1989 Legislative Session: 3rd 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, MAY 1, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6459 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Increase Pollution Penalties and Create an Environmental Protection

Fund (Bill M210). Mr. Harcourt

Introduction and first reading –– 6459

Oral Questions

Development in Boundary Bay. Mr. Cashore –– 6459

First Vancouver Securities Inc. Mr. Clark –– 6460

Day care funding. Ms. Marzari –– 6460

Sale of Jericho land. Ms. Marzari –– 6461

Cuts in federal transfer payments. Mr. Bruce –– 6461

Mr. Clark

Federal budget and B.C. forest industry. Mr. Miller –– 6462

Presenting Reports –– 6462

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith)

On vote 13: minister's office –– 6462

Mr. Sihota

Ms. Marzari

Mr. B.R. Smith

Mr. Rose

Mr. Clark

Mr. Jones

Mrs. Gran

Mr. G. Janssen

MONDAY, MAY 1, 1989

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. DUECK: Somewhere in the precincts today is the

former Health minister, Jim Nielsen. When I travel around the province

and talk to people about health and the Ministry of Health, people tell

me again and again that he was tough, but he was fair. Therefore I

would like this House to welcome the former Minister of Health, Jim

Nielsen.

MS. MARZARI: In the gallery today are three visitors from

across the sea who are professors of public administration at Thammasat

University in Bangkok, Thailand: Dr. Vuntanee Vasikasin, Woothisan

Tanchai and Elaine Harvey from Texas. Blanche Dillon has chaperoned the

other three here today. Please welcome them to the House.

MR. PETERSON: In the galleries today are a Canadian studies

class visiting us from Western Washington University's Centre for

Canadian-American Studies. They are accompanied by their professor, Don

Alper. We had a very interesting meeting just after lunch. I want the

House to join me in giving them a very warm welcome to British Columbia

and Canada.

MR. PERRY: I would just like to second that welcome to the

students from Western Washington University. They may not know this — I

can't see them — but I remember the role played by students from that

college in the Skagit Valley controversy many years ago. They had a

very constructive role on their side of the border.

MR. RABBITT: I have two former constituents now residing in

Calgary who are visiting the capital city of British Columbia today. I

would like the House to give a warm welcome to Terry and Lorne

Stoneman, who are sitting in the public gallery.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO INCREASE POLLUTION

PENALTIES AND CREATE AN

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FUND

Mr. Harcourt presented a bill intituled

An Act to Increase Pollution Penalties and Create an Environmental Protection Fund.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, this act increases penalties for violations

of the Waste Management Act to a maximum of $1 million for the following offences:

failing to report a spill; transporting or accepting delivery of hazardous wastes

without a proper manifest, licence or permit; allowing wastes to be introduced

into the environment without a proper permit; operating a hazardous waste facility,

storing hazardous wastes or disposing of hazardous wastes without a proper permit;

and noncompliance with an air, effluent or refuse permit.

In addition, with this bill the court will have greater leeway to

make all orders necessary to stop the polluter from continuing or

repeating offences, including: publicizing the offence; posting a bond;

paying for preventive action and cleanup costs; performing community

service; funding research into ecological effects; and disclosing

financial records.

The court may also order the polluter to pay compensation to persons

injured by the pollution, saving such aggrieved persons the expense and

time of having to file their own civil action. In situations where it

appears a polluter is about to commit an offence, the court is given

the power to issue an injunction ordering the polluter to stop.

All fines collected from polluters are to be paid into an

environmental protection fund which will be used for environmental

enhancement projects, preventive environmental action, research and

development of non-polluting technology and environmental cleanup.

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

Bill M210 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Oral Questions

DEVELOPMENT IN BOUNDARY BAY

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Minister of Environment.

Have you decided to invoke your powers under the Environment Management

Act to require that an environmental impact assessment be supplied

prior to any golf course or housing development taking place in the

Boundary Bay area?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

MR. CASHORE: Boundary Bay and the surrounding wetlands

habitat are recommended by the Canadian Wildlife Service as a wetland

of international significance pursuant to the Ramsar convention, and

are known to sustain the largest populations of raptors, shorebirds and

waterfowl in Canada. Since both the minister and the Premier have in

the past written to the international waterfowl and wetlands research

bureau, acknowledging the conservation value of this area, what are you

doing just to assist these areas through a public review process, let

alone to protect them?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, there is an extensive review and

application process in place by the Ministry of Environment. But it is

extensive, Mr. Speaker, and I will send the answer to the member in

written form.

[ Page 6460 ]

FIRST VANCOUVER SECURITIES INC.

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Finance. A few

months ago First Vancouver Securities Inc., a company that purchased a

seat on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, was found to have links with the

deposed Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos. In fact, if it wasn't

for the indictment in New York, they would still be doing business

today in British Columbia. Could the minister inform the House how it

was that this fact eluded the B.C. Securities Commission?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Unless I'm mistaken, it's my

understanding that questions put to this side of the House should be

timely and urgent. The hon. member refers to an issue that's months

old. I didn't notice any reference in today's newspaper, which is the

normal source of their inquiries. If I understand the rules of this

House properly, the question is out of order.

MR. CLARK: That's a flippant answer to a serious question

about laundering dirty money through the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Two

individuals, George Delmas and Toto Mabanta, arranged the financing for

this Marcos company. Could the minister explain why the Securities

Commission took no action against them and they are today still doing

business in British Columbia? After all, they're the ones who put the

deal together in the first place.

[2:15]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I anticipated all kinds of newsworthy, timely questions today, but that certainly wasn't one of them.

In any event, the hon. member, who came to his critic's portfolio

relatively recently, probably isn't aware of the tremendous progress

made by the Securities Commission and the Vancouver Stock Exchange in

terms of altering their assessment of applications for listing.

Certainly this government has considerably expanded the funding

available to the regulatory authorities. I personally am extremely

proud of the job being done by the Securities Commission, and I can

tell the hon. member that the board of governors of the Vancouver Stock

Exchange is cooperating closely with the Securities Commission as it

carves out and protects this very important niche in our economic

strategy.

This government made a priority. We think that the regulation of the

exchange has tremendous potential, particularly as our province

attempts to relate with the Pacific Rim. Therefore the occasion

referred to by the member — which is ancient by question-period

standards — certainly doesn't need to be revisited by this House or by

the administration in the Securities Commission. They are doing their

job, and I am very proud of the job they are doing.

MR. CLARK: I realize that it's progress for this government to see

Ferdinand Marcos in the Vancouver Stock Exchange, but it's not progress

anywhere else in the world. That Marcos company, before they were shut down,

arranged financing for 12 companies. Can the minister assure the House that

no money in those financings was stolen from the Philippines by Ferdinand Marcos

or his associates?

DAY CARE FUNDING

MS. MARZARI: A question to the Minister of Social Services

and Housing. Last Thursday I asked you about what you were going to do

now that the federal government has bailed out of day care. You said

that you were going to go back to the government and try to get funding

under CAP for commercial day cares. Well, I've checked CAP; there isn't

any provision in there for capital sharing for spaces, let alone

commercial or non-profit. The question is: what are you going to be

doing with the federal government? What are you going to be asking for?

And if you're going to be staying in B.C. and going it alone, are you

going to be funding non-profit centres as well as commercial ones?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, the reason I said I'd be

going back to negotiate with the federal government is precisely the

reason she says: because they don't have provision under CAP to fund

commercial day care as well as non-profit.

To answer her second question, we have always funded non-profit day cares in British Columbia.

MS. MARZARI: We haven't created any new day care spaces in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: They don't provide for spaces under CAP; they do provide for supplementing incomes and eligibility.

Considering that this week is provincial Day Care Week, will the

minister finally give a commitment to this House that he's going to

provide for direct operating grants for the day care centres we have,

so that we can keep them alive for the next year?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member knows full well that since the

federal government has put their child care legislation on hold, we now

must seek alternative methods of financing child care; I said that last

Thursday. We were fully committed to participating with the federal

government, with their new act; but since it's on hold, I have said

that we will now try to expand the financing available to us under the

Canada Assistance Plan, which at the moment doesn't provide for capital

to build spaces or for commercial or unlicensed day care.

We will be attempting to negotiate with the federal government to

get them to expand the whole CAP program so that we may enter into

agreements with day care centres for capital funding and for the

funding and subsidizing of people so that they may shop for their day

care. We believe that persons looking for child care should have a

choice. They should be able to shop for the best available day care, be

it nonprofit, commercial or family unlicensed day care.

[ Page

6461 ]

SALE OF JERICHO LAND

MS. MARZARI: This is a new question to the Minister of

Government Management Services. Mr. Minister, we have indications that

the Jericho Hill School for the Deaf will be moving to Burnaby. The

Can the minister tell the House whether his ministry or BCEC, BCDC or

BCBC have done a market appraisal on this land in the last year?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: There has been no final decision made yet on the moving of that facility. Further than that, it's future action.

MS. MARZARI: It isn't future action, because there are rumours around Vancouver, coming from a number of sources...

Interjections.

MS. MARZARI: It's a small community, so rumours count.

...that this land has already been informally promised to someone

and that architects are already putting the drawings on the board. Has

this property been tendered for bids on an informal basis by any one of

the agencies of this government?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Future action.

CUTS IN FEDERAL TRANSFER PAYMENT'S

MR. BRUCE: To the Minister of Finance and Corporate

Relations. In response to last week's federal budget, the second member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) gained headlines for a statement that

cuts in federal transfer payments would cost British Columbia some $69

million. However, the Premier estimated that the 1 percent cut in

established programs financing payments would cost British Columbia

less than half the amount cited by the NDPs finance critic. Could the

minister tell us: is it $69 million or $30 million, or what is it?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm very pleased to have that timely and

urgent question put, Mr. Speaker. It's unfortunate that we poor

creatures in this House, in our grasp for media attention, frequently

make comments which are later embarrassing. It strikes me that this may

be one of those occasions.

Not only did the hon. member for Vancouver East have the year wrong,

he had the sum wrong. As a matter of fact, as I now resurrect how he

might have calculated the figure, it would appear he had the page wrong

in terms of the report.

There are some positive things about the hon member's comment. He did accurately

describe the federal budget as being the subject under which he wanted to discuss

the matter. But the truth is that the Premier was closer to the mark than the

hon. member. Unfortunately, I wasn't here to straighten out the member.

He obviously will require quite a bit more training before he can handle this

kind of a load, and I'm pleased to offer my assistance.

The fact of the matter is that the fiscal impact on our budget —

effective next year, Mr. Speaker, not this year — will be in the order

of about $24 million.

MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the Minister of Finance on that

last question. Will the minister not agree that the impact of that

formula over time, when you count inflation, will be far greater than

the $69 million I referred to?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I suppose if you want to take a program

change and extrapolate it over a number of years, the sum of those

changes will be more than one year's change. To that extent the hon.

member is correct, and I applaud him for his perception. The truth of

the matter is that the $69 million he fed to those who were inclined to

listen to him was wrong; it was an inaccurate figure. As I say, wrong

year, wrong sum, wrong page and wrong program. However, the correct sum

for next year is about $24 million.

I might point out to the hon. member, if he's interested at all,

that there was a change made to EPF about two years ago. The combined

effect of that change has been to reduce our transfer payments by

something in excess of $300 million. Clearly we're not comfortable with

those changes. But if we're going to talk about dollar figures and if

there is a person who aspires to be Minister of Finance, he should at

least try to be accurate. I offer that advice in the proper spirit.

MR. BRUCE: Since it's now apparent that the second member for

Vancouver East has a little trouble with his numbers, I would further

ask the minister to address the NDPs assumption that provincial taxes

will have to be raised to cover the shortfall in anticipated revenue.

Is the member for Vancouver East right when he says that taxes must be

increased in the current fiscal year in order for the province to

succeed in its plans for a balanced budget? And if the cut in federal

transfer payments is a hardship for British Columbia — I might add, the

only province in Canada with a balanced budget — will the minister

affirm that our province will probably be better able to cope with the

cut than every other province in Canada?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, when I saw that quote I

wondered whether it was full and complete. I know that the hon. member

had made the comment that if elected to government, they would raise

taxes. As a matter of fact, the hon. member referred specifically to

corporation tax, as I understand it. The fact of the matter is, though,

that this government is in good fiscal shape, and we will not be

required to make any taxation changes as a consequence of the reduction

in EPF transfer payments — that may be unlike other provinces in the

country.

To the question of whether we will have to raise taxes, this

administration will not have to raise taxes, although I must point out

to the House that the hon.

[ Page 6462 ]

member seems to have a belief that if an NDP government were elected, they likely would raise taxes — he's quoted as saying so.

FEDERAL BUDGET AND

B.C. FOREST INDUSTRY

MR. MILLER: A question to the Minister of Finance on some

numbers that really do mean something to the people of this province.

Last week the Premier said a 25 percent cut was a good start; yet we

learned on Friday that the federal budget did not earmark specific

funds for a second forest renewal program. Has the government made any

specific representations to the federal government on this point?

Secondly, has the government made a decision to continue this vital,

necessary work for the future of the forest industry in this province,

regardless of the level of federal funding, if we're in such good shape

in British Columbia?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Parker) isn't in the House. The member makes an assumption

which I'm not satisfied is valid. But in any event, the Minister of

Forests is closer to this issue than all of us, and he's had

discussions at length with his federal colleague on this subject. I

think it would be more useful for me to take this question on notice,

and I'm pleased to do so.

Hon. Mr. Reid tabled the annual reports of the Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture for the years 1986-87 and 1987-88.

Hon. Mr. Michael tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services for 1987-88.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the annual report and financial statements

of the B.C. Assessment Authority for the 1987 fiscal year, in

accordance with

section 17 of the act; statements regarding borrowing,

loans and special payments, in accordance with sections 41(6), 43(2)

and 45(3) of the Financial Administration Act; and the 1988 annual

report of the compensation stabilization program, in accordance with

section 8 of that act.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 13: minister's office, $254,015 (continued).

MR. SIHOTA: I wish to start off the week by talking to the

minister about the family maintenance enforcement program and then to

pick up later in our deliberations about some of the matters raised

last week.

I'll just give some time for the minister's assistants to work their way into the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are so many of them.

MR. SIHOTA: He requires them.

Because I want to spend some time talking about family law matters,

maybe I should start off by making some general comments and then turn

to the family maintenance enforcement program.

[2:30]

The general comments I would like to make on family law relate

primarily to comments which were made on Friday by the member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith). More specifically, with respect to

the provisions of the "Access to Justice" report, I've had the

opportunity to review the "Access to Justice" recommendations with

respect to family law. I must confess that I'm really quite impressed

with the conclusions of the committee when it deals with matters of

family law. Generally speaking, those matters have my endorsement.

I certainly concur that the British Columbia Supreme Court ought to

be the exclusive court of jurisdiction with respect to family law

matters in British Columbia. After reading the report and looking at

the geographical availability of Provincial Court judges, I would also

have to concur with the recommendation that judges who make up that

court ought to be appointed masters of the Supreme Court.

The other point which flows from the family law recommendations in

there, to which I would like to add my voice and opinion.... I want to

emphasize that if the government were to come forth with some very

tough rules on procedure with respect to family law and time

requirements, they would certainly get my support in principle for

that. Family law is one area of law where very tough rules need to be

put on counsel to move along a family case as expeditiously as

possible, to allow for case management by the court and to allow for

interference in terms of pre-trial applications.

There should be tough rules that push through, on an expeditious

basis, matters of custody — both interim and final. It's my view that

the court ought to have a repertoire of all options available to it in

terms of interim and final custody orders. With respect to interim

orders, the services of mediation, access reports from family court

workers and family counsellors and the support that can be provided by

a network of family agencies in the community are all things that I

would imagine being available as options to judges, to make sure that

they have before them the opinions of a lot of experts as to what would

be an appropriate order for custody, but with some very tough time

rules so that we get on with the job.

I know the Family and Child Service Act tried to put some tough

rules down in terms of coming down with reports and determinations as

soon as possible. Although that system hasn't worked to perfection, as

the report correctly notes, I think that, on the whole, the basic idea

ingrained in there ought to be referred

[ Page 6463 ]

to or applied generally in matters of custody and access.

With respect to access, I agree that there should be a lot of

liberty in the rules. I look forward to seeing what comes from

government in this regard, with respect to the ability to enforce

access rules in some informal or formal way to resolve disputes of

access on a highly expeditious basis — not two, three or four months

down the line, when the issue has either become a red herring or one

party has tried to secure an order or an advantage in access in order

to force the other to renegotiate another provision.

In that regard, I think there has to be some very clear

understanding, set out in the rules, that maintenance is to be distinct

from custody and access. I am in support of tough rules of a compulsory

nature with respect to procedural pre-trial matters; counsel explaining

why it isn't taking advantage of some of the pre-trial options that are

available and why it isn't proceeding on an expeditious basis — in

other words, an opportunity for the court to call counsel onto the

carpet and ask some fairly tough questions; and dealing with costs in a

more punitive way than we've seen in the past. I must say

parenthetically that I agree with what the committee had to say with

respect to general costs on family matters.

Those are the kinds of things in terms of custody and access that I

would be supportive of, and I look forward to seeing that. On the

maintenance end of it again the report is fairly clear. I would, of

course, look forward to the implementation of the Law Society's

recommendation with respect to corporate disclosure, which I didn't see

in the Justice Reform Committee's recommendations but did see in the

Law Society's report. I look forward to what the government has to say

on family law. I've got some questions that I will ask later with

respect to family law in general.

I want to turn to the family maintenance enforcement program. Access

to the program right now is a critical problem, in my view. I want to

look, on the one hand, at the difficulty of those within the program

and trying to get an order enforced or acted upon, and on the other

hand, at those who do not fall within the program, with a view to

hoping that the Attorney-General would see fit to provide coverage for

those not covered by the family maintenance enforcement program.

The program is hopelessly backlogged in terms of access. I

understand from earlier comments the Attorney-General has made that

they intend to apply more funds in June. I take it the amount isn't

fixed. If there are any indications as to the amount, I'd like to know

The program is hopelessly backlogged and I get that from just about

anybody I talk to, outside of correspondence I have received from the

Attorney-General's department and the administrators of the program.

I just want to read into the record one letter I received from an

individual in the province. I have a stack of them, but I don't

particularly want to read them all into the record. Over time I have

developed quite a file of people who have had difficulty getting their

cases attended to, and this is just one of them. This letter is dated

February 1, 1989:

"In October 1988, under the family maintenance

enforcement program, I did file a maintenance order with your offices

for enforcement. So far I have received a form letter stating that your

department was overwhelmed with applications and that my file would be

processed in due course. Today I called your Burnaby office, and aside

from learning that I now have a number...I was offered no encouragement

whatsoever that my file would be dealt with in anything resembling an

expeditious manner.

"Frankly, I think my children and I have waited long

enough. I suggest that this sort of a delay was precisely what the

statute was designed to remedy. I must notify that should the current

situation remain unchanged, I shall be obliged to consider bringing an

application to the Supreme Court of British Columbia under the Judicial

Review Procedure Act for a mandamus and/or mandatory injunction to

order that you do your duty under the law. Surely a creditor like

myself should not be compelled to take such measures."

That's from a mother who has a maintenance order outstanding and

wishes to see it enforced. It falls within the provisions of the act. I

wrote to the administrators of the program, and ultimately received

another letter on March 23 — not that long ago — from the parent

involved. I am not going to read the whole letter, but I'll read the

critical portions of the letter. It's addressed to me. It says:

"Thank you for your letter of March 15, 1989, with

respect to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. About four days

after I sent the letter I copied to you, I received a letter from the

program director advising they would be processing my file right away.

I'm sorry I cannot find the letter. Several days after that I received

numerous phone calls from one of their staff lawyers, who asked various

inane questions.

"On February 22, 1989, the program sent me the

affidavits necessary to file my claim. These I executed immediately and

returned to their offices. Since then I have heard nothing. I have a

case number...and a creditor ID number.... The enforcement officer who

has my file...." She provides the name. "I have not received any

correspondence from the Attorney-General.

"As of February 1989, I believe there is approximately

$19,000 in arrears and, of course, this builds as each month goes by.

No doubt you can tell by the tone of my letter that I am very skeptical

about the sincerity of this government with respect to the program. In

my heart I know that the whole thrust of this new level of gobbledegook

is aimed solely at lowering the numbers on income assistance checks

parsimoniously doled out to poor women and their children. As I am

employed, I'm sure the only reason for any action on my file is a

direct result of your knowledge of its existence. For that I thank you.

However, the day I see any money is another thing altogether."

She goes on:

"I could write pages and pages with respect to my

total frustration with the system. The orders of a British Columbia

court relating to maintenance of our young citizens are not worth the

paper they are written on. While our governments have the power to

empty a bank account for unpaid taxes or charge workers with sedition

for withdrawing their labour,

[ Page 6464 ]

they are not predisposed to ensuring that parents meet their

legal and moral obligations to their children."

I'll end there.

Despite the rather colourful language in that, I'll say that that is

one of several letters I have received. In fact, I haven't bothered to

count them. But the tone of the letters seem to be the same. I think

it's an unfortunate tone. I think we all set out with good intentions

with respect to this program, and it troubles me, too, as I'm sure it

does the Attorney-General, to read about the skepticism people feel

about the program. I'm sure that there are letters about the other side

of the coin, where the program is starting to work. But whether it's

the Legal Services Society or agencies such as the Westminster Legal

Services Society — to whom I was talking today — or counsel, it appears

as if the common theme to this whole program is that it is hopelessly

backlogged.

I think the Attorney-General's letter to me, dated March 15, 1989,

points to that, when he points out that of a total of approximately

5,000 filing kits received, there are 900 programmed. Secondly, if you

look at the amount of money picked up in payments to date, the average

order is about $150. It seems to me that the program is backlogged, and

that's a major problem with it.

That's only one. Another problem which during the course of my

analysis into.... I want to emphasize that this is a program that our

side of the House wants to see work. We want to see it work efficiently

and effectively so that we solve this problem we have with maintenance

orders, a problem which I think we've all talked about in relatively

eloquent terms in this House. So this is not to try to blast away at

the program and say that we ought not to be doing it.I've got some

questions that tie in with the administrative efficiency of it.

Getting assistance is another level of problem with the program,

apart from backlog. It seems that those who fall within the Ministry of

Social Services and Housing get coverage fairly straightforwardly,

because of the amendments to the GAIN Act, although it appears from the

correspondence I've received to date — and I would invite the

Attorney-General's comment on this — that the program with respect to

GAIN and Ministry of Social Services is operative primarily in the

lower mainland and is slow to get off the ground, if it does at all, in

the interior of the province. So those outside of it are not receiving

coverage to the extent that is required in terms of those within the

Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

Second, many of those who require access to the program can't get it. I

don't want to repeat a discussion that we had earlier on, but they can't

get it because of the absence of legal aid coverage to obtain an order or vary

an order that has been provided. I want to go over the criteria. I know the

Attorney-General has twice said that people are covered, and yet I've checked

twice now with the Legal Services Society and they tell me that in Vancouver

the eligibility criterion for a single mother with two children is a net income

of $1,105 per month. The flexibility that the Attorney-General says is available

they tell me is not available in that type of situation. If you are $1 over

that $1,105, you're not going to get legal aid coverage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, but your time has expired under standing orders.

MS. MARZARI: I think that the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew is doing a very good job here. I think the seamy underside of

the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act should be brought to light.

MR. SIHOTA: I thank the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey for that expression of confidence.

If you're $1 over the $1,105 per month, the flexibility criteria are

not available unless, of course, you are tied in with custody. If it's

both custody and maintenance, then it's available. But solely for

maintenance, in order to procure the order or to vary an existing

order, you are not provided with coverage. That means that those

individuals — and particularly we are talking here about women who are

the working poor, people who have modest incomes — simply can't derive

the benefits of this backlogged program because they can't get the

financial resources to get the order into the system in the first place.

[2:45]

The program serves well those who are on GAIN, so long as one

overlooks the backlog and the fact that it's operative primarily in the

lower mainland with respect to GAIN and doesn't touch those who, from

my life experience, are the ones who really need coverage.

I don't want to go again over old territory, but I was in my law

office on Sunday primarily to talk to the lawyer in our office who does

family law. We are doing, through our law office — just one office in

one community of the province — about a dozen cases a month which

aren't covered by legal aid and where the client simply cannot afford

to pay for the services. I'm just trying to pick the example of one

office; I haven't phoned around to other people in Esquimalt, but I'm

sure that if we're doing it, then at least one or two of the other

firms in the community would be doing that much as well. It makes one

think about the $20 million figure that the Law Society referred to in

terms of pro bono criminal work done in the province.

So the program is limited in its application to those who have

modest income and cannot be provided with legal aid coverage. It's

limited to some GAIN recipients. Third, it also, of course, does not

provide assistance to debtors. I didn't bring it, but I have some

correspondence from a small business man in an Interior community whose

business is failing. He has an income of about $700 and wishes to

secure some financial assistance, but can't get it in terms of the

application. I think elementary fairness would require some coverage in

that regard, albeit that my sympathies usually don't go too far with

debtors.

There are other problems with the program, and I think they become

evident if one looks at the forms that are the basis of the

computer-driven program,

[ Page 6465 ]

which are very difficult to follow. I tried filling

them out myself, and I must confess that I didn't have a lot of

trouble. But if you talk to people who are involved in the area — and

I've talked to quite a few around the province — the point that comes

back over and over again is that individuals whose first language is

literacy limitations, are having a tremendous amount of difficulty in

filling out the forms that drive the program. I don't want to table

that form — I'm sure the Attorney-General has seen it — but it's easy

to understand why people have difficulty filling it out. It asks some

very detailed questions with respect to payment histories, the status

of maintenance orders, the date of filing.

The Access to Justice report talks about language; this form uses

language that lawyers would understand, but I'm not too sure the

average person would be able to follow it. There should be some

glossary of explanations, because I'm sure that people do get.... In

fact, we know, from experience in my constituency office, that people

even get confused with terms like who's the creditor, who's the debtor,

what do they mean by arrears, and other language such as appears in

here. There are questions like: "Have you ever agreed with a debtor in

writing or verbally that you would accept less than the full amount of

maintenance, or accept anything else instead, such as groceries, gifts

or holidays for the other children?" It's just full of questions that

are very difficult for people to fill out.

Again, if one would simply take the time to canvass the groups that

are trying to deal with the people who deal with the program, it's

really amazing how common that concern is about the complexity of the

form. If you combine it with someone who has limitations with respect

government should pay some attention to remedying that situation. And

it's not sufficient, in my view, and as indicated by everyone I've

talked to, to deal with it over the phone. That just doesn't appear to

be working.

The next component of problems that I've been able to identify — and

I'm not picking out isolated ones, I'm picking out things that keep

coming up — is with respect to the experience of GAIN recipients. There

are some people on GAIN, particularly women, who have a perfectly good

reason why they do not wish to be re-associated with their husband.

Those situations often have to do with violence, or sometimes with

private arrangements that the former spouses may have made. The act

allows for some type of waiver in these situations, but the criteria

aren't clear. I would be interested in knowing from the

Attorney-General what the criteria are.

That is an overview of some of the areas of concern that we see with

respect to the family maintenance enforcement program, areas where we'd

like to see some attention. I have a series of questions I want to ask

the Attorney-General on this, and I guess the first one is this: will

the government be expanding the flexibility criteria for legal aid

across the board to deal with all family matters, beyond what you've

done to date?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Most of what is being presented today we

dealt with last week from one or another member of this Legislature, so

I won't attempt to go back over it. The questions with respect to the

Ministry of Social Services and Housing ought more properly to be

addressed to the minister when his estimates are up.

With respect to the legal aid criteria of eligibility and

flexibility, the answer is that we've made some initial moves this

year, and we are working with the Legal Services Society. We are

looking at the various costs that would be involved in advancing

flexibility, and when we have all that, we will take a decision as to

how far we can go and what we should do.

MR. SIHOTA: Again, I don't want to get into an extensive

debate on this, but if you want to adequately drive the program, it

seems to me that you are going to have to adequately provide legal aid

coverage to make sure that those who ought to have access to the

program get it — to deal with the need that this government talks about

over and over again in terms of enforcement of maintenance orders with

respect to single parents. It is a critical problem out there. Last

week the Attorney-General talked at some length about the government's

desire to assist these parents, usually women, and about ensuring that

children benefit from orders. An incredible number of orders aren't

enforced. One would think that if there is an intent there to make sure

those orders are enforced, then of course that would be dealt with by

the provision of appropriate legal aid for those who require it. Those

two go hand in hand. The words are one thing; the financial commitment

and the action is another. I look forward to seeing what the government

has later this year in terms of providing a flexible criterion for all

matters, and particularly maintenance matters, which is where I think

you should be starting from.

What is the government's policy or rules with respect to waiver in those types of GAIN situations that I referred to?

HON. S.D. SMITH: As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, matters

relating to GAIN ought to be addressed not in this vote but to the

Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond).

MR. SIHOTA: Under the program, then, how many waivers have been granted since the program commenced?

HON. S.D. SMITH: If the member is referring to the GAIN

waivers, you have to again address that elsewhere. As to the program

under the operation of the non-GAIN component, I will have to get

someone to go and get that rather specific detail, which I am sure he

wouldn't expect one to carry in one's head.

[ Page 6466 ]

MR. SIHOTA: I would like to have that information before we

wrap up, because I want to see to what extent the government has

provided those waivers.

Could the Attorney-General advise what communication they've had

with the administrators of the program with respect to remedying this

problem with the forms? It seems to be a recurrent one.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Extents of discussions, direction, changes

and so on.... I would again point out, as I have several times in this

discussion, that this is a new program. There is a tremendous backlog,

because there has been a good deal of neglect for goodness knows how

many years. The program is three months old in Victoria and the

interior, and just a little over six months old.

Yes, there is a big backlog, and yes, we are working hard on it, we

will work continually harder on it and we are concerned about it. No,

we don't think this is the seamy underside of the family maintenance

program, as the member for Vancouver-Point Grey said. We don't look at

the family maintenance program in those terms. It is a program to help

people, it will help people and we'll continue to support it helping

people. But it starts off with a backlog of goodness knows how many

decades of neglect. It ought not to come as a shock to the member that

there would be a backlog. I don't know how many different ways I can

say that to the member, but there is a large backlog, and we are going

to get it reduced.

We're very pleased with the program, quite frankly. The member has

brought in some letters which indicate severe criticism of the program,

an attitudinal thing and great laudatory lines about the member

himself. Fair enough. I suppose we would go out and get a number of

letters which are very thankful for the program's assistance. I don't

think that's the point. I don't think it's a useful use of our time.

MR. SIHOTA: I went out of my way at the beginning to talk

about how we on this side of the House have supported this program; we

think it's a relatively good program; and yes, we understand that there

are some growing pains with it. I think that's the language I used when

we first got into estimates.

The question is: what is your plan of attack with respect to that

backlog? What do you intend to do, what

schedule have you worked out,

and what kinds of funds are we seeing committed to clean up that

backlog?

[3:00]

HON. S.D. SMITH: As I said last week, we are putting together

a special enrolment unit that we expect will be able to clean up the

backlog over the summer.

MR. SIHOTA: Can the Attorney-General identify through his budget exactly how much money they're putting into it?

HON. S.D. SMITH: As the member should be aware, it's a contract, and there will not be additional moneys required.

MR. SIHOTA: If I've got this clear, it's the

Attorney-General's position that they won't require additional funds to

remedy the backlog other than those allocated this year.

HON. S.D. SMITH: That's our position. We're working at this time with the contractor on that basis, and we expect to be successful.

MR. SIHOTA: Is the ministry providing additional legal

services out of its own budget to it? You say there's a special

enrolment plan that the government has come up with. Perhaps you could

elaborate on that and tell us what it is.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The program is contracted for; it's not run

by the Ministry of Attorney-General. We have some standards that we

want met, we want the enrolments dealt with, and we're working with the

contractor to give them advice on our views about how that can happen —

and it will happen.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA: What is your advice?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, about three minutes ago, I said: a special unit to deal with enrolments.

MR. SIHOTA: All I'm trying to get at is that I'd like some

detail on what you intend to do. One line, saying that it's a special

unit to deal with enrolment, doesn't tell me much unless you tell me

exactly what the plan of attack for that group is and what it intends

to do, so that we've got some measure of confidence other than one line

saying that we have a special team to work on it. I'd like some degree

of elaboration and some specifics on what it is or how it intends to

approach this problem of backlogs. And what is the time parameter? At

the end of the summer, do we expect to have all the backlogs remedied?

Do we expect to have only those dealing with GAIN applicants remedied?

What is this group specifically to do?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I think I've answered it as many ways as I

can. The GAIN portion you'll have to ask the Minister of Social

Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) about. There's a special unit put together

for enrolments, and I'm confident that it will be able to clean up the

backlog by the end of the summer.

MR. SIHOTA: Does the special unit consist of lawyers?

HON. S.D. SMITH: No.

MR. SIHOTA: Perhaps you could tell us who are the individuals on this thing?

HON. S.D. SMITH: As I indicated earlier, this is a private

organization which hires its people. They are putting together today a

special unit to deal with enrolments. We are confident that the ongoing

changes

[ Page 6467 ]

to the collection of information, the way they're

processed, the fact that the special unit will not have to deal with

telephone calls from people looking for their cheques and so on, will

allow them to concentrate and enable them to get the enrolment problem

cleaned up.

MR. SIHOTA: One of the problems we seem to have identified in

talking to people around the province on this thing is that the program

is driven by a telephone system and that there are no community-based

programs or offices. Is it the intent that there will be

community-based offices so that people who particularly have difficulty

dealing with the forms will have access to offices around the province

so that they can get on with the job of filing and getting into the

system?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The answer is no.

MR. SIHOTA: Has the ministry not identified this as a concern?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Yes, we have, but we believe we can deal with it through the process we have.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister say why?

This is a fairly significant problem with the program. The toll-free

concept just doesn't seem to be of benefit to people with literacy

a good number of people fall within that sphere of problems.

Therefore it seems to me that one of the problems with the program

is the nature of its centralized location. This government, which is

all hepped up about decentralization, ought to give some consideration

to decentralizing this program to ensure that people have access in

their communities — I don't mean every community in the province, but

on some reasonable level of coverage — around the province. Could the

minister explain why they rejected that as a possible remedy?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, we want to get the program up

and running as it's now configured, get the moneys now put into it used

effectively and efficiently and get the program working. Then in due

time, suggestions like the member's will undoubtedly be given their

appropriate consideration.

MR. SIHOTA: The point I'm trying to make to the minister is

that the program as it exists with that flaw in it is going to add to

those volumes of telephone calls that the minister complained about in

his comments when he identified the difficulty with enrolment.

With respect to this enrolment unit that the Attorney-General referred to, is it already in place?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Yes, it is in place, and people are now being interviewed for hire.

MR. SIHOTA: So I take it I'm correct in assuming that it

isn't off the ground, but that you're starting to engage the people

necessary to get the system going. So I take it we can't ask any

questions about its progress, because there isn't anything to report at

this stage. Is that correct?

HON. S.D. SMITH: As I've indicated, Mr. Chairman, the whole

program is only three months old in most of the province and six months

old in the rest of it. So I think that's a reasonable assumption on the

member's part.

MR. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to resume some of the

remarks I was making on Friday. I was speaking about the importance of

access to justice in the north, the interior and parts of the province

that don't have the court facilities that we enjoy here in Victoria and

Vancouver and in the urban areas. I think a very good case could be

made for more itinerant justice.

I was very pleased that the Justice Reform Committee report had a

good proposal to use justices of the peace to deal with bylaw cases on

an itinerant basis. I see absolutely no reason why we can't use

municipal council chambers to do bylaw cases. I don't think that's a

retrograde step. I know that there are people in the system who think

that every community should have a courthouse, and that a courthouse is

a symbol of law and authority and so on, but that's just not practical

in many of these communities.

Many communities that have good municipal council chambers don't use

them a great deal and are delighted to have the presence of a judge and

a courtroom in that facility. So I'm very pleased with that

recommendation.

I also thought that there was an excellent idea in the Justice

Reform Committee recommendations, and that was the idea of having

economic litigation in the county court for cases involving only

$20,000. I am an advocate of merger and merger now, and if that does

occur, then there won't be a county court. I do not think that the

economic litigation proposal is appropriate in the senior court. When

you're drafting your reform package regulations, I think it's better to

go back and maybe look again at the small claims model.

Rather than putting that economic litigation in the merged senior

court, I think it's better to have an expanded small claims court. I

recognize that good thought went into rejecting the small claims model.

There was that fear that if you have an expanded small claims

jurisdiction to $10,000, the lawyers will take it over, particularly

those who aren't as busy as they might be in other courts. But we can

guard against that by preparing a small claims model that is truly a

people's court, that makes it easy to get into that court and that

doesn't give an advantage to people represented by counsel.

Since that is one of the major themes that goes through the Justice

Reform Committee report, and one that has found favour, another theme,

of course, is to demystify language and demystify the court pro-

[ Page 6468 ]

cess. This is an ideal opportunity, in this

session, to bring in a true people's court and to expand small claims

to all civil matters under $10,000. I think that should be done despite

the risks there are to

section 96 challenges, and despite other things

that may militate against that. I think it's very important that we

strive towards a people's court. We're going to have to find more civil

judges, for sure, to hear these cases, because there aren't enough of

them.

I totally support the structure that was envisaged for economic

litigation: pre-trial mediation opportunities, no examination for

discovery, no strict rules. It's exactly the way to go. That model

could be done under the Small Claim Act, into a new people's court. It

would be very popular. It would be easy access; swift, demystified

justice for ordinary people who have claims under $10,000 — and there

are an awful lot of them.

I hope that's the route the ministry will take if it carries out a

merger, as I hope it will. There's been so much talk on merger, I'm not

going to weary the chamber with much more discourse on it. The

commission brought in a compromise recommendation of delaying merger;

it represented, I gather, several points of view on the commission.

Probably it is the time to have merger; it's the time to have a single

superior court that can deal with all matters now dealt with by the

County Court and the Supreme Court. I think the public would support

it. The bar supports it. It's an idea whose time has come. If it is

going to come, then I don't think it requires a great deal of lead time

and reassigning caseloads and dates. It could probably be done quite

swiftly, and I hope it will.

The commission had some very sensible things to say on the subject

of arbitration and alternative dispute resolution — not a subject that

attracts much attention, but one of great importance to people who want

to see how we're going to get cases resolved quickly and cheaply and

how we're going to lessen the load on the courts.

[3:15]

A very good model that I commend to everybody is the experiment

that's been going on in the international arbitration centre with a

number of ICBC claims that have been mediated and have had a very good

settlement result. One case for a quarter of a million dollars was

settled after about seven hours' mediation at a cost of about $1,000;

there's an example. I would like to see ICBC — if the minister agreed —

moving even more vigorously into this field and to see more and more of

these motor vehicle damage cases being dealt with at this level by

mediation.

I believe also that that approach is going to help avoid a

recurrence of the proposals we had in the province a few years ago to

set up the no-fault automatic system they have in other jurisdictions,

where you ultimately have your damage claim settled on the basis of

administrative comity and you don't have a proper adjudication in a

court of law. That proposal was very unpopular with the bar, but when

you see the soaring costs that go into motor vehicle litigation and the

rise in those costs — even though there is an excellent mechanism

controlling those costs — you can see how arguments for a no-fault

system with automatic assessment are very tantalizing.

One of the safeguards against that is to have more and more of these

cases settled by mediation; and so they should be. I think it's

preposterous to have trials taking five, six, seven or eight days,

involving liability and assessment of damages, in the civil courts.

It's an unnecessary cost, particularly assessment of damages; that

could be done at a meditative level, and should not require endless

parades of medical witnesses, actuaries and consultants who are going

to compute future loss of earnings to the nearest thousand dollars.

That kind of thing has got to be shortened if we're going to survive

and not groan under the weight and cost of litigation.

One area the Justice Reform Committee tackled — and I'm delighted

that they did — was the area of criminal law reform. I'm glad that they

went into that area and made some recommendations and didn't just

simply say: "It's not under us; it's mostly under Ottawa. They are the

ones that pass substantive criminal law. They are the ones that pass

new evidence legislation." They actually went into this, and the

recommendations are very good, particularly the recommendation, that

didn't get an awful lot of attention, which was to have a special

disclosure court in Vancouver as a model, as they have done for some

years in Montreal. That's a superb first step. There is no reason why

these criminal trials in this province are taking weeks and weeks, even

at the trial level, and maybe the same amount of time or longer at the

preliminary hearing level.

Much of the focus on justice reform and most of the initiatives are

going to deal with civil cases. The criminal courts are the ones that

most people come into contact with as witnesses or as members of their

families are involved in those courts. Those are the courts — the

criminal courts — that I think, particularly for superior court trials,

take far too long.

Why should a simple criminal trial take a preliminary hearing of

three or four days and a trial that's going to last a week or a week

and a half? One of the reasons is that the procedures are outmoded.

We're still having evidence at the trial looked at and examined in the

absence of a jury. The jury goes out for a couple of hours or maybe a

day in order to get a ruling on a matter of evidence, and then they

come back in.

This is very disruptive and very time-consuming. All those matters

should be dealt with at a pre-trial hearing, before the jury is

empanelled. The only things that should be argued in the course of the

trial are matters involving admissibility that arise and couldn't have

been foreseen. We could cut an awful lot of time.

If anyone has watched criminal trials in the Old Bailey in England,

you would know the difference in the speed and efficiency with which

they run these trials. Murder trials are quite frequently over within

two days. Ten or 12 witnesses are called for the Crown and maybe for

the defence, because they have their process much more streamlined.

[ Page 6469 ]

Every case I've heard over there that's been like that has been an

acquittal. You can't argue that under their system people's rights

aren't safeguarded. I think they probably have a very high level of

acquittals over there. The cases are put in with great speed and

without counsel arguing all of the time on procedural matters and

admissibility matters. Those are either dealt with elsewhere or counsel

proceeds on the basis that something is going to be all right; and if

it isn't, their whole case is done anyway. I notice far more efficiency

in the presentation of trials in that country, and we should be

adopting that system.

Ottawa has not addressed in a serious way — to my knowledge —

reforming criminal law procedure They have had literally hundreds of

people studying changing the substantive criminal law and producing

welters of reports trying to be revisionists. There is a guy who has

made a life study in justice redesigning new evidence acts. Every two

or three years, a new draft federal evidence act emerges because this

guy has a huge vested interest in this work.

All the provinces have to look at this darned thing and comment on

it. These are the sorts of things that the revisionists and the

students in Ottawa are concerned about in criminal law. There doesn't

seem to be the same kind of commitment in getting the criminal law

streamlined and in getting reforms and procedures. I hope the ministry

will do all that it can within its own sphere to adopt those

recommendations of the Justice Reform Committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, I must warn you that the green light is on. You may wish to terminate your remarks or wrap them up.

MR. B.R. SMITH: I've got a few more remarks to make, so I'll defer to somebody and then resume in a few minutes.

MR. PETERSON: I'm very interested in the member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head's remarks, and I'd like to hear him carry on for a

little longer, if that's possible.

MR. B.R. SMITH: On Friday, I was speaking about Crown counsel

from the private bar and ad hoc counsel. I should have mentioned and

paid some tribute to the Crown counsel interchange which has been

underway in the ministry for a couple of years which gets Crown counsel

working on the other side and conversely. I think that's a very good

step.

I want to emphasize again — and the provisions of the Justice Reform

Committee report allude to this kind of thing as well in the parts on

criminal procedure — the importance of always having some lawyers from

the private bar — not people who are working on contract or doing this

as a major part of their work, but having those people plugged in on

criminal cases and doing criminal cases from time to time. The old

system of having a junior in an assize from the private bar junioring

somebody in the Crown system, or someone from the Crown system at a

junior level junioring a senior counsel from outside of the bar, is

still — resources being available — a good system; but as much as you

fight, and as much as you try to ensure that this kind of system is

operating when you are Attorney-General, and as much as you're assured

by officials that it is, I can tell you that on the ground it isn't.

Not nearly enough cases are being dealt with by people who are

practising other litigation in the bar. Most of the Crown counsel work

is being done by people who are on contract or by people who are in the

system. There has got to be more true ad hoc work, in my opinion.

I thought the Justice Reform provisions to streamline civil

litigation were very well thought out. If they're going to be accepted,

they are going to involve a great deal of cooperation. They are not

something that can just be mandated by a minister or by rules; it is

going to require the cooperation of judges and lawyers and people

working in the system to make those changes happen.

Like the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), I would

encourage the ministry to go a little further to give those tools to

the judges which they need to encourage this kind of cooperation. I

think pre-trial conferences can be very useful. They can also be mere

formalities. In the hands of a proactive judge, and a judge who is

backed up by rules that allow him to impose sanctions, you can have a

great deal of streamlining of issues; you can shorten the time of your

trial. I think we've got to have more of that. We've got to put that

into the hands of the judiciary and encourage the judiciary to be very

firm in trying to move cases along on relevant points of law and

relevant facts and try to eliminate some of the prolixity in the delays

that are taking place.

[3:30]

In the United Kingdom this year the Lord Chancellor proposed a

number of quite revolutionary ideas for the consideration of the bar

and the public. He has challenged some long-held traditional views of

legal practice, one of which is the old rule in Britain that the

barrister doesn't talk directly to the client. That's now under review

— and so it should be, because he talks to the client all the time if

his client happens to be out of the country or in some Common Market

country. Also, the United Kingdom is looking at the implementation of

contingency fees, which do give access to good counsel and to the

courts for people who cannot afford legal fees. I have always been a

supporter of contingency fees, provided there are firm controls with

those fees. As well, they're looking at expanding the areas of lay

advocacy. So they're challenging a number of traditional notions, and

many of their proposals are not popular with the bar. They're very

controversial.

I think these proposals had a much better acceptance. I was

impressed with their general acceptance from the bar; if it were ever

unanimous, you would be suspicious about them. There was very good

support. I think there is a will and a willingness to try to streamline

the courts and make some major changes. The time to do that is now, in

1989. This report will not improve with age. I hope we are going to

have major changes that will put those sanctions, those carrots and

sticks, into the hands of the court to move

[ Page 6470 ]

cases along and shorten the time being spent. This

may well require some revision of costs and the method of awarding

costs, but I think that should take place. There is a great deal of

public support for that approach. People who work in the courts and

earn their living there often forget that the courts exist not just for

the benefit of those who work there, but primarily for the public.

Making the courts more accessible was the object of the Justice Reform

Committee, and I think its report is excellent.

When we first proposed and announced the Justice Reform Committee

constitution in November 1987 at a bar and bench dinner in Vancouver, I

think there was some skepticism; that would be an understatement. When

the names of the people who agreed to serve on that commission were

announced early in January 1988, I think some of those concerns were

already allayed, because a very balanced group of people went around

the province on that committee, including some excellent laymen. The

proposals produced by that committee are largely pragmatic and are ones

that can work. I, along with other members in this chamber who have

talked about it.... I'm not going to talk about the committee's

recommendations anymore. I'll just commend the committee and a speedy

implementation of a reform package, which I think will have broad

public support.

MR. SIHOTA: Just one question I didn't ask the

Attorney-General on the backlog in the family maintenance enforcement

program. Could he tell me the numbers he has with respect to the extent

of that backlog?

HON. S.D. SMITH: It's 5,500.

MR. SIHOTA: How many cases have been processed to date?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Completely, 1,300.

MR. SIHOTA: I take it that the number of kits that have been received is 14,000.

HON. S.D. SMITH: It's 6,800.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the Attorney-General confirm...? If it's in

the wrong ministry, he can let me know, but I would assume that it

falls within the parameters of the program. In terms of the backlog, is

there any indication of how many cases fall under GAIN?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I don't have the breakdown.

MR. SIHOTA: Can that be provided through his ministry, or would Social Services and Housing have those numbers?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'm sure it could be, but quite frankly, the

priority is to get the backlog done, not to try and make those kinds of

arithmetical distinctions.

MR. SIHOTA: Could he tell us how much money has been recovered under that program to date?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Yes. Cheques representing $276,043 have been

collected and passed along to creditors. Of that amount, $133,594 was

for the month of March alone, and monthly cheque disbursements have

doubled each month since December. I repeat that this program is very

new, and it is growing.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to turn to another issue, and that is the

one we were dealing with on Friday as we wrapped up debate in this

House. During the course of the debate, I think it was the first member

for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy), whom I was telling

afterwards that she must have been aware of what I was going to be

dealing with next.... It's the matter of sexual assault. I think she

made the case quite well with respect to sentencing in sexual assault

and expressed her feelings with respect to the fact that the sentencing

did not always reflect what she thought would be appropriate in various

circumstances, particularly those dealing with children. I want to say

that I certainly tend to get the same kind of feedback on sentencing in

matters of sexual assault.

I have concerns to a larger degree with respect to the other side of

the coin. There are two sides to that coin: rehabilitation of those who

have been the criminals.... More importantly, I want to deal with the

matter of victims of sexual assault. It's a matter that I raised in the

House last year and that I want to raise again during the course of

this year's estimates.

I raised the matter of sexual assault and issues surrounding victims

of sexual assault because, as I've said before, I cannot think of

another crime as repulsive and repugnant as that. There is no doubt

that the commission of that type of crime leaves the victim with a

tremendous psychological scar, whether it be a child or, in most cases,

a woman. That scar obviously takes quite some time to heal, and it

requires the provision of all sorts of services for the victim.

It is the absence of services to that victim that causes me concern,

particularly when I take a look at the allocations this year within the

ministry's budget. Across the province, it is estimated that about 3

percent of all female victims of violence receive assistance, and it is

my information that there is a lack of coverage available for sexual

assault victims in British Columbia.

A little short of a year ago, I raised this matter in the House, and

I went around to various parts of the province and talked about the

situation. I want to just go back and revisit what I said last year and

compare it to what is happening this year and to the assistance levels

provided by the government this year.

I am disappointed to see that despite all the talk about assistance

to victims in British Columbia, despite all the magazines and

publications that I see coming across my desk from both the

Attorney-General's and the Solicitor-General's ministries about this

government's concern for victims of sexual as-

[ Page

6471 ]

sault and victims in general, it is obvious that

little or no progress has been made in assisting victims of this

incredible crime. It is hard to believe.

Last year, when I was dealing with this matter in the Legislature, I

used Terrace as one example. At the time, they had one funded position

for a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week service. By their own estimate,

to get the job done in that community, it requires eight staff people;

however, they have four full-time and one part-time staff, and they

have to rely on auxiliary staff to fill the gaps.

They have 23 beds. About two weeks ago they had to turn away two

families who required this type of assistance. That was just one

example. The information this year about the sexual assault centre in

Terrace is that Terrace now has one and a half staff: one full-time and

one half-time. In April 1987, just to indicate the extent of the

problem, they had 235 files open; in April 1989 there were 497 files.

Files are opened for people with whom they have an ongoing contact;

files are not opened just for information. They handle matters of

battering of women, adult sexual assault, sexual assault of children —

men, women and children are in that category as well. They handle

approximately 200 calls a month for information. In a minute I will be

highlighting for the Attorney-General the allocations of funding for

these centres this year, but it's safe to say that the problem is

enormous in a community the size of Terrace.

That's just Terrace. Vancouver is another area of concern. Last year

in the Legislature I raised the matter of Vancouver, and I don't really

intend to go into that in any depth, except to say that the statistics

in Vancouver are most alarming. They have three and a half paid

positions provided for by the government. In 1983 they received only

438 calls per year. In this last fiscal year, '88-89, the total calls

were 1,359. They have a 24-hour crisis line, which functions due to the

27,000 hours of free volunteer time allocated to the sexual assault

centre in Vancouver.

Victoria is another area of the province which is suffering and

which we referred to last year in dealing with this issue. I mentioned

that in Victoria they had received, admittedly, a 40 percent increase

in funding but had a 1,300 percent increase in requests for services

over the same seven-year period. Victoria now gets approximately 200 to

300 calls each month dealing with sexual assault. As I said, that is up

1,300 percent from seven years ago; yet their funding level is

identical to last year's. They have two and a half paid staff, who

provide counselling and a support system, and there are waiting-lists

for counselling and support groups. When you think about a crime such

as sexual assault, it's amazing that individuals would have to wait for

counselling and support group assistance across the province.

If you take a look at the seven development regions in the province, it's

astounding that three of those regions in British Columbia have no services

at all with respect to sexual assault centres. The information I've been

able to pull from the Attorney-General's ministry indicates that the Kootenay

area, the Cariboo area and the Nechako area have no assault centre whatsoever.

Most agencies in those areas that exist do not have a broad base of

financial support. Often it's the province or nothing. Most handle

problems which require public education. They handle problems which

accompany survivors through legal and medical systems and deal with

family members as well.

There is a tremendous need in this province for transition

facilities and second-stage housing. Often these facilities have to

deal with usually a wife who shows up at the doorstep and is in dire

need of accommodation, and the facilities just aren't available on a

provincewide basis.

When I was taking a look at the Attorney-General's allocations for

funding for the '89-90 year, I was astonished with what I read. I went

around the province and took a look at allocations. The North Island

Crisis Centre last year received a funding allocation of $15,000, and

this year they received the same. The Cowichan Women Against Violence

Against Women program deals with sexual assault, has a 24-hour crisis

line, provides follow-up contact and counselling, accompanies people

through police proceedings and the courts, reports information to the

police with respect to attacks and deals with counselling. Last year

they received $33,000, and again this year they received $33,000 — no

increase.

We're talking about an enormous service that requires assistance.

When you consider this government's stated commitment to its concern

about victims, it's astonishing that with respect to this crime there

is no increase in any funding whatsoever from the nominal rates of

funding that existed before.

[3:45]

The Women's Sexual Assault Centre of Victoria received $70,000 last

year, and this year they received a reduction in their budget to

$61,800. The Battered Women's Support Services in Vancouver last year

received $70,000 and received the same amount this year. Again, they do

many of the support and counselling programs in cooperation with

victims to provide them with assistance. Women Against Violence Against

Women in Vancouver received $105,000 last year, and this year they

received a cut down to $88,000.

Last year in the Legislature I mentioned the Kamloops situation. I'm

sure the minister, being the representative for that community is aware

of the enormity of the problem in Kamloops. It's interesting, again, to

reflect back on what was said about Kamloops. Last year it was pointed

out that the Kamloops Sexual Assault Counselling Centre had a two-week

waiting period for non-crisis counselling, as they call it. It's

something they refer to as actually crisis counselling, but because of

the inadequacy of funding they just simply could not provide the level

of counselling required for victims. You would think that with the

problem being as extreme as it is in Kamloops and with the minister's

knowledge of the situation there, some attention would be provided to

the crisis program there, the follow-up contact and counselling and the

accompaniment through proceed-

[ Page 6472 ]

ings that's required. Again, in Kamloops the

allocation last year was $37,000 plus change, and it's the same

allocation this year.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

As I said, in region 4, Kootenay, there are no sexual assault

centres, nor are there in region 5, the Cariboo region. I mentioned

Terrace a few moments ago and spoke of the enormity of the problem

there and gave statistics, which speak volumes with respect to the

enormity of the problem. Again, last year they received $33,000 and

they received the same amount this year. North Peace, which has

tremendous problems — and I won't go into the details — last year

received $40,000 in funding and this year again received $40,000 in

funding.

With respect to these matters of sexual assault and given the need

to provide services to victims of sexual assault across the province,

did the government obviously take the view this year that they would

not provide even as much as inflationary increases to the programs I've

referred to?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Well, the member is in error. We're now in

the process of finalizing the amount of the increases. I believe there

will be increases to each and every one of the locations he mentioned.

We're in those negotiations now, and I will be going around the

province, assuming we get out of estimates sometime this month, to

consult and provide that additional assistance.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, this is material provided by your own

ministry, dated April 6, 1989. It comes off your own programs, and it

talks about the 1988-89 funding and the 1989-90 funding. We are dealing

with the minister's budget, so the minister perhaps will go one by one,

and he can tell me exactly in which areas we're wrong, and what the

government's intentions are with respect to each one of these, so we

have an idea as to what your funding allocations are.

HON. S.D. SMITH: You're quite right, the information you got

is dated. We're in the process right now, and have been for two or

three weeks now, of discussing with each one of these agencies what

would be an appropriate amount. I will be going around in the next ten

days or two weeks to every one of these centres, or almost all of them,

and at that time will finalize what increases are going to be. But

there will be increases, and I know the member will be delighted to

hear that.

MR. SIHOTA: We're looking at materials provided by your

ministry after this budget came down about three weeks ago. If there's

a change, I'd like to know if it's coming out of some sort of

supplementary estimates, or is it coming from your main budget? If it's

coming from your main budget, then I would assume.... First of all,

tell me where it's coming from. Is it coming from supplementary funding

that you've secured?

HON. S.D. SMITH: It comes out of the

section dealing with community programs.

MR. SIHOTA: So I take it that the minister is not in a

position now to tell us what the increases are going to be, but each

one of them is guaranteed a minimum of what I've outlined already.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'm not in a position to tell him precisely

what the amount will be, and therefore, of course, I'm not in a

position to use his numbers; nor would I use them, for that matter.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm trying to find out from the

Attorney-General.... It seems to be difficult to deal with. If we can't

find out the numbers and if we're just told that there's going to be a

general increase, is the increase going to be inflationary? Is it going

to be substantial? I don't have here with me the budget; I've left it

in my office accidentally today. Perhaps he could tell me what the

overall global increase in that budget is, so that we have some idea in

terms of what level of services are going to be provided. Are there

priority areas? Will services be provided in those areas that aren't

covered, in terms of the three decentralization areas that aren't

covered according to the information your office provided to us?

MR. S.D. SMITH: We're dealing with the areas that are currently served, to help them with increased demand.

MR. SIHOTA: Will services be provided in those areas — the

Kootenay area, the Cariboo area, the Nechako area — that have no

assault-centre facilities right now?

HON. S. D. SMITH: There are no new centres being planned, but

certainly in terms of services to victims of sexual assault, there are

a number of ministerial actions that take place involving Social

Services and Housing and Health and Education, the Solicitor-General,

the Attorney-General. But to my knowledge, there are no new centres

planned to be opened this year.

MR. ROSE: Well, I'm a little bit confused as well. Since the

minister has told us there are increases for certain services in

certain places, which he at the moment is not prepared to name or to

examine in any detail with us — which is what I thought the purpose of

estimates was — could he tell us whether or not there is going to be an

increase in the budget, which means a supplementary estimate, or is it

going to come out of the global total of the existing budget? If so,

what's going to go down if these other items go up?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'm sorry the opposition House Leader wasn't

in or wasn't listening, or both. It's out of the existing budget. It's

out of the community services portion of the existing budget.

[ Page

6473 ]

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the other half of my question could be

addressed now then: if this is going up and there's not going to be....

If the community services part of the budget is going to increase, and

the total budget is unchanged by a supplementary estimate or an

addition, what sections of the budget decrease?

HON. S.D. SMITH: It's part of the community programs budget.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister could be a little bit more

explicit. Certain services rendered by the community services budget,

we're told, are going to increase. Or is this increase already part of

the budget? And if they are, why won't he tell us?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The amount is already part of the budget.

It's not a matter of not telling you; we simply haven't tied down the

specific amount with each individual organization. That seems to be an

appropriate thing to do before you announce what the number is going to

be for each individual organization, There's nothing unusual about that.

MR. SIHOTA: We will come back to that in a minute. I want to

know from the minister why the government has taken the view that no

new services ought to be provided in those areas without services.

The Kootenays are not immune to sexual assault problems and sexual

assault victims. I don't care what other ministries are doing; we can

canvass that with other ministries. I don't think it's fair for the

government and then for the minister to come in here and say: "Other

ministries are going to cover that void." First of all, I want to know

why this ministry is not prepared to provide these services in the

Kootenays. Could the minister explain?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, that member may not care what

other ministries do, but I do, and most people in government do. We in

this ministry are concerned primarily, and as a priority, with ensuring

that there is adequate funding of those services that we now provide,

prior to adding to them.

I tried to explain to that member that there are other agencies that

deal with victim services. For instance, the Social Services and

Housing ministry funds shelter for assaulted women. It deals with the

protection of children involved with problems of abuse and neglect.

Frequently it is associated with the kind of abuse he is talking about.

The Health ministry offers support through their mental health

services. As well, the Solicitor General’s ministry has programs

through their victims' initiatives and criminal injury compensation

program.

Some of these services — which the member was concerned don't exist

and which, in fact, do exist — are provided in Cranbrook through the

victim witnesses service agency in that community; likewise in

Invermere, through Communities Against Sexual Abuse, which is funded as

well. There is a whole host of them providing that. In answer to his

question, our priority is to make certain that money is allocated to

support the programs we now have. It's not a matter of being

indifferent to other or new programs.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister could help us to

understand the reason these services which we've just been discussing

are provided by his ministry in some centres, yet the efforts are taken

over by other ministries in other parts of British Columbia.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The services that you are referring to are

provided by our ministry in all the centres where they are provided. In

addition to that, other services, which people involved see as

complementary, are provided by other ministries. We try — and will

continue to try — to bring all those various services together in an

interministerial way in due time, both at the service level and

hopefully at the funding level.

MR. ROSE: I have no difficulty in accepting the fact that the

comprehensive or interministerial services are provided. That's not a

problem to me. I think they should be provided, because the impact even

of illiteracy has profound implications for prisons, for crime, for

psychiatric services — for all kinds of other things — and even for

housing. So I don't have any difficulty with a comprehensive

interministerial attack on social problems. That's not the question.

Obviously the Ministry of Attorney-General is applying certain

services in some areas of the province, but it has left it to the

comprehensive approach in other areas. I'd like to know why it is done

this way, because it looks as if it might be some form of benign

neglect in areas such as the Kootenays that do not receive the fine

efforts of the minister and the ministry.

[4:00]

HON. S.D. SMITH: Let me try to explain it again. We have

provided these services in some areas of the province. In other areas

of the province, similar services are provided by other agencies. This

year we are addressing ourselves to increasing support for those areas

where we now have service, rather than adding new services.

We have taken a look at trying to establish how to do that because,

as members would agree, you often aren't able to do everything you want

to do every time you want to do it; you have to establish some form of

priority. In some of those areas where there are no ancillary services,

we're increasing the support to the assault centres we fund, because

they will undoubtedly have to pick up some of the slack. In other areas

where there are ancillary services, the opposite will be the case.

That's how the funding is allocated.

MR. ROSE: I think we're getting closer. What the minister is

telling us is that for the moment, because of lack of funding and

because there is no assault centre in the Kootenays or the Cariboo or

the Nechako — even though the needs are probably just as great in those

areas, if not greater — he is farming

[ Page 6474 ]

out the services to existing government agencies,

whether or not they have the skill to handle them, and he is leaving

the rest of it up to volunteers in those areas and in those agencies

desperately in need of his support. It seems to me that it's probably

not a very good policy decision.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Well, it's fairly difficult to know where to

begin with that rationale. It's obviously not much supported by any

useful research, but it's useful for filling in time, I guess.

What we are trying to do is to provide the service. Where we have

agencies that we fund directly for this service — which, not

incidentally, will provide other services as well, just as a matter of

course; it's inevitable in these kinds of things — we are, as a matter

of priority, seeking to be certain that our funding is increased. In

other areas where there are other agencies, which may not be called the

"whatsit local sexual assault centre," but which provide victim

services that touch on that.... Where they are funded by other

agencies, that is not a priority for our funding this year. That's how

we've established it.

MR. ROSE: Is the minister aware that many of these services

are actually funded by volunteers who go out on fund-raising drives

because the need is so great and the present support is inadequate? Has

he looked into those centres and areas in which this is the case?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Not only am I aware of it; I support it. I

think the volunteer sector is incredibly important to these kinds of

services, not only in their delivery, but for participation in the

community. Indeed, I've been involved in those kinds of fund-raising

efforts myself. I don't see them as parallel lines, where somehow you

badmouth government and glorify something else, or vice versa.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Frequently, the areas where you'll find the most successful service

to the community are those where they have the highest amount of

community involvement from the volunteer section, both in providing the

service and in the commitment to fund-raising. I don't see anything

wrong with it at all; indeed, I congratulate them.

MR. ROSE: I had no intention of badmouthing the volunteers. I think that's been the story of social services throughout our history.

Some of you may or may not know, but the word "conservatory," which we

associate with music, really came from "a place to keep orphans."

Many of them, of course, became choir singers — some of them very able ones,

as a result of some interesting little operations; but we won't go into

that. What we can go into, though, is that at the same time as you laud the

volunteers, we may be sloughing off government responsibilities for adequate

funding in these areas — especially the rural areas, which don't permit

volunteers to travel. I think that's an important thing as well.

As long as government has a responsibility in these areas — as long

as there are victims out there — I think we should do everything we can

to ensure that there's adequate service. Obviously if there are funding

difficulties and we're forced to have bottle drives and bake sales in

order to do this, while those are laudable enough ventures, there comes

a time when.... In our history, charity has been taken over by

government; what was at one time considered a charity now becomes a

social need. I guess what I'm concerned about is that the things we

need the least should be the charities, not those we need the most.

MR. CLARK: I'm going to change the pace a little bit, just for a little while.

I'd like to deal briefly, if I can, with white-collar crime, and

follow up somewhat some of the things I asked in question period today.

I'm kind of fascinated by the broad question, so I'm going to ask some

generic questions around white-collar crime. Before I do that, I'll

just give you an example of something that piqued my interest. I was

watching television about six months ago and saw a bank which the

Americans said was essentially a laundry for Panamanian drug money. You

saw the principals of the bank all being rounded up with their coats

over their heads and thrown into a van on a tremendous sting operation

by the American FBI.

Then I was downtown the next day and I saw the bank here in

Vancouver. The Bank of Credit and Commerce has an operation right there

on Burrard Street. I found that, in fact, the bank was raided as part

of this American sting operation. It turns out that in the evidence at

the American bank, the evidence I saw, the search warrant.... One

incident mentioned was that a shoebox with about $100,000 in small

bills was brought into the bank here in Vancouver, which was clearly

drug money.

The question arises about the government's role in policing this

activity, and I think it's particularly important, given the increased

international trade and relationships that we have. We must be vigilant

that the trade is in commodities that we desire, not in commodities

that are illegal in this country, and that the profit from the trade in

that commodity isn't laundered through Vancouver. There seems to me a

whole range of questions, and I haven't seen any evidence from this

administration and this minister of a concerted attack on this kind of

white-collar crime and this laundering of drug money through Vancouver

banks, the Vancouver Stock Exchange or Vancouver companies.

I wonder if I could start with a generic explanation from the

minister regarding the ministry's role in white-collar crime and just

how that works, what their budget is, how the breakdown is between CLEU

and the RCMP and how we police this kind of nefarious activity.

HON. S.D. SMITH: First of all, there isn't a specific budget item that I can identify that you could

[ Page 6475 ]

reasonably point to white-collar crime, but there

are a number of things that you would be interested in. The work of the

Securities Commission has been beefed up significantly over the last

number of months or couple of years, I guess, and that frequently ties

into what you are talking about. The primary agency for dealing with

investigations of white-collar crime in British Columbia is the RCMP

commercial crime squad, and I think they do a pretty good job, quite

frankly. They've got a pretty sizeable body of expertise built up, and

I think they are on top of the organized activities that they're aware

of in the province.

We have as well, inside the Crown counsel shop, six senior Crown

counsel involved primarily, or largely at least, with dealing with such

matters. They are senior people with special expertise and background

in that area.

In terms of the proceeds of crime, you may be aware that Canada

passed a bill last year — I think it's Bill C-61 — which is a

proceeds-of-crime bill. I can't remember the exact title of it. We will

be introducing some arrangement in British Columbia in the next number

of weeks which will complement that and augment the proceeds-of-crime

legislation. Whether it will be necessary to take the form of

legislation directly or whether it will be simply a protocol of how to

handle the moneys that come in.... Because, remember that there have to

be certain ways to deal with those moneys, not the least of which has

to recognize that they aren't yours until there is a conviction. Those

are some of the ways we are putting resources in the area.

MR. CLARK: That's good news that the minister has made an

announcement that there will be some kind of companion action. I would

encourage a bill, by the way, if for no other reason than to raise the

profile of the fight against white-collar crime, because I don't think

the government has done enough in this area, simply by looking at

what's going on in Vancouver. I'm sure it's a difficult area and that

the drug money is difficult to trace, but it seems to me that the

increased links that Vancouver has with certain countries might elevate

the prospects of increased drug money coming through, particularly in

light of the twin goals of government — and I don't think this is

unfair — foreign ownership and deregulation. The twin approach is what

concerns me if we are to entice large volumes of money from places like

Hong Kong, South America, Panama, which are known to have some problems

policing narcotics. It seems to me to heighten the possibility that we

become a kind of laundry here.

The minister didn't take the opportunity to comment on the specific

bank, but I'll leave that at this point. I appreciate the sensitivity

of specific allegations, or specific cases, but there seems to be gaps

in the investigation with respect to Marcos's involvement in Vancouver.

The First Vancouver Securities company, which is a securities company,

is, as the minister knows, not simply a listing; it was bought a seat

on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I will be canvassing this with the Minister for Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) — I

know it's quite properly his — but clearly there was an error in terms

of the regulators missing the fact that this company is linked to

Ferdinand Marcos. If it weren't for the bank account being frozen in

Vancouver by the American grand jury indictment in New York, they would

still be in operation. The question arises, however, of the people

involved in that case. No action whatsoever was taken, other than to

close the company and move the accounts to Georgia Pacific, which has

an interesting history in itself. But we won't go into that either.

Some other members of this chamber....

[4:15]

It seems to me there are disturbing elements with respect to the Marcos connection

to Vancouver. As the minister knows, there are thousands of Canadians of Filipino

descent in Vancouver and British Columbia. The vast majority of them are incredibly

hardworking people and contribute a great deal to our society and to British

Columbia. But names pop up: José Campos was listed in Newsweek magazine. I don't

know whether Newsweek is a great investigative journal, but it talks about José

Campos, who lives in Vancouver and is a known front man for Ferdinand Marcos.

An admitted front man who helped Marcos take billions of dollars out of the

Filipino economy illegally is living quite safely in Point Grey. What is he

doing in Vancouver? I don't know. I don't have any evidence. I wish

I did; I would say it today. But it is an interesting question.

Dewey Go Dee lives in Vancouver. He is fighting an extradition

hearing right now. Originally he was allowed to stay in Canada, but

partly because of press furor he is having some difficulty staying

here. He is living here. So is a relative of his. I'm not quite sure

what the relationship is, but Simeon Dee lives in Richmond, as I

understand it. These are known Marcos associates. I am not libeling

them. These people admit to being front men for Ferdinand Marcos. They

associate with an individual named Toti Mabanta, who arranged the

financing for First Vancouver. Mr. Mabanta currently works for Georgia

Pacific and is doing the same thing he has been doing here for several

years. It strikes me as passing odd, to say the least, that the company

can be the subject of an American investigation, that the company can

be folded by the regulators because it's known to be a Marcos laundry,

for want of a better word — it's known to be associated with Marcos —

but all of the people who arranged the financing from this source seem

to walk away without any sanctions.

I wonder if the minister could comment on the broad question of the

role of the commercial crime squad or his ministry in monitoring these

kinds of disturbing foreign nationals now living in Canada who have

these links to clearly disreputable people in other countries, in this

case the Philippines.

HON. S.D. SMITH: You put me at a disadvantage for two

reasons. First of all, the activities of the commercial crime squad

obviously come under the authority of the Solicitor-General as it

relates to this

[ Page 6476 ]

place. The second — and more important — reason is that it would be

highly inappropriate for me to make public comment on what may or may

not be being investigated at any given time. It is simply not right,

and I can't do it. I think it's fair to say that the agencies are aware

of a number of people who from time to time migrate to Vancouver. They

are doing their job. Beyond that, I don't think I can say anything, nor

shall I say anything.

MR. JONES: In the words of Monty Python, I think maybe we

should look into something completely different. It's a subject that I

think is important to the public of British Columbia. I have a

suspicion that the Attorney-General shares my concern in this area, the

area of freedom of information.

The Attorney-General may be aware that I have put forth a private

member's bill dealing with freedom of information during the last two

sessions, in the hope that it might provoke government to investigate

this area and join most of the rest of Canada — to join the federal

government and six other provinces in Canada. I understand that the

Filmon Conservative government has recently proclaimed

freedom-of-information legislation that was drafted during an NDP

government.

This is an issue that crosses party boundaries. All parties

represented in this Legislature have from time to time expressed

interest in such legislation There have been Conservatives: Dr. Scott

Wallace. There have been New Democrats: Alex Macdonald, Eileen Dailly

and myself. There have been Liberals who have converted to the Social

Credit Party — Garde Gardom — as well as Liberals who haven't — Gordon

Gibson — who have all proposed similar kinds of legislation before this

assembly.

I believe it was in 1984 that we came very close to approving such

legislation. One of the Attorney-General's predecessors, Allan

Williams, was looking very closely into access for existing and new

government information and documents. I understand that it was the

restraint program that precluded the possibility of that legislation

coming forward.

Even the current Premier has in the past expressed interest in such

legislation. He had a rather strange focus; he wanted freedom of

information for municipalities when he was Municipal Affairs minister

Nonetheless, I think it was an important step and still is an important

step to have that kind of open approach to local government.

I understand that the Attorney-General's predecessor was not too

enthusiastic about this kind of legislation, but the current

Attorney-General, when he sat two desks away from mine two years ago, I

recall one day in late June rose in this Legislature and spoke quite

strongly to the importance of this kind of openness and accountability

and the public's right to know when it came to the Board of Internal

Economy. This Attorney-General was most vocal, strong and articulate in

expressing those concerns as they related to our board.

Clearly the Attorney-General knows that we are, as a province, in the backwater.

We are in the Dark Ages. Certainly we are behind the times. The United States

has had good freedom-of-information legislation since 1966. I see some potential

for movement here with the new Attorney-General.

About a year ago I ran across a press release. It happened to be the

day of the sale of the Expo lands. The press release was from the

office of the Premier, and it indicated that documents relating to

business transactions between the provincial government and the private

sector would not be made public by government on a blanket basis. The

press release further pointed out that this policy did not mean a

freeze on information. Very recently we saw that sale document being

tabled in this Legislature, and I'm hopeful that that is a good sign.

Perhaps that's a sign of a thaw, in terms of letting some sunshine into

information as it relates to government transactions.

Even as recently as a week or so ago, the Attorney-General rose in

this House, when we were dealing with the New Westminster land deal —

and it was a heated debate — and played a very instructive role,

suggesting that when we're dealing with government transactions,

particularly land transactions, those be debated fully. The

Attorney-General emphasized, particularly as it related to the

opposition, that those transactions be debated on the facts. Having the

facts from the government side is important to this debate, and the

Attorney-General was playing a moderating role at that point, I think

to his credit.

I think the Attorney-General understands that a better scrutiny of

government has the potential to ensure fairness and to make government

more efficient and more effective through that public scrutiny. I'm

hopeful that the Attorney-General shares my concerns that we want to

enhance accountability of government through freedom of information,

and that the Attorney-General accepts that it's fundamental to our

democratic system.

I'd just like to ask the Attorney-General if he shares my concerns

and if he can advise this House if any of his staff are looking into

freedom of information.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The simple answer is yes. I want to say I'm

glad the member raised the issue of the Board of Internal Economy. I'll

have more to say about that body later on in the session, if I am in

the House when the matter arises, because I have some special concerns

about both it and the way it operates in the public interest.

With regard to access to information, there are a couple of things

the member might be interested in. First of all, the Financial

Information Act is now providing a sizeable opportunity for people to

seek and get information, particularly about the expenditures of

government. On the larger issue, I have some very real concerns and

have said so publicly — both before and after being asked to serve in

this office some ten months ago — about access to information and about

the protection of information; I believe them to be parallel streams.

I don't believe that we ought to put all our eggs only in the basket of access to information, as impor-

[ Page 6477 ]

tant as that is. I think there's a very real and emerging problem,

particularly for citizens today who, through agencies both in

government and outside of government, can have what is called a

"psychological profile" built on them, simply by someone putting

together the data that is available, I gather, to virtually anyone who

knows how to operate a computer system. To me, that is spooky — to say

the very least about it — and needs far more attention.

I know that the focus has been, and continues to be, on access to

information as between citizens and their government. I don't have any

difficulty with that. But I think, as we look at it, and we are looking

at it.... Shortly after I was named to this post, I had a member of

staff begin to look at both of those issues: access to information, how

it can be improved and enhanced; and the very real and pressing need

for people to have some assurance that information about them may be

kept private. It may be that with the way the information society has

gone, that task is going to be far more apparent than real.

Nevertheless, I am concerned about the privacy of individuals and the

amount of information that is scattered about to all and sundry, some

of whom have reason to have it, some of whom don't but have it anyway.

It is something that troubles and concerns me greatly.

You may ask next why you haven't seen a bill introduced in this

House this session, or whether you will see one. The answer is that you

won't, and the reason is that in the ten short months I've been in this

ministry the focus has been primarily on the justice reform package and

some other legislative initiatives that will come parallel or in

association with that.

Yes, there are people working on it now; and yes' it is something

that concerns me. But in addition to the concerns about access, I must

tell you that I am equally concerned about privacy.

[4:30]

MR. JONES: I want to thank the Attorney-General for his response: a very candid response, and in my view a very positive one.

I share with the Attorney-General the dual aspect of

freedom-of-information legislation: that there be privacy as well as

access to information. It was about a year ago that a social services

minister in the Maritimes was charged under freedom-of-information

legislation for releasing information on a welfare recipient. That

shows that it is possible to use the protection as well as the teeth of

that legislation to ensure that all members of society operate properly

under that kind of legislation.

I would like to raise one other small point with the

Attorney-General, and it's very much an analogous point. I don't know

whether it relates to his ministry specifically or not, but it

certainly relates to the topic we're dealing with: that is, the concern

for accountability in the spending of public funds.

Probably the majority of bodies and agencies that spend public funds

under the aegis of the provincial government do not come under the

scrutiny of the ombudsman, because of the lack of proclaiming of those

sections of the Ombudsman Act that deal with schools, school boards,

universities, colleges, college boards and hospitals. It seems to me

that the kind of scrutiny that the Attorney-General wishes for the

Board of Internal Economy also applies to those agencies that spend

vast sums of money on behalf of the provincial government in the

service of the people of British Columbia.

That same kind of scrutiny and access to information should be there

and should also have the broad powers of the ombudsman's regulatory

bodies to intervene and to investigate in a non-partisan way — as the

ombudsman does — into the operations of those boards, agencies and

institutions.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I realize that I am skirting on future policy, but I was very

encouraged by the Attorney-General's response to the freedom of

information question — even though it's not high on the immediate

agenda — that legislation existing in most other parts of Canada is

being looked at. I am wondering if the same kind of encouragement might

come under the Ombudsman Act.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Sections 3 to 11 in the

schedule of the

Ombudsman Act — if we were to include them — would dramatically change

the way the ombudsman operates. I am not so sure the ombudsman's

function is a kind of audit function in terms of expenditure, although

I suppose they do touch on that. I think the ombudsman's function, more

appropriately, is to deal with the evenness with which administrative

decisions are or are not made, the certainty or fairness of process and

the like.

I shouldn't say this unless I check it, but it sticks in my mind

that the auditor-general has pretty wide power to delve into matters

and to trace expenditures of provincial moneys into other agencies.

Just how far that goes I am not 100 percent certain. In terms of the

expenditure level, I think some of that power exists now to follow the

trail of the public dollar in that sense.

The proclaiming of those sections of the Ombudsman Act to include

all manner and means of agencies, the Law Society and the College of

Physicians and Surgeons and so on, to make their agencies

reviewable.... Government has not done so without some acceptance from

and some consultation with the organizations to find out how that

process would work.

You may say that that has been an 11-year process of consultation,

and I guess the answer is that it has. Likewise, the Union of British

Columbia Municipalities has been under-whelmed — shall I say — by the

prospect of having those sections proclaimed with respect to the

ombudsman. No doubt, if they were proclaimed, the ombudsman as well

would have some concerns about the tremendous increase in resources

that would be required for them to operate.

I can tell you that it's not about to happen, but it comes up from time to time and gets reviewed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to just join in for a moment. Both the question and the answer revolved

[ Page 6478 ]

around the necessity for and matters involving legislation. I would like to

remind the members of standing order 61, and I quote:

"The administrative action of a department is open to debate,

but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be

discussed in Committee of Supply...."

Bearing that in mind, Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Member, I would ask the debate to continue.

MR. JONES: My understanding is that the auditor-general does

have powers to, for example, go into school districts and look at

expenditures of schools and school districts, I don't think that has

been done because of the very reason you mentioned: the

auditor-general's department is tremendously understaffed. He has

raised these concerns in the past.

I recognize that all these things we're talking about have a

price tag to them. But when I suggest that vast sums, perhaps even a

majority of the provincial budget, are spent in those areas — I think

you quoted 3 through 11.... The Attorney-General is quite right that

it's his to ensure evenhandedness of treatment of individuals by those

agencies of government.

But when we are spending vast sums of money on public policy, it is

important to ensure through the ombudsman's office when the occasion

arises that the citizens of this province are treated fairly and

evenhandedly. It's important to our democracy. In both those areas,

yes, there's a price tag. Clearly that was the argument of Allan

Williams as Attorney-General not to proceed with freedom of

information, because it would require a bureaucracy to man that. But it

seems to me that in the interests of the citizens of this province and

in the interests of our democratic system, it's still very worthwhile

to proceed in those two areas. I would encourage the Attorney-General

to look further, to not hesitate in delving into these areas. I'm very

pleased that he's interested in it and has been investigating, at least

in one area.

MRS. GRAN: I want to ask the Attorney-General a very general

question. I recognize that the jurisdiction for what I'm asking about

may well lie mainly with the federal government, but I'm sure that

through the lobbying of the provincial governments, our

Attorney-General could make a difference. My concern lies around

sexually abused children and women who are victims of rape and violence

at home. I'm particularly concerned with the sentences handed out in

the courts. I'm wondering if the Attorney-General could expand on how

he feels, as Attorney-General, on the sentences that are handed out —

in a general way — and whether they're fair.

It's my feeling that there is no punishment, or very little

punishment, for those crimes anymore. We read daily about children

being sexually abused, and the comment that I hear more often than not

is: "Oh, well, it's always been like that. We're just hearing about

it." I don't think that's true. I think that those kinds of crimes are

on the increase due to drugs and alcohol abuse and a society that has

become accustomed to violence. It doesn't seem to matter where you

turn, there's violence. And the violence, when it's directed at

helpless victims like children and a woman who is beaten senseless and

raped by one man or a gang of men, is a crime that no society should

tolerate and no one should be proud of. I'm sure none of us are. But I

don't think that enough focus has been put on those two subjects by any

government. I wonder if the Attorney-General could just expand on that

a bit.

HON. S.D. SMITH: We discussed this a little bit on Friday,

actually, in relationship to child abuse cases: the whole business of

sentencing and the appropriateness of some sentences.

Clearly I have to recognize that sentences are meted out by the

courts, and they are, of course, subject to a number of things. They're

subject to the facts of the case as the judge sees them; primarily that

is what they should be subject to. As well, they will be subject to

submissions of both defence and Crown, and one of the things that Crown

seeks to do in its submissions is deal with the protection of the

public and address the court with some sense of the disapproval that

society feels towards those kinds of crimes and activities.

In this province, because we have put some priority on those

particular areas over the last number of months, we have also appealed

several sentences that were extended at the trial level and at the

trial judge level, and we've been successful with respect to our

submissions on appeal to the Court of Appeal. So in British Columbia I

think the level of sentencing and the conformity — or at least the

evenness — of sentencing is moving more in a direction in which that

member, and certainly I, would be satisfied to see it go.

In addition to that, I have not hesitated in swearing the material

required by me to direct a direct indictment in those instances where

it was considered to be appropriate for dangerous offenders, or to at

least have them classified as dangerous offenders. If one is successful

in getting that declaration, it means that the sentence is

indeterminate. They then do not get out at a fixed time or a fixed time

less parole; they are there at the pleasure of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. That means that this whole business

that some people get concerned about is where the counselling ought to

take place. And it ought to. With some people it ought to take place

behind the security of bars. That's the appropriate place and indeed

the only place. Society is quite justified in wanting that to take

place. So over the past year we have had more applications than

previously.

MRS. GRAN: I thank the Attorney-General for his answer, and I

recognize that he is very sympathetic to those concerns. I want to

thank the Attorney-General for a lot of the funding that has come

forward for assistance to victims in the last couple of years. I also

want to applaud the money for legal aid, particularly where women and

children are concerned.

[ Page 6479 ]

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'd like to address the question of civil disobedience, which seems to be sweeping our province, particularly in my riding.

Interjection.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Encouraged by some part of this government

which doesn't seem to want to become involved in the issues until the

matter is too late, Mr. Member.

The amount of civil disobedience in the province is escalating, as

I'm sure all members of this House are aware. The government seems to

be allowing it to happen, and there's no involvement to ensure that

matters are taken into hand by various ministries of the government,

not just the Ministry of Attorney-General, to avert some of the

protesters that are taking issue with the laws of British Columbia.

[4:45]

As we live in a democratic society, everybody should have the right

to stand up and be a dissident — if that's the word to use — and not

agree with some of the practices carried out in a society that may

consider it its right to do. We must always be very diligent that the

law does not step on that democratic right to display civil

disobedience and to protest. However, when the RCMP has to become

involved and sometimes is hesitant to become involved — as was the case

in the Clayoquot Sound area and Sulphur Passage — because the laws are

not clear as to their role or as to the effect they might have in

calling a protest a civil disobedience between two groups, I think it's

time the Attorney-General took a more direct role in seeing that those

people, on both sides, have a more equitable way of settling their

differences. Confrontation shouldn't be allowed to go on beyond reason,

where the safety, health and working conditions of people are affected.

I'd like to hear from the minister what action his ministry or the

government will be taking to allay the fears of some of the people

involved in these disputes, whether they be on behalf of the

protesters, so to speak, or those who feel that they must go beyond the

writing of letters to ministries and to MLAs and must use a more direct

way of voicing their disapproval of actions taken either by government

or by private companies.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The member for Alberni really touches on one

of the more difficult areas that one has to deal with in exercising

discretion in this particular ministry.

What am I going to do to allay the fears of those who protest? I

guess the short answer is that I'm not going to allay their fears; if

they break the law, then the law will take its