1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd 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)

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4243 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Costs of Expo 86. Mr. Cocke –– 4243

Rent controls. Mr. Blencoe –– 4244

Federal funding for intensive forest management. Mr. Gabelmann –– 4245

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill M202). Committee stage. (Mr. Ree)

Section 1 –– 4245

Mr. Passarell

Third reading –– 4245

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

On vote 9: minister's office –– 4245

Ms. Brown

Mr. Passarell

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Veitch

Mr. Cocke

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Reynolds

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1984

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair. ]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have some guests in the gallery,

but they're actually joint guests with myself and one of the Clerks of

the House. We happen to have common friends — and I mean common joint

friends, not common. I would like the House to join me in welcoming a

friend of mine from Lantzville, Mrs. Dorothy Cameron, widow of the late

Colin Cameron, who was a member of this Legislature and also a Member

of Parliament in Ottawa. She's accompanied by her daughter Mrs. Isobel

McKenzie and her husband Archie, who just happen to be neighbours of

Mr. Holtby's in Ottawa. They are accompanied by Mr. and Mrs. Peter

Johnson. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we are honoured to have in the

galleries students from Vancouver Christian School in Vancouver East,

who are divided into two sections: those who speak Scotch are presently

heures. Bienvenue!

HON. MR. SMITH: I have an unusual introduction to make, Mr.

Speaker, and that is to introduce to the assembly Women's Suffrage Day,

which we're commemorating today. In this place on this day 77 years ago

— April 5, 1917 — by

an act to amend the Provincial Elections Act,

chapter 23 of the statutes of that year bore the clause: "It shall be

lawful for women to have their names placed upon the register of voters

for an electoral district." I know all members will acknowledge this

day as Women's Suffrage Day in British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: I suspect — I'm not absolutely sure — that it

was my father who introduced the bill. The Attorney-General, who now

belongs to a party that is still a little bit unsettled and disquieted

about the fall of Babylon, might…if he did know that it was my father

who did that, I suppose he would forbear mentioning it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the women, I would like to say thanks to all the fathers of the world who made it possible.

Oral Questions

COSTS OF EXPO 86

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, today I will direct a question or two

to the Premier, who is so anxious to answer questions on Expo 86.

Yesterday we noted that the minister in charge wasn't very anxious. Mr.

Jeff Ketchum, communication director at Expo 86 and a former political

aide in Victoria, has told the media: "Anyone who thinks Bill Bennett

will not shut this down is wrong. They are preparing to face

embarrassment now rather than later." My question is: did the Premier

authorize Mr. Ketchum to make this statement?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is no.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier refused to

reveal the extent of cost escalation in the Expo project. Has the

Premier decided when he will reveal this information to the taxpayers

of this province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I didn't refuse to reveal it;

I said it would be more appropriately revealed by the directors of

Expo, who are managing and directing Expo. I would hope, as well, that

if it is appropriate after the weekend, the chairman and the directors

would share with the people of B.C. the success they are having with

Expo in the development of a budget which, I understand, has increased

substantially, not through failure but through success. The fair which

was bid for and accepted by the IBE was modelled after a size such as

that which took place in Tennessee, which I know the member is familiar

with. Those fairs, which are usually commercial in nature and sponsored

in the private sector, have little international governmental

representation.

What has happened over the years, particularly since Jim Pattison

and a board of directors representing the community have taken over the

fair, with commissioner Patrick Reid and a highly skilled management

team, is that international participation has gone far beyond any fair

of this class. It now approaches the international scale of fair — a

full-scale fair, not as costly, but as internationally important as

that which took place in Montreal. It is the involvement of major

countries, which are not present in the smaller fairs, which has

expanded the opportunities of the fair and the revenue that will accrue

to the fair through rentals and customers. When you gather together

countries like Russia, the United States, Great Britain, China and all

the major powers of the world, plus the large corporations that carry

out that work in the private sector, particularly in the areas of

high-technology, future job-creation projects in transportation and

communications, not just the normal Canadian or west coast of North

America market will be attracted to the fair. It will be an

international attraction, not only for exhibitors but also for

visitors. I think it would be timely, and after this weekend I

sincerely hope that there will be an opportunity for them to make this

information public in a very positive way. I think the fair belongs to

the people of B.C. and Canada, and they should take pride in the extent

to which it is being developed. I sincerely hope, with all of my heart,

that Mr. Pattison will have some reason to make this announcement, and

not have any reason not to make it, after the discussions that are

taking place now.

MR. COCKE: I guess we have coined a new phrase: "Success is another word for restraint."

In any event, will the Premier advise…?

MR. REID: They go together.

MR. COCKE: Do they? From $150 million to $750 million? Interesting restraint.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the Premier to advise us when

he first became aware of the massive cost escalations — and I recognize

that they're tied in with a different type of fair. The reason I'm

asking this is that I understand that there is a good deal of

nervousness somewhere east of us — in Ottawa — about this whole

question of the Expo project. When did the Premier first become aware

of this massive increase?

[ Page 4244 ]

[2:15]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, if there is any nervousness in

Ottawa, it would not be over costs of the fair, because they're not

participating. They might assist in Montreal, and they might intrude in

the province's lotteries after they had an agreement not to to finance

the Calgary Olympics, but they've chosen not to participate in what

will be the largest international event that we will ever host in this

province and which will be of major significance to our country. So

there should be no nervousness there; only relief that somewhere in

this country there's a government that gets things done, not through

government but through harnessing the efforts and energies of people

like Jim Pattison and others. I've said many times.... Pardon?

MS. BROWN: I said yes.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm glad to see you're positive today.

They have donated time and experience which could not be purchased

in any normal commercial or governmental transaction. They're donating

three or four years out of their lives, many on a full-time basis. So

there should be no nervousness.

But there is a nervousness which I share with them: that is, the

concern about whether we can deliver the fair on time. If it can't be

delivered on time, the fair can't take place. Many people say that

there's some fear about the cost of the fair and the finances, and that

if it wasn't on time, that would be the only loss. Unfortunately, the

major loss would be that we would be at a time in its development, if a

disruption took place next year that prevented the fair from coming,

when the countries that have signed up in good faith with our country

and our province — whether Russia, the United States, China or others —

would already have heavy costs invested in the fair in the development

of their pavilions, and in the development of the technology and the

preparation for what's not visible in concrete but is the very essence

of the fair itself — the exhibits.

We must have the assurances now that that won't happen. We've got to

be able to give those assurances internationally to the people who are

participating. That's why it's important now that British Columbians

have those assurances. I sincerely believe that no British Columbian

would want to deny that assurance. I think every British Columbian,

whether they're going to get a job there.... That's a direct benefit,

and they have the most to gain — those who have jobs constructing it or

working in it. Every British Columbian will get some benefit. I can't

think of a single British Columbian who would deny, at this time, that

type of assurance — which would not allow the fair to continue.

MR. COCKE: We're all very nervous.

HON. MR. GARDOM: At 11 percent you should be.

MR. COCKE: I'll ask that member a question later. Nice waste

of question period. I'd like to ask that Liberal member: what

percentage are they here in this province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nine, eight, seven, six, five....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: He's talking about the Socreds and their dwindling…. Anyway, its 11 percent more than the Socreds have federally.

Just one other question. In terms of financing, the Premier tends to

blow smoke at this whole issue — that labour could be the ones who take

it down the tube. The fact of the matter is that when Evan Wolfe

presented the program, he said that he expected $100 million a year

from lottery funds. Will the Premier now advise what the lottery

forecasts are of what money will be raised?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can't give you that information today,

but I'll be glad to bring the information of what Expo Lotto 6-49 has

produced, will produce and will continue to produce until it makes

its....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've never won a dime on that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Mackenzie says he's never

won a dime. It's like anything else — you can't win unless you buy a

ticket. You're always wanting something for nothing.

I would comment again on the member's

preamble to that question, in

which he said that Evan Wolfe presented the initial budget of a smaller

amount than we'll naturally see.... If you can make a comparison, the

difference between what would have been high quality but with less

international interest in and exposure for all our intentions — not

just tourism, but the international attention and marketing and

investment and jobs that we hope will come out of it later, not just

directly but also indirectly through focusing the attention of those

who will make investments in the future in British Columbia in these

areas They'll be here. But it's like comparing what is a very good fair

in my area — the Peachland Fall Fair — with the PNE. What has happened

is that this fair has grown. What's made it grow is that people are

interested in coming to Canada and British Columbia and in gathering

together this technology. But also, we happen to be in a very favoured

spot which is attracting attention, the North American edge of the

Pacific Rim. It's the first major opportunity that the European

community and others will have to compare the technology that they have

to sell and get a better understanding of the vast market and the

technological changes taking place in the Pacific Rim. Obviously there

have been major changes.

I give credit for those changes to Jim Pattison and his board.

They've done a marvellous job of building this exposition into the

world-class fair that it can and will be. I know that every British

Columbian will march along positively in helping to put it on and no

one will stand in its way.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that was a remarkable answer to a question about Evan Wolfe. Thank you very much.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, you're welcome.

RENT CONTROLS

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

[ Page

4245 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Oh! It's all right, you can stay seated, Mr. Minister;

you won't answer questions anyway.

An analysis of the most recent census data shows a serious

affordability problem in rental accommodation. Forty percent of tenants

in the lower mainland are forced to pay more than 30 percent of their

income on rent. Has the minister decided to finally reintroduce a

program of protection against unjustified increases in rent?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, there is a bill before the

House which deals with landlord and tenant rights, and I think it is a

very good one. With regard to the statistical information the member

has mentioned, I'd appreciate receiving a copy of what he has there.

MR. BLENCOE: The Tory government of Saskatchewan has just

introduced a new system under which rent increases are limited to an

average of 5 percent annually. If the Tory government of Saskatchewan

can act to protect tenants, why does this government introduce measures

to cast tenants to the wind and leave them totally unprotected?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the member before,

we have on the order paper a piece of legislation that does not throw

tenants to the wind, but provides for their rights as well as landlord

rights in this province.

MR. BLENCOE: A supplementary. In view of the fact that the

other provincial Tory governments in Canada recognize the need to

protect tenants from unjustified rent increases, why does this

government — and your ministry — continue to isolate itself and B.C.

tenants under the most radical, right-wing economic program in North

America, and indeed, throw tenants to the wind in the province of

British Columbia?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question period rules advise us that questions should not anticipate orders of the day or other matters.

FEDERAL FUNDING FOR

INTENSIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT

MR. GABELMANN: I've got a question for the Minister of

Forests. In September 1982 the federal government offered British

Columbia additional federal funding in the amount of $50 million to $60

million per year for intensive forest management. Will the minister

advise why B.C.'s commitment to this program has been limited by the

provincial government to $5.5 million this year?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member is rather misinformed. The federal government

has made a number of statements about money that could possibly be forthcoming

for forest management. That money somehow has not appeared. As a matter of fact,

our government has, in my budget, approved an amount to extend the current agreement

of $5.5 million. We have signed an agreement with the federal government for

that extension, pending negotiation of an overall agreement. However, unfortunately

even the $5.5 million has not yet been forthcoming from the federal government.

I hope it will be. It's not there yet. So far, as far as this province and

most major provinces are concerned, the mass of money that was announced is

purely mythical.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills in the hands of private members.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill M202.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill M202; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

MR. PASSARELL: We'll be passing the committee stage of this

bill very quickly. It's been a long time in coming. The last time there

was an increase was in 1974. It's an excellent bill, and I thank the

member who brought it forward. We will be debating it today, and the

opposition will be supporting it.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support on this bill as I do the government side.

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill M202, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1984, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 9: minister's office, $200,506.

[2:30]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss corrections, and I

notice that the Attorney-General is all by himself. I doubt that he

would be able to handle these questions on his own, so I'm wondering if

he would like a recess.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Are they on their way?

HON. MR. SMITH: You carry on, and I'll respond.

MS. BROWN: You'll tread water, will you, until they get here?

[ Page 4246 ]

Mr. Chairman — through you to the Attorney-General — I want to talk about the

privatization of the corrections branch. I'm talking about the community

service orders, the diversion programs and the youth programs. These went the

tender route; they were all put out to tender.

Ads were in all of the newspapers asking for people to apply for the

use of these services. Now it seems to me that that is not the correct

way in which to deal with community resources and services to young

people in our community. There should have been some consultation and

quite a bit of community involvement, The volunteer sector at least

should have been a part of deciding who should take over these

responsibilities, which the ministry is no longer interested in

discharging. For example, I want to compare this process with the one

we were involved in between 1972 and 1975, when we were turning over

social programs to the private sector. Public meetings and massive

consultations took place beforehand, and the decisions were generally

made by the community at large — not only by the people involved but by

those who were going to be affected by these decisions.

It has been brought to my attention that some of the contracts such

as the Fraser Valley community service order program have actually been

given to a group which has no record of community involvement at all.

Maybe the minister wants to set the record straight. Maybe this is just

an ugly rumour and there is no truth to this fact. In any event, I

would like the minister to comment on the fact that, despite the

Premier's commitment that changes which took place affecting the public

would be subject to public discussion, communication, cooperation and

consultation, this has not taken place in the area of privatizing

either the community service orders, the diversion programs or the

youth programs.

I want to ask specifically why the community service order program

was combined with the diversion program in Victoria, thus setting one

agency against the other in terms of bidding. I know that there was an

attempt to abolish the diversion program last year, and at that time

the Attorney-General gave a commitment to visit the programs and

re-evaluate and monitor them. I understand that he actually did do so,

and that he agreed that the work done by the diversion programs was

important and constructive, and that they needed to be protected. I

wonder, first of all, whether he would share with us the report on the

diversion programs. Would the minister be willing to table the report

which was done by special projects? I understand that that report

recommended the expansion of the program, and if my understanding is

incorrect I would like to stand corrected. In any event, I would like

to read the report. I am sure that the minister understands how

important it is that he share these bits and pieces of information with

me, in order that we can work together in the best interests of the

community at large. As I said, the diversion program in Victoria, which

is a ten-year community-based program, was recommended to be expanded.

Instead we find it being combined with the community service order

program, and both of them competing in the bidding.

One of the things that the Attorney-General likes to bring to our

attention from time to time is that privatization is not going to save

the ministry any money in the short term. What I need to find out from

him is whether it is going to save us any money in the long term; and

if so, perhaps he could expand on that and explain in what ways this is

going to be a good long-term investment, because privatization is

certainly not going to improve the quality of service. I doubt that he

would suggest that that is going to happen. If it is not going to save

us anything in the short term, what is it going to save us, if

anything, in the long term?

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't think that premise is correct, hon.

member. We would expect the quality of service to be maintained, if not

improved, and we would also expect to have a saving in dollars in the

long term. I'll try and give you some examples of the expected savings

in privatization, and overall there are certainly going to be savings.

In the correction field you talked about diversion, and you made

some comments about the diversion study. Your assumptions are generally

correct: the recommendations are for more diversion, which is seen to

be both a desirable and a cost-effective method of dealing with a range

of first offenders particularly. The decisions have not been made as to

how the Victoria diversion program is going to operate. The only

decision that has been made is that it is going to operate. I might say

that for community service work order privatization, for juvenile

attendance programs, for diversion — for all of these — we've invited

bids not just from the private sector but also from the volunteer

sector. We do have examples where existing agencies have taken on

contracts to do this work that was previously done in-house —

organizations like John Howard, which has taken over a community

service for North Island, and the B.C. Corrections Association in

Vancouver, for instance.

You mentioned the one in Fraser Valley; it's correct that it is a

private agency and certainly doesn't have a history in doing this work,

but the principal of that was an employee of ours working in that field

before that company was set up. Also, the Matsqui-Sumas-Abbotsford

community services society has taken over some valley responsibilities

for community service. So you're going to find that there is a mixture

of existing agencies and some private firms that have people who have

worked in the correctional field. I think it would be hard to give you

a costing on that, but I certainly would be prepared to do so when the

program has been in operation.

I'm trying to think of a privatization that is going to be clearly

cost-effective, staff-reductive and provide better service. One is the

privatization of court reporters. We're going to save a major amount of

money there and have the staff flexibility from the private contracts,

which will be primarily — at least on a first-choice basis — with the

existing court reporters, if they wish to do that work for us on

contract, and most of them have indicated that they do. They're going

to be able now to work weekends and give service on a range of

examinations and tribunals that they were precluded from doing before

when they were on a Monday-to-Friday basis. They're going to make more

money, the system is going to serve the public better and the cost is

going to be an increase per transcript page. Transcripts are going to

cost more, but we know that. I've always tried to be upfront with that.

The cost of transcripts here still remains about one-half or one-third

of what it is in a number of American jurisdictions.

That's an example of privatization saving money, but I recognize

that our obligation is, I think, to carefully review all privatizations

to make sure that they're not just saving bodies but that they're

saving money and providing the same service as before — or even a

better quality of service. I agree that that's a challenge. It's a

major challenge, because there's no point in just privatizing for the

sake of privatizing, or going around saying you're on a privatization

kick if you

[ Page 4247 ]

can't get advantages and real returns from that. I acknowledge that that's what we must do. I think that we will.

We've been pretty careful with these contracts that have gone out in

the correctional field. We've not simply let contracts out to a

low-market bidder with no one in that firm having experience in the

field or with no one with demonstrated ability to do the job. We're not

going to do that. It's not going to be low bidder with no

qualifications. It's going to be low bidder with some qualifications

and with some moxie in the field and some experience. But give the

change a chance. If some of these contracts are less successful than

others, we can make changes with them. But the objective is to do it in

a leaner, more efficient way while keeping the quality of service and

being able to be more flexible.

MS. BROWN: The reason I'm really concerned about groups not

having any community involvement history — for example, when taking

over some of these programs — is because I attended the briefing that

people applying for tenders to the A-G's ministry were invited to

attend prior to submitting their tenders. I was concerned that in that

fact directional thing that they gave us — I didn't bring my copy in

with me — there really wasn't a good enough protection in terms of

accountability. I think the only way we can get by without having

really stringent rules in terms of accountability is to be reassured

that the people taking over the job are like the John Howard Society

and the Elizabeth Fry Society — groups that have a long history of

working in this area. We have learned to trust and to respect them in

terms of the quality of service which they deliver. That's the real

reason why I'm raising this issue and why I believe that a consultative

process with the community and the volunteer groups would have been

better in the long run, rather than just using the tender system. I

know — and it will be repeated to me — that they're accountable to

themselves and that they themselves have to check and be sure that

they're delivering the service they promised to deliver and that kind

of thing, but the accountability part of the system is just not quite

airtight enough, unless it's been amended since that time. It's quite

possible that it's been changed since that briefing which I attended in

the Hotel Vancouver. If that's the case, fair enough; but in any event,

I can't understand the minister's reluctance in terms of consultation

and using the talent and the expertise which is out there in the

community, which they're just dying to share with you.

As far as the court reporters are concerned, I recognize it's

cost-effective to the ministry, because you have shifted the burden of

cost onto the public. As you say, the transcripts are more expensive;

the people using the service are now paying directly for it, rather

than via their pockets into general revenue and out. So it's a more

direct route; as to whether it's more cost-effective, it is to you, but

not to the community at large.

[2:45]

Your colleague from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds),

speaking about the juvenile correction programs, alerted us to the fact

that a number of juvenile programs were in clear and imminent danger of

being either drastically reduced or wiped out. I wonder if the minister

would either confirm or deny that we're about to see the demise of the

DARE program, for example, in Vancouver and Victoria — that very

important program that also operated in Campbell River. What about the

DASH program? These programs, as you may know, Mr. Chairman, were very

important in terms of kind of Outward Bound type of experience for what

used to be called juvenile offenders and now are being referred to as

the young offenders. They were a combination of education, recreation,

community activities and generally trying to assist young people who

had run afoul of the law in terms of making them better citizens before

they were released from the program. So it is with some alarm that we

hear that these programs may not be as secure as they should be.

I am working on the assumption that the member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound, who has more access to the Attorney-General than

I do, knows whereof he speaks when he tells us that it is quite

possible that some of these programs are going to be closed down — the

Metchosin Camp program, for example, which gives juvenile delinquents

weekend experience in wilderness living; Crossroads, a work-experience

program; and New Directions, a school-experience program. Are those

kinds of programs in any kind of jeopardy? Is their funding being cut?

Are they going to be severely curtailed, or are they going to be

eliminated? Is the whole scheme being designed to fit in with the new

Young Offenders Act? What is going to happen to those programs?

HON. MR. SMITH: They're not being eliminated at all; they are

being privatized. The privatization in itself, which may be

privatization to existing societies and agencies, I have no doubt

prompted some of the alarm and concern that the member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound expressed in his report about these programs. But

the programs are not being curtailed, Mr. Chairman; indeed, DARE and

DASH are being continued. They will also be required to be adapted and

continued, and maybe, in fact, to comply with the young offenders

legislation, in some cases expanded. So you're looking at no diminution

at all; in fact, that would be contrary to the thrust of the young

offenders legislation.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Aye.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Forests

should go out and plant some trees, because I'm going to be here for a

while. Maybe he could do something useful in the meantime. How is that?

I see he's taking my advice. Good.

Mr. Chairman, thanks again to the Attorney-General. I knew that

these programs were contracted out, and I was worried about what was

going to be happening to them, so I'm really quite pleased to hear that

their funding or whatever is not in jeopardy and they're going to be

okay.

I received a phone call from someone who is involved with

securities. The problem this gentleman is having is that there are no

specific guidelines laid out by the ministry in terms of what's

involved in being involved in securities. He says there's nothing in

writing. He contacted Mr. Simpson of the security agencies branch and

asked for some guidelines, and was told there is nothing in writing;

when an application is received, the Attorney-General does a record

check through the RCMP prior to issuing a licence. But other than that,

this poor gentleman has no idea just what is needed in terms of how

security agents have to be trained or what kind of conduct is expected

of them. He says: "There is widespread concern throughout the business,

and attempts to have the Attorney-General provide some guidelines have

proved futile." Would the minister comment on this?

[ Page 4248 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: I think I would have to get back to her more

specifically. As I understand it, the director of the security programs

division, Mr. Newson, deals with these on the basis of criteria, but I

have my doubts whether those criteria have been promulgated in the form

of a regulation or an instruction. You probably are correct that

they're not. I'd better try to get back to you on the criteria that are

followed, if I can. Certainly a pattern is followed, the same pattern

in relation to each applicant, and some inquiries are made; but I don't

think they're enshrined in a regulation. They'd be enshrined in a

general power that's carried out by that official under the act. He is

probably quite correct that there are no written regulations.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, if the minister could promulgate or

enshrine or do whatever is necessary, I think all of us would be

interested in finding out what the guidelines really are. This

gentleman says that if there is a consumer complaint of any sort, the

licence is lifted; not until they actually break the unwritten

guidelines do they find out that although unwritten, the guidelines do

exist. So I think that would be of use to us.

I just wanted to go back to corrections for a bit longer. Then I'm

going to allow my colleague.... The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell)

wanted to raise some Indian matters but he asked me to carry on

while.... He has a nicotine habit that he has to feed from time to time.

You've had an opportunity now in terms of privatizing nursing in the

institutions, and the food services, which we touched on briefly this

morning. I wonder if I could get a report from the minister in the

meantime about the nursing situation. We've talked about the food

services and we've agreed to give it a bit more time while he monitors

it, but I haven't heard from him on the nursing.

HON. MR. SMITH: The health care privatization hasn't been

done. It's being explored. We haven't done it yet, which I think should

indicate that we're not galloping off. If we can't do it properly, I

guess we won't do it. The intention was to put the nurses on contract,

but we haven't worked that out yet.

MS. BROWN: Fair enough.

The forestry camp at Maple Ridge to be eliminated; day jail programs

to be reduced; joint programs with parks branch expanded in the

Kootenays and the Skagit. Would the minister like to comment on those

things? Also, raised this morning by another of his colleagues was the

possibility of using Ocean Falls as a minimum security kind of

development. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether the

Minister of — I think it was Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt) — was just flying a balloon, or are there in fact plans to do

that? How are we surviving without the forestry camp at Maple Ridge? Is

this just straight restraint in terms of closing it down? Where are the

young offenders who used to use that camp? How are we dealing with the

other programs that are being reduced?

HON. MR. SMITH: Both the programs that you referred to —

Kokanee and the Skagit one — are ones that we would like to do if we

can find a way of doing them cost-effectively. The notion of wilderness

programs appeals to us, and we do hope and expect to do those. If we

did those two, one would not go ahead.... We would have to close the

one at Pine Ridge.

MS. BROWN: I see. Is that because of community concern about it?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, it's not community concern. It's twofold:

one is because of the need for some major capital improvements there,

and also to move the resources elsewhere for different programs. There

hasn't been a local feeling that we should get out of there. But we

would have to rebuild.

MS. BROWN: I'm just going to allow my colleague the time, Mr. Chairman, and then I will carry on after.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a couple of questions. The first is in

regard to the transfer of prisoners. I'd like the minister to look into

this. We don't have the situation that's been happening in the last

week or so — particularly on the mainland — talking about the sheriffs

and such.... When we have prisoners transferred from the far north to

the south, they're usually transferred on CP Air. Three weeks ago, when

I was flying down, I saw prisoners. Usually they are handcuffed when

they're put onto the plane. They take the last two rows of CP Air. On

this flight there were chains on their legs; there were leg-irons on

them. I was wondering if the minister would look into this, because to

me it looks like a safety problem. Putting chains on prisoners' legs on

an aircraft, particularly....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: Just be quite there, Angus. We're trying to have a reasonable debate, okay?

I'd like the minister to look into that, because I don't think it

should be legal to chain prisoners on a plane. I can see the handcuffs

with the sheriff or the RCMP when they are escorting them down to the

mainland, but not with leg-irons of a sort on an airplane.

The next topic I'd like to discuss, and it's much more serious, is

in regard to the native issue. We really didn't have a chance to

discuss what happened at the constitutional conference. This is the

proper forum at this stage to discuss it. I'd like the minister's

response to this, because the day before you went off to Ottawa there

was a flurry of media reports in regard to the cutoff lands. The media,

which rarely ever covers what goes on in this Legislature, sitting in

their ivory towers someplace else, seemed to mix up the issue of cutoff

lands with aboriginal title.

[3:00]

The way it came out in the media, and I think in a sense the native

people were very disgusted with the reporting of that because it was

reported.... I know the minister has no responsibility on what the

press reports and on what they don't report, but I don't think we

should fuddle up the idea here that cutoff lands are totally different

from the aboriginal title question. What many native people in this

province and across this country are asking for.... When we look at

what happened in Ottawa a few weeks ago during the first ministers'

meeting, we saw that the native people went to Ottawa with some hope.

They came back in a mood of disgust and contempt, to a certain extent,

Mr. Chairman. To them the constitutional conference was almost a total

failure, because they had planned for a long time to finally get to the

crux of the matter. It was probably the last constitutional first

ministers' meeting that Prime Minister Trudeau will attend, and

[ Page 4249 ]

there was a lot of hope, because the Prime Minister....

I'm not a strong supporter of Mr. Trudeau but I have to respect what

he's done in 14 years. I think the native people went to Ottawa with

hope and came back almost in contempt. Unfortunately, it wasn't where

we can lay the blame on Mr. Trudeau. Hundreds of bands went to Ottawa

for the first ministers' meeting, and they behaved with dignity, with

wisdom and with moderation all through that meeting. There wasn't the

screaming that we often find happens in this House when we disagree on

philosophical issues. In Ottawa the native people put forward ideas,

and they themselves were ready to negotiate, and the federal government

to a certain extent.

I can't speak for the federal government, but at this time I can't

see that the blame should lie with the Liberals in Ottawa. Over the

years they've stuck the knife in the backs of many native organizations

— the Liberal Party of Canada and particularly this regime that we've

had for 14 years. They've played dirty tricks on the native people of

this country and particularly of this province. But the indications

that came out of the meeting were that it wasn't the federal

government's fault. That the conference failed to reach some type of

negotiation to get the proposal entrenched in the constitution of this

country has to be blamed on the provinces this time.

In a sense you could have called the proposal, what the native

people were requesting, almost a motherhood issue. In fact this

probably was less controversial than motherhood in these days with

world population pressures when some people are almost arguing against

motherhood. We found that the native people went with a less

controversial issue. It is very difficult to find anybody who really

knows and is concerned with the issues to argue against

self-government. If a country enjoys political freedom, then any

category of people has the right to organize and govern its own

affairs, within the limits of the jurisdiction of other forms of

government. The native people in a sense were not asking for a totally

sovereign country when they went to the constitutional talks, and it

shouldn't be muddled that the proposal put forth by the first citizens

of this country was a sovereign declaration. That isn't the case when

we're dealing with self-government with native people.

Mr. Trudeau proposed that the right of native people to

self-government should be acknowledged. I'm glad that the Premier is in

the House, because in a little while I'll be discussing some of the

statements of the Premier at the constitutional talks. In a sense it is

the same right that everyone in this country has, but since the

conference was called especially to deal with concerns of native people

— the first citizens' concerns — it made sense to offer a public

relations gesture towards the native people. I think in a sense the

Prime Minister attempted to do this. We all know that he is a crafty

politician. I doubt if anyone will ever fault Mr. Trudeau as not being

a crafty politician. He came in being crafty and he's going to be

leaving crafty. What he proposed for this round of constitutional talks

— his last constitutional debate with the first citizens.... The talks

were a game in which every player could be a winner. Everybody could

have been a winner in this game if the provinces had agreed to its

proposals, and all parties at the conference would have gone home

looking good. The provinces didn't look good. They had been given an

opportunity and a signal to the people of this country that they came

there in earnest, and that the next time, probably under a new Prime

Minister, they would talk business by setting up in the agenda some

positive resolutions to deal with the issue of self-government. Yet

none of the parties at the conference would have given anything away.

It wasn't like when we discussed before the first minister went to

Ottawa and cutoff lands in which there was something given away....

What the native people wanted at this conference was the right that

many people.... A municipality has the right to self-government.

It would have been the first step for the province of British

Columbia to embark upon real negotiations with the native people. It

would have been a first step. But the province of British Columbia

could not see that it was worthwhile, and they' stonewalled the native

people and denied them justice, but at least they would have seemed

reasonable for the time being and would have kept the good will of the

native people. That's what might have happened, Mr. Chairman, but it

didn't. Let's look at what actually happened at that conference: three

provinces — Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick — accepted the federal

government's proposal. Seven provinces, including British Columbia,

rejected it. We're talking about a proposal that's less controversial

than motherhood. That's why many native people went back to British

Columbia after that meeting with a mood of disgust and contempt. They

didn't go home in disgust because of some kind of treachery; I would

never accuse the government or any government in this country of

treachery. The first citizens of this country and this province were

used to a certain amount of treachery. When we see how we've dealt with

native people across this country and in this province for the last 114

or 115 years — and for longer than that in other parts of the country,

if we look at the way we have dealt with native people on the east

coast.... It's obvious to me, Mr. Chairman, that the main cause of

their disgust was the provincial government's attitude in dealing with

self-government.

It's true that all provincial governments, including British

Columbia, managed to defeat the native people and smother their hope

for an honourable place in this province. In a sense they also managed

to defeat themselves, because they have shown themselves to be

incompetent in dealing with the issue. They displayed their

incompetence, not just in this forum, where we are often referred to as

"the animal house" of Canada, but on national television, in front of

millions of people who watched the first citizens' constitutional

debate on self-government.

I would like to read some words that were spoken by the first

minister in a CBC report. Larry Stout was the reporter at that time.

This is in response to a question about Trudeau's self-government

resolution. Mr. Bennett said: "His proposals are new to us." I really

don't think that's the case, but I really wish it was — that this was

something totally new to you that just sprang up overnight. But it

wasn't the case, Mr. Premier, and you know it wasn't the case.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, come on. You're wrong.

MR. PASSARELL: You know it wasn't new to you. You've known it for years. You've known it ever since you got into politics.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's like your statements about Governor Hammond.

MR. PASSARELL: Do you know what you've done to that young politician in Alaska, Mr. Premier? You've taken

[ Page 4250 ]

away his aspirations for the presidency of the

United States, but we'll leave that for another time — when your

estimates come up. Poor guy. It was just like what you did to the B.C.

Lions when it came to the Grey Cup: you put the kiss of death on him.

We also look at the report of what Mr. Bennett.... Oh, he leaves. I

don't know why you always do this. Every time it starts getting hot,

you leave. Can't you face the facts?

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: That's it. Well, I know why now. Look at him, out the door.

Back to the debate and the report. I wonder where Mr. Bennett was

and where his advisers have been — particularly in light of all-party

committee....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. member still quoting?

MR. PASSARELL: No. When I said....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm just wondering about the use of names.

MR. PASSARELL: I'm sorry — "the Premier," I should say.

When it comes to the recommendation of self-government by the native

people themselves.... It was a report that was widely sent around the

country, and I'm sure the Attorney-General and the first minister have

seen this. So in a sense, when they say that the idea of

self-government took the first minister by surprise, it is hard,

particularly in light of the fact that.... It was close to a veto when

the province came to dealing with this problem. It was a resolution

that was brought forward to be put into the constitution. It was a very

simple statement; it wasn't a crafty statement or a statement to try to

trick the provinces into accepting something that would have been

detrimental to the country. It's a statement — one that in a sense

Canada agreed to in the United Nations charter — of what the first

citizens of this country had expressed at that conference. It's plain

enough for many people to understand. Then there was a question — and

I'll quote again. Reporter Larry Stout asked Mr. Bennett: "Are you in

favour of some form of self-government for native people?" The first

minister answered: "Certainly, but any suggestion to constitutionalize

it before the people found out what form it takes is like putting the

cart before the horse." That's the Premier's statement when asked if he

was in favour of self-government.

[3:15]

We look at our neighbours to the south — the United States — and

their statements when they made their constitution many years before

ours, and their declaration and other constitutional documents. One of

the basic ideas of the United States and their system is what they call

the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, why this government is not looking — when it comes

to dealing with the aboriginal title issue, the whole claim issue — with favour

on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But let's get down to why

we're not and why this government can't support aboriginal title — which

it can't; that's very plain. You and your counterparts.... I should

correct myself. Your counterparts have put forward statements of where the government

lies when it comes to dealing with and settling the aboriginal title claim.

I think most native people and people who are concerned about the issue in this

province know exactly where the Social Credit philosophy lies.

I could talk on this.... When we were talking earlier about the

McKenna-McBride commission and what happened prior to the minister

leaving for.... It was the day before you left, if I'm not mistaken,

that you stood in this House and talked about the cutoff lands. In a

sense that was land that was taken from the native people — probably a

more proper term is "stolen" — back in the early 1900s. At this stage

of the game — 50, 60, 70 years later — we're starting to pay

compensation for land that was taken. In a sense you've tried to take

credit and make political mileage out of this in a rather crude manner.

First, when you look at what native people are claiming and when we're

dealing with the cutoff lands issue, they're not claiming something

that they never had. It was taken from them 70 years ago. It's just

being given back now.

Second is an issue for which I wish the Premier was still in here,

because it was something that came out back in May 1983, when we were

dealing with the aboriginal claim issue and the statements that the

Premier made up north. We've seen enough ridicule when it comes to the

issue. Rod Robinson of the Nishga — a good friend of mine and one of

the chief spokesman for the Nishga, besides Chief Gosnell and the rest

of the Nishga Tribal Council — has made it abundantly clear that the

native people want to share the land and share in the gains of

developing its resources. When we talk about the Nishga claim, which is

about a very special and almost isolated area — and when they're

talking about land claims, they're not asking for 25 percent of the

province or 50 percent of the province — we're taking about the Nass

valley. Often when we get into this, it gets muddied, because we feel

that if we settle the land claims issue — the aboriginal title — it's

going to make a sovereign country in the Nass valley, which isn't the

case. People's homes won't be taken, as was said prior to the May 1983

election. The native people aren't going to take away people's homes

and throw them off the land; that's not the case at all. The native

people of this province, the Nishga, want to share in the natural

resources of this province. We've seen mismanagement of our forest and

fishing industries, and in a sense we've allowed large corporations to

plunder our resources. What we and people like Rod Robinson are asking

is a share in the decision-making. A perfect example is Amax. A special

order-in-council by the federal and provincial governments allowed Amax

to start dumping 12,000 tonnes of mine waste into the ocean — the food

fisheries of the Nishga people — without it ever being debated in this

House or in the federal Parliament. Can you fault the Nishga when they

say they want a part of the decision-making when it comes to resources

in their aboriginal title? At the constitutional conference this

government demonstrated that it is incapable of accepting the position

that was put forward, or of grasping simple ideas. It is no wonder that

native people — and a great many other people — were disgusted with the

performance of this government, at the first ministers' conference on

aboriginal title.

I guess we could discuss this issue for years, and it probably will

be discussed for years. As the youngest member of the Legislature, I

doubt whether I will ever see the right

[ Page 4251 ]

of the Nishga succeed, or the other 25 bands in

this province who have claims forward to the federal government. We can

only hope and strive for it, and discuss it intelligently across this

floor.

I would like the minister's response to the questions I raise.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the member for

Atlin on the thoughtful and well-delivered speech on aboriginal

matters. It is a pleasure to have some rational debate on this subject;

in my experience we've not had any for some time.

The member is absolutely correct that the cutoff land settlements

that were made with the numerous bands in British Columbia were made

very differently from the thrust of the comprehensive claims that are

outstanding. The cutoff lands were those which were taken after this

province entered confederation — taken and severed from Indian reserves

— and compensation was never adequately provided. Despite commissions

and pledges to do so, that did not occur. However, I would remind that

member that it was this government that honoured a commitment to settle

the cutoff lands claims, and has been settling those claims. We have

never pretended that we had a different obligation than to deal with

those. I don't believe it was a legal commitment; it was a moral

commitment which this government undertook, and along with Ottawa and

the combination of cash and land, we have carried that out. The title

transfer of those lands occurred just prior to the conference, and the

reason for that was not any more than coincidental. It had to do with

the fact that the settlement that was made in November had to be

enshrined in legislation within a given time frame, pass Parliament in

Ottawa, and then within 30 days the lands were conveyed. I think the

member is right that the public quite often confuses the cutoff land

claims with comprehensive claims. They are very different.

If I can turn to the first ministers' conference, I attended that

conference. I also attended the two run-up meetings for ministers

responsible for aboriginal matters. I attended the meeting with the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), and the

Toronto meeting by myself, and we both attended the meeting in Ottawa

with the Premier. The issues at the first ministers' conference were

really twofold: (1) self-government and (2) equality rights.

Unfortunately, I think the issue of equality rights occupied a good

deal of unproductive time at that meeting. That is not because equality

rights are not important. I am well aware of the terrible decisions

that were brought about respecting band membership of Indian women who

left their status Indian abodes to marry non-status Indians or whites

and lost their status, the injustices that that brought about under the

Indian Act. A number of high-level cases dealing with that went to the

Supreme Court of Canada, and that had to be addressed. I must say, hon.

member, that I felt that the constitutional provisions of the charter,

together with the amendment to the charter that was made and is not yet

proclaimed but will come into force later this year, laid to rest any

possible doubts that equality now exists and will exist for native

women, and that you will not have any more disfranchisement of native

status by reason of the old Indian Act.

The old Indian Act is going to be changed. The federal government

told us that and laid that on the table. But we had some people at that

conference — conscientious people, I might say — who took up literally

half of the time of the conference pleading the case that a further

amendment was required to the constitution, an amendment to an as yet

unproclaimed amendment to an amendment, which I think constitutionally

constipated the conference, so that we probably did not spend the time

we should have spent on the selfgovernment issue.

The background of the self-government issue was, as you know, that

the Penner committee — an all-party committee of Parliament — made

self-government recommendations last year, and the federal government

was to respond to that. They chose to make their response to that on

the eve of the constitutional conference, which they did. But they also

dropped on the floor of the constitutional conference a resolution

which would have had the effect of constitutionalizing and writing into

the charter the concept of self-government, which is what the native

representatives at that conference — not all, but most — would, I

think, generally have been pleased with. That was dropped on the table

at that conference without any warning. In fact, at the Yellowknife

meeting that I attended, the federal Minister of Justice, Mark

MacGuigan, took the position that it would be premature to

constitutionalize this concept without some trial-and-error experience

of models of self-government and how those models would operate. The

position we understand he was taking was that he wished to go ahead and

have some of these models in place.

In any event, if the federal government is serious about moving on

self-government, they have ample authority under the existing Indian

Act to amend that act and to provide the framework under federal law

for self-government models. It is regrettable, I guess, that when you

go to a conference like this and you decide you're not going to vote

for a resolution enshrining a concept in the Charter of Rights, people

will say afterwards: "My goodness, they're against the concept. They

wouldn't suddenly vote for this motherhood resolution entrenching this

wonderful notion of self-government. Therefore the're against native

self-government." That, of course. Is utter tommyrot. I assure the

member that not only are we not against the concept of self-government,

we think it's decades overdue. We amended our own municipal legislation

about ten years ago to provide for the Cape Mudge amendment, which

provides for a type of self-government. It may not be the

self-government model that is going to commend itself to many of the

native communities. It may be that they will wish to have some broader

self-government which will require some transfer of authority from

federal and provincial jurisdictions to them. and they will have a unit

of self-government. But for goodness' sake, why in the last ten years

hasn't the federal department of Indian Affairs been working on such

models? Why have we had this kind of paternalistic approach to native

communities? Why has the thing been allowed to drift? Every federal

minister who has taken this on, from Warren Allmand to Jean Chretien,

has, I think, tried conscientiously to do something about it. But there

has been a terrible morass in Parliament when actually dealing with

this.

[3:30]

We're now finally dealing with it, and all we say is that the answer

isn't to go out and write constitutional tablets, and lay out a general

notion in a charter of rights until you have worked out at least some

framework as to how that model is going to operate. You do that in the

Indian Act, you have some self-government communities, and then you go

and constitutionalize what you've got, which everybody agrees is going

to work or is working. That's the approach we're

[ Page 4252 ]

taking. We are not against self-government; we're against premature constitutionalization.

I'm against it for another reason, which is that it raises really

false aspirations in this country. It is deceptive to the native people

to turn and point to a tablet and say, "Hey, we, the federal

government, have put it in writing; you've got self-government," when

on the ground they don't have any self-government at all — all they

have is a wonderful concept. Don't give them the concept until you've

tried it out in practice and seen how it's going to work. Ottawa could

do that right now. They could amend that Indian Act right now, and they

could do more than just providing for equality rights and removing

those inequities that native women have suffered under. They could

provide some kind of a framework of self-government — I wish they

would. This province is not against self-government, I can assure you.

On the issue of the land claims, our historic position in this

province is correct, as the member has said: that is, as a province we

do not acknowledge or recognize that aboriginal rights to land

ownership exist unextinguished. The position of the province has been

that by the time this province entered Confederation — and prior to

Confederation in the precolonial ordinances and the acts of the

Governors — aboriginal title was dealt with, like all other title, into

land systems and into colonial land administrations; that the land

became the property of the Crown; that that occurred in British

Columbia; that the Proclamation of 1763 does not apply to British

Columbia — and I don't think there is a tenable argument that it does —

but that aboriginal title, if it existed in British Columbia, was

extinguished in pre-colonial days. It's interesting that that has been

the position of the government of this day not just in 1984 but in

1974, when the then minister in charge of native matters, the Minister

of Human Resources, Mr. Levi, took that position.

I don't blame any of this on the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) —

he wasn't around then, and neither was I - but the NDP government of

that day certainly took that position, and they did not attend meetings

that were requested to be set up between the federal government and the

Nishga Tribal Council. It wasn't until — strange timing, isn't it, Mr.

Chairman? — a date in April 1983 that they suddenly, as a party, had a

renewed interest in aboriginal title. Their leader then, in a letter to

Mr. George Watts, set out that aboriginal title still existed and they

recognized it. What I'm saying is that the position of every party that

has been the government of the day in this province has been that the

aboriginal title hasn't existed.

MR. PASSARELL: You'd better clarify what you were saying about the NDP.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, that's correct. You have one position in opposition and a different position when you're in office.

Having made those comments, I don't pretend, Mr. Chairman, that the

issue of aboriginal title is an easy one; I also don't pretend that the

noble band that he represents does not have a number of very real

concerns of a related matter, but one thing I do know about the band

that he represents — which is really one of the most advanced and

sophisticated native bands bands in the country — is that they know how

to work self-government models; they're streets ahead of other bands in

this country, because they have already worked with self-government

models; they know how to run their own school districts; they know how

to set up their own curriculum and take the core curriculum of British

Columbia and translate it into native dialect. They have done a great

job. They're living proof that self-government can work in this country.

MR. PASSARELL: I have to disagree with what you were saying

about the position of the government of the day from 1972 to 1975. It's

not that I'm supporting this government because I'm a member of it now,

but the facts did not, as you've said.... No way. If those were the

facts, Mr. Attorney-General, I'd be the first one up saying that, but

you were twisting them concerning those meetings.

Twisting is wrong?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's an improper motive to impute to another hon. member of this House.

MR. PASSARELL: I didn't say he was dishonest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that will have to be withdrawn. We can be

of contrary opinions, but language such as this is not acceptable. Will

the member please withdraw.

MR. PASSARELL: What would you like me to withdraw? "Twisting"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that will be fine; just simply withdraw

the phrase, hon. member, and we can proceed, I'm sure, with

parliamentary language.

MR. PASSARELL: Okay. "Deceiving"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, because that does impugn the honour of another hon. member.

MR. PASSARELL: "Distorting", Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have such a wealth of vocabulary available

to us; I'm sure the member can point out that he thought that another

member was incorrect. But a simple withdrawal, and maybe we can begin

again.

MR. PASSARELL: Well, I already gave you the withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. PASSARELL: Do you want it twice?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Please proceed.

MR. PASSARELL: In regard to what you were saying concerning

the meetings, particularly when you were talking about the minister

responsible in 1974, no. I have to disagree with your statements about

that, Mr. Minister. When you talked about self-government, and you were

saying that the Nishga people are miles ahead....

AN HON. MEMBER: Streets ahead.

MR. PASSARELL: I haven't heard that before, but streets ahead.

[ Page 4253 ]

But let's look at some of the facts. You mentioned education:

excellent. It was a good fact. But you should have given credit to

where that came into conjunction with the government of the day,

particularly to the Minister of Education when that was set up, Eileen

Dailly, who's a member of this House today. That's what I think, when

we look at these issues of self-government and we're talking about the

aboriginal issues. Sure, it's okay to put it off onto the federal

government's doorstep if you want to — as you tried to do. But

sometimes we have to take the responsibility, as lawmakers in this

province, of looking into issues of self-government and what we can do

on the provincial level to do this, instead of throwing roadblocks up.

We're throwing roadblocks up in front of native people of this province.

You said earlier that in a sense you want to try it out first. It

reminds me of my friend who broke into a liquor store one time. He took

a bottle out. Fortunately he didn't get very far. He sat out in front

of the liquor store and drank it, and when the only policeman in this

community came up and asked him what was going on — the door was broken

in, and there he was sitting with a jug — he said he wanted to try it

out first, the brand, to see if it was good. You know, you can't say

you're going to try something out before you're going to do it. We

could have a real fun philosophical debate about getting into other

things in this country: marriage, Criminal Codes — you know, about

trying things out before you want to make a law about it. And we have

seen, in the issue of self-government in this province....

But in a statement that you made, I think you used the correct term

when you were talking about a moral commitment — and I appreciate that

term. I think many of us here know what is meant by a moral commitment.

I appreciate those comments, but by the same token, when we talk about

moral commitments — and I wish the Premier was back in the House,

because it was a moral commitment made prior to you and I being elected

in 1979.... There was a moral commitment made by the Premier in a

letter. I don't know if you can call that a moral commitment or a legal

commitment, but there was a letter made up with statements by the

Premier at that time to the Nishga people. That's been over ten years

now. So I appreciate the terminology that you used when you were

talking about a moral commitment. But by the same token I think we have

to look at the commitment the Premier made in 1975 to the Nishga people.

I'm sure we could go on with this. It's not that we're laying this

important issue aside because we're not interested in it, but I think

sometimes in this House it works a little bit more cooperatively and a

little bit better if instead of dwelling on issues and going over the

same speeches that we made three months or a year ago.... I think the

facts have been brought forward in this debate, and I appreciate the

minister's intelligent comments back.

MRS. WALLACE: I can't help but make a comment on the

minister's remarks regarding our government's position between 1972 and

1975. I'm surprised that he's replaying the old song that has been

repeated in this House before and has been refuted many times in this

House before. They can't seem to get away from that old song. The facts

are that as a government we refused to make a sweetheart deal with the

federal government prior to meeting with the Native Indians. We

absolutely refused to do that. It wasn't until — and I have seen a copy

of the letter of the federal minister then responsible; I'm sure the

Attorney-General has also seen it — the federal government finally

agreed that we would sit down for a tri-party meeting that we were

prepared to go ahead. But there was no way that we were going to meet

with the federal government and come to some prearranged conclusion

before the native people were involved, and that's why that was

delayed. It was certainly not the way the minister indicated it.

I have a couple of items that I actually rose to deal with the

minister about. They both relate to his duties as, I guess, the person

responsible for the office of the fire marshal and volunteer fire

departments. Regarding the fire marshal's office, I have raised this

with his predecessors regularly, and I am now going to try again with

him. Previously the inspections for both gas and oil installations were

in the hands of the fire marshall's office.

Some little time ago, the responsibility for propane gas

installations here on the Island was turned over to the Ministry of

Labour for the gas safety branch to deal with. At that time there was a

fair amount of correspondence and discussion about the possibility of

including oil installations. Certainly the statistics indicate that we

have a great many accidents, fires and faulty installations in the oil

furnace industry. It is under the inspection of the fire marshall's

office. I recently contacted the Ministry of Labour to see whether they

would consider taking it on as an added responsibility under their

safety division, because they seem to me very similar things that

really need adequate inspection. If we have people in the outlying

areas available to do the gas inspections, we should be using those

same people to inspect the oil installations and to ensure that those

installations are safe and adequate. At the present time it is still

under the fire marshall's office, and there is not sufficient staff to

do this. Those oil installations are going in pretty much without

inspection.

[3:45]

There's also the problem of ensuring that the people who install

them are qualified. Again, that is the responsibility of the Ministry

of Labour it has nothing to do with the fire marshall's office.

So I'm making the plea again to this Attorney-General, to review

that question and discuss it with his colleague to see whether it

wouldn't be more practical and economical and a better arrangement —

certainly from the point of view of safety and prevention of fire — to

have that dealt with by the safety division of the Ministry of Labour.

Relative to the volunteer fire departments, I just have one

question. Again, he will have to consult with one of his colleagues,

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). I wonder if the

Attorney-General is aware that a volunteer fire department that goes

out and raises money through tax assessment, volunteer donations,

raffles or however they do it, and then buys a piece of equipment such

as a fire-truck or a pump, has to pay a provincial sales tax on it. It

seems to me a wrong area for sales tax to be paid. Perhaps the minister

is not aware that that is the case. I'm asking the minister if he will

check this out with his colleague and make some representations to the

Minister of Finance to see whether or not the sales tax could be

removed from the purchase of firefighting equipment. Those are my two

points.

HON. MR. SMITH: I thank the member, and welcome back to the chamber from a long absence in Liechtenstein the member for Vancouver Centre.

The last suggestion is an excellent one. I think it would be in

keeping with the shift in the past two budgets to exempt from taxation

various life-saving equipment. It would be

[ Page 4254 ]

good argument to took at that. I would be delighted to take that up with the Finance minister.

On the other matter that you speak of, it's my understanding that

installation of oil-fired apparatus is not inspected. If it were

propane or gas it would be, under the Ministry of Labour. We inspect

operation but not installation. You think that installation should be

moved as part of the standard provisions of the Ministry of Labour. I

think you have made this point in this chamber before. I can't say that

I quarrel with the suggestion; I don't know why it hasn't happened. I

thank you for that one as well, and I will see what I can do about it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to add one thing to the

statement by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell); I know it's not the

minister's responsibility, but it has to do with the federal-provincial

cost-sharing of money for social services to the native community. I

know that the minister is the minister responsible for the native

community, and I wonder whether he has made a presentation, on their

behalf, to the federal government to send the money directly to them —

this is something they have been asking for for a number of years —

rather than having it filtered through the Ministry of Human Resources.

The feeling is that they have no accounting when it is done that way.

On Tuesday evening of this week, I met with the chief of one of the

bands just outside of Kamloops. Once again she raised that issue with

me and wondered whether it was something that the Attorney-General

could be raising again on their behalf with the federal government.

They are not even told the exact figures, in terms of how much the

grant is, and they certainly don't want the Ministry of Human Resources

handling it on their behalf. As a person who speaks for Indians in

Ottawa, I think that if he is not aware of that fact, it certainly is

something he should apprise himself of. He should take sides in this

particular matter.

I want to go back to corrections again, because I am little bit

concerned about the 49 percent decrease in the operating costs for the

adult correctional centres and the 37 percent decrease in the operating

costs for the youth containment centres. I will probably talk about the

youth containment centres in more detail when I talk about the Young

Offenders Act, which I want to do later on.

Explain to me how that 49 percent decrease could take place and

still keep the same quality of security, which you mentioned earlier,

and the same quality in terms of food services, etc. You indicated that

you have not yet privatized the medical services. We are talking of a

difference of $5 million. Would that include, for example, the closing

of the Lynda Williams home and the forestry camp and places like that?

How is that 49 percent saving arrived at?

HON. MR. SMITH: I said 4.9 percent, not 49 percent.

MS. BROWN: Operating costs? If you had $10 million, and you

drop it to $5 million, that's 49 percent. That's not 4.9 percent. In

vote 12 under corrections, operating costs go from $10,026,355 down to

$5,086,645. That's not 4.9 percent; that's 49 percent.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll address that later.

MR. LAUK: I want to talk about two or three general things

with some warning: that the Attorney-General will accept it in good

faith and not as a paternalistic gesture. I can't possibly be

paternalistic, because he's much more senior at the bar than I am, but

paternalism from the point of view that I have been in this chamber a

little bit longer, at any rate. The privatization of legal services has

been going on and causing some concern and fear not only with those

people who are involved in the administration of justice but with those

people who are familiar with the administration of justice. Their

concern is justified, because changes to a system are often

unpredictable.

I think in many cases we do overreact to change in an alarmist way,

but I want to talk about two things generally. I think it is a big

mistake to take a backwards step from legal aid. From all of my

discussions with the criminal law subsection, with other groups and

with the civil litigation section, which the Attorney-General was kind

enough to visit and deliver a talk to, there is widespread and deep

concern from otherwise non-political, non-vocal members of the bar, and

I think it's justified. Their concern is that we are moving in a

positive way under the charter towards providing legal counsel for

those appearing before the courts, and in a negative way we are making

it financially impossible for them, in many cases, to get legal counsel.

I think that one can eliminate the more strident criticism of the

ministry's move that comes from those lawyers who rely most heavily on

legal aid as their income. I am not one of those who believe that

criminal defence lawyers should rely, even in a major part, for their

income on legal aid. I've expressed that view privately to the

minister, and I certainly want to put it on record now that I think

that is a mistake. People who are selected for assistance under the

legal aid scheme — and I'm talking about criminal defence — very often

end up with members of the bar who have less than, let's say, five

years' experience, and who, it seems to me, predominate and have

predominated the legal aid rosters. There are very few senior

barristers who are taking legal aid cases. I don't think you can

resolve that matter by cutting back on the amount of money you pay in

legal aid, and saying that now the bar is going to have the problem;

the bar must respond and provide senior barristers on occasions for the

defence, particularly in major crimes, on a legal aid or free basis.

We look back with nostalgia — however incorrectly — to the old days

when it was assumed that senior barristers would take their share of

legal aid. That was never the case. When I was in the criminal justice

subsection of the Canadian bar, I remember receiving a scathing letter

from a gentleman who will go nameless, because he is now on the Supreme

Court bench and I still practise in that court. I'm sure he curls up

with his copy of Hansard

every evening, so I'll leave his name off the record for the moment. He

sent me a scathing letter suggesting that we younger lawyers who were

lobbying Les Peterson — the Attorney-General in those days — for legal

aid were making a big mistake, and that we should provide a lot of free

work.

HON. MR. McGEER: That's right, you should.

MR. LAUK: We did; he didn't.

HON. MR. McGEER: You should be doing it now.

MR. LAUK: I do; he doesn't.

Interjection.

[ Page 4255 ]

MR. LAUK: Oh, dear, this foreign 'flu that the Socred benches

have been contracting is affecting the processes of the mind. The good

doctor from Point Grey should calm himself. He should be taking greater

care with these cultures he's working with. Some protective measures

should be employed in his lab. In any event, I'll try to draw to a

close on that point, because I've gone well over my five minutes.

The fact of the matter is that senior members of the bar, and large

firms, have not done their share of legal aid. They don't go on the

rosters or take the major crimes, because they say they can't afford

to. I say that's nonsense. It is not in keeping with the traditions of

a good criminal defence bar, and of the legal profession generally.

They've never done so, and that's why there's been a demand for full

legal aid, and it should be continued. To back-step from it now is a

fatal mistake. I am not arguing for those younger lawyers who rely so

heavily on that for an income; I think that's a mistake, and they

should be encouraged to diversify their practice. You don't solve that

problem by decreasing the rates and eliminating a lot of categories for

defence work.

That brings me to the major point I wish to make under that area:

native Indian persons charged with criminal offences. It is clear that

less than 4 or 5 percent — I don't know the percentage — of the

Canadian population are native Indian. In this province, even though

they comprise a little bit more, they do not comprise a great

proportion of the population; but they do occupy 40 to 50 percent of

the space available in prisons. Now why is that? I've heard all kinds

of ridiculous theories about why that is: coffee-table nonsense that

you get from upper-middle-class types in Point Grey about why native

Indians are occupying more than their share of the space available in

our prison system.

[4:00]

It's clear to the practising bar, even to remotely knowledgeable law

enforcement people, and to judges particularly, why they occupy this

space. They occupy this space traditionally because they're not

represented. I know the Attorney-General will get up and say in this

chamber that of course we've improved over the years, etc., but we

haven't improved anywhere near enough. Special consideration should be

given to the native Indian population, vis-à-vis the administration of

justice, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the

appearance of racial bias. We must eliminate that appearance for all

time by going through the red lights, by making an exception of the

native Indian population and providing special legal representation at

all times for these people, and it should be done at the provincial

level. It's one of the most minimal things we can do for a people whose

cultural background has in their younger years not properly equipped

them to deal with white society, especially in an urban environment but

also in other white environments in the rest of the province. We owe it

to ourselves — law enforcement and the administration of justice — but

above all to the native Indian people and their culture, to provide

special representation, and always to have them represented by good

legal counsel when charged with any kind of criminal offence.

There'll be the whispering that we're pandering to the native

Indian, and so on: "You can't pander. You know these people have to

stand on their own two feet with the rest of us." That's nonsense! The

nonsense lies in the fact that the justice system is stacked against

the native Indian from the first. Half the time the people who are

educated on reserves cannot understand some of the nuances of the

what they're charged with and what a proper defence would be — much

more so than the average person. The average person, white or native

Indian, has a most difficult time understanding the procedures before

the courts, what they're charged with and what's happening to them. I

know the Attorney-General may reply that he doesn't know of too many

cases where these people are unrepresented, but I want to assure him

that in many cases native Indians charged, sometimes with serious

criminal offences, are under-represented, and tend to plead guilty.

They still do, and that has been the tradition in this province for a

long time. That's why they occupy the prison system in a greater

proportion than their population justifies.

It's just not good enough. These people should not be that eligible

for prison settings, making their introduction to society at large in

British Columbia and Canada an institutional introduction which they

become used to. It seems to me that if we're in a recession period, it

would be the greatest test of this minister's courage and commitment,

and a debt of honour to the native Indian people, to provide the

fullest legal representation and service from the government to native

Indians charged with offences. Those in the white community who would

resent such discrimination — be it positive — towards the native Indian

population are, I could suggest to you, merely grumbling and don't

understand the nature, the extent or the historical context of this

problem.

It is with that in mind that I'm sure my colleague has raised the

issue of native court workers and other programs. They've been

beneficial. If there are inefficiencies in them, then of course they

should be changed, but not to the extent of being cut away and cut

back. It's the one serious area where I take issue with the minister's

privatization approach. I don't say that I agree with the philosophy

behind it, but I'm not that upset with some of the moves that are being

taken. But in the area of native Indian representation before criminal

courts, it has to be expanded, not cut back. It has to receive the

special attention of the Attorney-General. A lot of people refer to him

as the chief law enforcement officer. He's not the chief law

enforcement officer only; he's the law officer of the Crown, and as

such is in loco parentis to all of us and to the native Indians, and

should acquit himself in that special responsibility. I think the

current occupant of that chair is the most capable man to do so, and I

urge him to take that to heart.

I don't need a reply. It would just be embarrassing to get up and

shuffle around and say what you're doing now. I'm not criticizing what

we're doing now. What I'm asking for is a review, and for you to

vigorously take the opportunity to expand the services rather than cut

them back.

MR. MITCHELL: It's interesting, when we enter into these

various debates, how in many ways the statements we have made in

earlier estimates all interlock. I can't help but think that some of

the problems the Attorney-General is faced with at this time are

indirectly because of the problems we have spoken about at great

length, and that's basically the economic situation and the large group

of unemployed. What the Attorney- General and all those on that side

like to talk about most is their famous restraint program. I think I

have said that so much of the legislation and the programs that this

government is bringing down are eroding rights and services that have

been provided to the community in different ways.

A big problem right now is that when I listen to what is coming out, I think the erosion of police systems is taking

[ Page 4256 ]

place. I was really concerned when I read that the

Attorney-General was talking about shuffling some of the costs of

police training onto the municipalities. I know it's easy to say that

it is justifiable for a municipality and its taxpayers to accept a

certain amount of responsibility for the training program that must go

into policing. I think it's important, before we rush into that, to

review some of the history of what has taken place, especially on the

municipal level of policing. I believe that when you go through the

history of municipal policing — and it doesn't matter if it's in a

large city or a small municipality — you find that for so many years in

British Columbia the training of policemen was not considered one of

the top priorities. That happened only when the Police Academy was set

up in British Columbia and the standard of policing at the municipal

level throughout the province was standardized.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I think a lot of us who worked in the police field remember the old

criteria when we first entered the police force. We were given a

uniform, a gun, a ticket book and a quota. That was the beginning of so

many police careers. You cannot send a person out to deal with the

public in the manner that is needed — to provide protection, guidance,

comfort and counselling — without a basic training schedule. When the

Police Academy was set up — and it was set up by the NDP and it has

been maintained very well by the present administration.... But all of

a sudden now, under the guise of restraint, you are looking at

shuffling some of this cost back onto the municipal level. I'm afraid

that if the Attorney-General's department does that and relaxes in any

way the maintenance of standards and the upgrading that is needed in

policing, we are going to have problems.

I think it's important, when you look at policing as a business — if

you want to call it that — or as a career or as a service to the

community.... Policing today is something that has evolved. It has

evolved from the days when the policeman had to enforce all the laws

and do all the investigations. But within the police system there has

to be intense specialization. There is some general policing, but when

you get into investigations, whether traffic or drugs, the need for

specializing the officers who are out on the road is imperative. Every

day we are getting closer to the need for more intense investigations

into the major frauds and bankruptcies that are taking place in our

community. This is something that has to be coordinated by specialists

within the police field.

It has often been said that crime knows no border. A criminal

doesn't look at a municipal border to see whether it has a small police

force or a large police force, whether it has an efficient

investigative staff or not. This is why it's important that the

coordination of training and of criminal investigation programs is

carried out by joint forces. All of that must be maintained at a high

standard. To say that we may save a little money on training, that

we're going to shift some of the costs to the municipalities.... My

great fear is that if we do shift those costs in the name of restraint,

and those municipalities say, "We cannot afford that training," the

community, the Attorney-General and the whole province are going to

suffer, because there are not the standards that the administration has

built up in improving the police service. We do specialize within the

police field, but we also specialize in the Crown prosecutors. I'm

really worried when I hear the Attorney-General make these off-the-cuff

ideas that we're going to put the Crown prosecutors out to

privatization.

HON. MR. SMITH: There is nothing off the cuff about that; it's being done.

MR. MITCHELL: Well, this is what bothers me when the

Attorney-General says that it is not off the cuff, that it is being

done. The Crown prosecutors are an arm of investigation type policing,

and you cannot afford to take something that has been specialized

within the criminal justice system, like the Crown prosecutors, and

then put it out on a kind of a fee for service. I believe — and I say

this through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General that the need

to keep effective, strong and aggressive Crown prosecutors who work as

part of the police system is imperative to provide the service that is

needed. You must keep that team together, because if you break that

team down — and I know the Attorney-General's position as a defence

lawyer.... If you're in the middle of an investigation, you do need

some legal advice from the Crown prosecutor on what type of evidence is

needed for a particular case and especially for a particular conviction.

[4:15]

If you had to phone up and then end up getting billed for a fee for service

for a five-minute interview or a phone call, and this starts to filter back

down to the police department — "why did you phone the Crown prosecutor?"

and "we got another bill for fee for service....." This is the danger

that is going to take place within the police system, within the Crown prosecution,

and it is going to slowly eat away at effective policing, effective criminal

justice and how it is administered and enforced within the community.

There are certain sections of our community that must stay together;

they must work as a team. Basically, proper policing within the

community has to be a team effort, and that team effort starts from the

most important person — those who are doing the general policing,

through the juvenile sections, through the investigation, through the

commercial fraud up to the Crown prosecutor — because no investigation

is of any value unless it can eventually reach the courts and there is

either a conviction or someone is proven innocent. This is a part of

the team that I really don't think should be privatized. I think, as a

lot of people have said, it does open the door for a certain amount of

pork-barrelling that I don't think the community can afford, and I

honestly don't think it's needed. I'm sorry that the Attorney-General

has left the House at this time, but we must look at the overall effect

it is going to have on our own little municipalities.

When I talked about training, I forgot to mention that the municipal

forces depend on the police academy, where the RCMP have all their own

academies, their own training facilities, and those within the forces

do progress through the upgrading. If that upgrading which is provided

to the RCMP is eroded in any way to the municipal police forces, the

team that we have now of municipal and RCMP forces working together in

many levels of investigation will deteriorate in the service that is

given.

When I talk about a team, I believe the sheriff's office, when it

was brought in in 1973-74, was brought in because it was something that

involved.... Why should policemen who are trained in various facets of

investigation spend their time running around trying to serve a

subpoena or a summons on someone who is involved in one way either as

the person

[ Page 4257 ]

being charged or as a witness? It was felt that if

we could specialize — I say it's specializing — the serving of

summonses, taking them out and locating the person who it's made out

to.... In some cases, as one who has served many a summons and

subpoena, it's pretty hard to find someone if they don't want to be

found. I think the sheriff's office did specialize in that. I remember

a year or so ago when the government started talking about their

privatization. I talked to people within the sheriffs' offices and

within police departments, and there was a certain amount of a relaxed

attitude that that particular service would not be privatized, because

it needed a peace officer to serve all criminal documents. I remember

saying at that time: "All they have to do is shuffle it back into the

police departments. The police departments could serve the criminal

documents, and then the sheriff's office could be privatized, and it

would go back onto a fee-for-service basis."

I think this is what the Attorney-General is working towards:

abolishing that specialized department, which was one of the arms of

providing criminal justice to the province, to the taxpayer and to the

people who are unfortunate enough either to be victims of crime or

actually the criminal. I feel there are many things within a community

that we just can't break down under the guise of restraint when they

are running effectively. When I talk about policing within my own

community, I say you add onto police officers more duties....

Within any police department the number of officers on the job has

been frozen for two and three years, but because of heavy unemployment

and the desperation of a lot of young people, crimes are increasing. I

don't think many people out in the community realize the amount by

which it is increasing.

I just have a few statistics from the Western Community in my own

riding: theft over $200 increased 206 percent in the last year. Theft

under $200 only increased 64 percent, because it's hardly worth

stealing today if it's under $200. B&E of homes increased 68

percent.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: You say: "Well, it only increased 68 percent."

Until you've investigated a breaking and entering of someone's home....

In many cases it's some senior citizen or some person who has lived in

a community for years and has never felt threatened, but they come home

from a shopping trip or come home from a wedding and find their home

has been broken into and ransacked. Unless you've dealt with the people

who have been affected, or unless you've had your own home

ransacked.... Especially if you're an older person or a woman, that

fear of breaking and entering lives with you for years and years and

years. Every little sound that they hear later on bothers them. They

visualize the time they came home and their house had been broken into.

It's not always what is stolen, but all of a sudden they realize that

their home — their castle — has been entered and something of theirs

which is very personal has been stolen.

Breaking and entering of businesses has increased 121 percent.

Shoplifting has increased in the Western Community by 224 percent. It's

easy to say: "It's the unemployed, and it's these rotten kids out

there. They can't get along with their allowance." We can rationalize

anything, but this is the attack that is happening in the community.

Part of it is directly related to policing.

In the Western Community for the last five years there have been 53

policemen, clerks and support staff. The figure of 53 has been frozen

for five years. What's happening is we're having a continual increase

in crime, and then the Attorney-General says we're going to give the

policemen more of the serving of all the criminal documents in court

cases. Then they bring in another program that we're going to enforce

impaired driving. These are the demands that are being put on the

police department. There is pressure here: "We've got to get more

convictions for impaired driving. We have to show that the BATmobile is

working."

The police cannot do the protective work that the community and the

public demand. We have situations now where people phone in when their

house is broken into, and if they can't identify what has been stolen,

the police do not have the time to go out and investigate it. What

happens is that some family, some senior citizen or some single parent

comes home from working or shopping to find someone has entered their

castle and stolen something. Because they can't prove that it was

identifiable, the police do not have the time, in many cases, to go out

and do a little of the counselling and reassuring that is needed to be

done. We hear of restraint: we're going to cut back on this; we're

going to save money here. The effect it is having is dangerous and

backward. We are putting policing back for something that I don't think

is real, but they call it restraint. There are services that must be

provided.

There are many times in the Western Community when policemen are

just not available to do the work because of other duties, sick time or

leave schedules. The most time-consuming occupation of the policemen,

because there is more crime and because there are more investigations,

is more days spent in court,

I think there has to be a better coordination of the time that

policemen are forced to spend in court. I don't have a simple answer. I

don't know if it can be arranged through the defence lawyers, the

clerks of the court or with the judges. When you are subpoenaed to be

in court at 9:30, and you don't go in till 2 in the afternoon, it not

only disrupts the policeman's day off but when he's on duty it deprives

the community of his services. It deprives the community of services

that are being wasted. They can't go out and do general patrolling,

basic investigation, counselling or reassuring people whose homes have

been entered, because they are spending a lot of time waiting around in

courts.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General, I don't know what

studies have been made on coordinating court times and how they drag

on. Both the Attorney-General and I realize that they do go on and on.

There is a need for additional courts or additional services. I have

sent the Attorney-General a letter, and I imagine it is with the

multitude of correspondence in his files. He either has read it or will

read it.

[4:30]

The Western Community is located ten miles from the city of

Victoria, where the courts are located. I'm asking the Attorney-General

to give serious consideration to opening a court in the western

communities. Firstly, it will cut down the amount of time that is taken

travelling back and forth — time when the police force is being taken

out of the community. They could stay in the community and be available

for certain emergencies. Also I believe that the cases that happen in

the western communities can be coordinated through the Crown

prosecutors and the police and the times could be set with a

[ Page 4258 ]

little more control over what takes place than when

you have a greater Victoria police department with cases from the RCMP

in the rural areas, along with city cases and Saanich cases. They get

all jumbled up, and they tend to carry on longer than they might have.

If the Colwood RCMP knew what cases were coming up, they would know

what schedules they could call their men into; there would be an

opportunity to have some control on it. I don't know if it could be

done with a full-time court or with a travelling court. But to give

that service, I feel that a serious look has to be taken at having a

courthouse in the Western Community, so that the local police can

coordinate it. Whether it's a travelling court or a full-time court is,

I think, something that only the numbers can set up. It has been

brought to my attention that there is a large room in the Langford fire

hall that would be effective for a while until something was built. But

if we are going to provide the service that is needed from policing, we

have to have the support service to make sure that it is going to take

place.

I share some of the concerns that the minister has about the new

Young Offenders Act. I believe that as we progress, we will often

wonder why it was raised to 18 when so many people today mature at a

much younger age. I have real concerns about the need for legal

counselling; I think legal counselling should be provided. It's just

the time limit. What is going to take place as the various young

offenders are brought into the police stations? A lawyer must be

provided. Some of the coordination of getting a lawyer out of bed, when

it's a lot easier to get a parent out of bed, is going to cause a lot

of delays. I'm quite sure that when you're out at Sooke, and you have

to bring a lawyer from Victoria.... Knowing some of the kids, if they

decide they want a certain lawyer, and he's in Victoria, by the time

you get him out to Sooke.... It's going to be a problem for young

offenders. I guess these are problems we're going to have to face.

I notice my time is running out, and I would ask the minister if he

would answer some of my questions and concerns. I have a few more

points that I would like to bring to his attention.

HON. MR. SMITH: There's quite a lot to reply to, Mr. Chairman. I'll try and be brief and orient my....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Flattery as usual will get you everywhere.

One of the items you raised was a courthouse for the Western

Community. That might be a desirable move in other times, but I think

you must be aware that capital expenditure programs have been on hold

generally in the social service field. It's not possible to give you

any early commitment on that at all. The other side of that coin, of

course, is whether it's desirable to further decentralize courts in

this area. A move was made about 12 years, ago to bring everything

under a single roof — first of all at Fisgard Street, then moving that

into the law courts on Courtenay Street. The only exception to that

really has been the reactivation of the Sidney courthouse, which was

already in existence before. When I first started prosecuting in this

region, I used to prosecute in Central Saanich. I used to hold court in

North Saanich and in Sidney. I used to go and do Saltspring, and I used

to go out to Sooke as well and prosecute out there in the police

station. So I've been the other route. It's nice for the local

community, I guess. But it's mostly convenient for the local police

detachment, because it doesn't require the travel time and the witness

time. I have to tell you straight, up front, that I cannot see that

occurring within the next several years.

The Young Offenders Act is certainly going to be another strain on

the police. I think you've expressed the frustration that police feel

today about all the tasks that are put on them by government and

society. One of the additional burdens that is going to be put on them

is dealing with young offenders in a way which is laden with more

process. In many cases, that will require, I suspect, the invocation of

counsel, because no statements will be taken from them without that

clear right under the act being put to them. I suspect that many of

them will exercise that right, and we will be bringing lawyers to the

local detachment office in the wee small hours. That will be provided

for by legal aid under an agreement which is being worked out with

Ottawa. But it's going to be more trouble to the police. Also, the

other problem will be separate containment provisions.

Seventeen-year-olds who are presently dealt with as adults will have to

be dealt with as young offenders, and we have a high incidence of

people in that age category. Unfortunately, in that category a lot of

them are before the courts. So all those problems are acknowledged.

The thrust of your remarks earlier was your concern that a mixed

system of prosecutions by lawyers in private practice was going to

somehow undermine the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. I

think quite the opposite. I think it'll strengthen it, because if you

went on with a divided system where you had everybody prosecuting

criminal cases being a lawyer who worked for the state, and ultimately

everybody defending being provided ultimately as a public defender,

which is the way some thought we were going in this province, you would

end up ten years from now never having a lawyer who would ever work the

other side of the street. He would appear only for the Crown or only

for the defence. The result is that you'd have more adversarial

criminal trials, as you do in some jurisdictions in the U.S. where the

district attorney is trying to notch his score on his belt and so is

the public defender on the other side. In a criminal case, if you've

got lawyers who have been on the other side, that not only improves the

atmosphere of the trial but speeds up justice and allows people to come

to the court with the other point of view. I don't mean to suggest that

some who never have don't have that point of view; they do. But I don't

agree with your conception of the Crown prosecutor, hon. member, as

part of a police team. I believe he's quite separate from that team. He

has to advise the police — there's no question about that — and they

have to have him available and be able to go to see him, but he's not

part of that team and he doesn't act for them. He acts and uses his

discretion sometimes to go ahead with their charges and sometimes not.

Gosh preserve us from ever losing that system, or ever moving to the

Ontario system where the police lay the charges and the Crown

prosecutors simply go into court like automatons.

MR. MITCHELL: In many ways what the minister said is quite

correct, but I think he's misinterpreting what I said. I don't

believe.... Through attrition and through turnover we have in private

practice many lawyers who have worked through the Crown prosecutor

position. They have spent their three or four or five years within that

team. To say that they are not part of the criminal justice team....

Crown prosecutors, sheriffs, police: all the way down the line they are

[ Page

4259 ]

part of a criminal justice team. They're not at the

beck and call of police officers. I agree with the minister a thousand

percent. If you didn't have the Crown prosecutor available to police

officers to coordinate and to establish that there is sufficient

evidence for a particular case, you could have abuse of police power.

This is why I say they are part of a team and should remain as part of

a team. To say that once they're Crown prosecutors they'll never get on

the other side of the street is nonsense. Every day we can find lawyers

who were at one time or another Crown prosecutors defending people at

the bar.

I'm sorry that the minister is not innovative enough that he can

hide behind the so-called restraint, that no major capital projects are

going to take place because of lack of funds in the Western Community.

I say there are facilities presently in the Western Community that can

be used, and I say that it's not a case of giving additional money but

of utilizing the moneys you have now more effectively. You are paying

to keep policemen cooling their heels on Burdett Street, when by moving

moving the court, the judge and some of the facilities out to the

Western Community you'd still be paying for them in Victoria, but a lot

of those services for special cases could be made available out there

and moneys spent for policing could be better utilized. It's not

something extra; it's just utilizing what we have now.

Just to refresh the minister's mind, he mentioned some of the

municipalities. I remember there were courts in Sooke, Colwood,

Esquimalt, and at one time there were justices meeting in View Royal on

special cases. So we have a history in British Columbia where courts

and judges did move around and services were provided. As I say, I'm

not against the centralization of the courts, but where it is becoming

a drain on the most important

part is the services. I think we should

be innovative enough to look at some changes.

[4:45]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

One other question: can the minister provide me with the status of

Jordan River camp? I know it is shut down and a lot of the trailers and

facilities have been auctioned or sold off. Is it permanently shut

down, or is there any consideration of an open type prison in the

Western Community or the Sooke area? Is that finished for time

immemorial?

Also, with the Young Offenders Act coming in, I think we should look

at some of the studies that have been made on juvenile crime,

especially those who enter the criminal justice system via the juvenile

records. There have been a number of studies, and from conversations

with school teachers today, the majority of the young offenders who do

enter the juvenile courts.... According to studies that I've been told

about, and what the teachers in my community continue to tell me, the

majority of them — I've been told at least 80 percent — especially

boys.... I hate to say that; it might be classed as a sexist statement.

But it can especially be identified that boys will progress into the

criminal justice system at anywhere from five, six, seven or eight

years of age. By the time they are in grade 8 these kids are identified

by the teachers, by their parents, by their peer groups as the kids

who....

In many cases they start off by stealing a sandwich from the girl next door,

or her apple; then they move up to grade 1 and they're stealing pencils;

and by the time they get to grades 2 and 3 they are going through the teacher's

purse, and in many cases at home they are stealing from their siblings.

When they reach juvenile court — I believe now it's going to be 12 —

and have a conviction or are charged with something, we look at it as

their first offence, so we must treat them very quietly. Really, from a

psychologist's point of view, it is not their first offence. They have

been rewarded since they were five, six, seven and eight by the thefts

they have perpetrated on their families or their school friends. To

say, when they enter juvenile court at the age of 12, 13 or 14, that

that's their first offence....

I think we must look at a study on predicting kids that may progress

into more serious criminal activities a lot earlier than we are doing

it today. I think it has to be in cooperation with education, with

families and with the police departments. I think it's really important

that families are brought to the idea, with the medical profession,

that children who are entering very early in life on that path that is

going to lead them into criminal activity, which is costing us $45,000

to $50,000 a year for every one we now have in jail.... If studies can

be made, we can zero in on them a lot earlier and not leave it until

the time that we are today in the way of waiting until they reach

juvenile court, or reach the more senior courts, and at that point

consider that this is their first offence. I think the first offence

can be identified a lot earlier. I think we, both in policing and on

the taxpayer basis, are wasting a lot of money and a lot of time

waiting and postponing looking at people who are going to cost us a lot

of money.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll respond on Jordan River, but I'm not

going to continue the debate on the other matters. I appreciate your

point of view, and I think you've expressed it well.

Jordan River camp was closed on the opening of the Nanaimo

Correctional Centre so that we would have facilities in the upper part

of the Island rather than concentrating our resources at the southern

end of the Island. We don't have any plans for its reopening at

present. We might conceivably reopen it if we had an enormous load on

our hands, but the figures now don't indicate that we're going to. We

don't have immediate plans, but the location is a good one.

MR. MITCHELL: But you have sold all the facilities?

HON. MR. SMITH: No. The trailers have been sold, that's all.

MR. NICOLSON: I have a multiple-choice question for the

minister concerning the BATmobiles. I'd like to ask this question, and

it is a serious one: on a given Saturday evening, where is one most

likely to find the BATmobile? Are they near the neighbourhood pubs, in

the police parking lot or in Bruce Wayne's garage?

HON. MR. SMITH: Say that again.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes. You obviously don't recall reading comic books

in your misspent youth.

On a given Saturday evening, where is one most likely to find the

BATmobile — near the neighbourhood pub or drinking establishments, in

the police parking lot, or in Bruce Wayne's garage?

Interjection.

[ Page 4260 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: Be concise, answer swiftly. Multiple-choice will be graded promptly. All three, of course.

MR. NICOLSON: I'll give him 50 percent and a bare pass for that.

But seriously, Mr. Chairman, this continues to concern me. I was

very optimistic and positive about the BATmobiles when they were first

brought out, and I think they are perhaps playing a deterrent role

during the holiday season and such, but I have wandered past police

parking lots quite recently here in Victoria on a Saturday evening and

there is the BATmobile. When there is more impaired driving going on at

the critical times of Friday and Saturday evenings here — and also in

the interior, where about every seventh vehicle coming at you has an

impaired driver in it — we are not concentrating our efforts on

deterrents. I see some harm being done by the BATmobile, and that is

that it creates an illusion that we are really winning the fight

against the impaired driver. I'd like to ask this very serious

question: are there any reasonable number of convictions arising from

breath analysis taken inside of a BATmobile, as opposed to that taken

inside the controlled laboratory conditions of a police station?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll get those figures for you, but the

general answer is most assuredly yes. They are not there to administer

roadside suspensions; they are there to apprehend people who have a

reading over .08. If they have that reading, they are charged. You tell

me that BATmobiles are not being utilized in this town on Friday and

Saturday nights at pub closing time, and I most certainly will look

into it. As you know, they are operated by the local police. I was

under the impression that the program had been pretty successful. It

may be that you have observed occasions when there was something wrong

with the vehicle, or it was not....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, no. That was quite uncalled for.

I'll be glad to give you the figures of the BATmobile leading to

apprehensions and convictions. I think they're quite impressive.

MR. NICOLSON: It has been expressed to me by people who

actually take the evidence, both in the municipal police and the RCMP,

and below the rank of sergeant, that they don't want to take evidence

in a BATmobile. They would sooner, if they had somebody who they

suspected of being impaired, take them back to the controlled

environment, because with the expert witnesses who are available and

who can be called in on a case, it is sometimes very difficult to get a

conviction because of the drafts and the temperature sensitivity.

I would hope the Attorney-General would look into that problem with

a little bit of fresh insight. I think I was as optimistic as anyone

about the advent of the BATmobile, but I am concerned that it isn't

fulfilling the role and expectations that we had of it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to wind up corrections,

because we seem to have been on it for quite a long time. The minister

was going to get some information for me. Maybe in giving me the

response to my question he could also give me a time

schedule for that

promise, which I think was made back in Anno Domini — the year of our

Lord — 102 or something, for the phasing out of Oakalla. What is the

timetable? How are we doing with that? This is more a question on

behalf of my constituency than having to do with my responsibility as a

critic on his ministry. We're still waiting for that promise, which has

been made so often, to be kept. What's the situation with Oakalla?

Could he answer that at the same time as he is responding to the

questions about the 49 percent cut in operating costs of the adult

correctional institutes?

HON. MR. SMITH: That move out of Oakalla has been delayed,

unfortunately, because of the capital freeze on facilities. It is not a

policy that is going to be abandoned or watered down. It will proceed.

The first commitment on that policy was the opening of the Vancouver

Pretrial Centre, which has removed some of the burden of Oakalla. We

have other commitments, of course, to build further correctional

facilities in the lower mainland, and we have taken a major planning

step in relation to Maple Ridge recently. I can assure you that it is

the government's intention to phase out and close Oakalla, but that has

been delayed by budget freezes. I can't tell you when the capital

freeze is going to be lifted. I have to operate under that. But I

intend to resume that commitment. I acknowledge it now and I've

acknowledged it before. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch)

is a very, very strong advocate and supporter of that policy and has

given me a great deal of assistance in pressing forward with those

plans. So it's only budget freeze.

Before you and I s