1988 Legislative Session: 2nd 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, APRIL 19, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3941 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 3941

Oral Questions

Riverview Hospital. Mr. Rose –– 3941

BCEC lands. Mr. Williams –– 3942

Squamish Highway. Mr. Lovick –– 3942

Premier's oath of office. Mr. Sihota –– 3943

Squamish Highway. Mr. Lovick –– 3943

Replacement of TCMTB. Mr. Miller –– 3943

Presenting Petitions –– 3944

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates. (Hon. B.R. Smith)

On vote 14: minister's office –– 3944

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Rose

Ms. Campbell

Mr. Darcy

Mr. Sihota

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

In the members' gallery today is a good friend and constituent, Mr.

Doug Walker. Doug is director of sales for the Best Western Kings Inn

in Burnaby. May this House bid him welcome.

MR. REE :

Mr. Speaker, on your behalf, on behalf of my other colleague on the

North Shore, the hon. Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis), and on my

own behalf, I'd ask the House to welcome three guests today: Hilda

Rizun, chairman of the board of Capilano College; Graham Crockart, a

member of the board; and Douglas Jardine, president of Capilano College.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Speaker, today we have a member of the fourth estate who is

celebrating a birthday. In these past three years she has served the

press gallery of our House. She was inconsistent in her good judgment

inasmuch as she left British Columbia and spent four years in Ottawa,

but she is back now in British Columbia these past few months, and I'd

like to ask all members of the House to wish Margot Sinclair a happy

birthday.

MR. SIHOTA : I just got scooped by the

Minister of Economic Development because I was going to do the same

thing, so I'm feeling just terrible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

MR. SIHOTA :

I feel a lot better now that I see there's all sorts of sympathy for me

on the other side of the House. In any event, I do have her horoscope

here and I promised her that I would read it: "Emphasis on movement,

variety, contact with exciting, creative individuals. Focus also on

trips, visits, relatives and signed agreements." We, on this side of

the House, would also like to wish Margot Sinclair a happy twenty-first

birthday.

MR. PELTON : I'd like to ask the hon.

members to welcome today two people visiting the House: Lisa Kerley

from West Vancouver, and Richard Hill from Yellow Point Lodge on

Vancouver Island.

MR. CRANDALL : Mr. Speaker, I'm

fortunate today to have two constituents here from my riding which, as

you know, is a long way away. The first is Mr. Buzz Harmsworth, who is

a recent retiree from government service after many years, and he's

also an alderman in the district of Invermere; and secondly, Jackie

Riches is here from Invermere, and she does an outstanding job in the

MLA's office. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. CHALMERS :

Visiting the precincts today are a number of the executive board of the

Professional Association of Residents and Internes of British Columbia.

Two of them are members of very prominent families in Kelowna. On

behalf of my colleague from Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa), I'd like to ask

all of you to give a warm welcome to Dr. Peter Wilson and Dr. Robert

Conn.

MR. MICHAEL : Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the members to make welcome a

couple visiting the precincts today from my constituency: Mr. and Mrs. Willis

Jefcoat from Salmon Arm. Mr. Jefcoat was a member of this assembly during the

1960s.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the 1987 annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia.

Oral Questions

RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL

MR. ROSE :

I have a series of rather serious and important questions to direct to

the Minister of Health concerning the Riverview Hospital in my riding.

the minister knows, there was a stabbing in Riverview last weekend,

during which a psychiatric nurse's life was threatened. Can the

minister confirm to the House that the number of seriously ill and

potentially dangerous patients has increased over the last five years,

hence the potential for violent acts?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Speaker, the question was whether there has been an increase; I

could not tell you. I'll have to take that question on notice and give

you the answer soon.

MR. ROSE : Mr. Speaker, my

information is that it has. This is coupled with another problem

because of early retirement and other factors. Can the minister confirm

that serious shortages of experienced nursing staff has made patient

care and public security more difficult?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Speaker, it has now been turned over to a society from government

control. There is some restructuring taking place. Whether there is

more of a shortage of experienced or professional people now than there

was in the past, I would not like to either confirm or deny. However,

if the member wishes to know what the employment ratio was previously

and what it is today, I will take that question on notice and bring

that figure back to you.

MR. ROSE : I'm glad the

minister mentioned the business of the society. I'd like to ask

what steps the minister has taken recently to improve that hospital

board by appointing interested community leaders and replacing the

public service bureaucrats which he appointed to that private board in

the first place, whose concerns are very much the concerns of the

ministry rather than either the patients or the community at large.

HON. MR. DUECK :

No, the member is wrong. The reason public servants were put on that to

begin with is for that turnover from government to society. We're now

in the process of appointing a wide variety of people from various

backgrounds to that society, so it will in fact be truly a society from

the community.

MR. ROSE : We're all anxiously awaiting the true society, the reflective society and even the just society.

I'd

like to ask a final supplementary, and this has to do with the

community. Can the minister tell the House what he intends to do about

supplying the needed psychiatric services to out-patients which are

lacking, and their care, currently under community care; and whether

more community placement is planned?

[ Page 3942 ]

HON. MR. DUECK :

If the member is referring to downsizing of Riverview, again that is

not correct; we are not downsizing Riverview. However, a report has

been tabled and will be discussed by cabinet and a decision will be

made whether we're going to downsize and how soon, and whether we have

a shortage of psychiatrists in the field. From time to time there is a

movement of people going into their own business and we lose some and

have to replace them; but by and large I think we offer a good service

for outpatient people. There may be an increase of some of those in the

communities and we'll try to cope with that. I do not see a lack of

service being delivered to any particular community.

MR. ROSE : Just for clarification — it really isn't a question —

what I was concerned about was psychiatric services available to those

out-patients already in the community which are lacking and causing a

lot of difficulty for both the patient and the public.

[2:15]

HON. MR. DUECK :

Again, we are providing good outpatient service, and I do not think

that we or the people out there who are doing the job should be

criticized. We have a good out-patient service in most areas. From time

to time there is a change in personnel, and that has to be looked

after. When you have that many people in the industry, there will be a

change, and from time to time it has to be replenished because some of

them may quit and go into private business.

BCEC LANDS

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the Premier. You said on Saturday, Mr. Premier, that there would be

five conditions regarding the sale of the Expo lands, one of which was

no chance of flipping. Would that mean no resale of the lands for, say,

five years?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I don't know what

the details of such would be. I would seek advice from BCEC and others

who are involved in the process as to how we ensure that the cabinet,

in the final analysis, approves that which is best for the people of

the province.

MR. WILLIAMS : Did the Premier advise the BCEC board and the minister of that requirement?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, the BCEC board is obviously in the process of negotiating

at present. A recommendation will come to cabinet, and we'll all be

hopefully considering it, in the light of not only those but other

matters of concern to individuals or to ministries. Everything will be

considered as well as possible to ensure, again, that it is the best

deal for the people of the province.

MR. WILLIAMS : To the Minister of Economic Development. Is no flipping to be a requirement of the deal with respect to the Expo lands?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

Any negotiations regarding the Expo 86 lands at this point in time,

which are under very sensitive negotiations, will all be made public at

the close of the negotiations.

MR. WILLIAMS : It sounds like it was more hot air at the Bradner flower

show.

the Premier. Mr. Peter Brown says the meeting with you and Mr. Poole

last spring was over Mr. Toigo's offer for the Whistler convention

centre lands. You've said it's not so. Yesterday your minister was

asked about this further and she said: "All of Mr. Brown's actions were

totally filled with integrity." He answered this question twice

regarding the meetings with you and Mr. Poole. I don't know what she's

saying you're full of, Mr. Premier, but are you still saying you did

not discuss the Toigo offer at that meeting?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : That was a private meeting, and I'm not prepared to comment on the meeting.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Just to bring the Premier up to date, he has some obligations to advise

the elected people of this Legislature. You're the one who spoke to the

press; you're Mr. Run-off-at-the-mouth; you're the one who said that

didn't happen. It's time for you to 'fess up, Mr. Premier; it's time

for you to clear the air.

MR. SPEAKER : Would the member please place a question.

MR. WILLIAMS : The question is: what did you discuss with Mr. Toigo at that meeting? Did you not discuss his offer?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I discussed nothing at the meeting with Mr. Toigo. I don't recall the meeting that he is referring to.

MR. WILLIAMS : To the Premier: if Mr. Brown is not telling the truth, isn't it time to remove him from the board?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I think he is referring to different meetings, apparently, some of

which I'm obviously not aware of. He's made these up, I would expect.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Mr. Brown has been clear more than once about meetings to discuss the

Toigo offer regarding Whistler. We don't want this naive nonsense from

the Premier, because it doesn't really wash very readily. Mr. Premier,

the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) says that the

remainder of the Enterprise lands should be sold separately, that she's

taking leadership in the caucus on this issue. Did she advise you?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I think we're all aware that there are a variety of options available

as to how the balance of the lands may be dealt with. Certainly all of

these options will be considered by cabinet, given all of the

information from the B.C. Enterprise Corporation and all the other

experts who perhaps will be consulted on that particular matter,

including the Ministry of Finance and others. So these options will

definitely be considered, and we'll take whatever action gives us the

best deal for the people of the province.

SQUAMISH HIGHWAY

MR. LOVICK :

My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways and

specifically concerns the Squamish Highway. In the wake of the

Coquihalla overruns, in the wake of a decision to downsize and reduce

the cost of phase 3 of the Coquihalla, and in light of the budget

reduction to

[ Page

3943 ]

Highways,

according to your tabled estimates, Mr. Minister, amounting to more

than $14 million, would the minister confirm for this House whether the

construction work on the Squamish Highway will indeed end in August,

apparently because of a lack of money?

HON. MR. ROGERS : No, I can't confirm that. That decision has not yet been made.

PREMIER'S OATH OF OFFICE

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the Premier. Upon election, the Premier swore on the

Bible an oath of office and pledged the following: "I swear that I will

keep confidential all matters dealt with in the executive council, and

I will not disclose any of the same to any person other than a member

of the executive council except as authorized by it or as required in

the lawful discharge of my duties as a member of the executive council,

so help me God." Given his discussions with Mr. Toigo which have now

been repeated in the press, could the Premier explain why he has chosen

to violate his oath of office?

MR. SPEAKER : Is the hon. member imputing improper motives to another member?

MR. SIHOTA :

I'll rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Premier assure the

House and the people of British Columbia that in all of his discussions

and deliberations with Mr. Toigo over the BCEC lands he has not

violated his oath of office?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I

don't need to assure the people of the province of British Columbia;

I'm sure they're confident of that. It wouldn't do any good to assure

the members opposite, because obviously they don't fully understand it

without having to read it.

MR. SIHOTA : We're talking

about a serious matter here. We're talking about the sanctity of that

oath, and the Premier has obviously been shilling for Mr. Toigo at

cabinet meetings with the BCEC board...

MR. SPEAKER : Could the member get to his question, please.

MR. SIHOTA :

...behind closed doors for B.C. Place, Whistler and for God knows what

else. I ask the Premier again in this House: does he consider that his

dealings with Mr. Toigo on matters before cabinet are a violation of

his oath of office?

MR. VANDER ZALM : I repeat again,

obviously it wouldn't do much good to assure those members who seem to

read some ulterior motive into all things. I can assure you that

British Columbians know better. If it's necessary, let me repeat that I

take very seriously the oath of office. I have no difficulty with the

oath of office.

MR. SIHOTA : British Columbians know that the Premier has had a hotline

to Mr. Toigo. British Columbians know that there's been all sorts of runarounds

in the process. British Columbians know that some of these matters have come

up in cabinet and have been repeated elsewhere. Can the Premier assure this

House that should it be revealed that his oath of office has not been honoured,

he would be prepared to resign?

SQUAMISH HIGHWAY

MR. LOVICK :

Another question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways,

pursuant to the earlier one. Given the minister's answer that a

decision has not yet been made regarding whether work will stop on the

Squamish Highway, can the minister inform the House whether in fact a

study to investigate whether that work might cease is presently being

undertaken? Is that now happening?

HON. MR. ROGERS :

Well, somebody in the ministry may be looking at it; it's not something

I'm aware of. So I'll take the question as notice in terms of your

specific question to me, but I'm not aware of it.

REPLACEMENT OF TCMTB

MR. MILLER :

A question for the Minister of Labour. On March 23 my colleague for

Nanaimo brought to the minister's attention the use of the chemical

TCMTB and its effect on workers at the Harmac mill — and I won't bother

trying to say the name. On that same day Canfor put out an announcement

that they had perfected a chemical for treating lumber that has

received all the regulatory approvals. Has the minister, as the

minister responsible for WCB, taken any steps to ensure that the newer,

safe chemical is being used in mills in British Columbia and that the

unsafe chemical has been removed?

HON. L. HANSON :

No, I haven't taken any action, but in light of this new information, I

will see. The chemical referred to is approved by the federal Minister

of Agriculture, which is where the original approval for its use comes

from. As you are aware, and as in the answer that I tabled referring to

the question by the member for Nanaimo, there is a joint committee of

the industry — WCB has a representative — looking at chemicals that

they want to use for this purpose in the forest industry. There is also

a study funded by the Workers' Compensation Board — I believe it's by the University of British Columbia — on this particular chemical to determine its effects.

MR. SPEAKER :

Before I recognize the government House Leader on a point of order, I

would like to just discuss something with members on some of the

questions that were asked today. If they were to read May's twentieth

edition, page 338, it states that questions cannot impute motives or

cast aspersions upon members. I would also ask the members to review

May's twentieth edition, page 344, where it states that questions

are inadmissible which seek a solution to a hypothetical proposition. I

hope the members would take that as notice in their questions tomorrow

and the next day.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker,

I'm following on what you just said. I rise under standing order 47(

a) which discusses oral questions and says that if there is a point of

order, it should be deferred until after question period. I am now

rising on that point and advising you why I have waited until this time

to raise my point of order, which is to ask you, sir, to ask for a

withdrawal by the member for Esquimalt-Port

[ Page 3944 ]

Renfrew with respect to the unparliamentary reference he made to the Premier.

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER :

The government House Leader has asked the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew to withdraw a comment he made against the Premier because he

feels it's unparliamentary.

MR. SIHOTA : I'm not too

sure what he's talking about, in terms of the actual word. If he takes

offence to the word "shilling," which I take is what he's referring to,

that word was used before in the House, and that's why I took liberty

with it today. But if the member finds it objectionable, that's fine;

I'll withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER : I would advise the

member that even if the word has managed to creep into our proceedings

somewhere, it is an unparliamentary term, and I would ask the member to

withdraw it.

MR. SIHOTA : I think I have made that clear, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER : The Provincial Secretary has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

In the gallery today are 26 students from Moscrop Secondary School in

Burnaby, led by their teacher, Mr. Wayne Axford. I ask the House to bid

them welcome, please.

MR. SPEAKER : The member for New Westminster has also asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. A. HAGEN :

In the gallery this afternoon are members of the Professional

Association of Residents and Internes. They are young doctors in this

province who have been visiting members on both sides of the House in

respect to a very important bill — Bill 41 — and its effect on them. I would ask the House to officially welcome them this afternoon.

Presenting Petitions

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition. This petition is

accompanied by 8,773 signatures of West Kootenay Power and Light

subscribers who are concerned about the implications of their power

utility being controlled only by Americans. These names were collected

over the last year, before and after the sale. The petition reads as

follows:

"To the Honourable the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia in Legislature assembled:

"The petition of the undersigned concerned citizens of the

province of British Columbia states that we protest the sale of West Kootenay

Power and Light Co. to a foreign utility, leaving users vulnerable to rate increases.

Your Petitioners respectfully request that the Honourable House condemn that

sale of an essential power utility and develop legislation to protect British

Columbian ownership and control of this vital and strategic sector of the economy."

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 14: minister's office, $236,953.

MR. BARNES :

Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General was going to respond this morning to

some questions that I put to him. I know he had to rush out to a

meeting, and perhaps he may wish to respond just to kick off this

session, if he had those notes.

We were generally concerned about the deterioration of life for the youth in the province — particularly with reference to the youth gangs —

and the desperation that some parents are finding themselves in by

attempting to rescue their children from some of these teenage pimps on

the streets of Vancouver. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Clark) brought information to the House that some students were at risk

in the classrooms as a result of advances by youth gangs. Some

reference was made to the Asian youth gang and the task force that the

Attorney-General has in place to monitor the activities of these young

people. I wanted to emphasize that notwithstanding the attempts by the

Attorney General to monitor the situation and to designate a task force

to study the situation, the results have been less than satisfactory.

The situation described by the second member for Vancouver East is

reminiscent of conditions that I can recall myself just towards the end

of the Great Depression in the 1930s and early forties.

MR. ROSE : You don't remember back that far, do you?

MR. BARNES :

I know the member for Coquitlam Moody.... Maillardville-Coquitlam?

Moody? Anyway, he's my MLA, and I should know where he's from. He

wonders if I can remember that far back.

I just want to assure the House — and more importantly, I would like the Attorney-General to assure the House —

that we are not going to be visited in the city of Vancouver with

conditions that the member for Vancouver East was alluding to

yesterday, and conditions that I can personally recall having happened

during the Hungry Thirties or immediately after, when it seemed as

though the social amenities and the conditions necessary for good

family life, proper access to services and programs that would maintain

the integrity of family life and of traditional institutions, and some

hope for a healthy future with our youth, were at risk.

Mr.

Attorney-General, I just wonder what your youth was like when you were

in school. I can tell you, as I listened to the member yesterday, it

reminded me of a situation in my high school days, when it was more

dangerous to be in the classroom than to be out on the playing-field.

That's not a situation we want in Vancouver. The member was suggesting

that east-end schools were going to be generally abandoned

[ Page

3945 ]

in order to make room for those conditions which we

don't find too tolerable, and people would be going to independent

schools, taking their youths to safer environments.

If we

are going to have the blackboard jungle in the city of Vancouver, the

kind of thing where teachers are so frightened and intimidated by

unruly young people that it's not safe for law-abiding citizens, we may

find ourselves looking for instructors like this American, Joe Clark;

you know, the guy with the baseball bat in the Bronx. We don't want

that in Vancouver. But it could get pretty serious.

I know

this isn't entirely in your area when we start talking about the

schools. It involves several ministries, and one of the questions I was

asking this morning was: is the minister working with the Ministry of

Social Services and Housing, the Ministry of Education and any other

ministry to try and come up with a strategy that will give some

reassurance to these parents who are becoming more and more desperate

trying to rescue their children?

I just mentioned, as well, the case of this woman — Kathleen Bell-Younger was her name, as I recall —

who was trying to get her daughter back home out of the grips of a

16-year-old pimp. That is something unusual, I think, for British

Columbia, although we have had prostitution on the streets. We've had

wayward youth. I think every big city has it. There seems to be

something happening in British Columbia that we should really be more

alarmed about. I'm not sure if it's fully understood.

are promoting more investment. We're talking about an outreach program

to the Pacific Rim. We want to develop more and more economic activity.

We are talking about the sale of the Expo site, which one could

describe as the heart of the city. What impact is this going to have on

the inner city, on the life of those families that live on the

periphery of that area?

What we are looking for is more

than the usual programs. They can be presented in this House and give

some impression that we are concerned because the rhetoric is in place.

The acknowledgement that there are difficulties is in place, but what

about the outreach? What about the reality of the situation? I wonder

if the Attorney-General would indicate to what extent his ministry has

the political will to identify, recognize and state unequivocally to

this assembly that we have a serious problem, that it's endemic to some

extent, that it's urgent, and that there's every reason to anticipate

that the situation is going to deteriorate even more, without alarming

anybody. The fact is that I think we've got to recognize that we need

new initiatives and more resolve, and we're going to have to face what

the implications are in terms of symptoms out there that happened long

before these young people found themselves hustling the way they have

been on the streets.

I think there is cause for concern

when 13- or 14-year olds are seeing the only option for them as being

out selling their bodies, or stealing lottery tickets and cashing them

in, or parents are out chasing teenagers, trying to rescue their

daughters, etc. This isn't the trend that any of us in this assembly

can be proud of or be looking forward to with any comfort.

HON. B.R. SMITH : You would get no quarrel from anyone on this side of the House for those remarks, I can assure you.

Maybe I'll just go through what programs are available, and I'm going

to try and deal with it as a governmentwide business instead of just describing

my turf, because I don't think that helps very much.

The

Ministry of Social Services and Housing has a program called Outreach,

which involves specialized social workers who deal with street kids who

don't fit into normal group home settings. Funding is available for

special group homes under this program.

The Ministry of

Education has a program for street kids in Vancouver. It provides

educational opportunities at a grade 12 equivalency level for young

people living in the streets who are apparently unable to adjust to a

normal schoolroom setting.

The Ministry of Health and the

Ministry of Social Services and Housing maintain a special clinic in an

emergency centre at 575 Drake Street in Vancouver to provide emergency

medical attention and emergency housing for young people as required.

Then we have, I think, what the member has been getting at —

the Interministerial Children's Committee, the purpose of which is to

deal with child prostitution, drug and alcohol abuse and other problems

that involve street kids specifically. That committee has

representatives from the various ministries on it. It's chaired by

Sandy Cook, and it has somebody on from Social Services and Housing,

Health, the Vancouver School Board, the city of Vancouver social

planning department, the Greater Vancouver Mental Health Service, and

the Vancouver police. That committee is directly what the member's been

trying to act at.

There's also a group of professionals who

call themselves the B.C. Caucus and they are dedicated to service to

street kids. They are involved in research and education and receive

funding from the province for their professional and public education

programs.

When young offenders are convicted of

prostitution, they are all dealt with by a probation officer who works

at family court, and since October 1987, 35 young offenders in custody

have been charged with soliciting. Ten are repeat offenders: these are

usually about 17 years of age. Most did not have homes in Vancouver or

were reluctant to return to their homes. The probation service attempts

to find alternative accommodation or a group home setting in Vancouver.

If they are convicted, the usual sentence for a young offender is

supervised probation and an area restriction.

I guess that

the response we have for a street kid is the non-criminal response

first of all, if they're not committing a criminal offence or someone

that we're going to charge but are just a child in the street in need

of some support, which is what so many of them are. The Vancouver city

police patrols with the kiddy car and constantly picks up kids like

this 24 hours a day in addition to regular patrol cars — but the kiddy car specializes in this.

If a child is picked up, that child will be taken to the Ministry of Social Services and Housing health emergency centre —

the one I mentioned on Drake Street. That's where we would take them.

If the child has a home to go to, they will try to work towards a

reconciliation with the family and provide support towards that end.

But if the child has no home to go to in Vancouver, then they would go

to a group home, if they agree — it's voluntary — and then would be

provided transport to a home in some other area with liaison support

from Social Services and Housing. A very last resort would be

apprehension by the superintendent, and that would involve group homes

and concentrated youth worker support; but that's involuntary.

[2:45]

If they're involved in prostitution and we're going to proceed by the criminal justice route, then they would be

[ Page 3946 ]

picked

up in the patrol car and again be taken to Drake Street first of all.

The first intention would be to try and give them some service and not

have them in custody for imprisonment purposes. We would put them in a

group home again, and they would appear in court the next day. They

would be released on bail supervision, with fairly stringent

conditions: the residence would have to be approved; they'd have to

report; they'd have area restrictions and curfew; they'd have to attend

counselling or school. Those would be administered quite tightly. If

they were convicted eventually, there would be lengthy probation

designed to support the child and encourage a home life; or if they

were put in custody, of course, we would work towards that end as well.

Those

are the programs available in Vancouver for street kids. But I don't

suggest to you at all that these programs are curing the situation;

they aren't. They deal with some of the kids, and they provide a base

of support. But you have to somehow get at the sickness in society that

causes young people, many of whom come from very advantaged

families.... They're not just kids that come from families that are

split up or families where there's violence; some of these kids come

from really good families. They're out there and they won't come back,

and their parents can't get them to come back in some cases. In some

cases their parents don't want them back, but usually they do, and they

can't get them to come back. What does a parent do who has got a child

on the street, or a child involved in prostitution, who pleads with him

and goes to him so many times? It's a terrible anguish for a mother or

for a father in that state of affairs.

The state can do its

best to bring about group home facilities, reconciliation and so on,

but you have to get back to the motivation, the sickness that's there,

that causes these people to go there; something that they were lacking

in their homes or in the community, or some lack. I don't suppose we'd

ever do too much in this field.

I hope that's at least a

little more comprehensive response than if I gave you just a sort of

justice response, which I don't think is adequate to this problem.

MR. BARNES :

I appreciate the candour of the Attorney-General. He's always very

impressive in responding to these issues. I think he's genuinely

concerned and sincere. That's the difficulty with issues such as this:

we try to do our job in a critical way, in the opposition, in terms of

the lacks and the gaps in the programs, recognizing the good intentions

in some instances, especially with families. I don't think it's just

rhetoric on that side of the House when the government expresses its

desire to see more integrity in homes and in the community, in the

social system and in our fundamental principles. But we have to find

hard-core cases sometimes in order to dramatize situations. Often

that's at great expense. The tragedies are beginning to multiply and

are quite often out of control.

I guess I'm appealing to the minister to undertake even more than goodwill

and the trust of his staff and the existing agencies and government departments

to address these concerns. I think sometimes there has to be an expression of

serious concern and outrage — even outreach — by the political arm as well as

by the bureaucrats and the hired staff, especially when it comes to putting

our money where our mouths are, so to speak; when it comes to the rhetoric we

use when we talk about youth as the most valuable resource. When we say that,

who's going to argue? As the minister said, he certainly takes no issue

with what I'm saying.

But

the thing that concerns me is that the fiscal policies, the other

government priorities, seem to mitigate, in effect, against the good

intentions and the expressions of concern. Certainly a good home life,

nourishment, opportunities for parents to be able to achieve some of

their ideals in life.... It means in some cases having adequate day

care programs in place that are not just there physically but in fact

are there qualitatively; not in numbers but in quality. There are day

care facilities and there are day care facilities. But particularly

with the target groups that we are describing here, where people are

falling through the cracks, and where they are being influenced by

heavy-handed media advertising products and are reaching beyond their

ability to achieve, they are marketing themselves, their souls and

their resources for quartz, so to speak — fool's gold.

use an example, this young pimp we've referred to a couple of times

who's 16 years of age has had many tragedies in his own life, but the

caption on the story dealing with his life says: "High Life for Pimp."

This is a 16-year-old. What kind of things influence a 16-year-old to

influence a young woman to sell her body? It talks about this young man

living a lifestyle of the rich and famous. At 16 he's wearing very

expensive garments costing hundreds of dollars, riding around in fancy

limousines and living in high-class apartments. It's not real, for any

of us. Even those of us in this chamber probably would not find that a

good expenditure of our hard-earned dollars. But these young people are

at risk, and it's costing us, and I think we've let them down someplace.

What

I would like to see are more guarantees. I'd like to see a more

rational approach, right from the cradle to the grave, particularly

with young people — certainly from the cradle through to the age of

majority. We're going to have to begin to recognize that if we believe

as we seem to — at least to a large extent — in the sanctity of life and the importance of a living organism, then let's be consistent with that.

The

debate that we had over abortion relates very much to the debate that

we're having here this afternoon. I think the member for Saanich, in

his attempts to talk to the pro-lifers — which in itself is not an

accurate expression; I think we all are pro-life, but for some reason

for political purposes a group call themselves pro-lifers — was on

television telling them: "Look, you can't have it both ways. If we're

going to demand that these young people be allowed to live, that these

babies be allowed to have a chance, then we have a duty to look after

them later on." I think that's the point.

We argue on one

hand about the sanctity of life, and then once a person is born we say:

"You're at risk; you're on your own." Or we say: "We're all for the

family, but don't ask us for any help. It's not good for character

building for us to give you too much assistance or to put too many

programs in place that might impair your ability to struggle to really

learn what life was like, like I had to learn what life was like." So

we've got contradictions that are serious and that are being detected

by the youth. Parents are having problems trying to argue these points

with their youth because the youth can see the fallacies.

Now that this chamber is taking on some of these more sanctified issues — for lack of a better expression —

that normally are out of the purview of the politician, things like

marriage and religion and a few others that we normally like to

leave.... Politics: that's another one that we don't like to discuss.

Here we are talking about very serious personal matters, about these

rather abstract, difficult issues to legislate around.

[ Page

3947 ]

I think we're going to have to become better role models, set

better examples and be prepared to be consistent and more honest,

because the problem with the youth of today, I believe, is that they

don't have that much confidence in the adult figures that they see

around them. They find it contradictory for us to talk on the one hand

about looking after themselves, saving their pennies and getting a good

education, only to find that when they finish, the rewards are not

there, the justification is not always in place, and that, after all,

they still have to have leverage — they have to know somebody in high

places. It's always the case of not enough of a demand, despite the

concept of supply and demand. It usually works out that if you have

supplied yourself with a good education, if you are qualified and are

ready to go to work, you'll find out that there are a whole bunch of

rules out there which will work against you.

So it's not an

easy road. We've got to be prepared to guarantee more to our youth.

Surely that would not deviate too much from what we've been telling

them. So how do we guarantee? What kinds of things are important? If we

really want young people to believe that there is something better than

what's happening, let's give them some options. Certainly — as we were talking this morning, and you're right — I

have been down on the strip, so to speak, a few times, and so have some

members on your side of the House been down on the strip and talked to

many of these young people and some adults as well to find out what it

is really like.

It seems to me that one of the problems is

that we don't put enough muscle on the other end. In other words, tell

me what good it is for a social worker to go through a process of

rehabilitating a young person, pulling him off the streets — for

instance, with the 75 or so native prostitutes that are down on the

Hastings area around Hastings, Main and Strathcona, in that community.

Just the other day we had a demonstration down there by these people

who were concerned about some of the physical abuse that these women

were experiencing.

At the same time, some points were made

that there were counsellors down there attempting to get these people

off the streets, working to convince them that that was not the life

for them. These counsellors didn't have very much going for them other

than goodwill. They didn't have the resources that they needed to

really assist people who already had many disadvantages. Many of them

didn't have sufficient education or job skills or a variety of other

skills in terms of self-confidence — the ability to present themselves to an employer, for instance.

other words, there were interpersonal and personal problems that they

had to cope with. Let's say that we got all of those things in place.

Then what happens to these people? What happens when they graduate from

university and find themselves up against ridiculous government

policies? This is often what happens. Where do you go? What guarantees

are there? Should we not be making some guarantees? Is it not about

time we realized that if we're going to spend all these dollars on

rehabilitation and on education, on getting people, for instance, to

become medical doctors only to have them get out and become subject to

irrational regulations around billing numbers...?

We won't get into that; that's a diversion. But that's the type

of thing, where you just cut them right off after spending hundreds of thousands

of dollars per student. Or to rehabilitate somebody indefinitely or to sustain

them on social assistance programs indefinitely.... Can't we do better

than that? We know that all of those organisms out there have energy and they've

got to expend that energy. They've got to have a balance and we know that

they've got to fill some sense of achievement, some sense of accomplishment,

some sense of importance, some sense of relevance. All of the things that we

expect for ourselves have to happen with those clients of ours.

We're

talking about the youth, and many of them are oblivious to all of these

concerns. All they know is that the environment is hostile, the

environment is challenging them constantly. They don't have the skills

to do very much more than survive, and they are vulnerable, they are

easy pickings for the persuasive person who has the ability to convince

them that they can make it the easy way.

[3:00]

You

see cases like this 16-year-old whose father was a pimp who committed

suicide, whose mother tried to commit suicide. So he grows up, and by

the time he is 16 years old he is a master con artist. He is able to

say the right things to people to get what he wants, is good-looking,

dresses well — very slick. But look at the situation. That's just one

example of the kind of things that I think we should be much more

aggressive in dealing with. You don't have to do it by looking for

criminal activity: you do it by taking a positive approach, by putting

programs in place, by guaranteeing them, by being able to go to someone

and say: "Look out on the streets. We are prepared to follow through.

You do this and we will do that."

I know the

Attorney-General understands what quid pro quo is. The society wants

something back, but society is prepared to give something. This is the

thing. We are prepared to help you if you help us. We don't want you in

jail. We don't want you to grow up and abuse your children because you

were abused: we want you to do better. But we've got to show you that

we think you are worth investing in. So do something for us. Clean your

act up, get on top of it and we guarantee you that we'll look after

you. We'll give you a break.

This is why I asked the

government the other day if they had anything called an affirmative

action program. I know, when you think right off the bat, "Social

Credit, affirmative action," it's contrary to policy. We just wouldn't

be doing that. On the other hand, we might give some thought to it if

you can convince us that there may be some wisdom in it. I think there

is a place for it. There is a place for it even if only to draw a

comparison between seed money for a corporation for some of your

friends, just to get them started — forgiving taxes for a few years

just to get them going and then taking it back, or giving them a loan

without interest. Why not do something for the people? Why not help

them help themselves? This is basically what I'm saying.

What's

contrary to the public's best interest in affirmative action where it

makes sense, where we know special groups of people out there who need

that break? That's the kind of thing I'd like to see happening in this

Legislature and that I'd like to see the minister say they are going to

do, notwithstanding all of the things you are already doing. Believe

me, I'm sure they are quite considerable. But there has to be

leadership, a sense of enthusiasm, and outreach. We have to demonstrate

that we are doing what we are saying, and we have to get the media down

there and seeing that we are in fact doing it. Let's get some reports

on some positive programs helping people help themselves.

Is my time up?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Time's up.

[ Page 3948 ]

MR. ROSE :

He was in full flight. I was really entranced by the eloquence of my

friend. If he has not completed his remarks, I would certainly be

pleased to intercede for him. If on the other hand he would like the

A-G to intercede at this time to answer some questions, it will serve

the same purpose.

MR. BARNES : I think it would be

appropriate to have the Attorney-General respond, because basically

I've stated the case. I think from now on it's action. I don't really

need to say too much more. As a member speaking about this subject as I

have, I certainly intend to do my best to assist the government in the

outreach that I'm talking about by going out myself and trying to bring

forward examples of how we can improve this situation, because I think

we all have a duty to get hold of this thing and achieve it, as quite

often happens with members on that side of the House, who say, "Where

there's a will there's a way," and: "You doom-and-gloom guys are always

criticizing, but we are pro-action. We are going to make things happen."

Well,

I've said, "Let's make things happen for the youth," and I believe we

can make things happen if we say we're going to make things happen. The

youth would respond, because that's what they're looking for.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I think all those measures that I outlined that we have in a non-legal

way that deal with children on the streets in Vancouver and the support

system there are good, and it's a good net. Also, I think the liaison

workers that the Vancouver School Board will be able to hire this year,

which we are funding directly under our program, to try to deal with

the youth gang situation will help. Educational measures are probably

the most promising of all. So to the member, thank you very much for

your feeling remarks, and we'll take them very seriously.

MS. CAMPBELL :

It's always a pleasure to listen to the debate around the

Attorney-General's estimates, I think because the debate generates very

intelligent commentary and commentary about issues that are extremely

important. Perhaps as a member of the legal profession I have a

particular interest in those issues generated by discussion of the law;

I think these are always one of the highlights of the discussions in

the House. I also appreciate very much the comments by the second

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), whose remarks in the House

are always worth listening to and very eloquently expressed.

do hope he got the permission of the second member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Lovick) before using the expression "quid pro quo" in the House.

want to participate in this debate, really, as a member of the legal

profession and, as the discussion of the Attorney's estimates draws to

a close, to add some of my comments particularly on some of the

comments that the Attorney made in his opening remarks.

a whole, I think the legal profession is very concerned about the need

to make legal services available to the public at a reasonable cost.

Those of us in the profession are often bombarded with bulletins from

the Law Society about various programs and efforts to find ways of

delivering our services to members of the public who need them.

There are two problems, of course, that exist in doing this. One, of course,

is the complexity of laws themselves, and to some degree this can be addressed

by this House.

Secondly,

there is the need for professional help in dealing with certain

circumstances in our society. Like most professionals, lawyers have

only their time to sell, and therefore must bill by the time spent. The

more complex and difficult the issue, the more expensive it therefore

becomes for members of the public to have professional legal help.

Therefore

there is a need to do whatever can be done to remove needless

complexity from laws and to provide remedies that do not require

enormous amounts of time from lawyers to access them. I think there are

a number of promising signs, and some of them have been dealt with by

the Attorney. But I'd like to mention, first of all, one that was not

dealt with in his remarks but in which his ministry has in fact been

very supportive: the Computers and the Law project at UBC. In

particular, I think of Profs. Robert Franson and John Hogarth, who have

developed a program. Perhaps some lawyers have been a bit concerned

that it will make them redundant in society. I don't think that's going

to happen, but the experimental program on sentencing holds the promise

of doing a great deal more in terms of computerizing access to the vast

quantity of cases in the common law, which access is the fundamental

component of legal research and is what lawyers spend most of their

time doing in preparing a lawsuit.

The development of the

computerization of legal research, which has been much enhanced by this

program at UBC and, as I say, supported wholeheartedly by the Attorney

and his ministry, will do much, I think, to reduce costs of accessing

professional legal help for citizens in the province by making

efficient research. It's been estimated that the time to do legal

research on particular points could be reduced; for example, problems

that used to take a week could be resolved in 10, 15 minutes by the use

of the computer to access the appropriate cases.

Secondly,

I'd like to compliment the Attorney on the increased commitment to

legal aid in the ministry this year. I think the importance of legal

aid is often not fully understood by the public at large. We certainly

understand the need for publicly funded medical services and universal

health are fundamental rights. But I think legal services are often

equally important to the individuals who are involved. In the case of

the criminal law, of course, it's a question of one's liberty or, if

one gets off with a fine, of economic well-being; but often in

discussing legal aid the question of abuse is raised and the concern is

expressed that legal aid is provided for recidivists — people who are in and out of the courts like yo-yos.

think there are two things that have to be borne in mind when we talk

about legal aid, and even the funding of people who are in and out of

the courts more than once. First of all, there is certainly no gain to

society to jail people who shouldn't be in jail. Nothing is to be

gained. It's very expensive to incarcerate people; it's expensive to

process them through the courts. Secondly, there can be an enormous

waste of court time where parties are unrepresentative by counsel.

Now

I'm probably a bit presumptuous speaking about the criminal law,

because I was a civil barrister and my only involvement in anything

even quasi-criminal was a motor vehicle case which I fought for the son

of one of the partners of the firm where I practised. But it was a

great triumph, and I think it would not have been such a great triumph

if the young gentleman involved had not been represented.

He was charged with an infraction against, I think it is,

section 122 of the Motor Vehicle Act: driving without due

[ Page

3949 ]

care and attention for other persons using the road —

due consideration for other persons using the highway. The complainant

was a paragon of virtue, a lawyer's nightmare, an absolutely

upstanding, wonderful citizen who had attempted to flag down my client

as he was driving up a hill. He was the kind of witness that you hate

to have, because the judge clearly thought the complainant was a

paragon of virtue and my client was still in that kind of rumpled stage

that some adolescents are in and didn't immediately compel the judge's

confidence.

However, I was able to point out to His Honour

that in my view the complainant was not a person using the highway for

the purposes of the statute, and the judge of course had to agree; so

my client was let off. Now you could say that I had him off on a

technicality, but I think in fact it was an inappropriately laid charge.

should point out that the judge in the case, fearing that my client may

well have been getting away with something, went up one side of him and

down the other and warned him about being a danger to society, and it

wasn't until we actually left the courtroom that my client understood

that he had in fact been acquitted of this particular charge. But

certainly the case was resolved much more quickly because he was

represented by counsel. You'll forgive me if this anecdote is

self-serving, but it's the only one I can dredge up from a legal career

that's even faintly related to the criminal law.

There's

also a concern with respect to civil remedies, and we were looking at

remedies in the civil law. We're not talking about liberty

particularly; we're talking about other very important things at stake.

We're often talking about livelihood. Those of us who practised

commercial law during the recession saw many people whose livelihood

was wiped out, whose businesses were destroyed. Certainly with respect

to family law, livelihood is extremely important for the spouse who is

seeking support. Access to children in family law cases: there can be

very few issues that evoke more emotion or are more central or

important to the people who are involved in the dispute. We live in a

complex society where we cannot always do business on a handshake, and

sometimes lawyers are blamed for that; but in fact it does result in

the need for people to seek recourse to the civil courts.

I'd

like to compliment the Attorney on three comments in his opening

remarks and three developments in his ministry which I think are

looking to make those kinds of services more available to people in the

province. The first is the appointment of the Hughes commission, which

is going to be examining the delivery of legal services and the

administration of justice in the province. I want to commend the

Attorney for that appointment. Clearly there is no better person in the

province than Mr. Hughes to head this commission up, and we are very

lucky to have such a distinguished member of the bar and legal

practitioner to head this commission.

Secondly, I'd like to comment on the expansion of the application of arbitration.

When the international arbitration centre was first set up, of course, many

of us saw it in the context of international commercial dealing. I used to practise

at a firm where there were a couple of members who did a great deal of international

commercial arbitrations. They were always heading off to Paris or other equally

glamorous places, so I'm not sure how happy they will be to have to remain

in Vancouver to solve those cases. But what I find so interesting is the expansion

of the services of the arbitration centre to civil cases, in particular personal

injuries, and I'd like to see the continuation of that trend because I think

it's very hopeful. It is not the only answer to the question but it certainly

can deal with the troublesome and worrying costs incurred by parties in certain

kinds of civil actions.

Thirdly,

I'd like to commend the Attorney for his legislative initiative in the

enforcement of maintenance. Once again, there's nothing more vexing and

difficult than dealing with family law cases and the question of

maintenance for spouses and children. Those who are party to family law

cases are often not in their most stable and sensible emotional frame

of mind. It involves issues that go to the heart of people's sense of

emotional vulnerability, and it is therefore very difficult often to

enforce the obligations of spouses or former spouses in these cases

because there are many other agendas taking place. So I commend the

Attorney for the initiative that has come out of his department with

respect to the enforcement of maintenance. I think it will reduce to a

great extent the anguish felt by people who are parties to these kinds

of disputes.

[3:15]

There is a

concern, as I said, in the profession regarding the cost of civil

suits, and particularly family law disputes. Many of us have memories

of advising clients who had, in a sense, good cases and were suffering

injustices, that the cost of litigating would far exceed the recovery

that they would get from the suit if victorious, including court costs.

So I hope the Hughes commission will come up with some good suggestions

to deal with that situation, because I think all barristers feel a

sense of defeat and a sense of despair, when they are not able to find

remedies for clients who are otherwise deserving. Once again, as I say,

the expansion of the arbitration facilities is to be commended.

think it's important, though, when we look at these other forms of

dispute resolution, that we do not try to discourage people from

seeking some of the traditional remedies; I think particularly of civil

jury trials. If they desire these, I think that we should be very

careful about the techniques we use to try to make those forms of

dispute resolution less available. I think the financial incentives of

the spectre of court costs as they are now, as opposed to the very

modest costs of arbitration, are sufficient to encourage people, where

appropriate, to seek the less costly dispute resolution device.

I'd

also like to commend the Attorney-General for his use of legislative

committees in the last year. I speak, of course, as the Chairman of the

Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations Committee. And I very

much appreciate having had the opportunity to deal with some issues,

and the efficacy of those committees and the appropriateness of them

for dealing with some of the matters that come to the

Attorney-General's ministry and come before this House. We dealt, of

course, first of all, with the question of provincial court judges'

salaries, and it was a pleasure to see that matter resolved very

quickly, in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation. This, of course, leads

to a much more efficient utilization of the time in this House, when

committees can resolve issues and, hopefully, come up with some kind of

bipartisan consensus, thereby reducing the need for partisan wrangling

in this Legislature,

We now have before us the Builders

Lien Act, which is a complex but very important issue. We had an

excellent briefing by Mr. Arthur Close of the B.C. Law Reform

Commission, and Mr. Bob Ward, a practitioner in Vancouver.

[ Page 3950 ]

The

question of the Builders Lien Act, of course, raises issues which

affect the rights of all parties in construction, and therefore is an

issue that crosses the province in terms of its economic significance.

It's important for us to try to create a legal framework which provides

an effective and inexpensive method of resolving disputes and also

provides genuine protection for those who believe they are being

protected by the act.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say in

conclusion that these issues that I've touched upon are important on a

number of levels. First of all, they deal with fairness and equity for

our people, the ability of people in the province to seek and find

justice. They also deal with the cost-effectiveness of programs for

government and for individuals and businesses who seek legal redress of

their grievances. But, I think, just as important is the impact of

these programs on confidence in the rule of law in our society. For

many people, their only contact with the legal system, as such, is

expensive and frustrating.

My father was, for example, the

first justice of the peace who established the informal traffic court

in Vancouver. I remember his comment that one of the positive things

about that particular court — its informality, its efficiency — was

that for many people it was their first contact with the judicial

system; and because they were fairly dealt with in a kindly fashion,

they went away feeling positive about the administration of justice in

our society. I think that's extremely important. People often like to

quote Shakespeare's comment: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the

lawyers." But, as the Hon. Mr. Justice Bruce Cohen pointed out when he

was treasurer of the Law Society, that comment is often taken out of

context; it was actually spoken in the mouths of anarchists, who were

saying that in order to take over a society, in order to destroy its

order, they should kill the lawyers, those who are the custodians of

the law and order. I think we in this House have a responsibility to

promote the respect in society of the rule of law. I won't go on at any

length about my own experience as a Soviet specialist and my own

intimate acquaintance with a society where there is no rule of law, but

it's a very frightening experience.

We in this House share

a responsibility with the legal profession to try to make the legal

process accessible to all British Columbians. I'd like to commend the

Attorney-General and his ministry for his and its ongoing commitment to

this and to the concrete measures that he has put forward already.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

Mr. Chairman, it's very good to have the positive debate on these

estimates that we're getting on subjects that don't have anything to do

with partisanship but have to do with problems being addressed, whether

they're the second member for Vancouver's street kids problem, or

whether they're some of the matters that the first member for

Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) raised in her remarks.

She

mentioned the computer-sentencing program which now makes it possible

for a judge, when passing sentence in a complicated criminal case, to

find out, in a matter of minutes on a computer printout, exactly what

kinds of sentences were handed down by various courts across the

country for similar circumstances. I think it will produce much better

sentencing.

Another thing that the member mentioned was that we have too many people in

jail. She said that in a particular context, and that's the context that

I'm going to deal with. I've spoken quite a bit about parole and the

need to tighten up parole and the need to earn parole. I believe that implicitly,

but I also believe that we have too many people in custody in Canada who shouldn't

be in custody.

agree with the chairman of the National Parole Board on this too. I

think that some non-violent crimes that people are incarcerated on and

are serving sentences for.... Some of those sentences could be more

appropriately served in a noninstitutional type of custody. It's for

that reason that we embarked upon our bracelet experiment in British

Columbia, which is now being looked at by almost every jurisdiction in

Canada. We've had about 28 people go through that form of custody. I

don't know of any problems or violations in relation to it.

think it would be particularly useful to use that form of custody in

the area of drinking and driving, because about 21 percent of our

people in custody in provincial institutions in this province are

drinking drivers. Of course, that means they are repeat drinking

drivers; they're not first-time. Almost all of them are repeat, and

that's why they're in custody. There are about 300 of these people in

custody serving more than an intermittent sentence of periods ranging

from 21 days, maybe, to six months or a year. I have to believe that

society's main concern about having them in custody is that they don't

get behind the wheel of a car. We know that on a bracelet system they

wouldn't be behind the wheel of a car, because it would show up on our

electronic devices if they were anywhere outside their office, home or

whatever the device is set for. I think that there's very fruitful

ground there, and I've directed my people to expand as much as they can

the use of these bracelets.

I see no purpose in locking up

for lengthy periods a whole series of offenders who are either not a

danger to the public or do not require lengthy imprisonment for

deterrence. These people could be in some alternative form of custody —

open custody is what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about people

not being punished for their crimes; I think they should be punished.

But I think denunciation and loss of freedom are punishments. Closed

custody isn't necessary for a whole range of offenders. I appreciate

the member's comments.

Also, her comments on the

arbitration centre are particularly appreciated. That has been a brave

experiment that we could never have embarked on in this province unless

we had the will of a number of people to do it in very short order — about seven months —

to put it all together, to open it for Expo, to get the international

convention adopted in Canada, and to change our own law of

international arbitration and our local domestic law of arbitration.

All that modernization of our laws took place in a period of under a

year, and we opened a centre that we never expected would suddenly be

brim-full of international arbitrations. It takes a long time to build

up a credibility to get into that field.

The directors of

that centre have been very busy trying to promote alternative dispute

resolution, and the most promising use of that centre in the domestic

law field has been to move into that the settlement of automobile

insurance claim cases. Since October 1, 1987, 78 cases have been

referred to the centre. The largest number of these cases are ICBC

cases. I commend ICBC and my colleague the minister for their foresight

in this.

A number of these were cases set down for trial. There were 21 cases actually set down, and they are now referred to

[ Page

3951 ]

mediation counselling or a form of commercial

mediation. Out of these 21 cases, 18 were settled in a period averaging

about four hours for each mediation hearing. The range of values in the

settlement was from $8,000 to $200,000. It is conservatively estimated

that that process with that few cases — the settling of only those 18 cases in that short period of time —

saved over 100 court days and saved the province over $400,000 in

costs. In other words, almost the entire cost of this centre was paid

for with the settlement of those cases by mediation.

I'm

telling you that this centre is tremendous in terms of potential

international business that's going to come here for international

arbitration — I'm talking about business, not just arbitration business —

and in terms of revolutionizing the way we approach settling our

disputes, to get them out of formalized litigation in courtrooms,

particularly some of our commercial cases. Accident cases are the best

example that one can think of — the so-called fender-bender that

doesn't need to occupy two or three days of court time. Four hours of

mediation results in a much more straightforward performance. Delays

disappear. Here's the answer for much of the backlog in the courts — not all of it, but some of it.

noticed that my deputy, who is a wise judicial figure and who has been

trailing around this province with an intelligent entourage, listening

to briefs on law and justice reform, particularly on the courts, was

taking full notes when the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey spoke.

I know she's going to do a brief for the Justice Reform Committee.

I'm

going to put a few things on the record that arose this morning out of

questions. I appreciate very much that members were prepared to

accommodate me when I had to go back and forth at lunch hour to make a

speech in Vancouver.

There was a question raised by the

member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) about some principals of

a contractor who supplied bingo paper for the B. C. Lottery

Corporation, and some suggested activities that these people have been

involved in. All of this arose from an Edmonton Sun

article in 1980, and I have learned that in October 1980 the Edmonton Sun tendered a new account of the events and an apology.

might say that in September 1986 a contract to supply bingo paper was

let to the individual who was the subject of the

article in the

Edmonton newspaper, Mr. Len Stuart, and that the usual Lottery

Corporation security check was made. Following that security check, the

contract was approved. It was a one-year contract with an option to be

renewed. It was renewed, and the contract will be out for tender at its

expiry, which is in the fall of 1988.

I think that's

all I can say about that. There was no substantiation for the concerns

expressed in the earlier

article in the Edmonton newspaper.

[3:30]

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew also asked me about the position of Keith

Mitchell, who is a director of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation and whose firm,

Farris and Co., have been doing some of the legal work. I think I may have been

lacking full information when I answered the question, so I want to just correct

some statements I made yesterday. My concern was that Mitchell as a director

was not benefiting his firm in terms of fees that his firm were getting for

some legal work they did. That's correct because the firm do not get any

director fees from the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. A pro forma gratuity or

honorarium is paid, very much like the honorarium we pay to community college

board members. That's paid annually. So he gets that honorarium personally,

but his firm don't, and he's not paid legal fees for anything he does

in relation to board meetings at B.C. Enterprise.

The

reason his firm do legal work there is that when the company was formed

originally as the B.C. Development Corporation, they were the

solicitors who incorporated the company and they were solicitors and

counsel for that firm. When Mr. Mitchell went on as a director of that

company, he went on by reason of his already having been a director of

Expo. He was one of those Expo directors who continued on at the

Enterprise Corporation, so they'd have that expertise in disposing of

the assets. It was fully disclosed at that time that his firm were the

solicitors and had been counsel for the company; and his firm therefore

gave up their retainer as counsel. That went to another law firm. Since

then the B.C. Enterprise Corporation have retained Farris and Co. for

some specific tasks, I'm advised. One of those tasks was the disposal

of the Expo lands, for which they wanted the services of Mr. Frank

Murphy.

I think that you'll get that answer in the Blues

anyway. I wanted to lay it out for the member. I didn't want to leave

that question dangling.

Also, the member for Kootenay (Ms.

Edwards) asked me a number of questions concerning the victims program.

I think she has a mistaken notion that this victims program has not

been getting into the north or the interior. So I'll just put on the

record a few facts on that.

The information line, which

this year will cost approximately $97,000, is designed for the very

communities that she is speaking of. Those are the communities that use

this most, and that's provincewide.

The police-based victim

programs have a budget of $736,000, and a number of those have been

adopted by communities outside the lower mainland and Vancouver Island.

The community-based specialized support programs — sexual assault, wife assault and child sexual abuse centres, information and support —

are run by community agencies, have a budget of $600,000, and do not

require contributions from municipalities, as do the police-based ones

in larger communities.

The Crown-based witness assistance

programs have budgeted $297,000 and are available all over the

province. The victim reparation programs run by the corrections branch,

providing offenders with the opportunity to compensate their victims

through payment, have a budget of $200,000 and are available all over

the province. The program support services, with training manuals and

public information materials, are particularly geared for communities

outside the major population centres, and have a budget of $128,000.

The

overall program is a coordinated one, and it has also been designed to

ensure that there is geographic equity. To make these programs work we

have to have community support. Very few proposals have been turned

down, and when they are turned down, it is usually because there is an

overlap or because we've got a number of agencies doing part of it, and

we try and bring about coordination.

We have had excellent

support for these programs. I'm not going to put on the record where

they are in each community, because she seems to be concerned about

that, but I put on the record and repeat my offer to her: I will have

my staff visit her in her office and go over every single community

that she is interested in relation to what victim programs there are or

what application has been made. And I'll now sit down.

[ Page

3952 ]

MR. D'ARCY : I'm not going to extend discussion on vote 14, because I know the Attorney-General's had a very busy day.

want to make a couple of comments, though, very quickly about the

question of parole, with particular reference to people convicted of

violent crimes. It has been my lay observation over the years that

parole review people and parole officers pay too little attention to

the question of the protection of the public when it comes to people

who have shown a propensity to commit violent crimes. I would suggest

that the public is in a different situation vis--vis those types of

offenders than vis--vis the people convicted of crimes which do not

involve injury or damage to life and limb, particularly whe.... It has

been my observation again that when someone who is convicted of a

violent crime has good communications skills, good intelligence and

good education, they are often past masters of studying exactly what to

do and say in order to convince parole review boards, officers, judges

or whoever might be reviewing their case that they really aren't like

the person who was convicted for whatever it was, and even if they were

once, they would never be that way again — which, we know, in many cases is garbage.

I'm

not a bloodthirsty type when it comes to penalties or keeping people

incarcerated, but I do think that protection of the public from

individuals who have shown a capacity and a capability to perpetrate

violent crime needs to be paid very close attention to.

What I really wanted to ask about — and I'll be very quick — is the question of the Gaming Commission and licences for casino halls. Fairly recently a decision was made — rather an arbitrary decision —

that there had to be a certain basic minimum, or licences would not be

issued or even renewed for casino halls. I object to this ruling.

Governments, particularly one which rhetorically, at least, says it is

in favour of free enterprise, do not go around limiting the operation

of a very small business: a corner store because it does very little

business, a hostelry because it doesn't have very many guests, or a

restaurant or a liquor licensee merely because they do very little

business. I do not recognize the rationale for putting out of business

an operation that's already in business, for no other reason than that

some floor minimum of volume has not been reached.

I concede that the government has every right, and indeed should have some

right, to set certain standards of operation for anything which is licensed,

whether it be a gaming hall, a liquor licence, a taxi operation or anything

else. But setting a minimum floor volume surely should be the right of the owner-operator

and the charities which take advantage of that operation. That is their privilege.

If they want to operate on very low volumes and wish to continue to do so, the

government should not interfere and put them out of business. This is particularly

true in my area, where we only have had the one casino licence, and that one

casino licence is depended on by a number of very important volunteer agencies

within the community for some backup funding — quite legitimate agencies involved

in child care, home care and a whole lot of assistance programs in the community

which very easily fall within the category of charitable operations, not in

the grey area at all. There's absolutely no reason why these shouldn't

be allowed to continue, especially since this one operation attracts a certain

amount of its clientele from outside the immediate region, other parts of British

Columbia and, indeed, because of its proximity to the border, from the United

States as well.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to get on the record and ask for the minister's

feelings on this, and have him consult with his commission regarding the removal

of licences from casino halls for no other reason — I emphasize that — than

that they fall below a recently established arbitrary volume minimum. It's

not a practice followed by government at any level in this province relative

to any other business, and I see no reason why it should be applied to this

type of business either.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I guess the philosophy has been that those activities do not exist

primarily for operators and people who rent halls; they exist for

charities. When you get percentages of the win exceeding 50 percent

going into paying for hall rentals, expenses and operators, then it is

not beneficial to the charities, and we have had that low-volume

problem. It is true that we did close casinos in some parts of the

province. In your community, bingo halls as well had difficulty. But

the charity licences for bingos which were lifted.... My note shows

that they were reinstated January 1, 1988, with the condition that they

could only bingo in licensed commercial bingo halls in which the 25

percent minimum contribution was met.

Where the Gaming

Commission had to shut down a bingo operation, as they did in Penticton

as well, it was done on the basis that there were too many outlets

seeking too few dollars. In some communities there was initial

disruption from that, but the Gaming Commission encouraged the

charities to go with the other outlet, and the charities were soon

plugged into other outlets. The operators initially had convinced the

charities, I guess, that they wouldn't be able to get access to funds,

but we've had a number of cases where the charities have got into other

bingo operations.

I just believe that the objective of

bingos and casinos is to help charities, and that we're not going to

help charities if we encourage the kind of operations that we had here

for some years, where they weren't even getting near the target

percentages, where the vast majority of all the money bet was going

into the hands of various operators and expenses. We have been tough

with that. We've brought in these percentages. They may seem arbitrary,

but the commission has given a fair amount of leeway. It has given

operators time to make those percentages.

Now, of course,

we've begun the licensing of commercial operations. Before it was just

charities that were operated. So we'll have better control where we

should have, over the operators, and the charities won't become the

pawns. In any given case that you bring to me, I know that the

commission will look carefully at it. There have been some successful

appeals. My understanding is that the bingo licence was restored in

Trail on January 1 for those charities on that condition.

Your remarks on parole are greatly appreciated.

MR. D'ARCY :

I made no mention in my remarks about bingo licences. I was talking

strictly about only one casino licence, and I was speaking on behalf of

the charities. The Attorney-General said that the charities shouldn't

be used this way. It is in fact the charities which are concerned about

this — and the operators, as well.

First of all, I want to

repeat: there is no competing operation. We're not talking about

several operations out there trying to scramble for too little

business. We're talking about one operation with one set amount of

business which

[ Page

3953 ]

hopefully is going to grow. I also made no

complaint about the question of the percentages. I quite agree with the

Attorney-General that the government should have the right to set and

enforce percentages and standards.

I was talking about the

licence to operate at all being set by an arbitrary floor level which

says: "Look, if your business is less than that, it doesn't matter that

you conform in every other way; you cannot operate." That is

inconsistent, in my view, with a government which claims to be in

favour of free enterprise and small business. I would like the

Attorney-General to review that policy, not only relative to the

operation that was in Trail, but also relative to other operators.

[3:45]

HON. B.R. SMITH :

It's not the business that we're trying to regulate; we're trying to

regulate how much of that gets to the charity. We don't care if the

volume is as low as $100 a month, as long as $50 goes to the charities.

You may think that percentage is arbitrary, and I know there are some

charities who take the view that anything is okay — 5 percent, 10

percent or whatever. They want to have access to this revenue, and

we've tried to set standards that will get a maximum amount of money

into their hands.

I will acknowledge that the situations

are never the same in all parts of the province. The problems that

charities have in the Kootenays may be quite different from what they

are in Vancouver and Victoria, in terms of volume and competition and

other things. I'd certainly be prepared to ask the commission to review

the policies in the light of regional and local needs. They've done

that on an ad hoc basis in relation to their appeal procedure, but in

terms of generating policies, they'll want to look sensitively at the

needs of some other communities which may have circumstances quite

different from higher-volume areas. I guess what you're getting at is

that we can't judge the Trail casino on the basis of a casino on

Broadway in Vancouver.

MR. DARCY : I don't wish to

spin this out much further, but I think we're moving in the same

direction here. I have to reiterate though, that I am not expressing a

concern about the percentage levels as they exist or as they apply in

Trail or anywhere else in the province. That is not my concern, Mr.

Chairman. What I am concerned about is the government's setting of an

arbitrary minimum of $1,500 a night or something of that nature and

saying that anybody who doesn't make that $1,500 minimum is not going

to stay in business. That is my concern.

It seems to me

that as long as the percentages which the minister quite correctly

alludes to are met and all the other rules and criteria and licensing

provisions are met, there is absolutely no reason why the guy can't

starve to death if he wants to — the same as any other business. He

shouldn't be put out of business by the government saying: "We're

simply not going to license you."

HON. B. R. SMITH :

I won't prolong the exchange either, because I can see that we were

talking about two different things. I'm quite happy to look into what

you're now talking about, because I'm not aware of any rule that we

have of a minimum that somebody has to generate from this business or

any other business.

MR. ROSE : Mr. Chairman, I am about to make one of my favourite speeches.

I have given it for the last five years, and I am becoming so accustomed to

it that I can almost do it from memory.

I have a certain area in my riding — a very beautiful part of it —

called Belcarra. It has some interesting beaches and parks that attract

about 600,000 visitors each year. Especially in the summer, you can

scarcely go up and down those roads because it is so central and so

attractive.

Year after year we've asked the Attorney-General's department —

not just my asking, but the municipalities affected of Belcarra,

certainly the district of Coquitlam.... Now we have a new municipality

called Anmore. Year after year we've put forward to the minister

figures justifying an increased allocation of police in that area,

especially during the summer, and year after year we get turned down.

The latest time we got turned down, Mayor Drew of Belcarra was told by

the E Division manpower allocation program that "the deputy

commissioner advises that the Coquitlam detachment serving Belcarra did

not receive expected resources during this reallocation, as higher

priorities existed elsewhere."

Well, I don't have the crime

stats for every area, but I do know that it isn't just a case of crime,

although there is often vandalism associated with recreation

properties, beaches, parks, etc. There are also accidents, drownings,

traffic snarls and other problems. I was at the opening of White Pine

Beach park, or I attempted to attend that last summer. I couldn't get

up the road. The place was absolutely jammed, bumper to bumper. I know

part of the problem is highways, because the road goes from nowhere and

ends at a dead end at Belcarra Park. That's an argument for the

Highways department.

I want to express my mild, controlled

but nevertheless outrage at this continuing ignoring of the legitimate

needs expressed by legitimate means. I don't know what it's going to

take, but that area in the summer desperately needs further protection

by the police. If we needed it five years ago, we need it ten times as

much now, because not only has the growth of resources and parks been

large in that area, so has the suburbia. The urban growth and the

housing has probably doubled in the last five years. I want to put

forth as strong a representation as I can to the minister on this

subject, because nobody is pleased about this. We feel that we're being

ignored, and we don't like it very much.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I must commend the member for speaking so regularly and resourcefully

on behalf of the citizens of Belcarra, and also the other citizens of

British Columbia who go to that lovely part of our province during the

summer months. I have really never heard such formidable arguments in

support of increased policing in that area.

It has been to

several RCMP manpower reviews. The very words of the member have been

hung upon at countless rounds of RCMP briefing sessions, and they have

looked at these and they have carefully evaluated manpower allocations.

It looks as if we're back again another year and this member isn't

giving up. We have to give him an A for effort. Even though the

allocation this year doesn't free another partial FTE to Belcarra....

MR. ROSE : We need policemen. We've had enough of those FTEs.

HON. B. R. SMITH :

Well, I'm going to recommend anyway that the RCMP take another look at

particularly summer allocation of some help there. I'm going to send it

[ Page 3954 ]

back

to them even though the annual allocation has been done. I do believe

that we should take another look at this one for some summer help.

MR. ROSE :

I'm grateful for that positive and amiable response. I'm sure that he

would be very influential on the manpower allocation commissioner. I'm

pleased that the minister, although certainly not overweight, would

lend his great weight to this formidable and important project. An

accident, a tragedy, is going to happen, and then we'll have all kinds

of cops swarming around the place, but that's not good enough. We need

regular and continued addition in terms of safety from accidents and

various other things that can happen — riots and anything that's likely

to happen where a place appears to be underpatrolled. This definitely

does. This area certainly qualifies.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I'm

grateful to the minister, and I hope he can assure me that because of

his intervention I won't have to make this speech again next year. It

will be a relief to all of us.

Moving right along now, I

want to raise another matter. I'm glad the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Dueck) is here. I don't want to be an alarmist, but we've had some very

unpleasant experiences lately in the area in which I live. The Minister

of Health is responsible for the Riverview institution; however, the

Attorney-General has a number of guests assigned to the forensic

institution. Because of a recent incident involving my daughter, I've

heard the alarm expressed probably more widely than I would have

otherwise. I'm not up here trying to increase the level of community

alarm, but nevertheless any incident such as what happened to my

daughter a couple of weeks ago, or the stabbing incident, raises the

alarm of many people in the neighbourhood and around there.

wanted to ask the Attorney-General before he went outside some things

about the forensic institution because again, I'm a local member, I've

expressed some interest in it. It's in my riding. I hear the horror

stories of some of the guests of the Attorney-General sometimes taking

unwarranted walks. There are some examples, I think, that can be

documented. Some people won't speak to me on the record about it,

because they're fearful of their jobs or whatever.

I would

like to know the policy of the minister regarding his guests at the

forensic institute. It's right next to Colony Farm where a lot of

people walk their dogs, and go for walks with their families. It's a

very beautiful area. Patients at the forensic institute are sometimes

at large. They're not supposed to be. They're not supposed to have

ground passes, as far as I know, but they are at large. One of the

people employed by the government down at the forensic institute said,

in warning to those people who sometimes or regularly use that area of

Colony Farm for their own recreation — walking their dogs or the children, and so forth —

that they should be careful. Because people in that institution are not

suffering from bad breath. They are often there because they are

violent, they are criminal and they are insane.

I would like to ask the minister if any recent steps have been taken on the

one hand to ensure the rights of the patient — and that, I think, is important — and the treatment of the patient so far as possible, but also to reassure

the public. I'm quite sure that I could document a number of stories of

people who are his guests there who are out on day passes with or without escorts

and were seen around the community, and this causes some alarm.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I don't want to duck the issue at all. I'm quite happy to debate the

issue, but it's not under my estimates; it's under Health. Health runs

a prison for people who are in custody by order-in-council. The only

function I have in this whole thing is to bring to cabinet orders that

set out the conditions under which they are held. I don't police them

once they are there. That's totally a Health function. When it comes to

making the decisions to release them, we are obliged by law to deal

with them as health matters, not as parole matters. It's very hard

sometimes to get, as you would know, the heads of everyone dealing with

these people from the standpoint of health. Are they now well enough to

be at liberty? And, of course, whether they are a danger is a factor

for sure.

We can't deal with it as a parole matter, and it

doesn't come under me, but it sure concerns me. People who are the

guests of my system then pass into a Health system. As we come to the

time of making custodial decisions as to how people who are mentally

ill are going to be integrated into the "community," I dare say that we

will be very careful to make sure that we don't have overly rapid or

unsafe integration of people who are being held under order-in-council

and who at one time, it was alleged, committed a very serious crime,

and may be held there only on the basis they were judged not guilty by

reason of insanity. So I hear your remarks.

[4:00]

MR. ROSE :

I'll ask the Minister of Health as well. I don't expect him to make any

response at this time, but I am appreciative of the fact that he's

listening.

Is it true that a patient at Riverview, such as

the one accused of stabbing a psychiatric nurse last Friday or Saturday

night, would come under the Attorney-General's custody only long enough

to be committed to the forensic institution, then become, once again,

the responsibility of the Ministry of Health?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

That's right. Then I pick up responsibility for him again at such time

as his level of custody requires to be changed by order-in-council, or

if he commits some sort of offence inside, then, of course, he becomes

a concern of mine. But the housing and custodial care of him is a

Health matter. That was long ago separated by the law and done very

deliberately so it would not be a criminal justice custody situation

but Health custody situation.

MR. ROSE : I won't go

on with this, but as I say, I've got all kinds of letters, virtual

horror stories of people expressing their fears, but often expressing

real, violent tragedies that have befallen their families because of

this. I don't think I'm so far in the Dark Ages that I don't agree that

it's very difficult sometimes to predict what someone might do once

released or once escaped; and I don't deny that the responsibility upon

parole officers and others of making a value judgment is a very great

one.

I was intrigued, though — and I'm just about through with this —

by the minister saying that he felt there were too many people

incarcerated in Canada. My information is that we have the ninth

highest in the western world. In other words, there are eight countries

that have fewer people per capita in prison than we do. That's not the

perception of the

[ Page

3955 ]

public out there. They think that people who are

guests of the Crown have got there through light sentences and are

going to be wined and dined and pampered until they serve a third of

their sentence and then they are out on parole again.

the one hand, the minister frequently comes across as very liberal in

terms of prisons and the population. On the other hand, he sometimes

puts on his jackboots and clomps across the floor as Mr. Law and Order.

I never know how to read him. I think he's a bit schizoid — if that's unparliamentary, I'll withdraw it — in some of his attitudes. I wonder if he could clarify for me what he really meant.

HON. B.R. SMITH : I think he's got me figured out pretty well, that I'm law and order with a view.

Nevertheless,

at one end of the scale, where you're dealing with people who have not

committed reprehensible crimes, who aren't a danger or a risk, who

aren't the sort of people that the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr.

Darcy) has just spoken of.... They're not people like that, and they

are not people who have committed crimes which the public finds

particularly odious — that is, serious white collar swindles, that sort

of thing. They are people who are in there because of crimes against

property or because they have a problem with alcohol which makes it

unsafe to ever have them behind the wheel of a car.

I don't

believe those people should be sitting in cells. Those people should be

in custody, yes; those people should be punished, yes; but their

custody should be a kind of open custody, where we know what they are

doing. We know they are not behind the wheel of a car, we know they are

being punished, and we know they have been denounced. It makes no sense

to warehouse them; that is what I'm saying. If you think that's

bleeding-heart, I don't think it is at all. I think it's just damn

common sense.

On the other hand, I do believe that we've

had problems of a major kind in dramatic cases with parole in Canada,

cases which have given the public the impression that parole is lousy

for some reason. And parole isn't lousy.

MR. SIHOTA : I said that.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I know. I'm agreeing with you and I'm agreeing with your friend from

Rossland-Trail too. Public perception of parole has been bad because of

some mistakes that have been made, and also because of a philosophy

that people have had in that system — that their job is to get them in

and out as quickly as they can, all of them. That is not the philosophy

that the public accepts, because the public does believe not only that

should we confine people who are dangerous, but also that some of the

rogues and the recidivists who are in that system for drugs and B and E

and so on should earn their way out; and that's what I've been saying

on parole. So I am both liberal and conservative on the matter of

custody, you're darn right I am. I'm a unity party man.

MR. ROSE :

It's not unusual for the Liberals and the Conservatives to be at war

within the Socreds, so I can understand how the minister's personal

problems might affect that.

Many of the people who I'm told populate our prisons — at least half of

them — are in there on drug-related charges, and a great many, a far greater

proportion than their numbers would predict, are natives or people who are poor

and do not have an adequate defence. Very seldom do we see a large number of

so-called white collar criminals behind bars, because they can usually pay a

smart lawyer to get them off.

I think it's all very well for the A-G to make his speech....

MR. SIHOTA : I didn't write that question.

MR. ROSE : I didn't refer to you, because I was talking about a smart lawyer.

The

minister fulminates about how these people who are non-violent or

involved in these trivial crimes should be serving their time and be

punished in some other institution. Could he tell us what institutions

he's planning, so that we could relieve the heavy numbers which we have

in Canada in prisons serving time at great expense? The last time I

looked we had something like 12,000 inmates in federal institutions and

about 12,000 guards. We could take one home, one to a customer.

Now

that's no solution, but the solution is along the lines that the

minister is discussing. Try a variety of approaches rather than just

incarceration. What I want to know is: we've heard his beliefs;

what's he doing about it?

HON. B.R. SMITH : I didn't

realize that he was going to give me such a good platform, and I'm

going to resist too much speech-making here because there are other

people who want to do their estimates and talk.

The problem

with natives in the prison system in Canada and in this province has

been a very serious one. A little over 17 percent of the adult prison

population is native, and about 19 percent of the youth prison

population is native. Those figures, as you can see them going back

over the years, have been more or less consistent; there hasn't been

much variation. In other words, an awful lot has to be done....

MR. ROSE : Is that 36 percent in total?

HON. B.R. SMITH : No. 17 percent of one system and 19 percent of the other. It would work out as an average of about 18 percent at both levels.

have a number of natives, of course, on community programs as well. So

what am I going to do about it? Well, I've already mentioned the

bracelet form of custody that I pioneered in this country and that I

believe we've got to expand a lot more. To be comfortable in doing that

legally, we're probably going to need some changes to the Criminal

Code, but we're going to do the best we can under the existing law to

expand it as much as possible — number one.

Number two, I will continue to support better work programs and camps, programs such as Alouette River and Kokanee — I wish the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Dirks) were here —

which get inmates outside doing constructive things, learning trades

and skills, so that they become much better candidates for early

release. Those sorts of programs are the important ones, and we are

paying close attention to them. I thank the member for the platform.

MR. SIHOTA :

I have several questions to ask the minister now that all the other

rogues have sat down and we can get back to some of the other issues I

wanted to raise.

AN HON. MEMBER : Rogues?

MR. SIHOTA : Did I say "rogues"? I think I was just quoting the Attorney-General. Colleagues — sorry — is what I meant to say.

[ Page

3956 ]

I want to continue on two matters that I raised earlier and then

deal with the provincial emergency program and prisons, and I think

that will probably wrap it up; because I too feel the pressure of time.

First

of all, on the matter of the company involved in Richmond: does the

Attorney-General have any further comment on the comment I made about

that company and its principals?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

Yes, I answered it and put it on the record when you were out of the

chamber; I think you were just coming in when I dealt with it.

Certainly the security checks were made on the individual. The

article

that precipitated the concerns in the Edmonton press early in 1980 was

largely repudiated in an apology in October of that same year. A

security check was run on this individual, and the contract was let on

a one-year basis with a one-year renewal. The contract comes up again

for consideration in October of this year, I think.

MR. SIHOTA :

With respect to another issue I raised on Thursday, I believe, I come

back to it. It deals with Mr. Toigo and the provincial government's

ongoing involvement with the situation as it relates to BCEC. Just to

recap, the other day I made reference to the fact that the Premier had

issued a press release indicating that the Attorney-General's

department was not investigating Mr. Toigo, and we talked at that time

about the propriety of that statement. Could the minister advise this

House as to whether that press release puts to end the ministry's

involvement with Mr. Toigo?

HON. B.R. SMITH : Well,

how could I possibly confirm that and be consistent with the position

I've taken all along, that I can never confirm or deny whether anyone

is the concern of my ministry in the way in which that's meant. I can't

possibly confirm or deny that, because it's another way of asking the

first and primary question.

MR. SIHOTA : I take it,

then, that the Attorney-General is not prepared to comment one way or

the other as to whether there are any other investigations of Mr.

Toigo. Is that what I take his comments to mean?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

That's correct. As I recall, the release you're speaking of, which came

from the Premier's office, was in a slightly different form than that.

I don't have a copy of that release in front of me, but as I recall,

the release had to do with requests for investigations. Maybe you have

an up-to-date copy of it. I don't know that it was quite as broad as

you indicated; but you've probably got a copy of it — I don't.

MR. SIHOTA : I find it passing strange that the Attorney General does

not have a copy of it, and even stranger that I would have a copy of it when

the Attorney-General doesn't. It would seem to me, again, strange that the

Premier would not have provided a copy of it to the Attorney-General. I take

it, therefore — again, just to make this matter clear — that the Attorney-General

is not prepared to comment on whether there are any other matters of concern

or of interest to his ministry as they relate to Mr. Toigo, apart from the BCEC

issue. I wasn't talking about the BCEC issue in my previous question. I

meant: apart from the one matter that the Premier made reference to in his press

release. Other than that, is there any other involvement of his ministry with

Mr. Toigo?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I'm really surprised that the member would ask that question, because

it's the same question as the primary question. It really puts

individuals in an unfair position, when I perhaps appear to be ducking

this question. But I cannot answer that question — not just for Mr.

Toigo but for someone else. As to not having the press release, I

really have not carried it around with me; I do not have those

documents here this afternoon. I think we canvassed them in the House

soon afterwards — it was last Thursday. So I don't have any of those

with me, but I have a very good recollection of the events, and I am

telling you what my neutral position permits me to tell.

[4:15]

MR. SIHOTA : I want to thank the Attorney-General for his response on that issue.

want to turn now to another issue. Just to put both him and his

officials on notice, I intend to deal now with the provincial emergency

program; subsequently, the matter of corrections and prisons in this

province; and finally, a number of quick miscellaneous issues.

MR. ROSE : All in 12 minutes?

MR. SIHOTA : All in 12 minutes.

There

are more than 6,000 volunteers within the provincial emergency program.

Yet there appears to be little government support or effort to organize

those people effectively. I say that because of the report on the

provincial emergency program which the Attorney-General — I want to thank him for this —

was good enough to make available to me. I understand that it is

available to municipalities across the province but has not been

officially tabled in the House. The report indicates that the Social

Credit government has not prepared B.C. for a provincewide emergency.

This study suggests that if we had a major disaster in British

Columbia, it is very possible that the government would simply not be

ready to provide public safety measures to ensure that risks to life

and property were minimized.

What is of great concern to

me, Mr. Chairman, is that this government knew last year that the

provincial emergency program was thoroughly inadequate, but rather than

acting on the report's recommendations, it appears from the budget

information that they moved in the opposite direction and cut the

program's budget. It seems to me that there is no way the government

can justify these cuts, if they are indeed true. I want to deal with

that, as well as my feeling that the government should amend the

Municipal Act to require municipalities to have emergency plans in

place, and to update them regularly. Furthermore, in my view, as an

opening comment, it must recognize the recommendations in the study and

provide the necessary funding and resources to develop a comprehensive

contingency program.

The report — again, I want to thank the Attorney-General for making it available to me —

during the course of its conclusions, on page 87, says that "the

provincial emergency program is currently incapable of responding

effectively to a major disaster." It goes on to state that the program

might actually be a liability in the event of a major disaster. How

could the Attorney-General have had this report in his possession since

last August and taken nominal action on it? Or perhaps he can explain

what action has occurred since last August, particularly in light of

the fact that, from my reading of the budget, it appears there has been

a 6.2 percent cut in funding for the provincial emergency program.

[ Page

3957 ]

HON. B.R. SMITH :

The budget is really the same. There's been a building occupancy shift,

that's all, so it's virtually the same budget. This program was

transferred from the Ministry of Environment to my ministry in November

of 1986. The concerns that are expressed in that report bear out the

considerable concern that many citizens, and many municipal people

actually, had expressed to me and to my ministry as to the ability of

the provincial emergency program to respond to any major emergency, and

also concerns about what appeared to be the lack of planning for

government response to a disaster such as a major earthquake or a tidal

wave which....

You know, all you have to do is go and look

at communities that have been hit by these. You can still see the

consequences in Alaska of that terrible earthquake. I saw the

consequences in the Hawaiian islands not too long ago of a tidal wave

that hit there and a storm that followed that in 1982. It really has

taken about six years to rebuild, and still the damage to beaches and

so on is evident.

So I think that we woke up to the fact

that we had to have a look taken at this and a response made to these

concerns. We embarked on a major evaluation of the program last year.

This evaluation certainly reveals the deficiencies in organization and

management and, indeed, in commitment. So the first thing that I did

after that report came to me was to search for and find a new director

of this program, and we have appointed Mr. Murray Stewart, who has

excellent credentials. We've started on reorganization, increasing the

geographic representation from five to nine regions located throughout

the province, to improve immediately the training content and the

method of delivery, to place more emphasis on planning and to try to

beef this whole program up. We're in the process of doing that.

The

director of the program has been instructed to implement the

recommendations of the report, which he has authority to implement.

These include the organizational structure, communications, support and

training for volunteers, search and rescue on land, sea and air, and

joint planning funding — to mention some.

I'll tell the

member that as of April 1 of this year, an emergency operations centre

at headquarters has been operating on a 24-hour basis with a toll-free

number, which will ensure that emergency information such as warnings

of tidal waves and so on can be disseminated more effectively. This

operations centre has dealt with a number of emergency incidents in the

short time that it has been in existence, and that's just since April

1: eight search-and-rescue operations on land; two with downed

aircraft; 41 dangerous-goods complaints; four motor vehicle accidents

in which Jaws of Life were required; and a number of miscellaneous

calls. So we've done those things, and we've also improved our regional

operations considerably and worked with the RCMP in that regard; and a

number of workshops, seminars and training courses are being planned to

try to do a better job of public education.

I think that

right now as we're debating these estimates a major crisis management

exercise is being conducted at the Justice Institute by the police

branch along with the emergency services people. Together with the

Canadian government, which has a major role to play in this, we intend

to address those concerns and try to make a stronger commitment for

emergency service in 1988-89.

MR. SIHOTA : I want to deal with the issues that the Premier raised in

the course of his comment, and to try to flesh out some of them — not all of

them — because there is at this time no provincewide emergency plan for British

Columbia; there is no governmentwide plan, in the event of a disaster, for

all ministries of government; 30 percent of the municipalities in the province

do not have emergency plans; and rural areas are not covered by plans at all.

The

Attorney-General made reference to the role played by the federal

government, and it's my understanding that shared-cost funding has been

available from the federal government through a joint emergency

planning program since at least 1985. An agreement is now in the works,

and I don't know if it has been executed or not. The regional office of

Emergency Planning Canada, when I contacted them, were reluctant to

comment as to whether B.C. has received any money under this program.

The

provincial emergency program report states that "other provinces are

applying for and receiving substantially more than British Columbia"

under the joint emergency program planning program. Can the

Attorney-General explain why his government has been so remiss in

applying for federal funds available for emergency planning?

HON. B.R. SMITH : The agreement was just recently signed, and we will be getting federal money this year.

MR. SIHOTA :

I appreciate that this is a new item within the Attorney-General's

ministry. It's been here as long as I've been here, I guess. It came on

in November 1986. I'm still at a loss to understand why it took the

government so long to enter into that type of agreement. I realize it's

something new in your ministry, so it may not be answered. I'd like to

have some understanding as to why it's taken so long.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I guess it has been the philosophy of governments, going right back

through the seventies, not to give this a high priority. I think it's

quite obvious that we haven't done so. It has not been a high priority.

We have, I guess, basked in the belief that the nuclear stalemate was

going to protect us from a war, and that these other matters were not

things we could plan against. I really don't take ownership of that. I

guess your explanation would be as good as mine. We just haven't put

our dollars into emergency programs.

I can remember when I

was in municipal government.... I'm sure the member had the same offer.

Many times I was asked to go visit the big bunker outside Ottawa, and

to see what we were going to do if we had a nuclear disaster or some

kind of disaster in Canada. I was never reassured by the fact that the

heads of government, the parliamentarians and the bureaucrats in Ottawa

were going to be in that bunker, but the rest of us weren't. I never

availed myself of that freebie when I was in municipal government. I

never went and saw that bunker. It wasn't an idea that appealed to me.

I'm not too keen on the bunker mentality. I think we should be doing

educational programs and community programs, and that's what we hope to

do here.

MR. SIHOTA : I want to get to that

information program in a second, but I must confess that when I was an

alderman in Esquimalt I was never invited to go to the bunker. I don't

know what I did wrong. But I do remember the days in elementary school

when we used to practise duck-and-cover. We used to hide underneath our

desks and cover our eyes with books. I don't know if the

Attorney-General remembers the

[ Page

3958 ]

days when he was in elementary school, if they had

duck and-cover exercises then, or if that's something new to those of

us who were elementary kids in the sixties. If he doesn't remember, it

was a lot of fun because it broke up the routine of school to play

duck-and-cover for a while. I see the Chairman may have been involved

in duck-and-cover, because he's smiling.

The concern here

isn't exclusively with nuclear incidents. Obviously there are all sorts

of things, as you've mentioned in citing your statistics,

transportation of dangerous goods being just one of them.

You

are correct that it hasn't been a priority. It's my understanding that

there are only 29 full-time equivalents, FTEs, certainly an inadequate

number to perform the task. Alberta has over three times the staff

assigned to its program. The Attorney-General has indicated that the

budget will not be increasing. Will the budget mean that there will be

layoffs in this already understaffed program?

HON. B.R. SMITH : No.

MR. SIHOTA :

For emergency plans to work, there must be widespread and adequate

public information about the plans and the plan must be practised. This

point was made very forcefully in a recent report on nuclear accidents

that I have seen, by Prof. Jackson Davis. Will the minister confirm

that the provincial emergency program has no public information officer

on staff, and no public information program apart from the occasional

publication of pamphlets?

[4:30]

HON. B. R. SMITH :

That's right, it doesn't, and it hadn't been doing that. That comes out

in the report. I guess I turn over these reports prior to estimates at

my peril.

MR. SIHOTA : That's not really true. Your

peril is that not only did you turn it over, but you gave my research

staff a chance to work on it. I must confess that, unlike all the other

areas we've debated, this is one where I'm working totally off my

notes, as the Attorney-General is. So there you have it.

From the point of view of the community I represent, there is a nominal — and I want to emphasize that —

risk of an accident involving nuclear material. There is not enough

information, supply or manpower to adequately respond to such a

situation. As I understand it, there are only three or four volunteers

in the entire province qualified to detect and monitor radioactive

material. Could the Attorney-General indicate whether that is true?

HON. B.R. SMITH : No, I can't confirm that. I think that would probably be close to a ballpark figure, but I can't confirm it.

MR. SIHOTA :

I want to deal with training. It's my information that the Alberta

public safety service has a training division with 14 full-time

employees, including a separate dangerous goods control training branch

with a staff of three. In B.C. the total training staff is three, and I

understand this will be transferred to the Justice Institute. Is it true — given the Attorney-General's earlier comments about the importance of training — that the total training staff is three, and that it is to be transferred to the Justice Institute?

HON. B.R. SMITH : Yes, and that's why the report was critical of

it.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Attorney-General in his opening comments made all sorts of

assurances with respect to training, public information and adequate

staffing. What we've been able to establish so far is that, given

that there's no increase in the budget, there's obviously going to be

no increase in staff — fortunately no reduction either — and therefore

inadequate staffing, and that there clearly is inadequate training and

certainly no public information. It would seem to me that a pivotal

component of this program would be access to public information. Could

the Attorney-General again explain to me how an accident involving

hazardous goods can be dealt with, when the government has no experts

on hazardous goods on its emergency program staff?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

They're simply not in this ministry; they're in other places. They're

in Highways or Environment. They're not in Transportation, and they're

not with my ministry.

As far as training is concerned, we

will be do