1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 18, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3903 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

West coast commercial salmon fishery. Mr. Harcourt –– 3903

User fees in elderly-care facilities. Ms. A. Hagen –– 3903

Homemaker service fees. Ms. A. Hagen –– 3904

User fees in elderly-care facilities. Ms. A. Hagen –– 3904

Child care rates. Mr. Cashore –– 3904

The meeting on BCEC land. Mr. Williams –– 3905

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

On vote 14: minister's office –– 3905

Mr. Sihota

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Rose

Mrs. Boone

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Mowat

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Miller

Mr. Clark

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Today I, along with members of both sides of the House, had the

pleasure of proclaiming Volunteer Week in British Columbia. Volunteer

Week is April 17 to 23 inclusive.

In British Columbia tens

of thousands of individuals, or about 35 percent of the population aged

14 and up, volunteer an average of 3.5 hours a week. Mr. Speaker,

volunteers perform in virtually every capacity within charitable

organizations. They serve as committee and board members. They deliver

the organizational services to the public. They raise funds and help to

achieve collectively a multitude of services which benefit all British

Columbians. Of their own free will these people give of their time,

without any payment or any other consideration except the goodwill and

the satisfaction that goes with it.

We're privileged to

have in the members' gallery today, Mr. Speaker, two very important

members of the volunteers' organization: Miss Kim Sumpton, who is the

president of the Victoria Volunteer Bureau, and Alan Currie, who is the

executive director. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to pay tribute to the tens of thousands

of volunteers that make British Columbia's non-profit and

community-based services so successful. On behalf of this side of the

House, I too would like to pay tribute to this week where we pay

tribute to the volunteers of British Columbia.

MR. PELTON :

Hon. members, in the gallery today, from Mr. Speaker's riding, are 11

students from Pemberton Secondary School. These young people are

accompanied by their teacher, Mr. J. Williams. I would ask the House to

make them all very welcome, please.

MR. CLARK : Mr.

Speaker, visiting today from Richmond are two friends of mine: Cherie

and Stuart Corrigal. Stuart is a karate expert and is in Victoria to

help assess the progress of karate students. I'd ask the House to make

them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA : In the House today are a

number of grade 10 students from Shoreline school in View Royal, which

of course is in the wonderful riding of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. One of

the students was a Page here in the last session. Accompanying those

students today is their instructor, Mrs. Wilson. Would all members of

the House please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

Oral Questions

WEST COAST

COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHERY

MR. HARCOURT : I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and — oh, by the way — Fisheries. The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

said on the weekend that it would be logical to close the west coast commercial

salmon fishery permanently, taking about $750 million a year directly out of

the B.C. economy and throwing 24,000 British Columbians out of work, not counting

the economic spinoffs. How can the government reconcile closing down the fishing

industry, with its economic contribution to many coastal communities, when that

industry is so important to the B.C. economy?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

We don't have any intention of closing down the industry that I am

aware of, but I will defer the question to the minister who made the

statement.

MR. HARCOURT : The Minister of — oh, by the way — Fisheries

seems to me to still be in that position. The B.C. fishing industry is

threatened by many things: the Mulroney trade deal and GATT, on the one

hand, and your government's negligence and unwillingness to learn on

the other. I would like the minister to repudiate the ridiculous

statements of the Minister of Environment and commit here and now that

your government will not abandon the commercial salmon fishery up and

down the coast of British Columbia.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

To the hon. opposition leader, you can rest assured that from my

perspective we do not intend to abandon it in any way, but I again will

defer to the Minister of Environment and Parks.

USER FEES IN ELDERLY-CARE FACILITIES

MS. A. HAGEN :

My question is to the Minister of Health. The minister has written on

behalf of the government to all residents of elderly-care facilities in

B.C., stating that user fees will be based on income level. Will the

minister now confirm in this House his statement that the maximum fee

for residents in care will be $32 a day effective October 1 of this

year?

HON. MR. DUECK : The amount charged will be on

a sliding scale. It has not yet been determined exactly what that will

be and how it will take place as to levels. We hope it will be in

process by October 1. I will certainly give you all that information

when we have it.

MS. A. HAGEN : Further to the

Minister of Health. The government has stated publicly that all seniors

in facilities will have to take a means test, which usually means

reporting on income, investments and assets that people may have. Has

the minister decided to guarantee seniors that any information given to

assessors, in respect to the fees they will have to pay in the care

facilities, will be similar to the questions asked in the guaranteed

income supplement application— that is, only information about the

income seniors have and no means test? Could the minister assure the

House that that is the intent of this new program?

HON. MR. DUECK : The intent is to ask about income and not assets.

MS. A. HAGEN :

On April 5, the Minister of Health advised this House that elderly

couples will be treated as single people under his program. Will the

minister assure this House that in setting the sliding scale of fees,

only the individual income of the elderly resident in care will be

assessed and not the income of the couple?

[ Page 3904 ]

[2:15]

HON. MR. DUECK :

When all this information is put together, we will give you a copy. I

will personally deliver it to you. At the present time, anyone under

the assistance program will be treated as single. In other words,

people who do not have the capacity to look after themselves will not

be penalized because they are married, rather than single.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Could I ask the minister to clarify? Is he saying that people receiving

guaranteed income supplement will be treated as single, but seniors not

under the guaranteed income supplement, where one of the seniors is in

care, will not be treated as single? Is that the answer to the

question? Could he confirm my reading of it?

HON. MR. DUECK :

If someone in a facility has the capacity to pay, they will be asked to

pay. However, if someone in the facility is under supplement income,

they will more than likely qualify for GAIN, and they will certainly

not be penalized because they are married.

MS. A. HAGEN :

The minister has not answered my question, so I will ask it again. Will

the minister confirm that those not receiving guaranteed income

supplement will have the income of the couple assessed, not just the

income of the person in care?

HON. MR. DUECK : Some

of the information that the member opposite wishes has not yet been

worked out. I am saying that someone who is not capable of paying their

own way and is getting supplement will or could qualify for GAIN, and

they certainly will be treated as single and not married. When the rest

of the information becomes available, you shall get it.

MS. A. HAGEN :

There are something in the order of 110,000 people in this province who

are not eligible for GAIN but are eligible for guaranteed income

supplement. The minister is confusing the issue. Two questions: will

anyone receiving guaranteed income supplement be treated as single in a

care facility? And will people not receiving guaranteed income

supplement have the incomes of both spouses assessed in setting these

new fees?

HON. MR. DUECK : For the third time now, I

am saying that everything has not yet been worked out, and you will be

the first one to know when I have that information.

HOMEMAKER SERVICE FEES

MS. A. HAGEN :

Presently, one in four seniors receiving homemaker help in their homes

pay something in the order of $20 to hundreds of dollars a month for

their care. The minister has announced that there will be a new

assessment procedure for those receiving homemaker care. Has the

minister decided to increase the number of seniors who have to pay for

homemaker services, or is it his goal to increase the amount that

seniors pay? Or do the ministry and the government have two goals: to

increase the number of people who will be paying fees and the amount

they'll pay under the homemaker program?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Again, that program has not been finalized, but we are saying in

principle that someone who can afford to pay should pay something

towards their keep and therefore people who have a certain income will

be asked to pay towards that keep.

USER FEES IN ELDERLY-CARE FACILITIES

MS. A. HAGEN :

To the Minister of Health. Since the minister is not able to enunciate

in this House what the principles are on which people are to be

assessed in the care homes, will he now make a commitment to return the

level of assessment to 75 percent for all residents and not to

implement or even to propose any fees until he elucidates in this House

what the basis and the principle are going to be for those fees to be

established?

Will the minister deal with the issue that is

causing stress and concern in this province and tell people what the

principles are on which he is going to base the fees, and get on with

being a government managing in the interest of those most vulnerable

people in this province?

HON. MR. DUECK : Again, we

are saying that people who have an income.... We're going to be very

sensitive as to the amount of income individuals receive and how much

they will be charged, and once we have that worked out, we will let the

member know. We are not backtracking from the 75-85. As a matter of

fact, people who have not got an income and are under supplement can

now receive the GAIN. That would put that individual at $20 less per

month take-home pay. So I think we're going around in circles, asking

something that's going to be demonstrated by way of a policy a little

later on, and when that comes about, you shall know.

CHILD CARE RATES

MR. CASHORE :

A question to the Minister of Social Services. The child care situation

in B.C. is appalling. There are only 177 accredited group day care

spaces in the entire province for children under the age of 18 months,

and there's a six- to nine-month waiting list for these spaces for

single mothers on welfare, as well as for all families searching for

care. How can the minister reconcile cutting $50 a month from the

incomes of single mothers and their children while not providing

affordable and dependable child care to support training, education or

job opportunities for these parents?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

First of all, to correct something that the member said in his

preamble, we are not "taking $50 away from people"; we have merely

moved the qualification for employment from six months to four months.

That is the only change there, and that was to bring it into line with

the regulations of Unemployment Insurance. If it is found, indeed, that

a single mother cannot — simply cannot — find child care,

then of course the situation changes, and she may not then be classed

as employable. That is why we have added 200 workers to the financial

assistance side of the ministry: so we can do some individual

counselling with these people. That is why we have also decided to use

the extended family and pay child care benefits if the mother or the

grandmother or some relative wishes to look after the infant.

MR. CASHORE :

Supplementary: if the government does not intend to remove $50, let the

minister stand in this House and repeal the policy as announced last

week.

[ Page

3905 ]

It appears that the cost of day care for infants up to 18 months old is about

$625 a month. We understand that the new infant subsidy rate is at $400; therefore

the cost to welfare moms will still be $225 a month. In view of these figures,

can the minister explain the logic of taking $50 away from welfare moms while

charging them $225 a month for child care?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Again, the member seems to be hung up on this $50 per month, when the

only change is that we have moved the age by two months — from six

months to four months. Secondly, the rates for infant child care have

not been announced yet, and I said in this House during my estimates

that they would probably be announced by the end of this month.

MR. CASHORE :

Supplementary. Given the Premier's remarks on the weekend that prayer

would make single mothers and their children happier victims of the

government's anti-family policies, would the minister agree that all

our prayers should be devoted to a change of government before it's too

late?

MR. SPEAKER : The question is out of order.

TOIGO MEETING ON BCEC LAND

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the still-Minister of Economic Development. In regard to the April

24 breakfast meeting with Mr. Poole, the Premier and Mr. Brown

regarding Whistler and Mr. Toigo's offer for the Whistler assets, were

you advised before or after the meeting?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : After the meeting.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Mr. Speaker, was the minister advised at the board meeting on April 27

or earlier than that, and did she express concern to the Premier?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : I'll have to take that question as notice, because the member is asking for dates I cannot confirm in just a quick answer.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Could the minister advise the House whether BCEC did advise Mr. Li

Ka-shing not to attend a meeting with Mr. Toigo in Hong Kong?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : I'd be glad to take that question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS : Is the minister satisfied with Mr. Brown's

interpretation of those meetings?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

All of the actions of the board of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation and

its chairman, Mr. Brown, have been totally filled with integrity. I'm

very pleased with that board. They have been excellent in their

dealings with public business and with the responsibilities they were

given by this government.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

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

MR. SIHOTA :

We're trying to pick up from where we left off the other day on the

victims of violence, so I'll defer to the member for Kootenay (Ms.

Edwards).

MS. EDWARDS : I have some questions, but I

was waiting for some information that the Attorney-General promised to

get to me. When he has that information, then I would like to continue

my questioning just to determine how this program has worked out.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. member, I'm sorry you aren't having a chance to get your point

across here; there's so much noise in this room that it's very

difficult to hear. Perhaps those who would like to carry on meetings

could do so out in the hallways. Now, hon. member, would you mind

repeating what you just said.

MS. EDWARDS : Mr.

Chairman, my observations were simply that the Attorney-General was

going to bring me some information on the victim assistance program,

and then I expect I will have some more questions.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

Yes, we do have a breakdown of the victim assistance program budget for

last year and this year, and I think we have some regional breakdowns

as well. I can just hand it to her and she can look at it if she wants;

that's probably best.

MR. SIHOTA : What I intend to

do is commence on a different area of questioning in that it relates to

probation programs in this province. I want to ask the Attorney-General

a whole series of questions about the elimination of the family law

component — if I can put it that way — of the probation

officers' responsibilities. Approximately a third of their

responsibilities, as I understand it, relate to family matters — custody reports, access, separation agreements, that kind of stuff.

I'm

just wondering, first of all, if the Attorney-General can again advise

the House as to the extent to which the government intends to privatize

these functions of probation officers and the timetable the government

has in mind.

[2:30]

HON. B.R. SMITH : Would you repeat the question?

MR. SIHOTA :

Could the Attorney-General advise the House on the government's

intentions with respect to the privatization of those components of

probation officers' responsibilities and on the government's timetable

for privatization of the same?

HON. B.R. SMITH : We

certainly have a plan that we hope can bring about privatization of

family court counsellors. These people are now providing mediation and

conciliation services and are also preparing child custody and access

reports. We think this service can be done on contract quite well. We

have a task force looking at this, but their instructions are to

consult with the bar, community groups, the

[ Page 3906 ]

judiciary

and branch staff. The mandate is to ensure that the level of service

isn't reduced and that the quality of the service is enhanced if

possible.

The advice of the justice reform committee will

bear on that task force as well. I think the member, from his own

experience with custody and access reports, will agree with me that

there isn't really much magic as to whether they are done inside or

outside. What is important is that they are done promptly and

thoroughly, and we think that the service can be carried out on

contract. But we are not plunging in with implementation; we're doing

it on that format and agenda, and I would not think that we'd have

anything in place before the fall at the earliest.

MR. SIHOTA :

I want to pursue this aspect further with respect to the privatization

of family court counsellors. The Attorney-General is quite correct that

these people do a fair bit of work relating to custody reports, and

there may or may not — I am not about to concede that argument yet — be a special magic on the preparation of custody and access reports.

I have some additional questions to the Attorney-General which relate to the nature of those functions....

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I should point out that we're not laying people off to do this;

everybody we have will do other work. It's not just canceling a service

of government and letting people go. We're going to continue the

service; we're just going to deliver it in a different way.

MR. SIHOTA : Just on that point — although it wasn't the main point that I wanted to get to; it's a tangential point —

you're not laying people off, but with respect to that component of

your service, those people who have retired as a consequence of this

early retirement provision.... Will you tell me whether you intend to

replace those people or not, for the record?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

No. One of the advantages of early retirement.... I say "one of the

advantages" because I still lament that in my ministry I lost a lot of

really senior managers and middle managers, people with a lot of

experience who couldn't resist early retirement because it was such a

good package. But it's true that a number of those positions will not

be filled when we privatize; we simply won't replace them. But we have

a number of people doing this work now in government, and they're not

going to be laid off.

MR. SIHOTA : It seems to me

that you could ill afford to lay off any more, in that these people are

already overstressed and overworked with respect to their

responsibilities. Probation officers carry incredible caseloads. I've

spent a fair bit of time talking to probation officers in my forays

around the province, and I have a deep concern as to the extent to

which they can perform all of the monitoring, let alone the case

management functions that they are required to do.

I don't

know what the statistics are; they're probably lower than what I'm

going to suggest. But I'm well aware of probation officers who now,

because government will not be replacing those who have retired, will

be seeing caseloads up to 80, 100 or 120 people. That's immense. You've

removed people from the system in that when they've retired you've

passed their work to already overworked people within that sector. I

don't think the argument would wash — if this is the intended argument for the government —

that by removing the family court component of their responsibilities,

you're going to be able to bring down the case management levels. I

don't think that's going to happen.

We can come back to

caseloads in a few minutes, unless the Attorney-General has some

statistics there which we won't argue. I'd prefer to come back to that

later on. I want to get back to my main point on this.

Will

the Attorney-General confirm that the responsibilities that those

people have right now are, in general terms, mediation, custody and

access reports, the drafting of separation agreements, the drafting of

variation applications in court and the drafting of consent orders?

HON. B.R. SMITH : Yes.

MR. SIHOTA :

These functions are being privatized. It's my submission that you can't

do that. You can't legally privatize many of those functions because of

the Legal Profession Act. The act gives solicitors the obligation and

the responsibility to draft legal agreements. These people currently

draft separation agreements. Because of legislation governing probation

officers, the bar, of course, chose not to protest probation officers'

doing this type of work. But now that it's being privatized, it occurs

to me that the government is running afoul of the provisions of the

Legal Profession Act, in that these are paralegal responsibilities —

not the responsibilities of mediation, and not even the custody

reports. But when non-lawyers begin to draft separation agreements,

which, by virtue of the fact that they're agreements, have an effect on

people's rights and obligations.... For example, in the case of a

separation agreement, the clock starts running for a two-year period

with respect to property rights. A legitimate question arises as to

whether or not these obligations can be performed by non-lawyers,

specifically in relation to separation agreements.

I want

the Attorney-General to comment on what I call the paralegal nature of

this work, and many will call it the legal nature of this work — separation agreements —

and how it matches with the provisions of the Legal Profession Act, or

how the government intends to deal with this issue upon privatization.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

That argument really smacks of turf protection and shop turf. I really

don't like that argument. If you follow that argument through, your

secretary shouldn't be drafting a legal letter. And don't tell me she

hasn't done so, now and many times. That's nonsense.

These

people draft documents under the supervision of lawyers now, and they

will do exactly the same thing later. They have the solicitors in the

Ministry of Attorney-General just as available to them if they are

public servants as if they're doing work for us on contract. They will

not be drawing up legal documents on their own. They may be preparing

consent orders under direction on their own. But if we're going to go

around holding up this Legal Profession Act and saying that nobody can

work in the family law field or do anything because of that thing, then

I'll soon get it changed, I'll tell you.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Attorney-General is missing the point. Look, I have no difficulty

with people preparing custody and access reports for court, whether

they're in the public sector or the private sector. I think it's

admitted that

[ Page 3907 ]

there

are people in both sectors who are preparing those reports and provide

evidence to court. I have no problem with that. Nor am I trying to

protect turf. With all respect, that's not the argument here, nor ought

it to be the defence here. What we're talking about is advice on

people's rights and obligations. True, it may well be the legal

secretary who drafts the letter or the agreement, in the case of a

separation agreement. On the other hand, it is not the legal secretary

who gives advice on that separation agreement; it is not the legal

secretary who bears responsibility for that separation agreement; nor

is it the legal secretary who in any way whatsoever counsels the

parties.

It's at that point that I have a lot of concern.

It's not there to protect turf, Mr. Attorney-General; it's there to

recognize that at that point people are walking into the offices of

these people and they are seeking, effectively, legal advice. They are

being given a legal agreement. That agreement has effects on their

rights and obligations, and unless it's lawyers who are going to be

doing this, you have to wonder whether or not these people have the

skills or have the legal ability, given the provisions of the Legal

Profession Act, to turn around and give advice.

The simplest example of this — and I don't mean this in a demeaning way —

which I know the Attorney-General will understand is separation

agreements where property rights are affected. We know that there is a

limitation provision there of two years. We also know, for example,

that probation officers have approached the Law Society — and I encourage you to communicate with the Law Society in British Columbia —

to instruct probation officers on the matter of giving advice with

respect to separation agreements. The bar has stayed out of that, for

obvious reasons, recognizing that they ought not to be instructing

people who are not lawyers to render or give advice or draft agreements

that are the purview of solicitors. That's not there to protect turf;

it's there to protect the rights of individuals.

In light

of that explanation, I ask the Attorney-General again: does he not

think that the government's effort to privatize this component is

inconsistent with the provisions of the Legal Profession Act, which

stipulate very clearly that it is in the purview of lawyers to draft

these types of agreements?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

Privatization is a red herring in this thing, because if there's

something wrong, under the Legal Profession Act, with someone

counselling someone on a family matter, privatized, then there's

something wrong with them doing it in-house. If I'm to carry out

literally what you say, then absolutely nobody will be dealing with

family law counselling, trying to work out divisions of assets, or

anything else, with people unless they're a member of the bar. I don't

know that we could produce enough lawyers. If we quadrupled the number

in the law schools, hired all the ones that are unemployable and got

them all working in this field, we still wouldn't have room, and we

still wouldn't be able to afford it, either.

Family law

counsellors have been doing this kind of advising for years. Nobody

who's a privatized family law counsellor is going to operate on a

different standard or different training. They're going to go through

the Justice Institute just the way the people that I designated as

family law counsellors who had their qualifications did. They're going

to take a prequalification course, and they're going to have to have a

certain training and standard. They're going to know, also, that it is

not their job to advise on legal rights. It is not their job to try and

counsel someone on a dum casta

clause or any of this other stuff which only the mysterious profession

that you and I are with can do. They know that, but they're going to

also have the ministry lawyers that they can turn to for help if they

need that.

We're just trying to get as good or even better

service through flexible contracts as we have in-house with probation

officers. Don't think that I don't recognize, as you do, that probation

officers have given absolutely fabulous service in this province, and

that some of them have had very high caseloads. Statistically, we find

that adult probation caseloads have dropped a bit. They've dropped from

11 percent since '83-84. The parole caseload has dropped as well since

'83-84.

[2:45]

If you get out and

see what a probation officer who serves a large interior area has to do

in various parts of this province, and realize that the functions that

they do, including the functions that we're considering privatizing

here, also may include custodial functions and escorting people in

certain parts of the province where we don't have any facilities to do

that, it's a very heavy load. I have the highest regard for probation

officers and the way they carry out their duties. I was lucky in the

fall that I was able to travel with some of them in the remote

communities and just find out what a presence of justice they are. They

fill in all the cracks in the system that we have in many parts of this

province. We don't have manpower and we don't have resources. A

probation officer is the absolutely key person that makes the court

work between sittings, particularly itinerant courts. So I hope that it

is going to be beneficial as well to probation officers that this work

is being done separately.

MR. SIHOTA : Believe you

me, I'm not attacking or smearing the good work the probation officers

do. I see the Attorney-General says that he wasn't suggesting that, and

we'll leave it at that.

What I'm getting at here is that

these people that are going to be privatized.... We'll come back to the

onerous responsibilities of probation officers. But I want to focus on

this point again. The Attorney-General is saying: "We were doing it

in-house. I don't see any difference between in-house and within the

private sector." The reason you've been doing it in-house and getting

away with it, in terms of the Law Society not objecting to it, is the

special legislative dispensation. I don't have the particular

section

here to quote to you, but if necessary I'll seek it out and make it

available. Because of that conclusion on the part of the Law Society,

it was not objected to. But when you start moving it out in the private

sector and possibly lose control over the whole matter — and I don't think this is the main point — then a different set of considerations applies.

Let me just go through it piecemeal. Will the Attorney-General confirm — I may have it wrong — that the functions being privatized include the responsibility to draft separation agreements?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

No, I'm advised they don't draft separation agreements. Separation

agreements, in my understanding, are filed in Supreme Court or county

court but not in family court. The parties normally in those

proceedings — I say normally, but not always — have counsel, and they draft them. In family court we don't file separation agreements,

[ Page 3908 ]

and

our counsellors aren't in the business of drafting those. They have

drafted consent orders which then have to be approved by counsel for

the Supreme Court.

I don't think they are practising law.

That's incorrect. It's not intended that they practise law. It's

intended that anything that they do close to that line would be done

under the advice and supervision of lawyers.

MR. SIHOTA :

There may be a difference of opinion here between us. Is the

Attorney-General saying that currently these people do not draft

separation agreements?

HON. B.R. SMITH : Separation

agreements, as I said, are in Supreme Court,

section 96 courts; they

are not drafted by family counsellors. I don't know whether the member

is perhaps thinking about agreements to pay maintenance obtained in

family court. But these are not separation agreements; they are not

documents with a number of clauses in them. They are simply a promise

to pay maintenance that is made in family court, where there aren't

lawyers present. Those are form documents, prepared by court officials,

and they're entered into and signed. But I've never heard the Legal

Profession Act...supervisors interested in getting into that field.

MR. SIHOTA : I think they are already in that field, in the sense that lawyers are already drafting maintenance agreements.

want to again ask the Attorney-General: is he saying that, for example,

these people do not draft agreements to deal with custody, access or

property matters?

HON. B.R. SMITH : Only consent

orders in family court, which are put in written form in family court,

and have been for some years. That was done by the old family court

counsellors.

MR. SIHOTA : So the Attorney-General would agree with me.... Well,

maybe he doesn't. I'd like to get some clarification on this. Is he

saying that they draft only consent orders as they relate to custody, access,

maintenance and property?

HON. B.R. SMITH : Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SIHOTA : Is it the Attorney-General's position that these people draft but do not execute consent orders?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I'm not sure of the purport of that. They prepare a document which is a

consent order, and that is entered in the court registry. Yes, they do

that, and they have done that for a long time. In family court

proceedings, where there are not lawyers on both sides, that has been

the practice for years. Orders are drawn up by the court personnel if

they are consent orders and are approved, but they're not in the

business of negotiating terms of an order or putting in provisions that

require legal advice. They simply reflect what the parties have agreed

to, and what the court has ordered.

MR. SIHOTA :

Could the Attorney-General advise me as to whether these people file

orders for enforcement under

section 74 of the Family Relations Act?

HON. B.R. SMITH : I'll respond in due course.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Perhaps the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew could continue while the Attorney-General is gathering this information.

MR. SIHOTA : I'll try to consume a little time here, although I don't want to.... Maybe I'll give way to the opposition House Leader.

MR. ROSE : While the Attorney-General is busy, and nobody is listening anyway, I'll ask some easy questions.

When were these family court counsellors officially notified that they are to be privatized?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

They have been notified of that, and they are going to certainly be

talked to by the task force that is working out privatization. I don't

think they're in the dark as to what we're planning to do. We've made

those intentions known. Also a letter from the former commissioner of

corrections before he retired was sent to all of them, so they would

know that....

MR. ROSE : How many people are involved here?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

When I say "all of them," I mean that the offices were copied with the

letter. We didn't do a home mailing or anything like that, but the

regional director sent out copies of these to the various offices.

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Chairman, how many people are involved in this? How large is this

family court counsellor corps? How many people are we dealing with?

HON. B.R. SMITH : I'm not going to give an FTE answer, because I can't stand that expression, to be quite honest.

MR. ROSE : Don't use it.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

No, I won't. Seventy-four people are affected, and none will be laid

off. Their duties will be affected, but there are 74 people. That's a

better answer, I think.

MR. ROSE : I think that the

Attorney-General could probably wash the FTE word out of his mouth. I

didn't raise it. But there are 74 people who are not necessarily going

to be laid off; they're going to be.... Are they going to be

transferred? What is their destination?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

They'll continue as probation officers, but at some stage, if this goes

through, that won't be part of their function. It may vary in one

region to the next. They'll continue as probation officers, but this

function will depart and will go to some private contractor.

MR. ROSE :

Do I understand that these two

definitions are really synonymous then?

We have a probation officer and a family court counsellor. Are their

duties all the same? Is it complete congruency here? They're all the

same people? Or are just some of them doing the duties of probation

officers?

HON. B.R. SMITH : Well, it depends on

whether you're in an urban or a rural situation. If you're in an urban

situation, there may be specialists working largely in the family-

[ Page 3909 ]

counselling

field. But if you're dealing with someone in the riding of the member

for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), then it will probably be a

probation officer, or officers, carrying out this function. So it

varies around the province.

[3:00]

MR. ROSE :

I heard from previous testimony from the A-G that one of the objectives

of this privatization scheme for the family court counsellors was

really to take the load off probation officers. If that is the case,

then I would like to know how this workload that has been taken off

will be undertaken and how the need will be served in future. What is

the plan? The minister said "if this goes through," as if there might

be some doubt as to whether it should or not.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I expect that it will go through, but it's going to go through

properly, with some consultation, not just be imposed. How it will work

is that probation officers — formerly family counsellors performing their family counselling function —

will do other matters: that is, they will do youth probation, adult

probation, community service order administration and other such

things, but they will not have family counselling as part of their

duties. That part of their duties will be carried out by somebody under

a private contract; but the work will still be done.

Because

of early retirement and because the probation caseload has actually

been decreasing over the past few years, we anticipate that this can be

accommodated quite well. It may be that the results in some areas will

be a lightening of the caseload, but I don't promise that. I think that

the duties will be taken up with other probation work. It's the

intention of the corrections branch to fully discuss this with

employees before it happens, and not to just impose it.

MR. ROSE :

Do I understand that in rural areas the load of family court

counselling will be taken off the probation officer's shoulders? What

happens to the family court counsellors who are extant in the urban

areas? What will happen to their role, their tenure and their

possibilities for transfer — say, someone who lives and works in my riding?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

All those family counsellors in the urban areas who are practising

family counselling totally or substantially are also qualified and

trained probation officers, and they will simply move to that work.

That's what will happen. They won't be moved out; they'll be moved to

that work.

MR. ROSE : In the Attorney-General's plan

to privatize the work of family court counsellors, if a client needs

the service for how to deal with the courts, or how to mediate marital

problems and all the rest of it.... I understand that at the moment the

service is available through the government at no charge. Will there

henceforth be a charge for the services of this privatized agency? Or

how will they be funded? They'll be privatized, but will they be funded

through the government or will there be fee for service?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

No, fee for service is not contemplated. We'll pay the contractors a

contract price instead of carrying the cost of that function in-house.

MR. ROSE :

So if there's not going to be any charge for it, and yet the government

is going to pick up the costs of this, how can the public be assured

that the contractor isn't going to proceed on the basis of the sort of

efficiency or productivity mode that has been enforced on a lot of

other institutions, such as colleges and universities?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

The standards are prescribed in the contract, and as long as you have

proper contract supervision.... We have done a fair bit of

privatization in the last three or four years in the corrections

field — and when I say privatization, some of the work, some

community order supervision, is done by non-profit organizations. It's

not all done by for-profit organizations. But whichever it is, they

have to meet the standard of service, and the work is reviewed. If we

get complaints that the service is not up to scratch, we check that

out, or do the necessary audit. I can remember one celebrated case a

few years ago, where there was some criticism about an organization. As

it turned out, after the audit the service was thought to be well

provided and well delivered. although there were some community

problems with other aspects of the organization's activity.

don't take criticism lightly that any of this service, if it's

privatized, is not up to scratch. We ensure that it is, because if it

isn't, then somebody else will have to do it. I don't think it has to

suffer. I'm not claiming proof that it's better this way. I don*t think

it's either better or worse; I think it's only as good as the contract,

the party that you get to do the work, and the supervision that you

exercise over it. But I am saying that you can exercise that sort of

supervision by contract; it doesn't have to be exercised in an

employer/employee relationship.

MR. ROSE : The

difficulty I have is reconciling the government's policy, or stated

policy, of providing the citizens with easier access to the courts with

a change in the system that is not sure to provide greater access.

similar difficulty I have in reconciling this business of strengthening

the family is that here we have people whose main job is to enhance the

family, providing them with information before they go to the courts,

and it looks to me as if they may not be as accessible as they once

were. I need to be reassured on that.

Finally, one of the

advantages of it isn't saving money; it must be some other reason.

There must be an ideological reason, or the reason must be that you cut

down the number of public servants, and you contract it out, which is a

favourite ploy when you don't want to pay any fringes, or there's no

job security and you don't want to deal with any unions. I wonder if

the A-G will tell me which of the last three it is.

HON. B.R. SMITH : Take your pick: when did you start beating her; do you still beat her; do you still enjoy beating her.

I think the ideology — if there is any ideology, and I wouldn't impute any —

would perhaps reside in the mind of the questioner. I think ideology

crossed his mind in motivating his asking those questions. but I

noticed he resisted the temptation with enormous fortitude, and I

commend him for that.

There is still going to be access,

just as good as before, through this kind of system. In the probation

services offices, we're going to have people who will give this kind of

information and will plug people into the service if it's being done on

contract. Contract services can be done just as well, and in fact can

even be done more swiftly in some cases. I

[ Page 3910 ]

know

that my experience in getting custody and access reports in litigation,

in family law cases, was often one of frustration; they just couldn't

get them done in time. The officials doing them were bogged down with

other things and couldn't do them. But when you go out and have

somebody doing them privately, they can put that kind of exclusive time

into it, and if it's worthwhile, they'll produce them. As I say, we're

not charging the public for those; we're going to provide those.

I don't think it's ideologically driven, except insofar as we do

believe, as a government, that we should be as lean as we can, and that

if something can be done as well or better outside of government,

that's the way we should go, because there are a number of advantages.

I know that the hon. member may read into that some bias we may or may

not have in the field of labour relations; but I think we do have a

bias towards lean, flexible operations. You can be lean and you can be

flexible, and you can change your arrangements more readily if you're

not locked into rigid structures. We've had very good experience in

many parts of Corrections with contract services.

I'll give

you an example of another contracted service that really provided

better access to the public when it was privatized: court reporting.

Before we privatized it, it was often very difficult for lawyers to get

the court reporters to do evening and weekend work; but now, with the

additional fee incentive they have, they're doing a lot of these

transcripts on the weekends. A lot of arbitration is taking place on

the weekends and in the evenings, and the reporters are earning more

money. They have a work incentive, and it has worked out very well.

Incentive is another element in this too, and I don't apologize for

that. We believe in the incentive of the private sector. I make no

apology for it.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just prior to

recognizing the member for Prince George North, the second member for

Richmond would like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOENEN : In the gallery are some very special visitors all the way from Newfoundland —

some 24 grades 9 and 10 students. They are here on the Open House

Canada program. They are accompanied by their host students from a

school in my riding, the Palmer Junior Secondary School, and I would

ask the House to please make them welcome.

MRS. BOONE :

The Attorney-General mentioned at different times rural areas, and I am

having some difficulty understanding just how you are going to achieve

your goal of not laying off people and yet still keep the services and

the people there when you have one probation officer in a small town,

such as Mackenzie in my riding. There are many small towns throughout

B.C. that are in a similar situation. How are you going to decrease

that person's workload, still maintain enough workload for him to

remain on full staff and yet employ an outside agency to do part of his

work? What kind of efficiency is involved in that, and how does the

government intend to save money by still keeping on that employee?

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I don't see any change at all. I mean, I can't assure her of every

administrative detail of every community. I was trying to take a model

probation officer, one based in Terrace, who serves the whole northern

court region, like Rob Watts. I just asked my staff what work Rob would

do or wouldn't do that he already does. He already does the juvenile

and adult court load, a whole lot of counselling and all sorts of

criminal cases throughout northern communities that have itinerant

courts, which all involve family violence of some kind and alcohol. He

does all that and he is going to continue doing it, but I guess he

won't be assisting in family court proceedings any more; somebody on

contract will.

It may be that in cases like his it's not

practical, because he is there and should be doing that, and it's not

practical to segment that out to someone else. We will try to look at

each situation and be flexible with it. I can't tell you how it's going

to be administered in each case, just that we will not diminish the

service.

MRS. BOONE : So you are saying that in some areas.... I'll use Mackenzie again —

it's not Rob Watts's territory, but I'll use it because it's a smaller

territory. If that probation officer does not have enough work to do

after you have taken out the counselling services, will he not be

reduced to part-time, or will you reconsider that and keep the

counselling services in that area if, in fact, there is not enough to

keep a full-time employee there?

HON. B.R. SMITH : It

might make sense in a case like that to keep the family counselling

services with that particular probation officer instead of flying in

somebody occasionally on a contract to do that. I mean, it isn't going

to be some across-the-board approach or one of "get rid of the function

regardless of how the chips fall" in every small community. We're going

to look at each community individually and see how we can achieve the

goal of as much privatization as can be done sensibly and reasonably.

I'm

not into getting rid of the whole function if it doesn't work in an

individual case; I was just thinking through out loud the case of Rob

Watts. It may make absolutely no sense to fly in a contract family

counsellor to Lower Post for one day out of six weeks, when Rob Watts

is going to be there anyway. He seems to be quite able and competent to

do all those things, including escorting prisoners back when he is

finished, and still be able to have a beer later and discuss his

caseload coherently at two in the morning — which I can tell you he can do.

[3:15]

MR. SIHOTA : I'm wondering if the Attorney-General can do that at 2 o'clock in the morning when he is finished with his day.

MR. ROSE : He's not even articulate at two in the afternoon.

MR. SIHOTA : Especially when he's not articulate at two in the afternoon. In any event, I want Hansard to understand that it was my friend the House Leader who made that comment and I just repeated it for the record.

I'll

stay in this vein with respect to the quality of service, although I

want to get back to the issue of what service is going to be

privatized, which is the precursor to the whole thing. But before we do

that, the Attorney-General says the government intends to maintain the

same quality of service

[ Page 3911 ]

that

currently is the case. Take the matter of separation agreements; I'm

sure the Attorney-General has some policy guidelines on this point. As

an opening question, how much time is a probation officer expected to

expend under the current guidelines in the research and drafting of a

custody and access report?

HON. B.R. SMITH : I'm told

there are standards. Of course, what they put in varies depending on

the complexity of each case, but in some cases they spend up to 40

hours in the preparation and drafting of these. In other cases you can

do them in a much shorter time. But many of them take a long time.

MR. SIHOTA :

That's my understanding: that people may spend up to 40 hours. I'm

wondering whether or not those same policy guidelines are going to be

incorporated into the contracts that are being let with respect to the

privatization of these programs.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

It's going to be our policy to specify, before we enter into a

contract, exactly what we expect to get. I'm not going to lay out these

terms now, because obviously if I do you can't negotiate any kind of

contract. We will lay out the terms of the service that we expect to

receive. We do not expect to receive less service than we are now

receiving. It's not some sideways attempt to reduce service.

MR. SIHOTA : Then is it reasonable to presume — I think it ought to be —

that if the government does not want to erode the quality of service,

the guidelines for how much time you're supposed to be spending on

these kinds of things must therefore be identical to what is currently

the case?

HON. B.R. SMITH : No, not necessarily. We

may not prescribe hours or maximum or minimum at all; we may prescribe

a certain volume of work that we expect them to get through, and they

will have to bid based on their estimate of how long it's going to take

them to do that. No, it won't be exactly the same, but our object will

be to get through the work without affecting the service.

MR. SIHOTA :

Let me explain this from a different angle so that the Attorney-General

can see what I'm coming at. My fear, which I think is a well-founded

concern, is this: if I was bidding on this project I would know.... I'm

sure those who bid on this project know that under the current system

they'll spend up to 40 hours working on a custody and access report.

They'll sit and listen to the spouse cry for a time and take into

account what that spouse has to say. They will spend time talking to

police officers. They'll take time to talk to a teacher; perhaps

they'll take time to talk to a neighbour. They may talk to a whole

series of references with respect to the character and quality of a

parent.

What will happen with privatization is that they

won't do it anywhere near to that level of depth. Maybe they'll talk to

two references. Maybe they'll talk to the parents and the preacher, or

to the parents and the teacher. They'll talk to the parents and they

might talk to the social worker. But they won't do them all, and that's

where they're going to cut the comers. That's where the money is in

this thing. You are not going to expend as much time as you do now with

respect to the report, because time is money. In the contracting-out

business, that's where the profit is, so you have to make a guesstimate

as to how much time you're going to spend on these matters. Because

time is at a premium, what you're going to begin to do is not to

investigate certain matters when the old ticker starts. I think that's

simply a logical conclusion.

What's going to suffer is the

quality of service. From my point of view, perhaps what's going to

suffer is the nature and the quality of the product, i.e. what goes to

that judge. I would be interested in the Attorney-General's response to

that argument, because I don't think.... In fact, I'll say positively

that anyone who's going to bid on this stuff is not going to maintain

the 40-hour standard. There's no way it will be done. That's where the

money is, because time is money, and that's where the savings are.

That's

why I'm trying to find out if those guidelines that currently exist

with respect to 40-hour custody reports or whatever are going to be

incorporated. If they're not, then you are going to get an inferior

product. Is that not true?

HON. B.R. SMITH : I guess

we could go around and around on this thing. It's surely no more valid

to suggest that because it's a private contractor doing it, it's going

to be done with less thoroughness and care than for me to suggest that

because it is done inside, a lot of time would be wasted and it would

be inefficient. Neither of those statements is valid. One is no less

invalid; they're both invalid. It doesn't have anything to do with

where you sit — whether you sit inside or outside of the public service, surely.

What

is important, I think, is only that you get quality people to do the

work and that you have tight supervision and evaluation. That's true if

they're employees; you want the same thing too. We will have to

carefully evaluate it. We're not contracting out pre-sentence reports;

we're not contracting out probation reports. We're contracting out work

in the family law area only. I do think that this can be well done

according to standards and evaluation, just the way it was with food

services. We heard exactly the same arguments with food services: a

great deal of suspicion that the contractors would try and cut back,

water the soup and dilute the milk; all the things, of course, that

only the private sector would think of doing — the private sector lie awake nights thinking about that.

a matter of fact, in many cases we've had compliments about improved

quality of food service from some of our contractors. Not all —

gosh knows it isn't a very easy thing to do, to provide food services

for people who have forced attendance at institutions and have to eat

there. The first things that people complain about are things like

food. Nothing is complained about earlier in these institutions than

food. We've had good results since we went onto private contract.

I hear what you say. I understand the importance of not allowing

contractors to do the kinds of things that you predict they might do.

It will be our job to make sure that they don't. If we have somebody

who is cutting comers, as you say — not adequately going out and talking to various witnesses in an access report, but trying to do a slipshod job — then it will be up to us to make sure that we don't use them any more.

But

I would think that there are incentives out there for people who have

these contracts. Family law contracts have been contracted out for some

years — certainly since I've been Attorney-General — and a

number of them in this town. They're not large sums of money that we

pay the lawyers to do those, but they bid for them, they covet them,

they seek

[ Page 3912 ]

them

and they want them, because it gives them a guaranteed cash flow and

access to the courts. They do the work, and they estimate that they can

do it. They don't cut corners. They do a reasonable job for us, and we

evaluate them. If they don't, the work is taken away from them. So it's

only as good as the specs you write and the supervision you have.

MR. SIHOTA :

Look, first of all I don't want to mix food with the contracting-out of

family court counsellors. When I get to talking about prisoners, I

guess we'll argue about food services at that point. I've already told

you I'm going to do that; I've already put you on notice. Maybe if you

continue to talk about it I won't, but I prefer that we talk about the

topic at hand here.

Part of what you're saying is sort of:

"Trust me. We'll do it." Believe you me, I will even put on the record

that I think the Attorney-General's a good administrator of his

ministry. So I don't really want to go at it from a "trust me" aspect

of it. I want to know what the criteria are going to be. If the

argument — or the position of the government — is that

quality will be maintained above all, Mr. Critic, and don't worry about

it, I want to then ask the Attorney-General the obvious question about

quality control. Perhaps he could tell this House what, with respect to

the privatization of family court counsellors, are the government's

intentions in regard to quality control. What criteria has the

government developed in order to evaluate the work that will be done by

these people once they are privatized?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I'm not in a position to discuss the criteria that we'll be putting out

for bidding. I'm in a position to say to him only that whoever is

awarded a bid will have to qualify as a family court counsellor and

will have to take the training I mentioned. We will expect not only the

same standards of performance but the same standards of training. I'm

not in a position to talk about contracts because we haven't got to

that.

MR. SIHOTA : Okay, I should have also asked who

will be doing that quality-control work. It will be the ministry, I

take it. I don't know if that work will be added on to existing

probation officers. Maybe I should ask that question before I ask

questions that flow from the Attorney-General's last comment. Who will

then be doing this evaluation, and will it be responsibility added on

to existing probation staff?

HON. B.R. SMITH : No, there is no change in that. Those will be public servants within the correctional branch.

MR. SIHOTA : It's my understanding — correct me if I'm wrong —

that family court counsellors are evaluated annually and that their

work is supervised. Will that still be the case when these people are

privatized?

[3:30]

HON. B.R. SMITH :

The contracts will be negotiated annually, so there will be an annual

automatic evaluation. The contracts will be regularly supervised as

well, and I don't think that there's going to be any change in

the....There may be some change in the frequency, but there will

certainly be a policy of regular supervision and evaluation.

I think you're right that the family counsellors are evaluated annually — or are supposed to be evaluated annually.

MR. SIHOTA : Okay. If — and this is a big if —

the service is the same, and the evaluation is the same, and the work

is the same.... That is an issue because we have to deal with that

again in light of the opening exchange we had in terms of not knowing

what exactly is being privatized. We'll come back to that. Given those

three ifs, I want to pursue just where the savings will be, because I

go back to the question the opposition House Leader raised: is this not

an initiative on the part of the government to remove these fulltime

equivalents — if that's the way you want to put it — from the

public sector? Maybe I'll just ask the Attorney-General where he

anticipates the savings to his ministry will come from.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

We have found in other areas.... I'm not going to discuss food services

with him, because he's now satisfied that I've covered that whole

subject adequately and has decided not to pursue it at a later stage of

his notes; I'm ungrateful for that.

I do think that

competition and incentive will operate to provide savings. Probably

clerical and other savings can be achieved if there is the incentive of

realizing some profit out of the work. We have found that in other

areas where we have privatized, those savings have been realized.

Therefore I'm certainly prepared to move down this road. But I'm not

prepared to reduce the service the public receives in these areas —

I'm with the member on that. I think we have a slight difference on the

question of ideology here, but we have the same objectives.

MR. SIHOTA :

Let me say that ideology is not the motivating factor in my asking

these questions. Certainly on this side of the House we recognize the

role the private sector has to play in society. We also recognize why

it is that certain activities have accrued to the public sector, and

that arguments of public interest and the delivery of public services

override private sector considerations. So it's not an ideological

argument. Effectively, at this stage of the game between the

Attorney-General and me, it's a pragmatic and economic argument, and I

want to stick to that.

We've heard the statement from the

Attorney-General which really amounts to saying: "Well, you know, it's

worked in other areas and it may work here." But let's compare

statement against report. I want to quote the auditor-general’s last

annual report on the ministry, where he talks about probation programs

being contracted out. He said:

"Whether

contracting saves money is still uncertain. The labour-intensive nature

of the work, the lack of a sizeable private market in probation

services, and the fact that public service probation officers are not

highly paid combine to suggest that contracting has no obvious cost

advantages over delivering the services through public servants unless

a lower quality of service is accepted. Furthermore, to keep program

risk at an equivalent level when a program is delivered by contractors,

the branch must allocate staff to manage and monitor the contracts. The

branch has not yet fully developed a method for doing this."

This

is the auditor-general's analysis of it. This is not a political

opinion that I hold, or a political opinion that the Attorney-General

has articulated or countered. The point is that in the course of his

report the auditor-general makes a very significant point: you have to

look at the nature of the work; you have to look at the market in the

private sector; you have to look at the pay rate being paid to these

people right now; you have to recognize that if you want to contract

out,

[ Page 3913 ]

there is going to be a lower quality of service. That's the conclusion.

I want to emphasize that it's not an argument of ideology. If the auditor-general comes down with that type of report — and he's an independent official —

then it seems to me that it is essential that we on this side of the

House ask questions in some depth with respect to further privatization

of probation related programs, and that's why these questions are being

asked. It's not like food services — or it may be like food

services; we'll get to that argument later. But some salient

considerations have been articulated by the auditor-general in previous

efforts by this government to privatize probation services. In the face

of that evidence, it seems to me that it is incumbent upon those on

this side of the House, let alone the Attorney-General, to ask

questions about the quality of service and about savings that may or

may not accrue to government. I think that, on the balance of

probabilities, the doubt must be on our side of the fence when we say

that we don't necessarily see savings in this process unless you want

to cut corners.

I gave the example of separation

agreements. It seems to me that what the auditor-general said here when

he concluded that there would be a falling in the quality of service

was that he sided with the opinion that I have embraced. So it's not an

opinion that we embrace lightly; it's one that I come to with some

tangible evidence and articulate, therefore, with a sense of

understanding of what's involved here. It's appropriate that these

matters be expressed and, therefore, invite the question that I'll now

pose to the Attorney-General: to what extent have the auditor-general's

comments in that report been integrated into the government's proposal

for privatization of these new components of probation programs?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

Of course we pay attention to the auditor-general, but I think that the

member is perhaps taking the comment of the auditor-general somewhat

literally when he talks about the difficulty in showing that probation

can be done any more cost-effectively in the private sector. He's

really talking about family counselling, which is only one part of

probation. That report doesn't break it down into family counselling at

all. It deals with probation, and we don't argue and have plans to try

and privatize either the juvenile or criminal aspects of probation.

I can only say that, yes, we do pay attention to what he says. We are

certainly going to measure the cost-effectiveness of this and endeavour

to both predict it and evaluate it. We are also very mindful of the

fact that we must have extremely tight evaluation and supervision,

because we do not want to end up with inefficient privatizations, or

ones that don't work.

MR. SIHOTA : It occurs to me — again, I'm sort of basing it on logic —

that before one engages in a change in structure, which is what's

happening here with respect to probation programs, you would want to do

some study and determine on your own whether or not it's going to be

cheaper for the taxpayer to have these programs privatized. If I was in

business — which I've been known to be — before I decide to

buy my telephones from Island Pacific instead of B.C. Tel, obviously

the first thing I'm going to look at is whether it's going to be

cheaper in the long run for me to go one way or the other.

would seem to me, therefore, to be logical that the government would

want to do some studies to determine whether or not it's going to be

cheaper for it to privatize. With respect to these programs, was any

in-house study done to determine whether or not the government should

proceed with privatization; and if so, what did the evidence conclude?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

It's all very well to say that you shouldn't make any changes to

government operation until you have a study on your desk the size of

the Bronx telephone directory, but I don't think that's really what

we're about here. We have given notice of our intention to attempt to

privatize family counselling; we have notified our employees of that.

We are preparing various criteria that we are going to insist on for

the standard of delivery of service. We are also going to continue the

training standard that family counsellors will have to have. The next

step will be to put out calls for proposals, and we will get proposals

which we will evaluate. Based on that, we will decide on the timing and

the extent and the nature of the privatization.

I don't

know how else we would do it. I suppose we could have some high-paid

consultant come and tell us first exactly what it would cost and how to

go about it. Maybe there will be some individuals who will be able to

come out here and assist us from another province in western Canada.

People in caravans who will be unemployed will be starting to move

westward — social engineers and others looking for new

opportunities. We'll welcome them here in this province, of course.

We'll welcome them bidding on these contracts.

MR. SIHOTA : If things hold true, some of them might be from Manitoba.

We'll

leave it at that. I think we've had a fairly thorough dialogue on this

matter, with the exception of my opening set of questions. So let's go

back to that for a minute, and then perhaps move on to topics that may

be of more interest to others.

I just want to get some

clarity in my own mind in terms of what is being privatized. It is my

understanding that these family court counsellors do draft agreements

dealing with custody, access and maintenance. Is that true?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

In cases where a consent has been reached in family court between

parties, they will assist a party in preparation of a simple document

that is consented to. They do not negotiate separation agreements or

legal documents. The client, the spouse that they assist, is the person

who has to file the document anyway. Also, if they get into a position

of any difficulty, they have the resources of our ministry at their

disposal.

To my way of thinking. they are not practising

law, but if there is any doubt about it, I'm quite prepared to review

the Legal Profession Act to cover what they do.

MR. SIHOTA :

Actually, I was trying to find the Legal Profession Act. Is it still

called the Barristers and Solicitors Act? I thought for some reason it

was filed under the....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

Yes, well, I do have it now under the Barristers and Solicitors Act.

I'm trying to find the provision, but I guess I'm not going to be able

to find it right away.

[3:45]

There is no doubt that these people draft agreements that deal with matters of custody, access and maintenance. Prop-

[ Page 3914 ]

erty

may be an issue. I want to ask the Attorney-General, on the matter of

drafting agreements with respect to matters of property, whether or not

those who will be involved in the private sector contracting-out of

these programs — those who succeed in securing the contract —

will be expressly prohibited from drafting separation agreements, and,

in particular, separation agreements that deal with property.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

They won't be doing out of house what they don't do in house. And they

won't be transgressing the threshold of the Legal Profession Act,

that's for sure.

MR. SIHOTA : It's also my

understanding that these agreements are filed under

section 74 of the

Family Relations Act. Perhaps it's best to end this debate on this

note: it is my submission that what these people have been doing and

what will now be privatized are matters that fall under the purview of

the Barristers and Solicitors Act — as it now called, as I've just learned.

The

Attorney-General and I have probably gone as far as I can think of at

this stage, in terms of debating that matter back and forth. All I can

say to the Attorney-General is that perhaps — and he has sort of made that comment already —

he ought to consult with the Law Society on the matter. Without

breaching any confidences, since I initiated the conversation, I have

no doubt that they are deeply concerned about what's being done here.

They chose to take a particular position when it was allowed under the

legislation to permit the family court counsellors to do it, as they

can today, but that view certainly changes when they are in the private

sector.

I'll leave it at that unless the Attorney-General

has any further comment. I see he's consulting back and forth with his

officials. I'll just wait to see if there's any response. If not, then

I want to touch on one final, personal aspect on this issue.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I was consulting to find out whether we'd had this brought to our

attention or had any concern expressed. The answer I received is no, we

have not. It hasn't come to us. This is an old issue. I remember it was

raised here about four or five years ago, but it doesn't seem to have

been a continuing issue. The notion that a lawyer should vet all these

consent orders or agreements made in a family court — where there are no legal practitioners much of the time — has certainly not been put to us.

One

of the mandates of the justice reform committee that my deputy has is

to look at the family court system in terms of access. I believe that

parties who go into family court and are involved in matters of access

need to have assistance from people who work in this field of family

counselling and who have never been lawyers in the past. They need to

have access to that. If there's going to be an impediment from the Law

Society, then we'll deal with it legislatively.

MR. SIHOTA : Maybe we're not going to leave this topic as easily as I thought we were. First of all — I can't find my notes in this regard, and maybe there isn't anything in my notes —

I understand that Pam Murray and Bob Johnston were looking into this

matter once. Maybe Mr. Hughes is here; he might recollect a committee

that they were involved in, either with the bar.... I'm really working

from memory here, so I could be wrong too.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

We don't recall it, but Mr. Hughes advises me that Pam Murray is indeed

putting forward a brief to the justice reform committee on family,

representing the view of the bar on family law. So it may be in that,

but she has not brought to my attention or to the attention of my

office that this is one of the things that concerns her. It hasn't been

brought to my attention yet; it may, of course.

MR. SIHOTA :

I have another question in light of the comment the Attorney-General

made earlier with respect to people who need to go through to the

provincial court system. I am worried about the cost implications to

them when this service is privatized. Am I correct in assuming that

that aspect of it will not change in the sense that there will be no

fee paid by individuals for the procurement of custody, access and

maintenance reports — in particular — or is it going to be on a fee basis?

HON. B.R. SMITH : No, I already answered that there will not be fees charged for that in family court.

MR. SIHOTA : I'm sorry, I may have missed that point.

With

respect to the office in the Western Community, which, needless to say,

I have more than just a passing interest in, the Attorney-General said

earlier that there would be no changes with respect to employees; in

other words, those that are there are there. I'm wondering if he could

confirm whether the offices in the Western Community and Esquimalt will

both be maintained.

HON. B.R. SMITH : I'm glad to

hear that my friend opposite is a supporter of decentralization of

services. By announcing an itinerant court would be coming into the

Western Community, I've now recruited him as a supporter of

decentralization, Mr. Chairman. It's very nice to have him aboard.

It's

too early to say what's going to happen to any individual office. I

cannot give him the assurance that there won't be some changes in some

offices, but no diminution of service.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'll let the Attorney-General off the hook, and we'll move on to a

different topic: the report of the Gaming Commission on the status of

gaming activities here in British Columbia. We on this side of the

House have some significant concerns with respect to what's going on in

the gaming industry. Again, for the benefit of the Attorney-General, so

he and his officials have some idea as to where I intend to go in this

component of the debate so that we're all prepared, I am going to focus

on the bingo aspect of it and the bulk of the recommendations that

flowed from the

chapter on bingo in the commission's report. Needless

to say, there will be some cross-cutting with respect to some of the

bingo and try to use bingo as an example of some of the problems that I

see.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

As a newcomer to this House,

one of the things you don't really have is a sense of history. Often

words are exchanged in this House as to what might happen and what

might not happen. We just went through the matter of privatization of

family court counsellors in some depth. Of course, I took the position

that quality will suffer and it's going to cost more, and the

Attorney-General gave us all the assurances that that

[ Page 3915 ]

would

not be the case. Accordingly, I took the liberty of reviewing the

debates on bingo through the previous estimates, when they were within

the purview of the Provincial Secretary's ministry, and examined what

the concerns were some time ago.

I particularly went

through the debate of a good friend of mine, soon to be returned for

Okanagan North, Mr. MacWilliam. I went through the concerns that were

expressed. I know very few people actually go back and read the debate

in Hansard , but it's

fascinating to see exactly what transpired, because it is the same type

of debate that we see all too often in this House. We have the

opposition saying that all these rotten things are going to happen and

the system's not going to work and the whole area is going to become

unstuck and amok. The government, on the other hand, offers soothing

words of comfort, suggesting that the issue is well in hand; there's no

way the sky is going to fall, and they're doing everything they can

possibly do within their resources to prevent all of those negatives

from occurring. That's the tenor of that debate.

The beauty

of it, of course, is that now we've had some time to review what was

said in 1985, particularly with the filing of the report on the status

of gaming in British Columbia — an opportunity to see some three years later what has happened, and which side of the argument prevailed.

Before

articulating what I think has happened, let me outline some of the

concerns at the time. I think it's salient to go back to the old

debates and extract the matters that were of import.

There

was a strong feeling at that time, more between the lines than stated

directly, that the government was vacating the field. Because of

cutbacks in the social services sector, many of those groups that had

enjoyed government funding from ministries involved in the social

services sector, including this ministry, were now being told to secure

their funds from a different source. In other words, the government was

retreating from the field of adequately funding social services —

which, needless to say, is something near and dear to those of us on

this side of the House and, I'm sure, on the other, although I think

we'll get into an argument about that at some stage — and leaving

the clientele of the gaming industry to pick up obligations for

funding. That was one concern. I think that concern remains today. I

honestly believe that one of the reasons why we have seen an expansion

of gaming activity in this province is that there is a shortage of

funds from the social services ministries and people have had to go

elsewhere. We've abandoned the car washes, walkathons and all those

wholesome things for increased gaming activity. I guess I have a lot of

concerns about that ethically.

The other concern was that as you move to the large operations in the province, particularly bingo — because the debate at that time was focusing on bingo —

a lot of the smaller groups would be cut out of the action or certain

groups would not be able to get into the action. I honestly believe,

for reasons that I'll outline later on, that it's also happening now. I

think that not only the Gaming Commission report but also the

administrative action since the filing of that report have reinforced

that.

Let me just say in brackets that I do have some

concern that despite the fact that this report has never been debated

in this House, the commission is moving headlong with respect to

implementing the recommendations which were blessed by the

Attorney-General. I think that before that occurred, there ought to

have been time provided for a debate of the report. It's fair to say

that we're doing that now, but it's also unfair in that the provisions

and recommendations in the report are being implemented prior to any

debate. Anyway, certain groups would lose out; that is happening.

[4:00]

There was a concern — and this is perhaps my second greatest concern —

that regulations would not be adequately enforced, and the report

clearly bears that out. There was a concern that commercial operators

would operate at immense profit and that people would, frankly, be

ripped off. If one looks at the history of the industry, particularly

at what operators are doing, there is no doubt that commercial

operators are making enormous profit, simply through the rent

provisions. I know the report deals with that, but it again highlights

the fact that the concern expressed at that time was a legitimate one.

There

was a concern that organized crime or criminal activity would

infiltrate the industry, particularly as the industry grew. In the

debates that took place in the Legislature, I was struck by the fact

that at the time, it was indicated that the industry generated about

$20 million in activity; the number is now up to $180 million. In fact,

I will be making some suggestions later on which I think bear out the

view that criminal activity has moved into the bingo industry. I'll be

talking about bingo and mobs, if you want to put it that way, in my

comments later on today.

Finally and most importantly, in

my mind, there was the matter of the social element: who would

participate in gaming activities. I think the report touches on that

issue and bears out the concern that Mr. MacWilliam, who represented

this party, articulated in this House some time ago.

Those

are the six areas I want to focus on, with a view to how they relate to

bingo. Again, the reason I have chosen to highlight those six

areas — and I make this point very seriously, because I made it earlier on with respect to the earlier debate —

is as follows. At some point we'll get into an argument that says:

"Well, it's true. No, it's not true. This is the way it is. No. that's

not the way it is." It's then going to be a credibility issue as to

whose senses are right about what's happening in the industry. I'm

saying that these were the concerns then; the report highlights that

these are still concerns today. There are problems in that area, and if

one wants to embrace the concept of an abundance of caution, then

through an abundance of caution, a fair bit of credence should be put

on issues we raise. These are legitimate concerns in light of the fact

that they were raised three years ago, have been tested in the field,

and are obvious problems now. I think we deserve some concrete answers

about what the government intends to do.

I also noticed

somewhere in the budget that the government's allocation in regard to

the Gaming Commission is increased by, I believe, 155 percent. I'm sure

the Attorney-General will find great comfort in that number and will

refer to it over and over again, so I want to let him know that I will

be asking him questions about the 155 percent increase in the budget of

the public gaming branch. I guess that's the background to the issue of

what our concerns were then and what they are today.

I want to quote from the report.... The reason I want to quote from it —

I'm going to be very honest here at the outset with the

Attorney-General.... I see the government House Leader has lost his

seat, but I guess I only say that in the literal sense of the word.

The reason I'm raising these issues about bingo is that I have a lot of concerns as to what's transpiring in that field. To

[ Page 3916 ]

honest about it, I'm not too sure what I would do if I were in the

Attorney-General's position today. On the one hand. I am firmly

convinced that we have, in the words of the commission, created an

"untidy tiger." In my own words, I think the government tangled quite a

web for itself when it allowed for the expansion of bingo and gaming

activity in this province. By allowing that activity to exist, it has

also legitimized that activity, and it makes it very difficult to take

that activity away.

My bias — and I'll put that bias on the record —

is that we should go back in time and return to the small, church

basement bingo operations. I stand to be convinced otherwise by both

the Attorney-General and members on this side of the House as well. But

I think we have ventured into a field.... Wedded to it are a set of

complex social, criminal and economic issues. I think we ought to look

very carefully at where we stand today. It is my bias that we should

perhaps return to where we were yesterday in this field. It is a very

scary field that we're moving into. Given the predisposition of this

government to increase bingo activity, and other gaming activity more

so than bingo, then my concern is even greater.

I know that you talked to the average person on the street —

and I do it in my riding as well. They say: "Come on, Moe, what's wrong

with bingo?" On the face of it, not a lot. But when you look at it and

scratch the surface, there is a lot. I want to quote what this

commission said in its report, because it causes me great concern:

"It

is a known fact that the runaway best night in bingo parlours across

B.C. is the day that welfare cheques arrive. No one is coerced into

playing bingo, but other B.C. operators speak of the reliance on

patrons' UIC income for bingo revenue.

"In

B.C., bingo players spend, on an average, about $20 to $25 per session.

A bingo operator himself told us he is very concerned about a number of

his patrons who are clearly addicted and who are spending money they

cannot afford."

I'm very concerned about the social effect of these types of....

MR. CHAIRMAN : I regret to inform the member his time has lapsed.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I am listening with considerable interest to the policy positions that

the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is elucidating, and I would hope

he may continue.

MR. SIHOTA : I thank the member for

New Westminster for that very supportive comment. It's nice to know

they are being appreciated, and I'm sure they are being appreciated by

the Chair as well. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, I really do miss your

reactions. I know that if you were in another chair in this room, I

would have heard from you by now. Some say silence is golden, and I

trust you are enjoying your new role.

In any event, just

returning to the point, it's this: when the biggest night is the day

the welfare cheques arrive, and if reliance for bingo revenue is placed

heavily on those who have UIC income, I'm certainly not a happy man. It

highlights the very concern that we have. Sure, you can argue all day

long as to whether I'm a bleeding-heart former social worker, but

that's not the point — and you're not going to argue that, I'm pleased to see.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : I was once a social worker.

The

point is here that government has certain social responsibilities. We

are all aware of studies that have demonstrated over and over again

which element of the population engages in gaming activity, whether it

be casinos, bingos or lotteries. With respect to bingos and casinos,

it's obvious that it's those who can least afford to get involved in

those types of activities who are involved. I hate to sound

paternalistic or father-knows-best, but it is a significant social

concern that both sides of this House ought to be sharing. It ought to

be a social concern that weighs heavily in deciding which way the

policies of government ought to be involved when dealing with gaming

and bingo matters in this province. It's something that ought not to be

overlooked.

I was disappointed to see what the commission

had to say in this regard. In its own report it said that it "has not

addressed the social ramifications of gaming policy directly, because

they are largely unsusceptible to objective analysis." It may be a

subjective factor; it is certainly a social factor. It is not something

that is easily quantified. It is not something you can tangibly

measure. But the evidence from those involved in the industry

itself — namely, the proprietors, the operators of bingo operations —

reinforce the concern we had at the time as to who is involved in

gaming activities in this province. In my mind it raises serious

questions of whether we ought to encourage or promote that type of

activity, and I think not. I really do not think so. On my side there

is a compelling social argument as to why we ought not to be engaged in

these types of activities. Obviously there are different policy

considerations when one looks at the economic variables. So when you

consider who is involved in gaming activities, it raises questions in

my mind as to whether or not we should return to what we had.

light of the fact that this commission chose in its report not to

examine the social ramifications of the industry, I want to ask the

minister whether or not he intends to ask the commission to delve

further into this matter so that we can get a better profile of who is

engaged in gaming activity in this province, particularly bingo.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

Those were pretty good remarks, and I think his point of view has some

validity, but I would say this: the bingo business was there before

this government got into addressing it. There was, I think, inadequate

enforcement, unfair access, and no assurance that a maximum amount of

return would get into the hands of charities as opposed to others who

are involved in this industry. So what we and the commission have done

in very short order is to get a better return into the hands of the

charities.

I agree with the member that you can make a

cogent argument for the fact that the whole drift of gaming to raise

money for charities is suspect. But you know, you almost have to go

back to country fairs and raffles, and we've moved in great leaps in

the last ten years into lotteries. Everybody in public life that I've

heard of who wants to stop that flow finds many constituents who are

involved in fund-raising by this method. They have a number of very

good charities in their riding, service clubs and so on, that do good

work and that raise some of their money from these activities and then

use these funds for socially desirable purposes. I just say that I

think that if you want to have that debate, it should have taken place

a long time ago — probably before my day, and certainly before your day.

[4:15]

[ Page 3917 ]

have not launched initiatives to expand gaming. I want to make that

clear. We have launched initiatives to try to regulate gaming and to

make sure that it's done honestly and that the money gets into the

hands of the charities. In fact, if you look at the record during the

period that the commission was operating, we've reduced the number of

commercial bingo halls considerably across this province, from 90 to

56. The licences that have been issued this last fiscal year, 1987-88,

over 1986-87 went down marginally. What we have is fewer but better

regulated bingo establishments, and they are getting more money into

the hands of charities. In some communities, bingo halls have closed

down because they weren't able to meet the percentage required under

the rules or there wasn't enough business to go around — too many halls chasing too few dollars.

It's also very true that in raising money this way, you have to compete with scratch-and-pull, or whatever they're called —

those things that you buy for a dollar which nobody ever wins on; I've

never met anybody or heard of anybody who's ever won more than $2 on

one of those blasted things — or the lineups in the malls for

Lotto 6-49. It's hard to compete with that when you're trying to raise

money. I liked car washes, and I liked those kinds of activities too,

because people actually went out and put some heart and spirit into it

and just didn't have games of chance to raise their money.

just want you to know that there's no philosophy on this side of the

House that we're in love with gaming as a dependent revenue source.

We're not at all. But we recognize that gaming is there, that gaming is

big business in this province already, and that the gross revenues from

all the various areas of gaming are something in the neighbourhood of

about $700 million. I don't talk about net; I'm talking about gross, if

you include the Lottery Corporation.

I see that the minister of state for region 2 — lower coast and most of the southwest of the western hemisphere —

has just walked in, and among his horrendous, earth-shattering,

mind-boggling duties is that of the management of the Lottery

Corporation, and that corporation does generate a net revenue, as I

recall, for the government, of something in the neighbourhood of $140

million or $150 million. We're very happy, all of us, to have those

grants that come from that corporation go into sporting events in the

member opposite's riding — community centres, additions to senior citizen centres, all those things.

we're all part of this. That's what I'm saying. We have gone down that

road. Thank goodness we didn't go down other roads, because honestly,

as the minister responsible for regulating gaming, I didn't want to

take on the responsibility of regulating destination-resort gaming. We

did not go down that route. The only gaming that, I think, gives any

great return here that we're looking at, outside the Lottery

Corporation, is that of bingo. There are real earnings in bingo, and

the charitable organizations that are benefiting from that went up in

their net this year from $24 million to $37.5 million. This coming year

it is anticipated that the net revenues will probably go up again to

$45 million or $50 million. So we're talking about major sums of money.

The

member made the excellent point about access and the need to ensure

that the charities in line waiting at the gate can get into that gate.

The commission has a clear mandate to develop fair means to give access

to others. There's no doubt that as that happens, those that were there

first, the ones first in that lifeboat and who had it all to

themselves, are going to be complaining that new charities coming in

are diluting the take that they used to have. We're going to all have

phone calls and shouts saying: "My goodness, our returns are down from

what they were last year." Well, they're going to be down perhaps a

little bit, because more people are going to be participating, and more

worthy charities in the community are going to be able to get part of

that return.

So the commission is now going to implement

some of these things and is doing so with a certain caution. They have

also heard appeals in cases where there have been licences lifted. In

some cases those appeals have been successful, and in some cases they

haven't. But they're dealing with them on a fair basis, and I think

that in the next year we'll have a better rationalization.

I certainly

praise the fact that the gaming branch budget has gone up by 155

percent, because part of my mandate was to make sure that branch was

effective, and that it could police gaming and carry out its

inspectors' functions, so they could make sure that gaming was

according to the rules and was honest. You couldn't do that with the

manpower and resources that our branch had before. This has been one of

the increases in government spending, and it's necessary because the

revenues are going up. The potential problems are there, and it's an

important and sensitive area that needs a lot of inspection.

will commend the member for his observations on the philosophy, which

are as valid as mine, and I am happy to answer any specific questions.

MR. SIHOTA :

It's always a pleasure to see the Provincial Secretary in the House. I

think he's writing out cheques for my riding for all sorts of . . . .

HON. MR. VEITCH : I was going to.

MR. SIHOTA : He was going to, but in light of my recent comments, maybe not.

I think it's fair to say — and we'll leave the argument on this basis —

that we all recognize that it's here, and that it's a part of society,

and I think we're all very uncomfortable about it. That was the thrust

of what I was saying, and I do so to harken back to the way it was. I

still think there was a little bit more honesty in that, but let's deal

with the way things are right now.

The critical component

in this regard is regulation. If you regulate the system properly, you

might be able to keep the undesirable element out of it. The gaming

report is an indictment — I think that is the best way to describe it —

of what's happened in the past. Remember, this is a January 1988

report, so it's not that dated. It's authored by the Gaming Commission,

which is composed of members of whom the Attorney-General said last

year, during questioning by my good friend the second member for

Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), that they were all friends of the

government — most of whom held membership cards in the government

party as well. I think that one must listen to their comments with that

in mind.

It was interesting to see what they had to say

about regulation of this industry, which has grown from $20 million to

$180 million in a three-year period. When I was reflecting back on

earlier debates, I was amazed. Believe me, it's not simply because

churches went out and bought commercial operations. It's because there

were changes in regulations allowing that to happen.

What do they say about regulations? Here's what the report said in relation to bingo:

[ Page 3918 ]

"Some

conditions are being violated daily and we as a commission are not

satisfied with this situation. These violations can only be detected

and acted upon when energetic, consistent enforcement activity by the

branch becomes the order of the day. The branch is a dedicated,

overworked, experienced group of inspectors, but they can only be

deployed within limits. Those limits have been reached long ago, and we

are encouraged with recent indications of a staff increase for the

branch. They need this increase, and we are quick to realize that,

without an improvement in this area, gaming in B.C. 'bingo wise' and

'otherwise' will not be controllable."

"There

are too many premises operating at present, and while it may be argued

that this competition is good, forcing hall owners to give better deals

to their charity clients, we have found the opposite to be true.

ignored, and this is occurring at a point in time when the branch does

not have sufficient inspection staff to address the problem. Some

commercial hall owners have acted very arbitrarily, dictating terms and

financial arrangements to the licensees, controlling and juggling

access, evicting on short notice, etc."

"The

first losers, however, are the charities who wind up getting less than

their 25 percent share. In many respects, some bingo licensees are

their own worst enemies, putting up with this on the questionable

assumption that something is better than nothing."

Then the report talks about charities not getting 25 percent.

"Out

of the remaining 40 percent must come the 25 percent charity payout and

the government fee of 1 percent, plus, in the case of commercial bingo

halls, their expenses, overhead, wages, etc. For licensees conducting

their bingo events in self-owned premises being utilized for charitable

or religious purposes, some of these restrictions and percentages can

be relaxed, a feature which commercial hall owners object to for

obvious reasons."

The point here, Mr. Chairman, is simple:

that the regulations that this government introduces with great fanfare

to control this industry . . . . They happen all the time; we just saw

a whole bunch of them come down, last November I believe. These

regulations are being violated — in the words of the commission; these aren't my words — daily. It is an enormous problem.

The

report, as I said, is an indictment of this government's inability to

do exactly what it had promised to do. I want to read from what Mr.

Chabot had to say back in 1985, and the final line on this is the best

one. This is one quote of many. Mr. MacWilliam kept on saying: "Look,

you're not regulating this properly; you're not enforcing this industry

properly. You don't have the staff to do it." And there were these

soothing, comforting words flowing from members opposite: Mr. Chabot in

particular saying, "Oh no," and the current Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), the former Provincial Secretary,

saying: "Oh no, we're doing the best we can; it's being regulated and

we've got the best standards in the world." Meanwhile, the report comes

down and says that there have been violations daily. What did Mr.

Chabot say at the time?

"I want to say, first of all, that the bingo games in British

Columbia are honest and straightforward" — and we'll deal with that

in a minute — "and that those people who are participating in bingo games

in British Columbia are not being hurt."

Well, we know that that's not the case, because they weren't getting their 25 percent.

"The customers are getting as best as can be described a

fair deal in playing bingo throughout British Columbia. Our regulations and

our inspections will ensure that that continues to prevail."

Well,

I'll tell you what continued to prevail, Mr. Chairman: the continual,

daily violation of the regulations. And those aren't my words. That

isn't hypothesis. That is a report that this government commissioned

from its own members, including Whistling Bemie Smith, the former

candidate in Vancouver East; and it's amazing to see that these

regulations were being violated.

I want to ask the

Attorney-General the following question, now that I've expressed my

frustration with the regulatory nature here. There is obviously a

budget increase which the Attorney-General has alluded to. In dollars

it really isn't all that great; in percentage it's impressive. I'm sure

some of that money is going to go into enforcement, and I'd like some

specifics as to what the government intends to allocate to enforcement

regulation and what steps the government intends to take with respect

to better regulation. I don't want comforting words; I can read those

in Hansard as far back as

1985. I would like to know what specific steps the government intends

to take to resolve the issues outlined in this report with respect to

the daily violations in bingo. I don't want to hear, "Well, we're

working on it; we've got the report; we're moving," and all that stuff.

I want some concrete specifics.

[4:30]

HON. B.R. SMITH :

Since the branch was transferred from the office of the Provincial

Secretary in November 1986.... It then had a staff of 23, of whom 11

were inspectors. It had a budget of approximately $870,000. The 1987-88

approved budget was $862,000 for the branch, and it had 12 full-time

equivalents. On February 2, 1988, we argued for a very substantial

increase. The budget for '88-89 is $2,202,000, and we have 42 FTEs. The

current staffing level is 30, of whom 17 are utilized as inspectors. An

additional four inspectors will be added by the end of this month.

Enhanced

funding has permitted the conversion to a computerized data system,

which will be completed in July 1988. This will let the branch respond

much more quickly to its functions of licensing, audit, and other

avenues of monitoring. As each week has gone by, the branch has become

more effective.

Also, liaison with police officers has been

stepped up over the past year, and various police authorities now have

a better appreciation of gaming activity in their jurisdiction. The

indication we have is that a lot of the publicized concerns that were

out there several years ago about criminal activity as a result of

gaming have been allayed, and that it is not the opinion of sensible

policemen that this is a concern.

I might add, when you are

talking about commissioners who are allegedly government pals, that

neither the chairman nor vice-chairman had any connection at all with

the government. The vice-chairman, Mr. Venner, was deputy commissioner

and senior RCMP officer for this province. So I would take it that you

would apologize, of course, to Mr. Venner for

[ Page 3919 ]

any intended slur on him that the member for Victoria, who sits there smirking in the front row, would have possibly suggested.

What

kind of results will we have now? The results are that the average

charity take from bingo is now over the 25 percent mark, so I think

that there are signs of progress, that it's being done better, that

we're regulating more effectively. But we sure needed the additional

money and the additional manpower to do it.

MR. SIHOTA :

First of all, on the composition of the committee, I was referring to

your comments, Mr. Attorney, in terms of what you said about those who

were on it. If you think that it's somewhat rotten to be associated

with the Social Credit Party, I guess you're entitled to your view.

When

we were talking during the course of that debate last year, neither of

us made reference to Mr. Macintosh or Mr. Venner; certainly to the

extent that my comments touched upon them, obviously I didn't mean to

do that. There are some obvious people there that both you and I know

and that you have admitted are friends of government.

just want to ask this one question. I have to leave the House for a

minute, and my colleague from New Westminster is going to follow

through on this. Just for my own understanding, am I correct — if I heard you right, because I didn't hear some of it —

that you now have 17 inspectors as opposed to 12? I heard 17, but I

didn't hear the number before that. If that's the case, that's nothing.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

Last year, 11; now 17, and we're going to 21. I might add that all

members of the Gaming Commission are good British Columbians and all

carried out their duties, I think, in a conscientious and impartial

manner. I really believe that.

MR. MOWAT : I just

want to speak about the role of the Gaming Commission and the strides

that it's made since it has become involved particularly in casinos and

bingo. We see that the commission has made some major steps and, to use

an expression, has bit the bullet on some very long-standing problems

that were in the community, particularly with some of the operations

and operators of bingo halls. We find now that there are more

regulations. The operators and the charities involved are now following

the rules laid down by the commission, and I think this makes it much

better for the players, the charities and all those people that benefit.

must say that I disagree with the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

(Mr. Sihota) regarding those who attend bingo games. I find that in

some of the bingos I have been involved in, it becomes a social club.

Some people spend very little money there, but in some cases where the

bingo game doesn't start till maybe 1 o'clock, they will line up at

10:30, go in and have coffee, and it becomes a social club. With some

of the seniors, if a person doesn't show to a bingo game that day,

someone will phone to see what's the matter with him. I think that it

develops into a friendship, and it is often a very big social event in

the lives of some members of our community.

If the member

has gone to any bingo games, you see people attending these bingo games

from all walks of life. I think it's an excellent way for

organizations, through their volunteers, to raise funds to do projects

to make it a better community.

MS. A. HAGEN : I want

to pursue for a few more minutes some of the issues around gaming. I

want to associate myself with the remarks of the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. It is, in my view, a disturbing feature of our

times that gaming has become such a huge industry in the province. It

has also, in fact, become a mainstay for many organizations in the

province, largely as a result of government policy.

We have

in many of the communities of the province organizations that were

never involved with bingos or casinos or any such activities, except

perhaps for the lottery that offered a trip to Reno or a dinner at the

local restaurant. Many of them became involved in these much more

extensive activities as a result of the cuts in social service funding

to community groups in 1983. Over the last four or five years, many of

those organizations have come to rely on gaming in one form or another

for a very considerable portion of their income. Clearly bingo is the

most regular resource because it happens weekly and often over a full

year.

I'd like a response from the Attorney-General on the

structure in which gaming is to continue in the province. I want to

understand the structure. Last April a gaming commission was struck,

and its task was to prepare a report, which was finally presented to us

in late March in this House. Its ongoing mandate is not one that I am

entirely clear about, and I would like the Attorney-General to state

for the record what the mandate of the Gaming Commission is.

has outlined some of the expansion that has taken place in the branch,

and he has indicated that part of this has been in response to the

increase in gaming that has occurred. I want him to also clarify the

working relationship between the public gaming branch and the B.C.

Gaming Commission. There is a recommendation in the report making

suggestions about the roles of each of these two bodies and what their

working relationship will be; but the Attorney-General, in his initial,

rather brief response to the commission has stated that he does not

agree with the proposal regarding the licensing and reporting

relationship of the branch. The suggestion was that it should work

through the commission. If we're going to regulate an industry, I think

we have to really understand something of the structure in which that

industry is going to be regulated. Since it was my understanding that

the Gaming Commission might in fact be a short-lived commission without

a mandate that succeeded its report, I really want to get clear what

its role is going to be in the future.

In that regard,

while we're waiting for the Attorney-General to come back into the

House, I will perhaps just elaborate for a moment on the report itself.

It's a report that really talks about the history of gaming in the

province. It makes some recommendations and some suggestions — I guess that is the best term I could use —

about courses of action that should be followed in the future. As a

result of the very nature of this report, we have a very uncertain

situation in the province at this time.

We have the

commission and we have the branch, each with roles that seem to overlap

one another. Which is the policy-making organization? Do both of these

organizations deal with policy? What's the working relationship between

the two of them, and how are new policies to be developed and

introduced? There is a lot of uncertainty among community organizations

at the moment. Those organizations, as I said in my first remarks, have

come to depend very much on the income they receive primarily from

bingos and, to some smaller extent, from casinos. At the moment, their

role and their future are being affected by the lack of a clear

regulatory policy in the province.

[ Page 3920 ]

The

Attorney-General has suggested that there has been some beefing up of

regulations through the addition of staff and plans to do even more in

that regard. We need to really deal with the policy questions so the

licensees in the province who rely on income from bingo — and to a lesser extent from casinos —

are clear about the policies under which they're going to be operating,

when those policies are going to take effect, and whether they will

allow for some phasing-in time; so that organizations hit five years

ago with major restraint won't suddenly find themselves in a

roller-coaster of funding crises again, due to precipitous and

unannounced policies that are going to affect their access either to

licences or to the kinds of fund-raising that they and their boards

feel are appropriate for them.

The Attorney-General has

returned to the House now, Mr. Chairman. I'd like his first comments to

be on the relationship between the commission and the branch, the

ongoing role of the commission and the process by which gaming policy

in the province will be developed and announced, so that the large

number of organizations involved with gaming as a key part of their

fund-raising will know the game they're going to be playing.

[4:45]

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I apologize to the member for not directly hearing all her remarks. I

always enjoy hearing her remarks and questions, but I have a note of

them.

The structure of gaming in the future is going to be

largely what was in the report. For the time being, it's mostly to

develop policies with regard to bingo, the regulation and licensing of

it, and to deal with the access issue. There's some experimentation in

conjunction with the Lottery Corporation under consideration. A casino

policy was announced at the same time as the Gaming Commission report

came in, which has considerably increased the flexibility in the number

of playing days in Vancouver for licensees and has made a number of

important changes in relation to casino gaming. The ongoing mandate of

the commission will be to regulate gaming under it and develop policies

as well.

The relationship between the commission and the branch —

I can't say that that's fixed in time. The commission wanted us to put

the branch under them, and we decided not to do that at this time, that

the branch would be separate from the commission. The branch is the

link with the ministry and is supposed to develop and recommend policy.

But it's the commission that's supposed to adopt and set that policy.

Of course, the prime responsibility of the branch is monitoring and

enforcement. We recognize that the branch has to operate in sync with

the commission, even if it's not under it. So I think that must occur

But we have not decided at this time to put the enforcement arm

directly under the commission. Some provinces have done so. We

acknowledge that the policy power of the commission is the paramount

one, not that of the branch.

MS. A. HAGEN : I'm not

all that clear with that answer. It appears that both the branch and

the commission have responsibility for policy setting. It appears that

policy is going to perhaps appear more in the form of regulation than

clear enunciation of policies for those who are affected by those

policies, and that they will be in effect before they have ever been

stated as policies.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

If I may just give you an

example from the B.C. Gaming Commission's own document, in one of the

appendices there is a bulletin from the commission dated October 7

which deals with an amendment. I'm going to read it and ask the

Attorney-General if he can perhaps interpret what this particular

amendment means. I have read it a number of times. I have an

consider myself to be a person who has some reasonable ability to get

been known to sometimes get convoluted myself, so I have some sympathy

with those people who are trying to make things clear. But let me read

licensing and lottery events in British Columbia, approved by the B.C.

Gaming Commission on September 25, 1987. It's on page XVIII-17 of the

commission's report. I ask people to pay attention, and if afterwards

you can explain to me what this means, I will be delighted:

"The

commission may restrict, control or specify the number of licences for

any events on the basis the organization or the charitable object or

purpose of the organization is in any way concerned with, connected,

related, associated or ancillary to an organization or a charitable

object or purpose for which a licence or licences have already been

issued by the commission."

I would ask the member for

and the resource people to the Attorney-General whether this is what we

have as policy. Are people going to have to try to figure out how that

might in fact affect their licences?

I think I can make the

point very strongly, Mr. Chairman, that we need to have some clear

policy enunciated and then regulations that will go with that policy. I

won't make any attempt to tell the Attorney-General what I think that

licensing of lottery events.... I can tell you that the way in which it

has been implemented is that a significant number of licensees have

been issued licences for shorter periods of time than in the past, and

they have received information on a very ad hoc basis about what their

future licence prospects may be. They've also received information

which suggests that certain charities and organizations will no longer

be eligible for licences and that duplicate licences will not be

issued. For example, sporting groups and service clubs in my community

have reported to me that their licences may not be renewed. There is

some question about who may contribute to whom.

It seems to me that in an effort — and I applaud the effort —

to deal with some regulation of this industry, we are again, as in so

many other ways, operating backwards. We're operating from ad hoc

regulations and announcements that create a lot of concern and

uncertainty. When one considers the organizations that are affected by

this, one can understand why they are apprehensive. These are the very

organizations which in 1983 and 1984 found their sources of funding

through provincial government community grants and contracts

drastically cut or eliminated altogether. These are organizations that

have responsibility for very important programs, for staffs and for

people in the c