1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 2, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6505 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 21).

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 6505

Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989 (Bill 20). Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 6505

Oral Questions

Development in Boundary Bay. Mr. Cashore –– 6505

Gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. Mr. Rose –– 6505

Cominco pollution fines. Mr. Cashore –– 6506

Toxic effluents at Woodfibre mill. Mr. Cashore –– 6506

Naming of polluters. Mr. Cashore –– 6507

Sale of Expo lands. Mr. Williams –– 6507

Presenting Petitions –– 6508

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates. (Hon. S.D. Smith)

On vote 13: minister's office –– 6508

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Sihota

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Miller

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Rose

Tabling Documents –– 6533

Appendix –– 6533

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. DUECK :

In the precincts today are members of the B.C. Pharmacists' Society:

Mr. Ed Reid, chairman of the society; Frank Archer, executive director;

Gerry Lundgren, vice-chairman; Colleen Metge, director of pharmacy

services; and Linda Conway, external relations officer. Would this

House please make them welcome.

MR. ROSE : It gives

me pleasure today to introduce two individuals from Coquitlam, Mr.

Steven Lisik and Ald. Mike Farnworth. They're here today to deliver to

the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) and me some 10,000

signatures on a petition opposing the pipeline going through the

Coquitlam River watershed. They also intend to meet with the Minister

of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) later today.

HON. MR. REID :

In the galleries today are two very important people. First of all, the

man who daily tries very hard to keep up with the expertise and the

activities of the Premier, his assistant Bill Kay, is here taking a bit

of a rest while the Premier attends the session this afternoon. Also, I

would like the House to pay special recognition to a man who had a

similar job under a former Premier: Mike Bailey. Would the House make

them welcome.

MR. LOENEN : Just now I spoke to some

students on behalf of the Premier and myself: 32 students from Walter

Lee Elementary School in Richmond. They're accompanied by some 32

exchange students from Montreal, Quebec, and we would like to welcome

them and their teachers.

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND

CULTURE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment

Act, 1989.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

This bill contains measures designed to improve the function of

legislation pertaining to Cultus Lake Park, our fire services, the

homeowner grant, the mobile home tax, revenue sharing and a variety of

enabling and validating measures.

I move the bill be introduced and read for the first time now.

Bill 21 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1989

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

This bill contains measures designed to improve the administrative

function of British Columbia's municipalities, and to increase the

range of powers available to local government in keeping with our

policy of decentralization,

It also contains a variety of

measures designed to improve the financial operation of British

Columbia's municipalities by enhancing their autonomy and increasing

their flexibility. In addition, the bill facilitates the ability of

local governments to guide development in a manner which is sensitive

to economic, environmental and social conditions.

I move the bill be introduced and read for the first time now.

Bill

20 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

DEVELOPMENT IN BOUNDARY BAY

MR. CASHORE :

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Yesterday you told the

House that you would not be invoking your powers under the Environment

Management Act to require a public environmental impact assessment of

the internationally recognized Boundary Bay coastal areas, but you

assured me that you would write to me about the lengthy review process

that you say your ministry is involved in. Since Delta council last

night approved the golf course development in this area, even though no

proper public environmental assessment in the area had been done, could

the minister assure this House that he will take action before rather

than after the bulldozers move in?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : To the member, the issue is under review now with the Ministry of Environment.

GAS PIPELINE TO VANCOUVER ISLAND

MR. ROSE : I wonder if I could address a different question to the same minister, concerning the pipeline — the pipe-dream —

through the Coquitlam watershed. This morning, the meeting of the

Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) with the GVRD appeared to indicate

that he's willing to suspend his fast-track mania and consider the

other routes for the Vancouver Island gas pipeline. I wonder if the

minister could inform the House that he, along with his colleague, has

decided to stop trying to con the municipalities of the lower mainland

into falling in with the pipeline

[ Page 6506 ]

Interjections.

MR. ROSE :

Has the minister decided to stop trying to entice the municipalities of

the lower mainland into falling in with the pipeline company's plans

and consider seriously an alternative route — namely, Indian Arm?

[2:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

The question was quite argumentative. I find it quite upsetting that

the member would enter into that type of rhetoric when he's attempting

to ask a legitimate question on behalf of his constituency.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : You've got the next one, have you?

It's just a mild rebuke at this point.

First

of all, let me respond to the language, since he used it. At no time

when I was questioned by the media did I indicate that there would be a

fast track

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Who said that? I get sensitive when I hear comments from that end,

because there are some very inventive members of the NDP benches who

sit there.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : You ask a long question, you get a long answer.

Seriously,

I think there was some misrepresentation by the media with respect to

fast-tracking or going quickly, because I had said that the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, pursuant to our legislation, has

to initiate any energy certificate At that time, I would study it and I

have no problem endorsing it, because I have seen draft certificate

material that indicates to me there are sufficient environmental

cautions in place. That's enough to satisfy me and the officials in the

Ministry of Environment that the pipeline can proceed quite

expeditiously and safely through that particular watershed.

MR. ROSE :

I think the safety part of it is definitely arguable, and there are

some other opinions out there besides those the minister has chosen to

look at.

Could I direct my next question to the Minister of

State for Mainland-South west (Hon. Mr. Veitch). I would like to ask

this local czar who is responsible for virtually everything in the

lower mainland if he's decided to lend his great weight behind the

representations and demands of 18 local mayors in his fiefdom who want

that pipeline routed around the watershed and not through it.

HON. MR. VEITCH : I'm lending a lot of my great weight — in fact, I'm losing almost a pound a week, in case the member hasn't noticed —

and with that great weight I will be very careful to defer this

question to the minister who is responsible for it, the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I'll take it on notice for him.

COMINCO POLLUTION FINES

MR. CASHORE :

My question is to the Minister of Environment, who knows what it is to

be the pot that calls the kettle black. For the second time in less

than six months, Cominco has spilled metal-laced sludge into the

Columbia River. After the previous spill last December, Cominco was

fined $100. Did the minister at that time consider the $100 fine to be

large enough to deter Cominco from repeating the offence?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Fines are determined by the court, and the question would have to be

addressed by the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith). If the member has

any real interest in Cominco, I'll be happy to respond to that — if he poses such a question.

TOXIC EFFLUENTS AT WOODFIBRE MILL

MR. CASHORE :

A new question to the Minister of Environment, Mr. Speaker. About three

weeks ago your ministry allowed the Western pulp mill at Woodfibre to

dump 1.8 million litres of toxic effluents out of its clarifier tank

into Howe Sound. The mill, instead of sending this into the sound

through its effluent pipe, as requested by your ministry, dumped it

directly into the sound. How can your ministry justify, in view of this

government's rhetorical concern for the environment, allowing Woodfibre

to dump large quantities of these toxic substances into Howe Sound in

the first place?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Gee, I had an

answer for that, but that was three weeks ago when it happened, and I

can't find it now. Maybe the member could get the research people to be

a bit more up to date on reading the papers. I'll take that one on

notice and provide the answer to the member, but I'll just say that as

in most cases when he presents evidence from Howe Sound, he's wrong.

MR. CASHORE : Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Woodfibre discharge....

MR. SPEAKER : New question.

MR. CASHORE : All right.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

On a point of order, he's not only wrong on his evidence; he's wrong on

his rules. You can't ask a supplementary to a question taken on notice.

MR. SPEAKER : I advised him of that. He has a new question.

[ Page

6507 ]

NAMING OF POLLUTERS

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago the minister promised to name

the polluters who are out of compliance with their permits — 14 weeks after

the Vancouver Sun requested this information. Have you finally decided to release

this information?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I said I'd release the information, and I haven't made the decision as to timing yet.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the minister. Again, I think that is the

pot calling the kettle black, and he has to do better than that.

SALE OF EXPO LANDS

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the Minister of Government Management Services regarding the Expo

land sale. I note there's a lease agreement,

schedule 18.3, that refers

to a 20-year lease for Mr. Toigo’s company at this location on the

waterfront. Could you advise the House why Mr. Toigo got a 20-year

lease when virtually nobody else did?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : I will take the question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS : Could the minister advise us if anybody else got a 20-year lease on the Expo site?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : As notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS : This lease is until the year 2007. Why would a hamburger stand do better than the Ontario Pavilion?

HON. MR. REID : You're the hamburger.

MR. WILLIAMS : We can always expect a class act from the minister of culture, Mr. Speaker.

Schedule

18.3 states: "The fixed rent payable pursuant to the lease is no

dollars per month." Could you explain why that would be the case for

Mr. Toigo?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : We'll take it as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS :

He is the minister who tabled these documents in the House. Does he not

know anything about what he's dealing with in his ministry?

White

Spot was given exclusive catering privileges for the entire Discovery

building. Could the minister advise the House why Mr. Toigo and his

company got those exclusive privileges?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : As notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS : Further, Mr. Speaker, did White Spot or Mr. Toigo ever

have to competitively bid for those 20-year privileges?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Question taken as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS :

At the same time, it appears to be clear that the British Columbia

Club, which Mr. Toigo controls, is on the same incredibly generous

terms as the White Spot. Could the minister confirm that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Point of order. It seems to me that we've had a series of questions all

taken on notice, but you keep allowing supplementaries on the same

subject, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER : I keep allowing new questions. If the member goes into a different area on the same subject, it's a new question.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I note that you have a spokesperson for the Enterprise Corporation, Mr.

Rod Cameron. He is a private flack, and he misled the public last year

on the cleanup cost obligations with regard to the Expo site. Could you

advise the House why he is still the spokesman for the Enterprise

Corporation?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Mr. Cameron is

employed by the corporation on a consulting basis. He works on a

fee-for-service basis in the field of public relations.

MR. WILLIAMS : And it's quite acceptable to have him mislead the public, I presume.

Further to the Minister of Government Management Services, Mr. Stanley Kwok received $170,000 — another

golden handshake from this administration. Then he became the key

player for the company that got the land. When you pay severance like

that, Mr. Minister, do you have no rules whatsoever about the jobs that

the people who get that kind of severance pay can take in, say, a

two-year period afterwards?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : I am

not prepared to comment on personalities and accusations such as those.

Mr. Kwok is a very reputable person in the business community in

Vancouver. He worked for the Enterprise Corporation and did a good job.

It's his free choice to leave the corporation and accept employment

with a new employer, and I'm not prepared to comment on his decision to

join a new firm.

MR. WILLIAMS : Why would you pay $170,000 when Mr. Kwok had a very cushy, remunerative job to go to? Can you explain that?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : It indeed would be extremely difficult for me to explain that, in view of the fact that I was not the minister at the time.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Keith Mitchell, the director of the company, a lawyer... His firm

received $572,972 legal fees on that contract, and he was one of the

three people in the Farris firm at the closing. Could you advise us if

there are any conflict-of-interest standards whatsoever with respect to

any of the players on the Expo land deal?

[ Page 6508 ]

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I have investigated that question before. I am very satisfied with the

conflict-of-interest disclosures practised by the B.C. Enterprise

Corporation, and indeed, Mr. Mitchell made a full disclosure to the

board of his interest in the legal firm.

MR. SIHOTA : May I have an opportunity to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA :

Joining us in the gallery today are a number of students from Dunsmuir

School in the Western Communities, together with a group of students

from the Northwest Territories. Would all members please join me in

welcoming them.

MR. SPEAKER : The second member for Vancouver Centre seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES :

I would like to acknowledge the presence of a number of political

science students from Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon,

along with their two faculty members, Dr. Donald Balmer, political

science, and Dr. James Grant, economics. I would like the House to make

them welcome.

Presenting Petitions

MR. CASHORE : I have a petition, Mr. Speaker.

"To

the hon. Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in

Legislature assembled, the petition of the 7,000 undersigned residents

of Coquitiam-Maple Ridge area who are outraged at the plan to route the

gas pipeline through the Coquitiam watershed....

"Whereas

clean drinking water is essential to the health and well-being of all

people;

whereas the Coquitlam watershed provides the people of the

lower mainland with some of the world's finest drinking water;

whereas

the construction of a natural gas pipeline route through the Coquitlam

watershed will result in the potential for contamination of our

drinking water;

"Wherefore the undersigned,

your petitioners, humbly pray and call for the Legislature to reject

any proposal calling for the installation of a pipeline through the

Coquitlam watershed."

This is dated May 2, 1989.

MR. ROSE :

Without going through as lengthy an introduction to this petition, may

I say that this represents the views of some 3,000 petitioners in the

Coquitlam area. They too are concerned — more than concerned; they are outraged —

at this proposal. They want to express it through the only way really

open to them. I readily admit that the form of the petition may be such

that a purist might quibble. So, acknowledging the fact that the form

may not be perfect, although the intent is certainly there, I ask leave

to table the petition.

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 13: minister's office, $254,015 (continued).

MS. MARZARI :

For the last few days we have canvassed the Family Maintenance

Enforcement Act, we've canvassed the relative absence of sexual assault

centres, we've taken a serious look at the Attorney-General's

department, and we have asked serious questions about how women relate

to the law in our province. I don't think it's any secret that women

have been second-class citizens vis--vis the law for some time. Women

and the law don't necessarily fit together well in this province. Women

in our culture find themselves treated as second-class citizens, and as

they approach the courts and the institutions of the law they find

themselves in much the same position. Women are very often ignored in

regulatory law by agencies as well as in the courts. For example, in

pension law, women very often find themselves excluded altogether

because eligibility in vesting requirements doesn't cover part-time

workers, and many women are part-time workers. So there are points of

the law in which women simply are excluded.

There are other

points in the law in which women are included, but the law is not

interpreted necessarily in their favour. When they approach the courts,

although the law looks fine on the surface, and cosmetically it looks

as if they're going to get a fair shake, very often the way the law can

be interpreted can affect women adversely.

The Manitoba Association of Women and the Law recently — within the last month —

put forward a report and said that because judges and lawyers do not

fully value the work that women do, women are awarded less money in

personal injury suits than men and are still unlikely to obtain a fair

and equal division of property after divorce. They referred to the

actual cost of raising children, the economic discrimination faced by

women in the workplace, the prevalence of wife-battering, sexual abuse

and additional barriers faced by marginalized women and women of

colour. These are all complications. These are all connected problems

which very often the courts don't take a serious look at, because

judges, lawyers and the institutions themselves sometimes can

systemically discriminate against women.

They cited a case

where a woman's family approached the court for compensation because of

the loss of a mother. The judge commented — this is in Manitoba —

that there weren't enough hours in a day to accomplish all the work the

bereaved family said the woman of the house had performed. Therefore he

decided to compensate the family for the woman's lost income, but

reduced the award given for the loss

[ Page 6509 ]

of a homemaker. This seems to be typical of how women get treated by the courts.

When

the association turned to a discussion of British Columbia, they talked

about the judge in the Regina v. Perkin case, who found the accused

guilty of aggravated assault after he had forced the complainant into a

shed where he had repeatedly sexually and physically assaulted her. The

judge commented that the woman had exaggerated her evidence.

That

seems to be typical in a society where women are treated very much as

property in a marriage situation and very often as second-class

citizens. In the last few days, as we have canvassed the

Attorney-General's estimates, we've seen similar attitudes towards

women in our province.

The family maintenance program,

although young, has proven to be very cumbersome and very difficult to

get at with massive backlogs, application forms that are almost

impossible to comprehend, a vast number of those application forms

being returned and with huge staff turnovers. We don't seem to be doing

much better as the program advances.

We have a legal aid

system which is largely starved, although its clients are mostly women.

We have a situation where if a woman is making $1,106 a month, she is

cut off legal aid and has to be making $1,105 a month or less in order

to qualify at all.

My colleague for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew

pointed out that the sexual assault centres are not comprehensively

placed throughout the province, and access to service from those

centres are not available. If we make these connections to the other

ministries of our government, we find that services simply are not

available.

We can look at the abortion issue as it came up

in January and February in our province, and we find that it took 15

hours to get the action from our institutions in order to carry the

demonstrators to court and to justice through a series of mishaps,

mismanagement and mishandlings which the minister talked about this

morning. We then had a situation in the abortion issue where Judge

Finch was asking the Attorney-General for some direction and to bring

his best offices to bear on a situation which seemed to be calling for

criminal injunction, and our Attorney-General refused to get involved

or to interest himself in the matter.

Consequently, I think

we have a serious problem in this province regarding getting women and

their connected problems to the courts. The problems that revolve

around health, access to legal services, welfare, income security and

all those things that I've mentioned before in this House are very much

interrelated. We just can't seem to develop the technical expertise,

the committee work or whatever it takes to make those connections to

get coordinated, consolidated, comprehensive, accessible services to

women who need them.

The courts play a large

part in that. This is an example of that. I was at

a conference two weeks ago of immigrant women talking about family violence.

One of the people who spoke to that was a probation officer. He spoke to the

fact that since 1984, in a situation of family violence, the police must lay

charges when called upon.

What

happens after the charges are laid seems to be very much up in the air,

because as the woman approaches the court or the system to see those

charges through, very often the woman will not show up. She will be

frightened by the procedure, by her husband and possibly by her own

relatives. Many women are very concerned about losing a husband who may

be physically abusing them, but they are also very worried about their

own relatives taking their husband's side.

The judge has to figure out whether the victim has consented to the violent act. Very often, I gather — according to the probation officer who spoke —

the judge might say that there was consent when in fact the victim

doesn't show up. This is a complicated process. On the surface of it,

the court seems to be serving the woman's needs. just below the

surface, you can see that there is a complicated set of events which

brings the woman to the court in the first place. She doesn't

necessarily want to put her husband in jail; she just wants him to stop

abusing her, stop hitting her. She just wants him fixed, in other

words, in some way so that the drinking and hitting will stop. We very

often set a routine in motion which doesn't serve her needs or her

interests. I guess the question then comes forward: given this rather

systemic violence that we perpetrate on women, how can we best go about

dealing with the fact that our systems don't meet women's needs? Other

provinces, other jurisdictions, have come up with many different

solutions, all of which are partial solutions but which might be looked

at here.

Obviously, what we have to do has to do with

prevention or with looking over our laws and making sure they don't

discriminate against women. That might be the first step our

Attorney-General could engage in. I would ask the Attorney-General to

look, for example, at the GAIN legislation. As we approached the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the constitution in, I gather, the

late seventies, our province put together a package of legislation or

amendments to legislation that would make our legislation in this

province compatible with the new constitution and the Charter of Rights

and Freedoms. However, in the process of doing that, I gather that the

GAIN legislation, our own welfare legislation, has no provision to

prohibit discrimination against women. I gather there is such a

provision even in the land registry act, but not in the GAIN

legislation. That's simply one example, and I would ask the

Attorney-General if he would comment today or take a look at that

legislation and report back to this House.

A second

possibility, a second way of approaching family violence that takes

women to court, whether it be economic, psychological, physical or

sexual violence: in Ontario there is a sophisticated education program

which basically concentrates on television advertisements that talk

about the effects of wife battering. These are very graphic, riveting

advertisements which basically speak to the fact that women

[ Page 6510 ]

are

daily abused in our society, much more frequently than we would even

want to know about. The Attorney-General's department should perhaps be

sitting down with other ministries and developing similar programs for

the British Columbia experience to talk to people in their communities

about the impacts and the real costs of family violence, and to talk to

women particularly about where they can go and what they can do to deal

with the fact that they may be being abused.

A third thing

that obviously needs to occur in our community is a serious look at how

we as a province approach the Charter itself. From my experience and

discussions with friends in the Legal Education and Action Fund, it is

my information that B.C. has not really prepared itself in any way to

deal effectively with the Charter and with future Charter challenges

that will uphold the rights of women. Sections 15 and 28 are undergoing

a lot of perusal by the senior courts, but British Columbia seems to

have defined for itself a very limited concept of what equality is

about for women. It seems to me there are a number of amendments to be

made to existing legislation which will bring us in concert with the

Charter. We should be reviewing our legislation, such as this GAIN

legislation, in order to ensure that we don't discriminate against

women.

[2:45]

MR. WILLIAMS : He's not listening.

MS. MARZARI : That's all right. I'll be coming up with the questions. I'm sure he will want to comment on this.

This

seems to be a time when this could well be done by our

Attorney-General's department. In fact, it seems to me that between the

Health ministry, the Attorney-General, the Social Services and Housing

ministry and the Labour ministry a joint technical group could be put

together to take a look at the systemic problems women face as they

deal with the institutions, agencies and regulations that affect their

lives daily. I would suggest to the minister that such a joint task

force, which could well be done under the new ministry of state for

women's issues in the sense that it has failed to materialize...that

the Attorney-General might spearhead this effort and actually get it on

the road. I would guarantee that if the fact that women are treated as

second-class citizens was seriously looked at, and if you looked at

this problem from the....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Sorry, hon. member, but your time has expired under standing orders.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Chairman, I'm enjoying this interesting presentation by the first

member for Vancouver-Point Grey and I would like to hear some more.

MS. MARZARI :

I would suggest that we would be looking at, in the last analysis....

If we really took a careful look at removing a lot of the impediments

to equality, at reviewing our legislation and our regulatory agencies,

at developing social services, educational programs and a sensitivity

in judges and in the courts towards women's needs and the connectedness

of their problems, we would ultimately end up saving ourselves millions

upon millions of dollars, just in the sheer business of dealing with

women's poverty, concerns and problems as they try to find their way

through the red tape and the morass of bureaucratic and regulatory

rules.

I would then ask the minister about his comments on

these suggestions, most particularly about the GAIN legislation, which

should prohibit discrimination against women. I would then ask more

generally about this government's attitude and its support of the

review of legislation to make it consistent with the Charter of Rights,

its support of organizations, such as LEAF, which prepare challenges

for the Charter to help redefine what equality for women looks like in

our province. Lastly, I would ask for a comment on the possibility of a

joint technical committee between ministries to look at those

interconnected problems that women have when they try to deal with the

multiplicity of agencies and regulations.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Without dealing with each specific item raised by the first member for

Vancouver-Point Grey, I want to say in a broad and general way that the

tone of what she said.... I concur with many of the points that you put

forward.

If I could, I would like to get from you.... I

didn't quite grasp what you were getting at. You wanted a provision in

the GAIN Act similar to the one in the Land Title Act. If you could

just let me know which one it is, I would be quite happy to take a look

at it.

MS. MARZARI : I was using the lack of a

provision in the GAIN Act to prevent discrimination against women. In

the late seventies there was a review of our legislation to bring it

into compliance with the Charter. The GAIN Act, for some reason, wasn't

included in that review. The Land Title Act, I gather, has a clause

which prohibits discrimination against women; the GAIN Act does not. It

is just one specific example of where our regulatory agencies and our

laws let women down, and I wanted to know if you would rectify that

problem.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I am certainly happy to

look through it. What I am simply saying is that I am not aware of a

provision in the Land Title Act which does that. If there was one, I

would be curious to know some reason for it to be there but not

somewhere else. That was the only point I was getting at.

You

are quite right. As I understood it, back in '79, '80, '81 with respect

to our own legislation in this province and then following the Charter,

there was a tremendously broad-based review of all pieces of

legislation to see if we couldn't make them Charter-consistent, as it

were. Whether it is Charter-consistent will depend in part upon the way

the Charter is interpreted. That's not just dealing with women's

issues; that's dealing with all issues. The

interpretation of

[ Page 6511 ]

the Charter is very much a moving target: the broader the

interpretation, the more inconsistency there will be.

Just

to touch on some of the issues and questions you have raised with

regard to legal aid matters, certainly by any comparative measure over

the last number of years, the increases that have taken place in the

legal aid area this year, since I became the Attorney-General, have

been significant, and they have been targeted fairly strongly to the

family-law side of legal aid.

Primarily, family-law issues

in terms of legal aid are matters which more frequently involve women

than men. That is true with the family maintenance program. I know

we've canvassed it at tremendous length, but the family maintenance

program assists women in need particularly.

I know that

every time I mention the words "family maintenance program," the first

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) gets into a heckling contest.

I think that reflects attitudinally his views of the subject.

MR. WILLIAMS : Twenty years you've been sitting on it.

HON. S.D. SMITH : Including when he was a minister, twenty years is quite correct.

MR. WILLIAMS : Backroom boy.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Almost any pejorative he throws out is not going to have the desired

effect, but we will let him continue anyway, because we've got all

afternoon and tomorrow to do it.

On the issue of pension

rights and contributions, I think the member is correct when she says

there is a need to assist women, particularly, as a group. Generally

there is a need for pension reform in our society We have to look at

the issues of vesting, portability and contribution; it is very

important that we deal with them. Those issues, in my view, will impact

more frequently on women than they will on men, in part because the

sector of our society in which women are frequently employed tends not

to be one in which there are organized pension programs. I agree with

the member that that is an area of concern

It is for that

reason that we have referred those pension issues to the Law Reform

Commission. As well, I want to advise the member that one of the things

I know to be the case, certainly in the area of family maintenance, is

that there is not a lot of information available for people to get

consistency in awards. You may be right; that may have something to do

with the attitude of some individual award makers. In any event,

whether it does or doesn't, there is a very small amount of information

available upon which people could make some comparative analysis and

with which they could make their case before the courts.

part of the family maintenance program, we are going to provide that

service by way of keeping track of awards of any orders that are

registered with that program. I suspect that most orders now registered

will in fact be registered with the program -most orders now made by

the court. That will keep us current and will keep data available.

You're quite right; that data is not available now. That system has not

been in place, and there is very little information of that type

available. You're quite correct; it's a problem. We hope this will

correct that problem.

I'm going to desist from commenting

on the questions you raise with respect to some comments made by

members of the Manitoba bench. I think I have enough to do in

commenting or not commenting on the members of our own bench, without

worrying about what goes on in Manitoba.

In the matter of the victim assistance program, I should tell you that we do have — and there is no question that we can do more —

assistance for the women you referred to, particularly those from a

different culture who have come to Canada and may have problems,

therefore, with language or generally in proceeding against a spouse

who is abusive. We do recognize that, and through not only the

assistance program provided by the Solicitor-General.... Also, our

Crown office has assumed some responsibility in that area and has

assistance programs available to deal specifically with those areas.

Indeed, the Justice Reform Committee has also identified that as an

area of need. I can tell you that it's an area of some concern, one

that we must address and will address.

Additionally, I can

tell you that the prosecution of family violence cases has been given a

greater priority and more resources in the Crown office. We have

provided more Crown counsel, more senior Crown counsel and more

training in that area.

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

While I know there may be an expectation that I would have corrected

all of these things in ten months, I can only report to you that ten

months has not been enough. But I am alert and sensitive to those

issues and have taken steps to put the resources where I perceive the

needs to be. I am hopeful that we will see results. If we don't, we'll

have to find out why and take steps to ensure that we do get results.

You referred to the comments by Mr. Justice Finch. I want to repeat what I said this morning: those comments did not — nor could they —

through any fault of the justice, reflect what was indeed taking place

at that time, and did take place, and was understood would take place.

I have no hesitation in saying that the discretion of the Crown to

advance charges or to prosecute any matter has to be protected and

defended. It properly rests where it should; the court has the issue.

You have to separate the issue of bringing criminal charges per se, as

they've done in Ontario, from that of criminal contempt.

[3:00]

In Canada there is an ongoing debate about whether criminal contempt

ought to be codified in the same way as all other matters. We in

British Columbia have taken the view in the past that it ought

[ Page 6512 ]

not

to be; that that discretion ought to rest with the courts in large

part, so they can maintain the ability to protect themselves from

contemptuous behaviour. What that means, on the other hand, is that

there is an area in which the discretion of the Crown to pursue those

matters is not sole. So we are reviewing that to see whether that

discretion ought to be vested in the Crown through codification. I'm

not so sure that that necessarily ought to be the only way to deal with

it. But I think it is the case that when you don't have codification,

you have uncertainty as to the nature of charges and timing. While that

was certainly not the case in this instance, it is the case that the

reason we have a Criminal Code at all was to bring about that certainty.

terms of legislation, I will take what the member has said and review

the pieces of legislation she's talking about. On the business of a

cross-ministry approach to some of these issues, I concur with her

wholeheartedly; in fact, we have had some measure of dealing with some

of those issues. I have certainly taken that approach in a number of

areas, and will continue to do so.

As well, the member quite correctly pointed out that the proposed ministry of state for women — I am confident — will do that by way of direction as a matter of course.

MR. SIHOTA :

I've listened with some interest to the debate and the Attorney-General

starting off by saying he's sensitive to the concerns of women. Those

are hollow words indeed if we use the type of adjectives that were

being passed around here this morning. This is the same

Attorney-General who stood up in this House earlier in the course of

these debates and said that he would not vote for the Charter of

Rights; he would not vote for a document which gives women basic

equality in terms of sexual rights. In light of that type of statement,

and in light of saying that you would not vote for a document which

says to immigrant women that they have a place in this multicultural

society, I say to you, Mr. Attorney-General, that it's somewhat

hypocritical for you to stand up in this House and suggest that you are

sensitive to women's issues. Sensitive indeed! An Attorney-General who

comes into....

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Attorney-General on a point of order.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I would ask the Chair whether the word "hypocritical" is acceptable.

MR. CHAIRMAN : No, the word "hypocritical" is not acceptable, and neither are personal attacks on members.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I would ask that the member specifically withdraw the word.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Would the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew please withdraw.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'll withdraw the word, Mr. Chairman, but the point is that the

comments of the Attorney-General are no more than just double-talk.

it's pure, simple, unadulterated double-talk for him to stand up in

this House and on one hand say that he's sensitive to the concerns of

women and on the other hand say that he would vote against a document

which gives women some of the most basic rights one would expect under

a constitution in a free and democratic society.

Where is

the record in terms of concern for women? We went around this province

yesterday and talked about funding for sexual assault. Sure, in a

cavalier fashion the Attorney-General would have us believe we're going

to see a bit more funding. But not one budget for sexual assault

programs in this province was increased. From this Attorney-General,

who says he cares about the interior of this province, three

regions — the Kootenays, the Nechako and the Cariboo — were

not provided with funding for sexual assault centres. It's second-rate

treatment of the women of this province. When women in those areas of

the province are battered or raped, and when they find themselves in

need of transition house services, those services ought to be available

to them in the same fashion as in Vancouver and Victoria. Yes, it's

double-talk indeed from an Attorney-General who says he sensitive to

the concerns of women. Hogwash, I say.

What kind of

position has this government taken on the matter of abortion? A

duck-and-cover, ostrich position by an Attorney-General who was

unwilling and unable to act — at the instructions of the Premier —

when we had the situation at the Everywoman's Health Centre. That was

real leadership when we had the courts taking unprecedented action and

asking this Attorney-General to move on the matter. At that time we saw

the minister succumb to the wishes of the Premier when it came to

abortion matters, and he was unwilling to stand up. What

representations has this Attorney-General made to the federal

government with respect to abortion legislation? Is he prepared to say

today, in this Legislature, that he does not believe that there ought

to be any amendments to the Criminal Code; that the matter of abortion

ought not to be in the Criminal Code? Mr. Attorney-General, what is

your position on that?

HON. S.D. SMITH : I would note

that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew gets more fulsome and

braver, and his voice pitch goes up when the first member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Williams) sits beside him to hold his young hand.

Nevertheless, I will do my best to answer his questions.

The

member has asked the question about my view of the Charter. And in

response to a question that was thrown across the House to me by the

House Leader, I said that I would not have voted for the Charter at the

time in the House of Commons. That's quite correct. He didn't ask why,

so I'll tell him.

The reason I would not have voted for it at the time is because property rights aren't in it — and I've

[ Page 6513 ]

said that before publicly and privately. So if you want all of the answer, then ask all of the question.

You

know, the member then said to me that this was some proof positive that

I'm not alert to the issues raised by the member for Vancouver-Point

Grey, which he seems to think was the case. He can have his own views,

which he certainly does, and he shares them loudly and frequently;

that's his right. I must say that my late grand-dad Bain used to say to

me frequently, "beware of the righteous," and I think this afternoon I

have a better understanding of what he meant.

Just last

week in this debate this same member was on his feet talking about

changing the terms of employment for Jack Heinrich because of his

political beliefs — rank discrimination on the basis of political

beliefs. I think it's shameful. The member thinks it's smart, and

that's fine; that's his choice. But I think that anyone who's prepared

to take the righteous attitude he does — and that's his prerogative, and I will always listen to his views —

and takes that sort of overweening, righteous attitude that he does,

ought to occasionally look in the mirror. He's a graduate of St.

George's; and I'm sure those sorts of issues have been dealt with by

him frequently there, and are the kinds of issues that he would want to

deal with and show leadership about. That's fine. I know that he will

give leadership in that area, and I look forward to it.

There

is the matter of the location of the programs we have to deal with

sexual assault throughout the province. As I have said several times

over the last several days — and I suspect it will be over the next several days, so we might as well go through it again in some detail —

some of the programs that we specifically fund are what are called

sexual assault centres. Some of the victim assistance programs, because

there is a lot of crossover in this area, are not entitled to that, but

they do provide that assistance and we do fund them. I think that I

should perhaps give a list of those to the member, because some of them

are in the areas that he spoke about. I don't want to be in any way

misleading. And, of course, this is from our ministry.

Abbotsford-Matsqui Community Services provides it. Chilliwack Community Services

provides it. Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Community Services Council provides it.

South Surrey-White Rock Women's Place Association provides the service.

In Golden, the Victim Support Service provides it. In Kamloops, the Sexual Assault

and Counselling Centre Society provides the service. In Kelowna, it is the Central

Okanagan Elizabeth Fry Society and the John Howard Society. In Nakusp, it's

the Nakusp Community Services Association. In Trail, it's the Women in Need

Society. In Vernon, it's Victim Assistance Services; in fact, the Vernon

transition house. In North Vancouver, it's the North Shore Family Services

Society. In some of the lower mainland areas, in Vancouver it's Battered

Women's Support Services, Women Against Violence Against Women and the Incest

and Sexual Abuse Centre. In Dawson Creek, it's the South Peace Community

Resources Centre. In Port Clements, it's the Queen Charlotte Islands Women's

Society. In Prince George, it's the Elizabeth Fry Society. In Smithers,

it's the Smithers Indian Friendship Centre. In Terrace, it's the Ksan

House Society. In Campbell River, it's Campbell River Family Services. In

Courtenay, it's the Comox Valley Family Life Association. In Duncan, it's

the Cowichan Women Against Violence Against Women. In Nanaimo, it's the

Mid Island Sexual Assault Centre. In Port Hardy, it's the North Island Crisis

Centre Society. In Powell River, the agency is the Powell River Civil Liberties

Association. In Victoria, it's the Victoria Women's Transition House,

the Women's Sexual Assault Centre and the Child Sexual Abuse Society. So

there is a full list of the agencies supported by this ministry.

There

is no question that the need is growing for these community based

specialized support programs that work with abuse victims. I have no

doubt that there will be a need for more interagency support as time

goes by. I have no doubt that there is a need for more money.

There will be a need as well, in my view — and there is need —

for training, particularly for the very important volunteer sector

involved with those agencies. Thankfully we have that volunteer sector,

because quite frankly, I don't think we would cope very well if we

didn't. As I said to the opposition House Leader the other day, I think

that the volunteer sector is a very important component of the

community base of these programs. I think it is something we should

honour and pay homage to.

[3:15]

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with those matters really quickly with the

Attorney-General. I note that he never did answer the question which we

posed to him.

Dealing with sexual assault, if that's what

he wants to deal with: does the Attorney-General think it's adequate in

a community like Victoria, where the need has increased 1,300 percent,

that the government decides not to provide additional funding? Does he

think that it is adequate in this province that there are only two and

a half full-time staff dealing with problems of sexual assault? Does he

think it's adequate that volunteers have to deal with 200 to 300 calls

a month? And in Terrace one and a half staff.... They have gone from

235 files in April 1987 to 497 files in April 1989. They are handling

wife battering, adult sexual assault and sexual assault of children.

looks at the statistics in Vancouver where the total calls have gone up

from 483 per year in 1983 to 1,359 per year. Does he think it's

adequate that the government over that time has chosen not to increase

its budget to deal with victims of sexual assault? All of that talk

about assistance, concern and compassion for victims is just that — talk.

question to the Attorney-General which he chose conveniently not to

answer dealt with the matter of abortion. We on this side of the

House do not believe that the matter of abortion should be dealt with

through the Criminal Code. What is the

[ Page 6514 ]

government's position in that regard? What representations has it made to the federal government?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Mr. Chairman, the question of abortion is a matter for the Parliament

of Canada to deal with. Quite frankly, my position is irrelevant to

what the Parliament of Canada is dealing with.

I have

stated my personal opinion on abortion for the record time and time

again. I've stated my position in the House, and you can look it up in Hansard

if you don't bother listening to what goes on here. If you wish to get

my position, I would be happy to provide it to you. I don't think it is

particularly part of the....

It's not unclear at all. It

was stated publicly several times at an all-candidates meeting before I

was elected, so that my electors would know my position on these

issues. I don't have to find a taxi to decide which door I'm going to

get out of on each issue. I am consistent with my position.

I'm

glad to see the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) here, as well

as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller). It may bring some decorum

to the House; it usually does.

The issue of government

policy, which is the important thing for the member to be aware of, is

simply that the issue of abortion is before the Parliament of Canada,

which will, in my view, have to deal with the issue. What vehicle they

choose will be a matter for them to decide. They tried to do that prior

to the last election, and apparently they were unable to get agreement

in terms of the process.

I have raised the issue with the

Minister of Justice and have offered him the view that the issue should

be dealt with by parliament. The sooner they deal with it the better,

because there is some expectation there — there has been by all the people who ran for federal office —

that it would be dealt with, and I think that public expectation ought

to be met. I've said that publicly a number of times as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The second member for Richmond has asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. LOENEN :

It gives me a great deal of delight to introduce to the House a group

of grade 7 students representing Richmond Christian School. It's a

school that I attended as a youngster in the school year 19571958. I

would like to ask the House to please grant a welcome to them and their

teacher Mrs. Margaret Venema.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I am

finding it a little difficult to even believe my ears about the

Attorney-General's last statement. The minister, the chief

lawmaker — perhaps I'll wait until the Attorney-General is paying attention —

of this province said that his opinion on abortion policy is

irrelevant. Mr. Minister, I would like you to tell a 13-year-old in

this province who can't get good medical service that your opinion is

irrelevant. I would like you to tell that 13-year-old, when she is

turned away by an illegal therapeutic abortion committee in a hospital

in this province — the very committees that were struck down by the Supreme Court —

that your opinions are irrelevant on this topic. I would like the

minister to explain that a little further for that 13-year-old.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Yes, I'd be more than happy to explain what I just said, because

obviously when the member says she couldn't believe what was going

through her ears, she clearly, first of all, didn't hear what was going

through her ears. Therefore it doesn't surprise me that she couldn't

believe it.

The point I'm trying to make to you is this. The issue of abortion which was asked of me by your colleague — whether or not there should be a law governing abortion —

is a matter that must be decided by the Parliament of Canada. Even if

you and I have the best possible solution to that issue, the one that

has eluded person kind since day one, the one that would make everyone

happy, then it is the case that it would be beyond our jurisdiction to

bring that solution into the forum of law.

By that point,

therefore, I say to you: it is a matter that the Parliament of Canada

ought to deal with. Because I am a member of the Legislature of British

Columbia and not of the Parliament of Canada, it is the case that in

terms of their making the law, my opinion on their process of making

that law is not relevant. If I were in the Parliament of Canada, it

would be relevant. But it is not relevant, in my view, at this time

until I see what the Parliament of Canada wishes to bring forward, so

that at that time we have something to respond to that is not simply

hypothetical.

MS. SMALLWOOD : What is hypothetical?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

"What is hypothetical?" says the member. What is hypothetical is this:

prior to the last election, most of the federal parties — I believe all of them; I stand to be corrected; maybe there were some members who didn't —

were of the view that parliament ought to deal with the matter. They

brought before the Parliament of Canada a series of possibilities as to

how they were going to deal with it, as I understand it, and they did

not get to the point of ever dealing with it. They went to an election.

It was stated at that time that they would bring the matter back before

the House of Commons following the election. I think they should, and I

have said so. I believe they should bring the matter back before the

House of Commons. It should be dealt with, because I don't believe we

should be in a country that has no rules on the subject whatsoever. The

appropriate forum for them to advance those rules is the Parliament of

Canada, and parliamentarians should deal with it. I think that's the

appropriate place for it to be.

MS. SMALLWOOD : The Attorney-General is shirking his responsibility. No matter how much he

[ Page 6515 ]

talks

we do not have a law on the books, now that

section 251 has been struck

down. We have a situation where hospitals in this province are refusing

to provide a legal service to the people in their community. For the

Attorney-General to talk in such detached tones from his ivory tower,

not to understand that women's lives and women's health are at risk in

this province, that the service that we are talking about is a legal

service, is a shirking of his responsibility. I would like to know the

minister's view on the functioning of these illegal therapeutic

abortion committees.

The minister seems to have some

difficulty understanding the question. Therapeutic abortion committees

are functioning in hospitals around this province.

Section 251 of the

Criminal Code, the law that put therapeutic abortion committees in

place, was struck down by the Supreme Court. In that decision, the

Supreme Court justices said that those committees were unlawful, they

were discriminatory, and should not be allowed to function. I would

like to know the Attorney-General's point of view as to those

committees that are currently functioning in this province and refusing

to provide this needed service.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I'm

surprised you didn't raise the matter with the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Dueck), quite frankly. Let me get back to the point that you're

trying to get at and which you are obviously confusing. I don't know

whether you're doing it deliberately or not, but I'll assume you're

not, for the sake of answering your question.

The

section

of the Criminal Code that you're talking about which was struck down

obviously cannot be enacted or re-enacted or dealt with by this

Legislature. Criminal law is dealt with by the Parliament of Canada. If

there are committees that you believe are operating outside the law,

then you should either take that up with the Minister of Health in his

estimates so that he can identify the hospitals or provide me with the

names and I'll take it up with those people. I don't have the list. If

you have a list of them, I'm telling you — over the din from the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) —

to provide them to me and I will take up the matter. If hospitals have

some internal medical policies, then it's obviously something you would

have to take up with the Ministry of Health. If it's something that

impacts on the law directly, then please provide me with the list and

I'll take it up with the Minister of Health.

[3:30]

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I would first of all like to make it very clear to the Attorney-General

that the minister, by not understanding that this is going on when it

has been an issue of crucial importance to everyone in this province,

is neglecting his job. This is a legal issue, and I'm asking the

minister — if he is unaware, if he is not doing his job — to

investigate, to look into the matter, to identify hospitals that are

currently breaking the law, because they are flouting the decision of

the Supreme Court of Canada by continuing to have functioning

therapeutic abortion committees. I am asking the minister to

investigate and take appropriate action.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

I'm not going to investigate into thin air. If you have the names of

hospitals, spit them out. That's all. It's quite simple. You're making

your strong statement. Name them. If they are in breach of the law,

then I will have the matter looked at. I don't know why that is so

difficult for you to understand.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Are you refusing the request?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

I'm not refusing anything. I'm simply saying to you that if you have

information on anything in this province where someone is in breach of

the law, then for goodness sake let me know and I will deal with it.

But I'm not going to deal with it in the hypothetical, and I'm not

going to deal with it from the point of view you're coming from here.

You've just made a broad-brush statement that there are those

locations, and if there are, I will deal with it. I have a suspicion

that you might more usefully have raised the matter in the Ministry of

Health's estimates, because it's my view that some of the locations you

may be thinking about may not perform abortions at all inside the

hospital, and I think that is a different matter. But if some breach of

the law is taking place, then I would have no hesitation at all in

looking at it.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Chairman, if the Attorney-General would prefer.... I'll wait.

MR. CHAIRMAN : On vote 13.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Chairman, I'm going to speak when the Attorney-General's ready to listen.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member should continue speaking now, please.

MR. SIHOTA :

I will continue to speak, Mr. Chairman, but the Attorney-General has

certain obligations as the chief law enforcement officer in this

province. He has an obligation to make sure that the statutes and the

obligations of hospitals in this province are being complied with.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

This

government, I would argue, would move quickly if the abortion laws in

this country were consistent with where the Premier would like to see

them. Well, that's not the case.

We don't know the

Attorney-General's personal position on this matter. But we know that

there's an absence of leadership from the government. It's not for the

member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) to tell the

minister what hospitals are or are not performing their legal

obligations. It's for the

[ Page 6516 ]

minister

to investigate. When she has told the minister that there's a problem

in this province in terms of services not being provided, the

appropriate position for the minister to take is to say that he will

investigate. I find it difficult to believe that this minister, in

light of the public debate about abortion, has decided to pretend today

in the House that he is immune to that debate and unaware of which

hospitals are performing their obligations and which aren't.

I also find it difficult to believe that this Attorney-General, who often thinks that things revolve around his world — and in the back rooms they often did, when he was there —

thinks that his position is irrelevant to the matter of abortion. This

government and the Attorney-General always make representations to the

federal government with respect to law reform; that's always been the

case.

There are recommendations from the access report

which talk about changes to the structure of our courts. Is the

Attorney-General saying that he will not make those representations

because his views are irrelevant? Of course not.

There are

other matters with respect to laws on which the provincial government

is asked by the federal government to make representations. Is the

Attorney-General saying that he will not participate with the federal

government because his views are "irrelevant"?

There are

changes with respect to narcotics offences in this province that become

evident after cases don't succeed, which requires changes in law. Is

the Attorney-General saying that, with respect to narcotics offences,

he is not prepared go to the federal government and make suggestions

for reform because his position is irrelevant?

There are

changes that are required with respect to financial statutes and income

tax regulations in this province. Again, is it the government's

position that they will not make representations to the federal

government because their views are irrelevant?

There are

changes which happen at the federal level with respect to federal

policy; we've heard of those today in the House, with respect to forest

policy and cancellation of ERDA grants. Is it now the position of this

government that it will not make representations at the federal level

because its views are irrelevant?

Its views on the Polar 8

are not irrelevant. They are not irrelevant on the matter of the gas

pipeline. But the Attorney-General would have us believe that they are

irrelevant on the matter of abortion. I say shame on the Attorney

-General for not doing what he ought to do, which is to make those

submissions at the federal level.

Why is the

Attorney-General not prepared to make those submissions to the federal

government on the matter of abortion when he is on other areas of law

reform? And why is the Attorney-General not prepared to act on the

suggestions made by my colleague from Surrey with respect to hospitals

that aren't fulfilling their obligations as the law now stands?

HON. S.D. SMITH : The fulsomeness of the rhetoric seems to increase as we get further away from the relevancy of the facts.

What I have said, and I will try to repeat it clearly for both of these members, is that as I understand it — and it is something that perhaps more appropriately would have been addressed to the Minister of Health —

there is no obligation upon a hospital to perform an abortion. That's

my understanding of the law. My understanding of the Morgentaler

decision was that the committees — the system that used to be there — were no longer allowed by law. But it's my understanding that no hospital therefore has an obligation to do it.

The

second point is the one that I'm trying to answer for the member from

Surrey North, because I think it's a very valid one. She has told me in

this House that there are hospitals in British Columbia standing

outside the law. She asked me if I would look at that, and I said: "Yes

I will, if you can provide me with an example of one of the hospitals

that you think is standing outside the law." If you're talking about

the issue of whether they do not provide the service, then that's a

matter that you ought to properly address to the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Dueck).

With regard to the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew's continuing statements, I want to make the

point again about what I'm talking about, lest he deliberately mislead

the people of British Columbia by the kinds of things he says in the

House, which is frequently his wont, as we have found from some of the

people in the media who have received press releases from him in the

past and have discovered to his discredit and discomfiture that he was

wrong.

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH : Well, if you want to table those letters, Mr. Member, I'll be happy to do so.

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I will table the letters.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I would ask the members to make their remarks through the Chair.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

In fact, what I will do after the matter is heard and the appeal time

is gone is table the letters and simply let the issue be determined by

the people who want to know.

MR. SIHOTA : Table the whole file.

HON. S.D. SMITH : Well, if it's relevant. We'll see. Maybe.

Anyway,

Mr. Chairman, to get back to the issues at hand, the member asked me

what I do in addressing issues with Ottawa. I want to repeat what I do

when we're in negotiations with Ottawa: I take the position forward;

that is, the position of the government of the province of British

Columbia. As a member of the

[ Page 6517 ]

government,

that is my job. It's not particularly unusual when you're in government

that the position or the policy of government is not the same as your

personal point of view or your personal opinion. Your personal position

is irrelevant; I don't have any hesitation in saying that. There's

nothing particularly unusual about that, nor is there anything untoward

about it, That's what one does when one is in government; likewise, in

this particular chair you have to enforce the law, and you have to, to

the best of your ability, do it evenhandedly. Again, your personal

opinions are Irrelevant, That is very important to carrying out your

responsibility.

I don't see anything very inconsistent

about that at all. The member seems to think somehow that perhaps when

you make decisions in law enforcement or otherwise, you should put the

imprimatur of your personal opinions on them. I think there's a lot of

danger in doing that. I think it's important, therefore, that my

position be clear. I am a member of government. When I discuss issues

with Ottawa, I discuss them on the basis of government policy, and my

position is not relevant. If I get into a situation where I have to be

involved in the enforcement of the law, I ought not — as hard as that is, and it is hard — to let my personal views impact upon my judgment and my duty to the office I hold.

MR. MILLER : With regard to the law — and I certainly don't stand as an expert in the law at all —

in this country, it is that abortions are not illegal. We have a

situation in British Columbia, it seems to me, where hospital boards

are in essence creating their own laws, which I think is pretty wide of

the mark, in order to register their personal opinions. The

Attorney-General talked about not wanting to register his personal

opinion with respect to the matter, because that wasn't in his

jurisdiction and therefore was not valid. Do we not have a situation in

British Columbia where in some hospitals the hospital boards are

refusing to allow medical practitioners to offer a medical service,

based on the board's personal opinion? That is a real mix-up, if you

like, in terms of the law or the absence of law.

[3:45]

Hospital boards — I did canvass this issue last year, I believe, with the Minister of Health —

were set up as boards of citizens to administer the affairs of a

hospital and to make sure that that hospital was running efficiently,

that the people hired by the hospital were doing their job properly,

and that the laundry was done and the books were kept. Nowhere, at

least in my view, and at no time were hospital boards set up to

determine which medical procedures they wanted to allow to take place

in their hospitals. That was something that was quite removed from the

board. It only touched the board in this respect....

The

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is shaking his head. Maybe

he has some opinions he wants to offer. They were set up as citizen

boards to run hospitals from a management point of view.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

May I interrupt the member for a moment. Certain topics overlap from

ministry to ministry, but the Ministry of Health estimates have been

canvassed and passed by this committee. I would ask the member to try

and get a little closer to the discussion we are canvassing today, the

Attorney-General's administrative responsibilities. Please proceed.

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Chairman, perhaps you were preoccupied by discussion with the

Clerks and didn't hear me when I started my discussion. Clearly I am

right on topic under the Attorney-General's estimates. Without a

doubt....

MR. CHAIRMAN : I would just like to remind the member...

MR. MILLER : I think I've used the word "law" a few times for those people having difficulties interpreting me.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order! I'd like to remind the member that even though the Chair may be

inexperienced, the rules of the House do permit the Chair to make

certain decisions. I would therefore ask the member to proceed on the

estimates of the Attorney-General.

MR. MILLER : I was

making what I thought was a fairly logical premise. I did discuss the

fact that the law is federal. I'm trying to make an argument that in

some instances in this province, hospital boards are stepping into a

void and, in effect, creating their own law. This should be a subject

of some concern to the Attorney-General. You may disagree with my

arguments, but I don't think you can disagree that it's really on the

topic. It's my view that that's what's happening. Are not hospital

boards, in effect, frustrating — putting a barrier up to —

the individual's right or opportunity of access to medical procedures

that are not in fact illegal? Has the Attorney-General looked at the

issue from that perspective? I know that, in dealing with that....

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I am very disappointed to interrupt the member again, but I will read

from Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, seventeenth edition,

page 765, and ask him to either resume his seat or speak on the subject.

"General

restrictions on debate in Committee of Supply. Regarding the general

conduct of debate in the Committee of Supply, it may be observed that

remarks on the conduct of a servant of the state, made on the grant

containing his salary, must be restricted to his official conduct. The

Committee of Supply does not afford the proper opportunity for

discussing from which House of Parliament a minister should be chosen,

or whether he should be in the cabinet or not, or which minister should

represent the government in respect of the estimates under

consideration.

[ Page 6518 ]

"The

administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the

necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be

discussed in Committee of Supply. Nor can the actions of those high

public servants whose conduct can only be criticized upon substantive

motions, nor the decision of a judicial court, nor action for which a

minister is not responsible, such as the offer of a contribution to the

navy by a colony.

"A Member cannot discuss a

grant on which the committee have resolved, or a grant not yet brought

forward. So also, when a proposal has been made to omit or reduce an

item, debate is restricted to that item, and reference is not permitted

to any other item...."

The reason I read that is that it

goes a long way in getting the point across, the point I'm trying to

make to the member, which is: if we deal with the ministry's estimates,

then this debate will move along and the Chair will not have to get

involved. Would the member please proceed.

MR. BLENCOE : On a point of order.... I'm glad you read the whole chapter.

would also remind you, Mr. Chairman, that you referred to the official

conduct of the minister responsible. My colleague from Prince Rupert is

talking about the official conduct of the Attorney-General and the

administration of justice in British Columbia. I think he is very much

on target in terms of the issue. This is the chief law officer in the

province of British Columbia. My colleague from Prince Rupert is

drawing to the attention of the Attorney-General his concern that

certain boards may be frustrating the administration of justice in the

province. Therefore I think he is entitled to canvass that issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I now recognize the member for Prince Rupert, who will be strictly relevant.

MR. MILLER :

I haven't really spoken much in the House this year, and I feel kind of

picked on. The first time I get up to try and canvass a minister, I'm

chastised by the Chair at every turn. I take some pride in trying to

present arguments, I think, in a fairly logical fashion. I am somewhat

dismayed at your statements. Nonetheless, I'll rephrase the question I

asked before I was interrupted by the Chair. Has the Attorney-General

ever looked at whether or not hospital boards are frustrating the law

and in turn prohibiting citizens' access to certain medical care that

they would otherwise be entitled to?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

I am delighted that the member for Prince Rupert has taken his place in

debate. To answer your question about someone frustrating the law, the

answer is no. The logical reason I can say that is that there isn't a

law to frustrate.

The issue that you are talking about is really local autonomy of hospitals. You are talking, I think, about....

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Well, I think you are wrong about that. That's why I want to get the

information you claim is the case. The member for Surrey North says

there are hospitals breaking the law. I want to say to her very clearly

that if there are, I will have no hesitation whatsoever in

investigating that and taking the appropriate steps. I have simply

asked her to provide me with the name of one of these hospitals that

she believes is breaking the law. I have also said — and I say to her, and I say to the member for Prince Rupert —

that if there are hospitals who are not performing the service you're

talking about, I don't think you can fairly call that breaking the law.

is the case that hospitals are entitled to choose those services which

they provide. Some hospitals provide certain services and some don't.

Some hospitals do some kinds of operations and others don't. Some

hospitals, I believe, are almost exclusively in the business of

delivering children and looking after young children. Other hospitals

don't deliver children at all. Those are decisions that are taken by

the hospitals. I don't think it's fair to the hospitals to say that if

they don't provide the service, they are in breach of the law.

If,

as a result of the Morgentaler decision, there is someone who is still

carrying on the process that resulted in that

section of the Code being

struck down — in the same way and with the same result — then

I would want to hear about that. That's all I have asked you to apprise

me of. I don't think there's anything unreasonable about that.

The

question that you have raised referred to Vernon. I'm not 100 percent

familiar with the Vernon situation. It is my understanding that in that

hospital their society — their governing body; their local board —

decided not to provide certain services. I could be wrong about that,

but I believe that's what they did. You may say you disagree with their

views. You may say to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) during

his estimates that you want to do away with local hospital boards or

not let them have that autonomy, but so long as they have that

authority as a board to decide what services they will provide, they

are not doing anything to break the law. I don't know how many

different ways I can say that. You may disagree with their decision,

but they are not doing anything for which they would have the sanction

of the law come down on them.

Again I say to those members — because I don't want some more fulsome, rhetorical outbursts rooted in misinformation —

that my job, and I take it seriously, is to make sure that the law is

enforced. My job is to make sure I do that without having the

imprimatur of my own opinions impair the enforcement of the law. We are

talking about law enforcement, and I think it's important to make that

point. I think as well that it's important to make the point — and I think it is the case with all ministers —

that when you are dealing with policy and when you are negotiating with

another level of government, you deal with the policy of government.

You don't deal with your own personal opinions and whistle off — at least, hopefully you don't. If you do, you will get into a lot of

[ Page 6519 ]

trouble.

You won't be doing your job properly. In that sense, the relevancy of

your own opinions is secondary to: (1) the policy of the government you

serve; and (2) to the office that you hold, particularly in the area of

enforcement of the law. It doesn't do any good — although I

recognize that it may be seen as a wise thing politically to raise

personal attacks on one another in that regard — to try and take

very serious social issues and politicize them. I understand that it's

part of the game for the opposition. That's fair enough. We all

understand what they have to do, Their job is to oppose in whatever way

they can. The aisle here is a clear recognition of the

institutionalization of civil war, and however they can destroy

someone, that's their job. I know that.

What I've said in answer to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) — and I'll say it again —

is that I'm happy to advance the policy of government on all kinds of

issues dealing with Canada. The policy of the government of British

Columbia has been to advise the federal government that because there

isn't a law at all in that area since the Morgentaler case, because

it's a matter that can only be dealt with by the Parliament of Canada,

and because parliamentarians, many of whom are elected again, said they

would deal with it, they should get on and deal with it. In fact, if

I'm correct, the Minister of Justice has indicated that this is

something they want to get on with.

[4:00]

MR. MILLER :

I think it's a serious issue. If the Attorney-General wants to

trivialize it.... I thought it was serious when I raised it last year,

when a 14-year-old girl from northern British Columbia had to spend two

weeks in a motel room in some city in the interior while people finally

decided that she couldn't obtain an abortion. I guess she thought it

was pretty serious, too.

The question I pose is in terms of

the board creating its own law. If you go to the hospital because

you've cut your finger, I presume that if the hospital said, "I'm

sorry, we've decided as a board that we don't treat cut fingers

here — go somewhere else," there might be quite a reaction. Maybe even the Attorney-General would feel moved to comment.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

On a point of order, I think I have done more than my share today to

try to be fair and open with this opposition and to answer the

questions as they relate to this ministry. But I must say, Mr.

Chairman, when we get on to issues of cut fingers and so on it is not

really within the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney-General. I

would commend to the Chair to keep order in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

The Chair agrees with the position stated by the Attorney-General and

would ask the member to proceed with this in mind and be relevant to

the Attorney-General's estimates.

MR. MILLER :

Really, Mr. Chairman, my question is: are the boards creating their own

law? I was trying to illustrate by using some analogies to back up my

premise. If, every time I mention hospitals and some medical term,

somebody's going to jump up and say I'm out of order, then it's going

to be a pretty difficult argument to make, but I have to make it in the

context of what we're dealing with. I was trying to advance the

argument that the boards are making their own law. It's very selective.

Hospitals don't refuse to treat cut fingers, appendicitis, heart

attacks, you name it; but some of them do refuse to do this procedure.

I'm suggesting that in that case the board is creating its own law and

preventing citizens of this province, most of whom live.... Most of the

people affected by that kind of activity live outside the lower

mainland. We know the difficulty of transportation to medical

facilities.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I wish to remind the member of my earlier comments. His point may be valid, but I would ask him to keep it relevant.

MR. MILLER :

I'll leave the question at this, Mr. Chairman: has the Attorney-General

looked at it from the point of view of boards creating their own law?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

I thought I had answered that. Before I do, I want to say for the

record that if the member believes I have sought to trivialize the

issue, you are clearly wrong. I have not made a comment today or on any

other matter in these estimates that did in fact seek to trivialize or

resulted in the trivialization of anything, and I want him to know

that. It's highly inappropriate for him to offer that view.

With

regard to boards, I can only say to the member that our hospital boards

set policy for the operation of hospitals. That is their job. They set

the policy for what things will be done in the hospital. The member

said that the boards do not set policy to not do certain activities.

You're quite wrong. Some boards do set policies to not undertake some

activities in some hospitals and others to take them on. Some hospitals

are not trauma centres. The boards quite specifically...

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH : No, it's not equipment; it's the kinds of things they do —

and procedures. So there are some procedures that some boards do, and

there are some they don't do. Yes, the boards do set policies to make

decisions about what things will be done in certain hospitals.

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's sinking in that we're trying to talk

about his attitude towards the administration of justice on women’s

issues. I don't think that's sinking in to him. When he uses the

language that we're playing games here, that were just trying to get

people and that's the role of the opposition, I don't think he

understands what his role is.

His role is to be the

Attorney-General and to be involved in the administration of justice.

It's not his personal opinion that we're particularly interested in.

[ Page 6520 ]

I've

never mentioned my personal opinion on the issue of abortion. We are

talking about his role as a politician and a political leader. I'm

quite prepared to say....

I was asked what my role is. My

role is to be the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New

Democratic Party, and I'm very proud of both those roles. In that role,

Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to stand up and say that I am

pro-choice, and that's the position of our party. Yet we don't have an

Attorney-General who is prepared to stand up here and say what the

political position of this government is on this very important issue.

dodges and weaves and dances around that very important issue. What

he's not prepared to do is to go back over his track record. He can

schmooze us all he wants here in the Legislature, but he's not prepared

to say where he was and what he did in this Legislature. I don't think

his response in this Legislature is in Hansard .

His Premier defied the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of

abortion, and the previous Attorney-General was mortified by that. But

we didn't see the MLA for Kamloops stand up and express the Opinion in

public that the Premier of this province couldn't defy the constitution

and the Supreme Court of Canada.

The attitude of the

Attorney-General towards the administration of justice, which is

central to the estimates of the Attorney-General, is what we're talking

about here. His attitude when he was sitting back here as an MLA is

very important to the administration of justice. I think the people of

British Columbia are entitled to know what his attitude is — that

he not hide behind some veil or oath of secrecy. I think we're entitled

to know what position he took in this Legislature, in public, when the

Minister of Health and the Premier were going to defy the Supreme Court

of Canada in terms of funding for abortions and the Supreme Court of

British Columbia on the issue of funding for abortions under the

Medical Services Plan. We're entitled to know his attitude and his

position.

HON. MR. DUECK : On a point of order, Mr.

Chairman, I don't think that the Premier or the Minister of Health

defied the laws of Canada. It was ruled that the law was upheld,

therefore abortions became legal in this province. But we did not defy

the laws of Canada.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Mr. Minister, I can't rule on that as a point of order.

MR. ROSE :

My role here is merely to assist the Chair. I think the Chair was about

to say that it really was a point of debate, and if the minister wanted

to get up on a point of personal privilege, that would be one thing.

But a point of order it isn't; it's a dispute as to the facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to continue, but I would ask

him also to keep his remarks relevant to the debate today, which is the

estimates of the Attorney-General.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr.

Chairman, I'm doing just that; I am talking about the attitude which

the Attorney-General was not prepared to share with this House, and

that he brings to these central issues in the administration of

justice. They're before us every day. There are people who are prepared

to go to jail for their beliefs in this area. It is an important issue

in British Columbia.

Nobody is treating it like a game. I'm

offended when the Attorney-General stands up and says that this is a

game. It trivializes the position of the Attorney-General in this

province, and it gets to my central point that his attitude., .. He's

prepared to hide behind a veil of secrecy, as though his attitude as a

public political leader isn't important, and that it's Irrelevant.

Mr. Chairman, this Attorney-General clearly isn't up to the job. He doesn't understand his role.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I would just like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that the

administrative responsibility of the Attorney-General is what we're

supposed to be discussing, not the personal attitudes of the

Attorney-General. Please proceed.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Chairman, the attitude that one brings to the job

is very important. If you have a negative attitude, as some members of this

government seem to have over and over again — just negative, negative, negative — it has a very unfortunate impact on the citizens of this province. So the

attitude they bring to their job is fundamental; it's very important.

think the attitude of the Attorney-General of waffling and whiffling

and refusing to take firm action, when there is blockage of access to

the Everywoman's Health Centre, is of fundamental import to this

province. When he says that his attitude as a public leader — not as a private citizen —

isn't important to the administration of justice and the

representations that go to the federal government in terms of changes

to the Criminal Code.... It's fundamental to his role. He's saying that

he is once again, after all the examples I've given, trying to duck and

pretend he's still a backroom boy. He's not a backroom boy. He's the

Attorney-General of this province, and you can't duck tough decisions

because of your own personal ambitions; that's what I'm saying, Mr.

Chairman. He's ducking and bobbing and weaving even more when he reads

the polls.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Point of order. I

realize that the Leader of the Opposition is very new to this House,

and that indeed he doesn't spend very much time in this House, but the

administrative responsibilities of the Attorney-General are all that

are open for consideration. Personal references are never in order, and

I would ask you to bring this new member to order and have him

understand what this place is all about.

[ Page 6521 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN : I thank the minister for his comments. Would the opposition leader please proceed,

MR. HARCOURT :

I'm not making any personal observations at all. I'm talking about the

role of a political leader and about what the attitude of a person

interested in justice should be. I am saying that there is a

responsibility to make representations to a parliament that is

considering this very important issue. We have asked over and over

whether he, on behalf of this government, is prepared to make those

representations, and he's ducking behind the constitution. It's the

women of this province who are going to suffer because of his ducking.

He may think that the rights of women to make decisions about

reproduction are irrelevant; we don't. As New Democrats we think it's

very important; it's a very serious matter. The Attorney-General may

not, and I think the attitude he brings to this is very important. One

of his colleagues, the previous member for Vancouver-Point Grey, was

prepared to stand up and be counted. He wasn't, on this very important

issue, and still isn't.

The point I'm trying to make is

that the Attorney-General is not a backroom boy anymore. He's the

Attorney-General, and these kinds of what he calls "games" of trying to

set up the New Democrats and the Musqueams on the UEL.... He and his

government trying to do that was one of the more disgraceful parts of

this legislative session.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Mr.

Chairman, I would ask again that you bring this member to order and

have him understand that the UEL is not the administrative

responsibility of the Attorney-General. We are in parliament, and we

are supposed to be in the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney-General.

[4:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN : I thank the minister for his comments.

MR. ROSE :

On the same point of order, simply to assist the Chair in coming to his

decisions, wide latitude is usually permitted on the ministerial office

and vote. I don't think that things that are a personal attack or some

sort of vendetta should be permitted, and I don't think that is what is

being exercised here There is wide latitude permitted. The fact that he

mentioned the Musqueams doesn't rule it out of order. If we are going

to be that narrow and rigid, I think these estimates might even take

longer. I could hardly imagine them taking longer, but they could.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I thank the opposition House Leader for his comments.

HON. MR. VEITCH : The administrative responsibilities of the minister

responsible for the University Endowment Lands transfer will be coming up in

this House. Each member of this House will have the opportunity to question

that minister. In assisting the Chair, I would suggest that the administrative

responsibilities of the Attorney-General are the only thing at question today,

and I would ask you to so rule.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I thank the minister for his assistance. I would ask the opposition

leader to proceed and keep his remarks relevant to the estimates of the

Attorney-General.

MR. HARCOURT : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the minister of defence over there made his point.

The

point I reiterate is very simple: if the Attorney-General is not

concerned about the rights of women, as we New Democrats are.... We're

prepared to stand up and be counted and to express our opinions very

clearly. We are pro-choice on the issue of abortion and are against

imposing our own personal viewpoints, as this Social Credit government

has done to the women of this province. I think the attitude of the

Attorney-General as a politician and a public person is very important.

He's refused to deal with it.

The Attorney-General is the

prime person to give legal advice to the minister responsible for the

UEL decision, which severely impairs and just about extinguishes the

rights of the Musqueams to pursue their land claim; that was the ruling

we had from the Chair when I was here. That was exactly the ruling we

got, and it was this Attorney-General who did that to the Musqueam

people. If the Attorney-General wants to continue to hide behind, "Oh,

that's a personal opinion," and, "Oh, that's the federal government's

responsibility," and duck and bob and weave like a backroom boy, that's

fine. I want the people of British Columbia to see him like he is.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

I'm delighted and flattered that the opposition has paid me so much

attention these last seven days, because clearly they don't shoot at

dead ducks.

I want also to say that my late grandfather's

suggestion to "beware the righteous" carries no greater meaning and

understanding for me than it does today, listening to the Leader of the

Opposition. He talks about attitude. I'll tell you the attitude I carry

in this place: it's one of honesty. And I would ask you to do the same

thing.

I want to say to you, Mr. Leader of the Opposition,

that on the big issues we've seen you get out of alternating cab doors

throughout your political career. We saw you on Expo; we saw you on

ALRT; we saw you on the trade and convention centre; and we saw you

five minutes ago in this chamber, when you said, "I'm not making

personal representations." I wonder what representations you were

making, if they weren't personal representations.

I say

again: I try to bring an attitude of honesty. I try to ensure I do that

on the big things as well as the little things. I suppose that whether

it's five minutes ago or five years ago with Expo, it really doesn't

make a lot of difference to the opposition, as long as

[ Page 6522 ]

grabs a little bit of ink and a little bit of air. That seems to be the

tone; that seems to be the position of the opposition leader, and

that's fair enough. I understand that, because that is his role; and he

plays that role of airiness very well. And I'm sure we'll continue to

see him play that role.

On the issue at hand — which I think is the one we should try to deal with —

I have no hesitancy in saying to this House that I believe it very

important that I try as much as I can to diminish the political

rhetorician, which rests in all of us, and understand that I have some

responsibility to evenly demonstrate what it is that the office I serve

represents.

I will continue to do that in the face of

whatever taunts, no matter how cheap, or infrequently rendered they are

by the Leader of the Opposition, who finds it difficult to put himself

in this House.... I have no difficulty with that, and I will say to the

opposition leader that as the person representing this office, I will

not respond to those kinds of taunts in kind, because I don't think

it's a thing I should do. If you wish to continue with them, for

goodness' sake do so, but if you get some sort of satisfaction out of a

response, you're going to be — as you frequently are — a very unsatisfied man.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Mr. Minister, would you please address the Chair.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I want to say — through you, Mr. Chairman —

that I will continue to do what I believe to be correct in the service

of this office, I will apply to the best of my ability the law in an

even way, and I will do so without having the imprimatur of my personal

biases and my political biases placed upon it. That is what I was sworn

to do, and that's what I will do. It's not — as I said earlier in this debate —

an easy thing to do. It is something that I am responsible to do and I

will do. And I will as well, in terms of government policy, continue to

advance government policy If that is something that the opposition

leader finds dissatisfying, so be it.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I would just like to remind all the members of the House that I have

made several rulings with regards to relevancy, and it applies to both

sides of the House. Now may we return to debate on vote 13.

MR. HARCOURT : I think it's quite relevant to the women of British

Columbia, what the policy of this government is. It has been dreadful in its

first two and a half years. The Attorney-General has once again ducked that

question. He wasn't only being righteous; he was being self-righteous to

a massive degree, full of airy flimflam and righteous words that really didn't

say a great deal at all to the women of this province on this very important

issue.

He didn't have a great deal to say to the Musqueam on the UEL, because

that bill, I would take it, was run through the lawyers who advise the government.

It attempted to extinguish the rights of the Musqueam people, who have been

around for centuries in this province. I think the native people of this province

are entitled to know the approach this government will take with them through

their Attorney-General.

conclude by saying that they're no better off after this exchange,

because the Attorney-General just kind of whimpered for about ten

minutes, poor lad. The women and the natives of this province deserve

far more than that. What they deserve from this Attorney-General is

justice, for once and for all.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I

know the Leader of the Opposition has not been in the House very much

this session at all, and therefore he would not be aware of what I

thought were excellent discussions that have occurred in this House on

a number of these issues, particularly those relating to our policies

and views with respect to native issues. Those discussions have been

held with the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno), who I would say contributed

more in 30 seconds than the Leader of the Opposition has in this House

during this session and in his entire career. We also had an

outstanding contribution from the first member for Victoria (Mr. G.

Hanson). I thought those exchanges were very good, but for the benefit

of the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps I could go over some of those

areas for him. I think it important that the House be aware and that he

perhaps has the benefit of that as he's travelling around the province.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, we in British Columbia — all governments since Confederation —

have taken the view that on the issue of aboriginal title.... We are

arguing this position before the Supreme Court now; it's a matter

seized by the Chief Justice of our province, Allan McEachern. We take

the view that aboriginal title did not exist; that it was a concept

unknown to our law; that if it did exist, it was extinguished by the

acts of Confederation; and that further, in any event, the matter,

because of the way we joined Confederation, is rightly the

responsibility, at least monetarily, of the federal government.

have taken that position historically, leading up to the Nisga'a case,

in which unfortunately Mr. Justice Pigeon did not decide on the

substantive matter. Until that time, that position, I think it is safe

to say, was also the one taken by Canada. Following that, the former

Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, offered the view that there might in fact

be some questioning of that position. Since then the Gitksan case has

proceeded, and it has been characterized by Mr. Justice McEachern as

perhaps the most important litigation ever undertaken in our province.

[4:30]

I repeat that because the Leader of the Opposition and others have

offered the view that there is legal harassment of native people by

this government in those matters. I state for the record that I do not

believe that to characterize what is going on in Chief Justice

McEachern's courtroom as legal harassment.... I think that is a very

improper position for someone who presumes to wish to serve this

province as Premier — and who very well may If the people want socialism, then they'll get him. To char-

[ Page 6523 ]

acterize

that most important case, for which, as the member would know, the

overwhelming majority of the money we have spent on native litigation

that gets referred to — the numbers were specifically tabled in

the House.... To have that in any way characterized as harassment is

just not right. I pointed that out to the members of the opposition who

made that comment in this House, and I did so because I think that the

Chief Justice of the province, who is not able — no justice really is — to defend himself against these kinds of things....

MR. HARCOURT :

On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I don't know where the

Attorney-General got anything out of the words I have said today, or

ever in this Legislature, about this case — or the Gitksan

whatsoever. He is attributing to me statements that I have never made,

and I think it's a point of privilege. I resent his bringing forward a

position that I have not made in the Legislature, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I did mention this earlier today, and certainly the two speakers at

this point are well aware that there are some elements in this

discussion that are, I believe, being dealt with in the courts. While I

wouldn't say that sub judice applies particularly, I would just remind

both hon. members that in the course of this debate it's something we

must bear in mind.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Just to

respond to the member's concern, it's clearly not a point of order in

committee, nor a point of privilege, nor can it be taken as such. In

committee, Mr. Member, you're allowed to speak and respond to a comment

a member makes. If you are of a different opinion than him, you wait

till he finishes his comments and then you can take your turn. That's

why debate is structured that way in Committee of Supply. Your point

certainly does not qualify, even by the remotest stretch of anyone's

imagination, as a point of privilege or a point of order.

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Environment was out of the room when

another matter was raised from the other side using the same device to

correct a misrepresentation, or what appeared to be a

misrepresentation. While we might well do it upon the conclusion of the

Attorney-General's speeches, his remarks have frequently been very

lengthy today and the whole thread of the thing might be forgotten by

then. So we felt it was appropriate to bring it up now.

MR. CHAIRMAN : We thank all hon. members for the discourse and would ask the Attorney-General to please proceed.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

It may be, Mr. Chairman, that my remarks have been lengthy, but in part

that is because I've had to go over many of the same issues Governments

open the House, oppositions close it down. I don't mind doing it,

because members of the opposition aren't all in the House at the same

time; and that's proper, as there are committees going on and the like.

But the Leader of the Opposition has made some pretty strong statements

to native affairs. He has made the point that he thinks that I won't

answer questions. Well, I'm going to answer the questions. If they're

lengthy, then fair enough, they'll be lengthy; but they're going to be

answered.

MR. HARCOURT : I asked about the Musqueam.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

I'll get to the Musqueam, but I'm going to answer the whole issue,

because I'm not going to sit here and allow people to be picked off a

chip at a time by an opposition leader who's sort of an itinerant

visitor to this chamber. That is unfortunately what I'm going to have

to do, and I'm quite happy to do it.

When I talk about the

Gitksan case, which is being characterized as the most important

litigation, and the one about which the greatest amount of funding by

the province has been extended, and I talk about the proposition put to

me on several occasions that legal harassment of Indians has been going

on because of the amount of money that we spend on these issues, then

it's not unusual that one would draw those two things together by way

of conclusion.

I again want to say what I have said

previously in this House, Mr. Chairman: that the matters before His

Honour Chief Justice McEachern ought not to be characterized in that

way, directly or inferentially or by association, because the Chief

Justice and other justices are not able to defend themselves against

those slights and attacks. It rests on the Attorney-General to defend

our courts and our justices when that kind of suggestion is made about

what is going on within their courts. I have no hesitancy in doing

that, because it's extremely important to us.

I am also of

the view that that case will indeed establish the law, depending on

where it goes and whether someone wants to pursue it further. It will

establish an area in the law which up till now has not been in any way

specific.

In the meantime I want to let the Leader of the

Opposition know that I believe there is a tremendous amount of room for

negotiation in all kinds of issues relating to natives and native

claims. In fact, government has been pursuing that policy, and I think

it's important that the opposition leader be aware of that. Members

opposite say there's no substance to it. I'll tell you, you may think

there's no substance to it, but we have in British Columbia 22

outstanding matters relating to the cut-off claims. They came from the

McKenna-McBride commission and they were expropriations without

compensation. We have negotiated over half of those claims

successfully. I anticipate that my colleague the Minister Responsible

for Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) will be successful in

negotiating the rest of them. We were able to settle matters relating

to the issues at Fort Nelson involving the

[ Page 6524 ]

Treaty

8 issue through negotiations. That is an important matter relating to

land claim. We have as well, I think, been a party — and in fact we are leaders in it —

to the most important and progressive piece of legislation dealing with

self-government ever undertaken anywhere in the country.

am sorry now that the Leader of the Opposition has left again, and the

record should show that, because it makes it difficult to get through

these issues when he refuses to sit in the chamber when people are

debating. Nevertheless, that is the style of his choice.

terms of self-government and the Sechelt matter, while it certainly is

not going to be the pattern that all bands will want to pursue, it is

one that creates hope for a lot of people and creates a point from

which negotiations can go ahead. I know that there have been scores of

bands who have attended at Sechelt, sufficiently that one of the chiefs

I was talking to recently told me that there was a lineup, that you had

to get an appointment several months in advance, and that, in fact,

there were consulting arrangements now taking place. Those are some of

the things which I think are very important.

Again, I'm

sorry the Leader of the Opposition has left while I am trying to

explain these things for the record. I will continue on in any event.

We've

also negotiated solutions to certain water rights issues. Those matters

have been very much in dispute over a long period of time. The second

member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) was very much responsible for

initiating the work with the Ingenika That has been followed up with

the Minister for Native Affairs. It would appear that those

negotiations are coming to some conclusion.

We have negotiated — I said originally 13; I was wrong —

over 30 timber agreements: everything from small business licences to

tree-farm licences. It's a very important issue of resource sharing and

one in which native leaders around our province are most interested.

addition to that we have also negotiated an important resource issue

involving mining with the Tahltan people in the northwest of our

province. The chief of the Kamloops band, Chief Jules, is working

presently with the government of British Columbia and the

municipalities of British Columbia in a very important initiative:

looking at some negotiated settlement to taxation matters that flow

from an important piece of legislation that Chief Jules was

instrumental in getting through the Parliament of Canada.

Again

these are very important matters of negotiation, and it is unfortunate

that the Leader of the Opposition has decided not to be in the chamber

to deal with them.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'm sorry, but the Attorney-General's time under standing orders has expired.

HON. MR. HUBERTS : I'm finding this discourse very interesting and enlightening, and I would like the Attorney-General to continue.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will continue in the hopes that the Leader

of the Opposition will return to listen to this very important matter

about negotiations.

I have said that I am more interested

in jawing than litigating, and that is the case. You will see that

reflected more and more in many of the issues that are outstanding. In

that regard, I had very productive and fruitful discussions with the

Tsawout band and with the Claxton family and members of that band and

their elders, as well as with members of that community. It was done at

the insistence of the Minister of Parks, the second member for Saanich

and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Huberts), who asked me to get involved and I

have. I am hopeful those discussions will lead to more fruitful

activities.

I should point out that I have had discussions

about these activities with the first member for Victoria (Mr. G.

Hanson). I believe that's a useful and important thing to undertake.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

On a point of order, in the last hour we have had pointed out to us

several times the need for debate to centre around the minister's

estimates. I would just like to ask the Chair if this particular debate

is relevant to the minister's estimates and whether the Chair would

make a ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Relevancy, of course,

is very important in debate. This debate on the Attorney-General's

estimates has been fairly far-ranging. The Chair has allowed a certain

degree of latitude in the debate going forward. I must say, it would

appear to the Chair at this time, from having heard the questions that

were posed, that I believe the Attorney-General is responding to them.

If they are not relevant, then I would suspect that the questions were

not relevant either.

I would just remind all members that

relevancy is very important in debate, particularly when we're dealing

with estimates. It used to be that we were allowed to debate only a

particular vote, one at a time. But in view of expediency, we have made

it possible to actually debate all the votes within an estimate at one

time, which makes it a little more difficult to control relevancy. I'd

ask the Attorney-General if he would continue, please.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

I think these matters are most relevant, because not only was the

question asked but the question asked is relative to the relationship

between litigation and negotiation. Our ministry is responsible for

litigation. There's a sizeable amount of expenditures. I don't think

there's any question as to the relevancy. I know I'm doing this for the

benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, who has decided to duck out of

the chamber and not be here. Nevertheless we should carry on.

[4:45]

1 was on the issue of the Saanichton band, then of Chief Jules. I

also mentioned the things that are ongoing with respect to issues

raised with me very usefully by the first member for Victoria.

[ Page 6525 ]

Specifically

with regard to the Musqueam band, at the request of the first member

for Victoria, I met on very short notice with members of that band and

its leadership. I listened carefully to what was said and agreed to

meet with members of the band to discuss issues that they are concerned

about at their own place of residence on their property on the reserve.

I must also say to the Leader of the Opposition — because he's not here, but I want to put it on the record because he asked the question — that the members present thanked me for the time taken to have such a meeting on notice of virtually one hour or less —

and sometimes it's difficult to juggle yourself around to do that. I

was very appreciative of that. I thought that the tone of our meeting,

while the result was obviously not as requested — that can happen in meetings —

was very productive and very positive. Quite frankly, I was encouraged

by that, and I will pursue that opportunity to establish a relationship

with members of that band.

In relation to the matters

before us respecting the Chilcotin people, I have said that I will

undertake to go there and to be involved with them in seeking ways that

we can move forward the process of making our justice system work on

their behalf.

In terms of the criminal justice

section of the ministry — again

to the absent Leader of the Opposition, who asks the question and then

ducks out because he doesn't want to hear the answer — I want to say that we appointed Peter Ewert in January of this year to be responsible for native justice issues.

Peter

Ewert is a very senior Crown counsel in this province. We're confident

that, through his work ' we're going to be able to do some things that

we want to do in relation to diversion projects. We have some pilot

projects in mind and underway that will involve the native community.

We're going to work closely with other ministries of government, and

we're going to as well, through his offices, enhance and augment the

amount of consultation going on with native leaders. Perhaps more

importantly, we're going to exam line alternative justice programs. I

think it's very important that we do that.

Having said

that, I should add that the Justice Reform Committee recommended to us

that we augment the funding for the native court workers program.

Frankly, I'm very proud of the 38 field workers in the native court

workers program around the province. They provide service to 60

communities and make an absolutely outstanding effort on behalf of the

people of the province. As we've heard earlier in this debate, we have

responded with more funding. I've met with many of the court workers,

and I'm going to be meeting with more of them to see how we can enhance

the delivery of services in that community.

I am closing out this

section before I go on to answer the Leader of the Opposition — because he's not here —

on the questions of some of the women's issues that he raised. The

Justice Reform Committee recommended that native communities should be

encouraged to develop their own diversion programs. We're going to put

a lot of resources, thought and communication into that. I think that

it's a really important area in which we can make progress.

well as that, the Justice Reform Committee examined this whole

proposition of having a separate justice system. They looked at that

proposition seriously but abandoned it, and said it's something that

ought not to go forward.

In terms of some of the issues

that we've talked about specifically in relation to matters of concern

particularly to women, but matters of concern to all citizens of our

province — which the Leader of the Opposition raised but now is not prepared to stay here and listen to the answers about —

we have the family maintenance enforcement program, which we think is

an important initiative. We've heard discussion about some of the

deficiencies in the program as it is set up, dealing with the backlog

of people initially, and we are going to address those. I think it is a

fine program for addressing the long-term needs — indeed, the short-term needs, but certainly the longterm needs —

in that area because it provides a vehicle by which an agency will

assist in the enforcement of maintenance orders. Like it or not, when

there is family breakup, the maintenance

section becomes very

important. Our family enforcement program is unique in that it will

defend against applications to vary, a common tactic used in relation

to enforcement orders generally. That part of the program is unique to

British Columbia, so we're pretty pleased with that.

Legal

aid in relation to family law is where the bulk of the increases have

been. There has been a tariff increase of 104 percent in family law

matters. We've expanded coverage to non-urgent custody, paternity, and

for obtaining and varying maintenance orders. There has been quite an

expansion in terms of not only the funding but the tariff, which is

really an access issue. I note that the member for Prince George North

(Mrs. Boone) yawns at that, but it is important to women that good

counsel be available. In part, that will reflect itself in the amount

of the tariff.

We've also, under that program, funded

flexible financial eligibility criteria for restraining orders and

custody and protection matters. That is an issue of considerable

importance to women in this province. We are examining the proposition

of how family duty counsel would work, and how it might work through a

number of pilot projects that we're into.

There's no

question that there's more to do, and I don't deny that for a second. I

suppose one of the reasons I want to continue to serve in public life

at all is because there's more to do. I think that probably motivates

all of us.

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

The member for Prince George North says there's more to say.