1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th 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 25, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 6

[ Page 13649 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

L. Reid: The son of Jack and Kay Collins has been instructed not to have introductions made of his parents. I thought I would welcome them to the chamber, and would ask the House to please make them welcome.

B. Simpson: I am delighted today to introduce Mr. George Tanco, president of the Society of Notaries Public. As a practising lawyer myself, I fully appreciate the role that the notaries have in keeping down costs, and I would urge all members of this House to greet the notaries.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure today to welcome my father, Merrill MacPhail, to the Legislature from the great land of Prince Edward Island. He fortunately missed the tragic bombing, and I assured him that there would not be one here today, unless it was the opposition falling on their faces.

D. Schreck: In the gallery today is Mr. Pat Tidball. Pat Tidball and I worked under the guidance of Norm Levi and Dennis Cocke back in 1973 to put the provincial Pharmacare program together. I'll always remember the days when Bill Bennett stood in this Legislature and told the Dave Barrett government that the Pharmacare legislation was the best legislation introduced by that government. It gives me great pleasure to see Mr. Tidball in the gallery today, helping our government defend medicare against a two-tier attack.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's a pleasure this afternoon to introduce representatives of the Canadian Bar Association and the Law Society of B.C., who hosted members of the opposition last night, I understand, and will be hosting members of the government this evening. In particular, I would like to welcome to the gallery Mr. Grant Burnyeat, treasurer of the Law Society, and Mr. Eric Rice, president of the B.C. branch of the CBA.

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today we have one of Canada's most respected parliamentarians -- a man whose wit, logic and passion are missed in Ottawa. I'm referring to the Hon. Ian Waddell, and I would ask that the House please make him welcome.

D. Jarvis: Two visitors to the gallery today from Sidney, B.C., are Bernice and Eunice Spring. I'd like the members to make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Before I introduce another gentleman who's in the gallery, let me add my welcome to my old friend, Ian Waddell, and I would ask the House to greet him a second time. Thank you.

I have a friend in the gallery, Hardev Bal, who's a constituent of mine as well as the vice-president of my constituency association. Would the House please welcome him.

J. Dalton: Mr. George Tanco, president of the notaries' society, has been introduced. But accompanying Mr. Tanco are also Sally O'Sullivan, the first vice-president, Stan Nicol, secretary of their association, Ken Sherk, who heads up their political action committee, and Brent Atkinson, who is also a member of that same committee. So I would ask the House to welcome all of the notaries public.

N. Lortie: We have with us in the gallery today another group of bright young students from the great municipality and great constituency of Delta North. There are 30 grade 11 students from North Delta Senior Secondary School in North Delta. They're studying grade 11 government, and that's the purpose of their trip here today. They're led by their teacher, Ms. Barcket. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf I would like to introduce a group of people in the precincts today. Prof. Paul Tennant is, of course, no stranger to any member of this assembly. The group of people with whom he is travelling today are strangers thus far. I'm referring to the 1996 legislative interns, whose acquaintance we all look forward to making. The interns are as follows: Adam Barbolet from UBC, Tanya Garcia from SFU, Greg Gowe from UBC, Julie Jackson from UBC, Pam Jefcoat from UVic, Kevin Moorhead from UBC and Tom Syer from SFU. I'd ask my colleagues to join me, please, in making all these people welcome.

T. Perry: I'm not quite sure who this gentleman is up in the Speaker's gallery; he's obviously somebody very important. I do know an Isabel Waddell who was once a constituent. But whoever that is, I'd just like to welcome him too, since he's obviously some big shot.

B. Copping: In the gallery today are my sister and brother-in-law, Joan and Keith Hillaby, and they're visiting from the slash-and-burn and wipe-out-medicare haven of Alberta.

Oral Questions

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance. We all know that the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society has bilked hundreds of thousands of dollars from the people and charities in Nanaimo. Can the Deputy Premier tell this House if she is confident that no taxpayer money -- not charity money -- found its way into the NDP-affiliated Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society?

Hon. E. Cull: As the member well knows, there have been a number of investigations of the four societies, and there continues to be a forensic audit under the Society Act, under the Premier's initiative. That report continues, and we're waiting until we see the results before there will be any further discussion of this matter.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: Unfortunately, the Liberal caucus has found out that not only were the charities bilked, but the taxpayers of British Columbia may well have been bilked. We've examined the records of the Nanaimo Senior Citizens Building Society. Between 1979 and 1982, directors of the NCHS, including Dave Stupich, infiltrated the board of the seniors' society.

[ Page 13650 ]

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: I understand this is a sensitive issue for the New Democrats; if they'd come clean and have a public inquiry, we wouldn't have to do it in the House.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: The society then began receiving massive provincial and federal grant money to build seniors' housing. They didn't just build seniors' housing; it appears they also invested over $68,000 in NCHS debentures. Will the Minister of Finance order that the investigation by Ron Parks be expanded to include taxpayer money funnelled to the NCHS?

Hon. E. Cull: This member knows full well that if he has any information of improper or illegal doings of any sort, he has a responsibility to bring it to the attention of Mr. Parks, and I urge him to do so.

W. Hurd: The tangled web of the NCHS continues to build. Financial statements of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society charities list donations to the Nanaimo Senior Citizens Building Society in excess of $175,000 between 1981 and 1983. However, according to the seniors' society, they received a total of only $40,000 in donations from all sources during this period. Can the Deputy Premier advise the House whether or not Ron Parks's mandate will cover these insider deals using taxpayers' money, and whether those dealings which led to the original convictions will be fully analyzed by Mr. Parks as his investigation continues?

Hon. E. Cull: I would ask the member to consider the answer I gave to the previous question.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: The same information calls the accounting practices of Dave Stupich into question yet again. Immediately after infiltrating the board of the seniors' society, Mr. Stupich began doing accounting for the seniors' society as well as the NCHS charities. It is clear that the only way to get to the bottom of this Nanaimo scandal, which now involves taxpayers' money in addition to charity money, is to have a full public inquiry. Will the Deputy Premier today, on behalf of the government, commit to a full and open public inquiry so that the trail of taxpayers' money to Nanaimo can now be traced to its source, and we can get to the bottom of this sordid mess in Nanaimo?

[2:15]

COMMUNICATIONS SITE FEE STRUCTURE

R. Neufeld: My question is to the minister responsible for Crown lands. On January 1 the minister quietly introduced a new communications site policy that will have a devastating effect on many small communications companies. Communication companies that were paying a flat fee of $500 for a tiny plot of Crown land needed for a radio transmission tower will now, in some cases, be paying $10,000 for the same site. How can the minister possibly justify this massive tax increase that will see communication fees jump by as much as 2,000 percent?

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, I took a question from the Social Credit leader -- or the Social Credit member in this House, I guess; I shouldn't call him leader -- the other day on this issue and indicated that I would take that question on notice. I expect to have a reply to him in terms of that issue in due course.

The Speaker: The member has a different question? This question was taken on notice.

R. Neufeld: I have a new question to the same minister, and that will give him three to answer. This policy will affect anyone depending on telecommunications: the forest industry, guides and outfitters, oil and gas industries -- in fact, anyone who uses communications in rural B.C. I have letters from two small companies that will see their costs jump anywhere from 650 percent to 2,000 percent. Yet Westel, a subsidiary of B.C. Rail, is competing with these folks and will be exempt from the fee. Will the minister scrap this regressive tax immediately and renegotiate something with those companies that is fair?

Hon. M. Sihota: As the hon. member knows, I have a great affinity for both the media and the communications industry in this province. In fact, some have said that I've never met a microphone I didn't like, and there might be some truth to that. In any event, it's always in the interests of government to make sure that communications in this province are such that the government's messages on jobs and medicare and whatever other issues are important to us get communicated. If there are impediments to it, of course we're interested in being as fair as we can.

IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

V. Anderson: Unfortunately, the public has lost confidence in Social Services' ability to protect those children of the province who are in care and those who have been abused. The ministry ignored the cries of children such as Matthew Vaudreuil, Jeremy Harris and Serena Fry. New revelations are coming forward that the situation is even worse than we understood it to be. Ministry staff is reported to have continued to ignore a number of instances where abuse was reported, or they do not have the expertise to follow up.

Justice Gove, therefore, in his interim report, has made recommendations asking for urgent changes to Bills 45 and 46. I ask the minister: will she commit today to the changes that Judge Gove has recommended to the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act, and will they be implemented before that act has been put into place?

Hon. J. MacPhail: You know, hon. Speaker, each time my friend from the opposition gets up and criticizes actions around the ministry, he always fails to say that their party would slash and burn services to protect children in this province. It is with a great deal of hypocrisy that his leader stands up and says that he would prefer a Klein approach to a Harcourt approach. Where Premier Klein cuts off family services, we increase our support to family services. It's time for him to stop politicizing the issue of child protection.

In terms of his wishes around changes to the legislation, he knows full well -- because I have personally kept him

[ Page 13651 ]

informed of this -- that those matters will be coming before the House very shortly. I expect his full and unfettered support of what we bring forward.

V. Anderson: We hope we won't have more children suffering because of the conditions that our minister has had to face. We are all concerned, I trust, that the mandate of the child advocate should be extended to protect all the children in the province, not just those under the care of Social Services. Someone must be able speak for the children, since the ministry has not been able to do so to date. Will the minister accept the recommendations of Justice Gove that the child advocate be able to act on behalf of all children in the province, in all ministries?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I very much look forward to discussing this at the appropriate time when it comes before the Legislature.

B.C. HYDRO INTERNATIONAL'S ROLE IN YACYRETA DAM

M. de Jong: My question is for the Government House Leader, the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. The chair of B.C. Hydro, Mr. Laxton, was recently quoted as saying that we have entered into a joint venture in Argentina with Argentinean and Paraguayan partners to bid for the operation and maintenance of the 2,700-megawatt Yacyreta hydroelectric project. This project has been dubbed by the Argentinean President as "a monument to corruption," with the disappearance of over $1.3 billion since construction began. My question to the minister responsible is: why would B.C. Hydro be entering into a joint venture in a project with such a sordid past as the Yacyreta hydroelectric project?

Hon. G. Clark: I am delighted that B.C. Hydro International, like other power utilities across the world, is looking at exciting opportunities to create jobs here in the province and revenue for our taxpayers using the expertise in British Columbia. They're exploring opportunities throughout the world. I might say that the cabinet has directed B.C. Hydro International to prepare environmental and social screens to review international participation in any projects, and no such projects will be entered into by cabinet.... Cabinet will review any projects that are generated by B.C.

Hydro International not only on the basis of their financial return but also on the jobs created in British Columbia, and it will ensure that they maintain standards which are acceptable to British Columbia, including environmental and social standards. I can assure you I would be delighted to table this in the House in a matter of weeks, I suppose, when cabinet and others review the very detailed work being done right now by B.C. Hydro International and place it before the House, because we want to say that B.C.

Hydro's reputation on environmental matters is enhanced and continued when we deal with the exciting international opportunities.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: I'm pleased to hear the minister refer to environmental and social screens.

My supplementary question is to the Minister of Environment. According to the World Bank, the project will displace 50,000 people, including many of the people who are indigenous to the area. Already we are advised that there's been an environmental disaster that has resulted in 120,000 fish being slaughtered during the filling of the dam, which led one Argentinean environmental organization to call Yacyreta "the most serious environmental aggression in the country's history." My question to the Minister of Environment is: does he support B.C. Hydro International's decision to venture into a project that has such a horrible environmental, social and economic history?

Hon. M. Sihota: Rather than commenting on or inquiring about environmental issues internationally, perhaps the hon. member should be clarifying the position of his party around environmental issues here domestically. He talks about fish, and the hon. member knows full well that in British Columbia one of the greatest threats to fish is sewage being pumped into the Fraser River system here in British Columbia. His leader says...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M. Sihota: ...that sewage treatment would be a luxury, that his party would not fund sewage treatment here in British Columbia and that his first priority would be to get rid of environmental regulation. Perhaps the hon. member should indicate whether that would be the pulp mill effluent discharge incentives that we brought forward here in Canada, which are the toughest in North America.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, the hon. member should spend more time in this House...

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. M. Sihota: ...trying to explain the policies of his party, which are totally deficient from an environmental point of view, rather than questioning the policies overseas of other countries.

B.C. FISH FARM INDUSTRY PROSPECTS

R. Chisholm: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. The fish-farming industry in the province has amazing potential. However, due to barriers that have been put in place by this government, the investment in fish farming is leaving and going to the United States and Chile. My question to the minister is: when will he commit to removing the barriers that threaten the British Columbia fish farm industry so that the jobs don't follow those in the mining industry and head south?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm standing here wondering whether the member saw a press release that the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks and I sent out in the last two weeks, where we approved nine new licences, which will increase by 10 percent the amount of....

Interjections.

[ Page 13652 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They're not leaving.

We'll expand the industry by 10 percent, and if that member is concerned, he should think about the potential effects on the wild salmon that we have to guard against. We have to make sure that we protect jobs in the wild salmon industry, and we will do what we have to over the next year to clarify policy issues that are there -- legitimate concerns that have been raised by both sides about the development. We are committed to a sustainable development of this industry, and the licences that we approved in the last couple of weeks will see a 10 percent expansion. Over 100 jobs will be created by the expansion of that industry.

Presenting Petitions

W. Hurd: I ask leave to table a petition, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to table a petition in the House today from 673 of my constituents. It says: "We, the undersigned, wish to register our profound opposition to recent changes made in the Adoption Act regulations without public discussion." The petitioners respectfully request, in the spirit of open government and in the best interests of the children of British Columbia, that the House reinstate the previous regulations for the adoption of infants and children until at least the public interests have been adequately considered.

J. Dalton: May I have leave to table a petition, hon. Speaker?

Leave granted.

J. Dalton: I have a petition from 3,030 Port Coquitlam residents who are all expressing major concern about the proposed prison remand centre in their community. Given the timely discussion of this morning, I think it's appropriate that this petition arrived today. The people of Port Coquitlam are concerned about the location, which is very near to schools and residents, and they ask in the petition that the centre be located out of the municipality of Port Coquitlam.

G. Wilson: I ask leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: This petition is in somewhat unusual form, but it comes from the school children of Powell River in light of the most successful meeting that we had with the Minister of Education yesterday in terms of the restoration of school funding. I'd like to House to please receive this petition.

Hon. D. Miller: I can see that the Liberal caucus is waiting with bated breath, and I have the honour to present the 1994 annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt tabled the 1993-94 annual report of the Agricultural Land Commission.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Committees A and B. In Committee A, I call the Ministry of Education estimates; and in Committee B, I call the Ministry of Attorney General estimates.

[2:30]

The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 17: minister's office, $424,063 (continued).

The Chair: I will recognize the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. But perhaps, member, with your indulgence, I might just ask those other members who are not participating in the committee deliberations to please leave quietly.

G. Wilson: My question is specific to work that is now currently underway, and I realize that future legislation is something that the minister can't comment on. However, it does deal with the Legal Profession Act and the

interpretation of the Legal Profession Act with respect to collection agencies that represent clients in terms of collection within the courts and the judge's

interpretation. There seems to be a longstanding problem, and it's noted that the Debt Collection Act fails to specify agents in the courtroom. I wonder if the minister might tell us what is being done to clarify this situation and -- to the degree that he can tell us -- to what extent there may be some amendments that would provide clarity on the provision of agents in collections, as we're all trying to cut down the cost of court services.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As the member noted, it's inappropriate to talk about legislation, or legislation that might be required, in estimates debate. My source for that is on page 107 of George MacMinn's book, if members want to refer to it.

Having said that, it's a legitimate and fair question, if not in this form but in general terms. It's clear that changes to the Legal Profession Act are required. I am unable to say at this point when the House might have an opportunity to deal with that.

G. Wilson: It's a testimony to the length of tenure the minister has had in this House that he has memorized Mr. MacMinn's book to the point that he can quote each page.

J. Tyabji: Just that one.

G. Wilson: Or perhaps it's just that one page he can quote -- I'm not sure. But I think with respect to this issue.... I won't belabour the point, given that I take from the minister's comments that there are likely to be some amendments to the Legal Profession Act. Some of us would argue, in fact, that the act needs to be rewritten from beginning to end. I would argue that.

Not to belabour the future-legislation point of view, on the question of collection, however, I think there is likely to be

[ Page 13653 ]

some conflict arising as a result of groups that are now starting to emerge in providing services to individuals facing litigation -- people who are not lawyers and who lawyers may claim are practising law, despite the fact that they are lay people providing advice with respect to the legal system. My comment is directed with respect to the costs that would be incurred if an agent is not permitted in the collection process.

I wonder if -- in looking at the budget and in the provision and funding of court services -- the minister is prepared this fiscal year to entertain the notion that costs can be mitigated if there's a provision for representation by those other than lawyers. That's not to say we don't need lawyers. That is another argument entirely, which we won't get into now, because it's a lengthy one. It has more to do specifically with the question of attempting to mitigate costs by the provision of licensing agents in collection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think there are any additional changes with respect to that in the court services budget. With respect to the overall issue, it's an issue that I think should properly await the debate around the legislation, if and when that occurs.

G. Wilson: I only have one other question, then, with respect to this. I raise it to bring it to the minister's attention, because we have had, as the minister will see, a number of different representations with respect to this. It is clearly an issue that is being experienced around the province. The last comment is with respect to those companies that are fully licensed and bonded with respect to this service.

Will the minister tell us, in looking at ways of trying to cut costs -- I think that is something which is in the interests of all of us, and I don't expect you to comment on future legislation -- whether or not a provision is being contemplated in any way for expanding licences to people who are licensed and bonded agents with respect to the provision of legal representation in collection?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not prepared to get into that kind of discussion in estimates debate. It's something that should await the appropriate forum.

J. Dalton: I wish to raise some questions and issues surrounding the Oppal commission, which, as all members know, is a very worthy project. It is probably more extensive than the Attorney General or anyone else ever contemplated when Wally Oppal was first assigned the task. I think it's important that we have some discussion in the estimates -- and, hopefully, on an ongoing basis beyond the estimates -- about the importance of the many recommendations that Justice Oppal submitted and where the Attorney General may be taking those recommendations.

I will start by making a reference to the transmittal letter that appears at the beginning of Justice Oppal's four-volume report. He comments about the B.C. Police Commission and the excellent work it has done over the years. He makes the following statement:

"It has been instrumental in establishing guidelines in such important matters as the use of force, high-speed chases, no-knock searches and spousal violence. However, it is my view that these functions ought to be the responsibility of the Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of the province."

And Justice Oppal goes on in that same vein.

I would like the Attorney General to start on this topic, and comment about what changes, if any, he contemplates coming out of remarks such as the one I just cited from Justice Oppal's report.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That particular reference in the transmittal letter raises a fundamental question about the structure of the Police Act and police governance in British Columbia. It speaks to a difficult question, and that is: should there be an independent Police Commission -- as now exists and has existed for 20 or 21 years -- which is involved with and responsible for these policy determinations, or should those matters originate in and be the responsibility of the Ministry of Attorney General directly? As yet, we haven't come to conclusions that have led to legislative proposals around that topic.

I think it's fair to say that there is very good argument for retaining the Police Commission structure. On the other side of the question, there is very good argument for the need to find some way of rationalizing the process in which you have a two-headed monster governing these kinds of questions -- the government, through the ministry, on the one hand, and the commission on the other.

I think Justice Oppal's conclusions were, in part, reached as a result of often conflicting advice and conflicting conclusions reached, on the one hand by the commission, and on the other hand by what was the police services branch of the ministry. So those questions remain outstanding. I don't expect to reach conclusions around those questions in the very near future.

In the meantime, the Police Commission is functioning very well. The existing commission functions as the Police Act envisions, and I have no difficulties with the commission. In fact, they have my full confidence, and they are doing good work.

J. Dalton: Continuing with the same line of questioning, I think back to when Justice Oppal was making his rounds of the province and conducting public hearings. I had put in a written submission that when he arrived in West Vancouver I would like to appear and make some comments about high-speed chases, which is one of the topics that I have just quoted from his document.

When I was doing my research on the particular topic of high-speed chases, I was quite surprised to find that there was an amazing variety of police policy on that very topic. Of course, there wasn't necessarily any consistency even from one jurisdiction to a neighbouring jurisdiction. That's why I think these comments that Justice Oppal has submitted in a very extensive series of recommendations are important. There are 317 recommendations in his report. Certainly this particular topic that I'm citing, high-speed chases, was addressed in his report.

Even though I can understand that there's an ongoing examination of the many, many implications of the Oppal commission, I think it would be very important for the Attorney General's ministry to recognize that we don't have any consistent policy from one police jurisdiction to another even on a fairly and seemingly simple topic like high-speed chases. I don't think that is very desirable, quite frankly, hon. Chair.

I might tell the committee why I happened to pick that topic. The reason is that I have seen too many lawsuits and judgments coming through the courts whereby quite innocent people.... For example, I recall a case from Toronto where

[ Page 13654 ]

two nurses standing at a bus stop minding their own business were wiped out by a vehicle being driven by a 16-year-old car thief, who was shot in the back. It wasn't intentional. They were trying to shoot out the tire of the vehicle, but the police officer actually ended up shooting the 16-year-old in the back of the neck. Needless to say, he lost control of the vehicle, and two people were dead on the sidewalk as a result.

I cite that particular case as one example. I think too often even today we read of police chases through residential communities. I would like the Attorney General to cast his mind to the need for such things when we consider the various implications of Justice Oppal's report.

I appreciate as well the comments that he's made about the Police Commission. I agree; I think the commission has done a good job. But clearly we're getting into a new era where we're going to have to revisit the entire question of policing: whether it should be generated out of Victoria or whether we should be taking into account more and more community needs. Of course, it's probably safe to say that community policing is the main theme of Justice Oppal's report, and maybe we can get into that in a few moments.

The Attorney General has gone on record -- at least, I think that's one way of putting it -- in a release that came out of his office on February 3 dealing specifically with a consultation document that his ministry has put out, and in a moment I'll get to asking some questions about that. The document was dealing with one of the recommendations of Justice Oppal proposing an independent public complaints commission.

But the release that's attached to this discussion document indicates that there will be three areas where the Attorney General will be placing his emphasis and where we might start implementing the Oppal recommendations. The three areas cited are: search warrants, the use of deadly force and the process of investigating complaints about the police. Of course, this document is the third item, and we can get to that in a moment.

Would the Attorney General advise the committee what recommendations or what implementations, if any, are taking place with regard to first, the search warrants that are mentioned, and second, the use of deadly force? I do recall the Attorney General, by the way, saying last Thursday that the issuing of new handguns -- new police revolvers, I presume -- will have a bearing on the second of those topics.

[2:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member knows that one of the recommendations was to authorize municipal forces to use semi-automatic handguns should their respective departments choose, and we made that possible by order-in-council. That was actually the first of the formal recommendations that Oppal made to be adopted by the government. The question of search warrants is a question that is largely in the hands of the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court. We are working with the Chief Judge on that question, but no conclusions have been reached yet.

On the complaints commission, there is a process following the release of a discussion document. There is a process of discussion that is underway, which will hopefully lead to a consensus in respect of how such a complaints commission can be structured.

J. Dalton: Can the Attorney General advise us as to what the anticipated cost is of issuing new service revolvers to the police force? Just as an aside -- even though I don't agree with this person -- somebody wrote to me recently complaining about the fact that the government is going to dispose of current handguns. I took issue with that, because I couldn't see that releasing a great volume of handguns onto the market would necessarily be desirable. If we get time for it later, I would also like to raise some questions about gun control, as I indicated yesterday, but that is a separate topic.

The question, again, is about the anticipated costs of having to issue new service revolvers to our police forces.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are several costs. First of all, the cost to the Crown provincial could be in the order of $200,000. That cost is for us to purchase the old equipment, the old six-shooters, so we are sure that they do not somehow end up on the streets in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. So that is to ensure their destruction. There are obviously other costs involved for each of the departments: the costs of acquiring new issue and of training officers to use the new equipment.

As the member knows, the RCMP are also in the process of switching from the old revolver to a new semi-automatic model. There is $500,000 in our budget for the RCMP allocation this year for their costs for those new purchases, as there is in each of the next two years. That's part of the budget that we allocate to the RCMP, and a component of that is for their new weapons. I mentioned $500,000 in the regular RCMP budget, and there's an additional $250,000 in each of three years for both RCMP and municipal police. I was struggling to see whether that figure included both, and it does.

J. Dalton: It's helpful to know the financial implications, even though the implementation is, without question, long overdue. This is one of the welcome bits of news coming out of Oppal's recommendations for our police forces.

With regard to this consultation document, the release that accompanied it stated that people were to put in written submissions by the end of February 1995. I was a bit surprised to see that deadline, given that the document itself was released on February 3, 1995. It would seem to me that people didn't have a lot of time to collect their thoughts and respond to this. I will add, however, that the people I have heard from were all complimentary, at least in general, of both Justice Oppal and the document itself. Can the Attorney General advise us as to how many written submissions were received?

Did they extend the deadline? Again, I would think that the end of February was a bit of a rush job for some.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As of last count, I think we had received 22 responses to the discussion document. The deadline -- as the member indicated -- in the discussion document for replies was March 31. We have not formally advised the people who were in receipt of that document, but that deadline is extended. We obviously need more time than February 3 to March 31 -- I think it was -- enabled, and so we're putting more time into that at the present.

J. Dalton: It's good to hear that the deadline has indeed been extended. We'll look forward to seeing the results of that. But, as I just said, certainly the people who have responded, that I'm aware of, are favourable to the concept.

I guess it relates back to one of the other observations, among many, that Justice Oppal made in his transmittal letter

[ Page 13655 ]

and the following recommendations. He was talking about public perception -- in particular, the comments that.... These are on page 3 of the transmittal letter, if members are interested in a reference point. He was talking there about the growing perception of the rate of crime in this province and this country -- something that we've touched upon in this committee through other discussion. He went on to say that, in fact -- as the Attorney General has reminded us on several occasions -- the rate of crime has not gone up; in fact, it has gone down.

But there is a perception, as we all know from our communities and from people who contact us, that our streets and our justice system are not necessarily serving us as well as we might like. I think that's a very important provision that Justice Oppal has commented on, and of course, is advancing through looking at the complaint process as one example of how we might overcome the difficulty of perception, so that the public will have more confidence in policing in all aspects.

Perhaps, in a more general sense, I can invite the Attorney General, if there are any other areas of Justice Oppal's report that are also being examined.... As the Attorney General and, I'm sure, all members who have had an opportunity to look at the Oppal report know, there's a great volume of recommendations. They break down, basically, into...for example, community-based policing. It's a topic that other members have asked about in this committee. Can we look forward to more initiatives in that particular area? I know local police forces are certainly looking at this more and more seriously.

I think, for example, that the RCMP in North Vancouver now have two storefront operations -- for want of a better term. They would like to open others. I understand that West Vancouver, the other part of my riding, is also considering the aspect of community policing. West Vancouver, of course, is an independent police force, and North Vancouver is RCMP, but I think they both have the same general objective in mind. One of the drawbacks -- which I believe someone asked about earlier, but perhaps the Attorney General can help us with it -- is money.

I know, in the case of the RCMP in North Vancouver, they want to buy into the whole concept of local and community policing, but they have to find the money from their own somewhat limited budgets. Can the Attorney General tell us whether there might be more funding of some form available in order that these local initiatives can be expanded? I know as a fact that, if we are going to get into serious implementation and discussion of public safety, it's going to happen, literally, right on the streets. The Attorney General, I know, is well aware of that as well.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's clear that the primary thrust of the Oppal report is in the direction of community policing, and he makes a very strong argument for us to move in those directions. I think community policing isn't simply one thing; it's a variety. It's really an attitude, a value system and an approach to policing. He makes those recommendations; we agree that is the way to go. Is there any more money for it? The answer to that is no, there isn't. In fact, if anything, from a population and inflation perspective, there's probably less money.

So what we have to do is find different and better ways of bringing these changes about without throwing money at it. That's tough for governments, because governments, historically, have always thrown.... At least in the last two or three decades, since the Second World War probably, the general response of governments to problems of this kind is to throw money at them. Those options no longer exist, so we have to find different ways of doing it.

So maybe when a police department is thinking about another new car at $30,000 or whatever it is they cost fully equipped, they might think about 15 bicycles. That's a silly kind of direct equation, because you have to have 15 officers to ride them, instead of the one or two who drive the car. But the member knows what I mean by that: we need to rethink what it is we want to acquire; we need to rethink how it is we put officers in the community; we need to rethink where they work from -- is it one great big building or a series of smaller community offices? We need to rethink how all those structures go.

I don't pretend to know what the structure should be. I suspect it's going to be different in every community. The decisions around that are decisions for the local police detachment or department, depending on the case. I don't know what more I can say. Community policing is a priority; it's already happening. It hopefully will accelerate the pace of that change, but we're going to have to do it by reallocating resources rather than finding new money.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to move off the Oppal commission and start with a question. It's my understanding that legislation will be tabled shortly with respect to child protection. I know we can't talk about the specifics of that legislation, but I'd like to talk about policy and funding issues around that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd be delighted to listen to the exchange between the member and the Minister of Social Services when those estimates are before us.

J. Tyabji: Maybe I should have phrased the question slightly differently. I'm talking about criminal record checks and convicted offender registries -- that aspect of child protection, so that we don't have repeat offenders. Of course, I will be canvassing those other issues with the Minister of Social Services when her turn comes; but the Citizens Against Child Exploitation have had some correspondence with the Attorney General, and I just want to confirm that the legislation is still on its way to be tabled. Then we can canvass some policy issues.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If and when the House has legislation before it, we will have full opportunity to discuss the principle of the bill in second reading and the details in committee stage. It's really inappropriate to have that discussion here. It's against the rules, first of all. It leads us down a path that is counterproductive, because you have that debate around the bill, and at that point, if there are problems with the bill, members can make comments about it.

In terms of general process, there have been discussions with a wide variety of people in the community about what a criminal record check system would look like should one be implemented. Those discussions have been positive and useful, and both the Minister of Social Services and I have corresponded with many, many British Columbians on this issue, and thank them for their support as we work toward developing policies and legislation. But the debate about it is going to have to wait for the appropriate time.

[3:00]

J. Tyabji: As the Attorney General is aware, we're in the estimates debate. I don't want to be canvassing issues with

[ Page 13656 ]

respect to spending.... Since there was a draft form of this legislation in January -- as I understand it from a memo that was circulated when the session opened -- I would assume that the budget for the '95-96 fiscal year has within it some costs associated with bringing in a criminal record check registry and with the registry of convicted offenders. I know specifically that there's been a very strong push to ensure that convicted offenders, convicted pedophiles, repeat offenders and people deemed dangerous offenders are not able to get into a position of trust or authority.

I can't canvass issues around this spending or budget allocations or what kind of programs are coming up in '95-96. If the Attorney General is going to tell me that the legislation will not be ready, then I would assume that he hasn't budgeted. Perhaps I'll come at the same question from a different angle. Has any money been set aside for programs that would protect children through convicted offenders registries?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Because we always want to be prepared in this ministry, we have allocated up to $900,000 for this matter, just in the event that the Lieutenant-Governor decides to send us a message.

J. Tyabji: Without addressing legislation, I'd like to move to policy issues. I would like to know if the Attorney General is in the process of developing policies that would involve the community -- in getting some sort of community awareness or community interaction on repeat offenders or convicted pedophiles.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Maybe I'm getting tired and not hearing very well as a result of the pace of these estimates discussions, but I must say that I didn't understand the question. Do we want to involve the community in discussing these issues? Yes. Do we want their help? Yes. Do we want to try and prevent the outrage? Yes. But I don't know whether those were the questions.

J. Tyabji: I don't think this is very difficult. Without getting outside the rules of the House.... We don't have legislation to debate, so I'm not debating the legislation. We have a fiscal year -- '95-96. The Attorney General has indicated that he has designed his ministry -- or anticipated that programs may be coming which will be, I would assume, to some extent enabled by legislation. In addition to legislation, there are policy initiatives that can be taken by the Attorney General today, unless the Attorney General is going to tell me he's precluded from taking that because there isn't legislation in place.

But as I understand it right now -- and I can't see how this couldn't be the case -- the Attorney General can get into a policy initiative for a community interaction for community involvement in identification, in notification of a dangerous offender or a resident pedophile -- someone who has been released. We know some of those programs have been occurring on an ad hoc basis, largely as a result of the initiative of the local RCMP or the local detachment of police.

In terms of policy development, to what extent has the Attorney General set up a system so the community can start to be proactive in identifying repeat offenders?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The last thing that the implementation of the policy in various communities is, is ad hoc. British Columbia was the first province in the country to adopt a notification policy when we adopted that last November. I talked about that in these estimates either yesterday or last week, so it's there in Hansard for members to refer to. We have a notification policy -- as is mandated by

section 25 of the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation -- which enables police to inform the appropriate audience of the presence of a predator in the community. The notification can be narrow, or it can be as broad as notification through the local media. So the police have that authority.

In respect of education, we published a booklet last year. It was a handbook which was widely distributed throughout the province, giving advice and support, and helping people understand how to deal with issues around predators and children. In fact, the handbook was so well received that we are now getting requests from other provinces for them to draw from our handbook so that they can do similar programs. So it's not ad hoc; there are a series of initiatives underway. In addition to those two, we have been pressing for a national registry.

The federal government has responded positively to that, and that work is underway at a national level. Beyond that, we are embarking on a number of initiatives, including the possibility of having expanded coverage of criminal record checks, which are already in place under the.... I'm just trying to think of the name of the statute. In child care situations now there is a criminal record check for individuals who work with children. That's already mandated within the policy of the minister responsible. What we're talking about, as the member knows, is the possibility of expanding that by legislation.

So those are the initiatives: notification, registration, education and criminal record checks.

We've got a record that is second to none in this country on these issues. In addition to that, the criminal justice system treats these cases with a seriousness that is unmatched in the country. We have more applications for dangerous offender status than anybody else in the country; we have more success in respect of dangerous offender classifications than anybody else in the country. We are doing a lot in this province. More can be done and more will be done. It's underway, and we'll hopefully have an opportunity to talk about that in the House later this session.

J. Tyabji: With respect to notification, I'm still unclear as to whether or not there's a policy for consistent notification of the community. I know that currently the policy is to notify the local RCMP, and then it's at the discretion of the local detachment. That's what I was referring to. I would still deem that to be an ad hoc process, where it's up to the discretion of the local detachment. Is there going to be a policy where there will be an automatic notification of the community, and if so, how would that be extended?

With respect to a national registry, I would be very interested in some of the evidence of the provincial government's involvement in that national registry. As I understand it, that has been stalled at the federal level. I haven't seen a lot of.... If the Attorney General has different information and there is a national registry underway, I'd be very interested in that evidence, because that's not what has been coming out publicly. I haven't seen any releases from the Attorney General about the work that's being done with the federal government. I'd be interested in that.

Perhaps he could put on the record where the provincial government has been involved in lobbying for a national registry, and what his understanding is of the status of that

[ Page 13657 ]

right now. According to people who are working on this issue, it's not getting farther than people acknowledging that it's a good idea. It think the gun registry is a lot more likely to go ahead in the next little period of time.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In respect, first of all, of the notification policy, guidance to both municipal and RCMP detachments and departments has gone out from the ministry. Because they're a federal force, the RCMP have operated under a different set of rules. We are trying at the moment to organize a consistent approach between both municipal police and the RCMP, and that's underway.

In respect of the pace of the federal government's implementation of a national registry, this is the first I've heard of it. The member obviously has better sources than I do. It's the first I've heard that the federal government has stalled this initiative. I suspect that if they had done that, they would have told us, so I doubt that very much, frankly.

I have a lot of confidence in the federal Justice department and in the federal Justice minister. I actually think that Mr. Rock can do more than one thing at a time, and just because gun control is at the top of the agenda doesn't mean that other initiatives can't proceed at the same time.

J. Tyabji: Going back to that other question, I'd be very curious to know what.... Perhaps the Attorney General could present me with a list of how the provincial government has been involved. Have there been some meetings, or is there correspondence from the national registry? What is the latest information that he has as of mid-April of this year, when Monica Rainey came back from the Citizens Against Child Exploitation?

That's where the information came out that the national registry had not progressed far, that there is nothing concrete in place, and that they certainly seemed a lot more interested in gun control. I would be happy to present a few documents on that. I know the Attorney General can have direct communication with that group at any time.

With respect to what the federal government is doing, is there a consistent dialogue from the provincial government on a national registry, and if so, what form is that taking?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: At the meetings, both at the political level and at the staff level, we have said to the federal government that we think a registry is necessary. Given the transience in this country, we think a provincial registry is inappropriate, and we want the federal government to establish a national registry. They said they agree, and they're working on it.

J. Tyabji: Could the Attorney General inform the House whether he has received a lot of correspondence about changing the age of consent so that it is now 14?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't say how many letters. There have been some -- not a lot, but some. It is an issue that the criminal justice branch of the ministry has been looking at. It is obviously a federal issue. It is a Criminal Code provision, so it would be up to the federal government to respond to the question. We have been looking at it, and I would expect that discussions have been held between our senior officials and federal senior officials about the question, but it's still at that stage.

J. Tyabji: I would like to put on the record that I have received quite a few letters on this, and that there is a parents' group forming in Kelowna. With the implications of the change in age, I find it interesting that they are finding it extremely difficult even to have their children in a position where they are out of harm, because the children are deemed to be adults at a much earlier age. I am sure we can go over that. I will keep the Attorney General informed as those meetings progress, but it is becoming an enormous issue.

If it is completely in the federal arena, the purpose would obviously be for the Attorney General to pass that information on, but I know there is some provincial jurisdiction on this.

Has the Attorney General seen some of the Australian examples? Now we are getting into an area that I personally have come to with a great degree of shock, because I didn't know it existed. There is a growing industry of child-sex tourism overseas. The Attorney General is nodding, so he obviously knows about it. There have been some precedents set in legislation so that people within the jurisdiction of British Columbia and Canada who participate in that tourist industry would come back and then be prosecuted. Australia has taken a leadership stand on this, I think.

I would like to know if the Attorney General is aware of this, if this is something British Columbia is considering asking Canada to get involved in, whether B.C. has the jurisdiction to draw up those kinds of rules and whether that is even being contemplated right now.

[3:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We don't have the jurisdiction. Yes, the issues have been drawn to our attention in a variety of ways. During the discussions on child prostitution held around the province last year, I guess it was, both the 14-year-age issue in the Criminal Code and the international tourist trade with respect to this issue were very much drawn to our attention. The ministry has been sorting through these issues and has been in discussions with the federal government as to where responsibility would lie for any change. As members know, criminal law is federal law, and we simply have the responsibility of enforcing it.

J. Tyabji: Were there any recommendations on this issue by the provincial government to the federal government after those hearings?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The matter is on the deputy ministers' agenda at their next meeting. The federal and provincial deputy ministers meet regularly, and that issue is on that agenda. We have so far communicated only general concerns by way of letter to the minister. I've written to the Justice minister, and the Premier has written to the Prime Minister, but those are more general statements of our concern. The actual specific recommendations about what might be done by way of amendment to federal law are on the agenda for the deputy ministers, and they will be talking about it there.

J. Tyabji: If we could go to a different subject now.... As the Attorney General is aware, the office of the chief coroner came out with a report with respect to illicit narcotic overdose deaths in British Columbia. What has been the follow-up to that report?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The response to the Cain report is actually being led by the Health ministry. I'm not trying to evade it; I will answer the question. I just wanted to get this on the floor.

[ Page 13658 ]

The member will remember that the former Minister of Health and I in July '93, if my memory's correct, asked Vince Cain to do this investigation into the illicit use of drugs. That, as the member remembers, was following a series of apparent heroin deaths in a number of communities, including quite a number in my own community. The report was released -- it's funny; in this job you lose sense of what day, what month and sometimes what year it is -- earlier this year or late last year in November, before Christmas.

At that time, we indicated that we wanted there to be as much public discussion as there could be about the issues raised by Mr. Cain. We took no position on it, as I said in the House the other day, other than to say there should be extensive public discussion around his recommendations.

We also established an interministerial committee, which is led by the Ministry of Health, to deal with issues that flowed from the report. Remember that there were a variety of recommendations. Public attention was focused on the question of legalizing or decriminalizing some hard drugs, but in fact there were many other recommendations, and the interministry task force led by Health is looking at those right now. I raised the issues in the report and distributed it to the federal-provincial ministers' conference in January.

I think that's it, from my perspective. The member might make a note to herself, in her b.f. file for the Health ministry estimates, to deal with the Minister of Health about a number of initiatives that he and his ministry are taking. In fact, I think some of the recommendations have already begun to be implemented.

J. Tyabji: I have just a brief follow-up then. What is the public process that's been put into place to discuss the coroner's report?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is no formal public process. I have on every occasion urged the media, community groups and others to talk about it, but there is no formal public process to lead the discussion.

J. Tyabji: It's fair to say, then, that changes won't be implemented through the Attorney General's ministry for this fiscal year as a result of the coroner's report. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, it's not fair to say that. We need to remember that some of the recommendations dealt with federal issues in respect of the Criminal Code -- the question of legalizing or decriminalizing drugs. Those issues wouldn't be dealt with by my ministry at any point, one way or another, in any event. Other recommendations in the report cross several ministries: Social Services, Health and Attorney General. As I said a minute ago, some of those questions have already begun to be implemented; others are being looked at by the interministry committee, led by Health. I can't predict what conclusions we'll reach following the work being done by that committee.

J. Tyabji: Is there a point at which we will be advised of which aspects of the coroner's report have been adopted or what has been submitted to the interministerial committee for discussion? Are we going to have to canvass each of those points separately in the estimates?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The interministry committee has the entire report. They're looking at the full report and will make whatever recommendations that they feel are appropriate through the deputy ministers and on through to cabinet. I don't know what form that's going to take, nor do I know when it might occur.

I just want to correct myself. Earlier, on the decriminalization or legalization of drugs, I referred to the Criminal Code, and I think I meant to talk about the Narcotic Control Act. That's just a technical point.

J. Tyabji: My last questions are: what is the extent of funding in this fiscal year for the CounterAttack program, how involved are communities going to be in that program, and are there any special initiatives?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member may want to bring that matter forward during the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways. That's where it belongs.

C. Tanner: Are you able to identify, in your statements and in your budget, that money which is raised through fines by police forces?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: To answer the unasked question first, it's about $65 million.

C. Tanner: I'm not sure what the unasked question was, but thank you for the answer. Are you able, then, to identify by degree those fines that would be levied because a stopped person did not have his licence with him? Alternatively, are you able to identify that amount of money which is raised because of a lack of insurance?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is the third time I've done this in the last ten minutes, but that kind of question really has to go to the minister responsible for the Motor Vehicle Act. That's where all of this.... My only involvement is that we pay part of the costs for the police, who end up enforcing the Motor Vehicle Act. The primary responsibility, for the most part, is under the Motor Vehicle Act, which is under the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I don't know whether that ministry has their fines system broken down by category to that extent, but the member could ask that minister then.

C. Tanner: Since you are responsible for the RCMP, surely you give them their instructions as to what they will enforce and what they won't enforce.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I most certainly do not. The RCMP are independent of political direction, as are all police forces in this province -- and in this country, for that matter. With the RCMP provincial force, I provide a general strategic overview at the beginning of each year, which establishes in a broad, provincial way what the priorities of the Attorney General are for each year. But I most certainly do not direct them as to which offences they should pay the most attention or to which particular matters they should or should not devote their time. That would be an inappropriate political intervention into policing, and I don't have any part of it.

C. Tanner: Mr. Minister, while I appreciate the fact that you might not personally, and that there might not be political intervention, as you call it, I happen to disagree with your point of view on that. However, that's neither here nor there.

[ Page 13659 ]

There are police boards who do give direction to them, and they are appointed at your.... In some cases, some of the members of those police boards are appointed by your department, I believe.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the role of the police board is similar to my role in this respect: the police board in a particular municipality -- in the 12 municipalities where they exist under the statute -- will, no doubt, provide general directions to the department about their priorities. It may be that the community has expressed a concern about a particular kind of criminal activity or a particular kind of statute violation, such as Motor Vehicle Act infractions, that they want the police to spend more time on.

So the police board may say to the police chief: "We'd like you to spend more time this year doing this general kind of enforcement rather than that general kind of enforcement." In the same way, I can provincially -- and I do, provincially -- establish overall guidelines about what I think the priorities are in policing in the province. But the reason I reacted the way I did at the beginning of this little discussion is because of the member's first questions, which were isolating particular kind of offences. The member can be sure that I do not give those kinds of instructions.

They are more general than that, and I expect that the police board instructions similarly are more general.

C. Tanner: I've got one more question in this area; perhaps the minister could comment. It has been my observation in more recent times, say in the last five or six years since the police have access in their cars to computers, and they are able to ascertain whether or not a person has a licence, that not only do they know immediately whether or not a person's got a licence, they're still charging somebody $75 for not having one. It used to be the custom just a few years ago that they asked you to report to the nearest police station within 48 hours and produce your licence.

So now they know immediately whether an offence has occurred, and they are imposing a licence. What it's doing, in my view, Mr. Minister, is putting the police in the position of being money collectors only and not enforcers of the law. The same thing is happening insofar as insurance is concerned. They can immediately ascertain through the computers in their cars whether or not you have insurance. I don't think they're using discretion, and surely some of that direction must come from your ministry.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I do not say to the police, directly or indirectly: "This is a good law and this is a bad law." If I think the law which requires the member and me to have our driver's licence in our possession when we're driving is a bad law, I would recommend to the Minister of Transportation and Highways that she amend the Motor Vehicle Act rather than go out to the police and say: "I think that's a bad law.

Don't enforce that one." The member should put his mind to what might happen if Attorneys General over the years decided which were the good laws and which were the bad laws, and went out and instructed the police to enforce the good ones but not the bad ones. There could be a sorry state in our society if that kind of interference with the independent discretion of police officers was embarked upon. I'm not going down that road.

[3:30]

C. Tanner: Perhaps I will continue the discussion in private with the minister, because we obviously disagree. I can give you examples where, in my view, the public suffers and the reputation of the police suffers with the present usage of what's going on.

If I might, I'd like to change the subject and ask the minister if he's familiar with a letter written to his ministry recently requesting bulk research access to land titles documents as far as builders' liens are concerned. Is he familiar with a letter which was written fairly recently, delivered by hand to the land titles office, concerning this subject?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: When you receive hundreds and hundreds of letters every week, from such a brief description it's dangerous to say that I am familiar with a letter. But I think I am, and if it's the same letter we're talking about, we've fixed the problem.

C. Tanner: I didn't catch the tail end of the minister's.... Did he say he thinks it's a problem or he thinks it's not a problem?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If this reference is to the same letter that is in my mind at the moment, we've fixed the problem.

C. Tanner: It was from The Yellow Sheet Review Inc. Is that the problem he's referring to? The Yellow Sheet Review Inc. -- which is an unfortunate name, I must admit.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't recall that particular reference. Maybe the best way of proceeding would be for the member to go to his office and make a photocopy, let us have it, and then come back in 20 minutes and we'll resume the discussion.

D. Mitchell: I have a few questions for the hon. Attorney General. Before I commence, I'd like to complete my understanding of an agreement the hon. Attorney General made in the committee this morning about freedom-of-information requests to the Ministry of Attorney General. Could the Attorney General confirm that he has agreed to provide information on the number -- and I think he actually did cite the number this morning -- and cost of FOI requests to his ministry over the last fiscal year, as well as those requests that have gone through to local police forces throughout British Columbia? If he has anything further to add at this time, I would appreciate that as well.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know whether this will help, but let me try. Since it started, the number was 777 in the last fiscal year. We could break that down, and I'll get that. I think I said that the cost on an annual basis was $600,000 and eight full-time-equivalents. So you just have to do the arithmetic -- whatever the number is that I gave you for the fiscal year, divide that into $600,000 and that's the cost.

In respect of the requests to various municipal police departments, at the end of each fiscal or calendar year -- I'm not sure which -- they will submit a report to the commissioner of freedom of information and privacy which would detail the number of complaints that were received. Short of that, the member could write to the various chairs of the police boards -- in other words, the mayors -- or to the chiefs, and ask them directly what number they have.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to open up a new line of questioning, but if my friend from Saanich North and the Islands would

[ Page 13660 ]

like to complete his line of questioning on this document, I'd be more than happy to give way to him, if he's ready to do that now. If not....

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: Okay, hon. Chair, I'll proceed.

I'd like to refer the hon. Attorney General to a statement he made when we commenced this exercise a few days back, when the minister made his opening statements during this review of his annual spending estimates. The minister made a very extensive opening statement, and I think it was quite informative.

He stated that three main principles guide the Ministry of Attorney General in the province: "...British Columbians deserve to feel safe in their neighbourhoods and communities; every citizen has a right to fair and just treatment under the law; and all British Columbians deserve to have a responsive justice system in which they can place their confidence." Those are the three principles that he has set; those are the goals that he has established; and those are the principles that I believe he wants to be held accountable for, because he wouldn't put those principles out there assuming that he wouldn't want to be held accountable for them.

I suppose if we have a system of performance management in place, the minister should set his goals and we should hold him accountable for those principles and goals.

I'd like to tell the hon. Attorney General that with the first principle that he set out -- British Columbians deserve to feel safe in their neighbourhoods and communities -- I actually think he's doing a pretty good job, and I'd like to commend him for that. I might draw to his attention a public opinion poll, a scientific poll, that was done in my own constituency just this February, asking the question of whether or not people felt safe in their neighbourhoods -- whether or not their neighbourhoods provided them with an adequate and reasonable degree of personal safety.

In my constituency, West Vancouver-Garibaldi, over 90 percent said they did. Whether or not West Vancouver-Garibaldi is representative, I'm not sure; but if it is, over 90 percent of my constituents feel that their community, their neighbourhood, provides them with a reasonable degree of safety. So, on principle No. 1 on the report card, I think the minister is doing a good job, and he deserves some commendation for that.

On principle No. 2, I'm not so sure; and on principle No. 3, I'm not so sure as well. Before I go into those, I'd like to ask the minister whether or not his ministry has conducted any public opinion research in the last fiscal year to determine whether or not he is doing a good job provincewide in these areas, starting off with the three principles that he has established.

Has he done any polling, any public opinion research, any focus groups or any kind of market research at all among the general public of British Columbia to determine if they feel safe in their neighbourhoods, whether or not they feel the justice system is serving their best interests or whether their satisfaction is high or low on these three principles that he has established for himself?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the scheme of things, we haven't done a lot of polling or focus groups. We have done some, and we have done that around issues on this very topic -- about how people feel in their communities on security and crime issues. I think in total in the last fiscal year we may have spent as much as $80,000 on both polling and focus group attitudinal surveys to find out what we're doing right, what we're doing wrong, how people feel, what people want and just to get some sense of the community in a scientific way.

We also use other polling to help us get a read on the community. I guess the only thing I want to add is that in general the Canadian work that's being done on this demonstrates that we are in the lowest third of 12 western countries in terms of fear levels. So we're on the better side of that measure. That doesn't get to the real questions of how it is here in British Columbia and how it is in particular neighbourhoods, but I'm actually pleased to hear about the survey in the member's constituency. I'm not sure what more I can say.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to hear that the Attorney General is doing some public opinion research in these areas, because I think it's useful to know what the attitudes of the public are.

The hon. Attorney General indicated that he has spent about $80,000 on public opinion research in the last year. The Attorney General will also know that this has been a source of controversy in terms of making these polls, this research, available to the public on a timely basis. After all, it's paid for with taxpayers' dollars; it should be made available when it can be. Some of the polls are deposited in the B. C. archives and records service across the street, but they're not deposited there with any timeliness.

I'm wondering if the Attorney General can indicate what taxpayers paid the $80,000 for over the last year? What was the subject of the polls? If it's too complex to get into now, I'd be pleased to have a list. It would be interesting to know what kinds of areas the hon. Attorney General has his ministry canvassing in terms of public opinion research.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The questions and data were primarily around crime and security issues: how people felt, differences between men and women, differences between age groups, differences between rural and urban communities -- that kind of questioning. I would be very happy to share.... I haven't looked at the detailed breakout myself. But the member is certainly most welcome to sit down with whoever in our staff is most familiar with the data and to go through it with our staff if he wants to.

D. Mitchell: Thanks to the Attorney General; I will take him up on that offer.

The hon. Attorney General's second principle that he established for himself was fair and just treatment under the law. That's what it dealt with: fair and just treatment under the law. While there might not be too many overt complaints about that, I wonder about the Attorney General's definition of just treatment. A number of British Columbians have a general sense of grievance that there isn't just treatment for all British Columbians under the law -- that we're not all treated the same under the law. There is a concern about that, some kind of latent concern. The hon.

Attorney General says one of the principles that guides his ministry is that every citizen has a right to fair and just treatment under the law. Could he describe that a little, without getting into too long a philosophical discussion? How would he measure that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the measuring is not done in a scientific or objective way; it's rather more subjective. When

[ Page 13661 ]

people who have legitimate grievances about the justice system continue to complain about it being unfair to them or to their communities, then my measurement would be that we had not yet reached this objective.

What I want to talk about in this -- fair and just treatment under the law -- is questions of access to the justice system that have been denied in this society to too many people. Everybody will have their own list and concerns, but for me the issue revolved around aboriginal justice. I felt this growing up in this province in the interior, where I watched how the justice system in the broadest sense dealt with aboriginal people I went to school with. I certainly had my concerns heightened over the years by representing the constituency of North Island, which has a significant population of aboriginal people.

My concerns about that were heightened further by reading I had done and conversations I had been involved in about justice issues in the Cariboo, which led, of course, to the appointment of Tony Sarich to look at justice issues up there.

What I'm talking about here is opening the system and making it fair, equitable and accessible to people who have not had access to it. It's not just aboriginal people. It's poor people, women and a variety of -- to use the jargon -- disadvantaged folk in our society. If you're white, male and wealthy, the justice system is pretty good. If you're none of those three, it's not so good. My objectives have been to try to redress those imbalances.

I think we've made a lot of progress. We've established the Violence Against Women program, which is leading to far more charges being brought forward against men who beat their wives. We're trying to make sure the legal aid system is more responsive to needs, particularly in aboriginal and rural communities, but dealing with poverty issues. We're dealing with child sexual abuse issues. We've had extensive work done over the question of access to justice for deaf people, which flowed out of the Jericho situation, and work is continuing in that area. Much more is going on.

I'm sure that if I sat down with my staff, we could draw a long, long list of initiatives that are underway. That's what I mean by No. 2.

[3:45]

Have we met that? If the member is saying that he's giving me good marks on No. 1 but not so good marks on No. 2 because we haven't met that objective, I agree. We have only been at this for three years, and we've only had this kind of concentrated focus with a determined minister to push it for three and a half years now. This is the work of a generation, not the work of a term in government.

J. Pullinger: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Pullinger: I'm actually making an introduction a little belatedly, and I regret that we were unable to make it while these people were here. With us in the gallery today we have had Mr. Baker, a teacher, plus 18 students of the Tri-City Academy in Pasco, Washington, U.S.A. I would appreciate it if the House would join with me in making them welcome.

D. Mitchell: I've been talking with the hon. Attorney General about the three principles that guide his ministry. His last comments perhaps were more appropriately directed toward principle No. 3, the need for a more responsive justice system. Having said that, I would like to ask him a question about this, because this is the guiding principle with respect to which I would like to offer some criticisms to the hon. Attorney General.

When we talk about the fact that our citizens deserve to have a more responsive justice system, a lot of people's minds might turn to the corrections system, in particular, and to some of the problems, challenges and dilemmas that have existed in the last year and that continue to this present day about public confidence in the corrections system. In this area I must say to the hon. Attorney General that I am not sure he's meeting the test that he's established for himself -- not yet. A lot more progress needs to be made.

Feelings last year during the Danny Perrault case, the follow-up Prowse inquiry and the case that the hon. Attorney General himself referred to in his opening comments -- the tragic Gamache case here on Vancouver Island -- have made those points. There are current cases ongoing in the corrections branch that deserve some scrutiny as well.

I certainly think that between the provincial corrections system and the policy on temporary absences, which I'd like to ask the hon. Attorney General about, combined with the federal parole system as well -- when we learned, for instance, about the tragic abduction and murder of Melanie Carpenter earlier this year -- we look at the question of classification and dangerous offenders. The hon. Attorney General referred to that sometime earlier during this estimates review. But I have to ask whether the Attorney General is failing the principle that he establishes for himself here about the need for a more responsive system of justice.

I would like to know if the minister would like to comment on the actions that his ministry has taken specifically in the last year under review, when it comes to tightening up the corrections system, being more responsive to the public and the follow-up to the Prowse inquiry into the Danny Perrault case. What specific measures has he taken? He's talked in generalities about tightening up procedures and taking action, but we haven't really talked about specifics in the corrections branch of his ministry itself.

We know, for instance, that the corrections system has a manual of standards. We also know that many of the regulations in this manual of standards were violated last year, particularly around the instance of the Danny Perrault case.

If the hon. Attorney General can tell us how he's going to meet the principle he's established for himself about the fact that our citizens deserve to have a more responsive justice system, how is it responding to those crises?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The manual that the member was brandishing is one of two manuals. I think he has the Manual of Standards, which is the standards of service delivery. We

[ Page 13662 ]

also have a Manual of Operations, which is a manual that deals with how we deliver the services and how it works -- in detail, actually -- in the system. It's the second manual, the one the member doesn't have, where changes have been made to respond to a number of things that have occurred in the last little while -- in particular, the recommendations of the Prowse report, the recommendations made by Barbara Fisher in the Gamache matter, concerns that I had that go beyond what was recommended there, and other issues have been raised.

We have not only changed the operational procedures but we have also implemented random reviews of those practices to be sure that our staff are in fact following the operational manual and adhering to the standards. We have done a fair amount of reorganizing in terms of who is reponsible for various parts of the ministry in the last year. I think it's fair to say that there have been quite a number of changes.

We established the independent investigation, inspection and standards office, which now reports to me rather than through to the ministry. I meet regularly with Mr. Anderson to hear his firsthand recommendations as to reports he's done, and we follow up on those reports. In fact, there's paper on the desk in front of us here that shows the progress we're making in respect of all of these recommendations.

In terms of temporary terminal absences, or temporary terminal.... I have the same trouble the member has; those of us who don't work in the system have trouble sometimes with the jargon. The primary objective through all of the early-release programs or the release-to-counselling, or whatever decisions are made in respect of classification -- not just classification, but release decisions.... The primary and overriding objective and responsibility is to ensure public safety. That is something we pay full attention to. I'm not going to try to hide from this at all: there were mistakes made.

We think we have changed the rules sufficiently and put in place the proper mechanisms to avoid making those mistakes again, at least for the same reason. They may occur for other reasons; I sure hope not. No system is perfect, and I wouldn't predict that we will be without problems in the future. But we have had a relatively susccessful period over the last few months where the problems that have occurred -- and they do occur almost every day -- have not been of the magnitude of the ones that required us to establish an inquiry.

D. Mitchell: The Attorney General doesn't have an easy job; it's one of the more challenging jobs in public administration in our province. But when it comes to the corrections area, there is a concern among the general public about the kind of follow-up that takes place when you do have serious problems, such as in the Danny Perrault case of last year. I'd like to ask the hon. Attorney General about the follow-up that has taken place and get a little bit more specific, if I could.

I recall quite vividly that during the Prowse inquiry into the Danny Perrault case last year, Danny Perrault himself testified at the inquiry about how easy it was to obtain illegal drugs within the B.C. corrections sytem. I don't know if the Attorney General remembers that statement or had it drawn to his attention, but it's right there in the transcript -- I can assure him.

My question is: what specific actions have been taken by the Attorney General ministry since that time to address this serious problem? Where one inmate within the correction system states that it's very, very common -- it wasn't just him.... But he stated on the record that it was very, very common within the corrections system to obtain illegal drugs; it was very easy to do. There were suggestions made -- perhaps not substantiated, but nevertheless some serious comments -- that corrections staff themselves might be responsible for smuggling illegal drugs into the corrections facilities.

What specific actions has the Attorney General taken, or what portions of the corrections branch have taken specific action, to address that serious problem?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The question of drugs in jails is a serious problem, has been historically a serious problem, and it is one that I think exists in every penal system in every part of the world. The first thing one needs to remember is that two-thirds of the people who are incarcerated are there indirectly, I think, as a result of having a substance abuse problem. So to begin with, there is a huge demand for drugs from a population which has been dependent on those drugs when they're out, and they come in and there's this huge demand.

So one can imagine the ingenuity that is employed to satisfy the craving that these people have for drugs. So we have to do two things in response to that: we have to try to reduce the demand for the drugs by way of alcohol and drug programming -- that's No. 1, so that people don't want the substances; and secondly, we have to find ways of stopping the drugs from coming in.

I'm just going to, from these notes, talk to members about some of the things that happen. Some inmates will ask visitors to bring drugs in with them when they come in. Members will have had complaints -- I know I have had -- from visitors who get searched -- people demanding that their rights are being violated because they're being searched when they go into prison. Some drugs get into prison by way of visitors. Sometimes there's a threat to visitors from an inmate. Even though the visitor may not want to bring drugs in with them, they're being threatened in a way that makes them bring it in.

We actually had a case where drugs were smuggled in a baby's diaper. I don't mean somebody carrying a diaper in, I mean a baby wearing the diaper with the drugs inside the diaper. We're talking about desperate people here.

We do regular searches, and we sometimes use specially trained dogs. We're actually sending somebody down to the United States now to look at a particular dog-sniffing program that exists down.... Dog-sniffing; that's not right -- drug-sniffing dog program. I'm getting tired. It's funny when you're standing here. This is the fourth day of this. I guess you get into a kind of pattern where you don't know what you're saying anymore; you don't hear yourself. In any event, we're looking at some of the modern -- not modern so much as contemporary -- sources that are available for dogs, because that clearly is a useful way of proceeding.

[4:00]

In short -- if I can get myself to focus here a bit better and not wander as I'm doing -- we need to try to minimize the demand through drug and alcohol programs. We're doing that as best we can. We need to try to minimize the importing of drugs into the facility by various means, whether it's ingenious things like filling a tennis ball with drugs and bouncing it into the facility.... I visited one particular facility, and some of the correctional officers showed me all of the things that were on the roof of that particular facility, where people who were throwing things over the wall had missed and things

[ Page 13663 ]

landed on the roof rather than in the yard, where they were intended. So there are all kinds of efforts being made. It's a serious problem, and we've got to deal with it in a serious way. We're doing the best we can.

D. Mitchell: I'm sure the Attorney General is right: human ingenuity knows few boundaries when it comes to this problem. But one of the areas that the hon. Attorney General did not mention was the possibility that some corrections staff themselves may be involved in transporting illegal drugs into our prisons and correctional facilities. The reason I raise that is because allegations have been brought to my attention regarding this as recently as today. This is a problem that goes back to Danny Perrault.

I'd like to get quite specific about this, but before I do, I'd like to ask the hon. Attorney General about the office that he referred to: the independent investigation, inspection and standards office of the Ministry of Attorney General. During the last session of this House, the hon. Attorney General brought forward legislation to provide for that office. He brought forward specific legislation in an amendment to the Correction Act to provide for that new independent office that reports directly to him.

Since the new inspector reports directly to the Attorney General, if he's investigating anything, presumably the Attorney General would know about it. My question is: could the Attorney General tell the committee today how many investigations have been undertaken at the initiative of this new, independent office that reports to him? Could the Attorney General relate to this committee the subject matters that have been looked into by this new, independent office, particularly those in the corrections area?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know the answer as to how many off the top of.... The member may know, because he may have asked or he may have had one of his staff ask one of my staff that question. I haven't asked that question. I'm just going to see if I can answer this question by counting this list. I don't know if this will be the full list or not. I apologize to members for doing it this way. These are the reports that I've had, and they appear to total nine. That doesn't include any ongoing work that Mr. Anderson may be involved in at the present time. These are matters that were reported out to me.

D. Mitchell: When the hon. Attorney General brought forward the amendments to the legislation providing for this new, independent office last year, a great deal was made over this appointment as a direct response to some of the problems and the erosion of confidence in the corrections system. But now there's a question about how we can find out what this new, independent office, which reports directly to the hon. Attorney General, is doing. The hon.

Attorney General presumably knows what the inspector is doing, but how can members of the public -- how can members of this House, in fact -- find out what is going on? Do we have to wait until the annual report is tabled in the House? If that's the case, we all know that annual reports are tabled quite a bit after the fact. They're sometimes a whole fiscal year after the fact, and that's not very timely. That's certainly not responsive, and it doesn't meet the hon. Attorney General's own principle that he established for himself about responsiveness within the justice system.

Given the grave public concern over the state of affairs in corrections in this province, we need to do a lot better.

I'm wondering if the Attorney General would be prepared to either bring his new, independent investigator into this estimates process so we can have some questions answered, or if he has a better suggestion for how we as members of the House and how the general public can find out, in a timely fashion, what this independent officer, this person who's in charge of investigations and inspections within the justice system in our province, is doing. I think that might alleviate some of the concerns of the public. We need to do a better job of communication. That's the gist of what I'm trying to say here.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member knows -- I hope he does -- that my approach to these matters is to disclose. I always believe that you disclose everything and you tell everything and you report everything, and everybody's better off if you do that. But there are limitations on that which involve privacy matters, so first of all, you can't talk about the names. There are huge limitations in this ministry in respect of ongoing court cases or continuing police investigations. In many of these case, if not all, there is some form of continuing legal action or investigation.

As a result, I can't even talk about the cases in a specific way, as much as I might like to. One of the burdens of this office is knowing this stuff -- knowing you can't talk about it and knowing that every day you might do what my friend and colleague Bob Mitchell did, which is to slip. So it's onerous in that respect.

What I can say to the member -- this doesn't answer his question in the way that we both would like it to be answered, but it's the best I can do at this point -- is that Mr. Anderson reports to me. He makes recommendations about changes that should happen or procedures that should be amended. He's not limited in what he can say to me. If my staff don't want to do what he recommends but I think they should, I know about that and I can direct the staff. We haven't had those kinds of difficulties with this office.

I'll just say to the member that we have a chart in respect of these major investigations. This is not the regular reviews, the disciplinary cases and the auditing that is done by Mr. Anderson. We have a chart which has one heading as investigation; the next is the date the report is received; then a column of recommendations from Mr. Anderson; another column which is the branch response -- the action taken in respect of the recommendations; and a final column, which is the outstanding issues -- the ones that are not yet acted upon.

I'm delighted to say that in most of the pages of this report I have in my hand, the final column is white, in the sense that it is blank, because in most cases the outstanding issues have been resolved.

The fact that I can't share that with the member or anybody else bothers me at least as much as it bothers the member. The reason I can't do that is that I think in every single case we either have YOA considerations, civil suit considerations, police investigation considerations, a trial yet to occur because someone is in remand, or an appeal. There are a variety of situations that preclude me from commenting.

I suspect that if there was a report at the end of the year in the annual report -- and it may be a good idea to have in the annual report a

section which summarizes the activities of this department each year -- it would not give the kind of detail the member might be looking for. Nonetheless, that's a good idea, and I will talk to my deputy about whether there can be some report in the annual report about the recommendations of Mr. Anderson.

[ Page 13664 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Visiting here from what we know as the Chilcotin country -- the Tsilhquot'in -- are some of the honoured elders of the Xeni Gwet'in nation, the Nemaiah Valley first nation. They are Francis Williams, Martin Quilt, Margaret Quilt, William Setah, Henry Solomon, Mable Solomon, Ronnie Solomon, Eileen Williams, Elsie Quilt, Eugene William, Mabel William, Douglas Lulua, Lucy Lulua, Madeline Setah and Marty Solomon. Would the members please make them welcome.

D. Mitchell: I would like to finish off this topic of the independent office of investigation, inspection and standards of the minister. The minister said that he will look at the possibility of putting some kind of reference into the ministry's annual report on this. I think that meets some level of reporting or accountability, but it certainly is not timely, especially given the length of time it takes to get annual reports from ministries tabled in this House.

I wonder if the minister would agree, before the review is completed for this set of estimates for his ministry this year, to table even just a list of the number and kinds of cases that have been taken on by Mr. Anderson. The reason I ask this is that my understanding is that this office would be subject to freedom-of-information legislation in any event.

I'm not asking the minister to get into an area of anything that is sub judice or that he's prevented from exploring or discussing the details of. He made a great deal out of establishing this office. It was going to be a direct response to problems that occurred in the corrections system last year. If we're going to meet the minister's own test of responsiveness to the public, surely there must be some way of timely reporting.

Before we're asked to vote on the budget for the Ministry of Attorney General this year, for the corrections branch in particular, would he agree to table in this committee at least a list of the cases and the kinds of cases that Mr. Anderson is looking at, so that we can be satisfied that this office is actually performing the function the hon. Attorney General said it was established for?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Aside from the technical prohibition against tabling documents in committee, I would be happy to share with the member, as soon as I can get it organized, a document.... Hopefully, it can be done overnight, but I can't promise that. It's a bit unfair to staff who already work 12 hours a day and more, in some cases, but I will, with dispatch, ask the staff to prepare a

summary document of the kinds of activities that that office has been involved with since it was established. I won't be able to give names of particular cases in most cases. If that's possible under all the rules that prohibit me from doing things.... If I can indicate particular names, I will; if I can't, we'll just talk about it more generally. I undertake to get that kind of report, that document, to the member, hopefully tomorrow. I hope the member won't insist that we drag these estimates out while we await that. I promise him that I will get that to him as quickly as possible. If we can do it by tomorrow, it will be tomorrow.

D. Mitchell: I'm going to give way to my friend from Saanich North and the Islands, to follow up on a matter that was raised earlier in this committee. I would like to let the hon. Attorney General know that I do intend to pursue the line of questioning I have commenced with him leading to this issue, this serious matter in Corrections dealing with the obtaining of illegal drugs within correctional facilities and in prisons in particular. I will continue with that in a moment, but I would like to give way to my friend from Saanich North and the Islands first.

C. Tanner: Mr. Minister, I believe you now have at hand a copy of the letter that I referred to earlier. I was wondering whether you could inform the House whether or not you've made a decision rescinding that decision that was made by your ministry on April 1.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The letter the member refers to is dated today and arrived today. I actually yearn for the days when mail went by ship. One could then take more than an hour to ponder one's reply before sending it back, because you could always argue that it missed a sailing and therefore was six months late. The day of fax machines just drives me crazy.

[4:15]

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

So it arrived today. It refers to an issue that I was aware of, because a year ago, The Yellow Sheet Review, which is the source of the letter, was advised that the land title branch viewed the bulk-search activities as non-compliant with the freedom-of-information legislation. So they were given a year to get ready for the day when that bulk searching would stop, and that happened three weeks ago.

Then, when Yellow Sheet was advised that they could no longer use the bulk search method, their response was, "well, others are doing so" -- to which the branch responded by identifying and advising others that effective April 1, three weeks ago or so, no bulk searching and what they describe as "grazing" practices would be permitted.

However, access to builders' lien information continues to be available on a title-by-title basis, and people can use B.C. OnLine to obtain the information as it relates to any particular parcel of land. From the land titles perspective, this method of search and retrieval is far more timely and accurate than the bulk search or grazing methods. So that's the answer. It may not satisfy the member, but that's the answer to the question.

C. Tanner: I'm sure the minister is aware that most of those sorts of searches are company-to-company or company-to-individual. And surely, once it's a company issue, it's a public issue. Normally speaking, these searches aren't made on a personal basis. They're made by a company that has a lien, maybe against an individual but frequently against a company -- in which case, if it's company business, it's public business, surely.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure that I can answer that question. This is not actually the best forum to resolve these kinds of issues. The best way would be either by way of a meeting with the director of the land titles branch and the member, and following it up -- and if there are then unresolved issues, to follow it up with a meeting with me -- or, alternatively, by way of writing letters back and forth to each other until we resolve the issues.

[ Page 13665 ]

It's difficult to pursue the issue in this kind of forum, because I would have to talk to Mr. McAvity to get more information than I've got at the present time. All I can say to the member is that in the judgment of the land titles branch working with the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy people, a determination was made that this bulk searching is noncompliant. I can't cite the

section of the act, and I don't know enough about what's in the material being obtained to add more than that at this stage. But I would undertake to work with the member to see whether or not this is the correct decision. If it is, then once we agree, that would be the end of it -- and if it's not the correct decision, we'd see whether or not an alternative decision might be made. But we can't do that very effectively in this forum.

D. Mitchell: A question to the hon. Attorney General. I'm holding in my hand a copy of the Ministry of Attorney General corrections branch "Correctional Centre Rules and Regulations." It's dated 1986. I'm not sure if it has been amended since then; that's the most current one I've had made available to me. In

section 18(1), it says: "No person shall bring into or take from or assist in bringing into or taking from a correctional centre any contraband." "Contraband" is the term used.

Can the hon. Attorney General tell the committee if that

section still reads the same way, according to the information available to him? I'd like to know if that's still currently the regulation.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.

D. Mitchell:

Section 18(2) of the same rules and regulations talks about "a fine of not more than $2,000" or "imprisonment for not more than six months." I'd like to know from the Attorney General whether or not that information is still correct, and whether those fines for smuggling drugs into or out of correctional facilities still stand.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If someone was in contravention of the policy, then the practice would be to pursue the matter under the Criminal Code. I'm assuming that the reference is to the provisions in the Criminal Code for that particular violation, but I don't have the paper in front of me, so I don't know precisely.

D. Mitchell: The Attorney General might be able to get a copy of this. It's the correctional centre rules and regulations. The

section that I'm referring to.... One of my points of curiosity is whether or not it relates to visitors to correctional facilities or to prisoners within correctional facilities or prisons, or whether or not it would also apply to those who work within the corrections system -- those correctional officers who might be involved in smuggling any contraband into or out of correctional facilities. Would those dollar fines and imprisonment fines also apply to correctional officers?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The policy of the branch is that if someone -- staff or visitor, it doesn't matter -- is bringing contraband drugs into the prison, it will be referred to the police for a police investigation under Criminal Code provisions. It's no longer in the hands of the branch while the police do their investigation and make their report to the Crown.

D. Mitchell: I'm curious about why the fines under the rules and regulations within the corrections branch are specifically referred to within this document, which is provided by the corrections branch of the Ministry of Attorney General. Could the hon. Attorney General tell us whether or not these fines, then -- the $2,000 or imprisonment for not more than six months -- would apply to employees of the corrections branch as well?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If, as a result of the procedures I outlined, a judge concludes that someone is guilty of an offence and that the offence they are guilty of could merit those particular fines or sentences.... I'm not sure where the member is going. The fine or the jail sentence cannot be imposed on anybody by the corrections branch; it can only be imposed by a court. It may be -- and I'm really speculating when I say this -- that some particular

section of the Criminal Code being cited in this document, which has a reference to maximum sentences of that order; I don't know.

D. Mitchell: It's curious, because these are the correctional centre rules and regulations, published by the Ministry of Attorney General. They refer specifically to a person who contravenes subsection (1), which is dealing with smuggling of contraband in or out of a correctional facility. If they commit an offence they're liable to a fine of not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment of not more than six months, or to both.

I'm not sure whether that comes from the Criminal Code, or if there is some other precedent as to why this is specifically published within the internal rules and regulations of the corrections branch. But presumably, anyone who contravenes this rule would be liable to those offences. That would include employees within the corrections system, is that not correct?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the analogy here is the sign on the highway that says if you litter, then you're subject to a fine of $50; that would apply to anybody who litters on the highway. This would apply to anybody who is convicted under a

summary conviction provision where those kinds of sentences are available. It's really hard.... Members would assist the debate if before discussing documents in their possession, they would just make an extra copy and send it across so that we could both look at the same piece of paper. The member must recognize that I couldn't bring here a moving van of all the materials that exist in this ministry, in order to have a copy of everything.

No doubt this is simply advice to staff and visitors about what the penalties are, if in fact they're convicted of bringing in contraband.

D. Mitchell: I will have a copy made and send it over to the hon. Attorney General, just so he can see it. It's a document produced by his ministry.

Maybe I could ask the hon. Attorney General about the definition of contraband in these rules and regulations in the corrections branch. The definition provided in the definition

section in the

interpretation part of these regulations is as follows: " 'Contraband' means a drug or weapon or any other object that may threaten the management, operation, discipline or security of a correctional centre." That's what contraband is: a drug, weapon or any other object that may threaten the management, operation, discipline or security of a correctional centre. I'd just like to ask the hon. Attorney General if this is the present operative definition of contraband.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think so, and I say that because I don't have a copy of the current policy in front of me. But it

[ Page 13666 ]

sounds pretty close. And drug would be widely defined, I would expect, to include alcohol as well. If it's the precise wording of the current regulation, I don't know.

D. Mitchell: The copy is on the way over to the hon. Attorney General now.

I guess one of the reasons I raised this is that I wonder whether these rules and regulations in the corrections system need to be tightened up a little. If there are illegal drugs that don't threaten management, operation, discipline or security of a correctional centre, would they then be okay? Would it then be acceptable to be in possession of them within a correctional system?

D. Mitchell: Fair enough. If the hon. Attorney General can determine whether such a list exists, defining contraband in more specific terms as it pertains to our corrections system, I for one would be very interested in receiving it, just to understand this a little further.

Perhaps I could ask the Attorney General a much more specific question that may be difficult to deal with; I'm not sure. It deals with an investigation that's ongoing right now in the corrections system, I understand. It may be one of the largest investigations that's been undertaken in the corrections system in many, many years. It's taking place in Maple Ridge apparently this afternoon, as we are sitting here in this committee, dealing with a problem at Alouette River, a correctional facility that I'm sure the Attorney General is familiar with.

As I said, I gather it's one of the larger and more significant investigations that's been undertaken in recent years in the corrections system in British Columbia. I understand that there are employees of the corrections branch of the Attorney General's ministry holed up in a motel room in Maple Ridge. There are interviews taking place; there's an investigation ongoing. Apparently they're dealing with infractions by some staff at that facility, I'm told.

I'm wondering if the hon. Attorney General would care to tell us what he's able to tell us, this afternoon in this committee, about that investigation and how it pertains to this discussion we've been having about illegal drugs in the corrections system.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: With thanks to the member, no, I wouldn't care to.

D. Mitchell: Well, we're dealing here with the scrutiny of the spending estimates of the hon. minister's ministry, and there's a major event taking place in the corrections system. It's a major investigation. In fact, I'm told that it might be the largest investigation of its kind in more than 30 years in the corrections system.

There are staff being interviewed. It's being described by some staff as a kangaroo court, where employees of the corrections system are being brought forward and interviewed about the smuggling of illegal drugs into a correctional facility by corrections staff. According to some testimony that's being made, this is apparently being presented by some employees as common practice -- to smuggle drugs into corrections facilities.

[4:30]

Last year at the time of the Danny Perrault case and the Prowse inquiry into the Danny Perrault case, we learned that it's fairly common for prisoners to be able to find illegal drugs within the corrections system. But now we're finding out, and we're hearing more and more.

Initially they were unsubstantiated allegations, but now we believe -- and I'd like to get some confirmation from the Attorney General about this this afternoon -- that there is currently an internal investigation going on within the Ministry of Attorney General into the Alouette River correctional facility, where at least one employee, perhaps more, has been accused of and has been caught smuggling illegal drugs -- contraband under the rules and regulations of the Corrections system -- into the Alouette River facility.

Apparently at least one employee who has been caught and interviewed has suggested that this is fairly common practice. Names are being named; higher-ups are apparently being named within the corrections system.

This is a very serious matter, and the reason I raise it is that there's a question of public responsiveness and accountability. There's concern that employees who are guilty of such serious allegations should not receive just a minor slap on the wrist, but should be reprimanded with the full force of the law and the full force of the rules and regulations established by the corrections system, under the correctional centre rules and regulations that I referred to earlier. Could the minister at least confirm that such an investigation is taking place, and whether or not his ministry is personally being apprised of this investigation?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I want to thank the member for sending over a copy of the document he was referring to -- and it's clear under the contraband section. The reference is to the sanctions that could be imposed if an offence, as described in these rules, was committed and there was a conviction. That doesn't mean that the system itself imposes the sentence; it would be the courts that do that.

I'm not going to talk about the issues raised by the member, other than to say that if, in the course of any activity, it comes to anyone's attention that there is a potential criminal offence, then the matter has to be immediately forwarded to the police. I say that because in the member's comments were references, as I heard it, to matters that could be criminal offences. If people, one way or another, have information to that effect, then their responsibility is to forward that to the police.

D. Mitchell: I don't understand exactly why the hon. Attorney General is stonewalling on this matter. This is a fairly specific instance. There is an investigation ongoing, as we speak today, apparently at the Best Western Hotel in Maple Ridge, where corrections staff are being interviewed about a very serious matter. Apparently a corrections officer who was on her way into the Alouette River facility was searched and found to be bringing in drugs. These are serious allegations. Apparently further allegations are suggesting that this is fairly common practice, and names are being named.

Some have referred to the investigation as a kangaroo court, where just about anyone involved is being brought forward, investigated and interviewed in this process.

[ Page 13667 ]

We're told that this is the most extensive internal investigation within the corrections system in many, many years -- perhaps as many as 30 years. Apparently at least one employee has already been fired or suspended. Would the hon. Attorney General at least agree today, if he's not willing to discuss this matter for whatever reason.... It puzzles me when he says that one of his principles is responsiveness to the public.

We talked about the Danny Perrault case and the Prowse inquiry and the need for further public accountability, and it puzzles me that he's not willing to talk about this very, very grave situation where the confidence in the corrections system is once again at stake. Would he at least agree to allow a member of this House, this member of this House, to make a formal request to the independent office of inspections and standards in his ministry to look into the crisis at Alouette River, and to report back to the House before we conclude these estimates?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If, as I said earlier, there are allegations of criminal activity, then it's clear what has to happen with that, and that's not something I'm going to talk about in the House. If there are personnel matters that require dealing with, then they will be dealt with in the normal appropriate ways under the Public Service Act and whatever other provisions apply to people who work in government. And I think at this stage, that's all I'm going to say. The office of Mr. Anderson would not have any role to play at this stage. It's conceivable that at some point that may occur. I don't know; I can't predict what might or might not happen.

D. Mitchell: Could the hon. Attorney General then tell us whose responsibility it is to deal with a very serious situation where employees within the corrections system are perhaps being involved in illegal activities? If it's not the independent office of inspection and standards -- and there are standards that are being violated here -- is it going to be left up to the human resources branch within the individual correctional facility to deal with it? If it's a criminal act, the hon. Attorney General indicates that it's the policing authorities who have the responsibility to deal with it.

But there are other issues here dealing with internal matters within the corrections system. In the case of Alouette River we have a process going on that's secretive. The hon. Attorney General doesn't want to talk about it in this House. He won't refer to it, and yet there are individual employees under his ministry who are being interviewed, who are being interrogated, and who are referring to this whole procedure as a kangaroo court. Who's in charge of the investigation?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If it's a personnel matter, senior management are in charge. If it's an alleged criminal matter, the police are charged with investigating. If the police come up with any recommendations for charges, th