is also being assaulted — an alcoholic husband — you obviously have more than one ministry involved. But at least the children are being taken care of by one ministry, with a worker who is an advocate for those children.

Mr. Attorney-General, you take charge for wife assault, for sexual assault. Say: "I'm in charge here. I'm going to coordinate this project. I'm going to take on this program. This is my responsibility, and I am going to set up the tone in the courts and make sure that the access is there. I'm going to make sure that I am coordinating with the Solicitor-General, so that when abused women recall that they were abused before 1972, I am going to make sure that those women receive compensation too." Take charge, and then integrate. The problem with coordination — the kind I see going on here — is that everybody is running around trying to do something to grab a piece of the action and get a little attention, but nobody's really taking charge.

[4:45]

The abuse of elders. The Health ministry should be taking charge of the overall treatment processes and the mental health healing that needs to go on when a woman, a child or an elder has been hit and pushed around to the point that they can't take it anymore. There is a point where all ministries have to get together and decide that there's something that needs to be done here. Maybe the Medical Services Plan should be covering psychologists. Maybe the need is so great that that's where we have to go to get our treatment, But the fact that nobody's taking charge at this point means that you don't have a database, and you don't have a logical connection between services. Everything remains like a jigsaw puzzle thrown to the wind. Finally, there's no compensation, no redress and, tragically, no justice for the victims.

I'm saying, Mr. Attorney-General: are you ready to take charge of this section called sexual assault and do a decent job with it — to go to the other ministries and say: "I am taking charge here, and I'm pulling in all of you around areas of concern to women as victims"? That's my question.

The second question: are you prepared to live with the consequences of taking charge? That will mean, Mr. Minister, a careful allocation of additional

[ Page 10711 ]

dollars on a planned basis to ensure that you are reaching the women who are victims with the right kind of services at the right time in their lives.

Are you prepared to do those two things?

HON. MR. SMITH: One of the things I've learned to admire about the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey is that she has a different but rather endearing sense of humour. I say that in the context of what she said with reference to my standing in the debate for the Ministry of Government Management Services. She tried to leave the impression that somehow I had stood in that debate in some condescending way to speak on behalf of the minister. Obviously, of course, if people reflect on that debate, a number of people were up and down in that debate.

The minister did a great job of dealing with the opposition on every point that they raised. The one thing that the member has said to me is that she's not a braggart. She's right. The Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mrs. Gran), unlike some members sitting proximate to the member for Vancouver-Point Grey and somewhat behind her, is not a braggart.

What I did in that discussion I would be more than happy to do again, because I believe in it. I believe absolutely in the notion that if you don't run around seeking first to pat yourself on the back and puff your little body up and seek credit for things, then you can accomplish virtually anything you set out to do. The Minister of Government Management Services is a person who doesn't run around giving herself credit. That's unfortunate, because she does a tremendous job. In the discussion that day, she declined the invitation from the opposition on several occasions to give herself credit for a couple of matters that were under discussion. So I thought that in the course of the discussions and questions I wanted to ask, I would be quite willing and happy to give her and any other minister the credit properly due to them. That does not disclose any attitude on my part other than the recognition that some people — unlike, as I say, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) — are not braggarts. It doesn't do any harm at all to give credit where it is due.

The member has asked me a number of questions relating to wife assault issues and victim assistance programs. I'll answer them as well as I'm able.

First of all, you mentioned the question of the amount of volunteer services provided. I don't, in any way, do other than compliment and welcome and be grateful to each and every person who provides volunteer services, whatever the issue and whatever the agency, in the province of British Columbia. I think they do a tremendous job. Not only is it good for the programs involved that there is that concern from the community, but volunteer services and programs help to sensitize the community to the issues and to broaden the amount of resources and the number of people involved in these issues in the community. I think it is something we should welcome and not in any way deride either inferentially or otherwise.

I can tell the member that in the province of British Columbia there are in excess of 22,000 hours a year of volunteer services that we're aware of. I think that's just outstanding. It's something we should all appreciate. I know I do, and I believe the member for Vancouver-Point Grey does as well.

The member asked me a question about the coordinating of a number of these issues and how it was being done, I can tell you that it is being coordinated by the Ministry of Health.

You made a point of referring to some of the new money that Health has. I can tell you that that coordinating effort is done at three basic levels. One is the cabinet level, through the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy; another is the deputies' level, in terms of developing policy initiatives and in terms of administration; and the third is the ADM level. In terms of the question you asked about the amount in the budget for this year for victim services, we have had an increase of $548,000 on a $1.3 million budget. That's for the 1990....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, that's the victim assistance programs you asked about.

In terms of the wife assault question you alluded to, we have a number of items underway there. The victim side of it and the counselling side of it, as I said, are being dealt with through Health. But in terms of the coordination program, if you're talking about the prosecution of it.... I talked to you earlier today about the way we have dealt with that in terms of the policy change in the Crown office. We have also undertaken a project to facilitate a system through education, through more effective response to incidents, through better sensitivity of the criminal justice system to the particular needs of those victims and through the responsive Social Services nets that are there — plus some kind of coordination of longer term referral, if you like.

We have done that ' in our ministry by undertaking projects in the areas we had identified from our data where there seemed to be the greatest need. We're doing that on a project basis, the evaluation from which will allow us to then go into other areas. Those locations are Vancouver, Courtenay, Nelson, Dawson Creek and Williams Lake. We undertook that program earlier this year. In terms of the budget that is proposed for that project for this coming year, we have $150,000 allocated for 1990-91.

I think those were the questions you had for me on this issue.

MS. MARZARI: I'd like to thank the Attorney-General for giving some straight answers. I can see that some attempts are being made to coordinate these programs. I still put forward the plea that you take charge and don't leave all these issues to go to the mush of one ministry or another, depending on who wants to chair this week. There are very separate and distinct problems related to child sexual abuse, wife assault and the abuse of elders. Although

[ Page 10712 ]

they all happen within the context of perhaps one family, perhaps aided and abetted by the use of alcohol and poverty, which is the worst disease afflicting our community, we must take charge, we must integrate our programs, and we must do it from a position of strength, from a position of authority and from a position of coordinated budgets.

So it is not simply a question of grabbing a program out of the air, running it for a year, milking it and seeing what kind of press we can get, doing some half-assed evaluation and no proper data collection. We have to start recognizing violence in our community against women, children and elders as a mainstream fact; and we have to start organizing our institutions to deal with it.

Back to the business of sexism in our administration. I would remind the Attorney-General that not so long ago I had an altercation with the minister for women over a land registry document in which some sample application form included the name "Sue May Love" as the solicitor. I took this on as a public battle, pursued it through the press and had the minister for women answer that she too would like to see it changed. But then when she came back to the press the next day, she suggested that this was not a document which could be changed, because it would cost something like $2,000 to recall all the documents and redo them without the offensive suggestion that the name "Sue May Love" represents. It was a little bit of a giggle for many perhaps. But if we're talking about labelling and about using language and about removing sexism from the public sector, it is an issue that really does affect women's perception of themselves.

I want to ask the Attorney-General what he has done with that particular document, and if he has decided that it was offensive — as it is — and if he has decided to remove the name from any further document in the land registry office and any documents coming out of his ministry.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the member has raised that, because I saw her press release too, and frankly, it was as offensive as the alleged transgression she was referring to.

[5:00]

I agree with you that this sort of sniggering use of language in a sexist way is something that hopefully has gone the way of the dodo bird. But to then issue a press release, as that member did, and equate what had happened there, without any knowledge whatsoever of what was going on, with the remarks that Mr. Crosbie had used in the past about tequila, was offensive and stupid. There is absolutely no appropriate way in which those things ought to have been equated. With great respect and deference to that member, to react in that exaggerated way exacerbates the problem that you're referring to. It simply does not put into proper perspective issues that are dealt with and that are put out in a deliberate way against those that may happen in another way.

This particular form that you refer to, in which the matter arose that you properly raised, was written and drafted by a committee of men and women, professional people. Knowing them, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind that there was never any intent by any one of them — certainly not all of them — to have that series of names issued in some way that would offend anyone or would be demeaning to any group of people. In addition, the editing was done by a group of professional men and women — a different group — who likewise, I have no doubt whatsoever, would not have countenanced that.

What has been the result? The 3,000 or so books that were put out with that description in them had already been published, and in the main had been distributed, largely to lawyers. Immediately — the day the issue was raised — the people who were printing them took steps to change the designation. Every booklet presented from the next day on has not had that appellation in it. That's what happened.

MS. MARZARI: I'd like to suggest and simultaneously ask a question about the new Plain Language Institute, and whether or not the Attorney-General has considered using the institute as a place where government documents, records and forms might be vetted.

Plain language is non-sexist language. As well as being written in language that people can understand, one would like to think that government documents might also be written in a gender-neutral way so as to avoid further incidents such as that one.

I raise this as an important issue, because I do believe that labelling is 50 percent of the problem. When we label something with a sexist connotation, we condone it. We allow people to think that our government sets an example with sexist forms and sexist language, and therefore it's okay for others to do it. It's important for us to take a leadership role.

I would ask you then about the Plain Language Institute and if, on its board, you have an equal number of women and men; and if, as part of its terms of reference and mandate, you've included a vetting of all government forms and documents to ensure that they are written in a non-sexist and gender-neutral way.

Because of the "Sue May Love" incident, I have received a couple of documents from government employees who have found themselves somewhat offended, on occasion, by the way forms have been printed up. I point to one in particular today which came to me through our critic for the environment. It is basically — I think the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) will appreciate this — an application to accompany a non-resident or non-resident alien while hunting big game in British Columbia.

On the second page of this application it talks about persons who may apply to hunt big game in British Columbia, and it includes under "other": "brother, father, son, uncle, nephew, grandfather, grandson or the corresponding step, foster, in-law or female relationship." I thought you might appreciate that, Mr. Attorney-General. I would have brought it up under the Environment estimates, but I lost it. I

[ Page 10713 ]

have rediscovered it for the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) to bring forward to the Attorney-General in order to talk to him about whether or not he will be putting this kind of document before the Plain Language Institute.

HON. MR. SMITH: The short answer to the last question is yes.

The member asked me about the people in the Plain Language Institute, and they are: Joan Acosta, the editor of Westcoast Reader; Jeannette Armstrong, director of the En'owkin Education Centre in Penticton; George Cadman, who chairs the Continuing Legal Education Society; Hamish Cameron from Bull Housser and Tupper, a law firm in Vancouver, who is an expert and a recognized leader not only in the field of drafting but drafting in plain language; Arthur Close, who chairs the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia and who obviously can bring a coordinating function to the issues they are dealing with; Richard Coe, a member of the faculty of English at Simon Fraser University; Stuart Cunningham, the president of Seaboard Life....

I should say parenthetically that the life insurance companies — and I don't frequently give accolades to large insurance companies or banking institutions — have done an outstanding job of leadership in the whole area of plain language in contracts. If you were to compare a life insurance policy of ten years ago with a typical life insurance policy today, you would understand what I mean.

... Hope Hyslop, a practitioner of law from the city of Kamloops; Suzi Kilgour, board member of the Tenants' Rights Coalition; Lynn Langford, who is the director of policy and legislation attached to the Premier's office; Stephen Owen, the ombudsman; Mae Reid, who among other things chairs the New Westminster Credit Union; and Cliff Watt, who is the chief legislative counsel for the province of British Columbia.

Those are the members of the board of the institute, and in turn they can draw on other people as need be.

MS. EDWARDS: I have a simple yes-or-no question for the Attorney-General, because I need to base my next remarks on knowing whether the Attorney-General 's ministry keeps any records about the average length of time it takes — I refer specifically to sexual abuse cases — from the time an information is laid until such time as the charge is put. Do you have any information as to the average length of time?

HON. MR. SMITH: If it pleases the Chair, I'm going to have to ask the member a question. When the information is laid, that's when the charge is put. Are you referring to the length of time between the information and when the matter comes to court?

MS. EDWARDS: You can swear an information, as I understand it, before a charge is laid.

MR. SIHOTA: No.

MS. EDWARDS: No? Then I'm using the wrong terms. Maybe the complaint is made; that is the term I should have used. The other term was used in describing a situation to me.

Does the Attorney -Genera I's ministry keep any records on the average length of time it normally takes in these cases from the time the complaint goes to the RCMP or to the city police until a charge is laid?

HON. MR. SMITH: I would be surprised if that information was available. First of all, I am not sure what utility there would be in keeping that kind of statistic, to be quite honest with you. When a complaint is lodged, a variety of police agencies may investigate it. When I say that, I think of the RCMP or the various city police detachments around the province of British Columbia. There's a whole range of reasons why investigations will take as long as they do.

Even when an investigation is drawn to apparent completion, the matter then goes to Crown counsel, who will examine it and may say to the investigating agency: "There isn't enough information here for us to go ahead, because we don't think there's a substantial likelihood of conviction, based on what you have." So they may well send it back to the investigating agency and say: "We would like you to look at this, that or the other aspect of the matter."

The short answer is no, I could not get a reliable statistical record that would tell you, even on average or in particular, the amount of time it takes from the time a complaint is lodged until an information is sworn.

MS. EDWARDS: The reason I asked the Attorney-General is that a number of incidents have been brought to my attention in my area, where counselling for victims of alleged and real assaults is not readily available. To clarify why I asked this question, there is a family where a young girl was found to have been assaulted by her stepfather. When her mother finally found out about it, the family separated and a complaint was made to the police. The stepfather moved out, but the child began to act out. The child has a younger brother. The whole family needs counselling and particularly this young girl and her brother.

In our community there is no counselling available through the school. After the first visit, that was the end of that. She's now on a waiting-list. We come to the mental health situation, where she should be able to find counselling. The waiting-list is months long. As far as private counselling is concerned, the private counsellors in town obviously have waiting lists that are months long because of this. She cannot get help from the victim assistance program because the information has not been sworn — if that is the term I'm using. There is no charge laid, and until such time as the charge is laid, this whole family is out of luck as far as counselling is concerned.

I'm suggesting to the Attorney-General that this is not an isolated incident. I have other incidents of it

[ Page 10714 ]

lasting for nearly a year from such time. It's not easy for victims to get assistance in this case. Is there any way that you could find out how frequent this is? If it's as frequent as recent reports to me indicate, you might find it's a huge problem across the province. There might be a reason to change how the victim assistance program works. But right now it is a major problem, and I have had a number of incidents brought to my attention.

HON. MR. SMITH: You are correct; it is a problem. It is one of the very important reasons why the decision has been made to better coordinate the resources that are available. It's precisely that; those occurrences do arise.

The question is whether we can collapse the amount of time between a complainant coming forward and the completion of an investigation or the swearing of an information. I think not, quite frankly. I know that for any family or individual involved, it is a traumatic, difficult, rotten period of time to go through — for everybody. But I don't know how you can force the speeding-up of investigations. They take whatever time they take, and there are thousands of reasons for that.

In any event, the issuing of an information and bringing the matter to court would not bring into play the criminal injury compensation route, because I believe that requires somewhat further down the line of the process, in terms of the result.... But there's no reason why the individual can't look at or apply to that criminal injury compensation process. If you'd get me the specifics of it, I'd like to follow up on it.

The gist of what you're saying is correct; there is a need to draw those resources together better, for precisely the reason you're talking about. A number of agencies deal with this issue, and they each have developed and responded to needs, as they've seen them. If we could bring the resources more into focus, I think we could use them better than we do now. That's not a critique of how they're used now; I think logic tells you that. But you have identified a problem, and it's one of the issues that the coordinating committees in the social policy area are examining.

But if you don't mind, you could bring the specifics of the incident to my office. I don't know if there is anything I can do, but I would like to have an opportunity to look at it.

[5:15]

MR. SIHOTA: In response to a question from my colleague from Point Grey, the minister said that there would be $1.8 million spent on victim assistance programs. Does he have a breakdown in terms of where that money would be going to and to which centres in British Columbia?

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. MR. SMITH: I responded to the question of the member for Vancouver-Point Grey with respect to that particular issue and the increase that has been proposed for this year.

To the member for Esquimalt, those funds are going as follows: $15,000 to Port Alberni; $23,040 to Penticton; $20,000 to a victim program in Burnaby; $8,600 to E. Fry in Williams Lake; a further $8,600 to 100 Mile House; $10,000 to Quesnel; $22,500 to Matsqui-Abbotsford; $42,500 to Chilliwack; $7,500 to Golden; $44,760 to Comox-Courtenay; $20,000 to Coquitlam; $18,750 to Port Moody; $30,000 to Duncan; $20,000 to Delta; $39,000 to Maple Ridge; $10,750 to Mission; $37,000 to Victoria; $8,600 to Clearwater and for support of the upper North Thompson; $20,000 to Kamloops; $25,000 to Cranbrook; $35,000 to Langley; a further $26,520 to the victim-offender reconciliation program, which is actually based in Burnaby; $35,300 to a similar reconciliation program based in Surrey; $8,300 to a victim services program in Mackenzie; $33,000 to Powell River; a further $17,000 to a RCMP witness service police-based program for the entire mid-coast and Sechelt area.

Then we have $58,500 to Nanaimo; $8,600 to Nakusp and Nelson; a further $8,600 to the Creston-Salmo area; $25,000 for New Westminster, $20,000 to Campbell River for the family services program; a further $12,500 for the victim assistance program in Campbell River; a further $45,900 for a John Howard Society victim reparation program centred in Campbell River; a further $18,000 for victim assistance centred around the northern part of that area out of Port Hardy; and $6,745 to Gold River.

North Vancouver, $6,120; Vernon, $20,000; $22,000 to the E. Fry Society in Kelowna; $20,000 to the RCMP victim assistance program in Kelowna; $30,600 to the Kelowna Mediation Association, which is again a victim-offender reconciliation program — and that services the whole of that Okanagan centre. A further $50,000 has gone to the Sexual Assault Counselling Centre in Kamloops, which does a whole range of this service for an extremely broad area — based in Kamloops but over into the Nicola and out into the Shuswap and up into the north valley; $17,200 to the Fort St. James area for a multiplicity of programs; $8,600 to Burns Lake; a further $8,600 to Vanderhoof; $33,000 for E. Fry in Prince George; $20,000 for the RCMP program in Prince George; $34,680 for the central interior correctional program — a youth program based in Prince George; $8,164 for a group of programs centred in McBride; $25,000 for a combined specialized support service and police-based program in Prince Rupert; a further $23,000 for the Island Women's Society in Port Clements; $25,000 for an RCMP program in Richmond; $10,000 to the Women in Need Society in Trail; $10,000 for the Trail victim assistance program; a further $8,600 for an RCMP program in Revelstoke; $30,000 to the Terrace Sexual Assault Centre — which, as most people know, serves not only Terrace but much of the Nass area; another $10,000 for the RCMP victim assistance program rooted in that area; $18,000 to the Smithers Indian Friendship Centre for a variety of programs; $12,500

[ Page 10715 ]

to the victim services program in Kitimat; $18,576 for an RCMP victim-witness assistance program based in Smithers, which is an important component of this; $17,500 to the South Peace Community Resources Society in Dawson Creek; $8,600 to a police-based victim-witness program is going as well to Chetwynd; and a further $8,600 to a similar program in Tumbler Ridge.

In the Surrey area, there is $20,000 going to the RCMP victim services unit and the Surrey Crown counsel victim-witness services unit; $30,000 to the Surrey Community Services Society; and a further $20,000 to the British Columbia Association of Police Affiliated Victim-Witness Services.

There are a number of programs in Vancouver. The Vancouver Women against Violence Against Women is receiving $62,000; $25,000 is going to the Vancouver police victim-witness services program, another one associated with Crown counsel. There's $3,060 going to the West Coast Social and Behavioural Research Enterprise Society, which is examining a number of issues that the member for Vancouver-Point Grey raised. The Vancouver Incest and Sexual Abuse Centre is getting $45,000. A further $77,500 is going to the battered women's support services program in Vancouver. Back to Victoria again, there's $45,000 to the Victoria Child Sexual Abuse Society, which does extraordinary work in this community; $38,200 to the Women's Sexual Assault Centre of Victoria; $30,000 to greater Victoria victim services, a police-based program. We have added a further $10,000 to the RCMP victim services program for Merritt, and $10,000 for a police-based program in Squamish, which does an area that would be much further a field than Squamish.

That list of where these moneys go includes a whole range of community programs, some of which are managed by the A-Gs ministry and some of which would technically be managed by my colleague the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser), particularly those I referred to that are police-based victims' programs. I thought, for the sake of brevity, we could just lay them all out here in a comprehensive way.

MR. SIHOTA: I see there are some reductions to some of them. I'll review Hansard in the morning.

I didn't catch anything for Nanaimo. Is the Mid-Island Sexual Assault Centre on your list?

HON. MR. SMITH: First of all, Mr. Chairman, there are no reductions. Second of all, yes, I did refer to Nanaimo.

MR. SIHOTA: Could you tell me again what the amount for Nanaimo was?

HON. MR. SMITH: The Mid-Island Sexual Assault Centre receives $38,500, and a further $20,000 goes to the Nanaimo victim-witness services program.

MR. SIHOTA: As I say, I'll review that list and we'll get to it later on.

I want to turn to another issue. It deals with the criminal justice portion of the ministry's budget. The minister knows — and, I'm sure, understands — that the industry has chosen to deal with the matter of criminal justice work in different ways. Last year the minister made a promise that there would be an increase in budgetary allocation to the criminal justice branch. Perhaps he could tell the House how much that is.

[5:30]

My real concern, of course, is the opportunity for professional development within the branch — and that juxtaposed, of course, with the policy of engaging ad hoc and contracted counsel. Let me say, however, before I launch into this too far, that I think — contrary to the belief of some in the field — that ad hoc or contract counselling is a wise policy to engage in. I don't think that we should deter or step back too much from that.

However, on the other side of the coin, of course, there's a need for professional development and making sure that we develop a proper Crown counsel program and allow for significant opportunities to put professional development in the branch. I wonder if the ministry has any statistics with respect to, first of all, the increase this year in the budgetary allocation to the criminal justice branch — I'm sure you have — and, secondly, what the breakdown is between counsellors employed this year compared to last and what the increases are in contracted counsel and ad hoc counsel?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, there has been a substantial increase in the resources allocated to the criminal justice branch in the last two years. It's a commitment that I made some time ago. That increase in those resources reflects my view that the Ministry of Attorney-General is a place to which people should aspire to be involved in a career way. That was a notion which I think at one time was not given a lot of currency in the ministry or the branch, but it is one to which I subscribe.

On how much is ad-hocked out or how much is done by contractors or by ministry Crown counsel, I don't have the exact figures at my fingertips. I can get them for tomorrow or next week or Friday— or whatever.

Generally speaking, though, I want to see a good mix of people who do ad hoc work. We obviously put people out for specialty matters. We do it as well on an ongoing basis with people we have available to us. I want to see a core of those people available to the ministry. We have a number of people who are contractors to the ministry, who are outside the ministry's orbit but who do work for us more or less all the time. Certainly they do it regularly. That number is decreasing, as I think it should; and as a consequence, the number of people who are inside the ministry is increasing, as I think it should.

I also encourage what I call cross-pollination: that people who do typically Crown prosecution work from inside the ministry involve themselves with the defence bar. We are examining ways we can do that

[ Page 10716 ]

more substantively so that they would work outside the ministry — perhaps be seconded, or otherwise — and vice versa. It's a good program, and British Columbia benefits. When I talk to other attorneys, we have an extremely good criminal bar, and we benefit greatly by having people work on both sides of the street on these issues. It's good for both.

The other matter of professional development in that section of the ministry which I am particularly pleased with — I have instructed it be done and it's starting to work out quite well — is more specialization within the ministry. We're doing it in the area of sexual assaults, as I discussed with the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari). We're doing it in environmental prosecutions and in certain matters relating to fraud. And, of course, we're doing it — and have done it quite successfully — in the area of young offenders, particularly relating to youth gangs.

With regard to the budgetary increase, we are asking this year for $27.6 million for that branch, and that's up from $24.1 million in the last budgetary year. And we have a total of 273 people working in the branch this year, which is up 79 from last year That reflects my decision to put those who previously had been contractors — and basically were working full-time — to where it was appropriate and where we wanted to make them full-time Crown counsel.

MR. SIHOTA: I appreciate that response. And again, I would point out that I agree with the direction you're going. I just wanted to see how we were progressing.

You mentioned in your comments the increased specialization, and you talked about specialization in a number of areas. I may not have heard it fully, because there is some chatter back there, but there has been, of course, an increase in the prosecution....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, it wasn't bothering me; I just couldn't hear what the minister was saying.

You indicated last year that there was an intent to increase the number of those involved in the prosecution of family violence cases and to provide more senior Crown counsel in that area. I think that was the plan of the ministry, which is commendable.

What I'm trying to find out again is: what's the status of that in terms of training? How many of these people do we have now within the ministry who specialize in this area, and where are they situated? Can the minister give his assurance that it's not a matter of just shifting the same bodies around but that we've actually made some progress in terms of people who we've engaged to do this stuff and have provided additional training for?

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't know what the member means by "shifting the same bodies around." Obviously the people who are going to be taken into a specialty will typically be people who are already there. In any event, I can tell the member that in fact there are more, and we are doing more in that area and in all those areas I mentioned. But I don't have the specific numbers at my fingertips.

MR. SIHOTA: just as a matter of interest, has the minister maintained his membership in the bar from the time he was elected to the current date?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll have to check that out and get back to you on that one as well.

MR. SIHOTA: Gosh, I hope you have. I'd be disappointed to see you had vacated your membership in the bar. I'm sure you are now, being the Attorney-General of British Columbia.

I wanted to move to another issue: facilities. The minister knows as well as I do that that there are always representations with respect to facilities and accommodations in that regard. We've had debates in the past in terms of my own riding and the courthouse in the Western Communities, but I'll put that aside. I know needs have been expressed for facilities in Prince George, Nanaimo and other portions of the province.

I wonder if the minister could advise what the ministry's intentions are this year with respect to facilities and what accommodation is being made in the budget for upgrading. What are the priorities that you've set in terms of where you want to go with respect to that often contentious issue of facilities? Every community I ever visited to talk to the local bar, they always complained about the facilities. I know that it's a matter of addressing priorities, but I'd just like to know what the ministry's views are on that matter.

HON. MR. SMITH: The priority in terms of facilities is, first of all, to upgrade those courthouses that we now use that are not wheelchair-accessible. Sadly, there are still a number of them. We're pressing along on that as rapidly as we can, but it is the case that there are a number that weren't and aren't.

In a number of areas we had some real problems that were rooted in issues somewhat beyond our control. One of them was in Vancouver, where we had to move out of the Yale Street facility because the lease with the city expired. That triggered a whole host of things. We also wanted to consolidate a number of facilities. We had one on Richards Street, and we had one that was used for traffic court down not so far from 222 Main — I forget the location now, off the top of my head — as well as the facility at Block 71. So that is a priority.

I can tell you the areas where we're working right now, which we're either in the throes of or completing. In Creston we have a project underway to develop a new facility. We just opened a new facility in Maple Ridge that would house the provincial court, and I also announced at that opening that we would be putting into that location a Supreme Court registry and using the remaining vacant courtroom as a room in which Supreme Court service will be

[ Page 10717 ]

provided. The reason for that is that almost 100,000 people now live on the north side of the Fraser River. There is no Supreme Court registry east of New Westminster, so I've decided that is an appropriate place to provide that service. It's a growth area and, with the consolidation of our County and Supreme Courts, I think we can do it.

[5:45]

In Matsqui, we are completing a significant renovation. In Surrey, we have a major project underway that will provide 12 new courtrooms. The Robson Square one I've mentioned. We're also doing work at 222 Main. We have work underway in Chase. We have planning work moving along rapidly in Kelowna. A renovation and reopening of the courthouse in Mission has been announced by the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen). We're upgrading the facilities in Nanaimo as a major expenditure here on the Island. We're adding more chambers in the Vancouver law courts because we've had a significant increase in supernumerary justices at our superior courts. The Court of Appeal has grown, I believe, from 11 to 23, and naturally some new facilities were required.

In the Western Communities, at the lower end of the Island, we are moving well ahead on a project that is being built by the private sector and that we will lease back. I was there the other day and went through it. I'm very pleased with that, and I think it's a model that we should examine.

In Prince George, we are also doing work in the planning stage for a major new facility that the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. Mr. Strachan) announced some time ago. I might say that the planning for the Prince George facility will include as well.... It will be a major justice centre where the Court of Appeal will sit, as well as the Supreme Court and the Provincial Court — as is the case, I might add, in Kamloops and Victoria.

MR. SIHOTA: I was interested in the comments you made about Yale Street, because that was quite an issue last year and it's also an issue this year. It's the first one that you raised.

I just want to know... When you vacate something like that or when you decide to engage in a new facility, as you are in the Western Communities.... Creston was the other example you gave. I am just trying to figure out what the process is. I would assume — correct me if I'm wrong in this — that all the lease negotiations and the structural details are matters that you work through the British Columbia Buildings Corporation. They actually act as your agent, I take it, in all those negotiations and those kinds of details. Once you have decided to make a move, what role does your ministry play in identifying the site and working with BCBC? Or do you work with them at all on these types of matters?

HON. MR. SMITH: We set out for the Buildings Corporation a set of criteria in advance in terms of our facility needs: physical layout, transportation needs and some idea of general location, if we're talking now about the more densely populated urban areas. Then they go out and identify those locations, through their own process of either bids or proposal calls, and ultimately they will confirm with us that their choices fulfil our needs. That is basically how it's done.

MR. SIHOTA: I take it there is no joint process with your ministry and BCBC. Once you have said, "Here are our criteria," they go out and look for the place and then they engage in negotiations and arrive at the final details as to structure and lease arrangements. Is that basically how it works?

HON. MR. SMITH: If by "joint process" you mean that we go with them and identify sites and enter into negotiations with property owners and the like, the answer is no. If by "joint process" you mean that they come back to us with what they've identified and what they propose and then we sign off, to demonstrate to them that what they have come up with satisfies our needs, then in that sense, yes, we do receive from them their recommendation. We tell them whether it will serve our needs or not. If it will, they then carry on and go ahead and build a building; if it won't, they go back and come up with something else.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me just get this clear. With respect to site and lease arrangements and the criteria for the building, at the end of the day who makes the final decision? Is it your ministry's decision or is it BCBC's decision as your agent?

HON. MR. SMITH: They are our agent, so, by the rules of agency, the recommendation that they make has to satisfy our needs and our criteria. So in terms of needs and criteria, we have the final authority to sign off. In terms of the specifics beyond that, they deal with those issues.

MR. SIHOTA: Do you maintain in-house experts to guide BCBC with respect to your needs, or does BCBC have their own set of experts who look at these matters and come to their own determinations? From experience, in terms of what the Attorney-General's department previously has wanted, they develop a repertoire of experience and they then make the decisions. Or is it the other way that I've described?

HON. MR. SMITH: We have a small unit of, I believe, three full-time people and perhaps one more part-time who translate, shall I say, our program needs into building requests. From that, BCBC then goes ahead.

MR. SIHOTA: Does the judiciary play any role in this process? Do they input in with those three?

HON. MR. SMITH: We have a user committee for all our facilities, on which the judiciary plays a very important role.

[ Page 10718 ]

MR. SIHOTA: Who are the other participants in that process? You say you have the judiciary. Who else would be involved?

HON. MR. SMITH: First of all, we have any other users of the building. For instance, in many of our buildings the Crown uses it; court services obviously uses it; and other agencies use it. The government agent, as well, uses it in some instances. So, in that sense, any users are involved in our users' committee.

MR. SIHOTA: As the minister, you don't play any role in any of this, I take it, except to be informed of what's going on.

HON. MR. SMITH: I receive reports on what's going on, but I don't get into the nuances of designing the buildings or choosing their locations.

MR. SIHOTA: Quickly shifting to another area, each year we table freedom-of-information legislation in this House, with the expectation that the government would see fit to proceed with the implementation of such legislation. It's a very important area. Could the minister advise us just what his ministry is doing with respect to freedom of information, and whether any provision is made this year for legislation in that area. Or, failing that, what lesser steps is the industry taking on freedom-of-information matters?

HON. MR. SMITH: A number of initiatives are going on in that area. As you know, a couple of models can be followed. One is in the whole area of developing a legislative framework with a bureaucracy attached, which would deal with complaints and so on. That model has been examined and is continuing to be examined here in British Columbia. It has been followed in some other areas, I know. I think the latest one to do it was Manitoba. It was almost three years after they introduced their legislation before they actually brought in the regulations and the bureaucracy to support it.

We're still looking at that, as I told the House last year we would, but there are a couple of other things that we've done that may actually be a preferable way to go if it can be accomplished ministry by ministry.

First of all, in the area of social policy, where individuals frequently require information — or at least where there are commitment statements made — we'll be introducing legislation, I would expect, this year that will allow the ministry, which is being prohibited in a whole host of areas of social policy, to release information where a suggestion has been made of some impropriety in a file or in the way in which something has been handled. It has really hampered proper, open discussion of those issues, because the minister has been prohibited by law from releasing that information.

I know the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond), when he was in Social Services, was well aware of that, where there would be a complaint come in about a Social Services problem, and you couldn't tell the other side of the story because that information could not be released in an open way. It is my understanding that that is going to be changed by way of legislation, which I believe is about to be introduced into this House.

The other area, Mr. Chairman, is in the area of the environment. The Ministry of Environment has taken steps — and announced, in fact, today in answer to a question — to release a whole range of information that previously had not been released in any organized way. And a further area where information release is taking place is in the Ministry of Forests. The Minister of Forests has committed to release significant quantities and types of information which previously had not been released.

There are a number of areas where this is going on, and we're still examining. We're still looking at the whole idea of a comprehensive package, but in the interim there are a number of areas where specific ministries are developing programs for full release of information that previously had not been released.

MR. SIHOTA: Given the hour, I move that we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton 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 6 p.m.