[ Page 2779 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A, where we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General. In this House, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

On vote 56: minister's office, $373,000 (continued).

L. Stephens: We left off talking about educational and promotional initiatives of the Ministry of Women's Equality to further some of the programs. In the expenditure and FTE reconciliations in schedule A of the estimates, a number of programs and funds were transferred from the Ministry of Women's Equality into the new Children and Families ministry. Would the minister talk a bit about the amount of funding and the number of FTEs who have left her ministry, what that funding was dedicated to and the programs that went with it?

Hon. S. Hammell: The Gove commission recommended that we set up a new Ministry for Children and Families, which we have done. We have transferred to that ministry the child care program, as well as the program around Children Who Witness Abuse; $197,223,000 has been transferred over, along with 200 FTEs.

M. Coell: I ask leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. Coell: In the House today I have 48 guests from Brentwood Elementary School, who are grade 5 students accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Lampart. This is their first visit to the Legislature. They've had a tour, and they are looking forward to listening to the debate on the estimates of the Women's Equality ministry. I'd like to bid them welcome and hope the members will also welcome them.

L. Stephens: On the transfer of funds and FTEs in schedule A, part of that was in ministry support and also from Stopping the Violence programs. The minister only talked about child care programs. I'd like to know the number of people who went from ministry support, and also the amount of money and the number of FTEs from Stopping the Violence programs. I want some very precise numbers here, and the number of FTEs and funding numbers as well.

Hon. S. Hammell: Under ministry support, $3,518,000 was transferred, with 25 FTEs. Then, as I said before, child care was transferred, along with $191,891,000 and 175 FTEs. Under the Stopping the Violence program, no FTEs go with the Children Who Witness Abuse component, because they are contracted programs with the community that delivers the service.

L. Stephens: Could the minister tell the committee if there are any funds expended for boards or commissions the minister is responsible for in the way of fees, travel expenses or any kind of per diem?

Hon. S. Hammell: No.

L. Stephens: Would the minister define what the Provincial Child Care Advisory Council does? And are there any costs at all attached to it?

[10:15]

Hon. S. Hammell: When the Provincial Child Care Council was with this ministry, it was an advisory body and was supported. . . . In the 1997-98 estimates, it has been transferred to the Ministry for Children and Families, and that is where that program and that board now sits.

L. Stephens: Could the minister indicate to the House if any FTEs are under contract, what the contracts are for and the costs attached to those contracts?

Hon. S. Hammell: We have no FTEs under contract.

V. Anderson: In our constituency work over the years, we have had a great number of persons who have had dealings with one ministry or another of government -- it used to be primarily the Ministry of Human Resources. In that regard, what I'm concerned about is the inability of parents -- primarily women -- who have been involved in either foster care or apprehension cases to get the kind of support they need. They have been mistreated, if you like, or they have been worked against.

I wonder if the Ministry of Women's Equality has done any study in support of women who find that within the system of government, they're not able to get balanced and fair treatment -- particularly in child apprehension cases but in other cases as well. Once they get tied into the court system, fairness, for women particularly, is certainly not there. Has the Women's Equality ministry looked into this and done anything in this regard?

Hon. S. Hammell: I would like the member to clarify the question. I'm not sure if he's concerned about women who are in foster care or about women who are looking after children and what their concerns are. Could you please repeat your question?

V. Anderson: The question helps to clarify the presentation, because I would have to say that the question would apply to young women in foster care -- who could be children or women, depending on how you. . . . It would also apply to foster parents and to women who have children who are being apprehended or taken into the care of the ministry.

Once they get into that process, there isn't the legal support or the personal support available to those persons to give them a level playing field in dealing with the ministry and the government. On the one hand, you have all the lawyers -- and the process of government -- who set up the court cases. The women who are trying to work on behalf of their children and themselves are left unprotected and without support or 

[ Page 2780 ]

legal counsel. They're working against a system which is so much bigger and stronger than they are. One of the real abuses of women is the way the court system is used by the government to prevent women from dealing with issues which they should rightly have the opportunity to deal with.

Hon. S. Hammell: This ministry works in a number of areas, oftentimes in partnership with other ministries, other institutions and the community. Over the last number of years we have developed a victim support system that is not only community-based but is also police-based. Our legal aid system is designed for women who need support, and there are also support systems through the court systems. So through our partnerships, we work with other ministries, as well as with other institutions. These are some of the areas where this government has provided support not only to women but to other people in need.

V. Anderson: I'm aware of the theory of those support systems. I'm aware that theoretically, people should not be falling through the cracks. But I'm also aware that they are falling through the cracks daily and that women and their families are being devastated because of this. I'm asking: is the minister aware of those who are falling through the cracks?

For one thing, if you make $100 more than someone else, then you're not eligible for legal aid support -- if you're somewhat working poor, so you're not eligible for the kind of legal aid that is available to some people. I have a case, without going into details, where the person had legal aid. Suddenly they were just over the limit, and they had to represent themselves when they went to court. Going through the various ministries of government -- and I must confess that I didn't go to the Ministry of Women's Equality, but next time I will, and we probably will follow up -- each ministry said it was out of their jurisdiction and belonged to somebody else. And the women were left stranded on their own without support, which was devastating to them personally and also for their family responsibilities.

I've had similar cases with people in foster care who have cared for children for four or five years. With unproved allegations, the children were taken from them and their contract was cancelled. When they tried to speak up, they were simply told they had no standing under law. So they were unable, without finances, to fight the court case themselves.

I'm sure, hon. minister, given the number of cases I and other people I've talked to have had, there are hundreds and hundreds of cases of women who at this point are victims of or victimized by our governmental system. I'm wondering if the Women's Equality ministry has picked up on that and whether the minister has been made aware of that. If not, I'd be curious to know why we're not aware of those who are victimized by the system at the moment. I would hope her ministry would be able to step in where others have feared to tread and do something constructive about it in working cross-ministry and with the community groups.

Hon. S. Hammell: The system, whatever we call it, meets and engages with people from all walks of life and from both genders. I don't see that there is a bias in the system against women in particular, but there is a bias against women in the general society that we work in. When women make 73 cents compared to every dollar that men earn, they are at the bottom of the economic scale in many cases. Our focus has been to move women up economically, and that's why we have made strong initiatives around pay equity and ensuring that women often found in the third tier of social service and health care networks get wage redress.

Also, our B.C. Benefits program has assisted single women. It has moved 26 percent of single women above and beyond the poverty level. Oftentimes the system is there to assist them, be it providing support to women through social assistance or through B.C. Benefits. Any individual who has difficulty with that system should take it to their MLA and work those difficulties out, because if women and men are treated poorly by the system, we should be equally affronted.

V. Anderson: Well, I thank the minister, and I appreciate her comments about trying to help women in the total system of our community. I agree that that certainly needs to be done. And I agree with her that both men and women get caught in the discussions that I'm raising at the moment. But primarily it's women rather than men, because they've taken the primary responsibility in dealing with families in foster care and they have the primary responsibility of family care -- many of them single women and others with families. But it's primarily the women.

I'm concerned that our government system at the moment, apart from the community system, has allowed these women to be victimized by the system -- whether consciously or unconsciously is irrelevant. When you're a victim, whether or not somebody meant to hurt you doesn't matter, because you're still hurt. What I'm asking is whether the women's ministry, which is one channel for looking at the problem of these people. . . . I'm asking whether the women's minister -- maybe since she's relatively new in this role, she personally hasn't had a chance to look at it -- has talked to people who are doing foster care and understands the difficulties and the pressures on those women who are doing foster care and who are held hostage, if you like, by the system. If there is even a suggestion that something has been done wrong, which isn't proved in most cases, then the system just walks away from them and they have no recourse.

Also, women who are trying to deal with the needs of their children find that if they ask for help from the government ministry -- because the kids can't even go to camp, or there's some short-term need because of health, they're caught in the system -- then the system uses its governmental powers against them. They become the victims, and they feel like the victims. So they hesitate to get into the tentacles of the system, because once they do they become a number, they become a case; they become listed as inadequate. And that just goes on and on.

I'm sure there are many thousands of cases around this province where women aren't able to seek help, because they know from experience that once they get caught by the system, they've lost control of their own life and their family's lives. It's a very critical issue. So because the minister's new to it and this has not come to her attention, I would ask: would she undertake to review and research this and do some inquiring? I think if she talks to low-income groups, to foster parents or to many people who have had to deal with the system -- not even because of a low income -- she will find that the women feel that they are victimized by the system in trying to carry out their duties as women, mothers and parents. Would the minister undertake to look into this and do some inquiry to discover the extent of this and where her ministry could really make a significant difference in the lives of women, as to how the system can be supportive of them rather than victimizing them?

[10:30]

Hon. S. Hammell: None of us, I imagine, like to continue to characterize women as victims. To suggest that women are 

[ Page 2781 ]

victims of a system and that we need to go in and do some particular protection around women within that system. . . . If the system is unfair to men or women, there are a number of ways that people should move to address those specific unfairnesses. We have an ombudsman, we have MLAs and we have systems through which you can address what appears to me to be a discussion of the bureaucracy being unfair to women in particular.

In looking at economic unfairness, the thrust of my ministry is to identify the fact that there is a difference between what the average woman earns and what the average man earns. The best way to serve women is to move them so that they have some equity when it comes to wages and opportunities, and to get out there and look at the barriers that are there in front of them and remove those barriers. There are many barriers out there that are a result of our choice and that we as a society can remove.

Let me give you some examples. We should be ensuring that the work which women do is as valued as much as any other work in our society, be it child care, health care, looking after aged parents, looking at serving the community through many of the service agencies or looking after women who have been abused -- women who counsel other women. There's a whole range of activities that women are engaged in, largely around the nurturing roles that we as a society don't value enough. I think that if we were just to engage our energy and remove that barrier, many of the women who we can characterize as victims -- or who some people will characterize as victims -- can remove themselves from any connection with any system and just get on with living life.

Other barriers that we can remove are making sure that government money encourages our equity groups, which include women, to participate in the money that is spent on behalf of us in construction and in the many projects that we engage in as participants in the economy. We need to make sure that women look at some of those non-traditional roles. We need to remove the barriers that limit any kind of scope as to how they look around at their community. We are engaged in those kinds of things, and so are other ministries, I believe, who also embrace the role of the Ministry of Women's Equality. They look through their system; they apply their criteria and look at how they can benefit women.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's response, in the sense that she's looking at the financial well-being of women in the community. I agree that the financial well-being of women is very important. I'm surprised, though -- if I understood her correctly -- that the financial well-being of women is her major concern. Because if I understood her correctly, she said, "the thrust of my ministry," and then she went on to talk about the financial equality of women within the community. That's certainly one thrust that I can appreciate and applaud.

But it's my understanding -- and perhaps I've had a false understanding -- that one of the roles of the Women's Equality ministry is similar to Multiculturalism, which asks not only about what is happening in multicultural areas in the community but about how multiculturalism works with equity through all the ministries of government. As I understand it, the role of the Children and Families ministry is to ask not only how the community treats children but how all the activities of government in all ministries treat children.

Now, the minister did refer to the activities of other ministries, but I understood -- perhaps falsely so, and the minister can correct me if that's true -- that it was part of the Women's Equality ministry's mandate to monitor if other ministries treat women within the community fairly, justly and equitably. If the system has systemic problems that deal with women in the wrong way, then it would be the Women's Equality ministry which would go and work with those other ministries to have those systems changed. That's what I'm asking about. I heard the minister say that it was up to each ministry to do its own thing and that she would be doing her thing out in the community. But I'm raising the issue of how other ministries are treating women in the community and doing something about it and making some changes. If that's not part of the mandate of the Ministry of Women's Equality, I'd be pleased to know. If it's only her ministry's mandate to work with the financial situation of women in the community, I'm very surprised and very disappointed. But I would understand, then, why this has not been looked into.

So I'd appreciate knowing what the mandate of the ministry is. Is part of the mandate to deal only with the finances of women in the community? Or is part of the mandate to ask how other branches of the government are treating people with equity and fairness -- and, if they're not, to question them so that equity and fairness can be brought about?

Hon. S. Hammell: We have centred our work around three main pillars within the ministry. One of those pillars is economic equality. Your questions around economic equality are very interesting, because I believe that if we deal with economic equality, many of the other problems will fall aside. In fact, we'll remove one of the major barriers in front of women. So yes, we've put a lot of emphasis on economic equality. But we also have two other pillars that we focus our activities around. One of them is the prevention of violence against women. The other is health, because we know that there are areas around health that are very specific to women.

Within a limited budget and given that women are half of everything, we focus on those three areas. As we execute our activity and exert some kind of influence. . . . I am personally at some tables within the government having direct influence on the process. Sometimes staff are at a table when we are engaged in some kind of activity, and we are, again, forwarding the mandate as it evolves around women. Sometimes we take an issue and examine it in-house, and we have also developed a gender lens which we provide to other ministries to do the work themselves within their ministries with some of the tools that we provide.

In general, that's how we work. So if you ask, "Do we check out every single bit of work that any ministry does on anything?" the answer is no. That would be an impossible task, nor would we welcome it. It seems to me that to be effective, you've got to set priorities. And we've set our three priorities. However, having said that, if someone can bring evidence to me that there is a gross injustice going on around women in particular and their interface with any particular ministry, I would be delighted to look into it.

V. Anderson: Perhaps I could ask one more question, and then I'll make a comment. But I just need to know the context. Is there an interministry committee dealing with concerns about women in the functions that cross over? Or isn't there such a function within the government at the moment?

Hon. S. Hammell: What we have are interministry committees that are driven by topic, by actions and by whatever the priorities of the government of the day are. For example, there's an interministry committee on jobs and the job strategy, and the ministry sits 

[ Page 2782 ]

on that. There's the Interministry Committee on Violence Against Women, and the ministry sits on that. There are a number of interministry committees that we sit on and participate in. Sometimes we are on committees staff-wise. Sometimes I myself sit on a committee that is influencing the direction of work to make sure that women's voices are at that table.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's comments and her putting out the three legs of her stool, if you like. I can't help but share a comment that was made to me one time by a Roman Catholic priest. We lived in Gravelbourg, a Roman Catholic community in southern Saskatchewan. We had been visiting the priest in his living quarters, and we commented on the fine living quarters he had. He acknowledged that and thanked us very much and then said, "We have our better quarters, but you have your better halves," referring, of course, to my wife at that particular. . . . Naturally, I had to agree with him.

So I appreciate the three thrusts. What I'm trying to do here is highlight the reality of an inequity which is in fact taking place. It is particularly affecting women in our community who are in need of a great deal of support to fight the system.

If I can highlight it so that it becomes part, hopefully, of one of those interministerial concerns, and so that we can raise how each of the activities of government -- which finally falls back on legal technicalities and support systems -- puts women particularly at a disadvantage, I would appreciate it very much, because that's what's happening at this point. They are overpowered by the power of the system used in the courts against them. So if the minister has this highlighted. . . . Once she is perhaps more aware of it, she will begin to hear of many cases, and then perhaps it will become a priority and a great many women can benefit because of it.

[10:45]

R. Thorpe: Following up on one of your three pillars, the prevention of violence against women, and taking and dovetailing that with the policy and evaluation thrust of your ministry, can you tell me what work has been done in the area of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act with regards to victim assistance organizations?

Hon. S. Hammell: I assume the question is coming from the recent Supreme Court judgments that have insisted that counselling records be disclosed in some kinds of trials. There is a bill in front of the federal House currently. We were and are still hopeful that this bill will make it through and become law. What the bill does is limit the wide-open ability of the courts now to demand records, and it asks that a judge review the records and then decide if there is any need for records to come forward.

Over the past three years we have supported women's organizations in B.C. in developing guidelines for managing their records in a way that respects the right to privacy while still respecting the law. We have also encouraged federal Justice minister Rock to bring forward and move Bill C-46, which will do that and also do what I suggested before: give specific guidelines and restrictions on the production of records, especially in sexual assault cases.

R. Thorpe: Following along in sort of the same vein, can you tell me -- again, in your policy and evaluation mode -- what research you folks have been able to gather on the issue of conditional jail terms? What kind of research have you gathered in that area? And what, if any, recommendations are you bringing forward to ensure that violence against women is in fact minimized?

Hon. S. Hammell: Around the whole issue of violence against women and the judicial system, there are a number of things we have done. I'd like to talk about them through one particular initiative that we launched at the beginning of the week: a public education program on harassment. It's commonly called stalking, but it is actually criminal harassment and is punishable by law. The purpose of our program is to ensure that women and men understand what stalking is and what criminal harassment is, and to tell them that they are not alone and that they will be helped and listened to if they bring that concern forward. The booklet in the wallet-sized pamphlet also describes for women how they can assist in the process: what they need to document and how they can protect themselves from this kind of behaviour.

With the Attorney General, we have also looked at the top amount of time given to someone who has been convicted of stalking in the court system. We have asked that this amount of time be doubled from five to ten years. The Attorney General has also asked that if there's personal injury involved in stalking, the person committing this crime could then be assigned the label "dangerous offender." So where you have extreme examples of stalking -- and there were a number of them in the news lately -- those people, if deemed dangerous offenders, could be then designated as such, and the full weight of the law becomes much more onerous. There are a number of things that we are doing around the whole issue of containment and jail sentences. We are doing them -- again, as we so often do -- in partnership with another ministry.

R. Thorpe: The ministry supports a number of transition homes throughout the province, and those are extremely worthwhile and serve our communities. In your policy and evaluation branch, can you share with us: do you use this grass-roots service of women in the communities to gather information and to develop and evaluate policy?

Hon. S. Hammell: This is one area that we did canvass slightly in the other session of estimates. I think that when you go back into the history of the transition houses and move forward, then you have an understanding of how grass-roots they are and how we link up with them. Ishtar is a transition house in Langley, and that transition house is what we fondly call "the mother of all transition houses." It started the whole transition house movement not only across Canada but across North America. It was begun through the sheer act of political will by women in the community who understood that there were sisters who were fleeing their homes with nowhere to go. Through political will, donations and sheer courage and tenacity, they provided a place for women to come and rest when they are in danger.

From that initial seed, a whole series of transition houses have grown throughout the province. In the last number of years since this ministry was developed, we have hooked up with them and become their home. We've gathered them from the Ministry of Social Services and the Ministry of Health, From there, we have developed, in partnership, policies and systems that are bringing a kind of uniformity in place in the transition house system.

We would be absolutely lost without the personal grass-roots connection that transition houses give to us in our Stopping the Violence initiative. We have regional people in the 

[ Page 2783 ]

field who hook up with those transition houses and provide information back to our system. We are in constant touch with the transition houses around some of their issues. We have just instituted a system called MIS to help track and understand what's going on in each of the transition houses. We are developing standards for contracts and, through the contract review process, we are establishing standards. Our policy shop, our administration, our regional people and our transition houses are all interlinked and all connected. We need the input from them to be effective where we are.

R. Thorpe: I'm very glad to hear that you'd be lost without their input and that their input is very valuable in developing your policy and understanding what's going on at the grass roots. Could you, then, confirm to me that their opinions have been solicited on gaming or will be solicited on expanded gaming?

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Chair, I certainly did not -- and I want to be very clear that I did not -- send out a questionnaire from my ministry asking each transition house or the Stopping the Violence initiative or anyone we have had anything to do with about gambling, nor have we received a massive input saying that people in our transition house program are adamantly against gambling.

R. Thorpe: One final question: will your ministry send out a questionnaire to your grass-roots transition homes to solicit their input on gaming or expanded gaming?

Hon. S. Hammell: As I said the last time we were in this House, the policy issue of gambling belongs with the Minister of Employment and Investment, and I expect that you will direct your questions to him around gaming and questionnaires put out on gaming.

[11:00]

R. Thorpe: I thought I was going to get an answer, hon. Chair. So I am going to conclude that your answer, minister, is a no. Even though one of your pillars is the prevention of violence against women, and your policy and evaluation statement indicates that you will solicit and gather that kind of grass-roots information, you are saying no, that your ministry will not discharge its responsibilities on this issue.

Hon. S. Hammell: The Gaming Commission has welcomed input from all British Columbians on their views on gambling. They have not excluded anyone from having input. They welcome it from women-serving organizations, they welcome it from schools, they welcome it from the Moose and Elks clubs. Anyone is welcome to put input into the Gaming Commission. They are the people, along with the Minister of Employment and Investment, who are dealing with the issue of gambling.

J. van Dongen: Hon. Chair, I rise to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. van Dongen: I'm very pleased today to welcome to the Legislature a group of students and parents from Terry Fox Elementary School in Abbotsford. There are 37 grade 5 students accompanied by 18 parents and led by Ms. Geissler. I'd like the House to please make them welcome.

I. Waddell: I want to ask a question to the minister on a matter that was raised on her anti-stalking initiative, which I think is a splendid initiative. I'm very interested in this area for a number of reasons. One can appreciate the unfortunate and terrible difficulty women have with former spouses, former partners, former lovers -- whoever -- where the situation gets turned around and they harass and sometimes criminally stalk women. It's a real. . . . We men have now begun to understand that it is such a terrible problem for some women.

This initiative, as I understand it. . . . I was there when Dawn Black, a former Member of Parliament from the New Westminster-Burnaby area and the women's critic for the New Democratic Party, and some of her colleagues -- Joy Langan was one -- managed to force the federal government into putting some tough provisions in the Criminal Code about anti-stalking. I believe she's running again for Parliament. I think the electors, and women especially, should look to Dawn as a leader in this area.

So I want to ask the minister: how does B.C. stand in relation to other provinces in this area? I thought it was very unique to see the Attorney General and you, as the Minister of Women's Equality, cooperating on this initiative, with the package, with the leaflet and with the programs. So the question is: how does B.C. relate with respect to other provinces? And how does this initiative, which you and the Attorney General announced this week, relate with respect to other parts of the country?

Hon. S. Hammell: It really does bring a sense of pride forward when you can stand up and say that this is the only initiative of its type anywhere in Canada, let alone North America. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. S. Hammell: We can be cynical about that and think that it's worth laughing at, but in fact this is the very first initiative of this kind anywhere in Canada. In fact, we believe it's the first initiative like this anywhere in North America. We are very, very proud of it.

I believe things like this happen, to a large extent, because you put a certain amount of energy and drive around particular issues. By having a ministry that focuses on women and on the prevention of violence against women, on their economic well-being and on their health, it makes a difference. It allows us to get up front and to focus on certain issues. It allows us to be creative, to put a very important stamp on it and to be out there for the women of our province.

B. Penner: I was just reviewing the ministry's policy, and I see again that its mission statement states that they are to review governmentwide policy proposals and their impact on women, and to evaluate program initiatives. Towards that end, I wish to canvass with the minister whether in fact the ministry has been complying with their mandate in terms of analyzing courthouse closures announced around British Columbia. The reason I say that is because this minister's own ministry's policy states as well that its three pillars are the economic equality of women, the prevention of violence against women and the health of women. Certainly as it relates to the courthouse closures, you can see that those could potentially violate at least one or two of those three pillars as stated by the minister.

Interjection.

B. Penner: Again, I hear members opposite laughing at the plight of women, and I don't think it's a matter that should be taken lightly.

[ Page 2784 ]

An Hon. Member: We're laughing at you.

B. Penner: I'll give an example of how courthouse closures. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, I don't like to interrupt you, but I wasn't sure how much longer you were going to go on to explain it. I have to rule that question out of order. It belongs in the Attorney General's estimates, not in the Ministry of Women's Equality estimates, where they're talking about direct service and issues like that. So if you wish to pursue another question, then fine.

B. Penner: I'll ask a question of the hon. minister: is it her ministry's policy and mandate that they are to review governmentwide policy proposals?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes.

B. Penner: Then I take it that the Ministry of Attorney General is part of the government. Is that true? Is that your understanding, minister?

The Chair: Further questions, hon. member.

B. Penner: I am wondering if this minister ever evaluates any of the programs implemented by the Ministry of Attorney General.

Hon. S. Hammell: What I should do is go through the process again for the member. The ministry has some programs within its ministry, and those programs are based largely around Stopping the Violence. We partner a fair number of those programs with the Ministry of Attorney General, as well as with the Ministry of Health, so we have a variety of partners within our program area. The other role we play is that of a central agency. When we work through that central agency role, sometimes the minister herself is actually at a table, sometimes the ministry staff are taking women's voices to those tables, and sometimes we import an issue we want to look at. Sometimes the ministry itself looks at issues through what we've developed and call a gender lens. They take a quick view of the ministry and the issues through their gender lens. Issues are sometimes looked at by us; sometimes they're looked at by the ministries themselves; sometimes they're at tables. But we do our work within our priorities, within the lineup of those three pillars.

B. Penner: The reference to the ministry wasn't exactly clear. When you were referring to "the ministry takes a look," were you referring to the Ministry of Attorney General or the Ministry of Women's Equality?

Hon. S. Hammell: If I recall, I meant the Ministry of Women's Equality.

B. Penner: Then it is correct that part of the mandate of her ministry -- that is, the Ministry of Women's Equality -- is to examine the policy and program initiatives of the other ministries of government and put them through, as you say, a gender filter?

Hon. S. Hammell: Let me do this again -- and maybe I need to be a lot clearer. Sometimes there's either an issue or a policy, or for some reason or other there's a table that I need to go to, and I personally sit at that table and work on the decisions and ensure that women's voices are at that table. Sometimes my staff is at tables. Sometimes we deal with particular policy issues. Sometimes those issues stay with the minister of the particular ministry, and they look at those policies through a gender lens. So there's a variety of ways that this ministry tends to have influence, depending on the time, depending on the moment. Within that context, we set our priorities as developed through our three pillars.

B. Penner: I'm starting to have some concerns over here. It sounds as though the Ministry of Women's Equality only gets involved in examining the impact of government decisions on an ad hoc basis. There doesn't appear to be any systematic approach to examining the impact of government policies as they relate to women. Is it true that the Ministry of Women's Equality are selective as to the programs they choose to evaluate and those they choose not to in terms of their impact on women?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes.

B. Penner: I'm wondering if the decision to evaluate a particular program or policy initiative of government is the decision of the Minister of Women's Equality or the decision of whichever minister is in charge of the particular ministry putting forward a policy. Who makes the decision of whether it's going to be evaluated by the Minister of Women's Equality? Is it, for example, the minister or the Attorney General who is bringing forward a proposal? Can that minister decide that the Women's Equality ministry will not examine the impact of that issue on women?

Hon. S. Hammell: Sometimes we're asked; sometimes we just look at a policy. But the priority is around our pillars. Women are everywhere, and everyone in life has priorities. We've been very clear about our priorities. They rest around the three pillars that we work with.

Let me give you an example of a policy where we worked in conjunction with another ministry. We have a policy called Violence Against Women in Relationships. Historically, that policy comes out of the time that the former administration was in this House. When our government was elected, we picked it up. We have worked that policy together with the Attorney General. We share the funding of that policy. We've been involved in the review of the policy, involved in putting it back out as it has been adjusted. That is a policy where we have worked in partnership with another ministry, and it falls directly under one of our pillars: stopping the violence.

B. Penner: I'm just going back to a question I asked the minister -- I don't recall getting an answer on this issue -- and that was whether or not it is up to the particular ministry driving a policy agenda to ask the Minister of Women's Equality to come in and evaluate, or whether the Ministry of Women's Equality goes in on its own initiative. Who decides? Who alerts you that there are policies that need to be examined as they relate to women? Does the particular minister bringing forward a proposal alert the Minister of Women's Equality and say: "Here's an issue that we think might impact women. Could you please look at it?" Or is it just left to chance that somehow that policy proposal will come to the attention of the Minister of Women's Equality, for her to say: "Maybe this is worth looking at"? I have some concerns that there doesn't seem to be a very systematic approach or coordinated effort on the part of the government to make sure that these issues are examined as required by the mission statement of the Ministry of Women's Equality.

[11:15]

[ Page 2785 ]

Hon. S. Hammell: Let me say it once again and see if I can make it absolutely clear: sometimes we choose a policy; sometimes we are asked to review the policy.

B. Penner: Sounds to me that it's whatever they feel like at the given time, as to what they decide to do. It doesn't seem to be a systematic approach, and I worry about that, because I worry about accountability in government. There doesn't seem to be an accountability process here in terms of reporting to the public or to the taxpayers or to the women that they're supposed to be protecting about what issues they decide to get involved with and those which they don't. There doesn't seem to be a reporting process or an accountability process. Sometimes they're asked, but not always. We don't know when they're asked to get involved; it just happens. It just seems to be a fluke of nature if somehow an issue comes to their attention. And at other times the ministry does get involved.

She talks about these three pillars. If there are these three pillars, I would think that they would examine each and every policy proposal through those three filters -- or three lenses -- that she likes to talk about. So I'm wondering: if the ministry does not have a concise, precise or comprehensive policy for examining policy initiatives by the government, when will it? When will they introduce one? Or, if they won't introduce one, why won't they introduce one?

Hon. S. Hammell: One of the major policy areas that we deal with -- and the place that we put a fair amount of attention -- is around economic equality. We believe that as long as women are making 73 cents to every dollar earned by men, the conditions around equality cannot move forward. We have to move economic equality forward. That is a major policy area, as well as an action area, that we focus on. We put in as much energy as time and money can provide, given that we have two other areas that we focus on.

Another area that we focus on is prevention of violence against women. Until women can walk free from fear and in fact be safe in the streets, then none of our work is done -- be it the Ministry of Women's Equality, the Ministry of Attorney General or any of the ministries that touch on the consequences of violence against women. The consequence of violence against women is broad and wide. We released a study last year. It costs $385 million a year -- and that is not a total cost; that does not count health care -- to clean up the aftermath of violence against women. So we believe, not only for the women themselves but for all of our community, that it's important to deal with violence against women. That's another place that we put our priorities. We've worked with the Attorney General. We advocate on behalf of women. We identify issues. We are asked for assistance around issues, and we do that around violence against women.

The third issue is health care, and there are issues that are particular to women that we will be dealing with in health care.

That's where we get our priorities from. Sometimes we initiate looking at an issue; sometimes we are asked to do the work around an issue. But our priorities flow from our three pillars.

B. Penner: I agree that violence against women is a serious issue. My concern is that there are sometimes decisions taken by the provincial government that may indirectly or without forethought increase the chances of violence that women may suffer. I'll give you an example.

A constituent of mine in Chilliwack came to me. She was a victim of violence; she was sexually assaulted. The provincial government's response, in the prosecution process, was that that particular case had to be heard in court in New Westminster. In order for her to get there -- this woman was of limited economic means, so again this falls within the economic pillar that the minister likes to talk about -- she had to take a bus. The only bus available for her to get to court to testify against her attacker left at, I believe, 5:30 in the morning. When she got on that bus to go to court to testify against the man who sexually assaulted her, there were only a few other people on the bus. One of the other people on that bus was the man who had sexually assaulted her. He travelled with her for an hour and a half to get to court, where she was then expected to testify against this man. That's why I ask whether this ministry has a comprehensive policy in terms of examining all government decisions as they might affect women.

The government's decision to remove court services from the Fraser Valley, which requires poor people and women who are victims of violence to travel greater distances to testify and to get justice, increases the chances of them being exposed to their attackers. This is one example. There are many others out there, and if this government had gone ahead and removed the court services from the Fraser Valley, there would have been many more. That's why I was asking the minister whether her ministry would consider examining the Attorney General's policies with respect to courthouse closures, because it could affect women economically -- those who are poor suffer the most -- and also women who are victims of violence. Those are clearly areas within the mandate of her ministry, and that's why I was asking if her ministry had examined the Attorney General's policy with respect to courthouse closures.

Hon. S. Hammell: The particular incident that the member raises is obviously very serious, and it echoes another example of that -- though not in British Columbia; I think it was somewhere else. It is something that we have to prevent at all costs. I mean, it's unacceptable -- absolutely unacceptable -- so I will raise that issue with my colleague.

B. Penner: I know that the Coalition for Justice in Chilliwack and the Upper Fraser Valley had written a number of letters to the Minister of Women's Equality addressing the impact that the proposed closure would have on women and the poor in the upper Fraser Valley and asking her ministry to examine this issue. I'll take this opportunity to again suggest on the record that the minister. . . . She's offered to do that, and I commend her for doing that. I really think that this clearly falls within the mandate of her ministry that it should be done. That's why I was having some concern earlier with what appeared to be the ad hoc approach of her ministry: "Sometimes we're asked; sometimes we decide to do it." There doesn't seem to be a clear set of guidelines for when the ministry gets involved and examines the impact of government policies as they affect women.

There's another matter here that I'm going to move to. It has to do with access for women who require assistance in pursuing child maintenance and child support through the courts. I'm sure all MLAs get requests, as I do, from people in 

[ Page 2786 ]

their community who are frustrated with the difficulty they have in securing child support payments from the father of their children. I'm wondering: is the Ministry of Women's Equality taking any action? What kind of reviews are they doing?

I don't pretend to have an easy answer to this issue. Some ideas have been brought forward in the past; one is suspending provincial driving licences for those individuals who refuse to make child support payments as required by court order. Have those kinds of ideas been looked at by the Minister of Women's Equality? What other initiatives are they considering to try to better extract child support payments so that the children who need to be supported receive that support?

Hon. S. Hammell: I appreciate the question, because often it is women who are on the support end of the stick. We have been involved with the Attorney General in the development of the child support guidelines, and we've also been involved through the process of developing the maintenance enforcement side of the issue. We're currently involved in that area, and I hope we will continue to see that area strengthened.

B. Penner: I wonder if the minister's staff or the minister have considered or put forward the idea of perhaps suspending provincial drivers' licences of those individuals who refuse, even after a court order, to make their child support payments in a timely fashion. This is one idea that's been suggested outside of this House, and I've read about it in newspapers. I just wonder if this is a policy idea that has been seriously considered by the minister or her senior staff.

Hon. S. Hammell: I know the issue of licences is an ongoing subject of discussion. To my knowledge a decision has not been made to remove licences. I think there is a large discussion around that, about that taking away their means of being able to earn a living. There are all kinds of pros and cons.

I would like to reiterate that where we have been most involved is around developing the child support guidelines and doing as much as we can to strengthen the family maintenance enforcement regulations.

B. Penner: I appreciate the minister's comments on that. I would again encourage her to continue pursuing those issues. We're all better off as taxpayers and as citizens if the individuals responsible for bringing lives into the world are the ones making the financial sacrifices to support those children, rather than imposing that burden on taxpayers generally. Often it is single mothers who have to resort to social assistance in order to support their children because the fathers of those children are refusing to live up to their obligations -- even after court orders, I point out again. I know that from my previous law practice, and now in my position as MLA, because of the sheer number of people that come into my office -- and, I'm sure, through all MLAs' offices -- asking for some help in enforcing this order.

They feel it's a ruse. They're given this piece of paper, they're being led to believe that now they will receive the support, and it just doesn't come. So many times it just does not come. The result is that these people, the mothers most often, have no other recourse but to go on social assistance. That imposes a big obligation on all the taxpayers, where that obligation shouldn't be.

So I think that if the ministry were to come up with some innovative ideas or suggestions to properly enforce maintenance orders, that could relieve the taxpayers and the provincial government from an extra financial burden. It could save the taxpayers and the provincial government revenue, and I'm sure the Minister of Finance would like to do that. That's why I encourage the minister to examine other ideas, such as removing drivers' licences from "deadbeat dads," to use that phrase.

[11:30]

There is one final matter I'd like to move to. The minister was talking earlier about her initiatives in terms of anti-stalking efforts to try to prevent this form of terrorist activity in our communities. I wonder if the Ministry of Women's Equality is sponsoring any programs in the high schools of British Columbia to help educate our young people, particularly young women, at an earlier stage. I say that because as a lawyer, again, I've had young women, high school students, who are already being victimized and terrorized even in grades 10, 11 and 12. They don't know where to turn to or what to do. I wonder if there are any resources being dedicated through the school system to help these young women at an earlier stage.

[I. Waddell in the chair.]

Hon. S. Hammell: I think that is a super question. I come from the world of teaching, and I do know that if our children understand and if they understand early, we have a much better chance of influencing their behaviour.

Recognizing that the ministry, despite its broad mandate, is actually a fairly small ministry. . . . Most of our work is done in partnership with other parts of the community. We do have a grant program called Safer Futures, and one of the pieces of it is to partner with schools to take prevention programs into the schools and therefore deal with the very issues you're talking about.

The difference between us and, possibly, other ministries -- it's part of the nature of the beast, the nature of our ministry -- is that we don't go into schools and mandate. What we do is partner with people who want to take this program into the schools. We don't get a universal hit on the problem, but we are able to assist people who do want to take this program to the students within their schools.

I know that whenever I go outside of my home constituency, or outside of Victoria when we're here, I try to get into the schools -- if I'm in Castlegar or Trail or on the Island -- to talk to young women, to tell them to discuss some of these things like harassment and economic equality and to raise some of those issues with young women. We have a program. If you or anyone in your community needs more details, we would be very pleased to assist you with that.

B. Penner: On a point of clarification: are there existing programs, then, that the Minister of Women's Equality has been able to sponsor or partner with the Minister of Education? Are there existing programs in the high schools partly sponsored by the Minister of Women's Equality addressing the issue of violence against women and, particularly, advising our young women in high schools in British Columbia as what their options are so that they don't think they have to put up with it and don't have to tolerate it -- so they have some kind of idea of where to go and how to go about getting help?

Several weekends ago I returned to my constituency and was woken up early one Saturday morning by a phone call at 

[ Page 2787 ]

home from a young girl who had been beaten up that night. She didn't know what to do or how to get help. She didn't trust the police. Often young people see them as the enemy as often as anybody else, and she just wanted some advice about what to do. Eventually I went with her to the police station to try and help her give her statement to the police.

That made me think that if we could somehow disseminate information such as is included in this brochure recently put out by the ministry, "Are You Being Stalked?" which I've just seen here. . . . The information in here is about keeping notes and records of the events that take place on the part of the person that is abusing or stalking you. If we brought those kinds of programs into our schools and made that information clear and easily accessible to young people, it might be part of a solution. I'm just wondering if there are actual programs like that currently taking place that the minister knows of.

Hon. S. Hammell: I'm going to be quite detailed on this. First, I'll try to come at it from a bit of a broader perspective. I'll go back to the program I referred to called Safer Futures. It's identified in the estimates, and a certain amount of money has been targeted to prevention programs in partnership with the community, some through women-serving agencies that are out there.

One of the partnerships is with schools. Let me now be very specific. A school is going to put on this program, and the title is: "You're So Lucky to be in Love: A Program About Stopping the Violence and Building Healthy Relationships." Through a series of interactive education sessions for grade 10 students on the North Shore, this project will examine power dynamics and the imbalance of power in social contexts, changing attitudes and behaviours, and helping youth develop skills to build healthy relationships. Students will also be encouraged to develop prevention activities and strategies for implementation in the school and in the community. So we have provided a group on the North Shore to partner with a school to do that program. But let me be clear. We don't go into every school and provide that program; we react to the community putting forward programs that we can fund. Your community could talk to the people who are putting on this program, get information about it and apply to us for a grant to support it. That's how it would work.

We also have a video called "Raising Young Voices" that is available from the ministry. It has been distributed across Canada and throughout B.C. schools. Again, that is around building healthy relationships for our young students. So although we don't have a mandated curriculum program, we have materials and resources through which communities can provide this service for their young people.

B. Penner: My questions are essentially concluded. I'm sure the minister will be hearing from my constituency. I will be taking up this issue with the Chilliwack school board.

I know that so often we see our education system as the answer for everything. If we expect them to do everything. . . . They can't do anything if we dump all of these responsibilities on our schools. But I think there is some room in the curriculum for teaching our young people what is proper to expect in terms of social interaction and what is not proper. I think we have to work towards changing people's expectations. Certainly the young person that I was trying to help a few weeks ago has the expectation that her life will always be this way. Once that mindset is established -- that essentially you're a carpet for anyone to walk on -- it's very hard to change. I think we need some kind of help to give our young people some backbone and some encouragement that they deserve to be treated better and that they are worth something.

So I thank the minister for her comments, and I'm sure you will be hearing from the Chilliwack school district or myself about that. I believe my colleague the member for Langley has some additional questions at this time, so I would seek to turn the floor over to her, hon. Chair.

The Chair: I don't see the member for. . . . I see the member for North Vancouver-Seymour.

Interjection.

The Chair: I'm sure it's sunny today.

D. Jarvis: It's a sunny spot on the outskirts of Vancouver -- the sunny hills of North Vancouver-Seymour.

I wonder if I could ask a few questions of the minister: whether the minister has -- in her ministry, or herself -- made any sort of inquiries or done studies in regard to how no-fault insurance would impact on women.

I wonder if the minister could relate to me what impacts she has noted that were favourable or against women in any no-fault legislation that may be coming forward.

The Chair: I'll leave that up to the minister. I would point out to the member that it's not only future policy that you're asking about but it's also an area that's under the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for ICBC.

D. Jarvis: I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. Except that there's no question that any proposed legislation, if it's available. . . .

An Hon. Member: Future policy.

The Chair: The Clerk tells me, member, that future legislation is not a matter to be canvassed. What you might perhaps do is rephrase your question in another way that perhaps the minister could deal with, as it relates to women.

D. Jarvis: Perhaps the minister could tell me if there's been any submission to her ministry from any women's groups with regard to no-fault insurance.

Hon. S. Hammell: What we have looked at is the insurance system, and it is common knowledge that the current system is unfair to women. So we have looked at the current system, and now have a much deeper understanding of how women are currently penalized in the system as we see it.

D. Jarvis: Could the minister relate to me what impacts she feels are unfair to women in the present system?

Hon. S. Hammell: I have heard wide and far that under the current tort system, women receive lower injury awards than men for loss of earning capacity following personal injury.

D. Jarvis: I assume that the minister is aware of the more recent case that was just heard in the Supreme Court in which they have made a rather. . . .

Interjection.

[ Page 2788 ]

D. Jarvis: Mr. Chairman, I'm getting comments from another minister, who is not even sitting in the right chair.

The Chair: Perhaps you could put your question, member.

D. Jarvis: Yes, I will. A case came down in which the Supreme Court ruled that a woman's settlement should be based on what a man would make in an equivalency. That is before the courts now, so it's slowly getting around to the point where women are going to be paid on an equal basis, we assume.

My follow-up on that was the fact that without that court decision, a no-fault insurance plan is certainly detrimental to a woman's. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order. Would the minister please let the member put the question. I'll rule whether it's in order or out of order. Would you go ahead and put your question.

D. Jarvis: I was basically referring to what the comparison would be between the system we have now and no-fault insurance.

The Chair: This is not in order, member.

D. Jarvis: Isn't it?

The Chair: This is the Ministry of Women's Equality, and you've got to ask questions on that.

[11:45]

L. Stephens: This is the Ministry of Women's Equality estimates. As the Chair recognizes -- and I'm sure all members of this House do -- 50 percent of the population are women, so what affects the general population affects women. That includes car insurance, gambling, health care and violence. That includes all of these issues that are out there for all of us as human beings.

This is a freestanding ministry. This is a ministry that this government likes to talk about as being the defender and the upholder of the interests of women. That's a very valid statement to make, and it's certainly an extremely important one. Members on this side of the House recognize that importance, and support and defend that importance of women and of the role that a government should play in developing and defending women's issues.

The question to the minister today is on those particular issues. Clearly, the mandate of this ministry is to evaluate government policy and its effects and impacts on women. Those are the questions that we're asking today, and they are relevant and valid. There are, in society, discussions around no-fault insurance and the possibility that there will perhaps be future legislation. There have been a number of organizations that have compiled a huge amount of research. We have certainly been privy to that research. I am positive that the minister has, as well. I'm sure that if she was in fact reaching out to women's organizations, which is one of the mandates of her ministry, she would be aware of these studies as well.

In her role and capacity as an advocate for women and their issues, I am sure she is aware of these concerns that women have. I would simply like to know -- and the member for North Vancouver-Seymour would simply like to know -- whether in fact the minister is aware of these studies. Has the minister herself, in her ministry, done these studies, looked at these reviews from other jurisdictions that are available? The second question is: have women's organizations in this province made submissions to her or her ministry on the effects on women of no-fault insurance in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Hammell: The issue around affordable insurance is very interesting and, of course, is of particular interest to women, because they earn 73 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Yet they don't automatically get insurance at 73 percent of what it would cost a man. So affordable insurance is absolutely critical to women.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

We have conducted a study that says that women's work is undervalued in the current system, and I think that is a direct reflection of the fact that women's work is undervalued in general. Therefore the current system penalizes women, just as we would say the current work system penalizes women. And it is very, very important that we have a system that is fair to both men and to women.

L. Stephens: I appreciate what the minister is saying, particularly around the issue of the 73-cent dollar that women earn. That's absolutely correct. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, and we need to do a lot of things around making sure that there is employment equity and pay equity. However, the minister's argument that a no-fault system would benefit women and that in some way a no-fault insurance system would be fairer to women. . . . I would like the minister to perhaps clarify what she did say, because what I wrote down here was "73 percent of what men earn," and she's talking about the affordability of insurance. She made the link between the 73 cents on the dollar that women earn compared to what a man earns and the fact that that in some way diminishes their ability to buy insurance.

Strictly speaking, that is so, but the argument -- if in fact this is the argument that the minister is making -- that. . . . If in fact she is rejecting no-fault insurance as an example of what we're talking about as far as women's issues are concerned and what benefits and burdens women. . . . That's what we're talking about. What are the benefits and what are the burdens that women face? In fact, pay equity is a burden that women have. But for the minister to argue that affordability of insurance under this particular issue is valid is not correct, I think. The real issue for women is the fact that under a system such as this in other jurisdictions, women are in fact extremely disadvantaged for a whole number of reasons, and it is not because of the 73-cent dollar. I wonder if the minister would perhaps talk about whatever it is in this study that she has conducted that. . . . Or, in fact, is this the only evidence that she has in this study? Or are there other pieces of information that she could share with this committee around what she feels women should be concerned about as far as no-fault insurance?

Hon. S. Hammell: Let me start off with where we're at: there has been no decision. But what is very, very clear is that my government is committed to an auto insurance system that is fair and equitable, responsive to need and affordable, and which builds on improving services and fosters good driving behaviours. That's sort of the big picture.

What I can tell you is that the current system penalizes women, and the one court case that was mentioned did not 

[ Page 2789 ]

value women's work. It said that the only reason that woman got a settlement was because she was doing a man's job. The current system does not value women, so we should be somewhat upset about that fact. We have looked into it, we have just done a study, and we need to have a system that is affordable for women, given the fact that women make, on average, 73 cents for every dollar that is earned by a man. We need an affordable system for women.

L. Stephens: There are a number of issues that we need to talk about. So 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.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.

The committee met at 10:09 a.m.

On vote 16: minister's office, $429,000 (continued).

G. Plant: It's great to be back here. I want to ask some questions today. I suppose I won't have the same opportunity that we had yesterday in another context to debate federal legislation. But we could try that, if we want.

I want to ask some questions this morning that I think fall under the general heading of the public safety branch, and they certainly fall under the general heading of public safety. The first issue is to obtain some clarification around the status of a promise that was made about community police officers. I first recall being aware of the promise in the throne speech of June 1996, which contained this statement: "The upcoming budget will also enhance community policing, by allowing for 100 new police officers patrolling our neighbourhoods." I'm told from time to time that that in fact was not the first occasion on which the announcement was made, but it's good enough for my purposes. My understanding is that during the fiscal year 1996-97, none of those 100 new police officers patrolling our neighbourhoods were hired by the Ministry of Attorney General. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, that's not correct. Out of the 100 police officers, we already have in place approximately 41 -- some of them not staffed but approved. I'll tell the hon. member what they are. In the unsolved-homicide squad, there are 12 positions that the province funds. Those were 12 new positions. Those are in addition to: criminal-record checks, two; prostitution unit, one; hate crime unit, two; and 24 that have been approved for the provincial force, and those would go into community policing. That makes a total of 41, so far. There is a balance of 59, and we're hoping that over the next year or so, we would have those 59 -- substantially most of them, if not all.

G. Plant: I didn't hear the number or the particular description for the fourth category. After the hate crime unit, there was something to do with a provincial community policing force and a number, and I didn't hear that number.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is 24. They are, essentially, at-large police officers, who can be, I believe, assigned to wherever there is need. I understand that those 24 police officers would be going into the Okanagan and the Parksville areas. We're hoping that the balance of 59 would be added. . . . It says here over two years, but I'm hoping we can do it in one year, if at all possible.

G. Plant: I think if we were examining the context of community police officers, we would have a hard time. . . . Well, let me deal with this: I mean, why not? I add up 39, not 41. I'm not the quickest person in on-my-feet arithmetic, but there must be two missing from the count. I guess I won't rest easy until I know where they are.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, that was the only thing I was ever good at -- math. So they are: unsolved-homicide squad, 12; criminal-record checks, two; prostitution unit, one; hate crime unit, two; and then 24 that are going into the Okanagan and Parksville areas. They will be fully staffed by midsummer.

G. Plant: I missed the prostitution unit. Now, the 24 community police officers, the at-large additions to the provincial force: were they in fact on the ground as of April 1? The reason I ask that question is that in the course of the answer to the question a minute ago, the Attorney General said something along the lines of, "We're expecting them to go to the Okanagan and to Parksville," which sounds like something that hasn't happened yet.

[10:15]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, it hasn't happened. The positions have been approved. They would be staffed by midsummer.

G. Plant: Now, of the two assigned to the hate crime unit, when did those people actually begin to assume their duties?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the hate crime unit, the Vancouver police department person was already assigned as of April 1. The RCMP person is in the process of being 

[ Page 2790 ]

determined and then will be assigned very shortly. That's a process that the RCMP are going through to determine who they will send.

G. Plant: Of the 12 people that were described as being part of the unsolved-homicide squad, as of April 1, how many of those individuals or positions were filled by people who were in fact doing their job?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: They were all filled last year.

G. Plant: When the government promised that the community policing would be enhanced by allowing for 100 new police officers patrolling our neighbourhoods, did this minister think that that would include the members of the unsolved-homicide squad?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, the 24 that I've indicated are determined by the RCMP as to where they need them, and they would send them. The RCMP and the municipal police forces are very enthusiastic about community policing. And when we fund projects such as the unsolved-homicide squad, it takes away the burden and added pressure from the municipal police forces, as well as the RCMP in many areas, so that they are able to then engage in other crime prevention, detection and investigation. At the end of the day, I don't think it was ever the intention. . .nor could the Attorney General say where those 100 police officers would go. There would have to be a process to determine where they go. So we determine priorities in consultation with the police, and then determine where we could add these police officers so that other resources could come free.

G. Plant: Well, I'll leave for now the very interesting question that arises from the Attorney General's statement that it would not be appropriate or possible for him, or the Ministry of Attorney General, to determine where police officers should go, since to some extent that turns on an interesting and difficult debate about whether it continues to be in our best interests as a province to provide a significant portion of our policing by contract with a federal police force. In that respect I suppose it's true that the minister doesn't have the direct authority to tell the RCMP how to allocate resources.

But I guess I'll return to the specific question. With respect to the members on the list of 41 who were to be assigned to criminal-records checks and the prostitution unit, were those positions filled by individuals prior to April 1?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: So roughly speaking, of the 100 police officers who were promised in the throne speech of June 1996, something in the order of 15 were in fact up and running as of the end of the fiscal year -- before engaging in the debate of whether or not the promise was in fact to put community police officers on the streets in the neighbourhoods of B.C. as opposed to specialized locations like prostitution units and homicide squads. I suppose the question is whether the Attorney General considers that the promise made in the throne speech was in fact honoured.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is being honoured.

G. Plant: I want to be clear about the Okanagan and Parksville thing. I was informed in the briefing I received that there were certain arrangements made in a couple of communities in British Columbia in which there were, I think, maybe transitional arrangements for funding municipal police forces in cases where the town or the municipality may have grown over the 5,000 population threshold. And as a result of that, there was an expectation that certain funds might become available to the ministry for the purpose of funding some additional community police officers this year.

I don't remember the names of the towns where that was going to happen; I think one of them may have been Lantzville, but I may be wrong. Is that completely separate and apart from what has happened, or is going to happen, with the 24 police officers who are going to the Okanagan and to Parksville?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, we have a global contract with the federal government with respect to the RCMP. When positions come free. . . . For instance, when a town grows beyond a certain level of population, we at that time have the choice of allowing a particular town or municipality to continue to utilize that additional police officer there; or allowing the RCMP to move that police officer somewhere else, if one comes free, let's say; or actually stopping funding that position altogether and saving the money. And the choice that we have made to fulfil our promise of 100 police officers, partially through this, is to continue to fund those positions that come free as a result of population growth.

G. Plant: So the positions come free as a result of population growth, which gives the ministry the option, in effect, to cut the municipality loose and say to it: "Now you must provide for policing from your own resources." And instead of doing that, what the ministry is doing, in a sense, is saying: "We will continue to fund those officers in those communities." Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, we don't in any particular circumstances make a decision to leave that additional police officer there. It is, at the end of the day, up to the RCMP to determine their needs with those communities that are served by the RCMP. So these 24 then become part of the provincial police force contingent and are sent wherever they're needed.

But I can tell you that the RCMP are very enthusiastically following community policing implementation throughout the province. I have been invited to at least four community police station openings in as many months. I was at one with the hon. member in Richmond; I was at one in Surrey several weeks ago. I was invited to one in Richmond that's happening this weekend, and there's one more happening in Surrey. Those detachments are being served by the RCMP. There are detachments elsewhere where I'm not able to go, and I'm sure that they're engaged in the same kind of endeavours.

G. Plant: Well, let's be clear about this. This isn't a debate on whether community policing is a good thing. It's a debate about whether or not the government is actually doing anything to make it happen or make it possible. From a very simple-minded point of view, someone listening to the throne speech last June would have probably been left with the impression that something in the order of $10 million in new money would have been available in the budget for last year to fund, roughly speaking, 100 new community police officers at 100,000 bucks a police officer. What I'm trying to find out is whether or not the provincial government has actually made available new money to, in fact, enhance community policing, as opposed to what I see happening, which is a few police 

[ Page 2791 ]

officers going here and there to important initiatives -- like the homicide squad, criminal-records checks, prostitution units -- none of which, I think, were encompassed within the mind of the average British Columbian when they listened to the throne speech promise.

I understand that it's a complicated business to sort out how policing is funded in British Columbia because of the different ways that that's done. But just to sort of respond with an observation, I suppose, I think that the people in Richmond-Steveston were delighted to see the Attorney General appear at the opening of the community police station. But to the best of my knowledge, his ministry didn't provide any money for staffing that community police station, because Richmond is, of course, a freestanding municipal police force that raises its own funds and makes its own contract with the RCMP.

I understand that the Attorney General and the RCMP are enthusiastic about community policing. So am I. I want to be sure that the government is actually doing something about it, because I think the government should do something about it. I'll just try one more time, then, to understand whether the statement that the Attorney General made a few minutes ago about Okanagan and Parksville. . . . Is that just sort of an expression of wishful thinking on the ministry's part, recognizing that, as the minister himself says, he has no control over where the RCMP choose to assign police officers?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, the Attorney General doesn't have specific control over that. However, we've spoken to the RCMP, and we do try and persuade them from time to time to do certain things. They have indicated to us that they have the most need, as a result of the population growth, in the Okanagan and Parksville areas. And that's where they would be directing their efforts with respect to the 24 police officers.

Going back to the issue of $10 million or so for 100 police officers. We clearly have a choice when towns grow beyond 5,000. There is a choice of stopping altogether funding the additional police officers -- the positions -- that may come free. But we have made the choice of not saving that money. Now, one can argue whether it's new money or old money. The fact is that when the government has a choice of stopping utilizing those resources but doesn't, that then becomes part of the additional resources we're plowing back into the community. We're not taking them out. The municipalities or the towns become responsible for their own police forces, but we as a provincial government have made the decision that we want to allow the municipalities, the towns, through the RCMP or through the municipal police forces, to be able to enjoy the benefits of additional police officers that may be on the streets in the towns.

G. Plant: Well, I think I understand the logic of what happens when a town grows to a certain size and the ministry is then in a position where it could, in effect, realize some savings by no longer paying for the provision of policing through the RCMP contract that supports provincewide policing in communities under 5,000. What happens, of course, is that towns do grow over that 5,000 limit. As I understand it, the way that the ministry is hoping to sort of deal with this business of expanding the police force is, in a sense, by forgiving the growth in certain communities by not requiring the community to assume the cost of its own policing.

I guess I'm still not clear about how this is happening. I mean, I thought I was going down a path where it seemed to me that what was happening was that communities in the area of Parksville, or in Parksville itself, and communities in the Okanagan were growing to a point where they were then going to cross the 5,000 threshold. And what may be happening is that the ministry is trying to ensure that policing is still available there, but I think I'm probably wrong. So I wonder if I could impose on the Attorney General one more time to assist me out of my confusion.

[10:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me sort of go back a little and add that at least 17 of these positions that I have indicated out of the 41 are from brand-new money; 12, definitely -- if I am mistaken about any others -- are the homicide squad police officers. That was completely new money, additional resources, being put into policing.

With respect to the other 24 that we've talked about, let's assume that town A is populated now by 6,000 people and not by 5,000. Let's assume that one position comes free as a result. That then goes into the provincial police force contingent. And obviously, if the town is served by the RCMP, then the RCMP would have at their disposal that additional position to redirect to wherever they believe has the most need. We have the choice at that time to say, "No, we will stop funding this position," and take the money back. But we haven't done that with at least 24 positions.

G. Plant: But in that example, town A would then become responsible for its own policing?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: That does help me. Thank you to the minister for his explanation.

Would I be right in assuming that the example the minister has just given is the sort of template that the ministry expects to use over the next year or so to allow this number of 24 to be expanded by a further 59 or 60 officers?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That would be, in part, the course chosen. We may be able to find some money to add additional resources to the municipal police force, or to stop funding the provincial police force with four, five, six or ten additional officers that come free and transfer those resources to a particular municipality where there might be need, or to put new money into the municipality to assist them. There are several ways. But, in part, that would be the course chosen. As the population grows, there is a certain projected number of positions that would come free, and it is our intention to allow those resources to remain in the communities -- not necessarily in that particular community, depending on the choice of the RCMP, but in the community at large in British Columbia.

G. Plant: Would I be correct, then, in assuming that there is not in place any fixed plan for achieving the additional 59 officers but, rather, a number of options that the minister will pursue as and when he is able to, within budget constraints?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that in 1997-98 we will definitely have 28 more positions become available to the province, which I am certain we will allow to remain funded and in the communities across British Columbia, obviously at the disposal of the RCMP -- or if need be, move some of them into the municipalities.

[ Page 2792 ]

G. Plant: Just to follow a train of thought that I started on a few minutes ago, are those additional 28 positions. . .? Do they become available as a result of the expiry of certain transitional policing arrangements in some towns?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I'm sorry to impose on the minister for the details, but what were the towns?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are at least three towns that I could mention to the hon. member, and those are Whistler, Ladysmith, Spallumcheen. There might be a couple of others. The total would be, I'm told, at least 28.

G. Plant: Thank you, then. Just to sort of conclude the subject, from my point of view, anyway, returning to the throne speech statement. . . . The throne speech statement a year ago was: "The upcoming budget" -- and that would have been the budget that was introduced a few days after the throne speech -- "will also enhance community policing, by allowing for 100 new police officers patrolling our neighbourhoods." So I wonder if the minister could explain how it was that the budget of 1996-97 allowed for 100 new police officers. What was it in the budget of 1996-97 that allowed for 100 new police officers patrolling our neighbourhoods?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand there was money available within the ministry; however, due to the excessive burden on correctional facilities, we had to reallocate some resources. I would also point out to the hon. members that it's important to remember that 83 police officers are currently being used for photo radar. That is approximately an additional $10 million. There are plans at the end of the year -- hopefully, at the earliest possible -- to make sure that those positions are taken over by trained technicians so that those 83 or so police officers would come free. It is the intention of the province to allow those positions to go back into the communities to begin serving the people of British Columbia in other capacities.

G. Plant: But the status quo at present in that regard is that those 83 police officers, who are fully trained police officers capable of investigating a wide range of criminal activity, are in fact now dedicated to the task of photo radar. Is that a correct statement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, they are. It was always an understanding -- at least, one that I had -- that once the program is fully underway, we will have trained technicians to do the work and then resources would come free, which would then be "other" policing.

Photo radar is a form of policing at this time. Obviously we don't have the technicians ready to take that load. When we have them, those police officers go back and do other duties. Before the arrival of photo radar, there were many police officers across British Columbia who were doing traffic duty; there are still many in many areas. But with the use of photo radar, those police officers have come free in some areas to do the other, more rigorous -- as the hon. member might say -- duties of police work.

G. Plant: That is an interesting statement. Frankly, I think if we spent a day and a half dealing with it, we would find that it's a statement that's very difficult to actually demonstrate on the ground. I'm not interested in it. . . . It just seems to me to be a difficult way -- a disingenuous way, I have to say -- of dealing with the throne speech promise of last year -- talking about photo radar police resources.

Let me pick up that theme. I want to ask the question from the perspective of the people outside the criminal justice system who listen to what the government promises them. They listen to it not from the perspective that the minister and I might -- which is to say with a capacity to split hairs -- by asking themselves whether people in a homicide unit who work in an office building in downtown, dealing with a particular form of crime, are the same kind of people the government had in mind when the government talked in very evocative, emotional, visual terms about people patrolling neighbourhoods. Then we go and say: "All right. That was the throne speech promise."

In November we had that press release announcing a major reform initiative in the justice system. The Attorney General and I have already spent a fair bit of time arguing about that press release and how it ought to be read. But one of the things in that press release was the announcement of a commitment. It was part of the reforms of the justice system and was described as a major reform -- a commitment to more effective policing, including following through with funding for 100 new police officers. At what point in time should the members of the public of British Columbia ask themselves: "Is this just smoke and mirrors, as opposed to a legitimate honouring of a fairly basic promise"?

Without questioning in the least the importance of the prostitution unit, the criminal-record check, the hate crime unit, I got the. . . . What people in my constituency and across the province tell me is that they thought there were going to be 100 new police officers on the streets of British Columbia and that the government was going to be putting up new money to ensure that that was so. I now understand a bit better the process by which this is to be achieved. It remains a matter of political debate whether that is, in a sense, honouring the promise correctly.

I really think it's confusing the debate in a way that is illegitimate, to start talking about the photo radar police officers, because the assignment of those people to a new program like photo radar is hardly, in my view -- again, it's my reading -- an initiative that is enhancing what most people think of as community safety and what I'm sure the Attorney General meant when he talked with pleasure about the fact that he had been invited to the openings of four community police stations. They don't do photo radar at community police stations. They do something quite different. They have officers out there patrolling the streets, doing prevention work, doing local education with community groups, telling them how they can prevent crime and actually changing the emphasis of the way police services are delivered, in a way that I think everyone thinks is a good thing.

The question is whether we're actually getting there, or whether what we have is a series of press releases and, at the end of the day, a fairly careful, articulate explanation which amounts to something like an avoidance strategy and says, "Here we are, kind of getting there bit by bit," when in fact I think what's really happened is that the government made a promise. It seems to me that what happened was that the government underfunded the corrections system last year. It desperately needed to put some money in the corrections system last year. It did that, and we are a lot slower down the road toward hiring those community police officers than we thought we would be a year ago. That seems to me to be where we're at. If I'm grossly wrong in that summary of the situation, I'm sure the Attorney General will correct me.

[10:45]

[ Page 2793 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's an opinion that the hon. member holds. I would not argue with his opinions. But let me go back to the question of 83 police officers that I was talking about. I never indicated at any time that those 83 -- or however many might be put back into the communities in other forms of policing -- should be counted as part of that 100. So let's not misconstrue the facts as indicated by me.

In terms of the rest of the issues that the hon. member raises, he has a different point of view. As the province, we have the choice not to allow positions that come free as a result of population growth to continue. We have made a decision. I could have been disingenuous, as the member says, and said that we would stop funding these 24 positions this year, and in six months replowed that money back into policing as new money. Would the member then have said: "That's new money"?

G. Plant: No. I'm actually wondering about the other 76 and why we didn't get them last year. I'm grateful to the Attorney General for his explanation of the 24, and I accept that. The issue is what happened to the other 76. I understand what the Attorney General says about what happened to 17 of them -- or whatever the number is. We can leave it to others to debate whether or not those people -- the homicide squad folks, the criminal-record check folks -- are in fact people that were intended by the province for the 100 new community police officers, as opposed to people who were intended for particular new initiatives.

I'm no longer arguing about the 24; I'm arguing about why we didn't get the other 60, in effect. I think I have the Attorney General's explanation. My concern was more that in some way, in order to deflect what I understood to be the basic context of the problem, we then went down the photo radar path -- which is its own particularly special path and not, I think, a path that really relates terribly well to the promise that was made in the throne speech last summer. I could go on about that subject, but my main task is to ascertain the present status in terms of meeting the commitment that was made.

I have some questions now about auxiliary police, unless the Attorney wants to respond to the last thing I said. No? Then I'll move to the subject of RCMP auxiliaries. Generally speaking, there are individuals who are, in effect, volunteer police officers who provide certain types of policing services without pay -- although at some cost, because police forces outfit them in uniforms and provide them with certain equipment.

There are a number of issues that arise in this context that I want to pursue. First of all, my understanding -- and it comes from a source that may or may not be reliable -- is that the provincial budget for supporting the auxiliary police program has been in the order of $350,000 a year. I wonder if I can begin by asking the Attorney General whether that is so and whether funding for the program is to continue in the current fiscal year.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: There is talk outside these walls, in the community of people who are interested in auxiliary police. . . . From time to time, people express to me apprehension that the program's level of funding will be cut or that the program itself will be cut. Does the Attorney General have any plans in that regard for the near future?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.

G. Plant: It seems to me that there is an opportunity here for the government to engage in a cost-effective way of enhancing a certain form of police presence in our communities. I want to be careful in saying that. The Attorney General has probably heard concerns from people about the imposition of mandatory retirement ages for participants in the auxiliary police program. I've heard that, too.

The Attorney General has also probably heard concerns expressed by people about the imposition of firearm certificate requirements and whether that is fair and reasonable for the operation of the auxiliary program. I have been told by RCMP officers about their concerns about why those requirements are in fact a good thing. Nonetheless, at the end of the day -- or sort of at the beginning of the debate -- one is left with the observation that it costs in the order of $100,000 a year to keep a fully trained RCMP officer out there doing her or his job. And we have here a provincial program that costs about $350,000 a year and that supports, I understand, hundreds and hundreds of auxiliary police officers.

It occurred to me that there was an opportunity here for the government, by enhancing funding in this area, to get a certain form of cost-effective policing out on the streets of British Columbia. I wonder if the Attorney General has any views on that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Auxiliaries serve a very important function, obviously, and we support their role. We are undertaking a major review of the auxiliary and reserve constable programs in consultation with the RCMP, the independent municipal police departments and other stakeholders -- for the want of a better term -- that might be interested in these issues. I think that all of these issues would form part of that review.

The retirement age is an issue that obviously has been considered, and the decision has been made that 60 is the age. I think there are good reasons for that. I can also understand the discomfort that others have felt about it.

Generally, we are undertaking a major review of this issue, and as a result of that review we may have the enhancement that the hon. member speaks of.

G. Plant: Could the Attorney General assist me by providing a few more details of this review? I take it that it's being done by some form of panel or committee or group. What is the timetable for completion of the work? What will the work product be of the people undertaking this review? Will there be public consultation -- those sorts of things?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the ministry is currently drafting the terms of reference of that review. There would be public discussion, debate and participation in that review. As soon as we have the terms of reference, we'd be happy to pass them on to the hon. member.

G. Plant: I thank the Attorney General for that. Just to push one point a little bit further, does the ministry have a projected time line? Are we dealing with a six-month, six-week or two-year review process?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hopefully, the review would be finished by the end of this fiscal year.

[ Page 2794 ]

G. Plant: Which would then leave the government in the position of implementing recommendations for the following fiscal year, if there were recommendations which lent themselves to a change in funding or that kind of thing.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I do want to take the Attorney General up on the offer to provide me with the terms of reference of the review when they become available.

I want to change the subject to an announcement that the Attorney General, along with the Minister of Women's Equality, made yesterday. The announcement was of the launch of the first provincewide weapons amnesty. I realize as I'm standing here that I'm looking at press releases, and I've learned to be more cautious about this. I really only want to deal with one aspect of this potentially quite useful initiative: what is going to happen to the weapons when they are surrendered to the authorities? I can tell you what the circular of the provincial chief firearms officer says: "Most weapons will be destroyed; explosives will be disposed of in a safe manner. Some firearms may be used by police for training purposes. Some weapons that have historic value may be donated to museums."

I want to know whether it is the intention of the ministry to deal with any weapons by selling them.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.

G. Plant: So when the chief provincial firearms officer said that most weapons will be destroyed, what he means is that there are a few, or some, firearms that may be used by police for training purposes, and there are some that may have historic value and may be donated; but all the rest will be disposed of, in the sense that they will be destroyed. They'll be melted down, broken up into bits, and they won't be any good to anybody any longer.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's correct.

G. Plant: That's helpful, because obviously the last thing that we want to do is perpetuate the market in firearms.

F. Gingell: Don't tell the Minister of Finance about them.

G. Plant: My colleague the member for Delta South was pointing out to me the entry in the estimates that deals with the money that the government expects to realize from asset disposition this year. I'm sure he was concerned to know whether or not the province was going to be funding general revenue by selling the weapons.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: But they would not be assets; they would be assets in transit.

G. Plant: Right.

The next issue I wanted to ask the Attorney General about also arises from a recent news release. I must admit that I now have a feeling that I know what the Attorney General does every afternoon at 4 o'clock during these interesting estimates debates. He goes down to his office, has a cup of tea and approves the latest press release. But that's not really what I'm here to ask about.

There was an important announcement earlier this week about spousal assault statistics, and I acknowledge that that announcement was significant in the context of the fact that this is a week dedicated to the prevention of violence against women. I'm sure all British Columbians are pleased to know that there is an increase in the rate of charging in cases involving violence in relationships. But to say that that is happening and that it's a good thing doesn't complete the picture, from my perspective, because, notwithstanding what I have learned about the growth in the province's police force that has taken place over the last few months, it seems to me that, generally speaking, the availability of policing forces and prosecutorial resources is more or less a zero-sum game in the province of British Columbia. I may be wrong, and that's the point that I'll invite the Attorney General to correct me on.

If it is generally a zero-sum game, what I mean by that is that the police and Crown prosecutors have been asked to devote more of their attention to ensuring that charges are laid and prosecuted in spousal assault cases. That is something that is a demand on finite resources -- a demand that those resources be dedicated in a particular way, more extensively than they have been in the past. There are police now spending more of their time on spousal assault issues than they did, and there are Crown counsel who will be doing that, which leaves me with the question: what is suffering? What, within the criminal justice system, is now not getting the attention that it deserves or that it used to get?

[11:00]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have some statistics here that might comfort the hon. member -- I don't have all of them. For instance, adult cases -- Provincial Court, criminal, 1996-97: there were 175,000. I'm just rounding the figures out; there were over 175,000. And in 1997-98 there are projected to be 173,019. I don't have the other statistics. We are hoping that important initiatives, such as diversion and others, will kick in by this fall and that in fact these projections -- I don't know whether they have taken into account those. . . . I'm told that they haven't taken into account those new measures that might come in. So the actual projection would be lower if one took those into account, even for the four- or five-month period that we may have those measures in place in this fiscal year.

I am concerned, nonetheless, about the point that the hon. member raises. I am concerned that Crown resources are stretched; I'm also concerned that policing resources are stretched. We are doing everything possible that we can, within the fiscal constraints that we have, to make sure that we deal with these issues. That's why, in fact, we are emphasizing some of the Criminal Code changes, doing away with the preliminaries and the like, and trying to streamline those areas where we can. There's a whole host of things we can do, and we are trying to do those things. I don't believe I'd be able to find more resources at this time, even if I tried, for Crown counsel. Even though I do want to find them, I'm sure I'd be unable to.

G. Plant: Thank you, Attorney General, for that answer. The answer reminded me of a question that I wanted to ask and forgot to earlier, in the context of diversion. I know that the. . . .

Interjections.

G. Plant: I know.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I shouldn't say anything.

G. Plant: No. The last thing the Attorney General should do is issue press releases during estimates.

[ Page 2795 ]

But more seriously, I know that the ministry is looking seriously at diversion. I also know that sometimes when government agencies and bodies look at issues like this, they ask consultants to assist them by providing studies and so on. Is the minister aware of any studies that are underway or that have been commissioned in relation to the expansion of diversion or conditional sentencing?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that some comparative work was done by Corrections on different forms of diversion in British Columbia. There is intensive and extensive work going on in terms of studying diversion in other jurisdictions. In fact, for a change, even the Attorney General is trying to read up on some of that stuff, to make life more interesting. I know there are no studies being ordered at this time to see what may happen. What we want to do is gather our own experience, have discussions with the stakeholders in British Columbia, look at the experience abroad, craft and design our own programs and get underway quickly.

G. Plant: I want to move to the issue of hate crimes. I wonder if we could begin that by having the assistance of the Attorney General. . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: I suppose I would betray a bit of my bias if I were to say that I want to embark on a discussion about the new hate crime team. I have done so in the context of the public safety branch, but I begin with a bit of a question in my mind about whether in fact those two concepts are linked. The Attorney General is obviously familiar with that debate, and I want to engage in a little bit of that part of the debate here. I want to begin by asking for a progress report in terms of the status of the unit. Is it up and running? I think I was told earlier that one of the police officers has in fact been hired; "hired" may not be the right word, but the Vancouver police force have someone in place. The RCMP are looking for someone but don't yet have someone. What is the status, if I may?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hate crime team does have an office and a telephone number. The 1-800-VICTIMS workers have been trained to deal with these kinds of calls. A Vancouver police officer has been seconded. The RCMP have been working with us to deal with policy and other issues. They have had Inspector Lorne Smith, I believe, working with us quite closely while they are determining who they are going to send to the hate crime team on a permanent basis.

G. Plant: Would I be right in assuming that when this RCMP officer is identified, the intention is that these two individuals will work as a team, will be essentially free from other duties they used to have and will be set up in a separate office somewhere?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's true. The hate crime team is chaired by a senior Crown prosecutor, and there is a policy analyst who would work with the police, as her time would be required. This team ought not to be looked on as a touchy-feely, make-feel-good team -- and it isn't. It is a criminal justice team, and it arose out of a concern that I had as I came into the Attorney General ministry, that was impressed upon me by organizations such as the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Vancouver Association of Chinese Canadians and many others.

There was an additional concern, and that was that first of all, human rights in British Columbia, under this government and under previous governments, have kind of tagged along with different ministries, and therefore have not received the recognition with full legal rights and with the full backing of the law enforcement machinery of British Columbia. I was really delighted that when I became the Attorney General, I was able to bring that along to the ministry. It would be my recommendation, if anybody ever listened, that if I left, whenever that would be, the human rights branch and the legislation would remain with the Attorney General. That's not necessarily part of the hate crime issue, but it is related.

In terms of the hate crime team issue, I personally became concerned long before I became the Attorney General, when there was a study done. In addition to the concerns expressed by the CJC and the Vancouver Association of Chinese Canadians, and others. . . . I became more concerned when I read a study by an academic, released in Ottawa, that said several thousand cases that may be hate crime cases go unreported because, firstly, people don't know where to report them; secondly, people don't know whether they're criminal justice issues or human rights issues; thirdly, people feel that Canada, as a society, with its record on the prosecution of war criminals and on other kinds of issues dealing with the hate provisions in the Criminal Code isn't really a shining example -- despite the fact that we are a great country with a great capacity to do better justice.

I became concerned that we needed to give comfort to British Columbians -- that if they had those kinds of concerns, they should feel free to bring those concerns to a criminal justice team. If, at the end of the day, we monitor the situation and there isn't enough work for the hate crime team to keep them busy, then obviously their services would be utilized elsewhere, in addition to doing the hate crime work.

That's the kind of general approach I've had on this issue. I'm determined -- and I'm sure the hon. member supports me in that determination -- that we want to present a clear alternative to the people of British Columbia. We would feed information and their concerns into a particular area and then have the comfort that those concerns would be looked at in a very sharp, focused, criminal justice fashion. We would leave aside the human rights machinery, the Civil Rights Protection Act and all of those pieces of legislation. They can take their own course; they can be dealt with. But the criminal justice aspect of it would be well served by this team.

G. Plant: The separation that the Attorney General has spoken of between criminal justice issues, human rights issues and Civil Rights Protection Act issues: is that a separation that the team honours? The team is set up to deal with criminal justice issues alone. For example, we won't hear that members of the hate crimes team are out there investigating potential complaints under the Human Rights Act. What I'm trying to do is see if we can draw a clear line around what the hate crimes unit is doing.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If a matter which had been before the Human Rights Commission came to the attention of the hate crime team, obviously the hate crime team would refer the matter over there. Theoretically, one could imagine cases where there might be two investigations going on: a human rights investigation by the commission on hate communications issues within the code, and a criminal investigation that the hate crime team may be doing. But the hate crime team will not do human rights investigations.

[11:15]

[ Page 2796 ]

G. Plant: I think I'm up to four, in terms of the staffing of the unit: two police officers, a senior Crown prosecutor and a policy analyst. Is there anyone else that is part of this group?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Two police officers and a data analyst are three full-time positions. The senior prosecutor would devote whatever time is required of her. She is the chair of the team. The policy analyst would also provide whatever assistance and time is required of her. I'm sure it will not be full-time.

G. Plant: I guess I want to get a sense of the reporting structure. I suppose it is really the typical criminal justice reporting structure in the sense that we have a couple of police officers who will conduct investigations, working with Crown counsel in the usual way; and at the end of an investigation, a decision will be made by Crown counsel whether to lay a charge, and so on. Is that the basic structure?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, and if I might add, I understand that there is, in fact, another Crown prosecutor that would be working with the senior prosecutor in whatever time might be required of him.

G. Plant: With a bit of that context, I want to expand the debate a little. I think that, to perhaps put it in colloquial terms, all British Columbians abhor Nazis and would like to get rid of them. At the same time, my sense is that British Columbians believe strongly in free speech and that there is a balance that needs to be struck sometimes. It may be that the dividing line is seen more easily in some cases than in others, and it may be that some people have a different sense of when the dividing line is crossed.

I want to get a sense of the kind of work that the hate crimes unit will do. I don't think that there would be much debate about whether it would be appropriate for the hate crimes unit to head up to Creston and deal with the problems that I believe the Attorney General learned about when he visited there a few months ago.

Let me see if I could take another example. Towards the end of last week -- or perhaps it was the weekend -- there was a large meeting in a hotel room in Vancouver of concerned parents who were gathering to try to learn something about the issue of homosexuality in B.C.'s school classrooms. I think many of the people gathered at this meeting -- and there could have been as many as 400 in attendance -- were people who, as parents, have particular points of view around teaching about homosexuality and lifestyle issues in the classroom. I think that's a subject on which many British Columbians have an opinion and have concerns. I'm told in this case -- and I may be wrong, but I'm told -- that the primary purpose of this gathering was educational. There were people there who were going to present the results of studies that have been done on this. People gathered to talk and listen and learn about this issue -- hopefully doing so in an environment where their right to express opinions and their right to listen to others express opinions would be protected. They would not be in any sense chilled by the risk or the fear that the long arm of the state -- in the form of something like a hate crime team -- would be reaching out to wrap itself around them, causing a problem for them.

I was thinking about what it is that the hate crimes unit could and could not do and what it is that they might do that would cause British Columbians to become concerned. Then I was thinking about this meeting. I would be of the view that that would not be the kind of thing that needed to be investigated. Obviously, police forces are always concerned about the risk of breaching the peace or mischief or that kind of thing. While on the one hand I think it would be perfectly appropriate for the hate crime unit to be out there in Creston trying to find out what's going on and obviously investigating those things in as quiet a way as they can. . . . Obviously, it would be important for a hate crime unit to look at demonstrable instances of truly vicious and violence-inciting propaganda perpetrated by a few lunatics in our society. On the other hand, there are groups who want to debate difficult issues and should be free to do so. I'd be interested in hearing the Attorney General's perspective on that distinction that I've attempted to draw there, and how he sees the hate crime team fit into that distinction.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hate crime team has worked on a working definition of a hate-biased incident or a hate-biased crime. I'd be happy to share those definitions with the hon. member. I agreed with the hon. member that we should have the fullest and freest opportunity to debate issues, no matter how distasteful they might be. But I'm also cognizant of the responsibility that's placed on our shoulders, as a society, resulting in the fact that there is no absolute freedom of expression. There are penalties for libel, defamation and slander that have developed over time through common law.

M. de Jong: I'd like to hear about those.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm sorry, hon. member. I am unable to give you legal advice. I cannot advise you or the other party.

However, I think it's important that I, as the Attorney General, don't send a particular message to the hate crime team. Being a criminal justice team, I think that they should, at their discretion, be free to determine what they should do -- as are all police and the Crown. I'm sure they will recognize, in their discretion, that full and free debate on the merits of education around acceptance of gays and lesbians in schools may or may not be something they should investigate. I have personal views, but I don't think they are relevant to what the Crown or the police should do. But I share the hon. member's caution, because I would like to be free to say things and not be bogged down by political correctness, which I despise intensely. So I think we share that concern. I don't believe I want to make a comment on the particular issue that the hon. member has indicated, and I'm sure he recognizes why I shouldn't.

G. Plant: I understand the Attorney General's reluctance. I'm sort of struggling to find an example to illustrate the spectrum -- I was going to say dichotomy -- and explain my concern about the fact that there are different points on the spectrum and, I think, a risk that if members of a hate crime unit were to start to become "thought spies," they would lose credibility. And frankly, the government would come under serious attack. Notwithstanding the Attorney General's desire to be removed politically from the debate, I think it would be hard to make that so.

If we were to hear about things that really didn't fit within most citizens' idea of the appropriate sort of work for a hate crime. . . . The unit is just barely up and running, and I guess we'll watch it and perhaps have a progress report a year from now. The Attorney General did mention something about developing a working definition of a hate crime. Is that what was being talked about -- a working definition of a hate crime?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, within the context of the criminal court provisions.

[ Page 2797 ]

G. Plant: Well, that may be the key to my next question, then. There are provisions in the Criminal Code that I suppose could be called hate crime provisions. So there is the wording of those provisions, and then there would be the language of judicial decisions that have interpreted them. Would I be right in assuming that a working definition of a hate crime would be just someone's attempt to distil that "set of data," if I could put it that way, into something? And it's not an attempt to create some new theory about what constitutes a hate crime.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, it wouldn't be anyone's theory. It would be based on the judicial decisions as well as the provisions of the code.

G. Plant: I want to turn to a different subject and, in some respects, I suppose, an equally controversial one, in the sense that it's a problem that never seems to go away. And that is criminal justice work around the prosecution of johns and pimps, sexually exploited children and the prostitution unit.

I think it was over a year ago -- that is, before the election -- that the minister made some announcements about a new plan for tougher enforcement on pimps and johns, and more support for victims of sex assault crimes, especially young people. There were announcements made about the Crown policy to vigorously prosecute johns and pimps of sexually exploited children.

What is the progress of the ministry's work in this area over the last year? I'm wondering if we could get a bit of a progress report from the Attorney General on this issue.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is an intractable problem that has been with us for a long, long time. We wanted to make sure that we had a focused approach on this issue, so that we're able to develop strategies and techniques for successfully arresting johns and pimps of youth and prosecuting them successfully. There haven't been many charges under section 212(4) across the country. There has been one example of several dozen charges in Quebec, I believe -- if I'm not wrong. That was because one sexually exploited youth who could provide the evidence -- the names and addresses of many of the customers -- did so; and he was befriended by the police, doing good work. They were able to get the information and evidence to successfully charge and convict those individuals.

We felt that we needed to begin to do some work in British Columbia on that, because the police had essentially thrown up their hands because of the difficulty of enforcing 212(4). We took advice from everyone, and we put together the prostitution unit. I can tell you that they are engaged in at least some investigations. I can also tell you that they have been instrumental in some of the arrests that have been made over the last several months.

They are not the direct investigating unit. They are the experts who will provide guidance and skills and prosecutorial assistance, as well, to the police forces around the province, wherever these problems are. They have actually been to many communities and have held forums in many communities to educate the communities, the activists and the police, as well as to get input from those communities as to what they should do if they want to improve their own functions.

[11:30]

I have some information here. I'm told that through the efforts of the unit and the Vancouver police, a number of johns have been arrested in the city of Vancouver under section 213. That was the announcement made on April 14 and 15. Since November, three men have also been charged under section 212(4) by Vancouver police. That has not happened before in British Columbia. These are just some of the issues that are known to me. I'm told there are several investigations underway. Some of them may involve the Internet and the like.

So it's an issue that I don't take lightly. I have been pressing Ottawa to make changes. As you may have gathered, we raised the issue again at the Fredericton conference. The hon. Attorney General of Canada agreed, through our respective officials talking to each other, to accept our wording -- a change to his amendments that he had introduced in the House.

Then, through inadvertence -- and he tells me that it was an error on his part. . . . He was gracious, in fact, saying to me that I could tell everyone that that was the case. Our agreed-upon wording was not included in the changes that went through the House and are going through the Senate. That was unfortunate. But he also agreed with me and indicated that I could tell this to anyone in British Columbia who cared to listen. And this is not my support for the Liberals, but he's a good Attorney General. He said that if he is the Attorney General after the next election, he will make sure that these changes are introduced in the first omnibus bill in the House at the next sitting of the House of Commons -- to include the agreed-upon wording. If that happened, I think we would go a long way. You will see many more arrests, maybe dozens of arrests, in British Columbia, because the enforcement would become a lot easier, and the gathering of evidence would become a lot easier. I'm sure the hon. member doesn't want to go through the technicalities of what's required, but that's where we are.

The work of the team has already been recognized internationally. The team was invited, at the expense of the U.S. authorities, to go to Alabama and educate them and tell them what we are doing in British Columbia. This is something novel in British Columbia that nobody else is doing in Canada. We learned a little bit from that one experience in Quebec, and we felt that what you need is a dedicated team to begin to do this work.

G. Plant: I thank the Attorney General for that progress report. What is the staff complement of the team?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: My officials anticipated your question. It's one Crown, two Vancouver police department officers -- one contributed by the Vancouver police and one funded by us, of course -- one RCMP officer, one community coordinator and a half-time support person. It's a total budget of $390,000, annualized. Not to revive the old debate, but that was new money that we'd committed.

G. Plant: Questions which the Public Accounts Committee, I think, is calling on ministries of government and members of this House to ask from time to time are: "What are the criteria for success? How is performance to be measured? How are results to be measured in relation to programs like this?"

Obviously there were decisions made about the number of people that should comprise the team. It could have been 200; it could have been 20. A decision was made about how many should be on the team. Obviously decisions were made about the number of dollars that are available. I know that these decisions are constrained in part by the fact that there is 

[ Page 2798 ]

a limited pool of money available. But are there evaluative criteria in existence that will allow the ministry or the minister to assess the success of this program as it moves forward?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, we don't have evaluative criteria at this time, but I am told that they are certainly being developed both for this team as well as for the hate crime team. We will share them with the hon. member, if he so wishes, once they're ready. But the issue with this is that we want to. . . . From my practical point of view, I'm not big on criteria, because they're difficult to remember most of the time.

The most important thing for me is to monitor the performance simply in the number of charges that might come forward, particularly after the amendment goes through, if it ever does, because that would then begin to show whether or not we were successful.

G. Plant: I agree entirely that the important thing is to monitor. But the question of criteria is a question of what is it that we're looking at. How do we measure success? It seems to me that counting the number of charges is not a bad place to start, so we'll do that. I would be grateful if, over time, I could be provided with the criteria that are developed for both the prostitution unit and the hate crime unit.

I want to ask just a few more questions to conclude the subject of prostitution. Last spring there was a concern in New Westminster -- I think the area was Connaught Heights -- about things like prostitution, and the growth and prevalence of condoms and needles being found in the mornings on the grounds of an elementary school, which is the kind of thing that makes parents alarmed and start to get angry. I think the Attorney General actually took the trouble to visit New Westminster when he announced the creation of this prostitution unit. I'm wondering if the Attorney General has kept tabs on the situation in Connaught Heights since then and if he could give us a progress report on whether or not the problem has gone away.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am told that there is a community action team in that area, which we provide support for in terms of coordinating meetings with our ministry or other ministries. We don't have anyone from the prostitution unit here, so I can't give the hon. member any update on whether or not they've been in contact with that area. But I am certain that they have been, because the hate crime team is stationed in Vancouver, and they are aware that New Westminster has a particular problem.

In fact, one of the reasons that we made the announcement in New Westminster was a recognition that quite often Vancouver gets the headlines on issues like this, and other communities are ignored for the problems they have. I am aware of the problem, but since we don't have anyone from the unit here, I can't tell you any specific work that they have done in the New Westminster area. But I'm sure the police forces are in touch with the prostitution unit.

G. Plant: The other area I want to ask about was Macdonald School in East Vancouver. There has been a campaign there against the spread of prostitution in the vicinity of the school, and there's been a call for bubble zones. There's also a needle exchange van in that neck of the woods, which causes a problem. What is the status of consideration concerning a bubble zone in that area, and what is the government doing to address the situation at Macdonald School?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: When the issue first arose. . . . The problem has been there for some time, but when the issue sort of exploded publicly, I was very concerned. There were demands and applications for bubble zones and the like, and I wanted to make sure that we did not move precipitously to do anything without consulting at least the school board, the principals and the community.

I have obviously heard from members of the community. I was at another school in the neighbourhood shortly after the issue first arose and talked to parents there about this issue, as well. I had a meeting some days ago -- I don't remember the exact date now -- with several principals from the Vancouver schools, representatives of the Vancouver school board, the provincial prostitution unit and some members of my ministry from Victoria. There was complete consensus -- in fact, there was unanimity -- in that room that the Attorney General should not proceed with an application for a bubble zone.

I was also informed that the Vancouver police had increased their patrolling in the area and that the problem was under control. In fact, I was advised that the community did not want to proceed with the bubble zone, because it would simply move the problem from one area to the other. I acceded to the consensus of that meeting and indicated that we would not do that.

However, I made a promise in the meeting that I would reactivate the ADMs' committee on these issues. In the past, some years ago, there was an ADMs' committee from Health, from Social Services and from AG that worked on prostitution issues, particularly the exploitation of youth. The committee hasn't met recently. I have already talked to my colleague the Minister of Health. She agrees that we should have an ADMs' committee that should work with the communities that have this problem and, in addition to the provincial prostitution unit and in consultation with them, develop other measures, like safe placement and maybe a detox centre, because there aren't that many detox facilities in and around the area.

I have actually spoken to Mayor Owen on this issue. He's very, very receptive. In fact, he was talking about enlisting the support and financial assistance of one of the philanthropists in Vancouver to see if we could get some money. The city and my ministry and Health could come together and see if we could put together some detox facilities at the earliest possible. Those discussions are in very preliminary stages, but those are some of the things that I've been thinking about and working on.

Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada