1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, APRIL 21, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 19, Number 3
[ Page 13573 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have great pleasure this morning in introducing 30 students from King's Langley, England. Accompanying them are their principal, Mr. Alec Burge, and teachers, Mr. Ian Hall and Mrs. Jill Smith. I am delighted to be able to greet these students, as I grew up in England -- in my younger days, without any grey hair. It was a great place to live in those days, and I'm sure it still is. I am delighted to be able to personally greet and welcome you, and I ask the House to join me in welcoming these students on behalf of Minister Barlee.
Hon. A. Petter tabled the forest, range and recreation resource analysis for 1994.
THE MANY BENEFITS OF INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL
N. Lortie: I am pleased to rise in my place and talk about the many positive benefits of infrastructure renewal. Every person looks at things differently. Some people look at a cup and say it's half-full; others look at the same cup and see it to be half-empty. Some look at infrastructure renewal and see debt and taxes. I look at infrastructure renewal and see growth and opportunity. I see the much-needed building facilities such as schools, universities, hospitals, roads and bridges, and I see the benefits they bring to our communities: better health care, improved educational opportunities, more efficient transportation for industry and faster commutes for the workers of those industries. I see the positive benefits made possible by affordable investments.
These benefits go far beyond the creation of construction jobs, although those jobs are very important. But the spinoff benefits to local economies are also very important factors. Supplies and materials may be purchased locally. Construction workers shop in local businesses, adding to the economic base of those communities and allowing retailers to hire more staff and create more employment. All these workers pay taxes, and government receives revenue every time a dollar changes hands. The people of this province are left with new infrastructure, and this is important to attracting investment to our province. To me, it's a win-win situation. There are no losers, just winners, and the biggest winners are the hard-working people of British Columbia. There are many examples of the positive benefits of infrastructure renewal in my constituency of Delta North. Among them is a proposal that I hope will come to fruition very shortly: the South Fraser perimeter road. It is an industrial road through Surrey and Delta, connecting the ferry terminal at Tsawwassen and Roberts Bank superport through to the Annacis Island industrial areas, Tilbury industrial area, the Surrey-Fraser docks, the Bridgeview industrial area of Surrey and Port Mann, and connecting to the 101 in Langley. It is just in the planning stage, but it's a $105-155 million project.
You know, there's a 5-to-1 payback in economic benefits of this project, which is the highest payback of any project that was submitted to the federal cost-sharing program of infrastructure renewal -- 5-to-1 benefits, with many thousands of jobs in construction and also many thousands of jobs in industrial expansion when this project is completed. Also, my community has the added benefit of rerouting truck traffic around our community -- truck traffic that is presently going through our neighbourhoods.
Then we have the Annacis Island sewage treatment plant -- $206.6 million cost-shared with the federal government and the GVRD. That's some 3,000 person-years of work -- 3,000 jobs -- and investment in the environment in the protection of the Fraser River. No longer will untreated sewage go directly into the Fraser River, and no longer will our fishing industry be threatened.
Then there is one project that I'm really proud of, and that's the upgrade of the north end of the Alex Fraser Bridge. That's the project to replace the traffic lights at the Hamilton and Westminster interchange at the north end of that bridge -- a $75 million project with 990 construction jobs. The announcement of this project was received with delight by my constituents, because it will eliminate the long lineups going to work and back from my community of Delta North. This project should have been done when the Alex Fraser Bridge was first being built, but there was a problem with overruns from the former government, and they cut back. This government is pleased to complete that job, which should have been done many, many years ago.
There is also a small project that will be very important: the upgrade to the south end of the Alex Fraser Bridge. It's a $1.5 million project to allow traffic to access the NorDel interchange a lot easier. That will go a long way to relieving some of the congestion in that area.
We all know about the university of south Fraser Valley. It's just in the planning stage now, but it's going ahead. It will allow better access to post-secondary education and enhance the future of our children. Economic spinoffs from this kind of facility will be great. Look what happened at the university of the north with the spinoff industries around research and development in Prince George. It's happening all over the province, in every constituency: $2.245 billion worth of projects, creating 21,325 jobs.
We're in competition with every other jurisdiction in the world to attract investment and jobs. The infrastructure of this province is the inducement to investment that makes us different from other places in the world. It's our edge in a very competitive market, along with a well-educated and mobile workforce. These are the building blocks of our success. A modern and efficient transportation system is essential to the tourist industry and the tourist business. To attract tourists, we must have good roads and bridges, public transportation, hospitals, museums, ferries, etc. An investment in infrastructure is an investment in the economy of this province.
We are a growing province, and this growth puts pressure on existing services. The many thousands of new citizens coming to British Columbia every year require schools, universities, colleges, roads, bridges, an efficient transportation system and new health care facilities. We have to protect medicare for all British Columbians, new and old -- universal, comprehensive, accessible health care for all time.
[ Page 13574 ]
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Your time has expired.
N. Lortie: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'll be pleased to finish with my rebuttal.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon responds.
L. Hanson: I don't think that anyone in this chamber would argue with the benefits of planned infrastructure development and renewal of infrastructure, as the member has just stated. I guess the only question that comes to mind -- and I am sure it has come to the minds of many British Columbians when we look at the debt that we have created in this province in doing it.... I think the people of British Columbia recognize the need to build roads and infrastructure and, going even further than the member suggested, the need to build infrastructure within municipalities and regional districts. We all recognize that. We recognize the need for cleaning up some of our waste discharges, which now in some cases is not being done as correctly as it should be. But I think the question is: at what level can we continue to afford to do these developments?
[10:15]
If you look at this government's record in borrowing -- for, I'll grant you, the building of infrastructure -- I think the people of British Columbia find that the tax burden resulting from that borrowing is more and more difficult to bear. While we recognize that the building and improvement of infrastructure does in fact create jobs, the wealth of the province is being taxed from the economic growth that we need because of the borrowing and the method the government has chosen to pay for this infrastructure construction.
It has been a historical thing in British Columbia that infrastructure construction is paid on an annual basis, as opposed to borrowing it and paying over a long-term basis. I submit that if we continue on the path we are on, the building of infrastructure will come to a complete halt, because the message that was given to the federal government in their borrowing ability will one day be given to us. And when it is given to us, one day when we go to the banker for the building of infrastructure and those things that we need in this province not only to create jobs but also to provide the facilities that people expect and need in the economy and its growth, someone will say: "I am sorry, Mr. British Columbia. We will not lend you any more money, because you have reached the limit of what you can borrow."
So while I agree with the member's statement of the importance of the building and improvement of infrastructure, I really question where we are going how we are paying for that infrastructure. When the great question that we all know we'll face before too long is asked, we'll see the result of what people in British Columbia believe of the fiscal planning of this government.
N. Lortie: There we have a perfect example of a member who sees the glass to be half-empty. I think we have to be positive about this province. We have to understand that this is a great province with great ability.
An Hon. Member: Give up those rose-coloured glasses and look at it realistically.
N. Lortie: Hon. member, I was talking about affordable, manageable debt. You talk about the federal government that pays 36 cents out of every tax dollar they take in to service their debt. In British Columbia, it's 8 cents out of every tax dollar. In relative terms, we're in far better shape financially than any other province in Canada, the federal government or any other jurisdiction.
We have the lowest per capita debt in Canada. Our taxpayer-supported debt is 19.1 percent as a share of provincial gross domestic product. Meanwhile, Alberta is much higher at 37 percent, and the federal government is 73 percent of gross national product in debt. We can afford....
An Hon. Member: What was it in 1992?
N. Lortie: Our government would be irresponsible not to address a deficit of infrastructure in this province that was left us as a legacy from the previous government. Those members over there can't hide the fact that they were part of the last government -- Socreds who have changed their name to the Reform Party. But the people of British Columbia understand that they're still Socreds. And a Socred is a Socred is a Liberal is a Reform; they're all the same.
I'm pleased to be able to try to set these members straight on affordable infrastructure.
A CANADIAN CULTURAL IDENTITY
V. Anderson: I rise to speak about Canadian cultural identity. I believe it was in 1992 that a paper called "Multiculturalism: Towards Cultural Competence" was published by the British Columbia Ministry of Social Services. A quote from page 75 reads:
"British Columbia is in the process of a cultural metamorphosis. Increases in the volume of immigration, shifts in the countries of origin and settlement patterns require that cultural considerations must be reflected and integrated throughout the ministry's legislation, policy, practices and structure."
The implication of this study and of this report was that cultural competence should be expected in all realms of government and indeed would be an asset for all members of the community and should be an expectation for all public servants. And with this I would heartily agree.
In agreeing, though, I found that it was necessary to reflect on the broader question of the essence of Canadian cultural identity apart from the cultural realities of each and every person within the nation. In other words, what is added to or subtracted from a person's individual identity of being or not being a Canadian by birth or by choice?
In our modern world, to say I am a Canadian has, in and of itself, great cultural significance. It says that I am part of a unique group of people committed to each other with certain shared responsibilities and rights. As a Canadian, I am recognized around the world as someone special. Since I carry a Canadian passport, this affords me certain opportunities and respect unique to this Canadian heritage. This recognition is apart from any other qualities gained from my place of birth or the ethnic background of my parents, my grandparents, my great-grandparents or my great-great-great-grandparents.
From whence then, I ask, did this Canadian cultural identity arise which is accorded to me over and above any of
[ Page 13575 ]
my personal contributions to it? From whence does this mysterious and cherished Canadian cultural gift come? How has it evolved to the present day and is it still evolving?
To reflect briefly on our Canadian history, the first human settlement in this country was made up of the many aboriginal nations who lived in continuing interaction across this fertile land, and they were the origins of what was to become our present Canadian cultural identity. When others from the east and the west, the north and the south, immigrated upon these early settlers, a new style of cultural identity began to develop. This was only about 500 years ago. Yes, it was just 500 years ago that the cultural process of cultural metamorphosis, as the report referred to it, began. Immigration of the newcomers or the outsiders and their interrelationships with those already there, the aboriginal population, was and is an uneasy relationship that is still needing to come to mutually acceptable, total and happy accommodation.
In the first instance, there was the interrelationship of the aboriginals, who were the original ones, and the non-aboriginals, the newcomers. These relationships have been both welcoming and hostile, accepting and rejecting, and yet in a variety of ways they have somehow become accommodating. Out of these relationships, the foundation for our new country was born, and a people called Canadians came into being.
Part of this struggle to relate to one another and to survive and prosper jointly in this great land of diverse geography, resources and climate developed a people who had respect for diversity, perseverance and common community. A unique feature of this country was its wide and seemingly unlimited space, and its diversity and unlimited resources were there for those willing to work for them. The air was pure, the water was fresh and the land offered freedom -- freedom to be oneself, even as wave after wave of newcomers kept encroaching on those who had come before.
The tensions of 500 years ago are essentially the same tensions of today, although more numerous, and the manner with which these tensions have been resolved has produced this unique cultural identity called Canadian. It is an identity which has become a treasure that others would take unto themselves, believing that its strengths are always greater and more in number than its weaknesses. Its uniqueness, perhaps, is that to this point in time, the Canadian identity has been an open, fluid system of relationships, ever enabling others to participate and belong. Indeed, it is a system that evolves and becomes whatever the mix of its people make it. Politically it is called democratic, for it strives to recognize the identity, uniqueness and contribution of each and every one, and it recognizes that the strength of the whole is the strength of each of the parts. This Canadian cultural identity has come about as we strived to work together to build a common society.
Oh yes, we have failed many times and we have made mistakes, but overall we have achieved many successes. For the most part, to say that you are part of the Canadian cultural identity is to give yourself respect in almost any part of the world. For most of us today, this Canadian cultural identity is a gift which we cherish.
C. Evans: It's really interesting that we should have such a philosophical conversation in this chamber. The notice on the order paper that we would have a discussion of the Canadian identity today led the person choosing the responder for our side to invite an immigrant. Perhaps it was because he thought that I might have a perspective about Canadian identity which might be slightly different than one who was raised and born in this country.
Sure enough. I was raised in a country to the south, and the very first thing I ever heard about Canada was when I was working in the black community in Oakland, California, and people used to ask the question: "How does an interracial couple get from New York to San Francisco?" The answer was: "Not by train, by plane or by car, but through Canada." Comments like that about the nature of this country led me to want to immigrate to this country.
I was working at a segregated YMCA, which means a YMCA in which only one colour was allowed to attend -- or perhaps anyone could have attended that Y, but that was because the people who swam there weren't welcome at the downtown Y. At the end of my job, I announced to the young people I worked with that I was going to move to Canada. In my naivety, I said to them: "Why don't you come and visit me next summer?" They said: "You know, Mr. Evans" -- because they were younger than I was -- "we hope you have a wonderful time, but it isn't like all of us can go. Most of us will never have the money to get a hundred miles from home, never mind to another land. So it isn't like 'see you later'; it's like 'goodbye'."
Later on I used to pull boards at Youbou, just up-Island. Every other person on the greenchain was East Indian. When I got to talking with those people over the months that I pulled boards, it turned out that, like me -- the privileged person from east Oakland -- they were all educated, more educated than I was. They were of a class from their home country that could afford to send their children elsewhere. I got the idea that this country, the finest country on the planet, is to some extent settled by those of us who had the privilege to leave wherever we came from.
Thinking about what this country has become and what the essence of this country is, it occurred to me that this land is a country where, politically, we have decided there is such a thing as community, where society is the collective solution. This is the country where people realize that through cooperatives, through the social gospel, through trade unions and through social democracy we will build railroads together and we will solve problems together. This is a country where people believe in one another solving problems.
[10:30]
The juxtaposition is to other places where the private solution, independent wealth and privatized service is the way to get things done. Two days ago, in such a country, a bomb went off. People died, and I have to tell you that inside of me I thought: "Yup, that's the kind of stuff that happens in that other system." And I gloated for a second, because I've had the privilege to get here and to not be there. Then yesterday in Charlottetown, we were all reminded that the privilege of the peace and collectivity of this land is not isolated from evil, and that it only exists because we collectively, minute to minute, make it so. That's my Canada.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the words of the member for Nelson-Creston, because personal experience is very important. He shares not only on behalf of himself but also for many others who have come to this country from around the world.
[ Page 13576 ]
Indeed, all of us were at one time immigrants, although some of us were born within this country. Part of the reality of the freedom we have within this country is that there are many who came from here who also went to fight the wars to bring peace so that we might all continue to share the privileges that we have.
As a result of their efforts, Canada became known as a country not only in which there is freedom but also where we were willing to go forth to discover and work for freedom in other parts of the world. Many of our men and women were willing to die on our behalf in those wars outside of our own country. I for one want to say thanks not only to those who have contributed to the building of this country and the protecting of it but to those who were also willing to give even their lives on our behalf for that opportunity.
In the final analysis it is relatively easy to win a war, but it's much more difficult to win a peace. Even as the member for Nelson-Creston has indicated, bombing in our own country and in the country south of us means that it's very easy for us to lose the opportunities and privileges that we have. A significant task for all of us is to continue being peacemakers and peacekeepers. Again, as we welcome every day to the shores of Canada new people seeking peace and fleeing from the wars which are part of their countries, we are very much aware that today we seem to have less water, less space and less clean air. So the challenge for us in our generation is to share as other generations have done. Perhaps we find that pressure even more difficult than our aboriginal people did when our ancestors first arrived here.
But each generation has to make its own choice. Will we continue to build on the shared Canadian cultural identity, or will we dismiss it as unimportant and insignificant? I trust that we will continue to build as we have done, so that in the next 500 years the shared identity that we have of peacemaking and peacekeeping will still be known, and that we may be able to say that our cultural identity as Canadians has been preserved and enriched.
DEMOCRATIC PUBLIC EDUCATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
H. Giesbrecht: Today I want to focus on some of the challenges that our public education system is facing in a changing world.
Lately there has been a great deal of discussion about the option of charter schools. What are they? It seems that even the strongest supporters of charter schools cannot agree on one encompassing definition. However, their individual definitions have some points in common which I intend to comment on.
Charter schools are autonomous and run by a non-profit consortium, often a special interest parent group -- maybe even a parent-teacher group -- yet fully funded by the state. This means that school boards elected by all members of the public are bypassed, with schools having a charter directly from the government. It is, in effect, contracting out public education; a special interest group has control, while every member of the public pays. Charter schools are sometimes intended to be run with a particular business orientation. Perhaps that's why charter schools are endorsed by the opposition parties. But I submit that charter schools have no place in the public education system in British Columbia.
Proponents claim that charter schools emphasize excellence and choice. These concepts sound so seductive. In fact, upon any close examination they offer a simplistic and undemocratic answer to the complicated and essential question of how we educate our children in a publicly funded system.
Charter schools are less democratic and less accountable than British Columbia's public schools currently are. They do an end run around school boards. Each charter school operates under its own handpicked board and controls its own budget -- money, incidentally, from all of us, as I have said. We all pay the taxes, we all elect our school trustees, and we all have a say in the education of B.C.'s children. That's the way it should be, and that's the way it is currently. To opt into this sort of sovereignty association in education with charter schools cheats the taxpayers of accountability and makes for a school that is narrowly based. It caters to a vocal few with public money.
Charter schools do not provide choice and excellence. They are elitist. They do not accept all students; the parents of a child must buy into the goals and methods of the school. Because their reputation and funding is based on attracting students, they must fill themselves with highly motivated, highly academic achievers. What happens to special needs students or students with less than model behaviour patterns? They're out. They go to the regular public school system, and a two-tier educational system results.
One well-known Alberta champion of charter schools has said: "We're not interested in having academically challenged kids, and we're not going to have behavioural problems. We're taking the cream of the crop." The Leader of the Opposition said that it's about choice and that we have to respect the rights of the minority to participate in structuring one of these things. It's not about choice; it's about catering to the elite.
Because charter school boards may be made up of handpicked members, they may -- and sometimes do -- include representatives of sponsoring corporations. Public schools, on the other hand, provide both accountability and choice for all students in B.C. Our present system contains checks and balances that ensure that education received in the north is equivalent in quality, breadth and rigour to the education received by students in the south. It ensures equal opportunity and equal access.
Under this government, public education has the capacity to offer choice to parents within a publicly administered and publicly funded system. We have fully funded Montessori schools, traditional schools in Langley and Surrey, and a new technical high school in Clearbrook. We have a range of alternative schools. Skills Now is preparing students for real jobs in the twenty-first century by providing meaningful options for career development and work-related experiences. We have baccalaureate programs, schools that focus on fine arts, and some that focus on athletics. The important difference is that the alternatives are publicly administered, follow the same core curriculum and can't exclude children.
Under this government, school districts are accountable. They are charged with including specific performance measures such as surveys of the local community and school completion rates in their annual reports. Accreditation of all public schools is now mandatory. New requirements expand the opportunities for community input through such means as representation on the accreditation team.
[ Page 13577 ]
We live in a diverse world. Separating children into groups based on narrow interests and different socioeconomic conditions will not help children develop the skills and understanding -- and particularly the tolerance -- they will need to effectively integrate into workplaces and communities. This is what charter schools would do.
Under this government, British Columbia's public education is going in the right direction -- the inclusive direction -- for all British Columbians. Charles Ungerleider, associate dean of the faculty of education at UBC, recently said:
"Public schooling makes democratic society possible by bringing together children of very different backgrounds, where they can learn from and with, and learn to contend with one another to ensure they acquire the dispositions and knowledge that they will need to function as adult citizens."
This great country was formed by people learning to work together, and we still need to work at it. Separating, creating elitist schools, is not the answer.
L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to respond to the member for Skeena. I would probably have had a different response had I known he was going to talk about charter schools as opposed to democratic public education in British Columbia.
Interjection.
L. Stephens: One of the members opposite says: "Same issue." If you look at what members opposite believe when they talk about democracy, and what members on this side of the House mean when they talk about democracy, it seems to be two different things. "Public" means for the people -- for all people, not just the people that agree with you, the people who you feel are fellow travellers.
Interjections.
L. Stephens: And you know what that means.
Democracy also means political power to all the people. Parents should be able to speak on all matters; everyone should be able to speak on all matters.
Since 1789, the core values of democratic thought have revolved around maintaining a balance between liberty, equality and fraternity. Equality, if taken to extremes, is at the expense of liberty and produces socialism. Fraternity, if taken to extremes, produces communism. Liberty, if taken to extremes, tramples on fairness and equity and produces dictators. The difficulty is in maintaining a balance between liberty, equality and fraternity. It is the duty and responsibility of democratic governments to maintain that balance. Members on this side of the House understand that well.
[L. Krog in the chair.]
That is why I believe we need to restructure our education system to provide more choices and more freedom for parents, teachers and students to enhance student learning and achievement. One size does not fit all. In the pursuit of fairness and equity in the education system in this province, diversity of programs and types of schools has been limited. If members opposite say they believe in freedom and choice and democracy, they should uphold those choices and freedoms for everyone, not just for those who think the way they do.
In today's changing social and economic environment, the primary goal of our education system is to provide our children with the new skills they will need to be successful in that changing world. Members this side of the House believe in improving the quality of education in British Columbia without increasing the burden on taxpayers.
An unacceptably high number of high school students are dropping out of our public schools. Private school enrolments and home schooling are increasing dramatically. Parents, students, teachers and the public are calling for increased accountability for how our education dollars are spent and for far more involvement in the decision-making in the education system.
To prepare students for a changing world, parents and students should have more choices when selecting an educational program that they feel best meets the needs of students -- all students. Some examples of choice schools include traditional schools. We have a number of them, and the member referred to those we have in Langley. We are very fortunate in Langley to have a school board -- to have had one for a number of years -- that recognizes the importance of alternate programs for students. We've had fundamental, traditional schools, if you like, for 18 years. We have two of them. We have a fine arts school. We have the baccalaureate program, a community school and a technical program that's just beginning.
[10:45]
We have a lot of choices in our school district and in a number of others around the province as well, but there's no reason we cannot expand and build on the choices we have today. We need to look at those traditional schools, at home schooling, year-round schooling and charter schools such as the arts-based, science-based, technology-based and Montessori-based schools.
We are committed to it. Liberal members on this side of the House are committed to building on the successes we've enjoyed in the past and to providing a learning environment that is safe, positive and nurturing and which places high value on success and feelings of self-worth.
Deputy Speaker: Member, I regret your time has expired.
I recognize the member for Skeena.
H. Giesbrecht: I thank the hon. member for her comments. I would like to respond to the suggestion that the public school system is based on the notion that one size fits all. Anyone who would suggest that the public school system currently operates on that basis probably hasn't been inside a classroom in the last three decades.
There is a host of programs in the public school system to cater to individual differences in academic ability and all sorts of things. Mainstreaming has become a major part of the public school system, and every effort is made to ensure that students maximize their potential in the school system. To suggest that one size fits all is a reason for going into something like charter schools kind of misses the reality that is taking place. I mentioned some of those in my earlier statement in terms of the various options that are available there.
[ Page 13578 ]
One of the myths which fuels the current debate about the need for changes in public education -- that is, the charter school option -- has to do with academic standards, and the hon. member referred to that. For about the last 40 years, more students are staying in school longer. The proportion of those earning degrees has increased fivefold in the last 40 years. Canadian students consistently measure up to students from other countries, provided that the selection process for comparisons is identical. I have no objection to anybody suggesting there's always room for improving our public education system, but if those improvements are sought, they should be sought in a public way where all members of the public have input, and then the public can hold the government accountable for them later.
Charter schools are not an improvement. Just to make the point, I have a few quotes here that I would like to read into the record from people who have commented about charter schools. One of them comes from the very senior Vancouver school trustee, Ken Denike. In the Vancouver Courier just this March, he said: "I think it's a serious mistake. It's one of those options that's being tried out in places in the U.S. where the system has broken down, where it has really turned into anarchy and parents have had to step in and save it." In another article, referring to the Liberals' support for charter schools, he went on to say: "I think it was politically shortsighted, and they were ill-informed. Private schools have a role to play, but charter schools are something else again." Referring to the charter school policy, he adds: " I wouldn't accept it." I understand that this trustee is also a potential Liberal candidate, so the opposition might want to consider his words.
Then there's another quote that comes from an Alberta Liberal....
Deputy Speaker: Member, I regret that your time has expired.
I recognize the member for Surrey-Cloverdale to give the final private member's statement.
WHERE ARE WE GOING?
K. Jones: I would like to discuss where we are going, but before we start, I would like to talk about where we have been. Let me take you back into some history of this province. Our pioneers played bingo and other games of chance such as poker and blackjack, mainly games based on cards. Coming into the thirties and forties, there were foreign lotteries such as the Irish Sweepstakes, as well as church bingos, a few minor card clubs and some illegal backroom gambling facilities.
To help fund the Montreal Expos, the federal government established a national lottery and made gambling legal, provided it was operated by the federal government. In 1987, the B.C. government, under Social Credit, established charitable gaming by order-in-council under the direction of the British Columbia Gaming Commission. Prior to this, the provinces made a deal with the federal government to take over operation of the lottery across Canada. At that time, British Columbia established the British Columbia Lottery Corporation to operate lottery gambling.
With the establishment of the Gaming Commission, two governing bodies became involved in legalized gambling in B.C. The Gaming Commission governed charitable bingo and casino operations, ticket raffles and games of chance at fairs, exhibitions and social clubs. Charitable gaming has provided an easy source of funds to many community organizations over the years.
Many people have travelled to the United States to gamble, primarily in the Nevada area. In the last few years, Washington State casinos located on the Lummi Island and Nooksack reserves have drawn some people from British Columbia. Over the years, the number of people who have gambled in British Columbia has not been very great. There has been a fairly strong opposition to gambling as a whole by the majority of British Columbians.
In 1993, the new NDP government decided to look into the expansion of gambling opportunities in British Columbia, partly to satisfy special interest groups who desire to increase their own profits, and partly to increase revenue opportunities for the provincial government. Charitable organizations also wanted to expand their source of funding from gambling. This ultimately led to the announcement last fall that the government was going to expand into gambling extensively, although they fell short of approving major destination casinos. The government then established an implementation project which was to provide the legislation, regulation and creation of new gambling opportunities.
In the last few months, we have seen attempts by charitable casinos in British Columbia to increase their size of bets, their hours, their number and variety of games and their access to video lottery terminals based on their concern that the tribal casinos in Washington State may reduce their revenues because of their greater drawing capacity.
Let's really look at where we are going. As you can see, there is a greater demand for people to get involved in gambling. Let's call it what it really is: gambling; it's not gaming and it's not entertainment, as some would like to call it. Let's realize how gambling in British Columbia is being escalated, with its many detrimental impacts on our community. Some parts of our society have been saying for years that gambling has no redeeming qualities. Let's listen to the concerns of the United, Presbyterian, Anglican and Canadian Reformed churches and, yes, even the Catholic Church.
Let's look at those concerns. What are they? We can start by saying that the destruction caused by gambling greatly outweighs any income benefits that may occur. The cost of gambling includes personal financial problems, marital breakdowns, physical disorders, family breakdowns, suicide, loss of jobs and productivity, increased violence and theft, and increased justice costs. So says the Rev. Canon Dan Krausert of St. Michaels Anglican Church in Merritt. Similar concerns have been expressed by other churches and other faiths.
Robert Lunney of the Peel regional police in Ontario is quoted as saying:
"I think legalized gambling, particularly casino gambling, creates a vulnerability for elected and appointed public officials. There is the opportunity for various interests to offer favours and secret commissions to public officials to overlook transgressions, amend regulations or grant certain exemptions. This has been the record in Atlantic City."
He also expressed concern about the incidence of crime committed by pathological gamblers.
"There will be an increase in street crime, some crimes committed by casino staff, increases in loan frauds, economic
[ Page 13579 ]
losses, depression and suicide. There will also be opportunities for organized crime. Legalized gambling will have little effect on existing illegal gambling. Much of it is based on ethnic social clubs. Legal gambling may actually lead to an increase in illegal gambling, as new gamblers are recruited to play in the social clubs."
Chief Constable Ray Canuel of the Vancouver city police had this to say in a letter to Mayor Philip Owen:
"The Vancouver police department is totally opposed to any expansion of gambling as described in the provincial proposals. Our position against the installation of VLTs and other expanded gambling has been clearly stated and has not changed. The effects of gambling are overwhelmingly negative."
Gary Smith from the University of Alberta said the charities that are supposed to protect the vulnerable do not seem overly concerned with problem gamblers. Henry Lesieur suggests that at least 10 percent and perhaps as much as 50 percent of gambling revenues come from problem gamblers. They gamble much more heavily than regular gamblers because, by definition, they chase their losses.
Brian Steeves, with the province of New Brunswick, has noted that after withdrawing 2,500 legal VLTs from Nova Scotia, there now may be more illegal machines operating than before the legal program was launched.
J. Pullinger: It would have been very nice if the member had told me what he was going to talk about, because his title was very misleading, quite frankly. But he refused to do that, so I will simply respond as best I can to the history of gaming in British Columbia thus far. I think we can all see where the member is going on this; I can see where he's going. I'm not sure that he can see where we're going.
When you're dealing with an issue like gaming or gambling, the first thing that's absolutely imperative to do is recognize the reality, recognize what exists and recognize that gaming happens. If the member went a little farther in his research, he would discover that this incremental progression of gaming legislation, rules and policy in this province and elsewhere was in response to the fact that gaming exists.
The question that remains for society, then, is: how do you deal with that? Obviously, we have dealt with it incrementally. We've changed the rules over the years. The rules on anything are constantly changing in response to what exists out there.
The danger from a public policy point of view is that you pretend -- as we see so often the case, unfortunately, across the way -- that by ignoring the problem it will go away, or that you can take a position on something and by taking that position it will go away. We see that kind of position taken by opposition parties, anti-choice groups, etc. Quite frankly, that's an ineffective and irresponsible way to deal with public policy. So the first thing you have to do, when you're dealing with this kind of issue, is acknowledge the reality of our society and what's happening in it.
The second thing you have to do is talk about it. You need to have some discussion and consultation. That's why this government undertook a very broad consultation about gambling and gaming with two of our colleagues on this side of the House, went around the province and had an in-depth discussion. There was a parallel one with the first nations communities. On the basis of that, a policy was put forward. The discussion continues, to find something we can all live with that's a solution and a way to deal with this issue, based on reality.
After the largest chunk of this member's statement, I'm still not sure where he's going. What I can say with absolute confidence is that we on this side of the House tend to deal with the issue based on a realistic understanding of what's out there and on extensive public consultation that's ongoing, and we'll come up with realistic solutions to it.
K. Jones: Let's look at the gross revenue that the Lottery Corporation made in 1987-88, which was $497 million. That has now grown to $769 million for 1993-94, a 55 percent increase. That has resulted in the province receiving, for 1993-94, $233.8 million. All the major forms of legal gambling -- licensed bingo, lotteries and casinos -- for 1993-94 took $1.311 billion from the British Columbia economy. The province's net revenue from that amounted to $246.1 million. The remainder went to prizes for a select few, operator profits and administration costs. What a poor return on our investment!
[11:00]
As we have detailed in our initial presentation, the whole issue of gambling has to be looked at. We in the Liberal Party have called for a full, open and independent public review, with all interested parties being encouraged to present their views. Since the government refuses to provide this, the people of British Columbia in their various communities have taken it upon themselves to put a stop to the introduction of video lottery terminals. This has been done as they recognize the great risks that this form of gambling could bring.
I believe that these people are right to be concerned about VLTs. I believe we must keep them out of British Columbia as well as take action against existing illegal machines. I am very disappointed with the failure of the Attorney General to enforce the law. We have to seriously look at whether the $1.3 billion taken out of the economy by the Lottery Corporation, bingos and casinos is the best way to raise $246 million for general revenue and health. I don't think so. Perhaps those people who wish to have the entertainment of gambling can go to the United States or elsewhere for that entertainment and leave B.C. free from all of the consequences of gambling. What the people of British Columbia are asking today is government leadership that will stop the moral decay of our society. If the current government won't do it, the people will look to another.
Deputy Speaker: That concludes private members' statements.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply for the purpose of discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
(continued)
On vote 17: minister's office, $424,063 (continued).
[ Page 13580 ]
J. Dalton: I would like to start by returning to an item that was interrupted yesterday. I think we have now clarified the difficulty that the Attorney General and his staff perceived behind this item, and therefore we can now proceed with some questions on it. The item I raised yesterday was the interim investigation report on an alleged assault on an inmate in the Surrey Pretrial Centre. This report was commissioned by the Attorney General's office and is dated October 12, 1994.
Before I lead into some of the questions and concerns that come out of this report, it's important to give a brief background of the inmates involved -- not the names, because of course those names were deleted from the report. That was one of the areas of concern that was raised yesterday, and why we could not proceed with it at that time. It's interesting to note that the inmate who was allegedly assaulted -- and keep in mind that this was a double-bunking circumstance.... If I recall from last year's estimates, we did raise the general concern that double-bunking is not necessarily going to be the happiest of circumstances for anyone involved in the correctional system, and I would say without any question that this unfortunate incident very accurately illustrates that very concern. We are told in the report on page 5 that for the inmate allegedly assaulted, this was his first admission to an adult correctional centre, so obviously he is fairly young. I must say, in passing, that I question the wisdom -- unless there's very good reason, which maybe the Attorney General will get into later -- of why someone of that age, a first-timer in an adult facility, would be double-bunked anyway. I think we could perhaps all be a little wiser in that circumstance. So we're told that this was the first admission of this person.
I think it's also interesting to note that after the alleged assault, which took place over a three-night period: July 30, July 31 and August 1, 1994.... I quote from page 12 of the report: "Between August 2 and August 8, 1994, inmate A" -- whose name, of course, is not disclosed -- "was bunked with three different inmates. Two of the cellmates had records and convictions for sexual assault and another had a lengthy record of violent offences." So before I get into some of the questions and concerns I wish to raise with the Attorney General from this report, perhaps the Attorney General would like to respond to why, in the circumstances of this allegation, this person was placed in a double-bunking circumstance with people who have records of sexual assault and violent offences. That, to me, seems highly inappropriate in the aftermath of what happened to this person in the first place.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the answer to the question may not be a happy answer. But the answer to the question is that in a remand centre, you're very limited as to the kind of company you might get to keep. Obviously there's a limited number of beds in that facility and a larger number of inmates, and what the member and I might describe as fairly unsavoury characters in many cases. The staff do their very best to ensure that whatever matchings have to take place are done as carefully as possible, and obviously since this incident, there is tighter application of the rules. Some of the rules and recommendations made in the report that Mr. Anderson gave me have been implemented. I don't have a particularly good answer. If the member wants to support me in going to Treasury Board for more money, I may be able to have better answers for a lot of these questions. That's the best I can do on that.
Just to go back to the beginning of this issue, I apologize to the member for yesterday's confusion. I wasn't sure whether the member had the document that he does in fact have or whether he had the unexpurgated version which I was afraid he had, and I wanted to be very careful about that. The member, quite appropriately, has a public document, and we have no difficulty responding to it.
J. Dalton: I can appreciate the discomfort the Attorney General has expressed over this particular issue and maybe over the general issue of double-bunking. I think I can say, as a taxpayer and on behalf of whatever number of taxpayers there are in this province, that of course we all have to be very careful with our dollars and how we spend them. I might say that maybe there's a bit of an irony creeping into our discussion here that we all recognize. Of course, we've got to get smarter in whatever we do with people who run afoul of the law. I think at least the Attorney General and I seem to have some common ground of philosophy that incarceration is probably at best a second measure. Naturally, we have to have incarceration for some. In fact, maybe later in these estimates we'll be getting into some discussion that, for some people.... As far as I'm concerned, they should be locked up forever, and I wouldn't have any hesitation in saying that. But that's getting off the track on this point.
I will raise this question before I get into some of the other details. I wanted to raise it later, but I don't think the Attorney General has really responded to the concern I just raised. Given the allegations of sexual assault over the three previous nights, is it appropriate for an adult facility to continue to double-bunk a first-time inmate? Could some other provision have been made, perhaps even moving the gentleman to another facility? I could see in cases like this -- and I think other members will be raising other situations -- the real opportunity for very serious lawsuits. In fact, in some cases that is the truth. That's not very wise use of our tax dollars either.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know what more I can say. The member and I both share a view that double-bunking is not a particularly happy occasion, but it's forced on us for population reasons. We have a large remand population. We are trying to reduce the remand numbers by reducing the backlog. If we can solve the problems in that way, I would be happier, rather than trying to solve them by always having to be careful about decisions that are made with respect to who bunks with whom.
I'm not going to say very much more about this issue, given that there are matters in front of the courts. I always need to be careful when that's the case.
J. Dalton: Before I get into the other issue I wanted to raise about the management of this particular correctional facility -- and the document certainly addresses some issues in that area -- could I ask how many centres are being double-bunked and how many inmates, roughly speaking, we are dealing with? Even though I can appreciate the difficulty the Attorney General is in.... I agree that if we could all go before Treasury Board and have our wish list filled we wouldn't need to go through the estimates, but that isn't the case. But it is important that the people of British Columbia know about the double-bunking, from a general point of view -- how many facilities are affected and how many people in those facilities are being double-bunked on a regular basis.
[ Page 13581 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I hope I heard all of the questions. I was listening to three conversations at once.
Double-bunking occurs in five provincial institutions. There are approximately 200 double-bunk situations, which means that approximately 400 inmates are being double-bunked.
M. Farnworth: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
M. Farnworth: In the gallery today we have approximately 45 students from Mary Hill Junior Secondary, accompanied by their teacher. Mary Hill Junior Secondary is the junior high school I went to some 20 years ago. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
[11:15]
J. Dalton: Let's get into the other issue I would like to raise with regard to this interim report. It's important to recognize and to put on the record that there are obviously some things wrong with the management of the Surrey Pretrial Centre -- and heaven forbid, I hope it's not a situation that's happening in other facilities in the province. The report gets into the question of policy and how it's implemented, and I'll just make a few references to the it.
At the top of page 7, the report points out that on January 31, 1994, the Surrey Pretrial Centre issued a standing order on double-bunking, and on that page it sets out the criteria to be followed when double-bunking is done at the Surrey Pretrial Centre. We don't need to worry about all the details here; as the Attorney General has said, this document is now public, and, of course, anyone can have access to it. If anyone is out there listening and wants it, the Liberal opposition would be more than happy to provide copies to people.
More importantly, on the same page it goes on to say that on April 25, 1994 -- that is, of course, a few months after the Surrey standing order was made about double-bunking -- the corrections branch issued a provincial policy on double-bunking in adult correctional centres. Unfortunately -- and this is where things come somewhat unglued from a management point of view, I think -- the Surrey standing order of January 1994 was not revised or in any way looked at in light of the change to the provincial policy. That observation comes out in this document on several occasions; it's not just an isolated statement.
For example, I can read a statement on page 7 which says: "However, the standing order did not include the requirement that the shift supervisor (senior correctional officer -- officer in charge) determine the placement in doubled-bunked cells." In other words, the report is saying that Surrey had a standing order in place in January. The provincial policy, of course, changed the circumstances in April, and nobody within the Surrey facility bothered to either look at the provincial policy or make changes to the standing order. That clearly has to be a question of management. If the Attorney General will recall, yesterday I asked -- and he did respond, so we don't need an answer on that -- why there were so many acting officials at the Surrey Pretrial Centre and whether that was a problem to do with this management issue that we're dealing with.
That's one observation; I'll continue onto the top of page 8. When the provincial policy was implemented, the senior managers at Surrey were all acting in their positions. There's no evidence that after April 25, 1994, the district management committee recognized or discussed the newly implemented provincial policy. I think we have a double problem right there: this provincial policy was not conveyed to the people who are in charge of the Surrey Pretrial Centre, and those people -- most, if not all, of them -- were in an acting capacity. Perhaps the revolving doors that I think one of the members referred to yesterday in a question to the Attorney General means that this policy -- and maybe any other provincial policy -- is slipping through the cracks. In fact, I think I would like the Attorney General to tell this committee, if he can, whether this type of problem is occurring elsewhere. Does he have any knowledge of similar problems, or is this exclusive and unique to the Surrey Pretrial Centre?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The problem that the member describes was unique to the Surrey Pretrial Centre at the time. Following it becoming clear that there was a problem, the procedures were tightened up at Surrey Pretrial Centre as per the recommendations in this report. We also made sure that in all the other institutions in the province, appropriate procedures were followed -- and in fact, they had been and they are. I think we've resolved those issues now.
J. Dalton: I'm happy to hear that this issue is seemingly not prevalent or a problem in other facilities. We don't want to belabour the problem of double-bunking again, because it's not an isolated problem in itself. Obviously there's a connection between them. The Attorney General, for example, advised us that five facilities and 400 people are being double-bunked; quite frankly, I can very well predict that there may be other problems. If we can make sure the management in these facilities is tightened up.... I appreciate that people will be in acting capacities, given changes in staff, retirements, etc., but clearly this report makes a pretty damning statement that important provincial policy was not being followed. We just hope that is not the case in other facilities.
The other issue that I have touched upon is on page 12. There's a recommendation about double-bunking. This report does refer to the Surrey Pretrial Centre. Obviously the corrections branch has an overall policy dealing with double-bunking throughout the province. The comment under the recommendation heading on page 12 is: "With the volume of inmates who require double-bunking at SPSC" -- that is, the Surrey Pretrial Services Centre -- "the application of the provincial policy may be impractical." Then the paragraph goes on to comment on other issues of double-bunking. Again, I don't think we require responses from the Attorney General. I'm sure that he and his staff are more than well aware of this issue, and hopefully we all do learn from our mistakes, or the mistakes of the people who are in the correctional facilities, among others. It reminds me in a way, and I hope.... The Attorney General did comment yesterday that we presumably learned something from the Danny Perrault experience. The Attorney General also reminded the committee yesterday in his opening remarks of the Gamache case in Comox, and hopefully we've all learned from that experience. Who's to say?
The other point the Attorney General didn't respond to in his last answer was about lawsuits and things that are before the courts. Well, that's fair enough. But again, I do want to remind the Attorney General that.... Obviously the management at centres like Surrey and the very important issue of
[ Page 13582 ]
double-bunking, which this report addresses.... When you combine the two of them, I can very well see that even though we're trying to address overcrowding and monetary problems and, as we touched upon yesterday, we're also trying to build new facilities where and when needed, of course, we're all in a cash crunch. I think I can say at this moment in time that I'm happy I'm here and the Attorney General is there. Maybe one day we'll all be reversing our roles and then we'll have to look at things differently, but that's.... So I'm content to leave that particular issue as it is. As I say, this document is available for people to ask for and comment on, if they wish.
I would like to go on to some issues dealing with community justice. I believe a couple of my colleagues may be wanting to come in a little later and go back to two other correctional issues. They're not here right at the moment, so I will carry on with some other things, and then with the permission of the committee we can go back to corrections if it does come up later this morning.
By the way, just a comment, as well, that I'll pass on to the Attorney General, there are people out there who watch these proceedings, and I have the evidence this morning. I had two letters faxed to my office this morning from residents of Port Coquitlam. Both congratulated me for raising the issue of the new facility in their community, and both are very concerned about the location in that community. I rather suspect the Attorney General will be hearing further on that topic, but not from me -- at the moment, at least.
With regard to community justice, I note in the description in the subvote that under criminal justice, there's "support services to victims of crime," and then in the community justice description, "services for victims of crime." I'd like the Attorney General to clarify. Are we duplicating services there, or are we talking about two different aspects of the same general problem?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're talking about two different things. The funding in the criminal justice branch is for Crown-based witness assistance programs, and the funding in community justice is for community-based victim assistance programs.
J. Dalton: Perhaps I could ask the Attorney General for general clarification for the people out there tuned in and interested in the issues of justice. Could the Attorney General advise the committee as to the difference between the Crown-based support and the support offered in the community area? We may know these things, but the people tuned in this morning probably don't.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Perhaps I should take a moment on victim services generally. We provide about $6.5 million -- I think I mentioned that in my opening remarks -- for various services to victims of crime and for family violence programs, and of course, the $24 million or so that I mentioned in respect to criminal injury compensation.
Just to give some sense of the variety of programs.... Given that these are budget estimate discussions, I will provide some more detail. The range of programs includes specialized victim services -- we're proposing to spend about $1.7 million on that this year; police-based victim services, about $1.7 million; aboriginal victim services, about $0.25 million. Now, Crown victim services is where witnesses and others are involved in a matter that's going before court. The people who provide this assistance work with Crown prosecutors to ensure that information is being forwarded and questions answered for people who are going to be involved in a trial.
We also have victim services training -- about $0.25 million. We spend over a million on sexual assault centres; on Victim Information Line, around $100,000. In the community justice branch, in our Violence Against Women and Children programs, we spend around $400,000 on full-time equivalent staff. We spend another $0.5 million, roughly, on other family violence initiatives. We spend about $1 million on assault -- on men's treatment programs -- and we spend about $0.25 million on aboriginal family violence.
So that's a sense of it. Most of these moneys are identified in the community justice part of the ministry. Specifically, the Crown victim services money is identified in the criminal justice branch expenditures.
[11:30]
J. Dalton: I thank the Attorney General for his explanation, because it's obviously helpful -- again, for the taxpayers who are tuned in, as much as for us -- to understand not only the distinction between the supports for victims of crime but also how it plays in the criminal process as opposed to the community justice aspect.
Just in passing, I would like to go on record as thanking the Attorney General for his response to my letter of February 17. I wrote to him about the worker with North Vancouver victims of family violence. Unfortunately, the funding for somebody who was doing an excellent job in this area of victim support services was cut off last year. Of course, we come back to the old saw of money. Sometimes I feel a bit awkward standing up here and saying, "Well, let's provide something for my community" -- or whoever else's community it might be -- when on the other hand we have to keep the taxpayer in mind.
I guess the only comment I would make as well is that I think we should all make sure we go on record and applaud the many people who volunteer their time in the community. Even though the Attorney General has appropriately outlined the money that his ministry devotes to this area, many people volunteer their time and, quite frankly, don't get any real recognition for their efforts. I think, for example, of the many justice committees and the court watch people, who spend endless hours on a strictly volunteer basis. Certainly we want to applaud that.
One of the difficulties -- and that's in part why I wrote to the Attorney General on the North Vancouver issue -- is that you can't always rely on volunteer help. I think it's more appropriate, given the tendency of this government -- rightfully -- to provide counselling service for women and children who, unfortunately too often, are victims of crime. We cannot rely too heavily on volunteer assistance, because that is neither reliable nor consistent. Volunteers will come and go; at least if somebody is on salary, you know that that person has a job description, they're there on a regular basis and they're available accordingly.
I just want to thank the Attorney General for his response, even though it isn't quite what we had hoped for when we wrote to him. I would say as well that I was not the
[ Page 13583 ]
only person who wrote on this subject. The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale and I were both at a committee meeting when this issue came up, as was my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour. This is not a partisan issue, as the Attorney General appreciates. This was an objective request, and I can understand the funding problem that lies behind it.
I am now going to raise one other question that I actually forgot to ask about the corrections area, and then my colleague from Richmond-Steveston has something to say about aboriginal issues as well, I think. The question I want to put to the Attorney General deals with young offenders. I'm looking at the Attorney General annual report of 1993-94. The number of young offenders who were in diversion has gone down. In 1992-93 there were 438 young offenders in diversion; in 1993-94 that number dropped to 337. I'm kind of curious as to why that might be, given that in his opening remarks yesterday the Attorney General commented specifically on youth diversion -- for breaking and entering and for common assault in particular, which of course are very common offences for young people to be involved in. Why would it be that the number of diversions has decreased? It would seem to me, logically and ideally speaking, that those numbers should be increasing.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure I can answer that question directly. It may have something to do with the profile of the cases. The profile is changing among young offenders; it may have something to do with that. I think that when you look at the numbers overall, there is an increased emphasis.... These numbers are '92-93 and '93-94, but if we're talking about this year's budget, we are increasing our efforts with diversion. But I can't tell the member specifically, without doing a fair amount of research within the ministry, why that particular line in the annual report shows that there was a decline between '92-93 and '93-94. The best answer, off the top of my head, is that it probably had to do with the profile of the people involved.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: When I say "the profile of the people involved," people may wonder what I mean. The kind of charges that were being laid in these cases may have changed and made an increasing number of young people inappropriate for diversion. That's what I mean by a changing profile.
J. Dalton: I just have one response to that. I thought the Attorney General would perhaps get up and tell us that, because crime is down, the number of diversions is down. Of course, in the case of young offenders, that is unfortunately not the situation, as we all know.
That's all I wanted to say on that. I believe my colleague would like to jump in.
A. Warnke: Actually, I have just a few questions. I note in previous estimates debates the concerns the Attorney General has for aboriginal policing and aboriginal justice, and I note the general direction he is going in. Indeed, I believe I've also expressed some support -- I hope considerable support -- in that direction. But I do want to explain to the House and to the Attorney General -- perhaps we could explore this a little bit -- that what people want in a justice system, no matter what the jurisdiction is, is to have some sort of confidence in it. I believe that any sort of development of an aboriginal police force or an aboriginal justice system must also develop and cultivate that kind of confidence in the people. Since we discussed this last year, a number of cases have come forward. I will give my impression on how I see that having some effect on the direction and nature of aboriginal justice.
Hon. Chair, if you wouldn't mind, the level of the.... I don't mind heckling, but....
The Chair: I can understand why the member would say he doesn't mind heckling, being a pretty good practitioner thereof. But his point is well taken, and I would ask all members of the committee to please be a little quieter so the member can hear himself think, let alone hear the response.
A. Warnke: The cases I have in mind.... I'll give some personal reflection I've had in the past year on this subject, and I'd like to have some comment by the Attorney General accordingly. I note that last year, with regard to the Apex situation -- the number of blockades and that sort of thing.... I believe the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast as recently as yesterday raised a question in question period about perhaps.... I believe he made the charge that some people were not, in fact, aboriginal police, or whatever. What I have a concern with here is people having confidence in aboriginal policing -- that when people come across aboriginal peoples engaged in something like policing, people have to have confidence that they know they're dealing with the proper authorities, and that sort of thing.
A more disturbing case to me.... As the Attorney General knows, I have shared with him this notion of trying to develop aboriginal justice on reserves and wherever appropriate. What hurt my confidence a little was the case of the Sto:lo last year, when it was claimed by at least one television reporter that the Sto:lo were responsible for taking so many fish out of the river, and so on. I believe there are a number of causes we can see for the millions of fish missing from the Fraser River. What bothered me and what bothered a lot of people was the fact that, to a large extent, we relied on aboriginal policing. Even the confidence among aboriginals was undermined in that case.
In previous years the Attorney General and myself have been advocates. Having encouraged the direction towards developing aboriginal policing and aboriginal justice, coming across not only these two cases but others as well begins to undermine the confidence in aboriginal justice. Perhaps I'll go a little further, if you wouldn't mind, hon. Chair. The way I see it, the most difficult area of addressing this whole question of aboriginal justice and aboriginal policing may be in that area where there is aboriginal and non-aboriginal contact.
Obviously, we know -- and I am sure the Attorney General has all the statistics -- that incarceration of aboriginals in our prisons is extraordinarily high. The Attorney General may have some statistics, but I believe that of the prison population, aboriginals are overrepresented compared to the rest of the population. There are other areas of aboriginal and non-aboriginal contact as well, especially when non-aboriginals want to go skiing, as in the case of Apex, or want to engage in various forms of recreation. There is always this concern about what happens when non-aboriginals go into areas where there is aboriginal policing. Those are some thoughts that I wanted to share this morning.
[ Page 13584 ]
In terms of putting it in some sort of context of questions, perhaps it's not such a bad idea if we go over some of the models -- I'm assuming there are models -- where aboriginal justice and aboriginal policing has been successful. Are there those kinds of cases? Perhaps the Attorney General could very briefly review some of those with us.
Also, I am interested in the extent to which the Ministry of Attorney General is financially responsible and involved in aboriginal policing. I recognize that there is a federal involvement here somewhere, but I wonder to what extent there is ministry involvement at the provincial level as well. The Attorney General did mention the Sarich report in his opening remarks. I am wondering if there are elements of the Sarich report that apply to aboriginal justice and about which the Attorney General could provide us with a very brief analysis of the state of the Sarich report.
[11:45]
[J. Pullinger in the chair.]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have a couple of general comments, and then I'll describe some of the more specific issues the member referred to.
I appreciate the member's comments about the public confidence issue in respect to developing new models of policing in aboriginal communities. Obviously, public confidence is required. Policing in any community is not going to be successful if there's insufficient public confidence in the policing, so I think that's a given. Of course, in the Sto:lo situation on the Fraser River that the member referred to, we're not talking about policing in the sense that my ministry deals with policing. Obviously that was a conservation issue and a conservation officer model as opposed to a policing issue.
A number of initiatives have flowed from Judge Sarich's report on justice issues in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. I think probably the best model is the Canim Lake justice project, where a variety of elements of the justice system have come together in the community in a very effective way to provide a justice system which is responsive to and works for the people in Canim Lake. If members want to go into more detail about that, we'd be able to do so. There are other programs as well around the province, some of which flow from specific requests, particularly in aboriginal communities, or from recommendations or notions that were advanced by Sarich and by Marion Buller in her report as well.
In terms of models of policing, I think I should just tell members that I can't take these things for granted because we work with it so much, but I'm not sure that there's a lot of public awareness of how aboriginal policing works in the province. First of all, in RCMP jurisdictions we have what is called the RCMP first nations community police services, which provide aboriginal full-fledged RCMP officers who work in aboriginal communities. We have a separate funding arrangement with the federal government in respect of payment for these positions. The provincial cost-share portion is 48 percent -- if I've got these numbers right -- and the feds pay 52 percent. So we have a better cost-sharing arrangement with Ottawa on aboriginal RCMP officers than we do on regular RCMP officers. In our budget there are 67 positions, and these 67 positions serve 120 aboriginal communities around the province. Our 48 percent share works out to $2.4 million -- that's to fund the 67 aboriginal RCMP officers who work directly in aboriginal communities.
In addition to that, we also have a tribal police pilot project involving ten first nations groups in the general Lillooet area. The model there is the municipal model under the B.C. Police Act, and that project has nine constables appointed under the provincial act. With the exception of one other in Kitisa, these are the only sworn peace officers under the B.C. Police Act in British Columbia.
The member made reference to Apex. The so-called tribal police in Penticton are not police; they're not sworn peace officers. We had some reference to this yesterday, I think, in response to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. We cost-share the municipal model in Penticton with the federal government on the same 48-52 percent basis.
The other project that we have in place is at Kitasoo, up the coast, which is called the public safety officer pilot project. It's an enhancement of the service already provided by the RCMP, but there's one aboriginal officer appointed under the provincial Police Act. That officer is accountable to a community oversight committee. Again, we have the same cost-sharing arrangement there.
We are also funding development projects with other first nations in quite a large number of areas of the province to assess their policing needs and what their options might be. Some first nations prefer RCMP models, some prefer the municipal model and others are still thinking it through. We are helping them to sort out what will work best for them and for us. Those discussions are going on. We're funding those development projects in a variety of parts of the province. I'm looking at the list, and it really does cover just about every part of the province.
A. Warnke: I also want to follow up a little, and I sure appreciate the Attorney General giving a capsule description of some of the models out there. I think that is necessary to communicate to the public as much as possible, and it goes a long way.
Another aspect I want to focus on is.... Considering the high percentage of aboriginals being incarcerated in our prisons, and that sort of thing, I just wonder if the Attorney General has also followed up on incarceration alternatives -- that is, alternatives in terms of meting out justice involving aboriginals themselves. This would include, I suppose, somehow giving some sort of responsibility to the aboriginal communities to mete out a certain kind of justice that everyone has confidence in. Perhaps that addresses the whole question of appropriate penalties -- other than the most severe ones, obviously -- that are different from mere incarceration. I'm wondering if there's something there as well that's conducted by the ministry.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think members, particularly members who represent communities with high aboriginal populations, will know that the historical aboriginal justice system provided penalties or sanctions that in some cases were far more severe than the kinds of sanctions that occur in the European system that we employ. I am one who is very much in favour of having the justice system moulded and shaped to fit community needs, as long as we meet our obligations under the Criminal Code and all of the other issues. And the member's correct -- in dealing with severe
[ Page 13585 ]
matters, you have to deal with them in a severe way. Maybe some of the more traditional or community responses aren't appropriate there. But where those community responses are appropriate, they may be very different from our traditional way of thinking. But if the sanction is clear and it's effective, then why not move in those kinds of directions? We want to do that.
The initiatives are slow to come; you don't make these kinds of changes overnight. I wouldn't want to. Even though I'm committed to change, I think it has to happen slowly and with support, and as we change, we have to be sure that the changes work not only for the direct community involved but for the broader community, so there's confidence in the system. That's happening. I think we're in the early days of an evolutionary change, which I hope will reduce the numbers that the member refers to.
Aboriginal people, as members know, represent about 5 percent of the population in British Columbia; if you count on- and off-reserve, status and non-status, it's about 5 percent of our population. This year the provincial numbers are that 17 percent of the adult prison population and 20 percent of the youth prison population are aboriginal. In community supervision, about 16 percent of both adults and young offenders are aboriginal. So we're looking at three to four times the number of aboriginals in the corrections system than their population would merit.
I think that comes from a variety of factors. Economic standing is often the first. I said this in the previous year's estimates: there are historical sins that have been visited upon native people in this province that have contributed greatly to these numbers. I include in that the abolition of the potlatch, the introduction of alcohol, the residential schools that destroyed people's lives, and on and on. We have to redress these issues on a wide variety of fronts, and I think we're making good progress.
The solutions include -- and I'll conclude with this thought -- working with aboriginal communities to find different programs that will work to ensure that their young people in particular recognize that a life of crime isn't an appropriate one. The sanctions that can be applied on young native people will, I think, be far more effective if they are from their own culture, and that's what we're trying to work toward. Hopefully, we'll get to the point where Provincial Court judges won't be forced to send native kids to jail because there are no resources in their own communities. I want, where it's appropriate, to have those resources in the communities, so we can apply the appropriate kinds of sanctions in a non-institutional setting.
I have lots of notes in front of me about all kinds of things that we're doing. I'm tempted to go through them all, but I think I'll leave it at this point, unless members want to explore the issue further. We are actually spending several million dollars in these estimates to support alternatives to incarceration for aboriginal offenders. We've established a youth transition house in the Gitksan area. We're doing a wide variety of things which will benefit aboriginal people greatly over the years to come. In the long term, they will benefit the entire community, because we will reduce the number of people we have in our institutions and in contact with the law in a bad way. Hopefully, we'll reduce those numbers dramatically in the years to come.
F. Gingell: Earlier the Attorney General was speaking about a program that he described as family violence initiatives. I was wondering if he could give us the statistics that he presently has on the size of the problem.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wonder if the member could be more specific. The size of the problem in respect of family violence.... If the member is asking me in how many households in British Columbia family violence occurs, I don't know that number -- if a number is available. I hope some information may come forward to me; I don't have it in my head right now. If the member has more specific questions about how many cases of particular kinds of charges we have or whatever, maybe we can deal with those. I'm going to have to have a bit of help from the member in order to be more precise.
F. Gingell: My next question was going to be what improvements in those statistics or criteria or benchmarks you hope to accomplish with this particular program. So perhaps we could open the discussion from that angle.
[12:00]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll try to answer it in general terms in a moment but, first of all, just say that in 1993 we estimate that there were approximately 7,000 wife assaults in the province. So 7,000 women were assaulted by their husbands in 1993. That's one number among many, many other numbers.
We're trying with the program and a variety of initiatives to have, as a result, an understanding among people in this province that assaulting your wife is as much a crime as assaulting somebody in a pub, on a ball field or anywhere else in our society. The notion that somehow if it's domestic violence it's not as serious as violence on the street is a notion we want to rid this province of. For that reason we've had the wife assault policy in place. We've trained police officers and Crown counsel around the province about the need to treat this violence as seriously as we treat any other violence.
I think statistics and any demonstration of our effectiveness will be hard to come by, because in the past a lot of that kind of violence was not reported. It was something that historically women have, in one sense, accepted -- not in another, but in one sense -- and have not reported. There was no community support for reporting it. The justice system was not sympathetic to women who would report.
We've made changes; it's not all the way there yet. I think we may end up having more reports now, which at one level would lead to an impression that there's more "family violence," which I prefer to call wife assault, than there used to be. It's a question of reporting. The success of this kind of program probably won't be able to be measured until we're able to look at generational changes, I think. The success, for me, is that it appears.... If women are feeling more comfortable in reporting this kind of violence, the success comes from the fact that we are prosecuting more of these situations now.
I'm just looking at these notes to see.... These are some of the notes that I have in my briefing notes for these estimates, which I may just read to members because I think it may be interesting to them. There's a central registry being developed that will provide police with 24-hour access to the current status of protection orders. This will provide the police with accurate information with regard to orders that they're required to enforce. We're hoping to have this in place by July of this year.
[ Page 13586 ]
It says April of 1995 and it's now April, so we are -- or we will be, or we're in the middle of -- distributing materials to physicians or doctors around the province to help them respond to women victims of relationship violence. We're enhancing the role of wife assault coordinators to respond to regional concerns in various parts of the province.
And there's training to Crown counsel to deal with the issues of reluctant witnesses. This can be a problem, so Crown counsel is being trained as to how better to deal with that particular element of the issue. I hope that helps.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
F. Gingell: So what's happening at this point is that you're setting up a system by which, really for the first time, you're going to get a more meaningful measurement of what's happening. I presume it's going to deal not only with wife assault. I'm surprised that you have a preference for using that term when we talk about family violence, because there's a lot of violence to children and husbands, too, I think, and we need to try and get a feel for that. Second, this isn't a background that I come from, so I really don't have an understanding. But I'm sure that the people in your ministry who are knowledgeable can suggest to you many remedies, potions, antidotes or programs that will try to get at the cause of the problem. The fear of going to jail -- the fear of punishment -- works to an extent, I guess. But it's the issue of understanding that violence is not a civilized action -- certainly not to your loved ones -- which I would like to suggest to you.... It is a greater crime perhaps to people who are within your trust or family relationship.
You may have had suggested to you many alternative methods of accomplishing an improvement in the situation. The focus of my questioning is to ask questions about how we measure this. Has your ministry thought about the outcomes you are trying to accomplish? In itself, 7,000 prosecutions doesn't mean as much as a per capita number, because it depends on the size of the community.
I hear and understand exactly what you say about the problem of non-reporting, so the normal process of law cannot be completed. But can you talk about what you hope to accomplish and what policies and things you are putting in place so that outcome measurement starts and we start to see whether the money we are spending on programs is accomplishing anything, or whether we should turn our thoughts to other alternatives that your bureaucrats can suggest?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As with almost any problem in society, the solutions are varied. There isn't one magic bullet with this or any other problem. I sure understand that much more clearly than I did before working in this ministry.
One of the difficulties -- and I alluded to this before -- with measuring is that we are probably increasing the reporting of domestic violence as a result of drawing more attention to it; we're giving it more credibility. Because there will be an increased number of charges it might look as if the problem is getting worse. But that doesn't mean the incidents are increasing; they may well be decreasing, because so much has been unreported. There continues to be a lot unreported, and we don't have an ability to measure that very effectively. In a sense, a lot of this is intuition and a lot is anecdotal, but it's pretty clear. We don't need a lot of empirical evidence to know that family violence -- wife assault -- is a major problem in our society.
The member talks about growing up in another culture. He comes from a culture in which a fight on a soccer pitch results in ejection from the game. On this continent we live in a culture where a fight in the hockey rink brings a sellout crowd the next game. So we have to think about the society in which we live. I don't watch much television so I don't know it firsthand, but we live in a culture where if you turn on a television set and you watch violence and you revel in it, it's almost an enjoyable kind of thing. People are being taught at every level, whether it's one union brother bashing another union brother in a hockey rink....
An Hon. Member: Or in a union hall.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm talking about these hockey players whose solution to a dispute is to reply in kind -- you know, an elbow in the ribs or whatever. Soccer has learned how to deal with that. You boot them out of the game; it's just not tolerated. We tolerate it here on this continent for whatever reasons. And there's much, much more than that. We just have to root out this notion that violence is a way to resolve disputes, a notion that kids grow up with. That's why I'm so encouraged by going to places like Princess Margaret Secondary School in Surrey and seeing the alternatives to violence that can be developed for dispute resolution.
We've just got to work at these problems in a whole variety of ways, and not just in the criminal justice branch by having more charges laid. This is a problem that is rooted throughout our society. It's a problem that's caused by alcohol. It's a problem that's caused by learning from your parents that the way they solved their disputes was to beat each other up, and therefore the way you solve your dispute with your sibling is to beat him or her up, etc. It's just patterns of behaviour and cultural training that occur in this society. We've got to work at this issue from a wide variety of perspectives.
S. Hammell: I'd like to have leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
S. Hammell: I'd like to introduce a number of classes from William F. Davidson Elementary School in Surrey. There are over 61 people here, students and parents who have brought the children here to the Legislature to learn about government in action. The school is one that is up for replacement, so we hope that there is progress on that this year, also. Could I ask the House to please make these people welcome.
F. Gingell: Perhaps one of the goals is to get a better handle on the situation, to have a greater understanding of the size of the problem. So creating a registry and getting more people registered may be accomplishing something. As you truly say, it may not mean that the number of assaults and offences is going up. You could well have the number of incidents being recording going up, but the number of incidents that are happening going down.
What I'd like to do is to encourage your staff to think about what the criteria are that we can put into place to start measuring the effectiveness of programs. I know that you, as
[ Page 13587 ]
government being responsible to the taxpayers, don't want to be spending money on programs that don't work; you want to be spending money on programs that do work. But we're not going to find that out until we get the measurement of outcomes. We put in a great deal of effort and energy, but the information that you give to us in the budget documents only measures inputs. Clearly the time has come to start dealing with the measurement of outcomes if we're going to solve not only our social problems but our financial problems too. So could the minister please advise the committee if there is any change in attitudes or any policies being put in place that will start this process happening?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll refer to just two things in response to that. One is what is referred to in the criminal justice branch as the K file, which is that wherever there is a charge of one kind or another that's connected with domestic violence or wife assault, there is a particular program developed so those cases can be tracked specifically and so we can measure outcomes and whatever else in that area.
[12:15]
In addition, the entire Violence Against Women in Relationships policy has a program evaluation built into it. There's not much point in any branch of government doing programs if we don't build in evaluation models. We have to be able to measure whether we're getting any value for money in these initiatives, and we do have those evaluation models in place to evaluate these programs.
We've really only been going at this for the last couple of years, so it's early going yet in terms of determining results.
L. Stephens: I am pleased to participate in the Attorney General's estimates, and there are a number of issues I'd like to talk about. One area, of course, is women's equality issues such as gender bias, victims' compensation, violence against women, custody and access and maintenance -- all those kinds of issues -- plus a bit about educational issues in the criminal records check and some general issues I have been made aware of by different individuals in my community.
I would first like to ask the Attorney General about the family justice reform project that is underway with, I believe, a number of pilot projects around the province. This was the result of a number of reports that had been done over the years that made remarkably similar recommendations. I would like to ask how many FTEs are involved in the program around the province, and whether there has been an assessment done. I understand there was a commitment that after a full year in operation, there would be an evaluation done by an independent agency. I wonder whether that has been completed or is in the process, and what the status is.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understand there are eight FTE positions from our ministry. The evaluations have started. We are in the early going on that. We will complete those evaluations this year and, hopefully, be able to make some decisions this fall.
L. Stephens: One of the areas in the project talks about custody and access, which is -- as I'm sure the Attorney General knows -- a huge problem. One of the difficulties is that of the 50 percent of the families that are separated, many of them are blended families as well.
In Washington State they have been talking about establishing a parenting plan through the mediation process, whereby the parties must come up with a resolution and a parenting plan for the children; and if they cannot, then they will take the children away from both parties. I wonder if the Attorney General has heard of this and whether or not that's something we've been looking at here. What they've said is that if parents need to be responsible, and if they are not responsible, and if they cannot agree to a parenting plan for these children, then the parents don't deserve the children if they're not living up to their responsibilities. So I'm wondering what the Attorney General's response is to that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I confess I don't know anything at all about the Washington model. But hearing it described doesn't encourage me to go and find out anything, either, frankly. Through the mediation process which we have built into the family justice centres, obviously one of the goals there is to develop parenting plans that both parents -- which is what we're talking about -- will agree to. But the consequence of apprehending the kids if they can't agree to a parenting plan doesn't sound very good to me, frankly. Apart from the mediation, which, hopefully, is the mechanism to achieve these kinds of agreements, we also have parenting education programs within these centres.
L. Stephens: Along with the mediation opportunities for parents, is there arbitration as well? What happens when mediation doesn't work? Can you go to arbitration before you go to the courts?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No. The resolution there is the courts. If the mediation fails and there's no ability to resolve it in that non-adversarial way, then you do go to a form of arbitration -- but it is the courts.
L. Stephens: I wonder if that's something that should be addressed, because as the Attorney General knows far better than I, the justice system is really overloaded, very expensive and time-consuming. I wonder if perhaps the Attorney General has some ideas to keep as much of this out of the court system as possible, and to try to work beyond just simple mediation and get the resolution that is needed before it gets into the courts.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's certainly my goal, and I know it's the member's goal as well, to keep these matters out of the courts wherever possible. We have to always remember power imbalances and lots of other issues, and there are circumstances where it may be that the courts are the appropriate place to resolve some of these matters. But we're certainly looking at other ways of dealing with the issue. I just asked my staff here if we have looked at med/arb -- mediation/arbitration -- thinking of labour relations models, as I am wont to do on occasion. It's not something that's in place, but obviously these kinds of solutions are worth looking at. It seems to me that a couple may say to a mediator: "Let's work out a mediated solution, and if we can't, we will we will give you the authority to make a decision on the points we can't work out." If everybody agrees to have that kind of resolution -- and I'm speaking off the top of my head now -- that might be something that's worth looking at.
The goal throughout all of this is to get this out of an adversarial setting, out of the courts, and into one in which the
[ Page 13588 ]
interests of the kids, in particular, are protected by avoiding having two warring parties in an inevitable win-lose situation.
L. Stephens: This particular issue involves so many families, and it's such a destructive process, that any way to reach an agreeable solution for all parties should really be encouraged. But, unfortunately, in many instances good judgment and cooperation simply aren't part of the equation, and so there needs to be some really tough measures around what happens if -- in the best interests of the children.... If the adults can't agree, then, in my view, there should be some really tough consequences around that.
My colleague from Delta South touched a bit on the issue of violence against women. As the Attorney General knows, in the last session.... I'll be introducing again in this session, if the Attorney General does not do it before me -- and I would encourage him to do that and table it -- a bill on prevention of domestic violence which is the Saskatchewan legislation that was proclaimed in February of this year. They've taken a whole year to prepare for it and to prepare police teams and workers to identify domestic violence, what it is and how to deal with it. There have been a number of reports, task forces and recommendations before previous governments and this one, yet many people continue to lose faith in the justice system. There's an increasing fear for personal safety, and around the issue of family violence it's very strong.
We need to really scrutinize the effectiveness of the Ministry of Women's Equality programs and the AG's programs. Increased accountability of the police, prosecutors and judges is what we need to look at to ensure that appropriate charging, conviction and sentencing is carried out. I know that gender bias has been a subject of a number of those reports. I'd like to know what programs, policies and practices the Attorney General has in place in his ministry around those gender bias issues to deal with charging, conviction and sentencing.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It was my fault; I was distracting myself, and I missed some of the latter comments made by the member. I apologize if she has to repeat a question that I didn't pick up.
In general terms, we've looked very carefully at how Saskatchewan has approached this issue. We're looking at ways of doing better than Saskatchewan. I hope to be able to talk more about that as the year progresses; I won't be able to do it so much today.
L. Stephens: I will wait patiently -- or maybe not so patiently.
Around the issue of gender bias, I asked what the response has been by the Attorney General's ministry to the number of studies that have been done and put forward concerning the issues of charging, conviction and sentencing within the justice system. What programs, policies and practices are in place to make sure there is no gender bias in charging, convicting and sentencing?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm struggling a little bit with how to answer the question; it's really a very general one. In very general terms, I don't think there are very many men in particular who aren't still affected one way or another by some degree of gender bias, and I include myself in that. Those people who are involved directly in the justice system with issues that can be affected by a bias require training. We have embarked upon significant training programs. I mentioned police and Crown training earlier this morning in respect of our violence-against-women policies. The policies we have in place in respect of these charging decisions are, I hope, free from gender bias; I believe they are. The interpretation and implementation of the policies require an unbiased application, and that follows training. I think we're making very good progress in respect of that.
I hope the member has had an opportunity to look at the report we issued this year, the booklet entitled Towards Justice for Women. I don't have a copy in the House. I'll make sure that on Monday afternoon I have a copy of that report with me in the House. It is an excellent report done by our ministry, which describes all the initiatives in the ministry to deal with gender issues in the justice system.
[12:30]
While I'm not going to stand here and say that we have solved all the problems, because that's going to take a long time, we have moved a long, long way toward dealing with the biases that exist in the system. I think it's fair to say, too, that the legal community has put this near the top of its priority list. There have been reports done by the Law Society and others dealing with this very question. We're still in progress on these issues. We haven't yet reached the state that the member and I would like us to reach.
L. Stephens: Around the charging issue, the police have a pro-arrest policy in dealing with domestic abuse. If there is evidence of assault, regardless of whether the victim wants to press charges, the onus is still on the victim to procure a restraining order, which takes time and adds some stress. What is happening, from what I'm being told by both those who are bringing forward these charges and by the police themselves.... It used to be that they would clearly take away the perpetrator, but the victim had to file charges. That's no longer true; the victim does not have to file charges. But what the police are doing, increasingly, is charging both parties. I wonder if the Attorney General has a view on that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understand that the practice of charging both parties has not been prevalent in B.C. In fact, in other provinces it may have occurred much more. It may occur in particular circumstances, but it is not a prevalent practice at all.
L. Stephens: I would suggest that it is increasing. I attended a family justice national symposium, and that was an issue that was quite hotly debated. Representatives from around the province attended this, and this issue came up time and time again. I would suggest that perhaps some more information-gathering should occur around this issue. Many of the organizations and representatives spoke about both parties being arrested, and it was pretty well scattered around the province.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can say with some certainty that it is not the Crown's policy to charge both parties. Remember, the police don't lay charges; in this province the Crown lays charges following the application of policy.
I wouldn't suggest that she do this in estimates, but if the member has specific instances where what she is talking about
[ Page 13589 ]
has occurred, I'd very much like to hear from her. With enough information, we could identify the situation and look at what happened. That is a trend that is not appropriate at all, and I'd sure like to know the details, if there are any.
L. Stephens: I would be happy to provide the Attorney General with that information.
Around the issue of family violence.... I'd like to talk about it in that respect as opposed to domestic or spousal violence, because family violence includes many members of the family. One other innovation is happening in Winnipeg, where they have established a specialized family violence court. This is to deal with first appearances, remands, guilty pleas and trials for spousal, child and elder abuse. This has been established because most of the victims are often highly dependent on the accused, resulting in some difficult situations.
I wonder whether the Attorney General has considered this. The Law Society's report recommended a special family violence court in 1993, and the Ministry of Attorney General did say that they were working with the judiciary to accelerate cases through the courts in the short term, but that they were also looking at an ad hoc working group to examine the possibility of a family violence court in British Columbia. I wonder if there has been anything further happening on that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There has been a look at the Winnipeg system by, I believe, the former Chief Judge of the B.C. Provincial Court, and I think the criminal justice branch has also been out to have a look at that particular model. I should say to the member that we are continuing to look at how to deal with the issue. The K-file system, which I mentioned in terms of tracking, assists us in expediting these cases. Whether we would adopt the Manitoba model is still up in the air. There are a number of people, I understand -- women's groups, in particular -- who have some concerns about it, and I would want to explore those in a full way before embarking upon that particular program. It is a general issue around which there is certainly a lot of work and thought being devoted at the present time.
I referred earlier to the report, Towards Justice for Women, which was produced by our ministry with the kind assistance of the Ministry of Women's Equality. This is the first annual status report, covering September '93 to December '94, of issues that particularly affect women, and I'm going to ask to get some help in delivering this across the aisle.
L. Stephens: Thank you very much. I'm sure there are lots of things in there that I'll want to talk about on Monday or Tuesday.
Today I'd like to go on a bit more about the family justice court in Winnipeg. I'd like to ask whether or not your ministry believes we need to find some creative and innovative ways to deal with this whole issue of family violence, along the lines of a separate, specialized court process -- mediation, arbitration -- and if it does end up in court that that would be the court it would end up in. All of these issues around families -- violence and so on....
The goals of this particular court as they laid them out were expeditious court proceedings in order to move things along much more quickly than is possible now; rigorous prosecution, which is something that I believe needs to happen as well; more appropriate sentencing than that of non-specialized courts in order to better protect the victims and to mandate treatment for the offender where suitable; and increased monitoring of offenders through probation services. So there was a wide range of objectives around this whole issue of family violence which that model is addressing.
I would like a firmer commitment from the Attorney General to come forward with some kind of concrete alternative for British Columbia -- not necessarily the Manitoba model but certainly something that is going to deal with this whole issue in a much more focused and concrete way than what we have now.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can certainly assure the member that we have to do something, because the way it's working now is not working effectively. Whether it's the Manitoba model, which has the potential of marginalizing the issue -- not necessarily, but there is that potential -- whether it's another model or whether it's having specialized training in a more effective and more focused way.... Whatever the solution is remains to be seen, but the member is looking for a commitment from me that I see this as a serious problem that requires resolution. She certainly has the commitment from me that this is a priority item for us to deal with.
L. Stephens: The outcomes that we need, I think, have to come forward more than the process of delivering the services. We really have to say that what we're doing is effective. That should be where we put our energies, into making sure that what we do come up with and deliver is effective.
This particular court in Manitoba has said that their success in achieving the goal of a three-month average processing time -- that was what they were looking at.... They have been successful; they've been able to do that. And imposing more appropriate sentences on family violence cases -- they've been able to do that as well. But they've had limited success in the goal of reducing these cases prior to sentencing. There are still a number of things that have to be worked out there, but they've made an attempt.
I would like to say one thing about specialization. I don't believe we can deal with a lot of these issues without some degree of specialization, because if we don't, everything tends to get lost in the general, overall problem. We can say that family violence is a special issue, or certainly a separate part, and that we can deal with it in a more specialized way in order to make sure we get the results we desire in the way that is appropriate for that particular issue. I encourage the Attorney General to think seriously about not being afraid of specialization around specific issues that we believe are important and need to deal with. That's sort of an aside that I would like to say.
Around the general provisions for women's safety, there was a 1993 response to the report of the Law Society -- gender bias again. They talked about policies dealing with known sex abusers and sexual assault cases. Has any further action been taken around any different policies that have been put in place for sexual abusers and sexual assault cases, as a result of the 1993 Law Society report and the committee on fairness and equity for women in the justice system?
[ Page 13590 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member has asked a very wide-ranging question, and I'm not sure whether she wants me to talk about known-abuser policy or sexual abuse against children -- issues with respect to that in which we have some training programs -- or what she wants me to focus on specifically.
[12:45]
L. Stephens: I apologize. I had intended to say victims' legislation, victims' compensation, issues around sexual abuse and sexual assault cases and the Criminal Injury Compensation Act, and whether or not victims' legislation is contemplated on all of those issues.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member will remember that earlier this year cabinet added stalking to the list of Criminal Code offences which are covered by the Criminal Injury Compensation Act. While I would love to talk about legislation, I'm precluded in estimates from any canvassing of questions with respect to the legislation. I'm just dying to talk about victims' legislation, but one will have to wait for the debate in the House, should it occur, following the possible introduction of a bill which would enable that debate. But as the member knows, estimates are for discussion of the administrative responsibilities, not the legislative responsibilities of the minister.
I'm just going to ask the member if she's here on Monday afternoon, because it might be an opportune time to adjourn and perhaps resume this on Monday afternoon. With that, hon. Chair, I move 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.
Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The Speaker: Hon. members, before I announce adjournment, I'd just like to pass on to you a message that I was asked to read by the soon-to-be Lieutenant-Governor, Mr. Garde Gardom, who expressed his delight to learn that the members have an interest in attending this afternoon's swearing-in ceremony at Government House. All members would be most welcome. Guests should be there prior to 2:10, and the ceremony will take place at 2:30.
The House adjourned at 12:48 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]