1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 8, Number 23

[ Page 7073 ]

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. G. Clark: Today in the gallery we have a number of student leaders from Vancouver and Victoria, including Maura Parte, the B.C. chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students. Joining them are two of my staff who I'm very proud of, Renee Saklikar and Michael Gardiner. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: Together with the other students here today are some students from the greater Victoria area that I want to welcome to the House as well. In the gallery today are Rob Fleming, newly elected chairperson of the UVic Students Society; Mike Conlon, president of the UVic Graduate Students Society; Hamish McArthur, external affairs executive for the Camosun College Student Society; Jason Noble and Kathy Loewen also from Camosun; and Morgan Stewart from the University of Victoria. As the local MLA as well as the Minister for Advanced Education, I'd like to ask the House to join me in making all these students very welcome.

G. Hogg: Present today are a group of youths from Surrey-White Rock who are involved in the production of a highly acclaimed Shaw Cable TV program for youth called Mestiza. I ask the House to make them welcome.

G. Plant: Today at McRoberts Secondary School in Richmond, which is just outside my riding, for the grade 9 students it's take-your-child-to-work day. Well, my daughter has prevailed upon her father to do just that. Caroline is in the gallery watching all of us, and I ask that members please make her most welcome.

R. Kasper: Today in the gallery we have two representatives from the Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 280: Mr. Bob Colvin, who is their business manager and financial administrator; and Mr. Vern Henderson. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: Sitting, I'm pretty sure, up above me where members opposite can see them are some folks from my ministry who are here to celebrate 25 years of service to the people of British Columbia. All members of all sides and all parties know that the people who actually fly the plane are the civil service. Please make welcome Jim Alcock, Brian Belcher, Barbara Brown, Peter Fofonoff, David Kent, Jim Plotnikoff, Dave Sands and Jean Sherwood, and their families.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Today in the members' gallery we have a special visitor from Argentina. Her Excellency Susana Ruiz Cerutti is the newly appointed Ambassador of Argentina to Canada. She is making her first visit to British Columbia. Would the House please make her most welcome.

I. Chong: Visiting today from St. Michaels University Junior School are 40 grade 5 students, representing two classes of 20 students each. They're accompanied by their teacher Mr. Chan and several adults. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

B. McKinnon: I noticed in the precinct today one of the students, Matthew Todd. I'd like to introduce him to the House. I worked with him on the social planning committee when I was on city council. I would like the House to make him welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: Joining with the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, I would like the House to acknowledge a young gentleman. Evan Hesketh is here with the grade 5 class from St. Michaels. Evan's mother is my deputy minister, Joan Hesketh. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

E. Walsh: Visiting with us in the precinct is a constituent of mine, Muriel Stickney. She is a councillor with the district of Sparwood. I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

Introduction of Bills

TUITION FEE FREEZE ACT

Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Tuition Fee Freeze Act.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I move that the Tuition Fee Freeze Act be introduced and read for a first time now. [Applause.]

Hon. Speaker, you can tell by the applause how proud the caucus is of this act. It extends the current tuition fee freeze at public post-secondary institutions for a third consecutive year -- to March 31, 1999. At the beginning of the third year, British Columbia has moved from having the second-highest tuition fees in Canada -- when this government took office -- to the second-lowest in Canada today. Freezing tuition fees makes education more accessible for more than 150,000 students and even more future students throughout the province.

British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in North America that has frozen tuition fees and significantly increased capacity in its colleges and universities for three years in a row because of the priority that our government applies to post-secondary education.

In addition -- and this is important -- the act will apply to mandatory ancillary fees that have the effect of increasing the cost of tuition. This will ensure that students' financial planning is certain from last year to this year and that they will not encounter any additional mandatory costs outside of tuition fees. As institutions develop new programs to meet the demands of the changing economy, the act will ensure that tuition fees charged for these programs do not exceed fees charged for similar existing programs.

This is a flagship piece of legislation for this administration. It puts us in the vanguard in North America on access to post-secondary education. When you look at the statistics that show we already have the most educated population in Canada, it means we are giving young people the tools they need to be successful in the future.

Bill 8, 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

MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND SIX MILE RANCH PROJECT

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, in the annual report of the conflict-of-interest commissioner for 1991-92, Mr. Hughes

[ Page 7074 ]

wrote with reference to

section 5 of the act: "I have ruled that a minister must not make personal representation on behalf of a constituent [to a commission or board] . . . regardless of the ministry under which the commission, board, agency or other tribunal operates. A minister acting in such a way would always be seen as a minister of government, and that is a position of responsibility that he or she cannot shed at will, and it would be improper to appear in an advocacy role of this kind."

My question is to the Minister of Environment: has she ever asked a member of the NDP cabinet to contact the Agricultural Land Commission with a view to influencing that body with respect to the Six Mile project in her riding?

Hon. C. McGregor: No, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui on his first supplementary.

M. de Jong: In his report to the Premier -- as a means of emphasizing to the minister the importance of the question she's going to answer next -- Mr. McArthur wrote: " . . . a minister must not contact or make representation directly to a commissioner who is hearing a case, or presumably can reasonably be expected to hear a case, in an attempt to influence the outcome."

I'll ask the minister one more time. Has she ever asked any member of the NDP cabinet to contact and try to influence the ALC with respect to the decision on Six Mile?

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I've answered the member's question.

G. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Environment as well. Will the minister confirm that she wrote to the Premier, asking him to contact Kirk Miller and the Agricultural Land Commission with a view to influencing their decision with regard to the Six Mile Ranch?

Hon. C. McGregor: I did not write to the Premier on that matter.

[2:15]

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on his first supplementary.

G. Campbell: I have a copy of a memo written by the member to the Premier in which she says: "I am hopeful that positive statements to the Agricultural Land Commission about the importance of this project, and to Kirk Miller in particular, will enable us to achieve our goal . . . . " Will the minister confirm that it is wrong and inappropriate for a cabinet minister to interfere with a quasi-judicial body like the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. C. McGregor: I did not interfere in any way with a quasi-judicial board.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on his second supplementary.

G. Campbell: Again to the Minister of Environment. This memo that I have copies of, from the member for Kamloops to the Premier, is copied to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Employment. It says: "This project is necessary . . . and will be significant from a re-election point of view, as Kamloops is well-known as the 'bellwether riding.' " Will the minister admit that she requested the Premier and two cabinet ministers to interfere with the ALC, in violation of the guidelines laid down by the conflict commissioner?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I did not ask my colleagues to interfere with a quasi-judicial board. However, I did, on behalf of my constituents, lobby my colleagues heavily on the matter of the Six Mile Ranch.

G. Plant: I have a copy of a memorandum -- a document which purports to be a memorandum -- to the Premier from the member, dated September 23, 1996. It shows copies going to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and copies going to the Minister of Employment and Investment. The subject of the memorandum is Six Mile Ranch. My question for the minister is: did she write the memo?

Hon. C. McGregor: In my capacity as MLA for the area, I did contact my cabinet colleagues and lobby them heavily on the matter of Six Mile Ranch.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston for a supplementary.

G. Plant: My question now is to the Premier. Can the Premier tell us what he did in response to the memorandum dated September 23, 1996, from the member?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, the issue is very clear. I understand what the members are trying to get at, but they're chasing down a corridor with a dead end, because the member has been absolutely clear. When she was an MLA, she wrote that memo, which is entirely appropriate. As a cabinet minister, she did not interfere in a quasi-judicial process, nor did the government. Very clearly, the commission made an earlier finding against the Six Mile Ranch. We then chose to seek as to whether it was in the provincial interest and set up a different process to review the matter.

She acted, in my judgment, entirely appropriately. By the way, I thought members opposite were also in favour of the Six Mile Ranch proposal.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston on his second supplementary.

G. Plant: Then my next question is to the Premier. Is the Premier prepared to deny today that his principal secretary, Adrian Dix, has personally discussed the Six Mile Ranch issue with the Agricultural Land Commission chair, Kirk Miller, with the purpose of influencing the commission's decision on this proposal?

Hon. G. Clark: I have no idea whether my principal secretary discussed it with the Land Commission. I do know that staff routinely discuss with the Land Commission proposals that are before it. All staff do, and I did as an MLA and as an opposition member, as well, around issues before the Agricultural Land Commission.

The Speaker: Richmond-Steveston, I think you've used up your . . . .

[ Page 7075 ]

G. Plant: It's a new question, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: All right. Proceed.

G. Plant: My question is again to the Premier. I wish to be absolutely certain of his recollection on this point. Is he saying that he has no idea whether or not his principal secretary, Mr. Dix, discussed the ALC issue on Six Mile Ranch with Mr. Miller for the purpose of influencing the commission's decision on that matter?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker. I'm trying to be as clear as I can. I have no idea whether my principal secretary engaged in discussions with Kirk Miller around this or other matters. I mean, obviously there are lots of issues on the government's agenda which we pursue. I can't confirm or deny any phone calls or any meetings that Mr Dix may have had.

G. Farrell-Collins: The question is a simple one. It's not whether or not the government finds the . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

G. Farrell-Collins: The question is not whether the government has an interest in this project. The question is whether or not the Premier's principal secretary -- his number one political operative within the Premier's Office -- was engaged to go and speak directly with Kirk Miller, the head of the Agricultural Land Commission, with the express intent of changing their decision -- influencing the decision of the Agricultural Land Commission.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, all I can say is that I would never instruct my principal secretary to engage in pressuring a quasi-judicial body to make a decision.

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader on his first supplementary.

G. Farrell-Collins: This isn't the first time that this minister's staff have gone and done things . . . .

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, hon. Speaker, for those members who recall the four separate investigations that have been ongoing for some time with regard to the B.C. Hydro scandal, they are familiar with what individuals under the guidance of this minister do. So if the minister is saying here today that if Mr. Dix made those types of representations to the Agricultural Land Commission, he would find that completely inappropriate . . . . If it is proven that Mr. Dix did that, can the Premier tell us what action he intends to take?

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: The Premier has said that it is . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

C. Clark: . . . inappropriate for ministers to intervene with a quasi-judicial commission. I will remind him of what his own deputy said: " . . . there is a very strong parallel with the prohibition on communications with judges, in that a minister must not contact or make representation directly to a commissioner who is hearing a case, or presumably can reasonably be expected to hear a case, in an attempt to influence the outcome."

If the Premier's principal secretary, his top political staffperson, has attempted to influence the outcome of this quasi-judicial body, will the Premier tell us what he intends to do if he believes that that action was inappropriate, just as Mr. Hughes and Mr. McArthur told his office?

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Matsqui.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, we will not proceed until order has been restored.

M. de Jong: Members opposite may treat lightly the integrity of quasi-judicial bodies . . .

Interjections.

M. de Jong: . . . but we don't.

Will the Premier confirm having received a memorandum from the member for Kamloops, in which she advocates that at least three members of the NDP caucus take action in direct violation of both Ted Hughes's guidelines and the guidelines of his own deputy minister, Mr. McArthur? Will he confirm that his response to that request from the member wasn't to take action to discipline or to correct her in her misguided attempts to influence this decision, but was to appoint her to the very cabinet post in which she'd have total control over the project at hand?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The hon. member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Madam Speaker, the Premier and the minister have condemned themselves by their silence. I heard the word "pathetic," and it's pathetic that this government, this Premier, and this minister would have such contempt for the independence of tribunals and commissions like the ALC that she would be openly advocating that the Premier intervene directly in this process.

Let's try one more time. Will the Premier stand here today and deny that his principal secretary, Adrian Dix, didn't sit down and bully and pressure members of the Agricultural Land Commission so that he would get what was politically expedient for his party?

Hon. G. Clark: It's a ridiculous line of questioning, hon. Speaker. We removed it from the agricultural land reserve. We sent it to another process to review. We looked at whether it should qualify as provincial interest. This is a position which I thought I heard the opposition advocate, hon. members. We

[ Page 7076 ]

are acting in the provincial interest. We have acted routinely in that manner in this case. All of it is transparent. All of the debate, including debate internal to the NDP, is all transparent. We have acted above board, with transparency. We have moved it forward in a different process. We will shortly make a decision in this regard.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: This isn't about a proposal; it's not about a project. It's about integrity. We have a memorandum dated September 23, 1996. I don't recall the minister acknowledging that she'd even written the memorandum, but it appears that the Premier recalls having received it. So my first question then is: what did the Premier do when he received the memorandum? What is his policy when he receives submissions from his caucus member which contain statements that urge that positive statements be made to the Agricultural Land Commission and to Kirk Miller in particular in order to achieve their party's economic and political goals?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm very proud of the MLA for Kamloops, who was advocating on behalf of her constituents and jobs for her constituency. Unlike the members opposite, this MLA from Kamloops put in writing absolutely unequivocally her support for this project, her advocacy for this project as the MLA for Kamloops. I not only have no problem with that but I urge all members to advocate on behalf of their constituency these kinds of economic development activities.

The Speaker: The red light is on. Question period is now over.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, it's time to move on to the next order of business. I call upon the Government House Leader.

Reports from Committees

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee of Selection for the third session of the thirty-sixth parliament. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. J. Kwan: I have the honour to present the 1997 report of the Assessment Appeal Board.

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources. And in this House, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 6.

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY

RATE FREEZE AND PROFIT SHARING ACT, 1998

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 6; W. Hartley in the chair.

section 3 (continued).

G. Farrell-Collins: Yesterday when we were in debate on this section, the minister made a commitment to find out what the excess revenues of B.C. Hydro were this year and what proportion of that was returned, both as a percentage and a dollar figure, to British Columbia's ratepayers in the form of a rebate. I wonder if he has managed to find that information yet.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes. The answer to that question would be $68 million, of which $31.4 million would be about 45 percent.

G. Farrell-Collins: That was easy. Can the minister tell me what the other $36.6 million is doing? Has it been left with Hydro, or has that been taken by the government in the form of a dividend?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's building roads, schools and hospitals, even some in the member's riding.

G. Farrell-Collins: Actually, it's probably not in my riding, but that's okay. I get the minister's point. The minister is telling me, then, that the additional $36.6 million has been returned to the government in the form of a dividend. I assume that's at the direction of . . . whom?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It will be returned to the government under the authority of

section 35 in particular -- this particular section.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell me what public process there was to determine the amount of that rebate and the amount of the dividend that will be returned to the government?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the process would be by decision of cabinet, based on information received from staff and the fact that we are a publicly elected body and make public decisions on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia.

G. Farrell-Collins: Without getting into a protracted debate like we did yesterday, I would just perhaps like to remind the minister, as the member for Richmond-Steveston did yesterday, that there was a problem with the way Hydro rates, dividends and rebates, etc., were set previously, some decades ago. As a result, there was the B.C. Utilities Commission, which was brought into being to aid the public in having their interests served, as opposed to the political interests of those elected people the minister is referring to. The B.C.

[ Page 7077 ]

Utilities Commission was designed to solicit and take public input, to hear from B.C. Hydro, from the government, from anyone who had a say over what the rates, rebates and dividends might be, and to come to some agreement in an independent way, as opposed to giving all the power to one of those individuals or groups that are concerned about it -- in this case, the cabinet alone.

What has happened here is that the government, by including in this

section the clause "despite the Utilities Commission Act," has gone around the B.C. Utilities Commission process, which includes public hearings, public input and the opportunity for the B.C. Utilities Commission to be petitioned by individual ratepayers in the event they feel the rates, rebates, etc., are unjust and unreasonable. It has now vested all that power directly with the cabinet and, in this document, particularly probably the minister and the Minister of Finance, as the minister said yesterday.

My question is: in the future, what will the public process be for a ratepayer or a group of ratepayers who are unsatisfied with the rates, rebates or dividends, or who have some legitimate claim that they are being dealt with in an unjust or unreasonable manner, as used to exist under the Utilities Commission Act? What recourse do they have?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member is correct, in that there would be no public process to deal with rates for the next two years, which is the time remaining on the freeze. However, if members of the public are unhappy with paying amongst the lowest rates in North America, they can still make complaints to the Utilities Commission, and at the end of the two-year freeze there would be an opportunity for a hearing.

G. Farrell-Collins: Unfortunately, that's not quite correct. The

section we're dealing with -- the changes to

section 35 -- has no sunset clause on it. The previous

section does, because it deals with rates. This one gives the power forever and a day to the government to set the dividend rates and the rebates, despite the Utilities Commission. So the Utilities Commission no longer has any jurisdiction, after the passage of this section, to deal with either of those issues. So what process is there for individuals if they don't have that process anymore?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This particular phrase in this particular

section is designed only to override the ability in terms of rebates, not rates. Rebates are not necessarily going to occur every year. So we're not doing what you say that the government is doing.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, actually, the government is doing what I said the government is doing, because the new

section 35, which will be included in the B.C. Hydro Act, removes the right of the Utilities Commission to have any say in the level of dividends paid to the government or in any rebate paid to the public -- forever. Forget about rates. Just push rates out of the minister's mind for now, and let's just deal with the contents of this section. Under this section, there is no recourse to the Utilities Commission for ratepayers if they feel the rebate they're being paid is unjust or unreasonable, or if they feel that they are being treated unjustly and unreasonably by not having a rebate that is due to them come to them. That is what is done in

section 35. Contrary to the minister's earlier statement, there is no recourse for the public to go to the B.C. Utilities Commission with a grievance regarding any rebate they feel they're entitled to.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The commission sets rates which allow us to turn a dividend. What we do with the dividend is up to us. This

section is allowing us to rebate some of that back. I haven't heard people complaining about the fact that they're getting money back from a company that they own, which gives them the lowest rates in North America. I mean, is the member suggesting that people don't want to get money back? That's what this

section is allowing us to do.

G. Farrell-Collins: What I am suggesting is that the ratepayers would probably be a lot happier if they got back the amount that they were entitled to. What we have just seen from the minister is that some $68 million in surplus profits -- surplus revenue -- this year at B.C. Hydro . . . . About 60 percent of it went to the government, and about 40 percent went in the form of a rebate.

There are probably a lot of people out there who, if they knew that fact -- if the government had spent as much money advertising that fact as they have the 2 percent rebate -- would probably be saying: "Hey, if that's a surplus or that's excess revenue, why don't we get a 4 or 5 or 6 percent rebate? Why don't we get a real rebate?"

[2:45]

If they wanted to, they could go the Utilities Commission, and they could make a case to state that they're entitled to get that money back. What this

section does is remove that opportunity for them, so that the ratepayers no longer have recourse to the B.C. Utilities Commission to say that the dividends the government is taking are unfair and that they should come back to them in the form of rebates or that they should have a larger rebate than they have already received. That's a process that was put in place a long time ago. It's a process that the public has always had access to, and it's something that this government is denying them.

My question to minister is -- and remains: what process is he replacing that with? If he's removing the right of individuals or groups of ratepayers to do that, what public process replaces it, if any?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No formal process replaces it; in fact, rates are frozen for two years. The government will decide how it spends its dividend, and the government will decide -- in the case of the $68 million -- what is an appropriate amount to rebate, which is what they have done. It's as plain as that.

G. Farrell-Collins: What the minister fails to understand or recognize is that it's not just $68 million that this government is taking; it's at least $369 million. I don't know if the $36.6 million that's going to result because of the passage of this

section is included in that $369 million that's in the budget figures, but whether it is or not, it's a 10 percent difference. There's actually some $369 million that's going to be taken away from B.C. Hydro.

Just so people understand the impact that has, B.C. Hydro has a large debt, and that debt has been increasing over the term of this government. The government has been taking dividends away from B.C. Hydro which should have, in the normal operation of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, been used to pay down the debt. What the government has been doing is that instead of borrowing the money themselves and putting it on their books as public debt, they have been hiding it at B.C. Hydro by forcing B.C. Hydro to borrow money to do their capital projects and the other things they need to do.

At the same time, the government is taking the profit from B.C. Hydro and putting it into general revenue and spending it. So Hydro's debt has been increasing at a time when the government has been taking more and more every year from B.C. Hydro.

[ Page 7078 ]

If the B.C. Utilities Commission had been allowed to do its job without the various special directives, the rates at B.C. Hydro would likely have come down. There would have been some determination at the BCUC about the dividends. They probably would have said that the government shouldn't take all these dividends that this money should actually be going to pay down the debt at B.C. Hydro.

In putting in this

section and this clause -- "despite the Utilities Commission Act . . . . " It's there for a reason. It's there so the government doesn't have to obey the law. It can just change the law if it doesn't like it. What would have happened is that instead of bleeding off those hundreds of millions of dollars from B.C. Hydro and forcing B.C. Hydro to rack up huge debts, that money would have stayed at B.C. Hydro and would have resulted in one of two things: either Hydro paying down its debt and therefore reducing the cost of doing business and somewhere down the line reducing rates; or an immediate rate reduction for the people who are Hydro ratepayers.

This

section doesn't do anything like what the minister is saying. What this

section does is allow the government to have their way, in a very irresponsible and totally unaccountable manner, in behind closed-door meetings -- either in cabinet, which is confidential, or between the minister and the Minister of Finance, which I'm sure won't be public -- to decide amongst themselves what's appropriate for a government monopoly, where the people who are customers of that monopoly have nowhere else to go. It's a patently undemocratic and unaccountable way of running government.

G. Plant: And neither of them know anything about hydroelectric rates.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Richmond-Steveston tells me that none of them know anything about that. I would probably agree. I don't know a ton about B.C. Hydro. I think I know more than some members, but I don't know enough. That's why you're supposed to hire professional staff at B.C. Hydro, and that's why you're supposed to appoint a board that knows something about what's going on.

Hon. Chair, what the government is doing here is clear. They are taking a government monopoly and running it like it was their own kingdom. They are forcing the ratepayers to comply with whatever their directives and decisions are, and there is no public recourse like there was before for ratepayers to be heard. All of these decisions are going to be made in private, in secret, with no deliberations, no questioning by the public. The committees of this House aren't even going to hear about it; they aren't even going to be able to go out and talk to people about it.

There is no recourse for the public to have any involvement in the setting of Hydro rates, in the setting of Hydro dividends that it pays to the government or in the determination of what rebates are due to them, if any. None of that is available to the public anymore. What used to be an independent process, an independent body -- the B.C. Utilities Commission -- is no longer there, for all intents and purposes, as far as B.C. Hydro is concerned. There's no recourse for the public.

I think the minister should just admit that, accept that, admit that it's . . . . Well, he may or may not admit that it's the wrong thing to do. I think it's the wrong thing to do, and I think if the public were asked, they'd also think it is the wrong thing to do. But that's what this

section does. This

section eliminates the B.C. Utilities Commission. It shuts the public out of the debate over what hydro rates should be and leaves that squarely in the hands of the minister and the Minister of Finance to decide behind closed doors, in secret, where the public interest and the public concern will never ever be heard. And it does so in perpetuity.

Section 3 approved on division.

Section 4 approved.

Title approved.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House?

Interjections.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 6, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Rate Freeze and Profit Sharing Act, 1998, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General.

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM,

HUMAN RIGHTS AND IMMIGRATION

On vote 20: minister's office, $435,000.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I'm pleased to present the budget estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General and the Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism, Human Rights and Immigration for the 1998-99 fiscal year.

Last year I spoke to you about the justice reform journey we have embarked on here in British Columbia. The purpose of this journey is to restore confidence in British Columbia's justice system by ensuring that we have a system that is fair, accessible, efficient, effective and affordable. The refocused justice system I envisioned treats serious crimes seriously. It makes sure that offenders are held accountable for their crimes and that victims' voices are heard. It values crime prevention, it seeks non-confrontational ways of resolving family disputes, and it gives communities a stronger role in the justice process.

I would like to tell you about the many important actions we've taken on our continuing reform journey and about other actions ahead. In April of 1997, I released a document called "Strategic Reforms of British Columbia's Justice System," setting out our government's framework for reform. At the same time, we launched a consultation process to get public input on how best to implement the change in direction outlined in our framework document.

As part of that consultation process, I and my staff visited communities around British Columbia, including Terrace, Prince George, Cranbrook, Kamloops, Nanaimo, Sparwood and New Westminster, to talk to people about our framework for reform and listen to what they have to say. These consultations have been extremely valuable. The justice system belongs to all British Columbians. Our government is strongly

[ Page 7079 ]

committed to carrying out our justice reforms in a way that allows us to be open and responsive to people's views and to the needs of individual communities.

Through these consultations, we have had an opportunity to hear people's views firsthand. For example, I heard people in Kamloops tell me that a justice presence is the backbone of a small community. In Cranbrook people asked that we proceed slowly with our reforms. Other communities have asked us to move quickly. We are listening to all those views. I want to express my appreciation to everyone who took the time to participate in these consultations. I have been deeply moved by the power of some of the personal stories I've heard during the course of these consultations.

Each story I've listened to has reinforced my conviction of the real importance of the justice reform process we've begun. It has strengthened my resolve to move forward with that process until we have a justice system in this province that truly serves the needs of all British Columbians.

[3:00]

In the criminal justice area we're making sure that serious and violent crime is treated seriously. I know that British Columbians are concerned about violent crime. They want to feel safe and secure in their homes, on their streets and in their communities. That is why we're continuing to give the highest priority to combatting serious crime and going after violent offenders. That includes addressing the major crime and social problems associated with illicit drug use.

Last December I convinced justice ministers across Canada to join B.C. in developing a national drug strategy. I believe this strategy should focus on three areas: getting tough with those who traffic in hard drugs, education and prevention programs for youth, and programs to help people deal with drug abuse and addiction. I will also be meeting with Washington State Attorney General Christine Gregoire and top-level state and provincial police in Washington in May to discuss how British Columbia and Washington can better work together to stop cross-border crime, including drug trafficking.

This meeting, by the way, will be a follow-up to the very productive meeting I had with Ms. Gregoire and other western Canadian and American Attorneys General at the Conference of Western Attorneys General in Vancouver in February. It was the first time the Attorney General of this province has attended that forum.

Let me mention some of the other actions we're taking to fight serious crime. British Columbia continues to lead the country in applications for dangerous-offender designations, which allow violent criminals to be imprisoned indefinitely. I have asked the federal Justice minister to make it easier for prosecutors to make these applications. I have also urged my federal and provincial counterparts to establish a national registry for violent and sex offenders and to review the issue of conditional sentencing. Conditional sentencing, I believe, is not appropriate for serious sexual and violent offences.

I think most Canadians would agree with me on that. I want to make sure that that is reflected in the Criminal Code.

We have created an unsolved-homicide squad to ensure that murderers are brought to justice. In conjunction with this initiative, we've provided money to buy a gene sequencer so DNA tests can be done more quickly and funded a forensic dental lab at the University of British Columbia. We have been able to lay 18 charges as a result of the squad's efforts to date. We have provided funding for a home invasion team made up of police officers from the Vancouver police department and RCMP officers dedicated to preventing and solving these particularly despicable crimes. And we're taking steps to fight organized crime activities.

We're developing a provincial strategy in conjunction with the national strategy on outlaw biker gangs. I signed an agreement with the Vancouver Port Corporation in July 1997 to ensure continued policing of our lower mainland ports. The agreement provided for local police agencies to take over policing and for the creation of a special intelligence unit led by the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit.

As well, we've established an auto crime task force comprising 12 police officers, a dedicated Crown counsel and three ICBC analysts to tackle this very prevalent and growing crime. About one in four Criminal Code offences reported to the police in B.C. involve auto crimes. In 1996, 36,000 vehicles were stolen in British Columbia, about 17 percent of them in the lower mainland. This is clearly not acceptable. The auto theft task force will begin operations shortly in the lower mainland. If it is successful, we will consider expanding this initiative to other areas of the province.

At the same time, we are continuing to take action -- tough action -- to protect the safety of vulnerable British Columbians, including our children. One of our priorities in this area is to stop the sexual exploitation of children and youth. We are tackling this problem on a number of fronts. I am pleased to tell you that the federal government has agreed to consider B.C.'s request to raise the age of consent under the Criminal Code from 14 to 16. I want to thank Diane Sowden, Chuck Cadman and Chris Simmonds from CAVEAT, and others, who brought this issue to my attention and asked me to raise it nationally.

We are also continuing to press for further changes to

section 212(4) of the Criminal Code to make it easier to charge and convict adults who sexually exploit youth. In the meantime, our provincial prostitution unit is continuing to help police across the province with enforcement strategies. The PPU is recognized as a model across Canada and the United States. With assistance from the PPU, police have arrested and charged 29 people across British Columbia over the last 18 months with attempting to buy sex from young people, a significant increase from the total of eight charges laid in the previous eight years.

The PPU is also working with communities to help them develop community action teams to address at the local level issues related to prostitution and the sexual exploitation of youth. To date, community action teams have been established in 12 communities and are continuing to expand to other local communities.

We've sent a clear signal, too, that child pornography will not be tolerated in this province. The Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit is coordinating a team approach to combatting this crime. In 1997 CLEU investigated 61 cases of child pornography in British Columbia, resulting in an impressive 91 percent conviction rate.

As well, we're taking further steps to ensure that women and children are protected from violence within relationships -- another important priority for this government.

Let me mention some of those steps. I have urged the federal government to raise the penalty for stalking -- criminal harassment, in other words -- from five years to ten years. We have undertaken a pilot project with B.C. Tel Mobility, ADT Security, the Vancouver police department and Battered Women's Support Services to provide cell phones to Vancouver women at high risk of violence, so they can access the police quickly.

[ Page 7080 ]

Earlier this month I announced additional enhancements to the protection order registry. British Columbians with protection orders can now call a toll-free number seven days a week, 24 hours a day, to ensure that their order is in the registry. We have also set up a victim notification unit within the corrections branch, which will check all convicted offenders about to be released from a provincial jail against the protection order registry and notify the protected person if so requested. By May 1, the victim notification unit will be able to notify victims about the impending release of federal prisoners named in provincial protection orders as well as provincial prisoners.

In fact, ensuring that victims are listened to and involved in every aspect of the justice system is an important theme that runs through all our criminal justice reforms. Two years ago, our government brought in B.C.'s Victims of Crime Act, the strongest victims' rights legislation in the country. Last October we further enhanced our support for victims' rights by introducing a victim surcharge levy of 15 percent on fines for all provincial offences. The levy funds are used to cover the costs of meeting the obligations under the Victims of Crime Act and other victims initiatives.

The new levy has already provided an additional $1.2 million for police-based and specialized victim services programs across British Columbia. We are also continuing to work with victims groups. I have also pressed the federal Parole Board to follow B.C.'s lead and allow victims to make oral impact statements during parole hearings.

Let me mention one more serious crime we are targeting before I move on. All of us have an interest in ensuring that crimes based on hatred and prejudice are eliminated. Hate crime affects the security and quality of life not just of its victims but of the entire community, as does any other crime. Last year the hate crime team, which I established in 1996, continued to take action to combat hate-propaganda crimes and to help law enforcement agencies and communities identify and respond to local hate activities.

You will be pleased to know, hon. Chair, that during the last many months, the hate crime team has actually trained 17 or 18 police detachments across British Columbia. In fact, they have a scheduled training session for the Prince Rupert detachment this Friday. They continue to do invaluable work. They continue to investigate the Fairview Technology site in Oliver; that investigation is ongoing. They have assisted an investigation led and conducted by the Surrey detachment with respect to the Surrey matter. They have participated in that investigation as well.

If I could digress a little and go back to the issue of stalking and harassment, the reason that we're asking the federal government to raise the penalty from five to ten years . . . . There are two reasons. One is that that would send a message, a very strong message, from parliamentarians of Canada that we treat this offence more seriously than we currently do by way of the penalty that's indicated in the Criminal Code. Second, as I mentioned earlier, we are the leaders in making dangerous-offender applications in this country based on our population.

We have standing instructions to our Crown counsel that if they feel it's appropriate, they should make those applications. Special funding provisions have been made for them for some time. If we increase the penalty from five to ten years in the Criminal Code for this particular offence, that conviction alone can be used as the basis for having someone declared a dangerous offender if he or she is a dangerous offender. I think it's important that the federal government listens to our request and deals with it appropriately and quickly.

On the conditional sentencing, if I could go back to that for a moment, British Columbia is the leader on the conditional sentencing issue. We are the province that raised the issue and said that conditional sentencing is not appropriate for serious sexual and violent offenders. We are the province that led the chorus of opposition to that issue with respect to the Attorneys General conference in Montreal in December of last year. We got an undertaking from the federal Minister of Justice that this issue would be monitored, and I say to you and I've said to Ottawa that monitoring is not enough.

What we require is a quick amendment to those provisions of the Criminal Code so that conditional sentencing is deemed inappropriate for serious sexual and violent offenders.

If we continue to leave those kinds of decisions at the end of the day to the courts -- and courts have to make those tough choices in an absolutely independent way -- and if the community is at odds with what the legislators in British Columbia want, or at least with what the Attorney General and the government of British Columbia want -- it has the potential of bringing the whole system of justice into disrepute because parliamentarians are not taking hold of the issue that they need to grapple with. They are basically leaving it to the courts to make those difficult decisions.

I believe that we need to put it in law and say that conditional sentencing is not appropriate for serious sexual and violent offenders. Otherwise, courts would obviously continue to make the decisions that they absolutely make independently, based on the law that they have before them.

[3:15]

I have been talking about serious and violent crime. The reality is, however, that only a small percentage of offenders fall into this category. Most British Columbians that I have spoken with agree that prison is not the answer for low-risk, non-violent offenders. I am told that it costs $207 an hour to send someone to court and $140 a day to incarcerate an adult, and that doesn't include all the social and economic costs to the community of the entire process.

Another major thrust of our criminal justice reforms, therefore, is the development of more effective, more economical and more creative and imaginative alternatives to prison for offenders who have committed less serious crimes. In British Columbia we have used alternative measures for appropriate young and adult offenders for almost 20 years. Nanaimo is one such community where that has been happening for 20 years. In fact, we are recognized as a leader in Canada in this area. Today about 8 percent of the charges are diverted by the Crown, with 94 percent of the offenders successfully completing alternative-measures agreements.

We are now taking the lessons we have learned from these experiences and applying them more broadly to other non-violent offenders. This approach, called the restorative-justice approach -- it is known by many other names -- gives offenders an opportunity to accept responsibility for their actions and make amends. It ensures that victims of crime are heard and supported, and it gives communities a meaningful role in the process. Earlier this spring I visited Britain and Australia, where I had an opportunity to see firsthand some of the world's foremost examples of restorative justice in action.

It was gratifying to see that we are already implementing some of the best features of these models here in British Columbia.

Among other developments this past fiscal year, we have expanded our alternative measures program to include a wider range of low-risk, less serious offenders. This expansion is the result of the new, stronger safeguards provided by

[ Page 7081 ]

recent changes to the federal Criminal Code. These changes give the Crown the authority to prosecute an offender for the original offence if the alternative measures program is not completed.

In February, we announced that we are providing $1 million to help communities establish community accountability programs. One of the goals of our justice reform plan is to strengthen community partnerships and give communities and victims of crime a stronger voice in the delivery of justice. Community accountability programs are an important step towards reaching this goal.

Of course, we recognize that the long-term solution to crime is to stop it before it happens. That is why we made reducing the level of crime through prevention and early intervention -- in particular, intervening early with young people at risk -- the third thrust of our criminal justice reforms. This government is continuing to provide support for a range of prevention and early-intervention initiatives. For example, in December we opened the Safe School Centre in Burnaby, the first such centre in Canada.

Schools can access this centre to get information, resource materials and examples of best practices to help them address a range of safe-school issues, including crime and violence prevention.

Other initiatives include Nights Alive, a program offering positive recreational alternatives to crime on the street; the youth against violence line, a toll-free provincewide youth violence prevention line; TC02, a youth drama group that gives workshops on the dangers of street life and sexual exploitation; the youth crime prevention toolkit -- 5,000 kits have now been distributed provincewide; 841 KOZ, an interactive youth group dedicated to promoting ways for other youth to take action against crime and violence; TROO, a new anti-racism youth program with youth action teams now working in 50 communities across British Columbia to help youth become involved in creating safer neighbourhoods.

At the same time, we have followed through on our commitment to increase the number of police on the streets. One hundred new RCMP positions have now been allocated, and we have introduced a new independent public complaints process in regulations for police use of force to help strengthen police accountability and improve public confidence in B.C.'s police forces.

In that regard, I was very pleased to announce the Legislative Assembly's choice of Don Morrison as the province's first independent police complaint commissioner earlier this month. If you remember, that was the culmination of the process that Justice Oppal commenced with his inquiry into policing, and then the community was consulted on this issue and came up with all of the recommendations, pursuant to which the Police Act was amended last year. We now have the process almost complete.

I also would like to advise the House that just this noon, with Bruce and Inge Thomson, the parents of a young man who died in a high-speed police pursuit in Kamloops some years ago, we unveiled for the first time in the history of this country pursuit regulations and guidelines that have the force of law.

This is a historic time, because this is the first time any jurisdiction in this country has given the force of law to those regulations and guidelines affecting police pursuits, which creates a balance between the need to apprehend criminals for public safety while at the same time trying to enhance public safety on the roads, so that unnecessary injuries don't happen when police pursuits are engaged in.

Turning now to the civil and family side of the justice system, we are continuing to move ahead with reforms aimed at creating a family and civil justice system that resolves disputes faster and more fairly, that looks for consensual solutions whenever possible and that is affordable to all British Columbians.

One of our major thrusts in this area has been to promote the greater use of alternative dispute resolution -- that is, using techniques such as mediation to bring together people in conflict to find solutions outside the traditional court system. Traditionally, the civil and family system has focused on winners and losers in disputes, creating an adversarial approach that can seriously damage a family that has to live together after the dispute. In the end, no one benefits.

Alternative dispute resolution, on the other hand, is more likely to result in solutions that produce longer-lasting benefits for individuals, families and communities. It also offers a faster, simpler, less expensive way to get disputes resolved. Over the last year our dispute resolution office has been working hard to develop and foster the use of alternative dispute resolution programs within the court system and within government.

For example, to name two recent projects, the dispute resolution office has been active in the development of a notice-to-mediate process to promote early collaborative settlement of motor vehicle actions. As well, the dispute resolution office has helped develop a pilot project that will evaluate the benefits of requiring parents who apply for child support, custody or access orders in New Westminster and Burnaby to attend the parenting-after-separation program. This program is now being offered on a voluntary basis in 50 communities across British Columbia. It helps parents understand the issues that face them in a family breakdown -- in particular, its impact on children.

We have also improved access to dispute resolution services for families dealing with issues such as child custody and support by expanding our network of family justice centres. At the same time, we have brought in legislative changes to ensure the civil and family justice system better meets the needs of British Columbians. For example, we have introduced changes to the Family Relations Act that give all the children in British Columbia the same rights to receive child support, regardless of whether their parents were married, living common law or in a same-sex relationship.

This amendment, which came into effect this month, is designed to protect children's standard of living when their parents separate and to bring fairness and consistency to child support awards.

We are also in the process of bringing in new, tougher penalties for parents who fail to pay child support. The new measures, which will be in effect by November, authorize the province to garnishee defaulters' pensions and company assets, charge an annual default fee, and even prevent the issue of a renewal driver's licence to a defaulting parent. I think my written speech is incorrect on this; some of these measures are already in effect. That happens when you don't get a chance to read your speech before you come into the House.

In addition, we have amended the Court Order Enforcement Act to ensure better protection for families and individuals facing court-ordered seizure of their belongings.

Finally, we are continuing to take steps to improve efficiency in the administration of our justice services, to ensure a more affordable and effective justice system. Our goal has been to work better and smarter -- to control costs now in order to protect services in the long run. One of the ways in which we have been doing this is by consolidating court facilities. To date, six of the seven planned consolidations have now been completed, resulting in a saving of $1.7 million. We

[ Page 7082 ]

expect to finish the consolidation of Victoria family court facilities by May, for a further saving. We are conducting a review to determine the best location for a regional justice centre for the Fraser Valley. As part of that review, we are consulting with local communities. For example, we decided to keep open the courthouses in Chilliwack, Maple Ridge and Richmond after these communities came up with constructive and creative proposals that met our reform criteria for an affordable and efficient justice system. On the other hand, we have again provided satellite court services to Ganges and Ashcroft, which I believe will be resuming shortly.

We are also working in partnership with communities on joint projects to improve the administration of justice services at the local level. For example, we're working with the city of Vancouver and the Vancouver police department to develop a new and more efficient process and facility for handling prisoners. The new Vancouver jail is now under construction, and we expect it to be fully operational by September 1998. We have been applying new technology to improve access to justice services. An example is video conferencing, which is being piloted in Vancouver and Prince George. Our court services branch will be examining other new technology, such as electronic filing.

A major focus for our reforms has been to tackle the problem of court backlogs and to come up with new ways of moving cases through the courts more quickly. In that regard we are continuing to work with the Provincial and Supreme Court judiciary on a number of initiatives. Last fall Chief Judge Metzger and I agreed on a four-part plan to reduce backlogs in the Provincial Court system. Yesterday I released reports developed under that plan by Chief Judge Metzger with other members of the judiciary, members of the bar, senior Ministry of Attorney General staff and Crown counsel.

We are already acting on a number of the recommendations in those reports. For example, we have made commitments to improve the quality of data collection and management by October 1, to continue providing funding for retired judges to sit part-time whenever they are required, and following consultation with the judiciary and the bar, to implement effective case management in the family and criminal justice systems beginning in 1999. Of course, we will be looking at other recommendations by Judge Metzger and making decisions as we consider them.

With respect to my other responsibilities relating to multiculturalism, human rights and immigration, let me briefly talk about those areas. As our province becomes more richly multicultural, the need for programs, policies and initiatives to promote cross-cultural understanding and to help us better serve our culturally diverse population continues to grow. Multiculturalism B.C. is now sponsoring a series of aboriginal hate-crime forums in a number of communities throughout the province. I had the pleasure of attending the Vancouver forum.

In addition, I'm pleased to report that B.C.'s new immigration agreement with the federal government is now close to being signed. This agreement will, hopefully, provide more control over settlement programs and greater input into the determination of immigration policy. We also hope it will help boost business immigration programs, which will mean more jobs and investment for our province. We will continue to make efforts in these areas.

As you know, we're also considering the recommendations made by the human rights chief commissioner, Mary Woo-Sims, in her report. As we reach conclusions with respect to those reports, we might see some changes -- when, I don't know. But we are working hard on that issue. I'm told my time is finished, and I will perhaps conclude at the end.

J. Weisgerber: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: In the gallery this afternoon are 15 students and staff from the Anne Teslyk Enhancement Centre. They are members of the AIM-2 program. They're here from Chetwynd to visit Victoria, tour the buildings and, for the last half-hour or so, to watch the proceedings of this House. I promised them a lively half-hour, and I'm sure they've not been disappointed. Would the House please make them welcome.

[3:30]

The Chair: The Attorney General.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon, Chair, thank you for granting me the opportunity to say a few more words before we move on.

In conclusion, and without looking at the notes, let me just say a few things to you. I'm more alive without the notes. This has been a year when I have travelled across British Columbia, as I said earlier. In terms of our discussions with the communities in Cranbrook, Terrace, Prince George, Kamloops, New Westminster, Maple Ridge -- where I visited the community accountability program -- and Sparwood, where I visited the program . . . . These two programs are world famous, actually.

I came away with this impression of the people of British Columbia: they are committed to assisting us in moving in the direction of restorative justice. They are satisfied to a large extent with our tough approach on sexual and violent offences. And once you've dealt with that end of the spectrum, with all the initiatives that we have underway, such as the unsolved-homicides squad, the provincial prostitution unit, the hate crime team, our approach to Ottawa on issues of stalking, on a national pedophile registry -- all of those issues that I keep talking about day in and day out . . . .

Once you are able to place all those issues before them, they were all of one mind, without exception, in the meetings that I attended.

They said to us: "Yes, we need to deal with low-risk, less serious and less violent offenders in a more creative way which empowers the communities, which in fact holds those offenders more accountable to the communities, which in fact gives some control back to the communities over the system of justice and how it should be dealt with." Of the 1,500 to 2,000 people that I have talked to in various communities in the last year, not one person stood up and said we shouldn't do that. There is complete unanimity on being tough with violent offenders and more creative with less serious offenders.

They also made it clear that in the community accountability programs, in whatever design you want to have -- family group conferencing or other kinds of models -- there should not be any paid panellists or others who would be dealing with these issues, that it should be volunteers from the community trying to take hold of part of the justice system and trying to mete out punishment and to seek and obtain accountability from offenders in creative ways.

The police made that point to us in Sparwood. In Maple Ridge that point was made to us by volunteers. When we were in Australia and Britain, people there made the same point. Yes, some core function may have to be funded with respect to organizing this. Yes, startup funds may be required.

[ Page 7083 ]

But at the end of the day, the beauty of this approach is that it is the people's work. They would do it in their way, and we should let them do it. That's why, in fact, we are not following the legislated approach that southwest Australia is actually following. We are essentially providing guidelines to the communities. They can craft programs that best suit their needs, and they can do things in the way that they see fit, of course, within those guidelines.

One other reassurance that people of British Columbia have had, and they know this, is that now the Criminal Code allows us, as I said earlier, to prosecute a young or an adult offender if you do not comply with the terms of the agreement with respect to diversion, if I can use that simple term. We can then go back and try that individual for the original offence. I think that that's a sword that should hang over the heads of those offenders who are back in the communities and facing these community accountability programs.

It is also important for us to remember that in family justice and civil areas . . . . We've been talking about the arena of the courts being much more adversarial than it needs to be, but the fact is that courts function the way they do, and what we need to do is try and steer some of those cases away from the courts. That is where the new child support guidelines are going to help. You're not going to need long litigation, in most cases, to determine what your child support payment is going to be.

That is where our tough enforcement mechanisms through the family maintenance enforcement program are going to come in handy. In fact, that is where our parenting-after-separation education programs are going to be very effective. That is where, in fact, conciliation and mediation programs are going to be of a great deal of assistance.

So you see, we're dealing with violent crime in a tough way, and we're dealing with the low-risk, less serious offenders more creatively. The crime rate in the whole of British Columbia is going down. In fact, in 1991, in 71 municipalities and towns in British Columbia where the population is over 5,000, there were 437,000 criminal court offences, if I remember correctly. In 1997, when the population had gone up by half a million in those municipalities -- 71 cities and towns -- the number of offences was almost exactly the same.

The fact is that the crime rate has gone down in British Columbia. In fact, property crime and auto crime have not only gone down in Vancouver; They're down by 6,000 offences in Surrey in '97 over '96. If you add the fact that the crime rate is going down, that the number of criminal court offences are going down, that we're going to do more community accountability programs, that we're going to try to take the civil cases out of the courts to the extent possible, particularly family justice . . . . If you add all of those factors . . . .

We added four new judges right away, early on, when Judge Metzger raised the concerns with us, and we provided more money for ad hoc and retired judges to sit wherever necessary. If you add all of those measures up, I think that we are moving in the right direction. The issues of backlogs and quick and speedy trials . . . . I think we'll be able to resolve those in the very near future.

The Chair: Thank you, minister. I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: I'm pleased to rise to begin my participation in the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General. The Attorney General has given us a fairly full exposition of the activities of his ministry over the last year or so and some idea of what his priorities are for the next year. Obviously we're here to discuss some of those things. I look forward to those discussions over the next few days. The happy expedient of an introduction by the member for Peace River South gave the Attorney General a very full opportunity to express himself, and perhaps it would not be inappropriate to say a few things at this point before we get to the substance of it.

I think that the Attorney General has one of the most difficult and important roles in government, and I speak less of the individual in this case than I do of the office. It's an important role in our history; it's an important role in our constitution. It's a very interesting role, because in a number of ways the Attorney General is required to act independently.

The Attorney General is in fact the chief law officer of the Crown, the person whose statutory and traditional obligation is to ensure that the Crown gets the appropriate legal advice and to act, if you will, as a bit of a rein on the enthusiasms of the other ministers of the Crown from time to time. That's an important and difficult role, and, I think, a role that's not always as well understood as it could be.

In addition to wearing that hat, the Attorney General wears a hat in relation to the enforcement of laws in British Columbia as the chief law enforcement officer. That is obviously an important and difficult role. I always acknowledge the difficult position the Attorney General is in as someone who is seen to be in charge of the criminal justice system in British Columbia but is clearly surrounded by forces over which he has no direct control.

He cannot amend the Criminal Code of Canada; he cannot, or at least ought not to, interfere in the independent function of the police authorities across the province; and, of course, he cannot and must not interfere in the operation of the judiciary. So in attempting to achieve reform in the area of criminal law and process, there are clearly constraints that operate on the Attorney General, which perhaps make that role more challenging than the role of the Minister of Education or the Minister of Health.

The Attorney General is also the minister presiding over a ministry that has a lot of important public policy programs -- and we'll look at some of those over the course of this estimates debate -- where the Attorney General's role is more obviously political and less obviously independent in the sense that I've talked about. I've always thought that the combination of the political office with the independent office creates an interesting and difficult tension. The Attorney General has spoken about the voices he's heard within the justice system of British Columbia.

There are many voices, and I think it is the case that most of the voices we hear, if we're involved with the justice system, are the voices of people who are often not willing participants in it. Rather, they are dragged into it by the force of circumstances in their lives which are often the most trying, painful and emotionally difficult times of their lives.

As we who participate in that process respond to those voices, there's a need to find a balance among all of the competing interests. I think an important part of the Attorney General's role is in fact as messenger, if you will, for a message about what the justice system should be about. But I also think that it's important that we have the opportunity to examine the extent to which promised actions have been followed by actions that were in fact promised. We may have an opportunity during this estimates debate to examine the extent to which promises about the system have in fact been met on the ground with programs that are adequately resourced and properly funded.

A recent example of a situation that I know has caused the government some concern is the whole issue around domestic violence and protection orders. A number of years

[ Page 7084 ]

ago, the government came up with a new idea for protection orders: a protection order registry. Yes, things were done that were important. They were good first steps perhaps, but we've also discovered that the system that was created around those ideas was not working as well as it could have been. In part, I think that was because there were not the resources in place in the other systems that needed to be in place in order to ensure that the promise of protection from violence, which was represented by the idea of protection orders, did in fact become a reality.

But I acknowledge that very recently the Attorney General has taken further steps on that front, and hopefully, those will assist women at risk of violence -- actors within the justice system who are aware of these things -- to make sure that those promises of protection actually become real.

[3:45]

The other aspect of the Attorney General as the messenger of the justice system that I want to talk about for just a moment is the whole issue of the perception of whether or not the justice system is in fact working. When the Attorney General began his remarks, he talked about the urgent need to restore confidence in the justice system and about the principles that motivate him in undertaking that restoration. Well, if there is a need to restore confidence in the justice system, that suggests to me that there is a problem with the justice system.

Things are happening in the justice system that have caused a loss of confidence. Clearly we need to examine some of those things in this estimates debate.

I am also concerned about the issue of perception in the sense of: what is it that the public think the justice system is doing for them? Having heard the Attorney General speak about the extensive consultations that he has undertaken across the province, I think that I have heard perhaps . . . . I can't make the claim to have spoken to 2,000 people, but I have spoken to many British Columbians about justice issues over the last couple of years.

I'm not sure that the message that British Columbians are getting is a message which strikes the right balance between a justice system which, on the one hand, really does impose consequences on offenders and, on the other hand, a justice system which recognizes that for many non-violent offenders, those consequences do not have to include incarceration.

I had the good fortune to participate in a justice forum in my community last November. I heard many people from my community come up and speak in a public forum about the extent to which they don't feel as safe today as they did some years ago.

Difficult as the task is, we need to ensure that the justice system does not only represent a correct striking of all the balances that the Attorney General has spoken of -- between the need to ensure that violent and sexual offenders are treated seriously and experience severe consequences, the need to ensure that we have creative solutions for other offenders, and the need to ensure that the civil and family justice systems are fair, affordable and efficient -- all of those things . . . .

We need to make sure not only that we do those things but also that we persuade British Columbians that those are the right things to do. Sometimes I think that is a task that all of us who are participants in the justice system have not done a good enough job with.

One issue that I want to pause on for just a moment is to acknowledge that the Attorney General has today -- I think it was today -- issued a press release and, I assume, proclaimed the pursuit guidelines that he has spoken about. I've been looking forward to seeing those guidelines. I acknowledge the tremendously tragic circumstances which have given rise to this review. Last year I said that the legislation was a good thing. The trick, of course, is that the devil is in the details.

I will look forward to examining the details, and if there are questions that arise, I may pursue them in the fullness of time during these estimates. I didn't want the moment to pass without also acknowledging that real people and real lives have been hurt. Those people's voices need to be heard, and those people's situations need to be acknowledged.

Lastly, the fact is that over the course of the last year I have been assisted by many members of the minister's staff when I've had questions about what the ministry was up to. I want to acknowledge and give my thanks to those officials and tell you that my task would be easier if I at least had last year's annual report. It's a magical process of accountability in government, but the most recent annual report of this ministry is for 1995-96. I hope the Attorney General will agree with me when I suggest that that's not an effective process of formal accountability.

I know the challenges that are involved in collating all the information from an extraordinarily diverse ministry, but in the public interest, I think his ministry needs to do a better job.

Let me say that I intend over the course of these estimates to follow the practice, which I've adopted over the past of couple of years, of dealing with most of the branches of the ministry in the creative order in which they appear in the estimates. However, this year I intend to begin with a slightly longer introductory series of issues that are probably more political in nature -- important issues, I think. It will be a little while before we go from some of them, and then we'll move into the questioning on the various branches.

With those remarks, my understanding is that at this point it is the wish of the ministry that we begin with some questioning of the children's commissioner. If that's so, then I'm prepared to stand down and allow that to take place. I should indicate that I expect that my colleagues -- at least the critic for Children and Families -- will probably be leading the questioning and debate on those issues.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, we now have the children's commissioner, Cindy Morton, with us.

C. Clark: I'd like to welcome the children's commissioner to the chamber. This is my first opportunity as a critic to go through the estimates process with the commissioner present. I want to offer my congratulations on work that I think has been well done in the first year of the commission. I want to thank the commissioner, as well, for her office's regular cooperation with us and with all the members of the public that I hear from when they have concerns and complaints and comments about the way children are being dealt with by the government. So I first want to offer my congratulations and my thanks, and then perhaps . . . .

I guess the best place to start would be with a broad overview of how her office receives complaints and how it deals with them when they come in. I think that fundamental to that question is the way the ministry operates. I know we're not in the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families at the moment, and we'll get to that in a few weeks -- or months, depending. But when the ministry is doing its job very well, I suspect there would be fewer complaints coming to the commissioner's office. That's what one would hope.

Clearly the minister's workload is very closely linked to the workload at the ministry. I'm interested in the commissioner's opinion, through the Attorney General, of how work

[ Page 7085 ]

load issues are being dealt with by the ministry, how that affects the work of her office and how she anticipates it'll be affecting the work of her office over the next year.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's a very broad question. Obviously the jurisdiction of the commissioner is to hear complaints about kids who receive services from the Ministry for Children and Families. In investigating those complaints that she determines she should investigate, the commissioner makes recommendations, and quite often those recommendations are followed in terms of an audit of those recommendations. As to how many have been followed and to what extent, I think the minister would be in a better position to answer those questions.

C. Clark: I recognize that it was a broad question. The commissioner, though, is empowered under the act to investigate not just critical injuries. She also is empowered to investigate -- under subsection (h), I think it is -- other matters concerning the ministry. We know that the commissioner has undertaken at least one investigation under subsection (h) -- that would be the situation in Quesnel -- which looks at the systemic issues with regard to workload. That's my understanding.

If I need to make it more specific, then perhaps the commissioner, through the Attorney General, could comment on the status of her investigation in Quesnel and on where she sees that going with regard to workload and those issues that have arisen in that investigation.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The investigation in Quesnel, of course, is ongoing. To the extent that the audits that have been done by the ministry raised the issue of workloads, those would be addressed in the investigation and the recommendations.

C. Clark: I appreciate the minister's answer. The commissioner, of course, also precipitated the audits in Quesnel by calling on the ministry to address the issues up there -- as early as August, I think it was. Perhaps the commissioner, through the Attorney General, could comment on what it was that precipitated her request for the ministry's action and whether the ministry, in her view, has responded adequately to that request.

[4:00]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously there were some fatalities with respect to the Quesnel matter, and the commissioner sought the ministry to have some audits done. Of course, then the apprehensions occurred. The commissioner will be investigating all of those issues and perhaps the connection between the audits and the apprehensions as well.

C. Clark: I do want to be clear about the reasons the commissioner requested the audits in Quesnel. Was the only reason for that the death of a child, which I understand was in a motor vehicle accident, or were there other issues, as well, that prompted the commissioner to bring forward her request?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The concerns were several deaths as well as practices of the ministry in that particular office. That's why we now have a special investigation.

C. Clark: The practices of the ministry are an issue that I'd like a little bit of clarification on, if I could, because I suspect that that was a workload issue. I wonder if the commissioner, through the Attorney General, could clarify for us what she means by practices of the ministry when she says that's one of the reasons that prompted her to request an investigation.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The initial concerns the commissioner had were bad practices and investigations by the ministry, and all of that issue is now being investigated. Workload may be one of the issues that arises out of that whole investigation.

C. Clark: Could the Attorney General tell us the source of the commissioner's concern about bad practices? Was that in response to complaints by social workers or complaints by families? What was the source of the complaints in that case?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The issue arose, as I said earlier, out of the investigation of the fatalities by the commission itself. That was the genesis of the whole issue.

C. Clark: Can the commissioner, without violating privacy rules, give us some indication of the fatalities being investigated that prompted this request -- at least the nature of those fatalities, if that's possible?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am told, and I believe, that it's not appropriate at this stage of the investigation to go into those details. As the hon. member knows, when these reports are finally completed and made public, they are sent through the FOI process. In fact, extreme care is taken to make sure that privacy is not jeopardized. So I think it's appropriate that the commissioner is able to proceed with the investigation.

If there are any general concerns the hon. member has, obviously the commissioner will be happy to answer.

C. Clark: I do have some general concerns, but I just want to finish up this one point. I believe that some of the investigations into those fatalities which prompted the request for investigation have been completed and made public. Perhaps the commissioner, through the Attorney General, could tell us -- without violating privacy rules -- at least about those fatality investigations that have been completed and that prompted the investigation. Perhaps they could reference those ones that have already been made public.

I know that the commissioner releases a public report on every fatality for which she concludes an investigation, so I suspect that information is already public in some respects. Isn't it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that the difficulty arises . . . . The commissioner is always very careful in not identifying the place to which a particular case may relate, because that then leads to identification of children. It would be very difficult to do that.

C. Clark: Thank you very much. I'm glad I'm clear about that.

Another area which is related to this issue -- but it's a systemic issue, as well -- is the issue of plans of care. The commissioner is responsible for auditing plans of care that are undertaken by the ministry. Could she tell us how many plans of care her commission has audited over the last year and what the conclusions of her investigations have been?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the commissioner is currently investigating or auditing 40 care plans and is in the

[ Page 7086 ]

middle of auditing them. She started them just some days ago, and as soon as they're complete, of course, they will be made public appropriately. Am I correct? As a group so they are not identified . . . .

B. McKinnon: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. McKinnon: I have a group of grade 5 students and their teacher, Mrs. Prinsen, from the Surrey Christian Middle School who are attending the precinct today along with a number of adults. I think it's a fairly large group of approximately 65 people. I ask that the House please make them welcome.

C. Clark: Back to the audit question: I understand that this is the first batch of plans for care that have been audited by the commissioner. Can the commissioner, through the Attorney General, tell us how they were selected? Were they selected on sort of a random regional basis, or was there some other method for choosing which ones would be audited?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The process is going to be as follows, if I understand it correctly. The first 40 cases are going to be preschool, disabled and transition to adulthood. And after that, there will be some emphasis on aboriginal children as well. There will be 40, and then we'll be doing 40 once the first 40 are completed -- every month.

C. Clark: Will there be a method for the commissioner to choose which office, for example, they might be chosen from? Obviously there are different workload issues at different offices and different crises at different offices.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The audits will begin at random. Of course, we will collate the results of those random audits over a period of time and then, perhaps, begin to focus on regions where there might be more need of audits.

C. Clark: I understand, in particular from foster parents, that frequently -- and this is anecdotal -- the children that are put in their care don't get a plan of care at all from the ministry. Could the commissioner tell us if that's going to be a subject of her investigations as well?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

C. Clark: Could she tell us when she anticipates that's going to make the lineup of investigations?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As the commissioner continues these audits, I'm sure she's going to come across cases from the random selection where there are no care plans at all. I think that would answer the hon. member's question.

C. Clark: My suspicion is that there should be a mechanism within the ministry to take care of this problem. Can the commissioner comment on why that process isn't working, or if it should be working at all, or whether she sees her office as potentially replacing that process as time goes on?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The commissioner, of course, has just either received or developed software programs that deal with this issue. I understand that the ministry in fact doesn't have as good a software program as the commission has. The commission is going to share that program with the ministry as well, so it can begin to deal with these issues, rather than the commissioner having to detect them subsequently.

C. Clark: I'm left with the question of what processes the ministry currently has . . . . I want to be careful not to venture into the Ministry for Children and Families estimates, but I'm left with the question in my mind about how the ministry is doing these audits now. There must be some kind of process that they have in place -- maybe it's not working -- and that they're supposed to be using to do these audits. I wonder if the commissioner could comment on her understanding of how the current system is working or not working, and that requires her to step in.

[4:15]

Interjections.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, she is independent -- absolutely independent.

The social workers are supposed to put plans of care into the computer system. The commission has to go behind that to then determine whether or not the care plan is accurately put into the computer. That process is underway.

As to the independence question -- we talked about it last year -- if we had an independent officer of the Legislature, she wouldn't be sitting here. You wouldn't have access to her -- not in this fashion.

C. Clark: I don't want to venture into that debate again this year. I've read the Hansard from previous years, and I think I benefited from the exchange that occurred in those previous debates.

The ministry has a process where they take a plan of care and put it into a computer. Isn't there, though, any more auditing process that goes on within the ministry currently, through a reporting structure or a regional supervisor? I mean, where is the check and balance within the ministry that's supposed to be doing this? I suspect that there must be some senior managers that are required to review these plans of care and those kinds of things as well. Could the commissioner comment on that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Of course, there are child protection managers in every office, and they help social workers do their work. But I think we are moving into dangerous territory in examining the Ministry for Children and Families through the commissioner's work. I think that if you confine your questions to what the commissioner does and doesn't do, and what recommendations she has made and how she makes them, and whether or not they're being dealt with, it would be more appropriate.

C. Clark: I'm interested in this audit question because . . . . I am cognizant of the need to not venture into the Ministry for Children and Families estimates. The reason I have this concern is because the fact of whether or not the ministry is able to do its job has an immediate and direct impact on how much work the commissioner has to do. That's the link I'm making here. The reason I'm interested in the commissioner's views about whether the ministry is doing its job is because that impacts on the way she budgets for the next year. I think it is relevant to this year's estimates for the commissioner's office, because if the Ministry for Children

[ Page 7087 ]

and Families is creating a huge amount of overflow, the children's commissioner is going to have to do more work and she's going to have to have a bigger budget. I think the link is pretty obvious, and that's what I'm trying to get at here.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Using that logic, we could have a whole debate on the Ministry for Children and Families, because obviously the commissioner is entitled and authorized to investigate all aspects of that particular ministry. It is specifically mentioned, in fact, in the legislation. I don't remember the exact details. I think we have to put some barriers around what we can or can't discuss under this rubric.

C. Clark: What I see happening increasingly with the children's commissioner's office is that they are picking up the slack, and they're stepping in more and more often -- or I suspect they are -- when the Ministry for Children and Families drops the ball. That's not the direction we should be going in. The government should be moving in a direction where ideally the children's commissioner doesn't have any work to do.

That's the direction we want to go in, where the children's commissioner's office is like the Maytag repairman: they sit there and nobody calls, because there's nothing to do, because the Ministry for Children and Families is doing such a stellar job. That's where we want to be, and increasingly I'm suspicious that that's not where we are going.

We had the ministry announce yesterday or the day before that they're creating a SWAT team to go in and take care of emergency situations around the province, which I think is an admission of failure. It's an admission that the ministry is in constant crisis. One of our people phoned up the ministry the other day and asked: "What if there isn't a crisis?" The ministry staff said: "Well, there's always a crisis in the Ministry for Children and Families." That's not the direction we want to go in either, and that's why I have these questions for the children's commissioner.

That's why I'm seeking her opinion on these issues. It's her role to offer her opinion and recommendations on the ability of the ministry to do its job.

The Chair: Excuse me, minister. The Chair would like to caution members that we are dealing with the Ministry of Attorney General, and we seem to be spending a lot of time on other ministries. Please take that caution.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The commission doesn't do the work of the Ministry for Children and Families. The commission investigates matters that it deems appropriate to be investigated and makes recommendations. I think the questions that should be asked of the commission should be on what investigations she's conducted, without identifying any locations or individuals, and what recommendations she has made and if they are being implemented -- which is part of her responsibility to see at some point. The commission recommends what changes should happen and perhaps how they might happen. That doesn't make the commission accountable to the Legislature on how the ministry functions.

C. Clark: With respect, the Children's Commission . . . . We've just seen an example of a case where the children's commissioner is picking up the slack for the Ministry for Children and Families. If the children's commissioner is doing audits because their software is better than the Ministry for Children and Families' software . . . . Because they can't really do the audits adequately, the Children's Commission is picking up that slack.

Maybe it's not an ongoing responsibility for the children's commissioner, or perhaps she doesn't see it that way, but she's certainly having to step in and pick up the slack where the ministry can't necessarily do it. Further, though, the workload that the children's commissioner has in her office and the number of deaths that she has to review are, I would suggest, directly related to the ministry's ability to do its job.

If the ministry is doing a great job of early intervention, a great job of parent education and a great job of managing the children that are in its care, then I think the children's commissioner and the Attorney General would agree that the children's commissioner's workload would be reduced. That's where there's a link. And I don't think it's unreasonable to draw the link; I think it's fairly obvious.

I will, then, maybe ask the commissioner, through the Attorney General, to comment about foster care. I know that's going to be a big focus for the commissioner over the next year. Could she give us a view of what her experience has been with the foster care system and the reviews that she has conducted of foster care, particularly highlighting the complaints from foster parents and the problems that they are bringing to her office for review?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In 1997 there was a task force by the Minister for Children and Families on foster parenting. The commissioner has essentially endorsed all of those recommendations and will continue to do so in the commission's work.

C. Clark: I thought I was very specific in my question, which was about the number of complaints that the commissioner has received from foster parents or the kinds of concerns that have come forward. I started out with a fairly broad kind of questioning.

The Attorney General told me: "Well, those aren't the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families." Well, he's right, we're not in the Ministry for Children and Families, but I think it is perfectly legitimate for the members of this House to be able to ask the Attorney General, or the children's commissioner through the Attorney General, whether the Ministry for Children and Families is doing its job. That's her job; that's the job of the children's commissioner: to determine and keep an eye on whether the Ministry for Children and Families is doing its job.

That's where I'll be going with almost all my questions today. The Attorney General can quibble about the way I ask them, and I will try to be careful and word them in such a way that we don't offend the rules of the House and that we ensure these are restricted specifically to the estimates of the children's commissioner.

Now, the Attorney General asked me if I would be more specific in my questions and ask about complaints that the commissioner has heard and recommendations that she has made as a result of them. Specifically, my question about that is: what kinds of complaints has she heard from foster parents? What kinds of investigations have ensued as a result of them, and what have her recommendations been as a result of those investigations?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The foster parents do complain. Sometimes their complaints are general, and sometimes their complaints are specific with respect to a service or services for a child. The issues that have been raised, in general, have been with respect to access to social workers and home visits, with respect to planning for children and including foster parents in that planning, with respect to placement matches occurring before placements are made and, as well, with respect to training for foster parents for special needs children. Those are the kinds of issues that have been raised by foster parents with the commissioner.

[ Page 7088 ]

So if you're looking for the number of complaints or concerns that may have been expressed, I think that would be difficult to quantify for the commissioner at this time, but that information would be available to you later on.

[4:30]

C. Clark: I appreciate the Attorney General's offer of more information, and I'll certainly take the commissioner up on that. One of the fairly common complaints that comes to my office is the issue of retaining foster parents in the system. Can the commissioner, through the Attorney General, tell us whether that's a concern of hers, whether it's a complaint that frequently comes to her office and whether it's something that she's investigating at the moment?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The commissioner indicates that, no, that concern has not been directly expressed to her, but she is aware of it. She believes that the recommendations in the task force report are very appropriate to address those concerns.

C. Clark: The foster parents tell us -- or tell me, anyway, and I suspect they also tell the commissioner -- that morale is very low, that they're not at all happy with the way they interact with the ministry, that they weren't all happy with the new foster care contract that came in, and things like that. Another issue that has recently been raised is the issue of putting children in culturally appropriate foster care homes. Is that a subject of investigation by the commissioner? If so, is she looking at just aboriginal children, or is she looking at some of the broader cultural groups -- Indo-Canadian, Chinese Canadian groups -- where there might also be cultural issues?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe that the commissioner has a specific mandate to address that issue on its own, but in specific complaints with respect to the adoption or placement with the foster parents of children, perhaps not just aboriginal children, the commissioner does make specific recommendations. The commissioner looks at it and does make recommendations in those specific individual cases on these issues, yes.

C. Clark: To be more specific, then, is the commissioner currently investigating any complaints about culturally inappropriate foster care placements?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, there are a number of cases in those complaints that the commissioner is looking at where a child's cultural identity and placement is an issue.

C. Clark: As a last question on this subject, could the commissioner tell us whether those complaints are about homes for aboriginal children or non-aboriginal children, or both, and what the percentage is?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This issue concerns mainly aboriginal children, but there are also non-aboriginal ethnic or cultural children -- children from those backgrounds -- that she is dealing with.

B. McKinnon: I just have one question for the commissioner. I'm concerned about the new millennium coming and the computer systems that we all have. I'm wondering if the commissioner's office is prepared -- or if her computers are set for the new millennium and the year 2000.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe the commissioner will be able to answer that question -- nor would I -- but I am certain that some part of the government is looking at that issue. It would be a governmentwide system change that has to be made. I'm sure everybody is aware of it. Yes, it's an important issue.

B. McKinnon: So I can take it from the Attorney General that everything on the government side is being looked after as far as the computer system goes?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's very difficult for the Attorney General to give that assurance, but I can certainly tell you that all the major institutions -- and government is perhaps the largest institution in the province -- are concerned about this issue. In fact, you hear discussions about it every day on radio and television. I'm not aware of the specific plans that are being made. That perhaps might be within another ministry. I'm sure it's being done.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am just told, by the back row here, that it is all being taken care of.

B. McKinnon: We can feel very assured, then, that your office and all the offices are being taken care of. Have they even started doing anything, say, in your office itself, the office of the Attorney General?

The Chair: Members, perhaps we could return to the estimates of the Attorney General at some point here.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Perhaps the more appropriate minister to ask that question of might be the Minister of Finance. Those kinds of systems are perhaps housed in the Ministry of Finance.

G. Plant: In fact, we'll come back to the millennium compliance issue, because it is an issue that actually directly relates to this ministry and all ministries in government. It is an important one, perhaps, in terms of obtaining some assistance from the children's commissioner, which I think is close to what we're trying to do right now. I'll just shift the focus slightly.

Last summer -- I think right about the eve of the session; if not the last day of the session, then virtually as the session was concluding -- there were regulations promulgated with respect to the processes and procedures of the children's commissioner office. Concern was expressed publicly by a number of people -- and the issue received some media attention -- about the confidentiality aspect of the regulations. I'm going by recollection now, but it appeared to many people that the commissioner was not just being given by cabinet an extensive ability to maintain a veil over, in this case, her operations, but really had an over-broad power of privacy.

Let me put that in context. Clearly much of the work that the commissioner has to do is work that can only be done effectively if there is integrity in the process and if there are elements of privacy and confidentiality, so people are prepared to cooperate in the investigative undertakings that the commissioner engages in. I think it is also the case that many people who are given broad powers under a statute -- coercive powers, in fact -- would, for perfectly reasonable reasons, I suppose, want to exercise those powers sheltered from or out of the main glow of the sometimes harsh light of public scrutiny. So what we're always talking about in these

[ Page 7089 ]

cases is striking a balance between the need to ensure that the commission can do its work properly on the one hand, and on the other hand, the need always for public accountability and scrutiny.

I think the view that many expressed last summer was that the regulations promulgated last summer struck the wrong balance. They erred too far on the side of protecting privacy rights and did not give enough of an opportunity for public scrutiny. I don't intend to have a debate about where the balance might be drawn. What I do want to ask the Attorney General and through him the commissioner is . . . . I'm interested in the commissioner's comment on her experience in administering that regulation over the past year, and I would let her know that I still have this concern. If she has any comments in response to that, I would be grateful to hear them.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The first panel hearing pursuant to those regulations would be heard by the end of this month or early May, so there is no experience to speak of. I appreciate the hon. member's comments with respect to the need to strike a balance between the competing interests of openness and privacy, and that's how this regulation was put together. There were extensive consultations, including with the freedom-of-information and protection of privacy commissioner, in drafting those regulations.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

G. Plant: Just to follow up, I suppose, and bring closure on the topic in terms of the panel hearings, which I think was the place around which the noise of concern was loudest, we really haven't had a chance to see whether that process is fair or not, because we haven't yet had a panel hearing. I guess in that respect, timing is wonderful. The issue arose at the end of the session last year, so we didn't really have a chance to engage you in debate about it. Now that the issue has arisen a year later, we'll have to wait and see how the process is working and whether, in fact, it's striking the right balance.

But I'm glad that the Attorney General appears to understand my concerns, and I hope that he and also the commissioner will be mindful of that interest as they continue to do their work.

C. Clark: This issue of confidentiality is something that was raised with me by another member of our caucus committee, as well, and I'd like to raise it on his behalf. He is quite concerned, and I've heard from a number of parents and family members who are concerned, about the way that the children's commissioner and the ministry report to families about what's happening with a family member. Sometimes the complaints come from biological parents, sometimes from adoptive parents and sometimes from foster parents.

I'd like the commissioner, through the Attorney General, to outline for us how that system of accountability works when there's a fatality and whether, in her view, it works well, or whether changes need to be made to make sure that it works better.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The practice is that the commission would write a letter to the custodial parent or parents when a fatality is to be investigated.

As to whether or not the commission could speak to the parent if parents would like to speak to the commission . . . . If yes, obviously the communication then proceeds. As well, the question is asked if the parent or parents would like to receive a copy of the report. All of that is done. But nobody else is spoken to. It is the custodial parents that the commissioner speaks to.

If you have any specific concerns, I would ask the hon. member to approach the commission directly, and perhaps the commission can deal with them.

[4:45]

C. Clark: Is there a formal opportunity in the process for parents -- custodial parents or biological parents -- to have input into the preparation of the report?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: One of the initial purposes of the letter is to ask for them to be involved. So that involvement is there in each and every case. Parents are asked for their opinions about the issues being dealt with. Then the report is made accessible to them, yes.

C. Clark: I will approach the commissioner outside the chamber about some issues that have been brought to my attention from constituents who are concerned about input.

The integration of services in the ministry is a big focus for the commissioner, as well. I know she anticipates that is going to be a big issue over the next year. Could she give us a brief overview of how well the ministry is doing, in her view, in integrating the services that have all been brought on line in such a short time frame? Also, could she offer us some comment on how the shortening of the time line from three years to one year, for the integration of the ministry, has affected the ministry's ability to do its job?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously, the integration isn't complete as yet. The next report from the commissioner will make a comment on the integration. It is underway. The commissioner obviously has to make an assessment at the end of it and make some comments in that regard. But so far, I believe that it's appropriately underway; it's not complete yet.

C. Clark: One of the issues that one hears from social workers and people on the front line is that one of the big problems with integration -- and the commissioner has already alluded to this -- is the fact that there is a shortage of software and just the technology they need to be able to make sure that they can have a system to input information into and that the system is connected to other offices. I believe this is an area that the commissioner has publicly commented on in the past. Could she just reiterate for us, if that's what it is, her recommendations in that regard? And could she tell us what the ministry has done to try and meet her recommendations?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, the commissioner obviously did make a recommendation that there has to be adequate information-sharing between practitioners who impact the lives of children -- mental health workers, social workers and the like. The information-sharing isn't at a stage where it should be, but their ministry is working on it.

The second issue that the commissioner has raised in terms of her recommendations is the issue of training of the practitioners with respect to utilization of that software or whatever information-sharing technology that might be. I think that is being done as well. I don't think that, at this stage, we're able to make a comment as to the state of progress in that regard, but the work is being done by the ministry. It is quite expensive.

[ Page 7090 ]

C. Clark: Before the Ministry for Children and Families was created, we all know there were five or six ministries that were delivering services for children. The central issue for Judge Gove in his recommendations was that a new ministry should be created out of those six. While the six were all different ministries and there were gaps between them -- at least suggested by Judge Gove -- there was at least an infrastructure, or at least protocols, that existed to smooth over some of those gaps. The people that were doing the jobs knew where each other was; they had each other's phone numbers.

There was at least the habit and the infrastructure that had built up from years and years of working within the system. My sense is, now that all these ministries have been put into one place, that in some cases the gaps have actually become wider. People are having to learn new ways of communicating or having to learn whole new structures. There's the technology side of it, there's the people side of it, and there's the corporate culture side of it -- which I suspect is in some cases making the gap wider.

So it's a fairly general question, but I'd be interested in the commissioner's opinion about whether at this point the gaps in the system are wider. I suspect she'll tell me, though, that she expects those gaps to be closing in fairly quickly. But at this point are the gaps wider than they were before the ministry was created?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The commissioner has seen no evidence to suggest to her that the gaps are wider than they were before. In fact, the evidence is that in some regions, such as Kelowna, Vancouver and Victoria, the processes and the systems are working much more closely and much better.

C. Clark: I know there's an integrated case management model underway, but I also understand that in some regions the implementation of that model is fairly far advanced. Could the commissioner comment for us on which regions are the farthest ahead? Which regions are sort of at the back end of the process, having a little more trouble or taking a little longer to implement the integrated case management model?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand there's a commitment from the Ministry for Children and Families that they will have integrated case management in place in the entire province by the end of this fiscal year, '98-99. That integration has already taken place, and I understand it is working quite well in Victoria, Kelowna and Vancouver.

C. Clark: Could the commissioner tell us which regions she expects will be amongst the last to put the integrated case management model into place? I know that in her annual report she says she's monitoring that on an ongoing basis, so I suspect she has some idea of where that might fall into place.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that would be difficult for the commissioner to say at this point.

C. Clark: I am interested in the commissioner's opinion of ministry audits and her relationship . . . how her office monitors audits that the Ministry for Children and Families do internally. I wonder if she could outline for us how that process works, how the interrelationship between the ministry and her office works when the ministry decides to do an audit, and how often the ministry's decision to do an audit is done in response to a request from her office or from another outside agency.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In terms of the audits, there has been a commitment by the Ministry for Children and Families to do all ten offices. There have been practice reviews done in three to five offices in response to the commissioner's request.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, my apologies. I misspoke. They have done audits in ten offices around the province since 1997, and there have been practice reviews in three to five offices in response to the commissioner's request. I think that's the kind of information that the hon. member should be seeking from the Minister for Children and Families.

C. Clark: What I was specifically asking was whether the Children's Commission requests most of those audits or not. It appears that the practice reviews were all precipitated by requests from the children's commissioner's office. I'm curious to find out how many of the audits were conducted as a result of requests by the children's commissioner's office.

[5:00]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is difficult for the commissioner to give an exact number, because the number may have changed. I think it's appropriate that the hon. member ask the Minister for Children and Families. But the last that the commissioner remembers is that they have completed ten audits in the ministry. Out of those, the commissioner remembers either three or five having been done pursuant to her request.

C. Clark: I may be misunderstanding, then, the difference between a practice review and an audit.

Interjection.

C. Clark: Oh, I understand from the Attorney General that they're the same. Okay. So three to five audits were . . . . Can the commissioner tell us which offices her office requested be audited? If it's three to five, can she tell us which those were?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is difficult, in fact impossible, at this point for the children's commissioner to identify the offices, because that can then lead to the identification of the children. The commissioner is considering a possible regional, collective identification at some point, if that might be possible without compromising the privacy of the children. It is a difficult issue.

C. Clark: The reason I'm interested in where the audits are happening is because I'd like an idea, and I think the communities that are being served by the ministry would like an idea, of whether their offices are doing their jobs. I mean, it's not much different from parents wanting to know if their school is doing an adequate job in terms of the outcomes that it's getting from children. I think it's fair for communities to get that assurance or to get a warning that the ministry offices aren't working well.

I am hopeful that the commissioner can find a way to identify the offices that have been audited without identifying the children in those communities. I suspect that if a social worker is carrying 50 cases and you've got five workers in every office, that's a lot of children that are in contact with the ministry, and there are a lot of people in that community that are being served by that ministry. I'm not sure how identifying

[ Page 7091 ]

the office -- say it's Kelowna, for example, that's being audited -- would identify any individual cases. Maybe the Attorney General could answer.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously this is a troubling issue for me as well as for the commissioner, as she has indicated. I think that the moment you identify a location . . . . There may have been only one or two fatalities in any given period of time, and if you indicate that a particular office has been audited around that time, particularly subsequent to the deaths, then children may be identified. This is a very difficult issue. I think the appropriate thing, perhaps, for the hon. member to do would be to ask the Ministry for Children and Families to make their locations public -- all of them -- if that can be done without compromising the privacy of the children.

C. Clark: I certainly will ask the minister to make the results of those audits public. It's important that everybody in those communities know how the office is performing.

I didn't realize that this privacy concern would come up, because I didn't assume that each audit was precipitated by a child fatality. Can I make the assumption, then, that every audit that is requested by the children's commissioner is the result of a child fatality?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: All of the audits that have been sought by the commissioner to date have been subsequent to the fatalities. But that may not continue to be the case, with the examination and auditing of the care plans. The audits may be sought in that re