1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 14, Number 4
[ Page 9971 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply: in Committee A, the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture; and in Committee B in the main House, the Attorney General's estimates.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
(continued)
On vote 16: minister's office, $424,063 (continued).
J. Dalton: Needless to say, yesterday wasn't a happy day for the Attorney General's ministry. Obviously the opposition will have to direct a series of questions with regard to yesterday's circumstances.
However, before I get into the lead item of the morning, I want to ask the Attorney General about another unfortunate case that was in the news recently. He will recall -- as everyone in British Columbia unfortunately vividly recalls -- the rape and murder of a six-year-old child in Comox. I'm not going to get into the hysteria of public outrage, which is well documented, but the offender, Jason Gamache, was on probation at the time of this offence. He was living across the street from the victim's family, and public questions and concerns have been raised about this for many months. This is not the only case. It's unfortunate that these things and the timing of them.... As I remarked when we started the estimates, the concern that the public has about safety and the forgotten victim -- and I think we're right back to that; nothing seems to have changed in the last few days....
The Attorney General reacted to the information that this offender was on probation. The horror that people naturally have, under any circumstances, about a six-year-old girl being raped and murdered is enough in itself. In a media interview, the Attorney General said: "I take it very seriously." We all take it very seriously, and that's not the issue. He goes on to say: "I want to find out exactly what the facts are before deciding what to do about it." In the next paragraph he says: "I've asked my deputy to do a thorough analysis of all of the issues that surround the issue and to advise me of what happened and what has occurred as soon as possible, so that I can look at it."
Could the Attorney General advise this committee as to the terms of reference of this thorough analysis, when we might expect to see a report, and when the public will have some satisfaction that these terrible examples of breach of public safety will be addressed by this ministry?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd like to be able to be more specific this morning in respect of terms of reference and time frames in doing a full assessment of the circumstances surrounding the events in Courtenay. I'm unable to do that this morning.
I've forgotten now exactly how long ago it was, but within a day or so or thereabouts after the decision of the trial court, I asked the commissioner of corrections, who is also the deputy minister, to put together a process, to do a full and thorough report for me so that I could have identified all of the concerns that may exist. Some of them are already in the public record in respect of the documents and evidence that were in court; others are the subject, obviously, of rumour and commentary on the street; and there may be other matters which have not yet seen the light of day. I could then see the whole series of events, have a factual record which goes beyond the record now available from the trial and be able to see from that what needs to be done.
There aren't any terms of reference per se, other than the kind of general comment I'm making now. I asked the deputy to treat the issue with urgency, and she is in the process of putting that together.
J. Dalton: I think the people of British Columbia would like something a little more precise than rather open-ended terms of reference. As the father of three children.... I don't speak just on behalf of myself, obviously; I speak on behalf of every British Columbian on these terrible examples. These cases have truly shaken the public confidence in security and policing. It's information that, quite frankly, I feel should be available to the public. Later this morning we'll get into the Danny Perrault case. If that hasn't shaken the confidence of the public, I don't know what has. I'm not happy to hear the rather vague remarks -- to put it mildly -- of the Attorney General in response to my question. Let me just ask it this way, and then perhaps we could move into something that's far more serious, perhaps, from the point of view that more detail has to be extracted. Why is it that the public, at least seemingly, is so many times denied the opportunity to know about true safety and security issues in their communities? I personally am so fed up with this when I hear that a rapist is running around in Surrey, and the police -- and admittedly they have to be somewhat guarded -- are not prepared to give women, and all people, of that community enough information as to how they may secure themselves.
[10:15]
Why is it, in this unfortunate Gamache case, that a convicted sex offender on probation was living across the street from a family, was associating with that child and other young children, and the public had no knowledge of it? Quite frankly, this is getting ludicrous. Sure, I know about the Charter -- and I commented the other day about the Charter; I'm not a fan of it, and the Attorney General happily said he's not a fan of it, either. We've got to live in this community with some assurance that we can walk the streets, that our children can play on the grounds and go to school without being assaulted and molested and that women can sleep at night with some confidence that their houses and bedrooms are not going to be invaded. There's no evidence of that; none whatsoever.
Whether the Attorney General wishes to give us a little more detail on this Gamache case or not, obviously information will be forthcoming. But again I stand on my feet and ask the Attorney General why the public cannot have some more assurances, more confidence and information. If we are going to cast aside the victim -- potential or real -- in the niceties of law enforcement that protect the offender.... If this character isn't an offender, who is? And if Danny Perrault isn't an offender, who is? Enough is enough. Would the Attorney General care to comment?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I take from the member's comments that he is raising two issues. The first is a specific reference to the incidents in Courtenay.
As much as I don't like to do this, I need to remind members of the House that Mr. Gamache, who was convicted
[ Page 9972 ]
in trial court, has the right to appeal. His ability to appeal extends until May 6. As a result of that, I have to be very careful about what I say. Members of the House and the public would quite properly call for very dramatic action on my part if I were to say something that had the effect of developing a situation to where a case might not proceed in the normal fashion.
I'll put it more boldly -- and I am now stepping aside from any particular case to make a general comment. Were I, in my capacity as Attorney General, to make a comment that resulted in a mistrial or resulted in a judge deciding to throw charges out, the members of the opposition would quite properly call for my head. But members don't do that. As a result of that kind of concern, which I haven't expressed very articulately, and I apologize for that, I'm often in a position of being unable to say what I'd like to say. Members need to understand that. There is also federal legislation which prohibits me -- in fact, prohibits anybody in this country -- from saying things about certain offenders. I can tell members that that is a frustration.
Having said that, I am not going to say very much about the Courtenay matter, other than to repeat and expand a bit on what I said earlier: I intend to find out all of the matters, events and issues that relate to the RCMP, to the corrections branch and to any other part of the ministry that may have been involved in some way. I intend to do that quickly. I understand that we are within days of being able to begin that process, and I want that process to last no longer than two weeks. I don't want to tie myself down to a specific date, but I hope I can get a report within the next three weeks.
One of the problems we're going to face is that I may not be able to release much of that report for legal reasons.
G. Farrell-Collins: That sounds familiar.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Opposition House Leader says: "That sounds familiar." It sure does, but members need to understand that it occurs.
Now let me speak very generally, making reference to no case at all, about some federal legislation that the public talks about a lot: the Young Offenders Act. The Young Offenders Act has a provision, section 38, which requires: "...no person shall publish by any means any report of an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by a young person...." Later in section 38 it states that everyone who contravenes section (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. In other words, this is a hybrid offence: the Crown can proceed by way of indictment or by way of summary charges. The maximum penalty is two years' imprisonment for making any reference that may identify an individual who is in contravention of the Criminal Code and is charged under the Young Offenders Act.
That provision was discussed at the federal-provincial justice ministers' meeting. I argued at that meeting that there are occasions when there must be the right to notify some people in the community about an individual who may be on parole or under some kind of supervision through the corrections branch. There is not that ability now. By law, people cannot be told about that. I argued at the federal-provincial meeting that the act should be amended to allow for that kind of notification. Mr. Rock, the hon. federal minister, has indicated that he's going to be bringing in amendments to the YOA this session. Whether he includes this suggestion of ours, I don't know at this point. I hope very much that he does, because it's an important tool in our armoury that would give the public some confidence and security.
As I said at the beginning, I make these comments in general about the YOA, without reference to any matters that may have been raised in this House, during these estimates or elsewhere, at any point in the last period of time.
J. Dalton: I guess the Attorney General almost anticipated another line of questioning that I was about to embark upon. He has made comment about federal-provincial discussions, and perhaps that will be a topic for a later time in these estimates.
Let's cut to the quick here, hon. Chair. The Danny Perrault report, as everyone knows, was filed in this House yesterday. Putting aside the public concern that's been raging for many months about this report and all the information and misinformation drifting around the streets of British Columbia, we now at least have in front of us a partial document -- I say partial because there's so much deleted from this document. It's very difficult to read a novel without knowing who the characters are and knowing only half the plot. It's like going into a movie halfway through and thinking: "I wonder what happened; I wonder where we're at." Well, that's where we're at here. How can anybody understand the very terrible errors that were obviously made in this case? The ministry has admitted that to me -- and to others, of course.
I hope nobody is going to suggest that Danny Perrault is an aberration and that that will never happen again and that it has never happened before. Of course, that's nonsense. Quite frankly, the whole system has been so badly shaken by this case that I personally have to question my confidence in it. What has happened to law and order? I think it has been chucked out the window, quite frankly.
Firstly, can the Attorney General tell the committee who prepared the first two pages, the summary, of the Danny Perrault case?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: A number of people had input into this summary. The member is referring to the first two pages of the document I filed yesterday in the House, which is entitled: "Summary of Danny Perrault Case." I do this for the Hansard record more than anything else, so that people, when reading this, know what we're talking about.
As I was beginning to say, this summary was prepared by senior officials in the corrections branch. I could give the member the name of the person who put all that together and actually wrote the document. It's another senior member of the corrections branch. If the member is interested in that person's name, I'm prepared to do that. My general practice is not to do that kind of thing, because I'm responsible. I didn't write the words, but they're my responsibility. My general practice has been not to name particular officials. If I start doing that, the next suggestion would be that the minister is trying to fob it off onto somebody else. That's not the way I try to do my job. This is my responsibility. If the member is really interested and wants to know and if he wants that on the record of the House, I am prepared to give the name. If he wants it privately, I'll do it that way. I would simply say that this is my responsibility.
J. Dalton: That's fair enough. I can understand that we don't necessarily need to attach names to everything that is produced out of a ministry, but I think it would be helpful. The Attorney General made a good point: the public -- and Hansard, of course -- would like to know what's in the Perrault report. We're going to go through it. We can't
[ Page 9973 ]
display everything on television; but we can certainly read into the record things that everybody in this province should know and would like to know. So I will take the Attorney General up on his suggestion. There's no great rush, but at some point the name of the person or persons who prepared this summary would be helpful.
I say that, as much as anything, because all the other information here has names attached to it. For example, the names Jim Graham, Fred Hunt and M. Cameron appear here, as well as other people's names. We've got those, so I think it would be a courtesy, if nothing else, to all members of the committee and all British Columbians to be told who threw these first two pages together. Of course, as soon as we grabbed this document yesterday, that's the first thing we started to look at. I looked at it and said: "I wonder who wrote that." We're going to find out. All right.
Let's go through the series of memos and reports in some detail. Before I get into the precise questioning as to what is or is not here -- for the most part there's nothing here because of all the deletions -- I'll say again that this sort of case is so disturbing to everyone, and I'm sure it is to the Attorney General. I respect the Attorney General's concern and his expressions of guilt, almost. We should all feel guilty about this sort of thing.
[10:30]
I'm just hoping that out of this and these other horrible examples, we're all going to learn some lessons. If we don't, boy, the system sure doesn't serve anybody. The people have to stand up and be counted, and say: it isn't good enough; change it. Quite frankly, I don't care about all the legal niceties that the Attorney General is so quick to point out. I want public safety. In fact, that's the first thing I'll ask about, because the next page in this document is a memorandum dated November 25, to Maureen Maloney from Jim Graham.
By the way, as an aside for the information of committee members, who probably weren't up as early as I was this morning -- because I wanted to get as much news as possible on this case before we hit the floor today -- Jim Graham was on CBC this morning. I'll probably make some comments later about some of the things he said to Hal Wake, the moderator. However, we have Jim Graham's two-page memorandum of November 25, 1993, to Maureen Maloney, in which he happily says: "The criteria will reaffirm that public safety is to receive the highest priority." I say happily, because if that isn't the guideline, the watchword and the underlying theme of any corrections or law enforcement revision, what is?
There is no evidence whatsoever, quite frankly, that public safety was ever given any consideration in this terrible example. There were some serious errors. Some members have suggested corruption. I'm not going to suggest that, but there were certainly some very serious errors, misjudgment and misguided philosophies. In fact, I'll just make this point right now, because we're talking about Jim Graham's memorandum and I had said he was on CBC this morning. He made a comment which is a fair one. I'll say it into the record -- of course, I'm just recalling what I heard before 7 o'clock this morning. He said that obviously people like Danny Perrault and every other offender are eventually going to come back out onto the streets, and we have to make provisions as to how we ease them into that process.
However, I submit to the Attorney General -- as Mr. Graham admits, although he didn't seem to want to talk about it much this morning -- that public safety has to have the highest priority. What happened to public safety in the Danny Perrault case?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the two-page memorandum was prepared by a program analyst in the branch by the name of Steve Howell. Members may actually have met him on one occasion or another through a briefing session, or they may have talked to him on the telephone. His draft was revamped, revised and put into its final form by Mr. Jim Graham, who is the assistant deputy minister. Mr. Graham is sitting beside me in the House. That's the first point.
Secondly, I didn't hear Mr. Graham's interview this morning. I was coming over from Vancouver, and I was in transit at the time of the interview. But I understand from reports that he talked about what is a really very important issue for the corrections branch, and a very difficult one to deal with: at some point everybody gets out of custody -- out of jail. There has been the odd historical exception to that, but unless you die during your term, you're going to get out one day. Apart from its fundamental requirement to protect the public, the corrections branch has another very fundamental responsibility which also protects the public. And that is to be sure -- as much as it can -- that when the individual does get out they're able to re-enter society in a way that will not be problematic again. In other words, we have to make sure that people don't go from a closed, tight facility in which they don't have any ability to function in the ordinary, normal world, and suddenly come out one day -- bang -- and have to function in the normal world. We try to find a way of allowing people to re-enter successfully. In doing so, in the latter stages of the term a number of initiatives are taken -- and I won't go through all the details -- to find a way to get that individual ready to live in society. That is for the protection of the public, and that needs to be understood. That's my second point.
My third point is to try, if I can, to answer the member's last question, which was in a sense rhetorical. But I'm not going to treat it rhetorically, because I think this issue deserves better than that. The member knows how upset I was -- and am -- about what happened. Decisions were made which turned out to have terrible consequences. Everybody involved would love now to have the chance to remake those decisions, but they can't. What we -- what I -- can do is ensure that the system works better so that we minimize the chance of those kinds of mistakes being made again. I'm not sure what more I can say about that, in that respect.
I want to move on now to the fourth and final part of my answer. It is not at all to do with the case or the particular issue the member is raising, but is an answer in terms of a general response to the way our system works. I've put that badly, but members may understand that I'm trying to choose my words very carefully. In our system, in general we have to be sure that the decisions about placement and release and various other decisions that get made on a daily basis -- thousands of decisions -- are made at the appropriate level. In some cases in the past those decisions were made at too junior a level, or in one part of the branch as opposed to another part at a higher level which may have a wider, more comprehensive view.
Changes have been made recently which will require that decisions on placement are made at a more appropriate, higher level and that there is an individual who is accountable, so that someone takes responsibility for the decisions. That should help us, in general terms, to make better decisions. I'm not saying that out of all this we can design a system that will have decision-making perfected. Decisions are made by humans, and humans make mistakes. I make them, as we all know; everybody makes them. People
[ Page 9974 ]
are going to continue to make mistakes. But we have to try to have a structure in place that minimizes that and provides some accountability so that the public can have more confidence in the system. We have done that, and we will continue to do that.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member has interjected a question which I didn't hear, but I'm sure the critic will ask it next.
That has to be a continuing process, and I am determined that we will continue. I have a number of objectives, and I won't list them all, because they are varied. In trying to do my job in this ministry I have an objective, which is for the public to have confidence in the system. Last year it was clear to me that the public didn't have confidence in the way a number of policing issues were dealt with. Following an incident in an area adjacent to the member's constituency -- and other incidents that occurred last year in British Columbia -- I spent some time considering how I could best respond to ensure that the public had some confidence in policing. I didn't make a decision the next day after an incident, or even the next week after an incident. I took my time, and in taking my time, designed an inquiry led by Justice Wally Oppal, and the terms of reference were developed very carefully. At the end of the day, I think that's going to lead to increased confidence in policing.
I hinted at this to the media yesterday in the hallway, and I think the member was listening. I have to consider -- and am considering -- what steps I need to take to accomplish the same objective with respect to corrections. It may be a similar model; it may not. There may be other alternatives; there may be completely different routes that I should follow. One thing members need to know about me, if they don't already know, is that I'm not going to make snap decisions. I'm not going to make decisions in the hallway under the glare of television lights, and I'm not going to make decisions here under intensive interrogation from members. I'm going to carefully consider what I do before I do it so that unintended consequences don't flow from a snap decision which might turn out to have been a mistake.
I hope members hear enough between the lines here to know that I am concerned about the public confidence question. I am concerned that the public doesn't know enough about how the corrections system works and the reasons for a lot of its policies. I am concerned about that, but the policies are good, in general terms. It's good that we try to find a way to reintegrate people into society so they don't reoffend, and in the long term that will provide public security. Those are good things. The public doesn't know about them, and in the final analysis that's my fault because I haven't been able to educate the public about these issues. Those are things that I have to deal with, and I am dealing with them. I haven't decided how to do it yet, and I'm going to take whatever time I need to make the right decision about that.
G. Farrell-Collins: Listening to the Attorney General, I am not becoming more relaxed or comfortable with this issue; I'm becoming more agitated and nervous. I have to admit that I came here today hoping that we would hear some answers from the Attorney General that would help to instil confidence in me about the corrections system and instil some confidence in the public in the corrections system. I haven't heard one thing this morning that would give me any indication of that.
The minister says he's concerned about the public's perception of the corrections branch. I think the public is more than concerned. The public is terrified and outraged, and the public has had it up to here and beyond with explanations such as we've been hearing from the minister today. Quite frankly, they don't really want to know. They don't really care about all the little memos that have gone back and forth between bureaucrats and between employees in the ministry about how to deal with these people. They just want to know that when they go home at night they are safe. They want to know that somebody who has a record of offences as this man has is not going to decide one night when he's watching a movie that he doesn't like what's on TV and instead is going to go out and find something else to do. They want to know that they are secure. They don't take any comfort whatsoever in the minister standing up and assuring this House that he's not one to make snap decisions.
[10:45]
This issue didn't just happen yesterday when he tabled the report; this issue has been going on for months -- almost a year. Has he not been preparing some options? Has he not been preparing some alternatives? Has he not been doing some thinking and soul-searching? Has he not asked his people in the ministry to prepare some options for having some method in place once this disastrous case is finally resolved? When he is finally forced to table this document, he can stand up and say there are four things that he is looking at doing: (1) explain it; (2) explain it; (3) explain it; and (4) explain it -- and say that he'll have an answer for us next week on what they're going to do. It's not reassuring to the public, when an issue has been going on for months, for this minister to stand up and say: "Well, it's a serious issue. I'm concerned about it, but I'm not going to make a snap decision. I want to think about it."
These game plans should have been put in place some time ago. When this thing was finally dealt with by the courts and the inquiry was finished, the minister should have stood up and said: "I am going to do this. This is my plan to restore confidence in the corrections system in this province." That's his responsibility; that's his job.
This isn't a surprise event that occurred yesterday. This is something he knew was coming. He was prepared for this. Why are there no clear-cut options today for the minister? He should have announced them yesterday. But if he couldn't, can he stand up now and tell us one, two, three or four clear, concrete options he is considering to restore the public's confidence in the corrections system in this province, and when we will know what those answers are?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understand the member's frustration; I share it. The member should know that some time ago I asked my staff to put together the kinds of recommendations he is talking about. I am simply trying to say that I am not ready to tell the House today how I am going to proceed. It's as simple as that.
The member should relax; I have more to say. He should sit back and take a deep breath, let his blood pressure come down a little bit....
Interjections.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Okay, hon. members. I promise not to be combative and raise the temperature in the House, and I promise to be open.
I am simply saying to members that I am not ready today to announce how I intend to proceed. There are a lot of considerations that I have to weigh. The members may not like that. I was in opposition long enough to know how you
[ Page 9975 ]
feel when you are in opposition. You want decisions made instantly. It's the role of opposition to say what the member is saying, and I understand that.
My responsibility is to do it right. I didn't respond immediately when there were some issues raised on the policing side more than a year ago. I didn't even respond within a matter of a few weeks. I made sure I did it right. As a result, I think we're going to get a good report that will be very useful for this House and the public in British Columbia in respect of policing. I intend to weigh decisions here in the same way.
The member said earlier that I didn't release the report until I was "finally forced to table it." I released the report 261/2 hours after I was legally entitled to do so -- not when I was forced to. I said from the beginning that I wanted that report released in its entirety. I said that in this House, and I said that in the hallway to members of the media. Twenty-six and a half hours after I was advised in writing -- and I learned about that within that 261/2-hour period -- I tabled the report, because I was the one who wanted that report out. I'm as unhappy as every member of this House and as everybody who watched television last night that there are great big white spots all through it. I'm required to obey the law, and as a result, I can only do so much.
Maybe the member faults me for waiting a day before releasing the report. I wanted to make sure there were enough copies around so members of the press and members of the Legislature could each have one. That took a day. I'm sorry it took so long, but I reject categorically any suggestion that I didn't table the report on Mr. Perrault until I was "finally forced to table it." I tabled it virtually immediately after I was legally entitled to do so.
K. Jones: That investigation was done on October 21 of last year.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member interjects, and that's fair enough, hon. Chair. I think at times the House can relax the rules and listen to the odd interjection.
The member for Cloverdale doesn't seem to understand that there are laws in this country and province that govern what we can do in certain circumstances, and those laws governed what I could do. I was not legally entitled to release what I did release until 11:30 on Tuesday morning. The member can shake his head all he likes. I was not entitled legally to do so. The member who quarrels with me was the opposition critic on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. He should read section 78(1).
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's right, it is. If the member, or members, want me to violate the law, I want to ask them: what kind of message do they expect that sends to citizens in this province?
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Opposition House Leader says no one is asking me to break the law. The member for Cloverdale suggests, by way of inference at least, that since the report was commissioned back in October, I was somehow sitting on it -- and why wasn't it released? I wanted to release it a long time ago, and I still would like to release more of it, but I can't. The members are going to have to understand that and, if not accept it, live with it.
G. Farrell-Collins: We got a little sidetracked, I think, on whether or not the minister was forced to table this report. If the information the minister is giving us is accurate, then the use of the word "forced" is probably not correct. It maybe could have been a few hours earlier, but that's fine. That's not the issue.
The question that the minister was asked and didn't answer in any real clarity was: having known this issue was coming down the pipe -- not for a couple days, not even for a couple weeks, but numerous months -- why is it that today he didn't have, in his hands or in his mind, some options to deal with it? If he has options, I'd like to know what they are. The public would like to know what they are. He may not have decided yet on which is the best one. We can debate whether or not that is correct and whether or not he should be more timely with that decision. What are the options? What things are you considering? When will we know? Those are the absolute-minimum questions that he has a duty to respond to with the public. What are the options? When will he have an answer? When will he announce what he is going to do? The minister said that he asked members of his ministry some time ago to start developing some of those options. I'd like to know when he asked them. I'd like to know what he asked them, what he's received back from them, and when we will have an answer.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member asks questions which I think are fair to ask. I may not be able to answer them to his satisfaction -- or to my own at this point -- but I will try to do my best.
I talked to the deputy minister about this issue months ago. I'm sorry that I can't give a date. I generally don't take notes, and I don't have notes of....
G. Farrell-Collins: The odd time you do.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's right.
I don't know on what day; I don't even remember in which month. But some months ago, because I had concerns, I asked the deputy minister to deal with this issue that is now very much in the public light.
My concerns, frankly, go back more than a year with respect to how we were going to deal with what I would say is a serious problem in the corrections branch. It is largely caused by lack of funding. We don't have enough money to provide enough probation officers or contractors to do supervision. We don't have enough beds in all of our facilities -- pretrial, youth and adults systems. That is a historical problem.
We have a new adult facility opening in Prince George within a year, hopefully. We had a lot of trouble finding a location in the member's constituency and in the valley for youth detention centre facilities. We spent more than a year trying to persuade various local governments that we needed a site to provide a more modern and effective facility for youth offenders. Finally, we were able to persuade the municipality of Maple Ridge, on the north side of the Fraser, when nobody on the south side was prepared to help us because of NIMBY. That took a long time. The same thing happened on southern Vancouver Island, where we have this terribly inadequate Victoria youth detention centre and were looking for sites to build a new facility. Finally we were able to work out a deal with View Royal to begin work on a site for a new facility.
We have been struggling with these issues, all of which are hampered further by what I said earlier, which is the available funding. Last year we overran the corrections
[ Page 9976 ]
budget quite dramatically. Members know that, because I had to come for a special warrant, much of which had to do with the corrections branch. The budget in the corrections branch this year is increased dramatically from last year to try and get at these problems. I can quite honestly say to members that it is still not enough money. We are going to continue to have problems. We are managing a very difficult system with what I think are inadequate resources. I've said that to my Treasury Board colleagues, but every minister has had to take less than he or she feels they need for very important programs. We are trying to manage those issues with the resources we have.
In trying to answer the member's question, there are literally dozens of different issues to be resolved. For example, should the corrections branch investigate itself, in a sense? Should the inspections and standards branch be inside the corrections branch, or should it be independent and outside? That's a very good question, and it's one that we're looking at very seriously. We're looking at facilities, at the procedures that govern decisions and at whether there should be other changes to the legislation.
When you make 10,000 classification decisions dealing with processing 20,000 people through the corrections branch every year, something is going to go wrong once in a while. When you make as many decisions as that, some are bound to be wrong, and some will go wrong in the future. It's my obligation to make sure that systems are in place to minimize what can go wrong.
[11:00]
There are a whole range of issues. One option is to have a public inquiry under the Inquiry Act, as I did with policing. One of my frustrations with public inquiries is that they take so damned long. If you set up an inquiry now, it will be a year and a half before we get a report. Under the Inquiry Act, the commissioner will want to hold public hearings. Lots of people are going to want to come and talk, as they should, but that's going to take a lot of time. They're going to have to go to every part of the province, as they should, and that can take a lot of time. I'm looking to see if there aren't some ways to deal with the issue far more expeditiously than that. The objective at the end of the day is public confidence, which I concede is not present now in some elements of the corrections system. I share that concern, and I want to do something about it.
The easy thing for me to have done yesterday, or even a few weeks ago, was to name some provincial or superior court judge as a commissioner and send them off on an investigation. A year and a half from now we might get a report, and in another year we'd do the legislation. That would have gone on for two or three years. Maybe the answer is to find some better, more effective and quicker ways to actually instil public confidence in the system. My pledge to members and to the public is to do this as quickly and as effectively as I can, so in the final analysis we don't have situations that impair public confidence.
G. Farrell-Collins: We've received a partial answer to one question so far, and I'd like to fill in the blanks on the other questions. What options is the Attorney General considering? One is a public inquiry, but what other specific options is he looking into? What specific request did he give to his assistant deputy minister of corrections? Was it a general request? Was it: "Gee, we've got some problems here; let's see what we can sort out"? The initial question to the minister was: what options is he considering to instil or restore confidence in the corrections system? The minister said that he asked his deputy minister to come forth with some suggestions. Is that what he asked? Was it as specific as that? What options have come forward, or has he received any options from the deputy minister yet? What specific options is he considering? And when will we and the public know what the choice of the Attorney General has been and will be, in order to restore that public confidence in the corrections system?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm unable to say much more than I said earlier. I suggested the kinds of things I'm looking at. We talk about the details of it. I've talked again as recently as between 9:30 and 10 o'clock this morning with my deputies about the kinds of things we might think about doing. So those discussions continue. The member, I guess, thinks the discussions take the form of me being given a list of choices and I tick one off. That's not how it works. We talk about the issues and try to sort through how best to do it. There are so many different issues to be considered in corrections these days that.... I don't believe we want to get into it.
But we need to talk and involve the public far more in the question of community supervision and involvement. We need to talk more about issues where reparation is part of the sentence. We need to talk about how we deal with dangerous offenders. There's a whole list of things that need to be done. I could simply do a wide-open inquiry on all these subjects and throw it out there, but it will take a long time. There are some more immediate needs to be addressed, which have been drawn to the public's attention in recent months, and I want to find a more effective way of doing it. I simply haven't concluded on that matter yet. The members may not like it, and that's acceptable to me. But I'm going to make the best decision I can. I'm not ready to make it yet. It's as simple as that.
G. Farrell-Collins: This is a little different from the story we got yesterday. Yesterday in the House, when the minister was asked if he'd do a public inquiry, he said no.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Let me finish. Let me just correct that. In effect, the minister said no, he wasn't willing to do that or make that commitment yesterday. Yesterday I listened to the media interview the minister in the corridor of the House afterwards, at some length. The minister said, when prompted by questions from the media.... The questions were essentially along the line of: "Why won't you appoint a public inquiry? Why won't you investigate this further?" Your response to them was: "I feel that I'm able to answer these questions. I'd like the media and the critics opposite to read the report" -- which you tabled yesterday. If there were questions, you said you would be able to answer those questions. And that was as far as it was going to go. If the public was concerned further or was not confident -- you were going to wait and see what the public's further reaction was -- then you would take further steps. Is that still the case? Or has the minister now decided that the public is no longer confident in the corrections system, and that he is going to take some action somewhere in the future?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yesterday in the House the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi asked a question which, from memory, went something like this: "Will the minister announce today a public inquiry into this matter?" I said no, because I had no intention yesterday of announcing any public inquiry. I said in the hallway to members of the media that I have a concern, and I need to find some remedies for that concern.
[ Page 9977 ]
In specific reference to the document I tabled in respect of Danny Perrault, I said to the media that I wanted to find out whether this report answered the questions. I think the answer is coming clear to members of the media and to members of this House: it doesn't. I anticipated that response. In respect of this report, if it was fair to say that I wanted to hear whether people were satisfied with it, I'm beginning to hear the answer to that. That was a different question, and the member has merged them. It's a different question from the one about a general concern about the corrections branch, which I identified in my response earlier as being a concern that I've had for some time, and which we have been dealing with for some time.
The issues get merged, as inevitably they will, and this serves as a symbol for bigger and other issues. We're dealing with it. I'm unable to be specific today about how or when I'm going to deal with this in a way that satisfies my own needs to have more confidence in this system, but I'm going to do it as quickly as I can without getting it wrong.
[J. Beattie in the chair.]
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister said he had this report for, I believe, 261/2 hours from the time he was allowed to release the report until the time he did. I find it astounding that the minister, given his wealth of political knowledge in his 20-some years in this House -- of the members of this House, he's probably one of the more politically astute -- that he would be as out of touch with the public's concern on this issue as to think that what was tabled yesterday in this House, which is almost unreadable, would have answered the public's questions and concerns on this issue. I find it difficult to swallow that having had this report for a length of time, knowing what was going to be tabled, having received it and then had a copy of what was contained in that report -- more importantly, what wasn't contained in that report -- the minister would feel assured, or even marginally assured, or even marginally not concerned, that the public would be reassured by what was in that report. I find that astounding. If anything, it shows a real lack of judgment on the part of the minister -- that the public would be reassured by this report. They are not reassured at all, as the minister has now discovered some 201/2 hours later. They're not reassured in the slightest with what's in this report, and he should have been aware of that. Certainly some political people in his office should have been aware of that. That's one issue. I find it astounding that the minister would think that the public would be reassured by that report.
Given the severe public concern with the corrections branch and corrections facilities in this province, the way these decisions are being made and the lack of accountability, the minister does have an obligation. The minister talked about trying to improve the system and ensuring accountability. I haven't heard any comments here today that lead me to believe that accountability is being improved. There has been no accountability in this process whatsoever. There's been no disciplinary action, that I'm aware of, against any of the people who made this decision. It wasn't just: "Gee, we read the guy wrong. He turned out to be a badder apple than we thought." It's the fact that the process of reviewing the placement of this gentleman was in error. Some of the key people who should have been involved in making that decision were not even consulted. What about the people who made that decision in the absence of others who should have been there? Have they been disciplined, or have they just been told: "Gee, you made a mistake. Darn, let's make sure we don't do it again. Let's try and change the system and send a memo to everybody so they follow it."
Those are two issues on which I would like to hear a response from the minister. I continue to ask the minister: I would like to know and the public would like to know, not what the problems are -- we all know what the problems are -- but what specific options the minister is looking at aside from a public inquiry. Can he give us some time frame -- a month, six months, a year, two weeks -- for when we'll get a decision on the form of action he's going to take on this? Which of those options is he going to choose, when will we know, and what is going to be done?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The question raised in the public's mind, in my mind and in the minds of all members of this House was: how was the decision to place Mr. Perrault at New Haven made? That was the question that needed to be answered. And what is wrong with a system that would allow that to happen? Even though the report has been expurgated -- too much for my liking -- it still tells the public the process by which that decision was made.
The report also tells the public what we have done to make sure that a decision of that kind won't be made in that way again. The system has changed. Decision-making has been raised a few notches in the branch to provide a more comprehensive overview of the issue than was previously available. The system has been changed so that someone is accountable for decisions; decisions are not being made by a group of people who are both all accountable and not accountable, in some sense. Somebody has to take responsibility. That now exists. In answer to the question about whether this report would satisfy public concerns about Mr. Perrault's placement and the possibility of further "bad" decisions, I think it does.
[11:15]
But this is what I've been saying about needing to do more: what it doesn't do is answer some of the other suggestions and allegations, some of which may be correct, some of which may be false, some of which may have some element of truth to them -- I don't know. Many of these have been raised by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi; others have been raised by some anonymous -- and some not so anonymous -- people in the corrections branch. Those are new issues, and I don't think they've been answered by this report. This report was designed to deal with how this man was assigned to that institution and what we can do to make sure it doesn't happen again. It doesn't deal with the broader questions that are emerging. We have to deal with those concerns.
What happened both in the House and in the hallway yesterday was that these issues were merged. It's no longer simply an issue about the decisions made concerning Mr. Perrault. Bigger questions are emerging that we have to deal with. They're not dealt with in this report, and I'm going to do something about it. And I'll say again -- probably for the fifth time -- that I don't quite know yet how to do it. I don't want it to take so long.
The member wants to know what my options are. I discussed earlier what some of the options are. I talked about an obvious option. Governments always appoint commissions as a simple answer to problems. But as I said -- and I'm going to repeat it -- there's a potential problem with that: it may take too long. I feel the need to have a quicker process in place, and I don't know what that is at the moment.
What are the options? There isn't a checklist, as I said earlier. Should we deal with just the institutions? Should we deal with the entire system? Should we deal simply with procedures in making decisions about the 10,000 decisions
[ Page 9978 ]
that are made on classification, or should we deal with dozens of other issues that we could identify in the ministry? What form can that take? We're having a continuing discussion about how to do that. The member asked how long that is going to take. I think what he said was: is it going to take a month, or is it going to take six months? It sure isn't going to take six months. I sure hope it doesn't take a month, but it might. I don't think it will, because I'm determined to get at this in a hurry. The member is going to have to -- and I'm not going to say trust me, because that's a silly thing to say -- take my word, as best he can, that I am determined to do something about it for public policy reasons and for public confidence reasons.
L. Krog: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
L. Krog: In the gallery with us today from Rutherford school is Ms. Eck, who is accompanied by a number of her grade 6 students, and Mrs. Cummings, who is accompanied by a number of her grade 5 students and some parents. They are a most inquisitive bunch; they gave me quite a grilling out there in the rotunda. Would the House please make them welcome.
The Chair: Hon. members, please take your seats, and I'll introduce the direction the Chair would like to take. The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove would like to continue his line of questioning until he feels that he has achieved some satisfaction. I'd like to say to him that there are other members who wish to speak, and I do have a speakers' list. So I ask him to proceed, but at some point I'll be moving to other members.
G. Farrell-Collins: I understand the desire of other members to engage in the debate, but I think that it is significant and important that we pursue this line of questioning somewhat. With each question, we seem to get an answer that is a little clearer, and I appreciate that from the minister. I hope to try to narrow the focus a little further, if we can.
The minister has now advised that whatever action he determines to take, one option is a public inquiry, which he may or may not choose to pursue. The breadth and scope of that inquiry or some other means of assurance is yet to be decided, and within, hopefully, a month -- certainly not six months -- or perhaps earlier, the minister will get back to us with his answer. I would like to see an answer sooner than that, but it is at least a bit reassuring for the public to know that there is some time frame in which they can expect an answer from the minister about what action he intends to take.
The minister is correct in saying that these two issues have merged. One is a specific issue in the case of Danny Perrault and the disastrous results of the poor decision that was made and the poor process that was followed when making that decision, according to the report that was tabled yesterday. That's a specific question, but it alludes to a more general question and a more general sense of a lack of confidence in the corrections system.
The minister said that allegations were made yesterday and over the last few days by some anonymous -- and some not so anonymous -- people who purport to be involved, or partially involved, within corrections itself. There have been some very specific allegations with regard to a specific case, and I imagine that there have been other general allegations made about the general case. We can deal with these two separately if the minister wishes, or however he chooses to do it.
The new questions that have been raised in the Perrault case come back to the minister's earlier comments that he felt this report answered the questions the public would have with regard to that specific case. I feel -- and I think the public feels, and I think the minister is beginning to feel also -- that in the first instance, the public's confidence with regard to this report and what took place is not complete: they do not feel that all of these questions have been answered. The minister may feel they have, but I don't think the public feels that all the questions have been answered. It's too vague. There is too much stuff missing from this report to give people comfort. Anytime something is missing, everybody wonders what it is. The minister is aware of that.
There are significant deletions from this report, significant omissions, and that causes people concern in itself. It often raises more questions than if the information was in there. I understand the laws that the Attorney General falls under -- the laws that he must respond to and live under in putting this report out. I can anticipate and imagine his frustration in not being able to release the whole report. I don't want to get into that debate, because I think we agree on that.
The fact is that the public is not reassured about the Danny Perrault case. They are even less assured, given the allegations that have been made by purported and anonymous members of the corrections community with regard to this case. Does the minister now feel, with regard to this specific case, that there is a need to clear the air further than the report has done? If so, what means is he considering taking in order to do that? When will we know when that will take place?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's clear that some members of the public are as concerned as I am. I don't want this to be taken the wrong way, but I was at the opening of the racetrack last night with almost 14,000 other British Columbians, and no one raised the subject with me -- no one. A number of topics about government policy were raised with me, including issues in the forest industry, education and some others, but interestingly, among the many people that I talked to in the course of being there for about six hours, no one raised this issue with me.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's not to say there isn't and shouldn't be public concern; there is, and there should be. I am going to respond to that.
I think the member was asking questions which I have answered to the best of my ability. He wants to know what the scope is going to be, specifically in reference to Perrault. Whether there needs to be further work specifically in regard to Perrault, or on issues that flow from Perrault -- and those are two different ways of looking at it -- is a matter that I have to decide.
I think the public now knows, if it reads this document, how this decision was made, and I think the public now knows how the decision-making process has changed to try to prevent a recurrence of that kind of decision. Anybody who reads it carefully will know the answer to that question.
[ Page 9979 ]
Other questions are emerging, and I have no doubt that they will continue to emerge. Once an issue reaches a fairly high profile, brown envelopes suddenly start appearing -- and they will. The members will get most of them; I won't. We will have a crazy situation whereby people who have really important information that I should have won't tell me, but they'll tell members of the opposition. They're afraid of telling me because there's a notion that they might put their position in jeopardy. It wouldn't, and I would welcome it. But I don't hear those things. I have to hear them through this forum or through the media, because people are afraid. It's the old system: if you talk, you'll lose your job, so don't rock the boat. It's too bad, because that's not the way I operate, but it's a reality. So there are going to be more questions emerging.
Is there a need to do more specific work on this incident itself, or is there a need to do a broader overview? It may be that we have to do both; it may be that they can be done together. But I certainly don't want to have unanswered allegations in the public mind; I want them to be addressed so that they don't linger.
The other day the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi used the word "corruption," which has connotations that go far beyond what I think we're dealing with. I don't think that notion should be allowed to continue to sit out there in the air. Either the member should clear that up on his own by withdrawing the suggestion that somehow people in the corrections branch are corrupt -- and he should look at the dictionary when he uses that kind of word -- or I have to. If it turns out that there's some truth to it or enough legs for that notion to stand, I have to do something about it. I'm telling members that I intend to; I'm just not telling them today exactly how. But I am going to do it quickly -- hopefully within the month, as we talked about -- and I hope to do it in an effective way that restores public confidence and doesn't take us two or three years, as royal commissions always do.
G. Farrell-Collins: The questions specifically to the Attorney General are.... I'm going back to what he said over the last 24 hours. That is significant in order to determine what the intentions of the minister and the ministry are and in order to clear this matter up. Yesterday outside this House he said that if there were continuing questions that he was not able to answer with regard to the Danny Perrault case specifically, he would be looking at a more public way of resolving those issues. I would imagine most members of this House -- perhaps including the Attorney General, given his earlier comments this morning -- would agree that significant additional questions have been raised by people purported to be on the inside of the corrections branch, who have dealt with this case and seem to have intimate knowledge of the facts regarding it. Those allegations have been made and are hanging out there. They appear to be from fairly reputable sources.
As the minister knows, the opposition gets hundreds of bits of information every day from all sorts of people -- 99.9 percent of them turn out to be nothing. You learn pretty quickly which sources have some credibility and which sources are just frustrated people. These people seem to have intimate knowledge of the facts of this case. They've been in contact with a number of members of the opposition. Those allegations that have now come out in the public forum -- by dark, shadowy people with garbled voices on television, in print and elsewhere -- are significant enough. Interviews that were done on television by that perpetrator indicated that he felt he had received special services or consideration within the system.
[11:30]
The Attorney General has to admit today that new information not contained in this report is of significant enough concern, and allegations have been made by significant enough sources, that he has a duty to further the investigation of this case in some public way. He has to ensure, with the specifics of this case, that it's not just an internal investigation of what happened within his ministry but that it's a public investigation of the particulars of this case -- and that that investigation be done. The minister said that that would be within the next month, or at least would be initiated within the next month. There has to be some clearing of the air. Will the minister at least admit that there needs to be a clearing of the air of these allegations that have come forward in the last week or so in this case, and that it needs to be done in a public forum, and done soon?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think I've answered the member's question. I might just say further that right at the beginning -- if I can put it that way -- of the Perrault affair my deputy and I talked about the notion of a public inquiry at that point. But of course we couldn't, because the matter is before the court, and still is.... I'm sorry -- not in this case; it's the other case I was thinking of. But we couldn't deal with the issue in a public way, because of the court case. That's obvious....
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale doesn't understand, to put it kindly.
We couldn't have a public inquiry around an event that was still before the courts, period. What we could do, and did do, was use the inspections and standards department of the corrections branch to do an inquiry internally, which produced this report. We are now in a position to do more. I thought I indicated clearly this morning, during the last hour and a half, that I intend to do more. I just haven't decided quite what that more is yet.
There has to be public confidence. When allegations float around on the public airwaves and elsewhere and are, effectively, unanswered, there isn't public confidence. We are pursuing internally each of the suggestions we've heard to find out what merit there may be to them, but that doesn't give public confidence. I'm aware of that. The public view is that we somehow will try to cover it up. That would be the stupidest thing....
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wish the member for Surrey-Cloverdale would take his turn, then I would be able to deal with him more intelligently, I think.
It would be stupid for me -- politically stupid and morally wrong -- to investigate these allegations internally and then try to cover them up. There's no politics in that, and there's no public policy benefit in that. That's not the way I operate. But the public doesn't believe that. I can say it until the cows come home and the public wouldn't believe me. So we have to have more public process to deal with it, and that's what I'm in the middle of contemplating.
G. Farrell-Collins: The cows have come home. They came home yesterday, and the public wants to know whether these allegations are going to be addressed. If the minister can give assurance to me and the public today that he will be
[ Page 9980 ]
investigating those allegations further -- not just within the ministry, but in some public venue so that the public can be reassured -- and that there will be an announcement in that regard within the next month or so....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, I'm just trying to ensure....
The Chair: Point of order by the member for Prince George-Mount Robson.
L. Boone: I've listened for some time now to the member trying to prompt the Attorney General to give an answer on future policy. He should know, as he's been in this House for two years now, that no minister and no ministry is going to give him an answer with regards to what is intended in the ministry. The Attorney General has clearly indicated to him that he is contemplating different actions. No matter how many times the member tries to berate him into giving an answer here, it's clearly out of order. I wish the Chair would call him back to dealing with the minister's estimates, which are actions that have taken place within his ministry.
The Chair: Thank you. The hon. member makes a legitimate point. The hon. Attorney General is answering the questions in a way which he feels is acceptable, and he'll obviously make sure that he speaks to the issues of future policy in his way.
G. Farrell-Collins: In dealing with the member's intervention, I don't think the Attorney General is trying to rely on future policy, the escape hatch for any minister of the Crown. This case clearly needs to be dealt with, and dealt with today. The public has to have assurance today that something is happening. The minister needs to give this House some clear and specific assurances.
We have asked -- and I have said a number of times this morning -- that if the minister had been properly prepared for this issue, he would have dealt with the specific issues in this case and the further allegations that have been made over the last week or so. He would have been prepared to deal with them specifically yesterday. We've asked him to give us assurance that he can do something today, make a decision today. He said that he is unable to do that because he's not prepared sufficiently, and he hasn't determined what his course of action will be. I want to get an assurance from the minister that there will be further public action on both the specific allegations made with regard to the Danny Perrault case and the general lack of confidence the public has with the corrections facilities and institutions and the corrections branch in this province. Both of those need to be addressed. In fact, they should have been addressed yesterday. If they are not going to be addressed today, as they should be, precisely when will they be addressed?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer to the first part of the question is yes, they will be. They will be addressed in a public way, because if I don't do it that way, there won't be public confidence. It won't be today, but as I said earlier, I hope it's within the month. That's as forthcoming as I can be. Certain courses require cabinet decisions. I haven't taken this matter to cabinet. I intend to do that before I take it to the public if a decision requires cabinet approval. The answer in general terms is that I have an obligation to the public of British Columbia to make sure that they feel confident about how the corrections system works. In order to restore that confidence, I have to do something in a public way, and I will.
J. Weisgerber: In pursuing this line of questioning, I would like to talk specifically about the tabling of the report yesterday. When the minister tabled the report in this House, we were given a clear sense that he expected that this report would answer the questions in the minds of British Columbians about the circumstances surrounding the Danny Perrault assignment and his escape. I was a bit disappointed to learn today that the minister was floating a trial balloon by tabling that report, to see whether or not it might answer the questions -- if it did, fine; if not, then something further would have to be done. In his deliberations and considerations as to whether or not this was going to do the job, I'm wondering whether the degree of severing that was done in the report was a consideration. Did the minister look at the report in its severed form and think that maybe people would read enough into the report to have some confidence in it? My sense was that there were primarily two questions in people's minds. One was: how was the decision made, and was it a good or bad one? Obviously most thought it was a bad decision. Would the report suggest that somehow the decision-making process was going to be improved? The second question was whether or not there was a coverup and whether the report would answer that.
Specifically, I would like to know what degree of involvement the minister had in severing the report and what level of satisfaction or confidence he has in the way the severing was done. In other words, is the minister satisfied that all the information that could have been released was released in this report in the form that it was tabled?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I think that the report, even in its expurgated version, does provide the answers to the first two questions the member raised. That's what it was originally intended to do. Then the member asked if I was involved personally in making decisions about what would or would not be excised. No, I was not personally involved in those decisions. Those were made by a group of people that included members of the corrections branch and the FOI office within our ministry, the governmentwide FOI office in the Ministry of Government Services and the criminal justice branch of the Ministry of Attorney General. They made the decisions -- and I have confidence in this -- in the very best way possible, to ensure that as much of the report as possible would be released, but within the law. They used the Freedom of Information Act to do that. Most of it, as members will see, has to do with section 78(1), which is the reference to things that can't be released because of some other act. I am confident that decisions were made correctly, and I'm sorry that they had to be made.
J. Weisgerber: The minister has obviously studied the report in its entirety and is also aware of it in its severed form. Let me say that I believe that the censoring that went on in the report is one of the reasons this report isn't meeting the test. I'm trying to get a sense of whether or not there were some pressures outside the ministry that limited the amount of information that was made available. Was the ministry constrained, perhaps, by legal representation from Mr. Perrault? Were there other constraints that limited the amount of information that could be made available?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Once the letter was received from Mr. Perrault's lawyer -- as I said, it was faxed at 11:30 on Tuesday morning of this week -- there were no constraints
[ Page 9981 ]
other than those that exist in the FOI legislation. All of the severing -- or censoring, as the member characterizes it, which I think is the wrong impression, because it's not meant to censor; this is a severing exercise, and there is a very important distinction here -- was done as a direct result of various provisions within the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and nothing more than that. To try to answer the member's question directly, no other concerns outside the ministry, or anywhere else for that matter, were reflected in the decisions that led to the severing. Finally, I might say that I agree with the member that the severing creates a public response which leads to people being less than comfortable that they have the whole story, and we have to deal with that.
[11:45]
It's my understanding that Committee A has completed a set of estimates, which is always interesting news, and as a result of that, the House has some work to do.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes. Therefore I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES
The Speaker: Pursuant to sessional orders, I call on members to respond -- I believe two members....
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, please. The government is last, hon. member.
F. Gingell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker....
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. We just have a procedural matter to clear up. Are any independent members going to share the three minutes?
Proceed, hon. member, but there are three minutes in total. Hopefully, this will be the first and last time we'll have this confusion. But I do recognize the official opposition along with the independents before we go to the government side.
F. Gingell: It is always of interest to deal with a new ministry, as it were. As we are all aware, this ministry is a sewn-together body of arms and legs of previous ministries that were dismembered. We certainly hope that this body has a heart, because it is important that the small business men of this province have a real representative looking after their interests in this government. It is easy to pay lip service to this important role, but we on this side of the House look to the minister to play a real and proactive role.
During the course of the debate on these estimates there were some disappointments. I certainly had a disappointment when we got into the issues of free trade agreements -- NAFTA and the FTA -- and the minister insisted on responding to our questions with his concerns about items that we all see, know and recognize have not necessarily worked out to Canada's benefit. We in no way wish to remove him from his path in doing his best to look after the interests of British Columbia business in our trade relationships with the United States. But we were disappointed, because we didn't see in the minister's responses or hear any assurance that he is going to look for the real opportunities that exist within these agreements to create investment and jobs in British Columbia -- highly paid jobs that create real, good economic growth.
We also look for this minister to look out for the interests of small business in B.C. We were pleased to review in some depth the publication his ministry has put out, "Commitment to Small Business." That document calls for responses from the business community on a whole series of questions, many of them rhetorical. Many of them are items and matters that clearly would be to the benefit of business in British Columbia, and the ministry should get on with it. We on our side will encourage him to do so. The simplification of regulations, the repeal of regulations that are no longer appropriate, the simplification and the easing of small business's dealings with government....
This ministry has only been breathing for six months. We sincerely hope that they do have a successful year and that real economic growth takes place in B.C. We certainly have a minister who I know brings a great deal of enthusiasm to this post. We look forward to this time next year when we can canvass the successes, and chide him for the lack of successes, that we'll see at that time.
The Speaker: The Chair wishes to apologize for the confusion on these reports. Normally, what should have happened is that the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who is among the independents, would have had three minutes, shared by the members in that group; then the official opposition would have had five minutes. But we reversed things. We are now recognizing the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, for three; then we go to the government for eight. Would the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast proceed.
G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. As I didn't go first, the second position having five minutes and the third position having ten minutes, I thought perhaps I might have been afforded ten minutes. But I guess that's not the way it's going to work.
First of all, I would say that one of the difficulties with having the House split is that you're not able to participate fully in the estimates. I was able to spend some time particularly canvassing sections relating to culture and tourism. Most of what came forward from the minister was encouraging. This minister recognizes that the promotion of culture in British Columbia, and government's involvement in assisting both professional and amateur people involved in the provision of culture in all areas of this province, not only provides an ambience and broadening of what's accessible to people within a community but also provides a real opportunity for tourism and small business.
I'm looking forward to seeing the minister follow up, as he certainly suggested he would, on a question I put to him: that is, to provide for us some documentation with respect to the dollars going into culture and tourism activities, and how those spin off into the business community. There are many people in chambers of commerce and small business sectors around the province who are most anxious to see how these dollars are affecting the growth and wealth of
[ Page 9982 ]
each of the local communities. I look forward to hearing that from the minister, and I congratulate the minister on the manner in which this ministry is proceeding under his new stewardship.
Hon. B. Barlee: If the House will indulge me for a few minutes, I will comment on the new ministry, which indeed it is. However, I think it is a natural marriage. I think small business impacts on tourism, and tourism, in turn, impacts on culture. I find it to be a fascinating ministry. Being an entrepreneur, I think it's important. One of the critics from the official opposition mentioned I'm enthusiastic; I admit it. I confess to that, but I think that short-term and long-term strategies are more important than enthusiasm. Certainly we are embarking on that route.
The small business community in British Columbia is in pretty good shape. Retail sales were up about 8 percent last year, bankruptcies were down slightly over 20 percent and new incorporations were up about 14.4 percent. Our tracking devices within the ministry indicate that our small business was in better shape than anywhere else in Canada by far -- and, actually, better than anywhere in the United States. We were followed by two states of the union: Utah and Nevada, in that order. Small business is the engine of economic performance in British Columbia. It provides around 80 to 81 percent of new jobs, and home-based businesses are an important part of that. Frankly, I think the discussion paper we circulated among the small business community got a very good response. We'll be following up on that discussion paper.
As far as the second -- not necessarily in order -- branch of my ministry, the tourism part, we are beautifully situated in British Columbia. We take in about $5.6 billion per year. Our target next year is $6 billion: an increase of about $400 million. If we manage to make that target of $400 million -- which, frankly, I think we will -- with an increase of $5.25 million in tourism, that's a very good multiplying factor. We have five teams working on tourism now.
Very briefly, the strategy is that we have one team working on Europe -- principally on the United Kingdom and Germany. We have another team working on British Columbia itself. Many people in British Columbia travel outside the province, which costs us somewhere between $4 billion and $5 billion per year. We think that hemorrhage is too great. I put one of my best teams on working out strategies to keep some of those people at home; after all, we are beautifully positioned. We have virtually everything under the sun in British Columbia: you run right through from the Rockies to the Pacific coast, the Inside Passage and the wild rivers. We are a safe destination. I think that our long-term goals in tourism are important as well. Our long-term goal is to jump from $5.6 billion to $7.2 billion by calendar year-end of 1996. I think we'll make that target as well.
Finally, I think I should mention what I consider a very important part of the ministry, and that is the cultural aspect. It is the third leg of the ministry, and certainly the member from Sunshine Coast agrees with me in that we have to be very careful to nurture our cultural community and the arts community at large. I think they present a face of Canadianism -- our writers, our publishers, our actors, and right down through that chain. I think we have to be careful. Many of them have chosen to follow that way of life at some specific cost to their own future well-being.
I've been in this ministry for six months, and I anticipate that we will have good news when we come back at this time next year.
Hon. P. Ramsey moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12 noon.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 10:18 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SMALL BUSINESS, TOURISM AND CULTURE
(continued)
On vote 51: minister's office, $342,000 (continued).
The Chair: The motion is on the floor. Discussion on the motion?
C. Tanner: I thought you were going to put the question. You might have been surprised at the answer.
The Chair: Do you want to sit down and I'll try it again?
C. Tanner: Too late now, you blew it.
Mr. Minister, there's just one small question I forgot to ask you on tourism. It doesn't directly affect your specific ministry, but I know you have an interest in it. It concerns artificial reefs and the tourism engendered by artificial reefs. It appears to me as if there is some conflict between Lands, Parks, Tourism and the federal government -- but I guess that's not within your jurisdiction, thank God. There does appear to be some conflict between those three provincial ministries as to where we're going. Could the minister tell me what his particular opinion is and what his ministry is doing to promote artificial reefs?
Hon. B. Barlee: Artificial reefs are becoming a tourist attraction, and part of it's provincial and part of it's federal. Some of those are in federal waters -- it doesn't say that here, but that's correct. We have to get decommissioned vessels from the federal government in order to sink them, and I think we're making some progress there. There are a number of areas in British Columbia now where you can dive, and we are actively promoting other areas where we think it will prove to be an attraction to people who are very keen on this rather unique part of the tourism business. It does mean some collaboration with other ministries, such as Environment.
C. Tanner: The minister didn't answer the question, in that while it necessitates collaboration with other ministries, what sort of response is he getting from the other ministries and are they collaborating to the benefit of tourism?
Hon. B. Barlee: What we're doing, of course, is discussing it with the federal government right now. There's one area
[ Page 9983 ]
specifically, just off the coast. The response from the federal government has been positive. The response from the other ministries that are connected with it -- principally Environment -- has been more positive than it was perhaps a year ago, so I think that they are quite willing to go along with it. It's something that requires long consultations with both parties, to be quite candid.
Environment has certain questions that have to be answered. The federal government looks at some of these decommissioned vessels and is not sure whether to sell them for scrap or let them be wrecked so there will be underwater reef investigation. I think we're doing fairly well on it and it's one of the areas, we find from our tracking, that people are becoming increasingly interested in, so I think we're making reasonable progress on it.
C. Tanner: I get from what the minister is saying that his ministry is very enthusiastic about them. Environment is changing its position somewhat from what it was a year ago and coming round to his way of thinking. Are B.C. Lands and Parks in favour of it, as far as the minister knows?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think I could answer positively on that. They're definitely much more amenable to it than they were some time ago, so we're doing quite well in that area. We have a number of areas that are interested in artificial reefs -- Powell River comes to mind, Nanaimo and so on -- and we're looking at all these areas as possible locations.
C. Tanner: The minister will be aware that there has been an artificial reef created in my constituency and the G.B. Church was dropped about two years ago. There's been a report done on that, and there's been a report done on the Chaudiere that was dropped off at Powell River a year or so ago. I think you'll find that environmentally the report is going to come through very favourably. Has the minister had that report on his desk yet?
Hon. B. Barlee: No, I haven't received that report yet.
C. Tanner: Is the minister dealing with our local federal member of the cabinet in trying to acquire some of the six vessels that are tied up presently in Esquimalt, and if he isn't, who is he dealing with and how can I help?
Hon. B. Barlee: We have corresponded with that minister and are awaiting a response from him.
C. Tanner: A final question on this subject: has the minister given any consideration to looking at the ship that is presently tied up in Alberni, which was Watson's environmental flagship? I believe it's available. What consideration has the minister given to creating an artificial reef in the Alberni constituency?
Hon. B. Barlee: We are looking at one of the five federal vessels that are available now, nothing to do with Alberni. We have no requests from Alberni -- not that it wouldn't be advisable; I'm not saying that. We are looking at this as a growing part of the spectrum of tourism, but it is a slow process.
C. Tanner: I have explored this sufficiently, and I am finished with Tourism and Small Business. There are lots of questions I could ask in Small Business, but the minister has been adequately third-degreed on that by other members of my party. I have a couple of long-winded questions concerning operating grants and training grants for individuals.
As the minister knows firsthand, as well as from a report from Robert M. Kennedy in August 1992 -- a study entitled "The Cultural Services Branch and Training in the Arts" on the financial resources of the branch -- Kennedy outlines two possible options with respect to operating grants: (1) award grants only to those offering advanced-level training, thus no longer funding such institutions as community music schools; or (2) withdraw completely from the funding of operating grants. Either of these options is a major concern for the non-profit community-based arts institutions across this province. I emphasize that my question is a very important one that these societies have asked me to ask. If the minister needs time for reference, I would be happy to give it to him. My question to the minister is this: do the minister's figures for grants and contributions reflect any shift in direction -- a shift away from support for so-called amateur artists -- by providing increased funding or for training grants available to professional artists for the enhancement of their careers?
Hon. B. Barlee: We have about $1.8 million more for the cultural part of this ministry this year. I have been very cognizant of the fact that there should be a balance between the professionals and the amateurs. We have attempted to, and we are still looking at.... We'll have a good balance between the two. We realize that there are undoubtedly many more amateurs than there are professionals in the cultural scene in British Columbia. With the added funding, we will be partially funding some of those amateur groups and partially funding some professional groups that have never been funded before.
C. Tanner: In response to Kennedy's study, the Victoria Conservatory of Music makes an interesting point. If the ministry withdraws from operating grants and only funds scholarships for professionals, from where will those lucky professionals have come -- out of the province or outside Canada? There would likely be no schools operating in this province where young people could receive the necessary training that would allow them (a) to determine if they want to be professional, if they are of professional calibre; or (b) if they are, to reach the high standards that would qualify them to receive a government scholarship or training grant. Will the minister comment on this particular scenario?
Hon. B. Barlee: The Kennedy report is presently under review by the Arts Board. The Arts Board is representative of the cultural community at large -- quite a good representation. I will be taking their advice very seriously.
C. Tanner: If we get slightly more specific, then, is the advice of the Arts Board that on which the minister will act? Or is the final determination within his department irrespective of what the Arts Board says?
[10:30]
Hon. B. Barlee: Ultimately that decision is mine. When the Arts Board comes back with some recommendations, I look at them very closely. If I'm still not convinced, I will call a meeting with the Arts Board and find out why they have recommended certain decisions. Ultimately that decision is mine, and I look at it quite closely. This is an important part of the ministry, and I think the member has pointed out correctly that there should be a balance between these two solitudes within the ministry.
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
[ Page 9984 ]
C. Tanner: An unfortunate choice of word in "solitudes." We're talking about peoples' lives here; we're talking about people who could be professionals and about decisions that young people have to make. It's a vital decision, and I'd hardly describe it as a solitude.
As a matter of interest, while we're taIking about boards, I understand that the Canada Council doesn't have a large bureaucracy looking after their granting process. Mr. Minister, you appear to have a lot of members in the cultural and heritage branch. I'm wondering if there is a case to be made for using the Canada Council system in B.C. As I understand it, a lot of the grants -- while they're advised here -- are actually made on a Canada Council basis nationally by the committee, and they don't have a lot of in-house bureaucracy backing them up.
Hon. B. Barlee: A couple of things about the Canada Council. Generally speaking, I agree with the direction they're going in, but at present there are supposed to be 21 members on the Canada Council, but I don't think there are any from B.C. They only have nine in total; nine out of 21 is 40-odd percent. Secondly, their administration costs are 18 percent; ours are just over 10 percent. So, for value received, I don't think the Canada Council bears very close scrutiny.
On balance, we come out better than the Canada Council. I think it's done some very good things, and I think it's very high profile. They have a bureaucracy of 260 to 270 people -- which is significant, I think -- and our branch has 12 people. When you look at B.C.'s share of that, 13 percent of the population would be about 30 versus 12. So we have 40 percent of their bureaucracy in this particular area.
C. Tanner: I think the minister missed my point. What I'm saying is that the Canada Council is virtually a stand-alone administrator of funds in the cultural sector. Admittedly, they're spending the public's tax dollar, as your ministry is. The appeal for me is that the Canada Council grant, being administered through appointed positions and a semi-autonomous board, has more ability to be unbiased than our boards do, because basically the decision comes from your ministry eventually, even though it's on the advice of the board. That's not exactly the case with a Canada Council grant.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think the member makes a good point. We're looking at arm's-length decision-making, and that's important, too. I do think, however, when I look at the Canada Council and its history over the last number of years, that it is overloaded with bureaucracy. There is not much doubt about that. They have 260-odd people to make some decisions that could be made by probably a fraction of that amount. When I compare it to our infrastructure, we have about two people representing British Columbia for every five they have. I don't know about the biases in the Canada Council. People have accused it of bias toward central Canada, specifically Quebec and Ontario. I don't know whether that stands inspection or not.
When I look at the numbers in the cultural part of the ministry, we're not overloaded in that area. I think people understand the cultural scene better in British Columbia if they live here than somebody making a decision back in eastern Canada. On balance, I think I prefer our system. It's not perfect, but I do prefer it.
C. Tanner: Obviously I've got to defend the Canada Council to some extent. Their priorities have to be different when they're dealing with ten provinces. The dollars they're talking about and the funds they're dispensing are on a far larger scale. Just the fact that they're dealing with ten provincial governments is obviously going to make more bureaucracy. I guess the minister is saying that on a dollar-to-dollar basis, we're getting better value per bureaucrat in B.C. than we are federally, which might be the point.
The point I was trying to make was that the independence of the Canada Council board is an example I think the minister should be looking at.
Hon. B. Barlee: The arts report did recommend arm's-length decision-making. We are looking at that. We're not hard and fast on that area, although at first blush I would probably say yes. Our system is probably a little better for a number of reasons, which I've elaborated on only slightly. We're taking another analytical look at it, so I think we'll be able to come up with a compromise somewhere down the middle.
C. Tanner: I've got about four other specific questions and one more that I've been asked to ask the minister -- obviously with a specific intent. Will the minister please supply me with a status report on the implementation of the Cultural Foundation of British Columbia Act?
Hon. B. Barlee: We'll certainly do that.
C. Tanner: If the minister was paying attention -- and I doubt that he was -- when we had the debate in the last session concerning the foundation, my caucus made a suggestion that the ministry should kick-start Bill 76 by offering a matching grant from lottery funds. Has the minister given that any consideration?
Hon. B. Barlee: Lottery funding as such for the cultural community does not exist anymore, and we're consulting the cultural community prior to making the foundation operational. So essentially that lottery funding the member is referring to is beyond our jurisdiction.
C. Tanner: The member will know that I tread lightly here. At about this time last year I exited this chamber because I didn't agree with the previous minister -- or some other minister -- on this particular subject. Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I will tread lightly here today. I won't say anything that is asinine.
As the minister knows from reading "In Spirit and In Law," the report of his Advisory Committee on the Status of the Artist, there is deep dissatisfaction with the ministry's impolitic practice of making major decisions, such as the formation of the Cultural Foundation of British Columbia, without serious research and consultation. As he knows, the committee has several specific concerns with respect to the foundation, not the least of which is the fact that the act expressly excludes any programs or moneys being directed to individual artists, while at the same time it possibly impacts on the ability of arts councils to raise funds for individual artists in their local communities. Has the minister taken that concern into consideration in assigning grant moneys in his 1994-95 budget?
Hon. B. Barlee: To go into the background of the Advisory Committee on the Status of the Artist, it was appointed in February of last year, and on February 9 this year they submitted a report to the minister. I said, in my discussions
[ Page 9985 ]
with them -- and I had a number of discussions with them -- to put down exactly what they thought. And they did. And certainly there was some impact on me; I didn't mind that, because I felt that was fair ball.
The report contains 27 recommendations, which goes beyond the committee's original mandate. I didn't mind that; in fact, I was quite frank about it and told them I didn't mind if they went beyond their mandate. They recommended a number of different things. They recommended, first, that provincial expenditures on culture be increased from $17 million to $95 million and be administered at arm's length by an artist-controlled agency. That is more than a fivefold increase. I looked at it, but not that seriously. I think there should be an increase in funding, but certainly not that dramatic.
The second was that a cultural policy covering cultural diversity and regional disparity be developed and possibly legislated. We are looking at that.
The third one is rather interesting. It recommends that amendments be made to the Labour Relations Code to make artist certification easier; to the Employment Standards Act to include artists, child performers and entertainment agents; and to the Workers' Compensation Board policy to cover arts workers.
And two other points they made I think are relatively important: one is that specific reference to the arts be made in the School Act and that the teaching of the arts be strengthened. I completely agree with that. I think we should be very careful to include the arts in the humanities part of the school system, which has been relatively ignored in the past few years. And the other is that the province take an advocacy role, invest in the arts through B.C. Buildings Corporation -- which we are touching on now -- create special housing/work spaces for artists -- difficult -- and initiate an annual awards program to recognize outstanding artists. And we're working on that as well.
C. Tanner: I appreciate the minister's thorough explanation, but would he be prepared to read his recommendation on No. 4 again? I missed it.
Hon. B. Barlee: No. 4 is rather interesting, I agree: specific reference to the arts should be made in the School Act and the teaching of the arts should be strengthened. The trend has been the other way. The major corporations in North America, for instance, don't take the MBAs as much anymore. They're going back to the BAs -- increasingly so. They say they have a more holistic view of society. For the sake of the arts, and for the sake of a more balanced educational system, I would agree with point 4.
C. Tanner: I'm really pleased to hear that from the minister. Can he give us an assurance that he'll be talking to the Minister of Education, and that there will be some consideration given to moving some of his budget into Education -- if that's what it takes -- or alternatively, increasing the Education budget in such a way that the very things the minister is suggesting can happen?
Hon. B. Barlee: We've already written to the Ministry of Education. We have an interministry committee of eight different ministries working on various aspects -- partly on this report. Frankly, we're willing to follow this up -- and will be following it up. It's quite close to my heart, and I feel they've missed something in there.
I think that the arts part of the curriculum should be fleshed out, rather than be ignored or be a declining part of the educational system. So I can give my assurance to the member that I will follow this up even more than I have in the last little while. We have done some work on it.
C. Tanner: I've got three more specific questions and then I'm pretty well done.
It wasn't specific to your ministry, but a year ago, or maybe 18 months or even two years ago, a decision was made -- and I have to tread carefully here because I might be accused of conflict of interest -- to sell B.C. books on the ferries. I'd be interested to know whether the minister has any results as to that decision, as to what happened in sales of books published in B.C. on the ferries.
The Chair: The hon. minister, who I know is not allowed to sell his own books on the ferry.
Hon. B. Barlee: I had them all withdrawn on the first day I was appointed minister. I don't think the member was alluding to that at all.
[10:45]
C. Tanner: Point of order, Mr. Chair. I find the minister and myself in an untenable position because we both have a conflict of interest. If he would like to talk to me outside the House, I'd be happy to do so.
Hon. B. Barlee: I will talk personally with the member, who is an old friend of mine. I think my potential conflict of interest has been removed in that area, but we will get the information back to you concerning the sales on ferries. It probably comes more directly under the Ministry of Employment and Investment, but it nevertheless does impact on us, so we will get those figures.
C. Tanner: I would like to discuss this. Again, I'm in an area I do have an interest in, but since I do understand it, I might as well pursue it. Would the minister be prepared to give us his feeling about the difference between supporting an artist or publisher -- the artist being the person who writes the book, who, in my view, should be getting support -- and supporting the publishing industry in British Columbia for whatever reason?
Hon. B. Barlee: We have about 90 to 100 publishers in the province. Some of them are doing very well; some of them are not. We give some support to between 20 and 30 each year.
As for individual support to various artists, we give some limited support -- I think it is $5,000 an artist -- to 21 artists. Actually, 20 of them get $5,000 and one gets $4,000. I don't know why. We try to spin out that available money to this part of the community, which I think is important. We both think it's important.
The publishing industry gives a face to Canadianism and is absolutely necessary in British Columbia. I would like to see more funding go into that, very carefully. As the member knows, I was a publisher and did very well in this, so I didn't need any support from government, nor did I get any. But there are publishers who do a service for British Columbia that doesn't appeal to a broad market. Specifically, those magazines that refer to the arts community should be given some guarded, careful support from government at large.
Here are the numbers that we have for 1992-93. The support ranges from about $5,880 right up to about $48,000 to Talon Books, for instance, and $5,000 for Caitlin Press. Douglas and McIntyre gets $74,892. If you look at some of the titles that Douglas and McIntyre have produced.... I just read one of them, Chiefly Feasts, and if the member hasn't got
[ Page 9986 ]
it, I'll loan him my copy -- it is marvellous. It is a documentation of the Kwakiutl nation, starting at Fort Rupert, essentially with the Hunt family in about the 1880s, and Franz Boas and so on. We give limited support to a company like Douglas and McIntyre, which spends probably several million dollars a year -- they get a fraction of that from us -- and some of the titles they produce are really quite compelling.
C. Tanner: I have some good news and some bad news for the minister. The good news is I'm almost finished; the bad news is my friend's here.
It seems to me that if a socialist can make a go of a book-publishing business, anybody can and nobody needs to be subsidized.
I would like the minister to be cognizant of the fact that I don't necessarily agree with the policy of the department. I think it's the artist or the author who needs the help, and I would like to see expansion in that area for one obvious reason. As soon as you make the decision to help one publisher, you are automatically making it more difficult for another publisher. Irrespective of what the motive is, the fact of the matter is there are 126 publishers in British Columbia, and you're dealing with some of them -- you're not dealing with them all. Being your critic, Mr. Minister, the most repetitious call I get in my office is this particular publisher who thinks he's got the book that everybody needs to read, but who isn't getting any help. I think you should seriously think about that.
I have one further question which concerns the film industry in British Columbia. Has the minister's office, or has anybody in a related department, had an application for a film studio in Victoria, specifically on a Hydro site? If he has, what has he done about it? And if he's done nothing, which I suspect is the case, why not?
Hon. B. Barlee: There has been some discussion about it, but there has been no formal application on that in Victoria, by the way.
On the previous question: I am a social democrat and an entrepreneur.
When you start picking and choosing, there is a peer group that chooses the assistance we give to publishers. There is also a peer group that chooses the assistance we give to individual writers. It's always a guessing game. You're probably missing some very fine writers or some extremely fine publishers. It will never be totally evenhanded; I quite admit this. We try to leaven the loaf by saying we will give $500,000 a year to X number of writers. This is not a decision made by me. I do not pick and choose the writers. That is made by peer consultation, with a lot of wringing of hands in the group that makes those choices.
We usually agree on a number of things; I can't quite agree here. The publishing industry does deserve and does need some help. It's a fragile industry; I think everyone knows that. There are certain publishers who do not appeal to the mass market. Giving some funding from government may therefore be necessary, especially if they are impacting on part of the arts community that we feel is important.
We will discuss this sometime at considerable length, and I will give you more of my thoughts on this, because I have looked at it very closely. We both have a background in publishing and books and so on, and there is a divergence of opinion. I'm quite aware of that, but there is some middle ground in there as well.
C. Tanner: This is hopefully my last question. You skipped over the applicational discussion about a film studio or a film-making site in Victoria. The minister said there has been some discussion. Could you elaborate a little?
Hon. B. Barlee: There is some discussion of creating three studio zones in British Columbia. There is a studio zone in Vancouver. We are looking very closely at the possibility of a studio zone on Vancouver Island, centred of course in Victoria, and a studio zone in and around the Kamloops area.
As I mentioned very briefly the other day, we take in about $286 million a year, and I have had some news from Hollywood in the last few days that indicates it's going to be up dramatically this year. We should probably be looking at it fairly seriously, and I have had some discussions with several of the players in Victoria concerning a studio zone. That has not come to any definite conclusion yet. I have to contact the various other ministries and ministers. I was supposed to have a meeting about it this morning, but the other minister had to beg off.
C. Tanner: It is my understanding from reasonably good hearsay that there's a gentleman wandering around British Columbia with $25 million in his pocket, who is prepared to put it up if the government will get off its posterior and make a decision. I understand that the delay is in the minister's department. Could the minister comment on that?
Hon. B. Barlee: I don't think the person wandering around the province with $25 million is thee or me, and I do not know this individual, because he certainly hasn't contacted me. I haven't heard a whisper of that, nor has my staff. Whether he has $25 million is problematic and debatable, and I know he hasn't contacted us.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister could update me on the fate or progress of the Artists and Working Life program in the province. It's something that I raised last year in the Legislature. When we talked about it in July of last year, the deadline had passed with not a single application. I wonder if that program survived into this year's budget.
Hon. B. Barlee: The first phase of that program was carried out, and we have just reviewed the second phase. The deadline for the second phase was January 15, 1994, and the adjudication committee has selected the finalist in that phase. I believe that an arm's-length advisory committee met this week to complete that final decision-making. The public has been invited to view the creation of a giant mural at City Square in Vancouver. This project is one of the winning entries in phase one of the project and was jointly sponsored by the BCGEU. We've gone on to phase two of that.
W. Hurd: Am I correct in assuming that phase two has been revised in some way? You talked about an arm's-length selection committee. Previously the selection committee caused some controversy by virtue of its makeup. Has that now been changed in this year's budget?
Hon. B. Barlee: It's the same process, but the difference this year is that I'll be evaluating it extremely closely.
W. Hurd: I'm glad to hear that the program is going to be evaluated closely, unlike the minister's predecessor, who seemed to be unaware of what was going on with this program last year.
[ Page 9987 ]
I just have a few additional questions. Unfortunately, by virtue of the estimates taking place simultaneously in both Houses, I am forced to go back and forth. If some of this information has been canvassed, perhaps the minister and the staff could advise me, and I'll just review it in the Blues.
I wonder if I could ask the minister to update some of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce recommendations with respect to tourism in the province. I am particularly interested in enhanced opportunities for tourism at border crossings in the province, which is a key recommendation of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. Can the minister tell the committee what additional plans the ministry has for beefing up our presence at border crossings in the province, given that the declining Canadian dollar is likely to fuel quite a bit more interest by tourists from the United States in visiting our province?
Hon. B. Barlee: I'll give an overview of what we're doing. First all, to buy an American dollar it costs very close to $1.40. If you stay in Canada for one week, the first two and a half days are on us, which is kind of nice. We will make sure that message gets out.
The Tourism part of this ministry is divided into a number of areas. We also have teams in charge of a number of areas. Team B.C. looks at keeping in British Columbia some of that multimillions of dollars we are losing per year. Team Europe does the same thing with the U.K. and Germany.
[11:00]
Then there is the short-haul team, and a long-haul team for North America. The short-haul team looks at Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec. It also looks at the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and northern California. The long-haul team looks at the rest of the U.S. and at Mexico. We spent three hours on this yesterday with my various teams in Victoria discussing what our strategies are. We realize that most of the travelling public in the United States doesn't realize what a bargain Canada at large and specifically British Columbia actually are.
We are working very rationally and strategically to get that message across. It's a matter of getting it across to places like California, which has a population of about 32 million, slightly more than Canada as a whole. Two people out of a hundred in California know where British Columbia is, and that's all. Out of that 32 million population, 640,000 know we're here; the other 31,360,000 don't know.
With the rolling billboards and our work with the railroads, our work with video and the touch-screen computers we are going to have on the ferries and so on, we will get that message out. It's a very important part of our package, and if the Canadian dollar continues to decline -- although we defended it with $3 billion about two weeks ago; that's taxpayers' money.... I don't think the federal government can continue to defend the Canadian dollar; they'll probably have to let it float. If they do, we're in a very good position in British Columbia.
W. Hurd: Ask a simple question and you get a complex answer. All I asked was whether or not the minister intended to man the border points with kiosks or information booths, something that the travelling public coming up from Washington or Idaho would normally expect to find. That was a recommendation from the chamber. In that long answer, I was trying to determine whether there was any reference to kiosks or border points, but I didn't hear it, so I'll ask the minister again. I note that his own riding is at a border point, and that he himself resides not too far away from one. In the spirit of rewarding one's riding, can we at least expect the minister to have some sort of kiosk at the Osoyoos border crossing?
Hon. B. Barlee: I wasn't specific, because when I look at a strategy, I look at a long-term strategy, including a number of facets of it. In my riding, there is certainly more than one border point. There is one at old Cascade City, there's another at Carson, another at Osoyoos, there's another one at Nighthawk and one you're not supposed to get across on the Chopaka Indian reserve, which I have crossed occasionally -- in a former life, of course. We are looking at all five border crossings there, and then you work it right across the province. I know every one, including the two illegal border crossings. We will be putting some funding into those crossings, including the ones from Alberta, which I think are less than standard.
It requires some concentration because we have to look at the traffic patterns; we have to see where those people are travelling from. The most obvious ones would probably be Blaine and Osoyoos -- those would be the two southern ones where most of the traffic is -- and the two entries from Alberta. We'll be looking at all of them as part of our overall strategy.
W. Hurd: I'm certainly delighted to hear that the government doesn't intend to erect a kiosk at an illegal border crossing, but I didn't hear in that response any commitment to the current tourist season, which, as the member for Saanich North and the Islands has pointed out, is upon us. Am I to assume from the minister's answers that in fact there's going to be no greater commitment at the border crossings over the next few months? Given the free fall of the Canadian dollar, and the fact that one dollar spent on tourism promotion -- we understand -- generates three dollars of additional activity in the private sector, would it not be appropriate for the minister to consider the reallocation of some resources over the next three months to ensure that we, in the words of the chamber, "maintain tourism information kiosks" at all border crossings and entry points in the province for tourists who may be tempted to come up here, based on the activities of the Canadian dollar, over the next three months? Is there any commitment from the ministry to recognize that these are somewhat unique circumstances we're in with the dollar and that there are definite opportunities in the next three or four months?
Hon. B. Barlee: We presently still operate three infocentres at key border crossings; so we do that already. To put additional funding into that means a balancing. Where are our priorities? We think that we can get the message across in other areas as well -- for instance, with rolling billboards and advertising in the United States. However, I do think that we have to look at that, and we are looking at it very closely. But we have finite funding. The increase to the tourism marketing budget this year was, if I remember correctly, $5.265 million -- I might be out a thousand dollars on that. So let's say that's $5.25 million. We have to be extremely careful how we administer that extra $5.25 million. Frankly, I think that that $5.25 million in the Tourism ministry will yield us around $400 million, and if you take 10 percent of that, that's $40 million directly to government, and probably another 10 percent impact on social services -- probably another $40 million. So it's money well-spent, but I have to be very aware how we spend it. The Osoyoos border crossing, which I've had some discussions about with the chamber there, would probably cost about $50,000 immediately, and we have approximately 500 positions
[ Page 9988 ]
created every summer. There will be no change this year. These are mostly kids -- students who have gone to one of the universities in British Columbia. They get about $6.50 per hour, which is $50 per day; if they return they get a slight increase -- another 50 cents per hour if they can get there the second year.
So we've earmarked $1.4 million to provide assistance to 138 different communities, many of those border communities, and there will be a summer employment program for community travel infocentres in the fiscal year 1994-95. We haven't put a massive amount of money into that area. Where we have targeted that money, after long and very close consultation with industry at large and with my own staff, you'll find that our choices will stand the test of time. I think they will yield significant returns for the province and also for those border communities. So we are working on it through the travel infocentres; we have three manned. Probably, if I had another million dollars, I would say yes, we should probably do a better job on those three areas in British Columbia where there's a lot of traffic flowing through, plus the two routes from Alberta.
W. Hurd: I detected from the minister's answer an admission that the ministry really doesn't have any idea how people get to the province of British Columbia. I mean, how many arrive by car, how many by plane, how many by boat? Perhaps now I can ask how much money is going into the roving billboard program. Surely we'd be better off to move the billboards to the border and catch people going through the funnel, rather than spread them throughout the United States -- I assume in the United States -- and reach one out of every hundred or thousand people who might want to visit the province of British Columbia. I would wager that, based on the activity in my own riding -- which is the Blaine-Douglas border crossing and also the truck crossing at 176, or Highway.... I forget the designation of the highway, which isn't technically in my riding, but both those border crossings process thousands and thousands of visitors on a daily basis. Even if there were to be one kiosk at that border point -- which is a main corridor between Seattle and the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia -- even if we were to have a presence at that border crossing, surely the resources within the ministry can be redeployed to provide that vital service over the next three or four months.
Hon. B. Barlee: The member was alluding to stationary billboards being more effective than rolling billboards; actually the opposite is true. There have been a number of studies -- and I believe the American company that did an in-depth study on that was Langendorf -- and they found that when they tried both methods, the rolling billboards were far more effective. We're looking at a number of companies right now that are most amenable to carrying those billboards across to the United States. It would probably be several thousand dollars per truck, including both sides. I think it's innovative, but that's not the reason we're doing it. We're doing it because it's effective.
First of all, I'm not that crazy about stationary billboards. I don't mind sending trucks down into the United States, but I don't like a lot of billboards in Canada, to be quite candid. We can't escape that in certain areas of British Columbia, but I think if we have to advertise, let's do it in the least impactive way that is still attractive to the United States. When we run these billboards down into the United States, there'll be a different billboard on each side of the trucks -- if we don't convince them on the way down, we'll convince them on the way back. We've done quite a bit of work on it and found that the trucking companies are keenly interested, and frankly I think that's the way to go.
W. Hurd: I realize the term "kiosk" has not entered into the discussion so far, and I have no illusions that it inevitably will. But I will point out that I think there's a wonderful opportunity at the border crossings in British Columbia to provide a full-service kiosk or information booth for visitors who might be able to access a currency exchange, get information about British Columbia, and so on. And I think the border crossing at Douglas and perhaps maybe one or two others in the interior would offer an excellent opportunity for a pilot project for the ministry to at least determine how such a full-service entry point would work in British Columbia. With the differential between the U.S. and Canadian dollar being about 20 cents...
C. Tanner: Forty cents.
W. Hurd: Correct.
...what better opportunity would there be to allow a U.S. visitor to bring $100 into the country and immediately exchange it at a currency exchange for $130 or $140 or whatever the percentage is? It allows them to have a longer holiday; it emphasizes that there are advantages -- somewhat limited advantages to the currency differential, but nevertheless, advantages that can be capitalized on. I just throw that out, based on the fact that I think there's an opportunity that's being missed.
Moving on, I just wonder what steps the ministry is taking to improve the rather disappointing state of the hospitality industry in British Columbia, with respect to trained people in the hospitality field. The minister will be aware that there have been criticisms about the industry in this province and about the fact that we could be doing more to train people who deal with tourists on a regular basis. Has the ministry provided any funds, any recommendations to other ministries, that might enable us to do a better job of training hospitality workers in the industry?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think the member got in slightly over his head on this. First of all, our SuperHost program is considered the best in the world. The Australians came to see us -- they have the best strategy in the world -- and they said: "We love your program. We've never seen anything like it. Can we use it?" They call it AussieHost. The New Zealanders, who have a very good tourism strategy, felt likewise about our program; they call it Kiwihost. Other jurisdictions are negotiating with us right now to borrow this program.
We have a number of other areas where we've fleshed it out. The Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism and the University of Victoria are granting degrees in hotel management -- at least the University of Victoria is. The tourism industry has funded the preparation of an implementation plan. We've done detailed planning with the University of Victoria.
[11:15]
As far as the kiosks are concerned, they're not new to us. There's a kiosk sitting in the Shell station three and a half miles from the border, because there's no suitable building in Grand Forks, close to the Danville crossing. It's a touch-screen computer, and it allows people to know where to go in that Boundary country, which is one of the historic regions of the province. That is a pilot project, and I think it's a fairly good pilot project. So that's a step in the right direction.
As far as fair exchange is concerned, I think the member is right: anyone who comes to the province of British Columbia
[ Page 9989 ]
should not be taken advantage of. When I came back from Colorado last year -- I was Agriculture, Fisheries and Food minister and was negotiating with my American cousins -- I came through the Kootenays and stopped at a little ferry stop just outside of Nelson. I had some American dollars with me, and much to my amazement they were going to give me 10 cents on the dollar. At that time it was very close to 30 cents on the dollar. I left my card and indicated that that simply was not good enough.
We're looking very closely at several things, such as having a fair exchange store -- a sign to put on stores -- that would give within 3 or 4 percent. They do require some additional funds, because the bank takes some from them. If the exchange rate is 30 percent, they should allow 26 or 27 percent. If it goes up to 35 percent, they should allow 32 or 33 percent. Nobody carries back a stronger message than individuals who have been ripped off on the exchange rate. I feel the same way when I occasionally go into the United States. We're looking at that very closely right now.
As far as the food industry is concerned, we have a FoodSafe program. We're looking at certification initiatives, which is very important, and a Serving It Right program. So we are doing a fair amount in that area. Some of these are pilot projects, and we'll analyze them very closely after they're finished. I think most of them are a step in the right direction.
C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to get back in again, but we've got a little more time and I just can't resist, in view of what the minister just said.
There are two things that aggravate American tourists, and one is at the border. Mr. Minister, you have a copy of a letter on file that I sent to the federal minister of tourism, asking him to do something about the circumstances in which American visitors -- and returning Canadians -- are harassed by the excise and customs people, who are giving a very bad face to Canada. I hope the minister has very strongly told the federal minister -- particularly since the minister of excise is from this jurisdiction -- that they've got to change their ways, because it's costing us money.
The second way that American tourists are aggravated in Canada -- and particularly in this province -- is with the situation that happened to the minister at the ferry.
I think the ministry is wrong in saying: "Give fair value." I think the ministry should be promoting full value. You should be giving $1.40 on every dollar because, quite frankly, from a merchandising point of view, the retailer is making 50 percent on the merchandise that Americans take out of this province. And he's foolish not to give and advertise full value for the American dollar. That's what I think you should be saying: $1.40. I had it written down some time ago; it's something that you should be promoting very strongly in British Columbia. I think it will do nothing but good works for those returning Americans who next year will say: "Go to Canada; you get good value on your dollar." But let's get them over the border in some way that's more expedient than the way it's happening now.
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, we have corresponded with the federal minister in charge of customs, and we have made it very plain that we think there may be some harassment at the border by certain officers -- not all, probably a minimal number of officers. But it is problematic; that's the first thing.
As far as the exchange rate on the American dollar goes, I think there should be a minimum. I think it should be 3 or 4 percent, and if a person wants to give the maximum, fine. That's up to them. I don't think many United States visitors would complain if they came into Victoria and got $1.37 for $1.40. That's about the same as the bank rate, by the way. That's the exchange, because they always make about 3 or 4 percent either way. I don't find that too difficult. I think some merchants would probably follow the suggestion of the member and give them a full $1.40, realizing that 3 cents on the dollar isn't too difficult to absorb.
W. Hurd: Just returning to the hospitality industry again, I think the chamber of commerce had recommended that there be some classes in high schools. I just wondered whether there are any initiatives underway by the ministry, with the Ministry of Education, to develop some tourism industry courses within the education system generally, rather than wait until after graduation.
Hon. B. Barlee: The member makes a good point. In my present capacity as Minister of Tourism, I have talked personally to a number of high school classes about this industry. Obviously, I think it is the biggest industry in the world, and in the long run it does provide a number of jobs for graduates from the high school system.
I've touched on it once with the Minister of Education and haven't followed that up -- I think I should. We have followed up, however, with the various colleges and universities, and they're taking it much more seriously than they did five years ago.
We have 184,000 jobs directly attributed to the tourism industry in the province right now; we think there will be another 100,000 jobs by 1999. As a ministry, we do hire students, usually college and university students, in the summertime as well. So we're making some progress there, but I think we should put more emphasis on it.
W. Hurd: Just a couple of additional questions. Some of these may have been canvassed earlier, and I'll be happy to accept a long-winded response from the minister as usual for everything that I ask. So if I were to combine these questions, we can expedite this matter much more quickly.
Just an update on the Partners in Tourism program and the provincial tourism strategy, both issues that the chamber of commerce was actively concerned about. Could we just have a brief synopsis of those two issues? A brief synopsis, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: The chair recognizes the hon. minister, who may refer to previous evidence and commentary that can be referenced in Hansard.
Hon. B. Barlee: Our provincial strategy, as I've outlined several times in the last three days, is basically broken down into five teams. You could check Hansard on that. As far as the Partners in Tourism budget is concerned, I think you'll like the news that's coming down on that.
W. Hurd: Just one other additional question, and I address it partly as a member of the assembly but partly, also, as the critic for Forests, and for Environment, Lands and Parks. I just wonder if the ministry is attempting to coordinate, with the forest industry, the burgeoning number of forest tours that are developing in the province -- recognizing that such tours have an immense international benefit in promoting the idea of sustainable activities in the forest sector, as well as offering people a unique glimpse of an industry that they might not otherwise see in the country where they live, and now visiting British Columbia. Is that an initiative of the ministry -- to determine what's
[ Page 9990 ]
happening out there, what the times of the tours are, where people can go, that kind of information?
Hon. B. Barlee: That's certainly part of our ecotourism package. We realize that a number of areas in the world, specifically in Europe, are looking at what we call close wilderness tours, and some even farther than that. The German market is probably extremely important -- a growing market -- and to a lesser extent the Japanese and the U.K. markets. So we also have some watchdogs in the area. I have a watchdog in the Clayoquot region who is an ex-forester, a man called Pieter Bekker, and he watches that extremely closely. We also book reservations for the federal government on the West Coast Trail through our 1-800 system, and I believe all the bookings were made within two or three days -- it was entirely booked for the summer, so there isn't too much pressure on that. It is an area that is growing significantly; our tracking indicates this and the trend lines do as well.
C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, among the three of us, or all of us here in this room, it looks to me like our timing is almost impeccable and that we're going to wrap it up in time to report to the big House. I can't leave this room without telling -- warning -- the minister that he got off very easy this year. He's new, inexperienced and has never had Small Business before, so we were easy on him this year.
But look out next year. We want the justification next year as to why we've got a Small Business ministry at all. It seems to us like he's reaching to find reason for its existence. We're going to be very hard on the minister and some of his cohorts or department heads as to the allocation of grants; we're going to be watching those very closely. Mr. Minister, I've got to tell you we're going to be watching your travel schedule. From what we've heard here in the last three or four days, you're all over the province, in every schoolroom, in every university; you're running the departments. You can't do it all, Mr. Minister. We're going to watch your travel schedule like a hawk. The minister has undertaken some obligations to give me some information. I'll be looking for that information; I'm going to go back through Hansard and make sure I get it all. Some of it is very vital.
I have one recommendation for the minister. I think maybe next year you might save yourself and certain members of your staff a couple of days in here if you let the staff answer instead of yourself. I don't know that we've got enough time to hear all the good stories. I know you're an author and write great books. I used to sell hundreds and thousands of them; they were good. But they were stories. What we want now are facts. Next year, Mr. Minister, we're looking for facts and we're coming after you. Put your vote.
Hon. B. Barlee: I appreciate the evenhandedness of the opposition and my old friend, who I've known for about a quarter of a century. I think that's true. I will stand on the record next year, and if we don't make that $400 million, then I expect you to go over us very harshly. On the other hand, when we do make that $400 million, I would expect it to be a very short interrogation next year as far as estimates are concerned.
Vote 51 approved.
Vote 52: ministry operations, $111,743,000 -- approved.
Hon. B. Barlee: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:29 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]