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)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 7

[ Page 13693 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like today to welcome two good friends to the precinct. They're actually carrying on their learning during a non-instructional day in the school system. Please make Margaret Scott and her son Graeme Scott welcome.

D. Symons: Seated in the gallery today is John Chisholm from Winnipeg, who is the brother of my legislative assistant Alice Hughes. Would the House please join me in welcoming him.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd like members of the House to welcome a group from the Campbell River Christian School, who are down visiting with us today. They're in the gallery.

Introduction of Bills

COMMUNITY LAND TRUST ACT

M. Lord presented a bill intituled Community Land Trust Act.

This bill proposes a flexible system of charitable community-based land trusts, with a provincial land trust to provide advocacy and support functions for the community-based groups. Representatives of community land trusts would have majority control of the provincial trust and would direct its operations. The functions of the community land trusts are modelled on the United Kingdom's National Trust legislation.

Hon. Speaker, I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M208 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

INVESTIGATION OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION LEAKS

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the Premier. Can the Premier advise this House whether the private investigator who was hired to determine the source of leaks from the government has concluded his report, and if so, what his findings were?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I cannot advise the House.

G. Farrell-Collins: Is the Premier saying that the report is not complete? If so, can he tell us when he is expecting it to be completed, and will he advise this House when it is completed?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I repeat the answer I gave to the first question.

MLAs' COMPENSATION

C. Tanner: This is to the Premier. On Saturday, the 22nd, B.C. Liberals became the first B.C. political party to call for the abolition of the MLA pension plan.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order! Would hon. members please come to order.

C. Tanner: The Premier has an estimated pension of $1.3 million, while the leader of the Reform Party will receive a pension of almost $1,000,000. Taxpayers are fed up with this year-to-year topping-up of the MLA pension. Will the Premier today commit to immediately abolishing this gold-plated MLA pension plan?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would advise the member to go back and read the throne speech. It is good reading.

C. Tanner: I have a supplemental for the Premier, but I would recommend that he read his own throne speech. There is no mention there of abolishing the MLA pension plan.

But perhaps he can do this for the taxpayers of this province. The MLA severance package, quietly worked out by the Socreds and the NDP during the dying days of the Socred regime, is another perk which needs to be scrapped. Both the NDP and the Reform members stood idly by while their defeated and retiring colleagues left with their fists full of money.

Will the Premier show some respect today for the taxpayers of British Columbia and immediately scrap this obscene severance package for MLAs?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I am sure the member would like to concentrate on making sure the B.C. economy stays the number one economy in Canada, with 40 percent of the new jobs in this country during the last three and a half years created here in British Columbia by the private sector working in partnership with the government. I'm sure the member will change his mind about being a Liberal who wants to go to a two-tier health care system. He can see what we said in the throne speech, which is that we are going to be bringing forward proposals that will deal with the issues of pensions and severance.

The member should realize that we have quite a few weeks to go in the session, and that we will be dealing with these issues in due course.

[ Page 13694 ]

[2:15]

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: I think we already are, in Abbotsford.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE AND VEHICLE OWNERSHIP

My question is to the Minister of Social Services. If a person owned an expensive automobile and was having trouble paying their bills or meeting family expenses, most reasonable people would sell the car, buy a cheaper one or perhaps even take a bus. Why shouldn't the same standards apply to people wanting social assistance? Why shouldn't someone owning an expensive automobile be required to sell it and use the proceeds before going on social assistance?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I know this is not the opportunity for government members to ask questions of the opposition, so I'll just muse. First, I wonder what kind of cars the hon. member sells over there. Second, this policy about social assistance recipients being able to own a car has been in place for a decade, and I believe the hon. member was part of the government a decade ago. No, I guess not a decade ago -- six or seven years ago. The third thing I wonder about is whether he makes his own constituents sell cars. When they're ready to go to work, how will they get there when they live outside of Dawson Creek? That might be a good question for him to answer.

Our government is moving people from welfare to work by the thousands. We're doing that with the Skills Now program of $200 million over the last two years. That's what we should be doing, not worrying about people's vehicles and taking away all their supports when they're ready and able to go to work.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Yes, hon. Speaker. A supplemental to the Premier.

Interjections.

An Hon. Member: He's an easier target, isn't he?

J. Weisgerber: Yes. [Laughter.]

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, please. Will the Leader of the Third Party please put his question.

J. Weisgerber: My question to the Premier: cash-strapped students can't get a student loan if they have an automobile worth more than $5,000. Why, then, would the Premier require a different set of standards for people going on social assistance than for students who need an automobile to get to classes? Why does the Premier support this double standard: one for cash-strapped students, the other for people on social assistance?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Thank goodness the leader of the Reform Party has the jaw of George Chuvalo. He just gets up after being knocked down and keeps asking questions. That's good for him to....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Harcourt: That's right. Are you trying to tell me something?

It's very ironic that the leader of the Reform Party and the leader of the Liberal Party said that the $800 million that's going to be cut out of higher education by the federal Liberals wasn't deep enough. I don't think they're representing the student he's talking about at all. We're going to make sure that the federal government -- the Liberal government -- goes back and re-examines that foolish decision to cut higher education for the kind of students the leader of the Reform Party is trying to defend. And he wants to cut any chance of those students being able to go to higher education. What rank hypocrisy!

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

A. Warnke: My question is actually for the Premier. In case he's forgotten, two days ago I actually suggested that there was going to be a $317 million unfunded liability in the WCB. Guess what has happened? Yesterday the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour finally found the courage to table the WCB's annual report. And guess what, hon. Speaker? The unfunded liability had grown by 66 percent, to $317 million. Just last Friday the WCB report with respect to gold-plated benefits provided to WCB executives states that the WCB may not have consistently observed the Income Tax Act in dealing with Miss Munro.

Therefore, will the Premier today ask Revenue Canada to investigate whether the WCB has violated income tax law in granting $88,000 to Miss Munro?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I will take that question on notice for the minister, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: The question is taken on notice.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE AND VEHICLE OWNERSHIP

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. The minister initiated the discussion around welfare recipients who own a vehicle, and its value. She initiated that discussion. Does the minister personally support restricting welfare to individuals who have made every reasonable attempt to minimize the cost to B.C. taxpayers? If so, why doesn't she make a commitment right now that in order to get welfare, you cannot own a vehicle with a value in excess of $10,000?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This year British Columbians will be receiving $500 million less from the federal Liberals in support of social programs. At the end of 1997, British Columbians will be receiving $1.3 billion less. Yes, our government is taking that hole cut in our pocket very seriously. We're making sure that taxpayer dollars are spent on those who are in need. At the same time, we're doing it in a fashion that moves people

[ Page 13695 ]

from welfare to work. We're doing that daily, and we're doing that weekly, with support programs that are already in place. And it's working. We want to make sure that those who need to temporarily access income assistance have the ability to move to a job. We're doing that. In the meantime, we're making sure that every aspect of a dollar spent is done in a proper fashion. We're constantly reviewing the income assistance system to make sure that it goes to those most in need.

COST OF SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

R. Neufeld: The minister states that her government is working toward moving people off welfare and into jobs. We have the best economy, according to your records, of any province in Canada. You say that you've created 67,000 new jobs this past year. Can the minister then explain to this House why welfare rolls have increased by over 100,000 recipients in just three years, and why the costs for welfare have gone up by $900 million in that same period of time? If you are moving people from welfare to jobs, can you please explain those statistics to us?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, it's kind of ironic from the party that voted against Skills Now, the initiative that actually moves people from welfare to work, but I guess consistency isn't required by the opposition. Because our economy is so strong, people are moving here from other parts of Canada. Merely people moving from other parts of Canada increases our population by the size of Saanich in each and every year. Some of those people need temporary assistance from income assistance.

You'll see from the statistics on unemployment insurance that because of the cuts that the Chretien and Mulroney governments made to unemployment insurance, those who are temporarily out of work no longer have unemployment insurance coverage. Those two factors are contributing to the increase.

But I want to tell you that the number of people requiring income assistance is on the decline. We are going to ensure that each and every person has the opportunity for training and for work in this province.

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENT AND SALE OF LAND REGISTRY SYSTEM TO RUSSIA

W. Hurd: It appears that that icon of ideology, the godfather of the NDP, Bob Williams, has not gone quietly into retirement. Mr. Williams has been paid $51,000 to promote the sale of a land registry system to St. Petersburg, Russia -- of all places. There are those who would say that Mr. Williams has more affinity for the previous land registry system in the Soviet Union. I wonder if the Premier can justify how Bob Williams can have two opportunities at the trough: once as the head of the Crown corporations secretariat, and now as a high-priced consultant for the Premier's own B.C. Trade office.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Well, the world is getting stranger and stranger. We have the pauper over here from Surrey-White Rock criticizing the millionaire who is trying to take free enterprise to Russia. Not only are their questions getting curiouser and curiouser, but I just don't understand where they're coming from ideologically. Why wouldn't they want private property to be secure in Russia and in other countries that are trying to adopt the free enterprise system and introduce the concept of private property to their people? I think he should be encouraging rather than discouraging that.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: Maybe it's speculation, but the opposition is convinced that the only failed NDP candidate and past NDP minister who hasn't been offered employment by the government is Sam Wagar, the unfortunate candidate from Matsqui.

Mr. Williams is poised to bill the B.C. taxpayers another $30,000 for efforts that have no benefits to the taxpayers in the province of British Columbia. What became of the Premier's election promise of no special deals for friends and insiders, when Bob Williams is double-dipping during the course of this administration?

Hon. M. Harcourt: With the Leader of the Opposition, who should not be having his troops throw stones on the issue of using people who are close to him, I think I should have the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock go and speak to his leader about using people in situations that are not acceptable to the taxpayers of this province.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

The hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Speaker, I'm asking leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Edwards: I think we should recognize two people I see in the gallery today. I arrived late; maybe they were here earlier. They are two members of the Columbia River Treaty Committee who have worked very hard on the Columbia Basin Trust. I would like to introduce Josh Smienk, the chair of that committee, who is from Central Kootenay Regional District, and Garry Merkel with the Ktunaxa people.

Introduction of Bills

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Real Estate Amendment Act, 1995.

Hon. E. Cull: This bill proposes a number of amendments to the Real Estate Act. The amendments are primarily of a consumer protection nature. The major amendment would extend the marketing requirements of the act to the sale of undivided or shared interests in land and buildings. It would put such developments on an even footing with similar developments, such as subdivided land, condominiums and

[ Page 13696 ]

cooperatives, by requiring that developers of such interests obtain local government approval and distribute a disclosure statement to prospective purchasers.

In addition to tightening and extending the marketing provisions of the act, the bill makes other consumer protection amendments to the provisions of the act regulating real estate salespersons. The amendments will require that persons hired to collect strata fees or short-term rental moneys be licensed, and will require that real estate salespeople disclose who they represent in a real estate transaction.

Other amendments will tighten the handling of moneys by licensees by requiring that trust funds remain within the province and by regulating the payment of moneys to third parties.

Bill 15 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. E. Cull: I also have reports to table. The first is the report of guarantees and indemnities for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1994, in accordance with

section 56 of the Financial Administration Act.

I also have the report of the Crown Proceeding Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1994, in accordance with

section 15(2) of that act. Finally, I have the record of unclaimed money deposits for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1994. This record was previously delivered to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly in accordance with

section 3 of the amended Unclaimed Money Act.

Presenting Petitions

M. Farnworth: This petition calls on the government to protect the level of funding available to mental health recipients, to increase the level of funding for respite care and to protect health care funding in general.

Orders of the Day

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

C. Serwa: As I listen to the Attorney General's estimates.... I missed the first day in the presentation, and we seem to be bouncing all over the place. So I assume that if we're going to bounce, I'll bounce as well, and I'll probably touch on some of the subjects we've looked at before.

I may just start with some concerns about citations with respect to motor vehicle, moving vehicle or parking fines -- offences under the Motor Vehicle Act. One of the concerns I have is the amount of court time -- it follows a question I asked earlier -- that is taken up with lawyers who bring their client to court, and if the officer is not present, their plea is "not guilty" and they are going to contest it; if the officer is present, they plead guilty and throw themselves on the mercy of the court.

What this does, of course, is take staff time from their particular job, and it doesn't allow the force to do the work it's supposed to do. We appear to be undermanned in the police force in the province at this time, in any event. So there's some concern in my heart for that. What is behind that, and what are your instructions to the court?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member's concern is that on occasion a witness in the form of a police officer may not be present at the time that an individual is scheduled to appear in court. It does happen on occasion; police officers are exceedingly busy. And I acknowledge that this happens on occasion, but there isn't a great deal that can be done about it. The remedy is for scheduling of police officers' times to be organized as effectively as possible in each jurisdiction, so that the police officer can be there to be a witness. While acknowledging that it happens, it's not a common occurrence, I think it's fair to say.

C. Serwa: It appears from the police.... I was speaking to some individuals from the Saanich police, not too long ago, on this particular matter. Certainly it's a major concern of the RCM Police in Kelowna. What happens, too, is that the court will be scheduled, then for some reason or other -- perhaps a legal manoeuvre -- it's rescheduled. What you are doing is repetitively taking staff time for a purpose that doesn't come to fruition.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wonder if the member would be kind enough to tell me whether, on this point, he's still continuing to talk about traffic offences, or is he now talking about a wider range?

C. Serwa: Primarily traffic offences, relatively minor traffic offences.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The hearing date is scheduled; it's known to the person who is accused of violating the Motor Vehicle Act. The witness is advised, and for the most part -- in this case, the police officer who has issued the citation, as the member referred to it, the ticket -- shows up. On occasion, that doesn't happen. With motor vehicle infractions I don't think the issue of legal manoeuvring to arrange for an alternative court date is a problem. That may occur on occasion in non-motor-vehicle actions -- Criminal Code charges -- but I don't think that's the case with motor vehicle ones.

C. Serwa: I'll have to accept the minister's explanation on that. Perhaps it's the annoyance factor that I hear about. I'm certainly not confident of the numbers, but I do hear enough about it, and there are some legitimate concerns.

One of the other aspects with respect to motor vehicles, while I'm on that particular topic, is the licensing of drivers. I know that the minister is very concerned.... Oh, that goes to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I'm sorry about that. I would like to have talked to you about that one,

[ Page 13697 ]

because I know the minister's particular concern with respect to highway safety, and the concern in that area. I think that things have to be done there.

One concern that affects us in the Okanagan -- and it has affected many British Columbians throughout the interior -- is native blockades. In particular, close to home, is the blockade of the Apex road. At that point in time, we were treating British Columbians substantially differently. In that particular case, what does happen is that it's an opportunity to negotiate. I think that one of the earlier negotiations resulted in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways building, or committing to build, access roads to develop band land.

In the last particular situation, it resulted in some sort of another group or committee that is responsible for determining or making a further environmental assessment and employing a number of native people. The third time -- it was simply threatened -- was because the government had not contacted and consulted with the native people on the loan guarantees that the government has made to Apex.

What is the minister's and the ministry's position on illegal blockades? I'm quite confident that if a non-native blockaded a road in an effort to do something, justice would be swift and effective.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are often very complex legal issues around some of these blockades -- it's fair to say that's particularly true on the road through the Penticton Indian band land west of Penticton. The practice of the RCMP -- because it's almost always in RCMP jurisdictions that these events occur -- is to attempt to negotiate a resolution to the issues. That's been the practice whether it's the railway blockades between Prince Rupert and Prince George, the Fraser Valley railway blockade last year or other blockades. The use of negotiation and discussion as a tactic by the RCMP is one that I endorse.

It's a more effective long-term solution than sending the cavalry in -- coming in, but using immediate force without any discussion. We want to minimize these problems. The current practice and approach of the RCMP, I believe, is the best one.

C. Serwa: I would like to ask the minister if the same latitude and tolerance would be exhibited to myself. If I have a

section 6 road -- I believe it's

section 6 under the Highway Act -- where government has not gazetted that particular road and it goes through a piece of property that I may own, for example, and I decide that I want the ministry to put up new fences or something like that, would you have the same latitude, patience and tolerance? Am I to stand here and believe that the RCMP wouldn't correct the scene in a very hasty manner and that there would be a negotiating opportunity? What I'm trying to establish here is this: do we have a dual standard for natives and non-natives in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The general answer to the member's question is yes.

The civil disobedience policy of the criminal justice branch, which I happen to have in my hand -- this is instruction to Crown counsel; that's what the policy does -- says in part: "When Crown counsel are consulted, they should encourage the police to exercise discretion in selecting an appropriate response for each factual situation, while ensuring that the general public is not unduly inconvenienced." So it's a question of massaging the solution and of trying to negotiate a resolution. Sometimes that may not be possible, and a more significant response is necessary.

But in the very early going, this is the way the police respond. This is consistent with the charging policy of the criminal justice branch.

C. Serwa: I've just one last question on that. What I'm hearing is that regardless of the status of the road -- whether it's a road gazetted by the province with the right-of-way owned by the province or, for example, a

section 6 road where the travelling public has only the right of access or the right to travel on the road and where the land that the roadbed actually lies on is not Crown -- you make no exception for that. If, for example, there was some reason to blockade the Lions Gate Bridge or the First Narrows Bridge or something like that, it would make no difference to the direction or the latitude or the mandate of the police.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The words I read out would apply to the Lions Gate Bridge: "...while ensuring that the general public is not unduly inconvenienced." I suspect that there would be some inconvenience if the Lions Gate Bridge were blockaded.

[2:45]

C. Serwa: I have a few questions, one note and an observation. I'm going to talk briefly with respect to the gun control legislation that the minister's government has supported. The minister has also supported the federal gun control legislation. I note that there was an

article in the paper not too long ago that Florida had experienced a 29 percent drop in homicides since it eased restrictions on law-abiding residents carrying concealed weapons. Apparently a number of states -- approximately 20 states -- are actually easing restrictions on restricted weapons.

We're not asking for that, necessarily, but the reality is that what we're doing is disarming the public. Good, bad or indifferent, Canada has gone on a different road than the United States has with respect to restricted weapons. But we appear to be going on an even more severe road with the registration requirement for shotguns and hunting rifles.

Obviously it's a high-profile issue. Somehow, somewhere, someone has been able to convince primarily the urban public -- who perhaps have never used a firearm and who are apprehensive of the utilization of a firearm -- that violent crime and firearms go hand in hand; if we eliminate firearms, we eliminate violence in society. There is obviously no connection there whatsoever. Switzerland, for example, has compulsory military service, and rifles are kept; the people are not violent by their particular nature. So there's no real connection there. But it seems like a very convenient one, and it's popular in the urban centres.

I guess I have difficulty understanding the minister's position in that he represents North Island, which is a remote area. I'm confident that there are many sportsmen in that particular area who are also concerned about the path that we're going on. It's not an unusual path, for some reason, and I understand that. Perhaps it's driven by the police for their particular concerns and for their own safety.

I note, too, that the use of pepper spray, or mace, is illegal. Those in society that are least able to defend themselves physically -- certainly women in society -- are denied any

[ Page 13698 ]

opportunity whatsoever to defend themselves. I fail to understand why we're running on this particular road and taking away means of self-defence and means of protection from citizens who are being victimized. With restricted weapons, a permit to carry.... There were always what were called "purse guns." It's a term for barrel lengths four inches or shorter, and that has gone away.

Perhaps the minister could elaborate on the reasons for this support of the registration of non-restricted weapons. I'm not talking about AK-47s or any of the other semi-automatic military types of weapons, because I, too, have concerns -- although there are a number of collectors that like them. Perhaps the minister could rationalize the reasoning for their support of the current legislation before the federal government.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It really isn't part of these estimates discussions. This debate belongs in front of the federal parliamentary committee, and the member knows that. Obviously, we have the responsibility of enforcing whatever the Parliament of Canada determines is the appropriate course of action to take.

In respect of the gun control legislation, over the last few years we have limited most of our comments to more technical issues. This year I was drawn into the discussion, as is inevitable for provincial Attorneys General. I have not been out crusading for the legislation; I have just responded to questions when they have been posed. On behalf of the government, at the federal-provincial meeting I indicated that we had concerns about some elements of the legislation. In particular, we had some concerns about the cost and the potential bureaucracy that could be developed around a registration scheme.

However, having made those comments, we basically support the position taken by the Canadian federation of police chiefs, and more recently by the Canadian association of police officers, who have indicated their support for the bill if certain amendments are made. The amendments proposed by the police officers at their meeting a few weeks ago make a lot of sense to me.

We are not in a position to shape the legislation. That's something the parliamentary committee will do, and I would urge the member and anyone else who is interested in the topic to make representations to them, preferably in writing, given the interest and the ability of the committee to hear people. But certainly it's worthwhile to write to the committee with any views that people may have.

I'm not going to get into a debate here about the pros or cons of gun control -- it's the wrong forum -- other than to say that I think we have to avoid moving in the direction that the Americans have moved, where law-abiding citizens feel a need to carry a gun with them for personal safety. That's not the kind of society that I want to be part of. In this country we have done very well, so far, at avoiding that American disease -- the notion of the alleged right to bear arms.

We have a different culture here, and we have to do whatever we can to continue to resist the Americanization of this country, particularly with respect to its attitude toward violence and its casual attitude towards weapons. So I am not going to engage in a debate.

The member is correct; I generally support the legislation. I have some concerns. I share the concerns raised by the police officers, and I am going to continue to work to make sure that the scheme they finally do settle on is one that isn't costly or bureaucratic to legitimate gun owners.

C. Serwa: It's interesting to note that the police across Canada are in favour of eliminating guns. I can understand that, because not too long ago I went to the unveiling of a memorial plaque in the Okanagan where an officer lost his life; he was shot, and died in hospital. So it's a serious concern.

The reality is that they are not doing as they say. For example, I imagine that in British Columbia and across Canada they are moving away from the .38 special and have gone, with request, to the 9 mm, which is a cartridge of very superior ballistic design. It has more penetrating power, more shocking or killing power, and will also travel a greater distance. The use of that weapon has negative implications for the public in case an officer draws his gun and fires that gun in the utilization of service.

I presume that not only will the officers be able to use that, but individuals in the security field, whether they're Loomis people or otherwise, will also carry this higher-powered cartridge. I ask the minister if the authorization for the 9 mm has been made in the province.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, we've passed an order-in-council authorizing the 12 municipal departments to convert, if they choose, to the semi-automatic.

C. Serwa: So we're going from a double-action revolver to a semi-automatic with a ten-shot clip, rather than a six-shot rotary cylinder, and an incredible ability to put out bullets. There are some concerns there. There's just a little shred of hypocrisy, perhaps, in the whole scenario where: "We're capable because we're trained, and the rest of you are not trained." I have my concerns, because ultimately public safety is going to depend on the public at large -- not only the criminal element but also the ability of individuals to defend themselves.

I don't think that we can possibly provide enough in the way of police force, and we will always have aberrations in human behaviour. Maybe they're not simply aberrations, but a certain percentage of our citizens tend to be violent in their behaviour -- whatever causes that. I don't think we can ignore that, and the reality is prevalent; therefore, certainly, the concern of law and order....

Interjection.

C. Serwa: I hear the member from Prince George anxiously awaiting the opportunity to throw some soft blows your way.

Of concern is a minimum penalty, under

section 85 of the Criminal Code, for those who are convicted of a robbery -- a criminal offence, a violent act -- who are armed, whether it's with a knife, for example, or with a restricted or non-restricted weapon. It appears, though, that through the plea bargaining process no one ever serves this minimum time. It seems to be plea-bargained away, and those criminals who use firearms in the course of committing their crimes go scot-free anyway. They've got nothing to lose: they don't happen to have an FAC that you can take away; they don't have a permit to carry that you can take away.

All they have is a restricted weapon that they used in the course of a crime, and it appears that there is no penalty that is utilized -- certainly in this province and probably across Canada. What are your instructions to the Crown prosecutors with respect to that?

[ Page 13699 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the simplest way of answering the question is to read from the Crown Counsel Policy Manual. This was last updated in the middle of last year; it has been in existence for some years before that. This is with reference to

section 85:

"No stay of proceedings or withdrawals shall be directed by Crown counsel on any charge under

section 85 of the Criminal Code unless approval has been obtained from regional or deputy regional Crown counsel. Where there is a substantial likelihood of conviction on the

section 85 charge, as well as on the substantive indictable offense, both charges should ordinarily be prosecuted so that the mandatory consecutive jail term of one year is imposed by the court upon conviction for

section 85. Where a stay of proceedings is directed on a

section 85 charge, the reasons should be noted in the prosecution file."

That's the full policy.

C. Serwa: It's certainly a significant concern, because sportsmen throughout the province see what appears to be a double standard, where those who are utilizing weapons on a criminal basis have certainly been evading the federal criminal legislation, which I thought should have been mandatory with respect to the sentencing of somebody who utilized a weapon in the commission of a crime.

To change the topic just slightly, the public at large is also very concerned about the judiciary. I recognize the third arm of government and the independence of the judiciary, but I also understand the influence of the Attorney General ministry and the Attorney General on sentencing. Recently a judge handed down a $750 fine to a person on their third impaired driving conviction in two years. That doesn't seem to be reasonable at all. When we're finished talking about firearms and the potential danger, we kill many more people in traffic accidents -- some are incidents, some are genuine accidents.

But in the case of a drinking driver.... I remember the ads where the individual goes to the bar and has three or four drinks and then decides they've had too much and hands their keys to someone to drive them home. That doesn't happen, because the first thing to go is their judgement. If they're going to hand the keys over to anyone, they'd have to do so before they start to drink.

[3:00]

As a society -- or perhaps through our legislation -- we've been unduly tolerant with respect to those who drink and drive, and repetitively. So what we have now are individuals who don't have a valid driver's licence and still drive. There appears to be nothing that your ministry through legislation can do to prevent that. Certainly there is a great hazard to the travelling public, a great safety concern. What does the minister propose? Or what has he done to discourage drinking and driving by imposing more severe penalties on those who drive and drink?

I recognize that some of the legislation with respect to impounding vehicles at the roadside is very good, regardless of who the owner of the vehicle is. If the owner of the vehicle gives permission to someone, then I think the owner is obviously going to have to bear the responsibility. It may be very difficult to bear; nevertheless, we're going to have to get some of that under control.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We had this discussion the other day. It's not a criticism of the member, but there are two sets of estimates going on at the same time and everybody can't be everywhere, and I acknowledge that. We did have a fairly extensive discussion about that issue the other day, and I made the point that the prohibitions or the consequences for impaired driving are governed by two statutes: one is the Criminal Code, which is the responsibility of the federal Parliament, and the other is the Motor Vehicle Act, which is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

So the law that establishes the range of penalties is, in fact, not within my jurisdiction. All I get to do is enforce these laws that are in other jurisdictions.

Having said that, the Crown takes a tough position on drinking and driving and we seek severe penalties when they are appropriate. The policy, again, is tough in this respect. I'm not going to comment on any one particular case; it's inappropriate for me to do that. So I won't make any reference to the first part of the member's comments. But I think it's important that all of us, in every way we can, continue to make clear to the public that drinking and driving is not tolerable, that it's something we should not tolerate in our society.

There are some initiatives that the member knows about that are coming from the Minister of Transportation and Highways, which will further support the notion that this is an intolerable state. Hopefully, one of these days we will get through to people on this issue, although we have made good progress over the last few years, I think it's fair to say.

I think it's fair to say that the former government, of which the member was a part, over the years brought in legislation amending the Motor Vehicle Act which strengthened the sanctions as well. I remember one debate in this House very close upon the death of the son-in-law of the member for New Westminster. We unanimously passed amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act which strengthened the sanctions. We need to continue to do that, and this government is continuing on the work that the member's government started some years ago.

C. Serwa: I'd like to talk a bit about drugs and their involvement in crime. I recognize that this is probably federal legislation as well, but it's certainly of significant concern. Recently, there was a court case where an individual was fined $1,500 for trafficking in about $11,000 worth of cocaine. We hear of extensive forays by the RCMP, major investigations into the growing of marijuana, for example, and a very, very large.... I suppose it's the largest cash crop in British Columbia now.

It was the largest cash crop in California, then in Oregon and Washington, and now I presume it's the largest cash crop in British Columbia. This is one aspect of it, with respect to drugs and penalties for those who produce and traffic in drugs.

The other concern is the role of drugs in crime. I don't think there's a community in the province that isn't affected, certainly with minor crime -- breaking and entering and that sort of thing -- on the basis of drugs. What is the minister doing with respect to attending to that -- reducing the amount of crime that's related to drugs? What programs, what policy directions...? What is being done within the ministry to address this subject?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the member has identified an issue that is central to criminal issues. I think I mentioned in the House the other day that two-thirds of the provincial prison population at any one time includes people who have a substance-abuse problem. It's often the substance-abuse problem which either directly or indirectly leads to the criminal activity for which they're sentenced.

[ Page 13700 ]

I don't think, frankly, that any government -- and society as well, collectively -- has taken all the necessary steps to deal with drug addiction, drug problems. The education that should begin early in school -- at home in families and then in the school system -- is obviously not sufficient. One sees that now, with the number of young girls who are starting smoking as teenagers, which is a horrifying development in the last few years. I see that as part of the continuum that the member talks about. That's a drug; and alcohol, similarly, gets abused. We have failed somehow, as a society, to have people understand the consequences of that kind of behaviour.

Once people are in the Attorney General's system, it's usually pretty late in their addiction or their problem. We have programs within the corrections branch dealing with alcohol and drug treatment. We have alcohol education programs for impaired drivers who are sentenced. Within a very limited budget, we try to do as much as we can. But I think it's fair to say that all of us collectively in our society don't do enough, and we could do more. I wish we had a bigger budget for that kind of initiative, but we don't.

In respect of the law and the prosecution of direct drug-related issues, of course this is even more federal than most criminal matters, given that federal prosecutors prosecute drug offences, not the provincial Crown.

I would just say that I share the member's concern about the issue. I think the member and I have talked about this before on occasion. We all have to try to do better than we've done in our society to date.

C. Serwa: I have just one or two more questions for the minister. I'm rather pleased that the minister mentioned the increase in those individuals smoking. I had forgotten to mention that when I was talking actually about the gun control type of legislation that the federal Liberals brought in.... I see that probably in 30 or 40 years or something, we'll be losing about 100,000 Canadians a year because of the reduction in the tax on tobacco products by the federal government.

If I am ever going to applaud our provincial government, and I will on this one occasion, I have to applaud you for not reducing the provincial taxes on cigarettes. I think that would have increased the access and created the medical heart and cancer problems at a much later date.

A significant concern is violence among young people, and it seems that the violence is spreading. It's not only on the streets, it's now in the school systems, and not even just in the senior school systems -- the senior high schools. It's spreading into lower grades -- the gang violence, the unfairness of a gang singling out one individual. We're finding in the criminal court system that only the actual individual who was finally responsible for taking the life of someone, perhaps, or injuring that person, is actually charged.

The other ten or 15 or 20 that were there at the scene -- that are, from my particular concern, just as vital to the end result as the individual that is ultimately charged -- get away scot-free. They're active participants, they actually encourage, and somehow this is propagating to a greater degree, whether it's in Victoria or whether it's in Kelowna or perhaps in Vancouver. It appears to be happening all over the province.

What is the ministry doing with respect to that? Obviously, it's a multifaceted type of a question, because it's not simply the Ministry of Attorney General, although you're foremost in it; but obviously public education is involved and other ministries as well -- perhaps Social Services. I don't understand the phenomena that are creating it, whether there's some sickness in society, some disease in society, or whether it's the incidence of violence on television that normalizes that type of behaviour. I don't know what the answer to that is. But it's an area of significant concern.

Again, my question to the minister is: what is the ministry doing with respect to that as far as education, perhaps, in the school system and influencing that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is correct. There are a number of ministries that have some responsibility or some activity in respect of this, including Women's Equality and the Ministry of Education. We have, particularly through the gang and youth crime prevention program, embarked on a number of educational-type programs and resources for young people, including -- I mentioned this the other day as well -- the gang and youth contact line, which is a 1-800 number around the province where young people can phone in to get advice and support, and to talk about concerns that they may have about youth violence.

We have a youth police officer network that works in conjunction with the gang and youth crime group. We have an interministry committee on criminal gangs which deals with youth issues.

I'm particularly pleased by the educational initiative which came out of Coquitlam by a group of high school students there, a group called 841-KOZ, who go around doing a bit of play-acting about crime and violence and gangs, and how kids can handle themselves when they get into these peer group pressure situations which may lead them down a course they don't really want to go.

So there's a whole variety of those kinds of initiatives. Again, we fund these things off the corner of our desk, because the criminal justice system still continues to be primarily a reactive system. Most of our money goes to deal with problems that are presented to us, rather than having very much of our resources available for prevention. I would like to be able to divert a greater proportion of our budget to prevention; that's not available, although we're continuing to make progress. Another program that I should mention in conjunction with the Ministry of Education is a Kids At Risk program, which the two ministries are involved in.

There are other initiatives. I think the Minister of Women's Equality has been involved in a program dealing with peer group mediation, teaching -- particularly, I think, around the grade 10 level -- high school kids how to deal with conflict and disputes by way of mediation and resolution, rather than the way.... At least when I went to school, if you didn't like what somebody said, you beat 'em up -- or in my case, I usually got beat up. That kind of old response is one that we have to begin to move away from, obviously.

But in moving away from the traditional kind of response, people have to be shown that there are other and better ways of resolving disputes, and there are some good programs going on. The one I was quite impressed by -- and I mentioned this the other day, as well -- was at Princess Margaret School in Surrey. I saw a program in action there that I was quite impressed with.

Having said all of that, there's more we could do there too if we had a bigger budget for prevention. I think in the long term that if we did, we would save money on the parts of the justice system that we now spend money on reacting to a problem after it's occurred. But we're working at it.

[ Page 13701 ]

[3:15]

M. Lord: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. Lord: It's my pleasure today to introduce a group of 25 grade 5 students from Tsolum Elementary School in my riding, along with their teacher Ms. Brydon. The students are particularly delighted to be here today when the Attorney General is discussing his estimates. He is well known in our riding because his riding is adjacent to ours. As well, concerns about crime and safety issues in our riding are shared by these school children. So I bid the House to please make these students welcome.

C. Serwa: The minister has talked about prevention. Obviously, prevention and the cause of what -- in the public's perception -- appears to be exploding with respect to crime, perhaps with respect to drug abuse, are certainly significant concerns. We have a whole industry established to play with the symptoms, but we never seem to be able to find anyone who is willing to look at exploring the root causes and trying to address those in order to prevent dealing with this explosive growth of symptoms, which we're virtually unable to afford. This goes for the Ministry of Health, too; again, we have very little in the way of prevention.

The other day the minister was talking about the amount of space we need in jails within the province of British Columbia. I know that one is going into the central Okanagan. One of the concerns I have is with the capital cost of building a security type of prison. It appears to be about three times the cost of building an acute care bed in a hospital. It is also about three times the cost of building a similar facility in the States, and over and above that, the cost of keeping a prisoner in the function is dramatically higher. But our costs are dramatically higher.

In many places in the States they've gone to privatization of the jail system, where they're built and apparently maintained by the private sector. Has the minister explored that to try to be more cost-effective? I don't know that jails are necessarily the cure, but certainly they're required in society.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, I suppose jails will always be with us. I do think, however, that we need to continue to move toward alternatives to incarceration -- effective sanctions, but alternatives to incarceration -- for those people who are not a risk to society and for whom incarceration may not be the most effective way of demonstrating society's displeasure with their actions.

I don't know what the American costs are for building prisons, other than knowing they often build great, big buildings with lots of beds in them, and that there may be some economies of scale in the sheer size of their system. I know, to my horror -- and I suppose the member knows this -- that the state of California will be spending more money building jails by next year than building schools. We really have to start to think about that kind of response to crime.

The member mused about private construction of the facilities. The buildings are obviously tendered out and are built by private contractors to BCBC specifications, but I don't know that there's any evidence whatsoever that turning over the facility to a private organization would produce economies. I haven't seen the evidence of that. My instincts are that it wouldn't, and that it could potentially create other problems. This is not an ideological response. On the community services side of corrections, we do in fact contract out, and some of them are not for profit.

The John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society, for example, are not for profit groups, but they are certainly not part of the government, either. We have no difficulty with that kind of approach to the issue.

I don't have on ideological blinders around this issue. I want to do what's most effective, what serves the public need in the most effective way, and that includes not only having the right policy applied in the right conditions but also having the most effective cost achieved. If the member is aware of any studies on this subject that would be useful to me, I'd be happy if he would send them along to me in due course.

D. Mitchell: The member for Okanagan West was talking about issues related to youth, and I have a brief question for the Attorney General. I wonder if he could tell us whether a specific brochure, one that will accompany summonses to youth who are appearing in court, has been finalized and completed by the ministry. I understand that an inordinate amount of time is taken up when young people are summonsed for court appearances and arrive unprepared -- without parents, without lawyers and totally unprepared. It apparently takes up quite a bit of time in youth court, in particular, and what I'm referring to is youth court.

My understanding is that the Ministry of Attorney General had under consideration last year a brochure that was being prepared so it could be sent out with a summons to young people appearing in youth court. It would help them be prepared, so that when they arrived in court, they wouldn't waste a lot of valuable time. I know that the district of West Vancouver, for instance, has a Family Court-Youth Justice Committee that has prepared such a brochure for the municipality of West Vancouver. It may well be a model that the Ministry of Attorney General may want to adopt. Has any progress been made on that project?

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure that it's a project, because I'm not quite sure what the member's reference is to a discussion last year about a brochure that would be available to young people who are charged. People who are involved under the Young Offenders Act presumably wouldn't be likely to appear in court without lawyers. All young offenders who are charged are automatically provided with legal aid counsel. That's a provision of the Young Offenders Act which requires the legal aid system in the province to provide counsel. I'm not quite sure where we're going with this. I don't remember a discussion about a brochure, and I don't think such a project is currently underway.

D. Mitchell: I am simply referring to a matter on which I know the Attorney General's office has had some correspondence. There is an issue about delays caused in youth court at the stage of first appearance. Young people come to court often completely unprepared; they have no idea what to expect or what they are going to experience in the courtroom. Often they don't have anyone present to help establish their age, whether that be parents, a lawyer or anyone else.

[ Page 13702 ]

The West Vancouver Family Court-Youth Justice Committee has prepared "An Introduction to Youth Court," a brochure which has been sent to the ministry. It suggests that it would be a way of saving time and money if the ministry would automatically send out such a brochure, or similar fact sheet or information, to any young person summonsed to court, so that they will know what to expect and can be better prepared, which would save valuable court time. It was my understanding that the ministry had such a brochure in process or under consideration. I take it from the minister that that is not the case, but it might be a good idea worth following up.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are quite a few brochures, either already printed or contemplated by the ministry. I don't have a list of them in my head, but I would be happy to look at this. If it has been sent to the ministry, no doubt it will be somewhere in the ministry, and they will now be alerted by way of this exchange that they should have a look at what West Vancouver has done. I am certainly open to looking at it.

D. Mitchell: I thank the Attorney General for that commitment. Just to prompt his office's files, I will send him a copy of a letter that was sent to him on July 15, 1994, by Jane Baynham, chair of the West Vancouver Family Court-Youth Justice Committee. I will make a copy and send it over separately; I won't do that today.

I have one brief question on another matter on which I personally corresponded with the Attorney General over the last couple of years. It is the subject of a Law Reform Commission study on recreational injuries, liabilities and waivers in commercial leisure activities. This deals with, for instance, ski injuries. When people buy a ski pass, whether at Whistler or any other ski hill in the province, they are effectively signing a waiver that they will not place the ski hill under any liability for any injuries sustained while skiing.

Skiing is a very dangerous sport, of course, and the whole liability issue is serious. I think it is a serious matter. We all want to encourage a healthy and vibrant skiing industry. It is a major part of our tourism attraction in British Columbia. The Law Reform Commission has come up with some specific proposals in this regard. The hon. Attorney General has indicated to me that no legislation will be forthcoming on this matter this year. Is there a reason for the delay? When can we expect to proceed and make some progress on this?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The ministry has received the report on this issue from the Law Reform Commission. It is an exhaustive study. It is an issue in which I have a personal interest as a long-time recreational skier, but it is not an issue that made the legislative agenda this year. For every bill that gets introduced here, there are ten more anxiously waiting to be introduced, and that subject is one of those that didn't quite make it.

D. Mitchell: It's a pity. I wish the Attorney General would talk to his colleague the Minister of Tourism about the importance of the skiing industry to our province. It is not only something that he might enjoy, but it is a huge industry with huge economic potential for our province. I hope that he will be able to treat this with more urgency. It is an issue that not only affects all skiers but the liability of those ski hill operators who run their businesses. There is similar legislation already in place in many American states, for instance.

There is no reason why we in British Columbia couldn't and shouldn't show some leadership on this issue as well. I wish the hon. Attorney General would treat this with a little more urgency.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: To add to what I said by saying that.... The recommendations of the Law Reform Commission were not met with unanimous support. It would be a fair amount of work to sort through from the recommendations what might actually be the appropriate form of legislation. So that work wouldn't have been able to have been completed for this session in any event.

D. Mitchell: Just one final area that I'd like to canvass with the hon. Attorney General. Yesterday I asked the Attorney General some questions about a matter at Alouette River Correctional Centre. I've now had a chance to review the Attorney General's responses to my questions in the Hansard Blues, and I've reviewed them very carefully. I'd like to simply ask for clarification today. Was the hon. Attorney General reluctant to answer in any detail the questions I posed to him yesterday about the investigation ongoing into some very serious matters at Alouette River?

Was he reluctant because the matter is currently the subject of a police investigation? Is that the reason that he was not forthcoming yesterday?

[3:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I was reluctant to talk about the matter yesterday. It's an internal management issue. Someone from another part of the ministry outside of that centre is doing what is an internal issue. I just didn't think it was appropriate for us to talk about that internal matter in a relatively uninformed way. Neither the member nor I are aware of all of the details of the work that's being done there now.

D. Mitchell: It is true that I was seeking information yesterday. Part of the role of a member of the Legislature is to seek information, especially through the estimates debate in this committee. That's one of our roles; it's one of our obligations. Some allegations have been brought out. I don't want to ask the hon. Attorney General to comment on this if he cannot; I'm simply seeking some clarification on this matter.

My understanding is that a very serious allegation was made at Alouette River, initially dealing with sexual harassment. An employee at Alouette River made a charge of sexual harassment. An investigation led to a much more serious charge, if we can have a more serious charge than sexual harassment: there were drugs potentially being smuggled into this correctional facility. We talked yesterday about the definition of contraband. I imagine that the definition of contraband would include steroids and hashish and drugs such as these. I understand that these are the charges that have been made.

The hon. Attorney General has indicated that this is an internal matter being investigated; yet my understanding, based upon comments he made yesterday.... I was led to believe that this might be not an internal investigation but an RCM Police investigation into this matter. I was led to believe that that might be the reason that the Attorney General was not forthcoming and not wanting to discuss the matter. If that's the case, that's fine.

[ Page 13703 ]

Can the Attorney General confirm in the committee today -- and I won't go into it in any more detail than he can -- that as a result of the investigation, employees have already either been suspended, transferred or fired?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The direct answer to the direct question is no.

Beyond that, the member made references to sexual harassment. In fact, I think the term "personal harassment" would be a more appropriate description of the concerns. The member made reference to other matters, which the RCMP have been informed about.

D. Mitchell: Last year, when the very unfortunate incident occurred in the Danny Perrault case, to which a special inquiry headed by Madam Justice Prowse, who was appointed by the hon. Attorney General.... The issue of whistle-blower protection came up in this House. We had some discussions during estimates last year and in the House during question period as well. The Attorney General and I had some interaction about whistle-blower protection, which was one of the campaign promises of the NDP government when they came to office.

They were going to specifically enforce whistle-blower protection for any public servant who had information about a serious nature. They could bring it forward, and they would be guaranteed protection.

In the case at Alouette River, a very serious matter is under investigation, as the Attorney General has now confirmed. My understanding is that there may be one or more employees who are somewhat reluctant to come forward with evidence for fear that it will be damaging to their careers.

Can the Attorney General commit today in this committee that any individuals who have any information with respect to the serious allegations that are being made at Alouette River about either harassment or the smuggling of drugs into a correctional facility will get the protection that they require in order to come forward and get to the truth of this matter, so that we can try to restore some confidence in our corrections system, which seems to be eroded time and time again?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I said to the member last year, and I will repeat it this year, that no employee of the ministry will be disciplined for bringing forward information that should be in the hands of that employee's superiors. That commitment to all of the employees of the ministry stands. If there are matters that the employee's superiors should know about, all employees should feel confident in coming forward. If there are no other issues that might get in the way, then there would clearly be no discipline taken for simply honouring their duty to report those matters to their superiors.

D. Mitchell: I have one final question, then, to the Attorney General about this matter at Alouette River. Yesterday he indicated that he didn't feel that it would be appropriate for the independent office of inspection and standards to be involved in this kind of investigation because it might presumably be the subject of a police investigation or other reviews that are ongoing in the ministry.

If the matters at Alouette River are not referred to this independent office that's been established -- and he's indicated that there might be an issue here of harassment; I've suggested that there might be other serious matters dealing with drugs and the smuggling of drugs into correctional facilities -- could the minister tell us why these matters are not appropriate to refer to that independent officer? Why would they be out of the ambit of the officer, according to the Attorney General?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: At this stage it is not appropriate for Mr. Anderson's office to be involved. That does not mean that at some other stage it might not be appropriate.

K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister some questions relating to the sale from this province to other parts of the world, including the United States, of lottery tickets. Why, as I asked at the last session we had, has the minister failed to enforce the law which was passed in July 1993 that explicitly prevents the sale of any type of lottery tickets from within the province or the indication that there is any sale available? In fact, I would read the announcements of the Minister of Government Services of July 14, 1993, called "Lottery Ticket Resales To Be Regulated":

"'Lottery ticket resale businesses currently sell tickets to customers in the United States and Asia without any regulation. Government intends to develop regulations to ensure that reselling activities are conducted to the same standard that applies to the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

"'Concerns have been expressed around protection of consumers and British Columbia's reputation with the international lottery community, given the current lack of regulations.

"'Government regulations will be developed to address three areas of concern around the resale of lottery tickets: the nature of advertising, the financial solvency of commercial operations and their operating controls, and contravention of codes of conduct of international state lottery associations.' Government will be developing regulations to address these concerns and will consult with the lottery ticket resale businesses this fall on the timing for implementation of regulations."

That came out on July 14, 1993; on July 30, 1993, a further news release from the Minister of Government Services stated:

"Legislative amendments to the Lottery Corporation Act passed earlier this week banning the resale of lottery tickets to persons outside of B.C. will go into effect early next week. An order-in-council approved today will bring the legislation into effect when it is deposited with the registrar of regulations Tuesday, August 3, 1993.

"The legislation is designed to address specific concerns, including: the nature of advertising, the financial solvency of ticket resale commercial operations and their operating controls, and contravention of codes of conduct of international state lottery associations. The lack of regulations governing this industry had given rise to concerns around the protection of consumers and British Columbia's reputation within the international lottery community."

That legislation specifically details the following items. This is taken from the Lottery Corporation Act,

section 10.1.

"

(1) In this

section 'resell' means, in relation to lottery tickets,

"(

a) to resell one or more lottery tickets after they have been purchased from a person authorized under this Act to sell the tickets at retail,

"(

b) to sell an interest in one or more lottery tickets that have been or are to be purchased from a person authorized under this Act to sell the tickets at retail, or

"(

c) to sell an interest in any prizes won as a result of participation in a lottery scheme for which one or more lottery tickets have been or are to be purchased from a person authorized under this Act to sell the tickets at retail.

[ Page 13704 ]

"

(2) A person must not, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

"(

a) resell or offer to resell lottery tickets to a person outside British Columbia;

"(

b) advertise to resell lottery tickets to a person outside British Columbia or advertise regarding the possibility of such resale;

"(

c) distribute lottery tickets for the purpose of reselling referred to in paragraph (a);

"(

d) have in the person's possession lottery tickets for the purpose of reselling referred to in paragraph (a);

"(

e) conspire with another person to do anything referred to in paragraphs (

a) to (d).

"

(3) A person who contravenes subsection (2) commits an offence and, on conviction, is liable to a fine of not more than $100,000."

Could the minister tell us which, if any, sections of this legislation are unenforceable?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not quite sure where the member is going, but the law is enforceable. If the courts tell us otherwise at some stage, we'll have to have a look at it, but in the meantime, it's enforceable.

K. Jones: I wasn't quite clear what the answer to the question was. Which part of this, if any, is unenforceable?

An Hon. Member: It's all enforceable.

K. Jones: Has the minister indicated that it's all enforceable? I wasn't quite sure; I was interrupted by your House Leader.

Interjections.

K. Jones: Okay. It's all enforceable.

Could the Attorney General tell us under what basis...? What type of enforcement has been done under any of these clauses?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I indicated to the member yesterday that.... I'll just read what I said: "...the matter is under investigation by the police." There is an ongoing investigation, and if we're advised of any allegations, we refer those to the police, as the member should do.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what portion of this legislation is under investigation by the police? Is every phase of this under investigation by the police? Surely he cannot hide behind an investigation as the reason for not answering which

section of this he has done any enforcement under.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I never comment, nor should any Attorney General ever comment, on the nature or extent of a police investigation. The member should know that.

K. Jones: The minister is fully aware that there were persons identified as having, in this past year, lost money as a result of operations occurring here in British Columbia. I'm sure that the information has been brought to his attention; it was well publicized. Could the minister tell us if this is the investigation he is referring to? Or is he referring to some other investigation? This current investigation of some Americans who have bought lottery tickets from operations here in British Columbia.... Is this the one that he's referring to?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not going to comment on that, but simply repeat that all matters that suggest criminality are referred to the police.

K. Jones: The Better Business Bureau of the mainland of British Columbia has had a lot of complaints with regard to offshore lottery operations and has identified -- and it's public information -- the outfits that have been doing business here in British Columbia. It should not require a great deal of investigative difficulty, or be any problem for the minister to take action with regard to even one aspect of this legislation, and there are many different aspects that the minister could probably look into. But these operations still continue to operate today, because the minister or his staff has failed to take any action against these people.

[3:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to interrupt the member. I don't know whether he needs a civics lesson or whether he needs a basic political science lesson about the nature of how our society works. The Attorney General does not investigate alleged criminal activities, nor does the Attorney General's staff investigate alleged criminal activities. That's the job of the police. Through -- what? -- four sets of estimates I've had similar questions from this member. I don't know what it takes -- or how long it's going to take me -- to try to explain to the member what the role of the police is in our society.

Any matters that people feel are of a criminal nature are referred to the police. They are not referred to the Attorney General; or if they are referred to the Attorney General, they are immediately re-referred to the police. They are the investigative agency for criminal wrongdoing in this country. I've said this to the member for four years; how long is it going to take?

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

K. Jones: It'll probably take as long as it takes to get a straight, honest answer out of the minister. The minister has been failing to proceed in taking action, although he insisted that this legislation was absolutely required on a very short-notice basis and was going to be implemented within six weeks of the legislation being brought forward, and has failed to bring forward anything on that charge that he was supposedly investigating. I have my doubts about whether there was any investigation being done at that time. I think that the minister possibly misled this House in bringing forward that information.

Interjections.

K. Jones: The Attorney General brought this legislation before this House and indicated that it was essential to have it passed and that it was important to have it passed very quickly at that time, in order to take some action. That action was never proceeded with.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to take a relaxed attitude toward the allegation, rather than get into a brouhaha with the member. Simply to say that the initiative last year was urgent.... Let me simply say that the member doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. It would be appropriate for him to move on to a new topic.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member, can I just suggest that we are, I think, very close to the end of these

[ Page 13705 ]

estimates? I suggest that a little greater degree of civility on both sides would probably be helpful. I just offer that caution, members.

K. Jones: I'd like to read an item from one of these reports. The report indicates that this company contacts U.S. consumers by telephone, offering B.C. lottery tickets at inflated prices. Is that an illegal offence?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's not for me to say whether an offence is illegal or not. That's a job the courts do in this society.

K. Jones: Is the Attorney General responsible for the law in British Columbia?

The Chair: Shall the vote pass?

Interjections.

The Chair: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale continues.

K. Jones: The Attorney General doesn't know whether he's responsible for the enforcement of law in British Columbia. He's indicated that by his response.

Interjections.

K. Jones: The Attorney General, as the chief law enforcement officer of British Columbia, has full responsibilities through his prosecution arm for the enforcement of the laws. I certainly hope that he would feel that responsibility, since if he is not, we are wasting our time bringing legislation before this House.

Interjection.

K. Jones: It's really unfortunate that the backbenchers of your party, hon. minister, feel this to be rather sensitive. They're having some difficulty realizing that this a very serious charge that is being brought here, and one that is meant in all conscience when I make it.

These operations are continuing to operate in British Columbia. There are a very large number of them. They are operating under various names, which I have documented right here in front of me. I'm sure the Attorney General has these names. If the Attorney General does not have these names, I would like to know why. If he doesn't, I will be happy to show them to him.

If the minister has these names -- and they're indicated by a series of letters that complain to the people who say such things as, "I never purchased this said lottery, nor did I ever receive any such lottery" -- I ask the minister: is this an offence under this legislation?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: All information that has come into the possession of the ministry has been forwarded to the police. Since the member seems unable to do the same, I would be happy to take the material from the member so that I can deliver it to the police, where it belongs.

K. Jones: The reason this information has come to me is that there has been no action, and the people in the Better Business Bureau have concerns that the people who have brought these complaints are not being properly protected from what would appear to be illegal operations here in British Columbia. They would appear to be in total violation of the amendments to the Lottery Act of July 1993, and the minister appears not to want to take any action in directing his staff to protect the interests of these people or of British Columbians who are also possibly affected by this same type of operation.

Could the minister try to give us a straight answer about what is going on in any of this, or even answer whether any of the complaints described fall into the category of this legislation? It's a very simple question. Would that type of complaint be in violation of this legislation?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know how many times I have to say it. First, any information alleging criminal wrongdoing should be in the hands of the police; and second, I make no comment at any time about police investigations.

The Chair: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale on a different matter.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us whether it is his responsibility to be able to identify what is or is not an infraction of a bill that regulates activities in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We'll try this from the beginning. Parliament passes laws. If someone feels that there is a criminal breach of one of those laws, they report that to the police. The police investigate. The police then determine the facts. They refer those facts to the Crown. The Crown makes a decision whether charges should be laid, and if so, which ones. Following that, the courts makes a decision about the facts, and that's the end of it. I don't know whether the member has understood how the criminal justice system works, but in short form, that's how it works.

That should put an end to the questions. If it doesn't, I'll repeat the answer again and again until the member shows some level of comprehension.

K. Jones: Is the minister's ministry responsible for the police in the province of British Columbia?

The Chair: Member, I'm placed in an awkward position, because it seems to me almost a rhetorical question, and we are on the fourth day of estimates now, I think. Certainly the minister has an obligation to answer questions of substance, but.... Anyway, Mr. Attorney.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Police in British Columbia can be divided into three categories: the federal government has responsibility, the provincial Attorney General has responsibility and the municipalities have responsibility.

K. Jones: Could the Attorney General tell us if there are certain police responsibilities that come under the Attorney General's jurisdiction that relate to the enforcement of provincial legislation?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think I am going to answer that question by saying that the Attorney General does not direct

[ Page 13706 ]

the police in respect of individual investigations, as to what they should or shouldn't do. The police are independent from the political process, and so they should be.

K. Jones: I will ask the same question with regard to whether the minister has any portion of his ministry that is responsible for the prosecution of provincial legislation.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am sure the member knows the answer to that. Yes.

[4:00]

K. Jones: We are making tremendous progress. We have finally got an admission, after all of this effort, that the Attorney General does have some responsibility to look after provincial legislation, including -- and I believe he has to admit -- both the policing responsibility and the prosecution responsibility of violations of provincial legislation.

Now, that concluded, I hope the minister isn't going to backtrack on the fact that he does have responsibility in those two areas. Surely the minister cannot now say that he does not know what is going on in his ministry with regard to prosecution or policing. Could the minister answer whether he is knowledgable of what is going on in his ministry in the prosecution and policing areas with regard to the Lottery Corporation Act?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes, but I am not going to share it with the member.

K. Jones: Now we are making great progress. We have now, after all that playing of games, come to the conclusion that the minister does have knowledge which he is not willing to divulge. He is not, therefore, prepared to tell the public why they have to continue to have injurious activities -- injurious to their financial means or other means -- carrying on when the minister has the ability to put a stop to them under the legislation. The question is: why has the minister failed to enforce the legislation over the last two, going on three, years?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I do feel like I need to take a shower. On a serious note, hon. Chair, in case there is a misapprehension anywhere that we don't treat seriously these issues, I want to set the member straight. Matters of this kind are taken seriously; and I simply want to say to the member again that there is a police investigation and that is all I can say about it. I don't know why the member can't understand that it is inappropriate for any further comment to be made.

In refusing to comment, or in refusing to answer the kinds of questions and suggestions that the member is making, he should not draw an inference that criminal wrongdoing is treated lightly by the justice system, by this ministry or by this minister. It certainly is not.

K. Jones: Perhaps the minister or this ministry doesn't take it lightly, but the people in the business of selling lottery tickets, which is illegal under this legislation, are taking it very lightly, because they're continuing to operate. Surely the minister has to do something to put a stop to this. Is the minister doing anything to put a stop to this? Secondly, is the minister referring to the investigation of the allegations of wrongdoing that had been brought forward through requests to the Better Business Bureau this last year, or is he referring to the investigation that was started prior to July 1993?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not making any specific references whatsoever.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, I would ask him to just take his seat for a moment. I certainly have no wish, as the servant of this chamber, to impede the debate. However, I must point out that I'm honour-bound by the rules of this assembly to remind you of standing order 43. This is simply my first notice that standing order 43 -- persistence in tediousness and repetitiousness -- is in fact being manifested before my eyes. I caution the member on that, and I hope I won't have to remind him of that again.

K. Jones: I have certainly been aware of that from the time I started. I was hoping that we would have a straightforward set of answers on this subject and that we wouldn't be belabouring the issue, but it seems to be very hard to get an answer from the Attorney General on what is a very, very serious concern to a lot of people in British Columbia. It's a concern as to the credibility of law enforcement and prosecution forces within this province, and it is certainly a question of the credibility of the Attorney General's office itself.

I have followed this issue from the time we were told that this had to come through as a quick piece of legislation, in July of '93, and that prosecution was going to be within six or seven weeks. Having had conversations with the Attorney General himself about the status of it when that time had expired, and having written letters to his deputies and assistant deputies, and having had to go all the way to the freedom-of-information commissioner in order to try and get a response from them, I then got a response stating that there was no investigation going on.

The Attorney General seems to have given us a different statement today than his staff indicated in the letter -- which is under his signature, I believe -- that was sent out to us.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wonder if the member would just share the letter with me. I want to confirm again that there is an ongoing investigation.

K. Jones: I think the minister should be aware of this issue. It should be -- to me, at least, and I think to a lot of people in British Columbia -- a very major

part in his memory files or in his attention area. He surely hasn't just cast this off to some minor person to look after and is just letting it float along. It certainly would be the desire of those people who are in the business to have that happen, and perhaps that's very beneficial to them. I don't know on what basis that decision is being made. The minister is going to have to be answerable as to why this is occurring, and I think that there is a real need for something to be done right up front.

Since the minister does not wish to provide anything further in this area, I will not belabour the issue any longer in this question period, but the minister can be assured that this issue is not dead. The issue will be continually brought to his attention until there is prosecution of these processes. With that, I will stand down from this item, and we can talk about the other items. I have a couple of other items I would also like to ask the minister about.

I'd like to go into the area of aboriginal or Indian gaming, as it's referred to in the United States, and the enforcement of promotions of that in British Columbia. There have been cases

[ Page 13707 ]

of faxes being sent to people in British Columbia inviting them to participate in a series of phone calls to 900 numbers, which costs money for the 900 number and also involves people in putting out money to participate in it. Is this an illegal activity in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I didn't hear precisely what the word "this" referred to.

K. Jones: The activity of promoting lotteries run by American Indians in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Based on that kind of information, I can't draw any conclusions. If there is any doubt in the member's mind about whether that's an illegal activity, and if he has any information that would be useful, he should report it to the police.

K. Jones: From the RCMP, I have a letter to me dated March 14, 1995. It is from the staff sergeant of the White Rock RCMP, indicating that they had investigated this.

"We subsequently sought further analysis of the documents...by our E Division commercial crime

section as well as the Vancouver RCMP criminal investigation unit. Both departments advised that they have been unsuccessful in acquiring convictions in court in the recent past concerning similar schemes. As a result, they have been referring the information directly to United States authorities, who have been successful in their prosecutions."

Could the Attorney General tell us why it is possible to prosecute in the United States, while this cannot be prosecuted here in Canada where the people are being victimized?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member would be kind enough to pass a copy of the details of his file to us, we would be very happy to review the matter, make a determination and get back to the member with an appropriate response.

K. Jones: I would like to read the following sentence after that last one I gave you: "After receiving this assessment, we referred this matter to Surrey provincial Crown counsel for their opinion as well. Crown counsel has subsequently informed us that the chance of a successful prosecution would be remote."

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The decision about whether or not prosecution proceeds depends on the facts of the case. If the member wants that particular case reviewed by senior Crown counsel in Victoria, I would be happy to accommodate him.

K. Jones: I am surprised that the minister isn't informed when references like this -- which are not just single incidents but a canvass of fax machines throughout British Columbia, where people who participated in it are open for victimization.... From my understanding of our lotteries legislation, this would be part of an illegal operation in British Columbia. Why the Attorney General wasn't aware of this information -- and I gave a complete package of this to the RCMP and they passed it on to Crown counsel... Why hasn't further inquiry been done by the Attorney General's office?

[4:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I try to do a good job, but I have trouble remembering the details of 100,000 cases a year that go through the criminal justice branch. Obviously, I am not informed of or advised about very many of that large number, nor would anybody expect that I should be. But my offer stands. If the member wants further consideration of this issue by senior Crown counsel at headquarters here in Victoria, that offer is open to him.

K. Jones: I will make sure that the minister's staff has the information he desires.

I would like to ask the minister what his view is on mandatory mediation screening and orientation prior to family and civil cases.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Mandatory mediation is not something we think is appropriate.

K. Jones: Why doesn't the minister feel that mandatory mediation screening in family and civil cases is a good idea?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Mediation only works when the parties involved want to resolve their dispute. If one party or the other -- or both, for that matter -- aren't interested in mediated settlement, it is pretty tough to get a mediated settlement.

K. Jones: Perhaps the minister would be interested in knowing that the province of Saskatchewan already practises this. Perhaps he may want to look into the Saskatchewan process.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I will double-check, but my memory of the Saskatchewan policy is that it flows from legislation, as opposed to ours, which flows from a policy determination. Unless the member can send me a copy of the statute, which I don't have here, that demonstrates I'm wrong, I don't believe they practise mandatory mediation.

K. Jones:

"In the last session of the Saskatchewan Legislature, two new sections were added to the Queen's Bench Act. The full text of the new sections is attached as appendix A. Essentially the new provisions require that parties to all proceedings in the court must attend a mediation session, or in the case of a family law proceeding, a screening and orientation session. Attendance at such a session is mandatory unless the mediator excuses the parties because of concerns of power imbalance or safety of the parties, or because the mediator is satisfied that the parties have already engaged in a bona fide mediation session."

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd want to look at that and read it again. On first hearing, it says something different from what the member said it said -- but I don't want to quibble on that.

One of my major concerns about mediation.... Let me go back a step further. I'm a great supporter of mediated resolution to family dispute matters, and I've said that in the House many times, including during these estimates. One of the things I'm most concerned about with respect to mediated solutions is the potential of the power imbalance which can exist between men and women in particular. All too often that power imbalance is an impediment to the use of mediation. So I am not prepared to encourage its use where that kind of power imbalance occurs. The member may want to adopt that policy; I haven't. So if he does, he and I have a difference of opinion.

[ Page 13708 ]

K. Jones: Just to further enlighten the minister: "The

section of the legislation in relation to family screening and orientation sessions,

section 54(1), was proclaimed into force effective February 1, 1995. The

section in relation to civil mediation came into force effective December 1, 1994." I think that if the minister had been listening he would have noted the provisions for the mediator to excuse parties because of concerns of power imbalance, which is what he is concerned about.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Again, I'm not an expert on the Saskatchewan legislation, nor have I read it directly. But listening to what the member says, it sounds to me like they do require mandatory screening, and they have a mandatory obligation to consider mediation. But if the parties are not going to benefit from mediation, they can't be forced into a room with a mediator to try and resolve their issue. The member read nothing that indicated that the law in Saskatchewan requires the parties to sit down with a mediator and mediate a resolution.

It might require that they consider that option, and it might require that there be screening. From what I've heard the member read, it certainly doesn't require that they participate in a process which wouldn't work -- because all someone who didn't want to be involved in a mediated settlement would do would be to sit in a room with their arms across their chest saying and doing nothing.

K. Jones: I fully agree with the minister being concerned about that, but it seems that the people on the Saskatchewan Queen's Bench feel that it is mandatory. It states that it is mandatory. It says that the parties shall attend mediation screening and orientation sessions, with the exception of where the mediator finds that there is a safety question or a power question. I understand the Attorney General's concern about that area, but I really think the Attorney General needs to look seriously at some methods like this to start alleviating the large backup that's occurring in our courts.

That is not being dealt with properly. People are not getting justice because it's taking over a year to get to their case. Is the Attorney General doing anything to try to resolve this by a mediation method?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know where the member has been for the last number of years, but I'm sure he is aware of the family court counselling program offered by probation officers in British Columbia.

I had hoped that the member would have been aware of the family justice pilot projects which are underway in four communities around the province -- one just across the Fraser River from the member, in Burnaby-New Westminster, where we are piloting an approach to family justice issues which relies on mediation, conciliation, counselling and assistance rather than on the arbitrariness of an adversarial court system. I have obviously failed in my responsibility to convey to all British Columbians that these initiatives are underway, because clearly here's one British Columbian who doesn't know about it.

K. Jones: I'll accept that personal comment, but it doesn't change the concern and the need and doesn't.... A few pilot projects aren't going to resolve the court backlog you've got seriously affecting justice for people in our province. Has the minister also looked at alternatives, although we haven't seen any indication of them? I don't see anything in this budget that indicates that we might have evening sittings of our courts so that our court buildings might get better utilization. Has the Attorney General looked at that aspect?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Ministry of Attorney General has looked at that idea over the years, including before I assumed this responsibility.

K. Jones: What conclusion has the Attorney General made with regard to that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's not a simple issue, first of all. There are issues involving the judiciary, who are independent from government, requiring setting up a situation where I can't simply do something that they may not want to do, and for very good reason. Budgetary questions that don't present themselves at first blush come from extended sittings. Notionally it makes sense to use buildings that are expensive to their fullest possible extent. That notion exists around schools, where people are now contemplating year-round schooling. That kind of idea has a superficial appeal to it.

Often, however, when you start to look at the other costs that come from those ideas, you learn that the savings aren't there in quite the way you thought they might be when you took a simple-minded look at it.

K. Jones: I don't think any persons would take any simple-minded looks at anything like this. I think it's a very serious desire to try and rectify a serious court problem, and it certainly looks like it would provide some efficiency in the use of very expensive court buildings. Has the Attorney General got a study underway that's evaluating this factor? Could I have a copy of that study?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're continuing to look at how we might, if we can, move in those directions. There have been initiatives in the past that haven't worked; it may be because those initiatives weren't designed as well as they might have been. We're continuing to look at the issue. The member refers to a study or a report. I think it's just a question of work being done internally in the ministry at the present time.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what dollars and what FTEs have been assigned to that purpose?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It doesn't work that way, hon. Chair. The court services branch of the ministry, as part of its regular work, is constantly reviewing how they can make more efficient use of the courts and of the space. That's work they do as a matter of course. You don't set up a special branch or special unit to do that; that's the obligation of the people who manage the court services branch.

K. Jones: Could the minister inquire about the status of the work being done by the court services branch and inform us within the week as to what is transpiring?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The status is that it is ongoing, and when conclusions are reached that the ministry executive wishes to implement, that will be made known at that time.

[4:30]

J. Dalton: I have two or three issues I wish to raise with regard to the city of Vancouver and local policing issues. The

[ Page 13709 ]

reason why I'm using the city of Vancouver is, obviously, that the city, being the largest in the province, is somewhat unique in its policing costs. I'm sure the Attorney General would agree with me that obviously many legal -- and criminal, particularly -- matters get dumped into the city of Vancouver because of its location, its size and its attraction. We know that people from many parts of the rest of the country -- and elsewhere in the world, of course -- end up in Vancouver, either temporarily or otherwise. Without question it has a very significant impact on policing costs in particular.

There are several things that I will get to in a moment, hon. Chair, but the issue deals with the financing of local policing services in Vancouver itself. I recall the Attorney General made a reference -- yesterday, if I'm correct; or maybe it was the day before -- to policing in some of the small locations in his own riding, and said that he would like to have more money in order to provide police officers for Port McNeill, perhaps, or Holberg, or Cape Scott or wherever it may be -- or however far north you can go on Vancouver Island. We all appreciate that funding is a delicate matter at the best of times, and that we are not in the best of times now.

The city of Vancouver has addressed several issues, which I'll get to in a moment; but let me just cite from a document they have produced as a result of a meeting last month when the policing issues matter was before city council and their committees. They're dealing with the current independent policing equalization grant allocation. Of course, as the committee will obviously suspect, the city of Vancouver has raised some major concerns about policing costs within their jurisdiction, which costs they consider to be unfair and should either be shared or taken over by the province.

For example, this reports says that the city is either inadequately or not reimbursed for a number of functions it undertakes on behalf of the provincial government. They deal within the document with several of those, which I will ask the Attorney General about -- dealing with the city jail, for example. Of course, I suppose we might think at first blush that it's the city's responsibility, because, after all, every courthouse in every jurisdiction whereby people are going to be processed through the criminal courts will have to have a jail facility of some type. I come back to my opening comments.

The city of Vancouver is in a unique position, because of both population and other circumstances, whereby many people end up in their jail and court system who would not be a factor in any other municipality in this province.

Under the discussion in this report of the city jail, the report points out that the Vancouver police department has consistently maintained that the province is responsible for the custody of prisoners, and they go over some of the history as to why they feel that, including a legal opinion from the then corporate counsel for the city of Vancouver in 1986. He stated an opinion on that topic of the responsibility of the province for the city jail that the Vancouver police department spends approximately $2.5 million annually to incarcerate provincial prisoners, and none of that is reimbursed."

Can the Attorney General advise us as to whether that figure of $2.5 million is accurate? Has the Attorney General considered reimbursement in the past, or will he be considering that in the future?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't comment -- because I don't know -- on the accuracy of the costs to the city of Vancouver, but I do know that we provide $800,000 to the city of Vancouver, contrary to what information the member may have been given, for what we call the keep-of-prisoners program.

J. Dalton: I appreciate that aspect. But I think this report.... I don't know whether the Attorney General's had an opportunity...or whether it's even been sent to his ministry. But I'd be more than happy to provide a copy once we're finished. It's a report of fairly recent date. There are no deep dark secrets in it, but I think the issues are important.

Coming out of that particular issue, hon. Chair, dealing with the city jail, there are two recommendations: first, that the provincial government accept responsibility for the funding and operation of the city jail; and second, that until such time as the provincial government is prepared to undertake that operation, it provide full funding to the city of Vancouver for the operation of the jail.

I suppose that some will say: "Well, that's fine. Everyone wants money, and everyone will have their requests." I think that request is certainly one that has some merit and should be considered. I'm not an MLA from the city of Vancouver, so I'm not specifically speaking on behalf of the city as such, other than I think it's an important issue to raise and draw to the attention of the ministry.

The other issue that I will comment on from the same report -- and there are actually five or six in total, but I think this other one is illustrative of the difficulties and the issues that the city of Vancouver is facing which are somewhat unique, as opposed to other municipalities -- and that's dealing with document delivery services. We have some interesting history -- I'll just allude to this very quickly, hon. Chair -- about the costing and the sharing of costs of document delivery services by municipalities in this province.

Prior to April 1, 1984, all documents relating to criminal cases were served by the sheriff services division of the Ministry of Attorney General. Then in that year, 1984, a decision was made to transfer this responsibility to the individual municipalities. Then they go on to discuss some of the transfer aspects.

Funding was not provided by the provincial government until September 1985, when the Minister of Municipal Affairs agreed to reimburse the municipalities at a rate of $10 per document served. Then we're told, as well, in the same document, that there have been further reviews of the funding, and of whether the $10 fee was adequate or not. In 1989, a report was produced from the then Solicitor General -- and, of course, we no longer have a Solicitor General; but the Solicitor General of the time conducted a review.

In 1990, the new Solicitor General -- there had been a change in that ministry in the meantime -- again advised the city of Vancouver that a review was underway and was expected to be completed in the 1990 fiscal year.

A recommendation had been made to the Treasury Board to increase the document service fee to $25. That has never happened. The recommendations coming out of that aspect are that the provincial government resume responsibility for the service of documents -- in other words, the city of Vancouver is inviting the Attorney General's ministry to take back what it used to have, which would take care of their funding deficiencies -- or that the provincial government establish a fee payment

schedule for adequate reimbursement on all documents. Can the Attorney General advise us as to whether

[ Page 13710 ]

either of those options is feasible -- either the provincial government taking back the responsibility that it used to have or...? Are there any serious considerations for an increase in the fee from the current $10 to whatever it might be?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are a whole range of issues between us and the municipalities in respect of direct or indirect policing costs. We are working with the UBCM to deal with some of these issues. We are looking at the issues that the member raised and at other issues as well.

J. Dalton: I just have two other fairly brief items that I would like to ask about, and then maybe we'll be in the happy position to say, "Adieu," and "Until we meet again."

I have in my hand a copy of a letter -- it's dated December of this year -- from the representative of the West Coast Transition House. Perhaps the authorship or the identity of this association isn't as important as the issue that was raised. This woman, who has been in contact with criminal justice headquarters on Hornby Street, raised the question as to whether children who witness violence are indeed themselves abused. I don't have the actual originating letter that raised this concern, but a copy did go to the Attorney General, among other people. And I think it's an interesting point.

We in this committee talk about victims of crime. Obviously, the abuse of children has to be of paramount concern to all of us and not just to the ministry whose estimates we're now dealing with. Is the Attorney General aware of this particular issue that's been raised? If so, can he comment as to the point that the letter writer is making, which is that we should consider that children who have that very unfortunate experience of witnessing abuse...? I guess we would say that they're not being directly abused -- they're not being physically assaulted -- but I think it's important to consider that these people have suffered harm just as much as anyone, in a real sense.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not quite sure where the member is going with this. If he's asking me to agree that children who witness violence are not themselves impacted by that violence, of course.... If he's asking for a programmatic response, then I am not able to respond at this point.

J. Dalton: Perhaps one direction that we might go in -- and this may be more speculative than real.... Earlier we discussed amendments or possible changes to the Criminal Injury Compensation Act. I don't know how far the government might be prepared to cast the net in dealing with victims within the purview of that statute, but this might be one area. Again, we have to consider the financial and legal implications, but that might be a direction to go in. I just wanted to flag that concern.

I think it identifies another area where perhaps in the past the court system and the compensation system haven't really taken these things adequately into account. Maybe it is time to move one step further into that area.

The last thing I wish to ask the Attorney General -- and perhaps it is not directly a question I should put to him, but he deals with the legal services tax.... The Attorney General will recall that controversial tax we brought in 1992, and it was shot down by the courts. Then they brought it back, and I have certainly heard a lot of complaints from lawyers about the tax -- which, by the way, I would remind everyone is a tax on clients. It is not a tax on the lawyer; it is not a tax on the law firm. It is passed on to clients like any other tax. My question: can the Attorney General advise us as to the annual revenue that is produced by the legal services tax?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That is a question that should really go to the Minister of Finance. None of that actually has anything to do with the AG ministry.

J. Dalton: That covers the things I wish to canvass, and I don't see anyone else around me who is ready, unless there is anyone over there who wants to raise a question.

I would like to conclude by saying a particular thank-you to your very patient officials. I know these estimates can sometimes be a little strenuous. When I haven't been asking questions, I have certainly been looking across the room to see reactions and the attentiveness of all of your people -- including, of course, the Attorney General himself. It has been helpful; I know that we have learned a lot. There are probably many, many other issues that we will have to canvass, but we don't need to do that here. We can do that through correspondence, meetings and things of that nature. Again, my thanks, and that's all I have for this committee.

[4:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I just want to thank the member, the critic for the official opposition for the Attorney General ministry, for his courtesy in the five days we have been at this now. I say thank you to him for the way he has handled himself in these estimate debates. I want to indicate to him that if there are any other issues that are unfinished as a result of our discussions, he should feel free to contact the appropriate ministry officials.

With that, I also want to say thank you to all the people from our ministry who have assisted in these estimate debates -- some of whom members see around me; many others are elsewhere, paying close attention to the discussions and making sure that I get the information I need. Any errors or omissions that have occurred are my responsibility. My staff have done excellent work for us all, and I thank them.

Vote 17 approved.

Vote 18: ministry operations, $781,489,552 -- approved.

Vote 19: statutory services, $15,000,000 -- approved.

Vote 20: judiciary, $34,799,720 -- approved.

Vote 21: emergency assistance, $993,076 -- approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 2.

[ Page 13711 ]

BUDGET MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1995

Hon. E. Cull: During the prebudget consultation I did this year, I talked to a wide cross-section of British Columbians. It became apparent that there was an honest difference of opinion as to what the government should do once it had achieved a balanced budget. There were some who argued that the government should go beyond the three-year tax freeze, which is currently in its second year, and make further significant reductions in taxes.

However, during my consultations with labour and business, community leaders, community organizations and just regular folks around the province, a majority of people made the point that -- given the circumstances facing our province right now -- it is important that we maintain a balanced budget, that we reduce the size of our tax-supported debt in relation to the size of our economy, and that we preserve vital public services such as medicare and education.

Essentially, what they were telling me is that given the small surplus, the need to focus on debt and the significant federal off-loading that will affect medicare, higher education and social services over the next two years, this was not the year to make large tax cuts. So Bill 2 reflects the government's decision to follow the approach that was recommended to me by the majority of the citizens of this province whom I consulted.

In keeping with the approach, Bill 2 makes a number of minor amendments to improve the fairness of six provincial taxation statutes, to provide support to the agricultural and mining sectors, and to amend the Ferry Corporation Act to allow it to proceed with investments required to ensure that ferry service keeps pace with increasing demand.

The specific taxation changes are as follows. As announced in a news release last August, provincial income tax amendments are required to harmonize our provincial Income Tax Act with the federal treatment of mine reclamation trusts. The federal legislation now permits contributions to mine reclamation trusts to be deducted for income tax purposes. Income earned in the trust is taxed on an annual basis, and a special refundable tax credit is provided to beneficiaries of the trust to avoid double taxation.

The consequential amendments in this bill harmonize provincial legislation with federal legislation by imposing provincial income tax on the trust and providing a refundable tax credit to the beneficiaries of the trust. The income tax treatment of mine reclamation trusts is consistent among all provinces.

In combination with the federal changes, this legislation will help protect the environment by ensuring that funds are available for future reclamation; improve cash flow, making the trust contributions deductible for tax purposes; and improve tax equity for single-mine companies by matching the tax deduction with income earned from the mine on a current basis.

The corporation capital tax is amended to allow an interest in mining reclamation trusts to be eligible for the investment allowance deduction. This will reduce the impact of the capital tax on mining companies which choose to use reclamation trusts to fund reclamation activities.

The Home Owner Grant Act is also amended to increase the threshold at which the grant is phased out, from $450,000 to $475,000. The increased threshold will ensure that 95 percent of homeowners in British Columbia continue to be unaffected by the phase-out of the grant.

Bill 2 also makes several changes to the Social Service Tax Act to improve fairness, and two amendments to support the agricultural and mining sectors. The measures to improve fairness include clarifying the application of tax to software and extending the proportional refund period from 90 days to one year for motor vehicles returned to dealers. This will allow the purchasers of lemons to obtain a tax refund.

The support for the agricultural and mining sector is provided by providing tax refunds to farmers who purchase prescribed farm equipment in the two-year period immediately prior to obtaining farmland classification, and by transferring the existing 50 percent refund for purchases of certain exploratory mining equipment from the Financial Administration Act to the Social Service Tax Act, increasing the refund to 100 percent and expanding the list of equipment eligible for the refund.

The Property Transfer Tax Act is amended to address issues of fairness which have come to light in the last year. The changes prevent the loss of the first-time homebuyers' exemption where death or divorce occurs in the first year after purchasing a home. It exempts the Provincial Capital Commission on purchases of land for park purposes and expands the exemption for transfers of land related to bankruptcies. The latter amendment expands the current exemption for transfers of property from trustees in bankruptcy to bankrupts, to include transfers of principal residences from trustees to spouses or former spouses of bankrupt persons.

The School Act is amended to clarify that grants in lieu of provincial school taxes paid to municipalities must be transferred to the provincial government. This amendment is required to protect provincial revenue.

Finally, the Ferry Corporation Act is amended to increase the level of outstanding debt the corporation may incur from $460 million to $730 million. This increase is a necessary part of the corporation's plan to upgrade the aging ferry fleet.

Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce the budget measures contained in Bill 2. I now move second reading.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise in my place today to speak to Bill 2, which is the means by which the government will implement the budget measures that were outlined in the House some three weeks ago. It seems incumbent upon the opposition to continually point out, with respect to the budget, that there continues to be in the minds of the public a great deal of confusion about the extent of the debt and the deficit in British Columbia.

We know that in the budget tabled by the government there were several one-time charges, including a downstream benefit to the province which was used on an operational side to reduce the size of the deficit for one year only. The official opposition critic has pointed out often and frequently in this House that the real deficit in British Columbia is some $400 million when the one-time benefits realized in this fiscal year are taken out of the equation, as they will surely have to be in the next fiscal year.

With respect to the other implementation measures in Bill 2, the minister has talked about the measures designed to enhance and promote the mining industry. But when we

[ Page 13712 ]

reflect on the mining sector in British Columbia over the past three and a half years, we see a pattern of reduced investment. We see mine closures that have not been replaced with new exploration. It seems unfortunate, as we get into the last fiscal year or the last budget this government may bring down before the next election, that finally we see some recognition by the government of the state of the mining sector in this province, which continues to produce some $4 billion in total economic activity for British Columbia.

It has taken the government this long to recognize the effects of the corporation capital tax, which continues to apply to the purchases of new machinery equipment -- the kind of purchases that companies make in the province to expand production and hire additional people. It has always baffled t