[ Page 7181 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Visiting us in the gallery from the constituency of Peace River South are Sharon and Paul Gevatkoff. Paul received the 25-year long-service award last night. On behalf of the member for that riding and myself, I would ask you to please make them welcome.

R. Thorpe: I'm very happy today to have 28 students visiting from McNicoll Park Junior Secondary School in Penticton. They are accompanied by two teachers, Mr. Robert Brownell and Ms. Lea Sutherland. I would ask the House to make these young people very welcome here in Victoria.

E. Gillespie: Visiting in the precincts today will be 25 grade 5 students from Tsolum Elementary School, along with their teacher, Ms. Amy Yakamyshyn, and a number of parents who are accompanying them here from the Comox Valley. Please join me in welcoming them.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

A Vancouver Sun survey in March of this year reported that violence against women is the number one concern facing British Columbia women today. The police, hospital emergency rooms, sexual assault centres and transition houses have recorded an increasing incidence of sexual assault, domestic violence and murder of women. The violence cuts across age, social, economic, cultural and religious boundaries. The only similarity these victims have is their sex: they are all women.

In 1995 there were 9,300 reports of spousal assault in British Columbia, and in 1992, 48 percent of all female homicides in British Columbia were perpetrated by their partner or ex-partner. On average, 110 women in Canada are killed each year by their partner or ex-partner. Only 14 percent of all incidents of violence are reported to police, and 20 percent of women who have experienced violence don't go to anyone for help.

Most people feel safe when they are in their own homes, but for many women and children the home is often the most dangerous place to be. A woman is nine times more likely to be killed by her spouse than by a total stranger. While not all incidents are this severe, abuse often leaves women in fear for their lives.

Domestic violence is rarely just an isolated incident. Often there is a cycle of escalating violence, in which attacks increase in frequency and intensity. Violent husbands and partners know that increasing the level of violence increases their domination and control over women. Domestic violence often goes unreported, in large part because the incident is seen as private, personal and sometimes shameful, or because of the fear of reprisal or repeated attacks. However, when women do reach out for help, particularly from the criminal justice system, they very frequently find that the system fails to offer the help they need. Current laws concerning domestic violence are too lenient, creating the illusion that domestic violence is not a serious offence. That is why I've introduced a private member's bill entitled Domestic Violence Prevention Act for the fifth consecutive year in this House. This is the Saskatchewan legislation that has proven to be an effective tool.

The Speaker: Hon. member, excuse me. Just a moment. The rules for private members' statements do not permit reference to any bill that is currently on the order paper, so you have to make your remarks more general. Sorry for the interruption.

L. Stephens: This legislation is not a magic bullet, but it does mean that victims of violence have greater access to the protection of the justice system. These kinds of policies are especially meaningful for women and children living in rural areas of this vast province and should be available 24 hours a day, with a justice of the peace providing services and service providers receiving specialized training on the dynamics of domestic violence. Removal of the offender from the home, rather than the victims -- the women and the children -- would be a major innovation. Arrest is the least likely and least frequently used response to domestic violence, because domestic violence intervention policies do not require mandatory arrest.

The current policy has some very large gaps, and the application by the components of the justice system shows that there are some consistently lax responses and coordination. Some of the gaps around the issue of domestic violence are the discriminatory practices in charging abusers -- and also the charge approval criteria are very narrow. This means that many charges are never laid. Too many reported sexual assault incidents and domestic violence incidents are classified as simple assaults, but a great many of these are as serious as or more serious than robberies and aggravated assaults, in terms of physical injury.

Even when arrests are made, the rate of conviction in domestic violence cases remains low. This low rate can be tied, in part, to the actions of Crown prosecutors, who frequently discourage victims from going forward with cases, place a low priority on domestic violence and fail to consider the safety of the victim when releasing offenders.

[10:15]

Other jurisdictions have laws requiring that evidence of spousal abuse create a presumption that children should not

[ Page 7182 ]

The decision to leave an abusive relationship is not simple. Battered women who leave their homes. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, I assume you see the red light. Your time is now up.

G. Bowbrick: This morning, in the short time that I have, I'd like to address two things relating to violence against women: first, our response as individuals and, secondly, part of the response we have as a society. As an individual and a parent -- and I think other parents will understand this -- I can't emphasize enough the importance of our role in educating our children about violence in general and about violence against women in particular. The statistics are that children in violent relationships or whose parents are in violent relationships will witness that abuse. That's a shocking statistic, hon. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that children who witness violence are more likely to be violent when they grow up. Women whose partners' mothers were abused when they were growing up are three times more likely to experience abuse at the hands of their partners.

We have to set an example for our children. That means all levels of violence. . . . This is a minor level, but I know that all of us as parents have probably experienced this, especially with young children. I have a young son who's just about two and a half years old: even when children witness their parents arguing and raising their voices, you can see it upsets the children. We have to be careful about that as parents. We can see that if they get upset by an argument, how much more upset and how much more of an impression it is going to make if they see actual physical violence.

As parents, we also have to educate our children when we witness abuse and violence, not just when we see something in person -- we have an obligation to intervene when we see violence in person -- but much more commonly if we see it on TV, if we see it in movies, if our children are with us and happen to witness it. We cannot let violence pass without commenting on it and talking to our children about how it's wrong.

As a society, what we need to do is have a strong response from our criminal justice system. This means that we need to have our police more educated about violence. We've made great strides in that regard in British Columbia. The Attorney General has worked very closely with police in educating them around recommending charges to the Crown in cases of spousal violence in particular.

But I want to emphasize something: some people advocate use of the civil justice system as opposed to the criminal justice system to address these problems, and I have a problem with that. The problem I have is that the civil justice system is about disputes between individuals; the criminal justice system is about disputes between all of us in society. The victim in the criminal justice system has the weight of society on her side. As a society, we step in with the weight of the criminal justice system, and we say to the offender: "That is wrong." It's a statement by society; the victim does not stand on her own. So it's important that we use the criminal justice system to the fullest extent possible. That requires more resources; it can always use more resources. But we cannot look to the civil justice system as some kind of panacea.

We also need a strong network of transition houses, which we fortunately have in British Columbia. We certainly need more, but we do have the highest percentage of transition houses per capita of any province in the country. I was delighted that we announced last week that we will be establishing one in New Westminster, my own constituency, which has one of the higher rates of spousal violence and violence between partners of any municipality in the lower mainland.

I want to emphasize again that as a society we need to use our collective weight through the criminal justice system to say collectively: "This is wrong. We will step in on the side of the victim." That's appropriate. We should not be leaving individual victims of violence to have to fight on their own through the civil justice system, which is fundamentally about disputes between individuals where the legal system has essentially said that society doesn't take a position collectively.

The Speaker: I now recognize the member for Langley for a final comment.

L. Stephens: I want to thank the member opposite for his comments. Ending violence against women is a complex task. Violence against women is a crime, and it must be seen and treated as such in our criminal justice system. Abusers must be held accountable for their behaviour, and women must receive fair and equitable treatment in the justice system. Early intervention is necessary to break the cycle of abuse, and families must receive appropriate and timely measures to help change those attitudes and behaviours. More children-who-witness-abuse programs are indeed required, and more training for women serving in organizations on the rights and resources available to women in their communities, and immediate access to non-judgmental and sensitive services that will help provide safety and support while women are in crisis.

Much has been done, but there is still much to do. We owe it to the women and children who have been abused and/or murdered in the past to do all we can to prevent future tragedies.

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION

In order to accomplish this, government needs the support of teachers, educators, parents and students. Last Friday the B.C. Teachers Federation, to their credit, negotiated an agreement with the province of British Columbia which clearly puts students first. Under the provisions of that tentative agreement, the parties have agreed to hire 1,200 new teachers over the next three years. They've agreed to reduce the class size in kindergarten-to-grade-3 and to commit, on the government's part, $150 million to allow for this to transpire.

Under the terms of the agreement negotiated between the BCTF and the province of British Columbia, the government

[ Page 7183 ]

We've also committed, under the provisions of this agreement, to lowering class sizes in kindergarten-to-grade-3. These are the formative years in which students are in school and require a particularly high level of care and attention. As a consequence, under the provisions of this agreement, government has made a commitment to hire 700 new teachers to reduce the class size in K-to-3. Specifically, over the next year, by September of 1998, the government will be proceeding with the hiring of 300 new non-enrolling teachers to achieve these objectives. That's next year, September of 1998. At the same time, kindergarten will be capped at 20 students -- no more than 20 students per kindergarten classroom -- so as to bring down the student-teacher ratio and to allow teachers to spend more time dealing with the individual needs of students, as I said, in those formative years.

In the second year, under the terms of the agreement, the government has committed itself to hiring 100 additional teachers in the K-to-3 system. This will mean that class size, again, in those formative years, will drop to no higher than 23 students per class. That's a remarkable achievement when you take a look at what is happening across the country in terms of class size: it's increasing, and here in British Columbia it's dropping to 23. But that's not all. In the third year of this agreement negotiated between the BCTF and the province of British Columbia, a further 100 additional teachers will be hired, and therefore the class size in grades 1, 2 and 3 will fall to about 22 students per class. This is investing in the front end.

We have to acknowledge in this chamber that this is a landmark agreement. It is absolutely breathtaking in terms of what we will now be able to do in terms of putting education dollars directly into the classroom. Never in the history of this province have we been able to negotiate this type of an agreement -- and credit to the BCTF in terms of making sure that they have put students first under the provisions of this agreement.

This is a good agreement. This is a positive development for education in British Columbia. All members of this chamber should stand up and congratulate the Premier, the Minister of Education and the British Columbia Teachers Federation for having negotiated this landmark agreement. It is unprecedented in our history that we have been able to negotiate this type of an agreement.

I would encourage members opposite to be very clear in their endorsement of this historic pact and to stand up and congratulate this government and come right out and admit that this is the most positive initiative taken with regards to education under the auspices of this government. I'll look forward to them standing up in this chamber and making it clear publicly that they fully endorse the terms of this agreement, and I challenge them to do so.

K. Whittred: I thank my colleague across the way for his testimonial on the contract, yet to be ratified, between the BCTF and the government. However, in the five minutes that I have to respond to this statement, it is not possible for me to debate this document, so I won't even try. Instead, I would like to focus on just two or three points about the topic -- improving the quality of education -- and relate these a little bit to this document.

One of the things that has been made very clear in this contract is that a number of non-enrolling teachers are going to be hired. This point has been made frequently. I would like the members opposite to think of one thing: the lifeblood of the education system is the classroom teacher. A classroom teacher is one who enrolls students, and there is nothing in this initiative that is going to change the situation of the ordinary kid in the ordinary classroom with the ordinary teacher.

Probably 90 percent of students in schools, with the exception of librarians, have no contact with what we call non-enrolling teachers. I am not saying that non-enrolling teachers are not essential to the system. I am simply saying that they are not the answer to the problems that are in the system.

[10:30]

Interjections.

K. Whittred: Not in a regular classroom -- you would go a long way before you would find that kind of number.

Interjection.

K. Whittred: Well, if you go to the urban areas you are not going to find a classroom with 16 students in it. The regular classroom teacher and the ordinary child, with ordinary abilities, seems to have become the country cousin of the education system.

A second thing that I would like to point out about the quality of education is, I guess, what we would call a mind-set. That mind-set has to do with recognizing that we are in a revolution that is affecting the way we work, the way we learn and the way we teach. This has significantly changed the way that schools operate.

No longer do we have a teacher in front of a classroom with a textbook and a piece of chalk. We now have a teacher with a television set, an Elmo, a cordless keyboard and all sorts of other stuff that have to be incorporated into the daily task. This makes the task that much more difficult. It challenges with new skills, and therefore the old ways no longer work.

We see in this agreement a certain inflexibility. We are going to hire X number of librarians per numbers of students. Maybe it is not librarians we need. Maybe we need technicians; maybe we need people who know how to run the Dynacom system. I am not suggesting for a moment that we do not need some of these people; I am suggesting to members opposite that we need flexibility in the system and that we do not need negotiated, inflexible agreements that do not give schools any leeway.

The third thing I want to point out as a focus is that schools are a place of learning. Schools are not a place where we go to be treated. I think that is another thing that we have been straying from in recent years. It is impacting on the

[ Page 7184 ]

The Speaker: Hon. member, you'll notice the red light is on. Your time is up. In final comment, I recognize the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

M. Sihota: It was a simple question: is it good agreement or a bad agreement? It's a good agreement, and I regret that the opposition doesn't see it as being a good agreement, because it's historic.

Let me put it in context, hon. Speaker. In an area that you're aware of, the Sooke school district -- a district that I have the privilege of representing, along with the greater Victoria school district -- over the past several years we have had tremendous difficulty meeting requirements, particularly of special needs students. We have recognized for quite some time that we need to be able to have a better way of providing funding for the large number of special needs students that exist within that school district.

This agreement is tailor-made for districts like the Sooke school district. It provides additional resources for students with special needs, it provides additional resources for librarians and it provides additional resources for in-school counsellors. Those are necessary support systems that teachers need in order to do their work effectively. I've seen the deficiencies within the system that came up during the observations of the Reena Virk situation. We know that we need these kinds of resources, and I regret that some members opposite don't feel that these non-enrolment provisions, in terms of special ed and in-house counsellors, are necessary elements of an effective education system.

It's also vital that we invest in our young people and give teachers more time to spend with individual students. That has escaped us to date. Nowhere else in this country has any government been able to negotiate a reduction in class size from kindergarten right through to grade 3. Most would consider that beyond their ability to achieve from a fiscal point of view. Most of them have created an atmosphere of confrontation between educators and the government. Witness, for example, what's happened in Ontario. But here in British Columbia, we have made a conscious decision to work closely with the partners in education, particularly with teachers, to be able to craft with them an agreement that puts students first.

Rather than sort of dissolving into partisan positioning around this type of issue, it is appropriate under the circumstances for all members of the House to rise beyond their partisan positions and recognize this agreement for what it is. It's historic. It's unprecedented. It is a remarkable achievement and a remarkable comment on the direction that this government is setting in terms of achieving an educational system that works for students. It is, in historical terms, the signature piece of this government. This government, during the course of its mandate, will be known for what it has done in the area of education. Witness, for example, its decision to freeze tuition fees for post-secondary students. Witness, for example, the initiatives to reduce the number of portables. Witness this historic agreement. I congratulate the government for its initiative in this regard.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Your time is up. For our third private member's statement, I recognize the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour.

GREEN MINING

In '92-93 I took a tour through this province to the resource communities and found that the workers and their families were still ostensibly the same type of people. They were hard-working people, and they loved their jobs. As I said, they worked hard, and they were not there to trash the environment. In fact, they lived and played in that environment, and they respected it for what it was. Meanwhile, everyone else -- especially the urbanites -- said that mining was bad for British Columbia and should be curtailed, regardless of what was to be mined -- and which was used every day by all of us, everyone, all through our lifetimes. When individuals looked at the results of mining. . . . They consumed thousands of pounds of minerals every day. In fact, it could be said that mining is at the bottom of the food chain, as it also creates wealth, and that is green as well.

In view of this, I was happy to see on Earth Day the other day that the Minister of Energy and Mines said that quite frankly, mining leaves a very soft imprint on the landscape. It was obvious that a new enlightenment towards mining was occurring in British Columbia. In fact, during all the introductions I saw all the members of the government side of the House popping up everywhere, jumping onto the bandwagon to introduce the mining people that were visiting the Legislature that day. I couldn't help but think that I was green -- I was green with envy that I didn't have someone from a mining community in my own riding to introduce. Nevertheless, I realize that the members across the floor are now starting to love mining and the workers and their families. Mining, as I said before, is aware of the environment. It loves the environment. It creates wealth which is what you would call green, and it's perceived to be green.

I still have some time left. I want to say that any desire for people to go back to nature, to revert to a simpler time, is not very practical. Life lived in a natural state can only be summarized as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and very, very short.

M. Sihota: You know, the hon. member's five minutes' worth of fame in this chamber has been in his comment that he would mine the hell out of the Tatshenshini. I guess some people just don't get it. It's easy to create jobs at the expense of the environment. The focus of this government is to create jobs and protect the environment, and that's precisely what our government has been doing.

First, on the job side of the equation in terms of mines, we are opening new mines from one end of this province to the other. The Mount Polley gold-copper mine is being opened, as the hon. member will acknowledge, northeast of Williams Lake. Sorry, it opened in 1997. The Huckleberry copper-gold mine opened in the fall of 1997, investing $141 million in that portion of the province and creating over 220 person-years of

[ Page 7185 ]

At the same time, on the environment side of the equation, these mines have been approved under the environmental assessment legislation that we brought into this chamber, which we said would protect the environment and create jobs. Now we're seeing the results of that legislation. The hon. members don't want to admit the same, hon. Speaker.

At the same time, while we have been creating these jobs and while we have been allowing this to happen under the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act, we have been doubling the number of parks and wilderness areas in British Columbia. In fact, every day we're adding new parks to a remarkable parks system in British Columbia. At the same time, we have placed, over and above these regulations, fish protection legislation designed to protect fish when they intersect with mining activity. We have been able to demonstrate that you can have your cake and eat it too. You can have the best environmental record of any government in the country -- and we have that -- and at the same time the best job creation record in terms of mining anywhere in the country.

Last week I noted that Gary Livingstone, the president of the Mining Association of B.C., congratulated this government for the initiatives we are taking to develop the mining industry, with this green backdrop that we have as government, which is well known from one end of the province to the other. He congratulated the government.

As I listen to what the hon. member has to say, I try to discern the point of concern that he has. It's this: he's upset that we've been able to prove that you can have your cake and eat it too. He's upset that we have the support of the mining industry and the support of business in terms of what we're doing, and at the same time we are protecting the environment. Well, it just goes to prove that the vision rests on this side of the House.

D. Jarvis: I'm glad to hear the remarks from the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. I'm glad, seeing that the Premier's away, he's up to his old interruptive self again.

The mine assessment program was in effect well before this government ever came into office. I want to go back to the point that when you get a permit to mine in this province, you have to go through an assessment program -- no question about that. You also have to get a reclamation bond to make sure that you ostensibly bring the area where you'll be mining back to its original state.

If you go to Fording River, for example, you'll see the coal slags all over the mountains. If the member has ever been down there, he'll know that most of it has now been reclaimed. There's lush green grass all over it, and probably the largest herds of elk in all British Columbia are in the area, eating off of the coal slags.

If you go up into the Highland Valley -- one of the biggest mines in this province -- there is continual reclamation going on there. That has resulted in acid drainage ponds that they've brought back. There are cutthroat and rainbow trout in there. Things do improve after mining is over; it becomes green again.

[10:45]

So, Madam Speaker, mining is green. It's not the policies of my friend from Metchosin that have made it that way. It's what the miners have looked at and the way they've treated it. The government has been very careful in making sure that they have a policy of returning the land to what it was. In the old days, as my friend from Metchosin remembers. . . . He thinks way in the past all the time anyway, and he doesn't realize that things have changed in this province. This province is a green province not because of him, but because of the people that live and work here.

The Speaker: For our final private member's statement, I recognize the member for Comox Valley.

WE CAN'T STOP THE VIOLENCE WITH SILENCE

A month ago I talked about the launch of the purple-ribbon campaign in school district 71, where three miles of purple ribbon were cut up and distributed to school students all through the district, in order to bring recognition to the program that has been launched in this community to encourage children to speak out against violence -- in particular, to speak out against violence at school, against bullying and intimidation, and against either threats of physical violence or actual violence itself. This program came about through the work of a steering committee on which sat the RCMP, school trustees, teachers, parents and students themselves.

The launch one month ago was the launch of an ongoing campaign. One month ago that campaign was focused on the children in the schools. Next week, on April 27, and on the 27th of every month following, there will be a follow-up to this campaign. So on Monday, April 27 in the Comox Valley, grocery stores in the area will be supplied with paper bags that have been decorated by the children in the school district with slogans talking about stopping the violence against children. I look forward to being part of that launch on Monday and packing a few grocery bags myself.

This week the Minister of Education and the Attorney General announced $1 million in new funding to expand the

[ Page 7186 ]

The initiative includes a provincewide bullying-prevention program. That is the centre, really, of all the programs. Basically, we need to teach our children that it's not okay to stand by and watch others be bullied, and it's not okay to be bullied yourself -- that there are resources for you, that you can learn ways of dealing with this situation on your own, and if you can't deal with it on your own, there are adults who are prepared to step in and assist you. The safe schools and safe communities initiative is organized around a central resource centre, a centre of information or library resource materials for teachers, school trustees, parents and students in communities.

A couple of months ago I had the opportunity to attend the Vancouver Island school trustees' meeting in Port Alberni. At that time, the school trustees were sharing information about programs they have and are developing to address the issue of violence in their communities. These trustees all clearly recognize the central role of the school in addressing issues of violence, ensuring at minimum that children are safe from bullying, intimidation and violence at school. Quickly that grows to encompass the safety of children on their way to and from school. And then we go into the larger concern, the safety concerns that children bring with them to the school from their homes and their communities. Trustees clearly see that their responsibilities extend beyond the schools and must extend into partnerships with the community.

I just want to return for a moment to the school-based campaign in the Comox Valley. I spoke to you of the community-based steering committee. That steering committee started off their program in the community with the 841 KOZ. The 841 KOZ is a small group of young people, funded by the Attorney General, who travel around the province to visit the schools and bring dramatic presentations to the students to raise problem-solving opportunities around the issues of bullying and violence in and around the school. I have three young children, all of whom are in the school system. Their experience with the 841 KOZ program was quite wonderful. They all came home. . . . I have a child in kindergarten, a child in grade 5 and a child in grade 8, all of whom spoke about how the program spoke to them and encouraged them to speak out about situations of violence or intimidation in their own lives.

I watch my young child, who is a very outspoken young child and has no problem at all with addressing issues of bullying in her own experience. But as children get older, peer pressure becomes more and more important in their lives, and it becomes more and more difficult to talk with others about peers who may be bullying you, who may be intimidating you. We need to know how important it is for students to have the self-confidence to grow beyond that. The message has to be very clear to all of our children: you cannot stop the violence with silence. Taking this message out into the communities is an absolutely vital part of the movement to make our communities safer places.

We heard earlier about households, homes and families. I was raised knowing that silence is a virtue. I was raised knowing that the sanctity of the family was all important, that things arising within the family were not for discussion outside the family. We have seen very clearly in our communities that we need to be very careful about that. We need children to know that they have the right to be safe. We need children to know that they have adults that they can talk to and share their concerns with. We need our children to be very clear that in cases of violence, intimidation and bullying, there is a place where they will be safe and that it is right for them speak out. Our children must know that you can't stop the violence with silence.

L. Stephens: I'd like to thank the member opposite for an excellent private member's statement this morning, We Can't Stop the Violence with Silence. I think this is a very true statement, particularly when it comes to the issue around schools and teaching our children in the schools the kind of lifestyle that is appropriate. Students fall between the cracks too many times. The kinds of policies and programs that are available to them don't address this very serious issue. We have a number of programs for children who witness abuse, and perhaps some of those could be adapted into the schools as well.

I want to thank the member for raising this: you can't stop the violence with silence. To go further with that, what we all have to do is speak up. Everyone has to be a part of this; everyone has to be a part of the solution. So many times what happens on the playground becomes an adult issue as children grow up, marry and go on with their daily lives. Many of these issues of violence in their childhood that continue on into their adulthood end up in the courts.

When we look at trying to put in place the kinds of programs that are going to be helpful, we need to make sure that children receive the right kind of support when they are young and we still have an opportunity to perhaps change some of these family attitudes and behaviours. I believe this is something that we should continue on with. What happens today in the courts is not a pretty sight. Members would agree that women and children have been put on the back burner, if you like, in many instances in the court system today. Indeed, we have had some reports that talk about the crisis in the Provincial Court system, as far as delays and backlogs are concerned. There are even suggestions that women can become destitute waiting for a maintenance order. Families are waiting for over a year to receive these maintenance orders.

What this means is that extreme pressures are being placed on families today -- certainly on women -- and this is very bad for women and children in the province. When we have a report that says that children are suffering irreparable emotional harm because of a lack of services that specifically focus on children, the kinds of criminal court proceedings that impact on children extremely negatively are something that we all have to pay attention to. We all certainly have to stop the violence; we do have to speak up. All of us need to speak up and make sure that our voices are heard, so that we can indeed look to the schools, the community services and the courts to help stop this violence.

E. Gillespie: I'd like to thank the member for Langley for her comments. It is clear that there are a number of matters on which all members of this House are in agreement. Certainly one of those has to do with the issue of violence -- violence against children, violence against women, violence in our communities.

[ Page 7187 ]

We know clearly that if students feel unsafe or insecure at home, at school or in the community, their studies and their academic achievement will suffer. The schools are an important vehicle that can be the centre of a community-wide strategy to make our communities safer places.

It's crucial for us to recognize that parents and all members of the community have an equally important role to play in tackling issues of youth violence and also the social and economic circumstances which motivate some young people to resort to violent or aggressive behaviour. My experience on the Gove committee, hearing about some of the circumstances in which children are abused or meet their death, certainly points very clearly to the role of the community in taking care of our children. I've spoken about this in the House a number of times. Parents alone, families alone, schools alone, government agencies alone, social agencies alone -- none of those can take care of the safety and security of our children.

We need to educate our children with feelings of self-worth and of self-control over their lives. We need to educate our children about ways of resolving conflict. We all need to work together to ensure that our schools, homes and communities are safe places in which to raise our children.

[11:00]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND MINES
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
(continued)

On vote 31: minister's office, $380,000 (continued).

R. Neufeld: Today I want to briefly explore agreements that have been reached or are in the process of being reached with native bands in the northeast and talk a little bit about what we've been doing to come up with a process that will enable the government to carry out its obligations to the people that purchase land within the Treaty 8 traditional territory and actually explore that territory. Almost a year ago, in June of '97, some meetings took place between representatives of the oil and gas industry and the Minister of Employment and Investment and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in regard to these issues. I want to ask the minister how he thinks we should be dealing with this issue of exploration for natural gas and oil on Treaty 8 territory, excluding the reserve.

The Chair: The Chair would request the member to be in his proper seat, please.

Hon. D. Miller: Acute observation, Mr. Chairman. Some might be a bit concerned if the member is switching parties again -- sorry, it was a joke.

Well, we have signed an agreement with Treaty 8 -- both those bands that remain within the grouping under Treaty 8 and those that are acting independently of Treaty 8. The concept behind the agreement was that we had to come up with about $1.2 million to deal with issues that they had identified around capacity to handle the kind of applications that come in to them. Our intention is -- and we are in negotiations with the bands -- to develop longer-term protocols with those bands, either individually or collectively under the Treaty 8 umbrella, that would define the process for handling applications; and hopefully, develop a much better process, a much smoother process that did not result in the kind of delays that have sometimes -- not always -- occurred when applications for lease drilling rights are sold in their traditional territories.

I'm quite encouraged, actually. When I went to Fort. St. John to sign the agreement, we had some very good discussions with the chiefs -- with Judy Maas. I think there's a realism on both sides. We know that these are difficult issues, but nonetheless, there's a willingness to try to tackle them and come up with these longer-term protocols.

Time will tell if we'll get there. I certainly hope we do. To some degree, the approach that Treaty 8 is taking is not really different than the Fair Share of the municipal regional government, which is also saying: "Look, if our interests aren't looked at with respect to" -- and you know the issues -- "the ability to receive a reasonable amount of revenue to deal with the infrastructure problems in our communities and those kinds of things, then we're going to interfere with every application; we're going to stop them all." In some ways, if you stand back and look at them, they are both really saying the same thing. Hopefully, through the kind of negotiations we've commenced, we'll see an agreement. My own view is that there will never ever be absolute perfection in that. There will be issues that arise. It's important, when you try to put these agreements together, that you define a process so that when those issues do arise, you've got a means of resolving them that's not confrontational.

We're going to make very sincere efforts. I did say to the Treaty 8 people I talked to -- the band chiefs and elders and others who were there -- that I approached these negotiations with the utmost respect. I think that's very, very important. You have to respect -- and I certainly do respect -- the issues that they have identified. With that kind of goodwill, we can make some progress.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Chair, thank you very much for noticing I was in the wrong chair. I guess I had so much paperwork here that I spread it out over two desks.

The minister talked briefly at the beginning, and he was very quiet when he. . . . I couldn't hear because there was some other talking. What was the amount of dollars in the initial agreement with Treaty 8 that the minister talked about?

Hon. D. Miller: It was $1.2 million.

R. Neufeld: I know there has been a six-month preliminary agreement signed -- and I guess that's where the $1.2 million is -- to try and reach some long-term agreement. I agree. I think there has to be some long-term agreement with the native bands in the northeast so that we can get on with developing what we have to. I'm not disputing that fact.

[ Page 7188 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Not at all. There is a treaty. It wasn't one negotiated by British Columbia. It is one of the few areas in B.C. where there actually is a treaty, and there's an interesting discussion beyond that, because we're all so engaged in modern-day treaty-making. It's unfortunate that we've taken so long to get to that point, but we're in that process, and no doubt there will be other debates on the question.

There are some fundamental differences with respect to the Alberta and Saskatchewan situations. I'm not familiar with that in detail at all, but I believe that as a result of those treaties -- or of what has taken place historically -- the power of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan is somewhat different with respect to their involvement with the treaties in their respective jurisdictions.

Here it's under federal jurisdiction. When you look around sometimes, when you've got issues that have to be dealt with, with aboriginal communities and bands. . . . Our position has always been that that is a federal responsibility. Look around you, and you can never find them. They're just not. . . . They're invisible.

Notwithstanding that, we as a province think it's entirely appropriate to sit down with Treaty 8 -- and others, quite frankly -- to see whether or not we can come to agreements that make sense for us and for that particular sector, as well as agreements that make sense for the Treaty 8 bands.

One of the points I tried to make -- and I think this is a point you could make regardless of whether people are aboriginal or non-aboriginal or whatever they are -- is that when they see significant development taking place in an area they live in, but they feel, with some justification, that the benefits of that activity are not flowing to them in any way, then they have a right, in my view, to say: "We'd like to sit down and see if we can redress that." Again, I point out that I don't think their position is any different -- perhaps in detail a little different, but their position in substance is no different -- than the elected councils and regional district members in the Peace River. They're both really looking for the same thing.

[11:15]

The second -- and the minister touched on it briefly -- is revenue-sharing. I know that in the report I have of the meeting that was held between oil and gas and Aboriginal Affairs, parts of that report talk about revenue-sharing. Maybe the minister could just embellish that a little bit more for me, please.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, the money is allocated. . . . I guess the fundamental reason is capacity. I referred to that a moment ago. That is looking at the issues, the activity on the traditional territories with the history on the aboriginal side of trapping and using the land in a different way. It's clear that oil and gas activities sometimes impede that or have some consequences for it.

That means, from the aboriginal point of view, that they'd like to have the opportunity to fully look at the applications, and at any impacts that might take place with respect to those traditional activities. These are small bands. I note that some have recently resolved some outstanding claims and will receive compensation, but they lack, quite frankly, the capacity in their administrative structure to deal adequately with these questions.

So in the short term, it was to recognize that and to provide some funding to build that capacity. Part of that money was obviously used for part of their costs of sitting down and trying to negotiate the longer-term MOU.

R. Neufeld: Obviously the revenue-sharing is an integral part of the agreement, and possibly the minister can't talk about it too much.

Hon. D. Miller: No, that's not something that we are. . . . I can say and go back, and you can maybe take my words. . . . If there's going to be all of this activity, but none of the revenue or the benefit of activity is flowing, then people have, in my view, a legitimate right to say: "Well, why are we concerned if there's oil and gas exploration? What's in it for us?" That's a position that's been conveyed to me principally by northerners of all stripes. To the degree that we're prepared to perhaps look at some new arrangements, that may be something we discuss.

R. Neufeld: That brings up some interesting discussions. I know that the Fort Nelson Indian band has probably one of the historic agreements in British Columbia on revenue-sharing and has had for a while. That was negotiated quite a few years ago by a person that used to be a good friend of your government. In any event, that aside, they did negotiate revenue-sharing for the Fort Nelson band. The Blueberry River and Doig River bands just received $147 million from the federal government for things that happened in the past, which I take no exception with -- none whatsoever. In fact, I think that most people in the northeast don't take any exception with it; they quite agree with it. That's the general feeling.

When you put that into the mix of Treaty 8 and the number of bands that are involved in the tribal association, how do you deal with the bands in a revenue-sharing process if you have two bands of that group that are $147 million richer and one band which is not part of the group -- or is part of the group. . . ? It's hard to say. Fort Nelson already has a sharing agreement. Blueberry also has another sharing agreement for some small part that happens on their reserve. The West Moberly band actually left Treaty 8, saying that they don't want to use the confrontational style of trying to negotiate some kind of agreement. In fact, they have been successful in their approach to dealing with industry. The chief is quite proud of telling all of us, myself included, that he has zero unemployment on his reserve and no alcohol problems to speak of. They're out more or less on their own.

[ Page 7189 ]

Hon. D. Miller: I certainly agree with the member. I had a very good discussion with Chief George Desjarlais with regard to the protocols they've been working on with industries -- both the oil and gas and the forest sectors. We will be dealing with all the bands on an equitable basis, regardless of whether they remain under the Treaty 8 umbrella or, in the case of West Moberly, whether they have decided to become independent of that organization. So we'll be dealing on an equitable basis with all the bands.

R. Neufeld: I have another question around the agreements that you're negotiating at this time. There have been some meetings between government agencies and the Treaty 8 bands as far back -- this one goes a long way back -- as April of 1994. This one was signed by all the bands of Treaty 8, and it's called the Omineca-Peace interagency management committee, where you had discussions with Treaty 8. One part of the recommendations was implementation of provincial policy commitments for joint stewardship of natural resources within Treaty 8 territory. I just wonder how that's playing out in the negotiations that you're having now. I'm not saying that Treaty 8 bands should not be included and that they should not have full rights on their reserves, but when we're talking about territory, we're talking about a huge part of British Columbia and how that works in with the mix and how we're going to be able to deal with that. Is that on the table or off the table?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't want to be coy about anything that's being discussed, but we are in active negotiations on these questions with both the bands outside the Treaty 8 and the Treaty 8 bands. We have developed a protocol: neither the government, the negotiators nor the Treaty 8 bands are going to reveal what's being discussed at the table. I hope the member appreciates that it's not an attempt to be secretive about those things. It's simply that if you're going to sit down and hammer out some agreements on some issues, I think it makes more sense to have those in confidence between the parties who are doing the negotiations, before they're revealed publicly.

I've given you a general outline of what our intention is with respect to those negotiations. In fact, it differs not at all from the intentions of the Treaty 8 and the other independent bands. But there is, of necessity, the need to maintain that protocol if we're going to be successful. Those negotiations are taking place. They're active negotiations, and I hope they lead to a positive outcome.

L. Stephens: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Stephens: I'd like to make this introduction on behalf of the member for Matsqui. Visiting the precincts today are some grade 11 students from Matsqui. I would like the House to make them welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I too ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery are six young Boy Scouts from Port Coquitlam visiting today. I just met with them, and they asked some questions, including: do I think I am the best person for the job of MLA? I told them yes, I do. Anyway, would the House please make them welcome.

R. Neufeld: I guess that's beating your own chest, eh?

I have a couple more questions about the negotiations on aboriginal issues. I appreciate that some of this has to stay, of course, within the parameters of negotiations and that you can't let some of the information out. Maybe the minister could tell me when others will find out about some of the negotiations and the processes and what's happening. Are we looking at releasing a report at the end of the six-month term of negotiations that you're having with Treaty 8 in laying out some of the processes? Will it then form legislation, or is it going to be discussed in the greater area of the northeast, where it's actually going to affect people? I'm not sure how it affects people, because I'm not party to the negotiations. Will that process be in place?

Hon. D. Miller: From the time of the announcement we have said that we would like to do it within the six-month time frame. If that's successful and we come to some agreement, I'm sure there will be some implementation issues. Perhaps closer to the fall we might be in a position to make the results of our efforts public. We are also in negotiations, I might add, with the regional government in the Peace, the Fair Share people. Those negotiations are being conducted in camera on a confidential basis; we're taking the same approach with the non-aboriginal groups.

R. Neufeld: The Fair Share proposal -- and I want to get into that a little bit later on. . . . Most of that has taken place out in the open in the broad spectrum across the northeast. Not too much of the Fair Share proposal was done behind closed doors. Then all of a sudden there was an agreement: this is what we're going to do. I think that it would be fair to say, if I make the comparison to the $147 million that the Blueberry and Doig bands received. . . . Let me tell you, I'm sure the native bands were a little bit hesitant about wanting that to be spread all over every newspaper in the northeast. But it was met with a positive response. I'm not saying that everybody was on board, but I would say, generally speaking. . . . The MP came out in favour of it; I came out in favour of it. Leaders of the communities came out in favour of it. They're all working together with other agencies to try and do what they can.

So it was a process that, at the end of the day, I think some people thought there really was going to be some problem with. There wasn't. Not that there may not be some social problems down the road; I'm not sure of that. But some of these things. . . . When I talked about the issue of Fair Share, it was negotiated pretty well all out in the open. People knew what was being asked for and how it was being asked for. I can remember that from the start the proposals were at public chamber of commerce meetings.

Your government always talks about consulting with the public, and consultation is a great part of your process. Maybe the minister could see it in a positive way -- from what I just related about what happened about the $147 million -- and we could start talking to the people in the northeast to try and allay some concerns they have on the negative side about what may take place. I don't think it will all be on the negative

[ Page 7190 ]

Maybe I could encourage the minister to be a bit more open in this process, following his party's policy of consultation with all. I know there are some things that are going have to stay close to the heart at the end of the day. That happened with the Nisga'a agreement years ago, before your party become government. We know that. So I understand that, and I think most people do. But I think they would like some kind of a process that they could become part of. It may surprise the government of the day that there is a willingness and a desire to somehow settle those issues in the northeast so that we all, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, can get on with our lives -- the process of going out and working and making a living and providing those things that we should for the province. Maybe you'd like to tell me why we can't do that.

[11:30]

I don't disagree with the member. But really, the point is that we are attempting to reach an agreement both with first nations and with Fair Share, to deal with the issues that they've identified. We've been moving very quickly. So far, all of the comments that I've received from the Peace River have been positive. I think that there have been editorials written that have supported our initiatives. I know that people in the industry, the oil and gas sector, have told me that they appreciate the efforts we're making; they support the efforts we're making. There appears to be a fairly positive mood from the people of the Peace River, and I certainly appreciate that. No doubt, with that kind of broadly based support we can develop agreements that make sense for all and, as you suggest, get on with our lives.

R. Neufeld: The minister just confirmed what I said. He's receiving positive input from people in the northeast. So I can't understand the fear about wanting to hold that all within and then all of a sudden -- in the fall or whenever, or maybe next spring -- making an announcement that this is the way it's going to be. Until then we leave everything in a kind of limbo. That's all I'm saying. I think that probably, if that's the message you're getting -- about people in the northeast and in the oil and gas industry, which is headquartered in Alberta, wanting to get on with it and get it done. . . . I mean, that just lends more to my argument that we should probably be a little bit more forthright with all the people. I don't say you have to lay everything on the table and get everything out in the open, but there are certainly some portions of this negotiation that could be; it could allay some concerns that are out there.

I don't understand the government's position of not wanting to consult. Or maybe the government's process is talking about consultation but really not following through with that process. It's unfortunate, but that's obviously the message I'm left with: that you'll continue to work on your own and keep everyone else in a vacuum and then just come out with the answer.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, it's still Friday morning. As far as I'm concerned, it should be Friday afternoon, and we could end. I think we're starting to get off the rails here in this discussion.

Let me try to restate things in a very simple way to try to belie. . . . Certainly, hon. member, you will appreciate that there is no sense of fear at all with respect to what's taken place in the Peace River -- absolutely none. In fact, both Judy Maas and myself sent letters to some 1,400 industry people with respect to the broad parameters of discussions we're having to try to reach an agreement. That's been supported by the industry. When I went to the Peace River to sign the agreement in Fort St. John and talked to the media up there, they responded. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: No, the second time, and it'll be a lot more too. I'll be in your back-yard, my friend.

The press were there. They reported the event, and they reported it in a very positive way and said that this is a good initiative that the government and Treaty 8 and the independent bands are engaged in. I find it just a little bit strange that you're trying to sort of characterize this in a way that is incomprehensible to me.

I think we also have to remind ourselves that the federal government needs to be a player in this process; they have to be a player. I spoke earlier about. . . . When you look around for the federal government, where they clearly have the obligation, they're nowhere to be found. We're making efforts to try to straighten that out. Let's not go down a path that really doesn't do justice to what we're trying to do and is completely incorrect.

R. Neufeld: I don't think it's completely incorrect to say that some negotiations should take place out in the open. I think it's absolutely bizarre for the minister to say that that's incorrect. He said that he's working with the communities, with the regional districts and with the communities in the northeast on Fair Share. I know that, and so does every person in Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Chetwynd, Tumbler Ridge, Hudson's Hope -- the whole area. It's been in every newspaper for the last number of years. The whole process has been laid out at every chamber of commerce in the northeast a number of years ago. So everybody knows what's on the table. All I am saying is that I think, with the feelings in the northeast about investment and about jobs and keeping jobs and being able to carry on in the oil and gas industry, that there should be some openness. That's all: openness in the process of negotiation. Again, all I can get from the minister's comments is that no openness will take place on this until the deal is finally struck.

Maybe we can touch briefly on the negotiations on Fair Share as they stand today. I know that the communities have been after not so much a revenue-sharing. . . . I think that's what the government wants to portray it as, but I think the communities want to have taxation ability over the oil and gas industry so that they can provide for some infrastructure in their communities. Before I get into it too far, maybe the minister would like to make a few comments about Fair Share.

Hon. D. Miller: I very much regret that the member is, as I said, going down a road that leads nowhere. It's unfortunate that when we're sitting down trying to address the issues, with all kinds of good will -- we've been public about it;

[ Page 7191 ]

We're trying to sit down in a very honest and forthright way and deal with the issues that have been identified, both from the Treaty 8 side and from the Fair Share side. I've had some very good discussions with elected representatives in the Peace River: the mayor of Fort St. John, Steve Thorlakson; Joe Judge from the regional district; the mayor of Dawson Creek, Blair Lekstrom. We've had some very good and positive discussions, and those negotiations are underway. Both they and us have agreed that they will take place between us alone.

Does the member have confidence that the elected mayor of Fort St. John, the elected mayor of Dawson Creek and the elected regional district representatives are not representing the interests of the citizens of North Peace -- that they're somehow engaged in some underhanded, secretive process? Of course not; it's nonsense. They're working on behalf of the people who elected them at the municipal level to try to deal with the issues that they think are important to the public in the Peace River, and they're doing it with us in a closed room. You have no faith, my friend -- no faith in the locally elected politicians, no faith in the locally elected aboriginal leaders. Again, I don't want to get too steamed on this, but if you want to keep going, we're going to get pretty unproductive pretty quickly.

R. Neufeld: We will get pretty unproductive if you start those personal attacks. I mean, if you want to start personal attacks, maybe we should talk about you phoning a judge or authorizing someone to phone a damn judge. Maybe that's what we should do. Talk about. . . . The minister is standing there telling me how perfect he is and how great that party is over there. Yet you've been in court more times than any other government ever has been.

The Chair: Members, through the Chair, please.

R. Neufeld: Through the Chair to the minister, he may want to walk out; he can go ahead and walk out. For your information, my friend, I did make my decision on Main Street. I guess I'm a little bit different from you; I don't wait until the middle of the night.

The Chair: Member, please take your seat. I've given two or three cautions about making your comments go through the Chair, and I'd appreciate it if you would take the caution seriously.

R. Neufeld: I will go through the Chair.

I did do it on Main Street -- through the Chair to the minister. People on Main Street knew what I was doing -- through the Chair. Okay? We can go down that road, but I don't want to go down that road, and I said that to start with. I think I said, if I remember correctly, that the Fair Share proposal. . . . I agree that the mayors and the regional district people negotiated in good faith and that certain portions of it were done in confidence with the government. I said I understood that. But in the greater scheme of things in Fair Share. . . . Maybe you weren't involved closely enough to know, but those agreements were laid out. They were laid out at chambers of commerce. The negotiating positions were laid out at every meeting I can imagine in Fort St. John over the last number of years, and in Dawson Creek and Chetwynd and those places. And to say that I'm trying to scuttle something is totally unfair also. I'm not trying to scuttle something.

I opened my remarks by saying that it's a good move. The people of the northeast want to see it happen; the people of the northeast who invest in that part of the province want to see it happen. But to allay some of the concerns people have that. . . . Maybe some of the negotiation -- and I understand, and I will say it again -- has to remain in confidence; I understand that. What the minister is confirming with me is that he wants to keep it all in confidence and none of it out in the open until it's done -- other than having a few press releases. I mean, anybody can do a press release and say: "Hey, we're negotiating." That's what the Fair Share people could have done. They could've just said: "Hey, here's a press release, and we're negotiating." So what? What are you negotiating about? That's the difference between what happened with the Fair Share agreement and dealing with Treaty 8 in how you're going to come to some agreement.

That's all I'm asking for. I don't think it's too much. I don't think it's out of line. I don't think I'm trying to scuttle anything; not on your life am I trying to do that.

I just want to get that on the record. If the minister wishes to respond, he can, but I'm going to defer to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast for some questions that he has in regard to energy.

G. Wilson: It's my pleasure to enter into this debate. Maybe I can try to change the tone a little bit. I should start out by complimenting the minister on his tailor. He's looking pretty dapper today.

I specifically want to turn to the northwest, if we can think about this. We've been talking a lot about the northeast; I want to talk about the northwest. I want to talk about the growing rumblings that are going on with respect to the lifting of the moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling in the Queen Charlottes -- Hecate Strait. I want to talk a little bit about what the government's position is on that -- where the reports are, what's happening with it. There is a federal jurisdiction, obviously, that's important to consider.

It has been a very contentious issue in the past. A moratorium has presumably expired -- at least the number of years the moratorium was put in place for has now expired. I'm wondering if the minister might give some indication as to where this government is going with respect to offshore oil and gas in the northwest.

Hon. D. Miller: I thank the member for the question. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I certainly didn't want to get into a wrangle with the member for Peace River North. If I offended him, I apologize, but I did think we were going in the wrong direction with respect to the discussion.

[11:45]

[ Page 7192 ]

The greater community, as the member is aware. . . . In Prince Rupert, my hometown, historically the fishing industry has been the biggest economic player in the region. People are very zealous in terms of guarding those interests. We saw that in all the previous discussions with the federal task force and all the conversations that previously took place on offshore drilling. The fears that spills could occur, which impacts on fish -- those kinds of questions. . . . I asked them to take some time, to try not to get too far ahead of themselves: "Don't just simply rush out without much knowledge and say, 'Lift the moratorium,' and start an unfocused debate, where people might initially say no. Do it carefully, and talk to people." They did do some of that; in fact, there are ongoing efforts to engage people, and we've seen some of the media reports to date.

They suggest that there is a bit of a mixed reaction. There are some groups who clearly appear to be supportive. The Tsimshian nation, I believe, has kind of taken the position: "We're not opposed to looking at the question, but we're in treaty negotiations and there are some issues around. . . ." Are there treaty rights with respect to the subsea or the Hecate? Clearly the Haida are in relatively the same kind of position. Lots of these kinds of questions, many of them ones to which you can't provide a ready answer. . . . But people are generally kind of coming out now and positioning themselves on the question.

I've had some discussion with people outside of the Prince Rupert area who have some knowledge of the topic. I've had some very brief discussions with oil and gas interests -- very, very brief and unsolicited; I didn't go to them and talk to them. I may do that, but at this point I haven't. That's sort of the current state of play.

There are significant oil and gas reserves in the Hecate basin. Generally, it appears from this point in time that there's no mad desire on the part of industry to rush out and start drilling. Generally, people have said to me that if, for example, the moratorium were to be lifted, you wouldn't really see much. You'd see some initial exploration activity, but it would be seven to ten years before you saw any real activity. Now, that's just what people have told me; I'm not saying that that's exactly a comprehensive account of the state of play.

So I am interested, and I've asked my ministry to do some work. They have done some work already, and I've asked them to do some more work, because I want to know more on the technical side. We do know a lot now, and there have been some studies. I haven't had a chance to look at them personally. But the Geological Survey of Canada in '98 estimated that the resource potential in the medium range was about 43 trillion cubic feet of gas and about ten billion barrels of oil.

You can see that this is a resource that has the potential to add to our economy here in British Columbia. At the risk of putting a personal view out this early -- and I have not examined this in absolute detail -- my own view is that there appears to be sufficient evidence from activities in other parts of the world, including the east coast of Canada, that it is possible to drill in a very safe environmental way. Now, I'm just saying that my casual observation to date suggests that that is the case.

Really, the issue we're now seized with -- and I'm not quite ready as the minister responsible to come out in a significant public way -- is: if there is a desire, if the resource is there, if we think we can do it in a safe manner, how do we move this forward? I do believe that there has to be broad public acceptance that this is something that's desirable for British Columbians. That's where I'm at on this file. I want to be prudent and careful in terms of moving forward, but clearly we are interested in economic opportunity in British Columbia. If it proves that this has that potential, then I'd like to keep this thing moving forward.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the minister's frank response on this, because in the past this has been a very contentious issue. I certainly would be the first to acknowledge that technologies have greatly improved since the early 1970s when this was at its height in terms of the public debate in B.C. Nevertheless, because the moratorium has been in place, there really hasn't been a great deal of thought given to it or discussion about it until fairly recently.

There are three principal areas in which I'd like to get the minister's further comment with respect to this issue -- three very difficult ones. British Columbians need to know where the government and in particular this minister are coming from. The first is with respect to the federal jurisdiction, or the implied federal jurisdiction, that is through all the literature, which indicates that the federal government believe that they would have a jurisdictional right to revenues. We've negotiated in the east coast, and that east coast agreement does not necessarily impact what we do here. I am curious to know what the government's position is, or if it has one, or if it would take a similar position. My information tells me that the federal government is now quite actively and somewhat aggressively looking at potential revenues from west coast oil-drilling. If so, we might want to send them a gentle reminder that if they're looking at that revenue, they better not count it into their cash stream before we have a say. So that's number one.

The second, on the jurisdictional question, is whether or not there is any active work being done with respect to the potential jurisdictional conflict that may exist particularly between the Haida and the Tsimshian on that whole question of the basin, recognizing that there is a third interest on the matter of jurisdiction, and that is the United States. There is still an active boundary dispute with the United States, as the minister is well aware, with respect to the northern Queen Charlotte Strait. This becomes quite complex. I wonder if the minister might tell me if there is anybody actually looking at this, if they're working on this or if the government is planning to do some work on this. Where are we on those matters?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I did indicate that I'm having some work done. On those three specific questions. . . . First of all, I'll deal with the issue of the A-B line and the U.S. position on that. That has been a longstanding difference or dispute between Canada and the United States. Our case is, in my view, absolutely fundamentally sound. There's absolutely no question in my mind with respect to the international boundary -- the head to head: Cape Muzon - Cape Chacon. I'll never get an American to agree to that; that's true. I don't know that it could potentially be an issue. Quite frankly, the basin is really further south. Let's assume that it's not something significant that we have to consider.

[ Page 7193 ]

Finally, the feds -- again, the member hits on a very interesting issue. I have had one discussion with Mr. Goodale, the federal minister of energy. Really, all I said to him was that I appreciated that when he was asked about this question on a CBC Radio interview, he took what I thought was a pretty good position. He said he was prepared to talk to British Columbia and said, quite frankly, that the federal government was prepared to consider lifting the moratorium if British Columbia asked. So that's encouraging. Mr. Goodale and I had a discussion. He said he agreed with the kind of approach I was taking on this issue. We've agreed to stay in touch, should the need arise.

There have been some court decisions in the past relative to jurisdiction in the Georgia strait -- in 1983, if I'm not mistaken -- which suggest provincial ownership. I'm not sticking out any position at this point in time, but that's something I will be taking a look at. I don't say that as wanting to stick it to the feds or anything like that. I think we've got to talk to the federal government. But if we want to proceed with this -- and I'm not even saying that we're doing that -- then I think we ought to know what our ground is and what our provincial rights are with respect to ownership of the resource. We'll do that work.

G. Wilson: Let me come to the second part of the three issues around this. It has to do with people whose livelihood is dependent on the fishing industry. As the minister well stated, many people who are in his riding and many who are in the north end of my riding are fishermen. Their livelihood is dependent on that resource.

Would the minister provide some level of comfort to those individuals who are in that industry that, prior to any lifting of a moratorium, there would be a broad public discussion of this question and an opportunity for public input into what may be forthcoming? There is a fear out there -- and certainly some of the documents that are being leaked to me from Ottawa are suggesting -- that Ottawa is not being quite so inactive on this question as the minister might think, that in fact there is mounting pressure now to increase revenues from oil and gas in B.C. And this is a huge reserve. Let there be no doubt about the amount of reserves we're talking about. This is not small potatoes; this is big potatoes -- or certainly massive reserves.

So I wonder if the minister might provide some level of commitment today that prior to the province undertaking to lift the moratorium. . . . I'm assuming that the minister is of the impression that the moratorium is still in place, even though we've exceeded the number of years for which it was put in place. I think we have to be able to take to those communities some response on that question, because there is a mounting fear that this may be just done and that there would be no opportunity for people whose livelihood may be affected to have some say.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, there's no question. Certainly, as a longtime resident on the north coast and with a constituency that stretches from the midcoast -- Bella Bella, Bella Coola -- up to Stewart and takes in the Queen Charlotte Islands, I am acutely aware of the fishing interests. I have been -- not blowing my own horn -- outspoken in terms of support of the commercial fishery.

The government has been outspoken with respect to its support for not only the commercial fishery but, most importantly, conservation. In other words, we've got to do the right thing to ensure that we do have those wild stocks. This year is going to be a very difficult, if not disastrous, year with respect to the commercial fishery. The coho issue, which we're taking some very positive action on with Dr. Parzival Copes, conducting meetings. . . . We held a meeting in Prince Rupert last Friday evening. So we're being very active on this.

[12:00]

Going back to what I said, I think there has to be a broad level of public support for moving ahead. That, of necessity, would be having people with fishing interests believing that it could go ahead without negatively impacting fish. It just goes without saying.

So we'll continue to try to move this ahead. I think it's very important. We should not turn our backs on potential economic opportunities. We have an obligation to look at those questions. If on balance we can, say, conclude in our minds that we think it's reasonable, and if through discussion with the public they agree that it's reasonable, then I would hope that at some point in the future we'll see it move ahead.

G. Wilson: Just my last question on this. By way of digression, the minister, to provide explanation for the Alaskan reaction to that mine, might just want to check out where the summer residences of a couple of prominent Alaska Senators are. That might say a lot as to why the real opposition is there.

However, having said that, let me come back to the issue of offshore drilling. It is one that is causing some uncertainty in the minds of British Columbians, who have a great fear of this. Let there be no doubt that there are many, many people who have, for many years now, suggested that because of the seismic activity and because it is a high-earthquake zone, it is simply not a good idea for us to pursue those oil reserves. Frankly, they make a good case in a lot of their documents, and I'd be happy to share some of that information, as I get it, with this minister if his ministry would like it. I'd ask if he might be prepared to share with members on this side of the House any reports the ministry is receiving with respect to the validity of the new technology, in terms of a safe drilling program, so that we can all be informed of all the issues. I wonder if the minister might commit to sharing that information.

Hon. D. Miller: Certainly I'd readily agree to that. When I have been questioned publicly on the issue -- and there have been some scattered news reports on the question -- the position I've taken has been exactly the one that I've outlined today in the House. I think it is very important that we don't get ahead of ourselves. It doesn't do anybody any good to raise the spectre of this happening and for people to think we're going to rush blindly ahead without consultation on those kinds of things. Nobody will be well served by that kind

[ Page 7194 ]

I want to work on it very carefully. I'm happy to share information that we have on the topic. There have been reports. I haven't collated all of those reports, but there have been reports done on the potential. There was a brief lifting of the moratorium in 1966-68. Fourteen wells were drilled at that time. I haven't look at any of the results.

I think everybody would agree that if there's some potential there for British Columbia, if there's some benefit to British Columbia and if we can ensure that we're not going to have a negative impact on those other values that the member talked about, then we have an obligation to look at these things. That's what we will be doing.

G. Wilson: I'm aware of some of the information that came out of that late sixties exploration. As we start to look at overall needs, I think this area is going to receive a good deal more attention than it has from the industry. I'm pleased to hear the minister say that great caution will be used with respect to any public policy decisions that are taken. It is somewhat ironic that in the early 1970s, when there was a battle to have the moratorium reinstated, the champion of putting a moratorium on offshore oil drilling in British Columbia was David Anderson. By way of resurrection, he is now the senior minister from British Columbia who, I think, may have a good deal to say about possibly lifting it. That would be an interesting debate and discussion of its own, I suppose.

With that, I do appreciate the member giving me an opportunity to discuss this question, and I look forward to re-entering this debate when we get into minerals. As the minister well knows, my riding has a number of mines and has some key mines that are in the development stage, particularly one with respect to magnesium. When we get into minerals, if the opposition critic would permit, I would like to have a chance to talk specifically about kaolin and magnesium.

R. Neufeld: The offshore oil and gas in Hecate Strait is an issue that I think is very important to British Columbia and something that can be a huge benefit to the whole province, specifically to the minister's constituency, in the form of employment, revenues and those kinds of things. I'm not going to go into it any further. The minister has been quite forthright with where his ministry is at in dealing with this issue. I would appreciate being kept informed, as much as you are able to, about what negotiations are taking place with the federal government and where we're at and how we're going about trying to deal with this so that it's in the best interests of all. Like I say, I think it's something that's very important for the whole province.

I want to go to another issue, and that's the royalty on oil and gas that the government. . . . In fact, I've read it in newspapers, and there has been the odd press release around the issue. I want to find out where we are with that issue. I think it was just maybe in the last month -- or three weeks; I might even be going back too far -- when the Premier said that within the next ten days or two weeks we'd see some resolution to this issue. Maybe the minister would like to tell me, as much as he can, where we're at and, secondly, the reasons why. As I understand and have understood for quite a few years, our royalty rates match Alberta's. It's one place in the whole oil and gas industry where our taxation in British Columbia is actually comparable to Alberta's. If we look at other areas of operation in the service industry, they're facing anywhere from 15 percent to 20 percent more in taxes and those kinds of things to operate in British Columbia than they would just across the border, east of us, in Alberta. Maybe the minister would like to give me some information on that.

Hon. D. Miller: In fact, yeah, there are some similarities between Alberta and British Columbia, notwithstanding the many speeches I've heard in recent weeks that suggest dramatic differences. But there are also some differences -- in the terrain, the type of oil and gas, the distances that you have to go to drill, the depth of wells. There are some fundamental differences. But primarily there has been a fairly significant increase in activity in the oil and gas patch because of the marketplace, really. That's been driving it. Our whole thrust is to look at the competitive environment in British Columbia, to look at the potential to reach some broad agreement with the petroleum producers to see if we can't stimulate that even more. Hence our rationale for Treaty 8 - Fair Share - CAPP.

We're looking at a variety of ways in which we could work with the industrial sector to deal with some issues that they've raised with respect to regulation, for example, and to look at the fiscal side to see if there are measures that we can take which would induce even more activity than might ordinarily take place. It's a good approach, I believe, to take to the question. It's the Premier. . . . All credit is due to the Premier for launching this initiative. I think discussions are proceeding fairly well. I reasonably expect that we will see some conclusion to those discussions -- hopefully in the near future -- and we can announce the results of that along with, I would hope, Fair Share. Treaty 8 will take longer, I think, in terms of any kind of final outcome.

So that's generally the approach we're taking to the sector. We think it can provide even more benefits in northeastern British Columbia and, obviously, more benefits to all British Columbians in terms of the kind of revenue that comes to government and then goes out, whether it's to education, health care or whatever ministry or function of government it might be.

R. Neufeld: I go back to one of the first press releases that talked about royalty price calculations, and it's from June of 1997, so I guess this is a fairly lengthy process that we're going through trying to arrive at this. I appreciate the minister's words that in the very near future we'll have some announcements on those kinds of things.

The other interesting comment that I'd like to read into Hansard and get the minister's response on deals with taxation and the royalty process on oil and gas. I think the minister is quite well aware that the cost of doing business in British Columbia is much higher than it is for our neighbours across the way. I concede that our royalty position has been much the same. There are other areas where we are about the same, but generally speaking, by the government's own calculations a year ago, it costs at least 15 to 20 percent more to operate in British Columbia than it does in Alberta. It's not because the terrain is any different. In Alberta, exactly east of where I live, the terrain is much the same where the oil and gas pools are.

I've argued for a long time that as we continue to increase the taxation and regulatory burden on industry, it actually drives business away and reduces government's revenue. I have always met with great opposition to that statement from the government, but I'm going to read into the record a comment made by the present Premier of the province: "B.C. is also serious about lowering oil and gas royalties, which are currently set at the same level as Alberta, Clark said. The move could result in higher revenues to the government

[ Page 7195 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it is. I did argue yesterday that the approach we took with the mining sector was exactly that, which was essentially to provide some offset -- fiscal incentives, if you like -- that would induce further activity. You have to be careful when you design these things that you actually get the outcome you want.

But that is it generally, and it was the Premier's view that getting that policy right could induce significantly more investment in the Peace River. There have been -- and we have been doing -- competitive studies; we've been looking at the question for quite some time. There are differences. There are larger pool sizes in B.C. and that means lower unit costs, but there are higher costs on the remoteness side, on the tax side and for other inputs.

Our intention is to try to deal with the oil and gas sector to arrive at an agreement that offers more incentive on their side but, from our point of view, will also create greater investment, greater revenue flows and greater employment opportunities. I think everyone generally agrees we're going in the right direction, and hopefully we'll get an agreement soon.

[12:15]

Hon. D. Miller: I don't have the information, Mr. Chairman, but I really want to say that yesterday I expressed my view on regulation very strongly here and the absolute requirement that we have to streamline our processes and be much more timely. We've brought that attitude to the mining industry, and as a result, we now have a mineral exploration code that, by the industry's own supportive statements, goes a long way to dealing with those questions on the mining side. We're taking that same approach to the oil and gas sector. I think people will generally be very, very pleased with the outcome of these discussions.

R. Neufeld: I guess the process in your ministry for reducing the regulatory burden, as you said, started quite a while ago. In fact, I go back to an August 26, 1996, press release. It says: "A New Cooperative Process Streamlines Review of Oil and Gas Proposals for Northeast B.C." That's '96, and we're in '98. I just wonder. . . . Maybe the minister could bring me up to date.

I have a handbook. This is what we call a handbook in British Columbia. When it comes to some of the regulations. . . . I know that props aren't allowed in here, but I'm going to show it anyhow. This is a huge document; this is only part of it. I didn't have a cart big enough to bring in the Forest Practices Code, which is part of the regulatory burden that the oil and gas industry has to live under, or all the other environmental regulations -- hundreds of them. They're listed; there are absolutely hundreds of them. Believe it or not, if you go through this handbook that each person is supposed to carry around in their shirt pocket, it tells you how to plow snow on a road.

Minister, maybe you could help me with this a little bit. I understand that there has to be some regulation. I have no problem that there has to be some regulation and that we have to be concerned about the environment. I want to lay that out very clearly so you understand that. But if we're talking about starting in August of 1996 to streamline the regulatory burden on the oil and gas industry. . . . I don't say you just turn them loose and let them do whatever they want. There has to be a process of how we can deal with things.

Just so that I can give the minister a bit of an idea of the frustrations that some of the industry has. . . . There was an oil company that had to cross a river in northeastern British Columbia. They were right close to the border, and that same river flowed into Alberta. It took six to seven months to get a permit to have a pipeline crossing on that river. In Alberta it took less than two weeks. That's part of the process that this industry is facing in trying to get work done.

So maybe you could tell me if, in the last year and a half, the ministry has actually reduced the size of the handbook so you can carry it around with you. Or where are we at in that process of reducing this and bringing it down to a workable handbook that can actually be used in the field?

Hon. D. Miller: I think the member and I essentially agree, but I would like to point out that it is. . . . I don't care if you use props or not, but it's a bit misleading to suggest that because you've got a very large binder in front of you, somehow the entire binder is filled with rules and regulations and hoops you have to jump through in order to get approvals. Quite frankly, my information is that that binder outlines legislation. It outlines policies. There are guidelines; there are procedures. It's designed to be used in a manner that. . . . If, for example, it's some seismic work, you'll find if you look through it that there's a section that can be taken out dealing with seismic. I'm not disagreeing with the need to streamline, but it is to some degree misleading to simply hold the book up and say: "We've got a problem because this book is thick." I won't continue with that argument.

In December a change was made that I thought was reasonable. The reviewable-projects regulation under environmental assessment was amended to exempt from review, under the EA process, small natural gas processing plants that do not have the potential to result in significant adverse environmental impact. Those are the kinds of changes, and there have been serious attempts to bring about change, to streamline and in a practical way to look at regulations and their application. I know that my staff in the field are very open to those kinds of things. They're not bureaucratic; they

[ Page 7196 ]

R. Neufeld: I appreciate some of the legislation. This is the legislation that covers the industry in the province of British Columbia. But as I went through the book, it had all kinds of regulations and rules you had to abide by: roads, emergency planning, sour gas wells -- all those things. I'm not saying that some of this is not needed or required for the industry. I'm just hoping that when I read press releases your government makes about wanting to reduce the regulatory burden, we try to get down to a handbook that actually will be a handbook that people in the field can carry around a little more handily than a document of this magnitude.

There's one other issue. I understand we're going to break a little bit earlier today than what we had understood before. Maybe the minister could tell me. . . . As I said, that's the oil and gas portion of it; but we also have the Forest Practices Code and all the environmental rules and regulations that go along with it. If you're actively looking in your ministry -- I appreciate and I believe it when you say you are -- at trying to reduce the regulatory burden, are we actively looking at other ministries as to how their regulatory burden affects the oil and gas industry -- maybe not just in northeastern B.C. but other parts of the province?

Hon. D. Miller: I am advised by my assistant deputy minister that the industry participated in and wanted the handbook that you held up developed for their use. We try to cooperate with industrial sectors, and I'm pleased that we were able to produce the book. All I can say is: stay tuned.

R. Neufeld: Probably they did in fact want it, because it was getting pretty hard to keep track of what they should be doing and what they shouldn't be doing. They wanted to actually see if you could put it into one book that could be carried around by someone, and, lo and behold, you did. I'm glad to hear that you are working cooperatively with the industry.

Noting the time, I move we 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. D. Miller: It's been a very productive week. I wish all members a pleasant weekend, and I'll see you on Monday. I move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:28 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Gillespie in the chair.

The committee met at 11:08 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR
MULTICULTURALISM, HUMAN RIGHTS
AND IMMIGRATION
(continued)

On vote 20: minister's office, $435,000 (continued).

G. Plant: This morning I'm going to move into the subject of legal aid. Before I do that, a matter came to my attention that I want to bring to the Attorney General's attention. It's not a community justice issue, and I don't expect that the Attorney General will have the answer. What I'm about to say is more in the nature of a request that he look into a matter.

It has to do with proceedings that are underway in, I suppose, the Supreme Court of British Columbia in which there is a challenge to the third-party spending restrictions under the Election Act. The proceeding that has been brought to my attention is a proceeding involving Mr. Nixon, the accountant.

I am told that in those proceedings, something like the following has happened. There was a challenge made to the standing of Mr. Nixon to raise the constitutional issue, with respect to which, I guess, he's there in court. I haven't got the context of the challenge to know more than that, and it is possible that my facts are wrong. However, I'm told that there was a standing challenge made. I'm told that Mr. Nixon succeeded in opposing the standing challenge, and I'm told that counsel for the province have taken the matter to the Court of Appeal.

A year ago, when the issue of what some call the gag law arose, the Attorney was forceful on a number of occasions in speaking about the need to obtain a judicial ruling on the constitutionality of the spending restrictions. I actually managed to dig out a quote from the Attorney General's appearance on the Rafe Mair program on April 21, 1997, in which the Attorney said he was anxious to have this issue resolved by our courts in British Columbia.

If I am right in the facts I've relayed with respect to the standing challenge, I don't think I need to make the argument -- I can tell the Attorney General that some would make the argument -- that pursuing standing issues is not a way of moving a case to the substantive issue quickly and efficiently. In fact, pursuing standing issues -- from my experience in civil litigation, and I can say this from my own experience -- is often a way of driving a litigant out of court. It may not be litigation by exhaustion, but it may be litigation by depletion of resources.

Let me say, to be fair to the counsel for the Crown, that I don't know whether the standing issues are legitimate or not. They may well be very legitimate. There may well be legal merit to the standing challenge; there may not be.

What I want to ask the Attorney General to do, if I may impose on him, is make inquiries concerning the issue and give some consideration to whether the counsel responsible

[ Page 7197 ]

I understand that this is not an issue on which the Attorney General may have been recently briefed, but I did want to bring it to his attention. If he has a comment now, I'd be happy to let him have the opportunity to make it.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't recall all the details. I do recall that the matter is before the Court of Appeal. If I remember correctly, there was an application to have the action dismissed on several grounds. This is a constitutional challenge, and I think that an application was made for a decision. I don't remember what rules it is pursuant to. I think the Crown lost and is appealing. I don't recall whether standing was one of the issues. It is true that we want to have the constitutionality issue determined by the courts at the earliest possible time. I don't know the particulars of the information that the hon. member is talking about, but I would urge him to speak to Jill Wallace, the Assistant Deputy Attorney General for the legal services branch, who would be able to brief you on the state of affairs. You could do that through Bill Scigliano, who is sitting in the gallery.

G. Plant: I welcome the opportunity to speak to Ms. Wallace. However, I don't want, I guess, to deal with the issue entirely that way -- to sort of boil down the details a little bit. There may be a concern about the way the case is being managed in the context of whatever the Crown's overall objectives are. I'm not asking the Attorney to do anything more than to also make inquiries of the legal services branch and to satisfy himself -- if I may be so presumptuous -- that however the case is proceeding, it is doing so in a way which is both responsible and consistent with the principle which he himself expressed of getting to the heart of the real issue efficiently and in accordance with all the principles. I think it's rule 1(5): the object of every litigation is to achieve an efficient, fair and speedy result. I don't remember the details, but I'm amazed that I can even remember the subrule. But that's the point, and I hope I have the Attorney General's assurance that he also will at least go that far in making some inquiries.

[11:15]

G. Plant: Thank you.

I want to move now to the subject of legal aid. Am I right that the grant which the government will be making to the Legal Services Society for the fiscal year 1998-1999 is $81.5 million?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Thank you. For the fiscal year which has recently ended, my understanding is that the grant was also to be $81.5 million. There was, I believe, a supplementary payment made of $400,000 in respect of an issue which has arisen around the cap on major-case funding. Is that a correct summary?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, that was to assist them with their major cases.

G. Plant: There has been discussion about the major-case funding issue, and I will probably return to that issue in due course. But is it the intention of the Attorney General to apply a set-off to the $81.5 million grant for 1998-1999 in respect of any amounts which the ministry becomes directly responsible for as a result of what are called the Rowbotham orders?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, the hon. member's understanding is correct, unless the matter is outside the statutory mandate of the LSS.

G. Plant: I think that's an important qualification, and it's good to have it there now. We may come back to its implications later.

One aspect of the grant and the budget that LSS submits -- which precedes the grant decision -- that I want to confirm is the current status of the issue of the Legal Services Society's obligation to repay its outstanding indebtedness. The indebtedness that we're speaking of -- and I'm not really sure that indebtedness would be the right term -- is between the government and the LSS. The LSS owes the government some money. The intention is that the LSS will, in effect, repay that indebtedness over a period of time. My understanding is that the current arrangement is for that indebtedness to be repaid in full by the year 2001. Is that understanding correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer is yes.

G. Plant: This is a question that I realize I should have probably asked either of the ministry staff or the society. Can the minister tell me whether the budget submitted by the society for the 1998-99 fiscal year includes provision for repayment of some of that debt in this fiscal year -- that is, is the society starting to make some progress on the debt repayment now?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Last year the budget that the ministry received relates to '98-99, and that budget indicated that they may be paying that debt down by $2 million or $3 million, if my memory serves me correctly.

G. Plant: Just so I understand the first part of that answer, the most recent budget that the ministry is working on is the budget for 1998-99. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Based on the budget for this fiscal year, which was submitted to us last year, a grant of $81.5 million was given for '98-99.

G. Plant: The potential for a set-off in respect to the major case issues creates the possibility that the actual grant would be less than $81.5 million. Are there any other issues or aspects of the grant out there that could result in a reduction -- or an increase, I suppose -- during the current fiscal year? I'm trying to get a sense of the parameters around the $81.5 million number.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.

G. Plant: The minister is aware that there is a growing wave of protests among legal aid lawyers across British Columbia. I understand there are service withdrawals already in effect in Prince George, Prince Rupert, Kelowna and Abbotsford. I'm told that there are about to be or have been meetings in Vancouver, Nanaimo, Castlegar and other communities to discuss what I think is a developing crisis around legal aid funding.

[ Page 7198 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm extremely concerned that the Legal Services Society and the lawyers aren't resolving the issues that they're dealing with. The Legal Services Society board is statutorily independent. I cannot direct them to do anything other than what they might want to do. I believe the matter rests appropriately between the lawyers and the Legal Services Society management. However, I am concerned that you have, right in the middle of those two entities, people who are disadvantaged and poor, and they are being inconvenienced. That is not to criticize the lawyers or the Legal Services Society. The Legal Services Society obviously has very difficult issues to manage, and they have attempted to manage those issues, as have other parts of government which aren't independent of us. Obviously the Legal Services Society is. They have attempted, in an independent way, to try to live within the budget they have been granted, and it has been difficult.

One could always use more money. There is never a question that we could use more money for education, for health and for many other issues, including legal aid. Legal aid essentially serves the poor, the disadvantaged and many women, particularly single parents who are in need of assistance. It does concern me that this matter is not being addressed.

I hope that the lawyers and the Legal Services Society see, at the end of the day, that I don't have any more money. If there is a hope out there that somehow I will be able to get more money, I don't share that hope. I wish there was more money, but I don't think that that will be the case. Rather than escalate these issues, I want them to get back together, sit down, work out these issues and try to deal with them in the best way possible.

We have the country's highest per-capita-funded legal aid system. The national average is $12 per person; we spend $24 per person in legal aid in British Columbia. Whether you look at it collectively or you separate criminal from family, it is still individually the highest in the country -- criminal as well as family. I think it is important for us to recognize that, but at the same time recognize that that kind of area could always use more money; it's never enough.

I don't want to be critical of anyone, neither the board nor the lawyers. I just want to urge them to really take a serious look at what other issues we have to deal with in government to determine whether or not, relatively speaking, there is a sufficient amount of money. Perhaps there is some give-and-take, and the matters can be dealt with.

G. Plant: It sounds to me like the Attorney General's plan of action with respect to this crisis is the public expression of the wish that the lawyers and the society would sort the problem out amongst themselves. Is that the Attorney General's plan of action, or is there something more?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If you are dealing with a statutorily independent body, there could be no other plan, other than urging these individual entities, the lawyers and the Legal Services Society, to come together and work on these issues. If they require some assistance from ministry personnel -- the ADM, the Deputy Attorney General -- I'd be happy to provide that assistance to them, so that we can all sit together and try and assist them in arriving at a resolution of the issue. If the issue is simply more money, obviously the ministry can't help. If the issue is one of determining what other ways we can look at, in dealing with this very serious issue, so that people who are already disadvantaged and poor are not unnecessarily inconvenienced, then I think the ministry can help. We have the expertise within the ministry, and we are prepared to provide that expertise to both the Legal Services Society and the lawyers to sit down and resolve the issues.

If the Attorney General or any other minister always undertook to intervene in any issue that happens between two entities that are absolutely independent of the Attorney General or any other minister, we would have those kinds of interventions happening every day. I don't want to encourage that notion at all. I want, in fact, to encourage the Legal Services Society board to try to resolve this issue.

G. Plant: We may come back to part of this. But in terms of the thin-edge-of-the-wedge argument that the Attorney General made a moment ago, I would observe that when you're dealing with a program that consumes, roughly speaking, 10 percent of the entire ministry budget, it's probably on a scale large enough not to have that concern about the thin edge of the wedge. That is, it's not just another problem of another program, of the many thousands of programs, as it probably is within the ministry.

[11:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We had a lengthy discussion previously on various alternatives, even in the family justice area, that we're trying to bring in so that some of the burdens are reduced in both legal aid and the courts. But the point that the hon. member raises is an important one. Actually, we ministry officials meet with the board on a regular basis. In fact, there is a representative present from the ministry at all board meetings, if possible. We try to do that, and assistance has been offered to the board in terms of a possible meeting with the Deputy Attorney General on this and any other issues. The ADM met with them just a few days ago and raised, obviously, all of the important concerns.

I always have a concern that when you have a high-profile intervention, expectations are raised. I am concerned about that issue because I know that I don't have the money to meet those expectations, so I want to tread very cautiously. But there's no doubt in my mind and there shouldn't be doubt in anybody else's mind that I am concerned. I am extremely concerned. I used to practise law. I never did many legal aid

[ Page 7199 ]

And the lawyers are out there. Many of them, maybe all of them, are dedicated service providers, essentially, because on legal aid very few lawyers become rich. It is not an area where you begin to practise law and rely on legal aid to make any significant amount of money. So these are people who are dedicated, whether they're staff lawyers or private lawyers. I think they should put that in front of them and try to meet with the Legal Services Society and see if they can find some resolution. At the end of the day, if they want an intervention from the Attorney General, I would be happy to sit with them to facilitate those discussions, if that's their wish.

G. Plant: I understand the Attorney General's caution here, too. I'm sure there are some people out there now who are worried whether the current standoff is part of some nefarious political strategy to provoke a board resignation and the appointment of a trustee and a whole host of much more serious consequences. For the benefit of those people, the question should be put: that is not the Attorney General's strategy -- is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, that is not the Attorney General's strategy; it never would be. When we brought those amendments forth, I said that very clearly. This is not a mechanism that any Attorney General would ever use lightly, least of all I. It's important for people to note that it is not the Attorney General nor his wish that is creating the difficulty. The difficulty is that there are some tensions in the system, naturally, because of the difficult fiscal constraints that have been present. People should recognize that, rather than engaging in the old ways of doing things where you escalate work stoppages or work withdrawals or service withdrawals and try to see which party blinks first. Rather than adopting that attitude in a time of fiscal constraints, it's appropriate that we all come together, particularly professionals such as lawyers, and that we all sit with the Legal Services and try to work this out.

G. Plant: I want to now move to the aspect of this problem, that does concern the issue of money. There are numbers that get tossed around, and it would not do justice to the debate if we did not explore the context created by those numbers.

The first of those is the sales tax that is charged on lawyers' accounts. I think about four or five times a week someone sends me a copy of the Hansard with the introduction of that sales tax and makes the point to me that government extended the PST to lawyers' accounts for the express purpose of funding legal aid. The idea was that there was an increase in the demand for legal aid services, that there was a need to find additional sources of funding, and that the way to do that fairly was to charge tax to those who use legal services. I suppose it would be an arbitrary tax, from one perspective, because of course accountants don't charge their clients sales tax, engineers don't charge their clients sales tax, surveyors don't charge their clients sales tax, and I don't think dentists charge their clients sales tax. Across the map, professionals in British Columbia don't charge their clients sales tax -- with the exception of lawyers. The reason that people who purchase legal services are expected to pay a tax that they don't have to pay anywhere else when they purchase professional services is because the money is to go to funding legal aid.

I suppose it's almost bizarre to try and do the reasoning about the historical position of a tax that was expected to bring in $35 million a year in revenue to help fund a system that had, prior to that, been funded out of the consolidated revenue fund and all of that. The historical stuff I find disheartening to look at; it's disheartening enough to look at the present circumstances.

Let me just move into this part of the debate by confirming, first of all, that although I know that the Ministry of Attorney General is not responsible for collecting this information, the number which the ministry has as the revenue expected for the fiscal year just ended from sales tax on lawyers' accounts is $79 million. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: The federal government makes grants to the province that are intended to be used to assist in the funding of legal aid. Over time the proportionate share which the federal government has assumed, if you will, of the burden of funding legal aid has dropped. There are political issues around that, which are perfectly legitimate political issues. My understanding is that there are two components of federal moneys that I say would be relevant to the analysis. The first amount is something like $9 million, which the federal government gives to the province to assist in the funding of criminal legal aid; and the second amount is $15 million or $16 million, which goes to civil and family legal aid.

If those numbers are right, may I impose on the Attorney General to confirm them? If they're not, then I welcome the correction.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I can confirm the $9 million figure; however, I am unable to confirm the $15 million or $16 million figure. All of the Canada health and social services transfers are coming in bulk to provinces. There is no specific amount that's coming for legal aid or for any other matters. There is just a bulk amount of money that comes, based on those transfers. So it is difficult. One could argue, based on what the figure was in '95-96 and then on the cut to the transfers by 40 percent. . . . Then you could say: "It must be $15 million or $16 million." But no, that money isn't for legal aid. It's the transfers now, and they go into one big fund.

When we talk about the historical issue of how the PST came into being with respect to lawyers' services, it's important to note that the GST came around the same time, maybe slightly earlier. I don't remember the years now. There was no PST on legal fees prior to the GST taking shape. There was no tax. So I think it's important for people to recognize that while we provide the bulk of the money we get from PST and the $9 million. . . . It's about $88 million; we provide $81.5 million every year, and there is a deficit that has accumulated over the years. The Legal Services Society has been spending much more than that because of the deficits over the years. The fact is that while the federal government did not have any revenue from legal fees and lawyer services and the like prior to the GST, they now have an equivalent amount of money that they take out of this province that goes to Ottawa -- it's exactly $79 million -- and their portion of funding for legal aid has dropped considerably. It's been frozen, and it's been dropping. The issue for all British Columbians is -- and it should be a non-partisan issue -- that we provide the bulk of what we collect for legal aid. Would you please do the same thing, Ottawa, so that we can have more money for legal aid?

In addition to freezing and reducing the funding for legal aid over the years, they have off-loaded onto British Columbia

[ Page 7200 ]

[11:45]

I think, though, that there needs to be an answer specifically to the proposition that says: "Look, you the province do in fact collect something like $79 million on the tax; you the province do in fact get another $9 million from the federal government; and notionally, if you want to push the point slightly, some portion of the CHST could be assumed to be intended for the province to use responsibly in that context." What does the Attorney General say to the lawyers and the consumers of legal aid services who say -- the federal government's sins notwithstanding and fiscal constraints, legitimate though they may be, notwithstanding -- that the province is collecting more money that is dedicated for legal aid than it is giving to legal aid?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I've been trying to make the point that obviously the fiscal environment has changed over the time since those remarks were made in the House. The federal government essentially has taken a lot of money out of British Columbia over the years. So we have to contend with more responsibilities that were previously looked after by the federal government's resources but that came back to British Columbia.

However, if one looks at it in a compartmentalizing process, looking at legal aid as something separate and distinct from all the other services that are provided, then one would make that argument. I could make it as forcefully as the hon. member is making it. Others outside are making it much more forcefully.

But one has to look at all the other things the government does. For instance, just let me give you one example. We spend, I believe, $9 million or $10 million -- I don't remember the exact figure, but at least $8 million or $9 million -- collecting maintenance on behalf of women and children, those who can't collect maintenance on their own, from defaulting spouses and parents. We assist those women and children to the tune of $9 million. And we don't take money out of the maintenance payments we collect. We give all of those to the children and the spouses who are looking after the children. We do that on behalf of hundreds, if not thousands, of women and children in British Columbia. If we didn't do that, if we didn't spend that $9 million, they would all have to go to legal aid, because those are the circumstances that most of those people are in.

So if one looks at these issues as separate and unrelated pockets, then one arrives at the conclusion that the hon. member and others outside arrive at, because we all sometimes make these kinds of mistakes, if I can use that word advisedly, of separating these issues. They're not separate and apart. If we didn't provide money to schools -- to inner-city schools, for other programs in schools, for anti-bullying programs in schools -- there would be a lot more problems. They would then end up on legal aid, and $88 million wouldn't be able to take care of those problems. I think we need to look at these issues in a comprehensive kind of way.

I'm not lecturing, my friend. I think that we need to really sort of sit back -- and I would urge the lawyers and the Legal Services Society to sit back -- and say if they would want me to shut down the family maintenance enforcement program so that I could give $9 million more to the legal aid. That money comes from somewhere too.

G. Plant: I agree that it is a mistake to over-compartmentalize. The Attorney General's use of the example of the family maintenance enforcement program is interesting to me, because that program does not attempt to operate on any sort of cost-recovery basis, and we may come and talk a little bit about that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We're starting to do that.

G. Plant: Well, then we will pursue that.

I think part of what is important here is to understand that for a lot of people out there who are hurt and angry, this is a context in which some of their issues need to be raised. They will have the opportunity to look at the Attorney General's responses and to consider their own view on those issues.

From the Legal Services Society's perspective, I think that it is not quite an untenable position but is certainly an extraordinarily poignant position to be given, on the one hand, a mandate by statute -- and, in some respects, by the constitution and the obligations created around the rights of accused persons under the Charter -- that is difficult to manage in terms of its cost implications on a month-to-month or year-to-year basis, and on the other hand, in order to fund that mandate, to be told: "You have to make do with $81.5 million." The $81.5 million is $81.5 million whether there are three or four significant murder trials in British Columbia this year where the accused are all unable to afford their own counsel or 30 or 40 murder trials in British Columbia this year. It's an extraordinarily difficult issue, I think.

Maybe the difficulty can be illustrated by asking the Attorney General this question, which I don't think is an easy question. The Attorney spoke about disadvantaged people, vulnerable people, the people who are at risk, the people who I think are the real victims of the problem. Is $81.5 million a year enough, in the Attorney's view, for the Legal Services Society to do that which it is statutorily mandated to do?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the question I would ask is: is the budget of the Attorney General's ministry enough to do what it is mandated to do -- the courts, the corrections? Those are the issues. You can't ask one question separate and apart from the other question. That's why when people say that these are very, very difficult decisions -- when politicians say that, when administrators say that, when we say that to the lawyers and when I say it to the Legal Services Society. . . . Perhaps they don't believe me when I say that, but that's a fact. Those are some difficult choices.

[ Page 7201 ]

G. Plant: I don't want to leave the subject of compartments and the danger of compartments by ignoring or failing to mention the costs to the system as a whole that flow from the problem around legal aid funding. We have Judge Metzger's report now, which includes recommendations in respect of legal aid funding but also makes points about the consequences of the funding problem. The one that comes to mind first is the problem in Provincial Court with unrepresented litigants, the delays that are occasioned by that and, in the long run, the additional costs that other parts of the system have to bear because of a decision made in this compartment. I agree with the Attorney General that it's wise not to over-compartmentalize, but I suggest that in a sense, that's at least a two-way street; it's an every-direction street.

In examining the issue of legal aid funding, it is possible to look at funding legal aid as a way of avoiding other costs down the road, just as it is vitally important that we look at operating our education, health care and child care systems in a way to prevent people from getting into family problems and criminal problems in the first instance. When we're talking about compartments, it's not just a question of saying, for example: "Over here is the family maintenance enforcement program." If we took money from that program and gave it to the legal aid system, we would be disadvantaging all the people who are served by that program -- a perfectly correct and legitimate point.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: And they'd end up on legal aid.

G. Plant: Unfortunately, here's the personal tragedy at the moment: many of them wouldn't, because the coverage eligibility dollars are down low, and if it's a question of an application to vary a maintenance order or to change a custody order, the society has said that there's no coverage at all. The gut-wrenching aspect of all of that is not going to make the Attorney's job any easier. But those things need to be brought out on the table and debated -- or at least made apparent.

We talk about the mandate. I don't know what the solution to this problem is. But I do know I find a peculiar tension when you have institutionalized a situation where the government, which has control over the mandate, says: "Here is the mandate, and you must follow it, and I will not interfere because you are independent." That's on the one hand, and on the other hand, it says: "Here is the money; it's my decision as to whether or not that's enough money for you to do your mandate." The people receiving the money are saying that it isn't enough money.

If I had the answer to that dilemma, I would give it. I sense that in part that answer is that we need to start to become a little bit more honest and open around the mandate. Because it is at some level unfair to say to someone: "You will have the obligation to do 20 jobs. I will give you the money to only do six of them or ten of them or 12 of them." There are hosts of ways in which this is a difficult problem.

[12:00]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't necessarily have a perspective, because I don't manage the Legal Services Society. To an outside observer an $8 million or $9 million head office for an $81 million organization that is intended to serve the poor and the disadvantaged may appear to be a large cost. All I have done is ask the Legal Services Society to take a look at it and see if they can make some more administrative efficiencies or cuts, because I think that's where. . . . We all have made those cuts, wherever we are. They've had to make some other cuts as well. But if you have a large organization with a significant head office, I think you're duty-bound to take a look at that. I've simply attempted to point that out. I may have used some words that didn't convey that impression, but that's the only thing I have done. I understand that they have reduced their headquarters costs by 18 percent over the last year or two. The Legal Services Society board and management are in a no-win situation, as well, because we give them a mandate, as you say, and we give them the money. These are difficult decisions, but when men and women are in those positions of responsibility, like all others, they have to make those tough decisions. I sympathize with their plight. We're all in a similar plight in government these days throughout this country -- except maybe the federal government, because they've taken lots of money away from us.

G. Plant: I think that the Attorney's statements are helpful. I guess the challenge, in talking about this particular question of internal management and so on, is to make sure that if we are suggesting that there is more to be cut or that it is an issue which should be looked at, we at least give the society the credit of pointing out the work they've done over the last couple of years. The Attorney referred to the 18 percent figure. The numbers I have in terms of actual dollars are: over the period from '95-96 to '97-98, a reduction in head office costs, I suppose, from $9.9 million down to $7.1 million; and as a percentage of total annual expenditures, a reduction from 9.7 percent to 8.1 percent. So there's an absolute dollar reduction and also, I'm told, a smaller proportion of overall expenses within the head office. It may be that those numbers are not the right numbers, although I'm sure that they are at least for '96-97 and '95-96, because they were given to me as the audited numbers.

I'm just trying to think what the other aspects of the challenge are. It does seem to me, in summary, that there is an urgent need to be more proactive on this, and that is what's called for here, without tripping over the wires of indepen-

[ Page 7202 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, I would take the hon. member's comments in the spirit they're made and certainly consider perhaps doing more than I'm doing -- except my fear is that the moment I engage in any dialogue with any one element of this whole process, false expectations may be raised. I will go on record here that if ever I decide that that's appropriate to do -- active participation and discussion with the various parties -- I hope it's not taken as an indication that I have more money. I don't.

G. Plant: Lest there be any doubt about this, it's actually not my suggestion that you get a memo off to Treasury Board asking them for another $50 million or $60 million. I think the urgent need is to try and solve the problem within existing fiscal parameters. I am troubled by the residue of the promise made around the PST, but we'll see how that debate unfolds.

There is one other aspect of the problem where I think the Attorney General may have an opportunity for some action. I referred to it earlier. It is the issue of Rowbotham applications and the impact they have on the operation of the society and its expenses. We're talking here about the challenge presented by large criminal cases in situations where the accused is funded by legal aid. I received a memorandum -- and I think it was a public memorandum -- from the society a year or so ago, in which the society suggested that in almost all aspects of its mandate, they had reached the point where they felt in control of spending, in control of their ability to discharge their mandate and able to make the decisions necessary to live within their means, yet deliver some kind of service. I think that some of those decisions have come at some cost, but nonetheless it's in terms of being able to say: "Well, if we do this to the eligibility level and we do this to the coverage level, we think the intake of custody and maintenance applications is such and such and so and so."

I'm told that one area where there is a continuing problem, in terms of being able to predict the costs and so on, is that of the costs associated with major criminal cases. Now, in terms of developing and maintaining constructive dialogue between the society and the ministry, I think this issue is complicated by the fact that from the society's perspective, they think they gave the Attorney General notice of what they intended to do about this problem quite a long time ago. I think the society was a bit disappointed in February to be on the receiving end of a letter that said: "Here is what we as the ministry are going to do about this problem. We're going to institute a setoff in any case where we the ministry are required to pay legal fees as a result of a Rowbotham order" -- an order made by the court that says that someone is entitled to legal aid even though they've been denied coverage or there is a cap.

The Legal Services Society listens to the Attorney General say: "You are independent. I cannot help you by intervening directly. You must decide how to discharge your mandate." They make a decision that the way in which they can live within their means is to impose a cap on funding major cases of $50,000, or whatever the number is. I'm sure that for them it was as gut-wrenching as all of the other decisions we're talking about, and then they're told: "That, unfortunately, isn't good enough. If we the ministry have an exposure within your statutory mandate as a result of a decision made by the courts, then we're going to take more money back from you. We're going to give you less." I'm sure that in logic there is a good explanation for all of that. If it's the statutory mandate, I guess the society has to pay for it, come what may. That's the beauty of statutory mandates. I wonder if the Attorney General thinks, though, that this resolution of this problem is the most constructive resolution of the issue on a going-forward basis.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: What would you suggest?

G. Plant: Well, it seems to me that the. . . . The first suggestion: continue discussing it. Make sure that there are active and constructive discussions, not a polarization resulting from what may at least have been a communication breakdown between the society and the ministry, which is what I suspect has occurred. Secondly, it may well be that the ministry has to say: "On this issue, we give." I don't know, but it does seem to me that some solutions need to be found for this problem, because, as much as for any other reason, I think it is part of the current malaise that I sense exists -- a lack of trust, if you will, or a lack of warm feelings -- between the society and the Attorney General. As I've said before, I don't have solutions for these problems, and I freely agree that they are complex. This is also, though, one last issue that needed, from my perspective, to be brought to the table in order to get some kind of public airing.

[12:15]

G. Plant: There are other issues, which are sort of community justice issues. I think they have something to do with justice, and I think they have something to do with communities. We'll pursue them, if I may. The first is a fairly short issue. There is a package of legislation enacted. . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: Arms waving in the back of the room tell me that the subject of legal aid may come up again. But while we're waiting for that, the issue I want to raise at this point is the package of legislation called adult guardianship - representation agreement legislation. It was a pretty significant package of legislation when it was brought in. It was passed. Some years have now passed since enactment of these statutes. I understand that after the statutes were enacted, it became apparent upon closer scrutiny that there were going to be significant implementation costs. These are legitimate considerations. My question is: what is the status of the implementation project, if you will, at this point?

The Chair: Minister, before you speak, I just want to note that it's my understanding that the House will rise at 12:30 today, so we'll operate in that time frame.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This has been a difficult issue. As you know, in the communities there isn't total consensus on what

[ Page 7203 ]

We are obviously now past the review that was conducted by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. There may still be a possibility -- I don't know how remote that is or how likely that is -- that we may be able to begin to implement this in the next few months. The issue is money. Treasury Board has indicated -- and I've said this publicly -- that it doesn't have the money for me to be able to implement this. If I can find the money in some other nook and cranny of the ministry, I would be happy to do that. These are the kinds of pressures I face. This is a very important issue, and we want to be able to do that. Legal aid might want more money, so these are all the issues that pull on you in different directions.

G. Plant: I understand the challenges. We'll probably pursue that issue again a little bit later in the estimates, but the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has a question -- or two or three, or however many. I'll yield to him at this point.

G. Wilson: One of the problems about being a single elected member is that you have to be in two sets of estimates at the same time, and it's impossible to know what questions have been asked. I was hoping that I could address my questions on legal aid on Monday: however, I'm told that the staff may not be here on Monday. Let me just say that if what I'm about to ask has been covered. . . . If I had asked them on Monday, I would have had the benefit of reading the Hansard over the weekend, and I wouldn't duplicate questions. I don't want to waste anybody's time. If the questions have already been covered by the official critic, then perhaps you can say so. I'll just read the Hansard, and I'll either like or not like the answers from there.

I do have some serious concerns. My concern is with respect to the services covered by legal aid, and I imagine that some questions have been addressed to that. I am particularly concerned about people who fall into the ranks of the poor, or people who would be considered poor, who may find that they have a legitimate need for legal services and are finding it more and more difficult to have those legal services funded as a result of the changing nature of legal aid.

This is particularly true in Powell River, where we have a very active and, I think, a very good set of people involved in the Legal Services Society and in the provision of legal aid. I wonder if the minister might just let me know what his view is with respect to the number of services, for example, on family-related issues -- maintenance, custody, access, those sorts of things. There has been an elimination of legal aid services for people who are fighting those kinds of issues. Is the minister monitoring how many people, particularly the low-income people, now find themselves unable to be adequately represented?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no question that some services have been impacted adversely because of the fiscal constraints that the society has to live under. We have, in general terms, covered that issue. In specific terms -- for instance, custody and access issues where somebody may not qualify -- if there is a risk of harm, that test is applied. Sometimes the individual is able to qualify despite the lack of fiscal or financial qualifications. So the society is trying to manage those issues in a way that it sees that it can. But I'm aware that there are people who two or three years ago would have qualified and don't now. But then the society tries to compensate in this area by applying certain tests where some people who are in more need because of other factors do get assistance.

G. Wilson: The difficulty that I have -- and the Attorney General might be able to help me out with this -- is that it seems to me that there has to be, in the provision of a just society, some level of equity provided for all people regardless of income and regardless of what their status -- if I can use that term -- in society may be. They should have an equal opportunity to have adequate defence or adequate advocacy before a judge. Yet clearly -- I haven't got time, because I understand we're looking at a 12:30 p.m. adjournment today, so this is unfortunate. . . . I have lists of cases here where people have been denied legal aid -- who previously would have qualified and who now find themselves in a position where they no longer have the ability to adequately advocate on their behalf. This, it seems to me, is going to become a big problem down the road. The fallout, as a result of the lack of proper representation in the court, is going to be decisions taken that may in fact cause long-term social consequences.

It seems to me -- and I'd like to hear from the Attorney General -- that we have to find a way in which we can have universal access, with respect to the provision of adequate service, to people who require lawyers or some legal services before a court. While I understand that the cost is an issue, we surely can't have a system. . . . At least, I hope the Attorney General is not advocating that we'll have one set of laws for the poor and another set of laws for the rich -- or certainly access to adequate judicial representation for the rich, and the poor can simply fend for themselves. That's clearly not what we want, I don't think, in this society.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have discussed some of these issues -- how interrelated some of these problems are and how, if you take money out of one pot, it has unintended consequences in another area. We went through some of those issues. I appreciate the concern that the hon. member expresses.

We have many programs, and by using those programs -- parenting-after-separation education programs, family maintenance enforcement programs and others -- we try to lighten the burden on the Legal Services Societies so that those cases don't necessarily end up with the Legal Services Society. I'm hoping that the child support guidelines will also assist us in reducing the burden on the Legal Services Society. It makes clear how much you're supposed to pay -- if you are a salaried employee, in particular.

Those are difficult issues, but I do recognize the other concern the hon. member has, which is that we should provide some basic minimum ability for everyone to have representation in the justice system. There are many concerns that I have in my mind, and some of those concerns are with the possibility of maybe a legal care system, where you're able to purchase -- at reasonable cost -- some basic coverage. It has been talked about in various parts of the world. We've never had it. I'm not talking about a government-funded program; I'm talking about an insurance system, perhaps, where we can participate in it at whatever level our capability might be -- if it's affordable. Because of what we're going through in British Columbia in terms of the legal aid issues now, that has come to mind several times. I'm actually trying to have the ministry put together some literature for me to determine whether or not it would be appropriate at all to consider. I'm searching for solutions.

[ Page 7204 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Why don't you put it on the record? Then you and I can talk about it, and I can give you the answer later on.

G. Wilson: Okay. I'll tell you what. As we are at the point. . . . I know that in a lot of my material the member for Richmond-Steveston is quite frequently quoted, so I know that there is a concern there. I'm sure there have been questions asked. I'll take the opportunity to read the Hansard.

What I would like to do -- I'll just leave it at this -- is provide to the Attorney General, by way of written questions, some of the concerns I have specifically with respect to legal aid in the Sunshine Coast and in particular Powell River, where there are some serious problems arising. If I could get a commitment from the Attorney General that there would be a prompt response to those written questions, I'd be satisfied to. . . . I would have much preferred to have gone into a detailed discussion here, but I'll certainly be prepared to accept that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Subject to the caveat that at the end of the day the Legal Services Society manages these issues, I'd be prepared to answer to the extent that I can.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 12:26 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada