1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 2

[ Page 9905 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

U. Dosanjh: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming a group of 16 seniors from South Vancouver Neighbourhood House who are going to be in the precincts shortly -- or may be already. They are accompanied by Ms. Pender. The South Vancouver Neighbourhood House is an organization that does wonderful work in the community.

Hon. A. Petter: I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming to the galleries today some students from Colquitz school in my constituency. I believe about ten students are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Myles. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

C. Evans: The people who visit here are often those who believe in democracy, and they like what we do here. Such is the case with my friend Tom Mackenzie, accompanied today by his son Jim. Tom is a lifetime New Democrat, a student of this place and a former candidate. Please help me make them welcome.

J. Beattie: Sitting beside the hon. member's friends is an old friend of mine from Penticton who is down visiting with her spouse. Shelley Hawn is a business person in Penticton. I'd ask the House to make her welcome.

Introduction of Bills

LIBRARY ACT

Hon. D. Marzari presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Library Act.

Hon. D. Marzari: Hon. Speaker, this bill replaces the existing Library Act with a new Library Act. The new act streamlines and modernizes library legislation and provides the foundation for the continued vitality of British Columbia's libraries well into the twenty-first century.

Libraries are among our most vital resources -- a rich source of inspiration, recreation and instruction, and an important part of the educational and social infrastructure that helps British Columbians compete in the information age. The existing act did not keep pace as our libraries changed. In fact, it was written in the twenties. As the needs of British Columbians changed, it could not provide a realistic basis for future library development.

The legislation introduced in this bill looks to the future. Developed through three stages of consultation over the last seven years, it offers new opportunities for local

governments to meet the changing needs of their communities without undermining established library systems that work well. It maintains the strong tradition of community involvement on library boards balanced with accountability to local government. It guarantees free basic library services to all British Columbians, because libraries should be open to all: rich and poor, young and old, newcomers and native British Columbians.

Bill 12 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.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Hon. D. Marzari presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1994.

Hon. D. Marzari: This legislation contains a number of amendments to the Municipal Act and related local

government legislation. The amendments continue the annual tradition of modernizing the legislation administered by this ministry to empower local governments with new or more flexible authority, to streamline the rules under which they operate, and to clarify outdated and obscure provisions. This year's modernization package results from ongoing consultations with stakeholders in local government, particularly the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

The amendments in this bill give local governments explicit authority to undertake social planning and include social policies and plans, straighten out some minor administrative wrinkles experienced during the local 1993 general elections, provide the additional authority needed by the Islands Trust to make its administration more efficient, address issues of concern to the city of Vancouver through amendments to the city charter, and make local governments more autonomous by reducing the need for ministerial approval of some bylaws.

These -- and the other amendments in this year's package -- will make local governments more effective and better equipped to meet the needs of people in their communities.

Bill 25 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.

AN ACT TO INTRODUCE A MINIMUM ETHANOL COMPONENT FOR GASOLINE

R. Chisholm presented a bill intituled

An Act to Introduce a Minimum Ethanol Component for Gasoline.

R. Chisholm: There is an environmentally friendly alternative to MMT. Ethanol-blended fuels would reduce carbon monoxide by 25 percent, carbon dioxide by 5.9 percent, nitrous oxide by 5.7 percent, and ground-level ozone by 5.3 percent. When 10 percent ethanol is added to gasoline at a ratio of one part ethanol to nine parts gasoline, it boosts the octane. Up to two barrels of crude oil are saved for each barrel of ethanol used in gasohol.

Rural small-town British Columbia will also gain financially from increased employment in the ethanol fuel plants that would have to be built and operated. In turn, the depopulation in British Columbia's rural areas will be reduced. In the United States -- where the ethanol fuel ethic is well entrenched and expanding -- there are some 60 ethanol plants in operation. If developed in British Columbia, such technology could lead to a potentially huge export market for the product and by-product technology. A state-of-the-art ethanol fuel plant in Decatur, Illinois, uses its exhaust C02 in greenhouses and to fertilize plants.

But the process has squeezed more than ethanol from grains. It also produces a high-protein silage mash by-product that includes original vitamins and minerals which can be used as animal feed or as additives to low-nutrition human food. The perfectly clean and healthy by-product can be dried and used as flour for cookies, biscuits or breads.

[ Page 9906 ]

There appears to be no letup in the battle between the U.S. and Europe over world grain prices. British Columbia grain farmers are major casualties caught in the crossfire. British Columbia government incentives to build a full-blown ethanol fuel industry in order to keep pace with the subsidized U.S. ethanol industry would give British Columbia farmers a new and sorely needed domestic market for their grain.

Bill M214 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.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I table the following reports of the auditor general to the Legislative Assembly: 1993-94 report No. 1, value-for-money audits, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks; 1993-94 report No. 2, value-for-money audits, Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology; 1993-94 report No. 3, report on the 1992-93 public accounts, province of British Columbia; and the January 1993 report on the 1991-92 public accounts. These reports were issued by the auditor general on various dates during 1993, and each report was distributed by me to all members at the time of issuance.

[2:15]

Hon. G. Clark: By leave, I move that the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts be referred the following documents issued by the auditor general of British Columbia: 1993-94 report No. 1, value-for-money audits respecting the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks; 1993-94 report No. 2,

value-for-money audits respecting the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology; 1993-94 report No. 3 on the 1992-93 public accounts, province of British Columbia; and the January 1993 report on the 1991-92 public accounts.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

MANAGEMENT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

G. Campbell: My question is to the minister responsible for the WCB, and it concerns gross mismanagement. Let's look at the facts.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Campbell: Since 1988 there has been a 97 percent increase in administrative costs. The number of WCB employees has doubled in the last five years. Can the minister explain these damaging cost increases which amount to nothing more than a hidden tax grab, and admit that the WCB is out of control?

Hon. D. Miller: It's clear the Leader of the Opposition has not done his homework, and he appears to me to not know anything about the operations of the Workers' Compensation Board. First of all, I should say that the British Columbia Workers' Compensation Board system is on the very best financial footing of any system in this country. We have made some very progressive moves in the short time we've been the government. For example, Bill 63 extended Workers' Compensation Board coverage, for the very first time, to 150,000 additional workers in this province.

We have made substantive reforms in providing widows' pensions. Widows who used to be cut off from those pensions when they remarried are now eligible for those pensions to continue.

The WCB system in British Columbia is 90 percent....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the hon. minister to please conclude his remarks.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

G. Campbell: Unfortunately, the minister looks at reform as anything which shoves costs up and reduces services. The fact of the matter is that when this government took office the WCB had a surplus of $66.5 million. Today, using the same accounting methods, the WCB is in the hole by $562 million. That's over half a billion dollars in the hole. This government's negligence is hurting workers and employers.

The Speaker: The question, please.

G. Campbell: My question, hon. Speaker, is: will the minister admit that this horrendous deficit is yet another example of the WCB being out of control?

Hon. D. Miller: It is shocking in the extreme that the Leader of the Opposition, who is supplied with researchers to research these issues, knows nothing about the workings of the Workers' Compensation Board. If he needs more information, he should be aware that the Workers' Compensation Board is now governed by employer governors and employee governors who sit and determine that this Worker's Compensation Board should be the best in the country. His figures are wrong, wrong, wrong. The Workers' Compensation Board in British Columbia is 97 percent fully funded. It is the best system in Canada.

I would suggest that if the Leader of the Opposition, who appears to know nothing about the workings of the Workers' Compensation Board, wanted to take the time, I would be happy to take him over there, introduce him to the worker governors and employer governors and give him a briefing -- some education.

G. Campbell: I think it's shocking in the extreme that the minister responsible for WCB doesn't talk to the employees of the WCB, who are telling us.... Six hundred out of the 900 employees at WCB have signed their names to a petition saying that things have never been worse. They have signed their names to a petition pointing out that costs are up, employee morale is down, service is down and workers are in jeopardy because this government, including this minister, has failed to act or show any leadership whatsoever.

My question to the minister is: will the minister finally show some leadership, move away from the rhetoric, work with the employees at WCB and start to solve some of the problems that have existed there for some time?

Hon. D. Miller: The Leader of the Opposition has a responsibility to check his facts, and he has not done so in this case. That kind of superficial research will not serve the opposition well at all. We have one of the best Workers' Compensation Board systems in Canada. I repeat: it's pretty clear to me that the Leader of the Opposition has never been anywhere near the operations of the Workers' Compensation Board and knows nothing about the operations of the WCB,

[ Page 9907 ]

and I'd be happy to take him over there and teach him a few lessons.

LOTTERY CORPORATION EXPENDITURES

F. Gingell: Yesterday the Minister of Finance stated that she had no knowledge of the purchase of a luxury skybox by the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Today we find out from the president of BCLC that there would be a wet bar in the suite, but, and I quote: "The government has forbidden us to serve booze in there." Clearly, someone gave the A-Okay for the BCLC to purchase the skybox. To the minister: who in your ministry gave the BCLC the go-ahead to spend a million dollars of taxpayers' money on a luxury skybox?

Hon. E. Cull: The decision was made by the board of directors of the Lottery Corporation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. E. Cull: It was not made in discussions with me. As I indicated yesterday to the media afterwards, we are reviewing this decision of that board.

The Speaker: The hon. member has a further question?

F. Gingell: The chairman of B.C. Lottery Corporation stated that they were given instructions by government that no liquor was to be served there. Will the minister please tell us who in this government gave them those instructions?

Hon. E. Cull: The hon. member should be aware that there is a government policy that public money cannot be spent on liquor, and I assume that instruction came from the comptroller general's office.

The Speaker: The member has a supplementary?

F. Gingell: Obviously the minister and this government are not fully aware of all the things that are happening in the Crown corporations and other government agencies. Would the Deputy Premier please advise us what other Crown agencies or Crown corporations have committed to lease one of these skyboxes?

Hon. E. Cull: We have surveyed all the Crown corporations just to make sure we were absolutely correct in our understanding of the situation. No other Crown corporations have leased a box at GM Place.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister tell us what specific steps she has taken regarding the multiple breaches of privacy committed by the Public Service Employee Relations Commission in response to my information request on February 14? Given that the minister was personally copied with information illegally volunteered to me by her staff -- including names, addresses, social insurance numbers, personal income tax data, Canada Pension Plan information and unemployment insurance applications -- has the minister referred the matter to the Attorney General for a criminal investigation?

Hon. E. Cull: I'd be pleased to take all that information from the member and provide the answers to him.

J. Weisgerber: A new question to the Minister of Finance. Last Thursday in this House, the minister assured us that ministerial accountability applies precisely to personal information of this sort, which has been illegally divulged by her staff. In view of the minister's own role in this matter, and her apparent personal knowledge of the information supply, will she accept accountability and resign now?

Hon. E. Cull: I've already said I would take that question on notice. My comments about the responsibility of ministers and ministry employees under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act stand.

The Speaker: Hon. member, the question was taken on notice and the....

J. Weisgerber: I have a supplementary question.

The Speaker: Hon. member, there is no supplementary to a question taken on notice.

RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FOR HOSPITAL FUNDRAISING

L. Reid: We continue to find information leaks the size of craters within government ministries. Again, personal and confidential information was used without consent. Does the Deputy Premier agree with the practice of hospitals using information from patient files for the purpose of fundraising?

Hon. E. Cull: I fail to see how that falls within my responsibilities.

The Speaker: Does the hon. member have a question that will be in order?

L. Reid: I refer specifically...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

L. Reid: ...to correspondence that reads: "As a former patient at Royal Jubilee, Victoria General, Gorge Road or Fairfield Health Centre, you have experienced the excellent care and services offered by our community hospitals." This is a request for dollars.

This government stood in this House and said that the information was dated and its release was insignificant. In fact, this past week an appeal was sent to an individual who had died.

The Speaker: The question, hon. member.

L. Reid: The family is upset that such a tactless appeal was made. Does the Deputy Premier now stand by the release of old information and suggest that it is somehow insignificant?

The Speaker: The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

Interjections.

[ Page 9908 ]

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The hon. member was in her seat; the minister did not respond.

I recognize the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Please proceed.

REPORT ON PERRAULT CASE

G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. My question is to the Attorney General and follows up from a question asked yesterday by my colleague for West Vancouver-Garibaldi with respect to the Danny Perrault case. Yesterday the Attorney General led us to believe that it was the lawyer of Danny Perrault who requested that the report be withheld on the basis of privacy of information. Could the Attorney General tell us whether or not Mr. Perrault's lawyer made such a request, whether it was done in writing or verbally, and whether or not that is what influenced the Attorney General to not release the report to date?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Until this morning the lawyer for Mr. Perrault indicated that he wanted to protect the privacy of the information. I gather that the lawyer representing Mr. Perrault changed his mind this morning. I have not had that confirmed by Mr. Rankin. If that confirmation comes later today or early tomorrow, I will release the report tomorrow.

[2:30]

The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.

G. Wilson: Will the Attorney General commit today that should the release be provided tomorrow, the full report will be released and not a partial or altered report?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I will release all of the report that I am legally entitled to release.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.

G. Wilson: Yesterday the Attorney General said that his ministry has already taken steps to make sure that such a release could not happen again. In light of the fact that the report has not been released, could the Attorney General tell us what steps he has taken and whether or not there has been such a release since this case has come before the public?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure what the member means by "such a release," so I'm not sure I can answer that question. But a number of administrative steps have been taken to ensure that that kind of decision does not occur again. In addition to that, the accountability requires now that an individual within the system has to take responsibility for those kinds of decisions.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.

Presenting Petitions

J. Tyabji: I rise to table a petition. This petition is on a subject relevant to the Minister of Environment. It has been put together by my constituents and regards a problem with nuisance wildlife in my riding. Under the regulations governing the Ministry of Environment, it is incumbent on the government to act on this. There is a message here for all members of the House, and I ask leave to read the message from my constituents into the record.

Leave granted.

J. Tyabji:

"To the Honourable the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia:

"The damage and loss of income resulting from deer in our orchards in Oyama has been devastating. This devastation is a real fact that has brought the orchardists in our community to the edge of ruin. A few orchardists have actually given up and have either pulled out their orchards or are not replanting and renovating. A few orchardists have had enough money available to erect fences, and a few more have erected deflector fences along one side of their property. Deer are being trapped and injured in these makeshift fences. I have not talked to one of the orchardists that has erected deer fencing that has not had a deer die as a result of running into a deer fence.

"All viable government support programs have been cancelled. Our borders have been opened to allow cheaper fruit to be imported and dumped into Canada. Government regulations and taxes are increasing. Free money is being given to orchardists by the British Columbia government's Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority to replant trees that are being killed or ruined by deer. The OVTFA was formed with a commitment to revitalize the tree fruit industry by the year 2000. It is a fact that Oyama orchardists cannot revitalize their orchards without a community deer fence."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

J. Tyabji: The letter to all members does go on, and leave was granted to read it into the record, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. While leave was granted....

J. Tyabji: I'm sorry that two paragraphs have taxed the opposition. There are two paragraphs left.

The Speaker: Hon. member, the customary practice is to read the prayer -- and you did ask for leave.... It was granted on the understanding, I assume, that it would be of reasonable length.

J. Tyabji: It is; there are just two paragraphs left. I'm sorry, but this is from my constituents to the members of the House.

The Speaker: I think it's only fair, hon. member, to seek further approval to proceed. If the members agree, that's fine with the Chair. Is leave granted for the member to proceed?

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please proceed, hon. member.

J. Tyabji: My constituents will be most grateful for this.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. You have given approval for the member to continue, and I would appreciate it if you'd permit her to do so with relative quiet. Please proceed, hon. member.

J. Tyabji:

"The east side of Oyama is a unique area that can be fenced off without having to cross major roads. Our

[ Page 9909 ]

uniqueness would allow a fence to close off each end of the east side with a community deer fence.

"The east side Oyama orchardists have a real problem that has to be addressed by government. We have the overwhelming support of our community, both farming and residential. We desperately and respectfully ask that the British Columbia government help us, in our desperate attempt to earn a living and keep our farm businesses alive, by building a community deer fence immediately this year that will be fully constructed by fall 1994.

"Submitted respectfully, Dave Starling."

LOTTERY CORPORATION EXPENDITURES

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I rise to answer a question I took on notice yesterday in question period -- in fact, a number of related questions.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. E. Cull: The first question was asked by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove with respect to the box that the B.C. Lottery Corporation has leased at GM Place. The purpose of this leasing arrangement is to provide incentive prizes for qualifying private sector lottery retailers, and in doing so, to act as an incentive to stimulate outstanding sales achievement in the future. The financial commitment is somewhat as they indicated, but their research wasn't totally accurate in this regard. The $100,000-per-year tenure lease is accurate. The one-time cost of designing and constructing the suite is $45,000.

The cost per person is deemed to be of greater value, and therefore a better motivator than a cheque or gift certificate for the amount for those who are rewarded through this incentive program. In fact, the winners of the incentive prizes are typically retail clerks earning minimum wage or just slightly more than minimum wage.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I will have to ask the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands to please stop interjecting; otherwise, I'll ask him to leave the chamber. Would the hon. member please proceed.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, because these incentives then result in greater sales of lottery products, the long-term beneficiary is indeed the province of British Columbia. In any event, all B.C. lottery programs, including this one, must pass the test that each dollar spent must yield at least $4 in profit. This one is continuously reviewed to ensure that it does that. I think that this is a reasonable explanation in terms of private sector practices. However, as I said yesterday, I am reviewing this matter, as the B.C. Lottery Corporation is the only Crown corporation which has entered into such a lease with GM Place.

The second question the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove asked was with respect to other Crown corporations. During question period I answered part of that question. No other Crown corporations have a box at GM Place. With respect to B.C. Place, the only Crown corporation that has a box is the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, which, of course, is the owner and operator of B.C. Place.

The third question was from the member for Surrey-White Rock. I regret it when members from the other side toss out bits of information which on their surface appear to be damning to a corporation. All of these expenditures are entirely within the rules and the budget of the Lottery Corporation. The $14,000 to Mr. Jax is for B.C. Lottery Corporation ties which are sold to members of the public and worn by retailers. The $14,000 to

Jay-Ray Men's Wear is for uniforms for security staff and clerks. The payment to Mixer Shack is a return of a deposit by a lottery retailer. Mixer Shack is a lottery retailer, and their deposit was returned to them. The $12,000 to the Vancouver Canadians is for signage and advertising and for tickets for retailer prizes. The $10,000 to Viewpoints Research represents 2 percent of their annual research and development budget, and that was conducted on retailer opinions related to the Lottery Corporation's operations.

Finally, the payment to the Patricia Hotel was the purchase of three breakopen vending machines that the hotel was operating contrary to the Criminal Code. The B.C. Lottery Corporation purchased them to bring them into the confines of the law and to operate the machines at the same locations.

Each and every one of these is a routine expenditure of the Lottery Corporation and is in keeping with their budget. I think it is really regrettable when members take pieces of information that they have only half researched and fling them out into this Legislature, not caring what it does to the reputation of the corporation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale please come to order.

J. Weisgerber: I request leave to table some documents.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to table a letter to the Attorney General, a letter to the protection-of-privacy commissioner and supporting documents attached to them.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. R. Blencoe: In the gallery today we have grade 10 and 11 students from S. J. Willis Educational Centre here in Victoria. They are accompanied by their teacher, Stuart Soward. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Presenting Reports

U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills respecting the matters of recall and initiative.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Marzari tabled a report of the B.C. Assessment Authority for the 1992 calendar year.

L. Reid: I beg leave to table a document.

Leave granted.

[ Page 9910 ]

L. Reid: Hon. Speaker, the document refers to the Greater Victoria Hospital Society asking for dollars to ensure that they always have the tools available when you or your loved ones go to them again. It is a fundraising drive.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply. In

Section A, I call the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In Committee B, in the main House, I call the Ministry of Attorney General.

The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 16: minister's office, $424,063 (continued).

[2:45]

The Chair: I recognize the member for Abbotsford.

Excuse me, hon. member. Could I ask you to wait just a moment until we clear out some of the congestion here, so you can indeed be heard? Thank you. Please proceed, hon. member.

H. De Jong: I suppose when something is available free of charge, there are always questions as to who should get it and who should not get it. The minister alluded to some of that this morning. Under legal services, I can appreciate -- and I was at the opening of the expanded offices at Abbotsford last year -- that the

section dealing with family problems and so on was expanded. There seems to be a trend in today's society that there are more problems than there used to be, and quite often these can only be resolved through services such as those provided by the legal aid society and, in some cases, the courts.

However, there are a number of other issues that are assisted by the other half. To my dismay -- and I'm sure to the minister's dismay -- that

section has also doubled in staff. The question that obviously arises among taxpayers -- at least it did in my community after the office was opened -- is: why do we need all this assistance for people who commit wilful crimes? Only about a month after the Clayoquot issue was over, you might say, it was very much on the minds of people that people were being hauled off the blockades day after day. It also appeared from the pictures that many of these people would probably not have the financial avails to help them through the courts themselves.

So my question to the minister is: have there been any changes to eligibility in those kinds of situations, particularly where perhaps some of these people on the blockades belonged to a specific society?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure what the member meant by "belonged to a specific society"; he may want to clarify that for me.

With respect to eligibility, those are decisions of the Legal Services Society board. I don't direct them, and under the current legislation they are not obligated to tell me whether or not they have changed any eligibility requirements. They are independent. They make their decisions within the budget they're allocated and within the law of the country as is determined by the courts concerning who has a legal entitlement to legal aid. I don't know whether they've made decisions on some of the issues the member raised. I haven't heard that they have.

H. De Jong: A further question, then. I said special society, but perhaps I should have said a specific

organization, such as Greenpeace or other organizations. It does happen that people who belong to a special organization volunteer themselves on behalf of that movement. I find it strange that in such cases those people would be protected by the legal aid society. The minister may want to comment on that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The first thing I need to say, in trying to be helpful to the member, is that to my understanding there are no legal requirements that legal aid be extended to individuals in the situation the member is describing: allegations of violations of a court order. The Legal Services Society has the mandate to determine its own policies as to eligibility and coverage. They make those decisions independent of government, because we don't have a public defender system in this province. We do have independence, and the Legal Services Society board can operate independently within the confines of the legislation that governs legal aid in B.C.

H. De Jong: I have difficulty understanding why so much power is given to an organization that can make all the decisions in terms of who can and who cannot benefit from that specific service. Perhaps the minister could clarify why this additional money was needed last year. I understand there was a shortfall in last year's budgetary allocation for this service. Was the money required to assist on the family side of the issue or on the criminal side?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Legal Services Society's expenditures are made in three areas. A small amount is expended on immigration matters. The remainder -- the overwhelming portion of the budget -- is split relatively evenly between family and criminal matters. They don't distinguish in their books, but we know that it's basically fifty-fifty. In recent years the family side has had a higher percentage of the budget than before.

The

preamble to the question suggested that the government should be interfering more in determining eligibility. That's not the way the legislation is constructed now. We have

an act which, in very general terms, allows the board to make its own determinations with respect to eligibility. Whether the act should be tightened in that respect is a good question.

This might be a useful statistic for members. In the period that I referred to this morning -- the comparison period I generally use, which is 1986-87 through to 1992-93 -- the number of family cases increased by 107 percent and the number of criminal cases increased by 55 percent. So there's a fairly dramatic increase on the family side compared to the criminal side.

H. De Jong: I appreciate what the minister has told us, but I am noting the comments that I receive in my community from the general public. They are not so much concerned about the overall money being spent through the legal services department, but they are very concerned when it's used in the manner we have already talked about: for wilful damage and wilful criminal acts. While this is a branch of the ministry, and even though it is a special society, I would like to hear something from the minister about the rules being changed.

[ Page 9911 ]

All kinds of other levies and moneys are returned to government, and I can think of a couple of them. For instance, a lot of taxes have been placed on liquor simply because of the effects that it has on society. There are probably other ones where a cost recovery has been initiated by government, but there seems to be no cost recovery here.

I have great difficulty when I hear of people who have been caught in a drug situation, in breaking and entering, in the use of firearms where they shouldn't be using them, in blockades and in all kinds of situations. The public is paying more and more. The public has great sympathy towards the families. The member for Prince George-Omineca spoke very well this morning about problems that arise there. But surely to goodness, if the government wants to save money and be responsible for saving money, then this is one area where the rules have to be changed.

I don't think it would be that difficult. The laws were made at first to establish this legal society. Perhaps they were made without knowing what all the consequences might be, specifically in relation to the lack of ability of the justice system to deal with the Young Offenders Act. Because there is nothing that a government or system of justice can do to catch up with the 14- to 16-year-olds, we are really encouraging this kind of lifestyle. I'm going in two directions here, but one flows into the other.

If there's nothing they can do about the young people who should be dealt with under the Young Offenders Act, then surely it must be very tempting to continue that lifestyle. Perhaps the minister would like to comment on both those issues.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member has raised a number of questions. First of all, I'll say again that the Legal Services Society is not a branch of the ministry. It is an independent society governed by its own board of directors within the confines of the legislation.

The member suggests that we not provide legal assistance to people who are -- if I can use my words to summarize what I heard him say -- in wilful violation of the law, although that's the nature of criminal offences. These are charges that an individual faces for having committed a criminal act, whether it's in the Criminal Code or is an alleged contempt of court. The principle is that everybody who is charged is innocent until and unless they are proven guilty. That's a fundamental principle that underlies our entire justice system in the British system. It may not in some of the European systems.

There are different concepts in different parts of the world, but the British system under which we operate declares in a very affirmative way that you are innocent until you are proven guilty.

Therefore, if you face charges and are financially incapable of defending yourself in court, we have constructed a regime called legal aid to assist you in advancing your case to prove your innocence, if you can. To deny a person that assistance is to fly in the face of the system we have, which states very clearly that you're innocent until you're proven guilty. Everybody has the absolute right to have a defence, and you should not be denied that right because you are poor. It seems to me that it doesn't matter what the nature of the offence is; if you are charged, you are innocent until and unless you are proven guilty.

In respect of young offenders, I just want to refer the member to the Young Offenders Act, which of course we're governed by.

Section 11(1) states: "A young person has the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay...." Later on,

section 11(4)(

b) reads: "Where no legal aid or assistance program is available or the young person is unable to obtain counsel through such a program, [the court] may, and on the request of the young person shall, direct that the young person be represented by counsel." Further,

section 11(5) states: "Where a direction is made" -- under the paragraph I read -- "in respect of a young person, the Attorney General of the province in which the direction is made shall appoint counsel, or cause counsel to be appointed, to represent the young person."

This act states that every person charged under the Young Offenders Act has the right to counsel. If a province has a legal aid scheme -- which we have -- that scheme is required to provide counsel. If there is no legal aid scheme, then the court can direct that counsel be hired and the Attorney General has to fulfil that direction. That's my lay way of interpreting what this

section means on my first read of it. Clearly, we are required to provide counsel through the legal aid system.

[3:00]

H. De Jong: I thank the minister for his answers. I still have difficulty with the society as such. As I see it -- and I'm sure many people see it this way -- it provides as much protection for the Law Society and the legal system, and for lawyers in particular, as it does for the criminal.

The minister says that crime is all self-motivated. Well, not in all cases. I suppose we have to control our level of anger and anxiety. But there are cases where the level of anger overrules what you would normally do. Sometimes that can break out in a fight, and it can have detrimental effects on one of the two who are at odds with each other. I don't see that as being a self-motivated, self-willed crime. I don't put that kind of crime on the same level as that of those who wilfully blockade a logging road and place 30 or 40 people out of work, making it difficult for those families to make a living.

I believe that there are differences in crimes. The outcome may be the same, but I don't think that all crimes are as self-motivated as the ones I've talked about in terms of breaking and entering and blockades, etc. I believe that the government has a responsibility to give guidance to the Legal Services Society in dealing with those kinds of questions.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to make two points. First of all, the Legislature does provide some guidance through the act. In the "Objects"

section of the Legal Services Society Act,

section 3(2) has a series of points which detail where legal aid must be provided. Clearly the Legislature can change that if we so choose, but that's what the law of the province is now.

The second point I want to make is that the member continues to talk about crime and criminals, and in doing so is talking about people charged with a criminal offence. Someone charged with a criminal offence is not a criminal; someone charged with a criminal offence has not committed a crime. I know it's hard to understand that when watching television every night. I don't expect most people in our society to understand it, but I do expect members of this Legislature to understand that you are not a criminal until the courts have so declared and all the appeal opportunities are exhausted.

Prior to that, you're innocent. Prior to the trial court proclaiming you're guilty, you're innocent -- and therefore you're not a criminal. What the member is asking me to consider doing is judging before the court case whether or not this person has committed a crime or whether this person is a criminal. Before the court case, I have to say -- as we all should -- that the person is innocent and has the right to counsel.

We referred earlier to the Young Offenders Act, and now we'll go to the Charter. The member for Matsqui.... I'm

[ Page 9912 ]

sorry. I've been here so long that the old names are the ones that come to mind. The member for Abbotsford may not be a great fan of the Charter. I have to say that I'm not either, but we've got it. In

section 7 of the Charter, it says: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with principles of fundamental justice." In interpreting that, the right to counsel is described. This is in Martin's Criminal Code, 1994, just so you know what I'm referring to. Here's what

section 7 means. "While the constitution has not expressly constitutionalized the right of an indigent accused to be provided with counsel, in cases not falling within the provincial legal aid plans, sections 7 and 11(

d) of the Charter require funded counsel to be provided if the accused wishes counsel but cannot pay a lawyer, and representation of the accused by counsel is essential to a fair trial." I could read more, but the point is clear. The Young Offenders Act guarantees counsel, and it guarantees it through the legal aid system, if it exists. The Charter guarantees counsel for anyone charged with a criminal offence if it's required that counsel be present to ensure a fair trial. If a person is indigent, then we have to pay. But more than that, I'm not saying that we have to, therefore we are.

I'm saying we should because it's fair in a democratic society that everyone have an opportunity to be properly defended from a charge they may be facing.

H. De Jong: My final comment today is that I agree with the minister that everyone has a right to justice. But I believe the minister will also agree with me that everybody is expected to live responsible lives. Living responsibly carries a responsibility with it -- which everybody can approve of. We all should be living responsible lives; most people do.

The problem I have with the Young Offenders Act is that there is not enough punitive action in it. That's what leads to further abuse later in life. Experiencing it once with practically no punishment invites people to go on with what they started at a younger age. I do believe that once people who have a right to such justice -- even though they believe in living responsible lives -- have had their day in court, you might say, and the judge can clearly see that they were purely

self-motivated, something could come back to government to pay for the cost of the legal services that were provided in order for the person to receive justice.

L. Stephens: I would like to talk a bit today about gender equity in the justice system. As the minister knows, the Law Society of B.C. conducted a study in 1992 on the issue, there have been a number of studies done at the federal level, and a well-known study has come forward. We've talked about this before, but I'd like to talk a little more about it in these estimates this year, and find out what is happening and how things are progressing in that area.

The Law Society of B.C. conducted a study which came to the conclusion that gender inequality is pervasive in the legal and justice system in British Columbia. Their report says:

"Gender bias may be direct or systemic, and may be reflected in the attitudes and behaviour of individuals or groups, in the laws their application and

interpretation. While the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as provincial human rights legislation, promotes equal treatment and opportunity for women and men in the justice system, laws alone do not resolve the issue. The decisions and the actions of persons who interpret and enforce the law often reflect bias based on gender stereotypes, myths and misconceptions."

We talked earlier in the estimates about training along those lines for justices. The report goes on to define gender bias. I know that a lot people perhaps aren't aware of some of those

definitions. They break it down into four component parts. The first is attitudes or behaviours which reflect stereotypes about the roles and true nature of men and women. The second is the perceived relative worth of men and women. The third is the myths and misconceptions about the realities experienced by men and women during their lives. The fourth is a distinction, whether intentional or not, which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations or disadvantages on one group over another. As a result of this systemic form of discrimination, one group usually bears a disproportionate and unfair burden.

I'd like to talk about some of the findings in that report about violence and family maintenance. The recommendations in the report say that the society would like to address ways of eliminating bias through legislative reform. I wonder if the Attorney General could comment on some of the reforms -- either legislative or policy changes -- in his ministry over the past year that would address gender inequality in the justice system

Hon. C. Gabelmann: One of the things I try to do in the Legislature, to start seeing things from a proper perspective in respect of gender, is to address the Chair and the Speaker as "honourable." It's interesting that when we have a woman as Speaker, we say "hon. Speaker," and when we have a man as Speaker, we say "Mr. Speaker." So I think it would be instructive for all members to remember that and try, in our little way here, to focus on gender equity in every way.

I appreciate the member's comments. I think she and I share values and perspectives on this issue. I know from last year's debate that that was the case, and I sense from her comments now that it continues to be the case.

Since the estimates last year, we released our response -- or the government's response, because it wasn't all Attorney General's response; there were other ministries involved as well -- to the Law Society's report, and the member will have seen that. We released that, I think, in September. In the last six months we've begun to do some things in our ministry that move us along in that direction. I don't pretend that we're anywhere near the final stages yet at all, but we have developed a detailed strategic plan as a first step toward creating a better and meaningful response to the report.

[3:15]

In that plan we have included plans for extensive training of justice personnel, whether prosecutors or others within the justice system. All people who are involved in our justice system need, in my view, to be trained in this matter. I know that's anathema to a lot of people, who say: "I'm not biased; I don't have any prejudice" -- or whatever. We all do, every single one of us, from simple citizen to exalted judge. Every single one of us has a bias of one kind or another that comes from our background, our station and experiences in life. To suggest otherwise is to fly in the face of a reality. So we are moving in an aggressive way to develop training programs.

We have plans underway now for an executive-level planning seminar -- this is for executives within the ministry -- with Judge Doug Campbell. We talked yesterday about Judge Doug Campbell and the Western Judicial Education Centre. We want to learn from him and the very good work he does in this respect, and have that training passed on to our executives, our leadership in the ministry, so they in turn can pass that down through the system.

We have established a position within the ministry called the gender equality special adviser. That position is very soon to be filled -- not quite yet, but very soon. A very

[ Page 9913 ]

important feature of the structure here is that the special adviser will report directly to the deputy minister -- not in the traditional way up through the bureaucracy but, rather, directly to the deputy.

The Violence Against Women in Relationships policy, which was introduced a year or so ago and is being implemented throughout the province, also addresses many of the recommendations raised in the report. There is still work to do in respect of that policy. There are still people, whether on the police or the Crown side, who need to become more comfortable and familiar with that particular policy, but that's coming along in an aggressive way as well.

In general terms, we're also stepping up, as I said, the victim assistance program. That is often a greater value for women than for men.

I won't go through them, but we have a number of more technical programs within the ministry addressed to some of the details recommended in that report. I mentioned yesterday that we put $17,000 aside to deal with what we call the case-expediting study. Yesterday I talked about how we are trying to ensure that spousal assault cases are proceeded quickly through the system, and we are doing a study so that we can get procedures in place to more effectively expedite those cases.

I have one final thing to say in this regard -- it's not the end of the story, but it's the end of the things I want to say now. Last year we spent $2.05 million on issues of violence against women. This year it's up to $2.5 million. That's a funding increase of nearly 25 percent in a budget that has been pretty tight. So it demonstrates our commitment to these issues. I say all of that not with a view to bragging about what we're doing. I think we're just beginning. We've got a lot to do, and I think the reports head us in the right direction.

There is a real commitment on my part and the part of the ministry executive to proceed with all of those initiatives as firmly and as quickly as we can.

L. Stephens: I would like to come back to the $2.5 million on spousal assault that you referred to, but I have another couple of questions to ask before I get to that.

One recommendation was that the chief justices and the chief judge of their respective superior and provincial courts develop a confidential and informal dispute resolution process to deal with complaints of gender bias among members of the judiciary and members of the bar, particularly from the female members of the Law Society who felt that there were many instances where they had legitimate complaints. Has there been any headway made on that? If so, what has it been?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Law Society has set up a committee in response to the report, which now has added sexual complaints to the list of other complaints on the list, such as racial prejudice. As to recommendations in the report with respect to judges, I am unable to report on any progress on that matter.

L. Stephens: I have one further question, and I'm not sure whether the Attorney General is able to answer this. Is anything being done in the clinical and skills training courses and in law school courses about gender bias directed toward litigants, lawyers and witnesses? Is training going on in the law schools in regard to this particular subject?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know this firsthand, but I understand that both law schools have incorporated gender equality standards -- those perhaps aren't the right words. Gender equality is addressed as part of all of their programming. I think they have some specific courses as well, which everybody wouldn't necessarily take. But in order to get to everybody, there are these general notions included in all programming in both schools.

L. Stephens: I'd like to move on to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. We have talked a little bit about that today, too. What are the stats on the increases and the success rate of the program?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I hope that the data I have in front of me is going to give me the information I want in order to answer the question properly. I have in front of me a base figure from '91-92 through to a forecast for '94-95. In '91-92, 16,500 British Columbians were enrolled, and the forecast is for 25,000. For the year we've just finished, it was 22,000. Out of B.C. it was 1,268 people for '91-92, and the forecast is for 2,600.

I'll read something else in a moment, but let me just say that the '91-92 budget for the FMEP was $5.3 million, and the estimates for this year are for $8.57 million. The FMEP cost per enrolled debtor -- so it's a cost per person -- was $298 in

'91-92, and the forecast for the fiscal year we're in now is $310. That's some of the statistical information.

Let me just turn to another page. Currently, 28 percent of the active maintenance orders are fully paid, and 10 percent have never been paid at all. The overall payment rate on all maintenance due since enrolment is 60 cents on the dollar. In the first ten months of the '93-94 fiscal year, $37.5 million was received for creditors' benefit, which far surpassed the FMEP goal of collections predicted when the program began. That's some of the information. The member may want some more specific information. If she does, I'll try my best to find it.

L. Stephens: Regarding the $37.5 million that was received, do you have figures on what was outstanding? Can you give me a percentage rate on how effective the program has been?

Twenty-eight percent is fully paid, and ten percent was never paid. Do you have another category, or can you say what amounts are outstanding? Also, 60 cents on the dollar is not that great. What does the ministry have in mind to improve that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The reason there's some scurrying going on over here is that in respect of these questions, I had a really good piece of documentation that I took to Treasury Board some months ago for a particular presentation. I'd just like to try and find it, because it really answers the questions very well.

Members need to know that from all accounts across the country, our program is the most effective at recoveries. That doesn't mean we should be satisfied with that. The numbers I was looking for, I'm going to give from memory. They're not exact, but they're close. A year or two ago, something like 22 or 23 percent of enrollees were not receiving payment. We have brought that number down to 13 percent, if my memory is correct. Again, I'm doing this from a three-month-old presentation. What we were able to demonstrate by the improvements in the efficiency this year is that the program is actually showing signs that it can work.

I'll just back up and be more general for a moment. One of the first questions I had in the early going was whether or not this was the right model. Was this the way to deal with collecting money on behalf of women, generally from ex-husbands who should be paying? Was there not a better

[ Page 9914 ]

way? In the early going, I asked whether we shouldn't look at what Ontario has done in respect of using the income tax system to gain the money back. If you look now at what's happening in Ontario, I think they're regretting some of the decisions they've made there. They're having some very real problems. In fact, the people who deliver the program here in B.C. are now being invited to go to other provinces to explain our system. I know that the federal government was interested in it, and at least two or three other provinces have invited the contractors to make presentations about our program because of the worse record in everybody else's programs.

[3:30]

I've come to the view that we're never going to be able to collect everything, because some people are going to make themselves unavailable or are going to do one thing or another in order to never pay. Short of throwing them in jail.... Some people are just never going to pay, and jail isn't an answer to these kinds of issues. So we're getting as close as we can to a system that collects what can be collected. There are further things we can do by way of legislation, and I hope to be able to bring in some amendments to the act this session that will further strengthen our ability to make sure that payments are made.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

This isn't the chart that I was looking for, but if I find it.... Let me just say this. This is the current statistic, which is a variation of something I said earlier. If you're looking at last year's money, 1993-94, 70 percent of all moneys due are received. Some 28 percent of all active cases are fully paid, and 60 percent are partially paid. I'd like to ask the member to give me the time it takes to get those other statistics, and I will come back with some other information that will actually be more helpful in explaining how the program is beginning to do what it's supposed to do -- and in a pretty effective way.

L. Stephens: I would be very pleased to have that further information. This is an important program that needs to be strengthened and expanded in whatever way possible to make it work much more effectively for the many families that depend on it.

You talked a bit about training for different personnel involved in the system. Is there a coordinated effort to have some kind of training for the legal profession, the judiciary and court services to actively and effectively address family law issues? Has the Attorney General considered moving family law out of the court system more fully than it is now? What are the pilot projects endeavouring to do? Would you talk a bit about that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member's first question was: are there programs to train the judiciary, lawyers and personnel in the court system? First of all, I don't have the mandate or the authority to instruct judges to take training, so I'll leave it at that. Nor do I have the authority to instruct lawyers in private practice to take any particular training. We can encourage the law schools to do what they've begun to do, and we can encourage the Law Society to include more emphasis on these issues in its continuing legal education programs, but I can't direct them.

What I can do is ensure that ministry staff -- and this includes the court services branch -- are fully conversant and fully trained in issues around family law and gender equality. That's something I talked about earlier. We intend to try to do that.

Coming to the second part of the member's comments, the family justice centres are very much designed to try to take as many family law disputes away from the court system as possible. I talked about this yesterday. We want to lessen the adversarial nature of family disputes as much as possible. Rather than having people in just about every situation end up being diametrically opposed to each other and fighting it out in court with at least three losers and no winners, we want to try to find cooperative solutions to issues through counselling and mediation and other programs.

The family justice pilots are designed to teach us how best to do that. Once we learn how best to do it, those pilots will be expanded into full programs around the province.

L. Stephens: There are a few more questions. I'd like to talk about violence against women and some of the programs that may be coming forward -- or that I would like to see, anyway. Violence is a criminal offence, but in many cases it's not acknowledged as such. Are any changes proposed? Will any policies or processes occur to have the various components of the justice system improve their responses to violence against women?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know whether I can say very much specifically at this point other than that Violence Against Women in Relationships has been a high priority, and the member knows all about that. We're going to continue to ensure that the folks in the system understand the policy and implement it.

Together with the Ministry of Women's Equality, we have put considerable resources into programs around violence against women. We are having a very close look at the Saskatchewan legislation that was introduced a few weeks ago by Bob Mitchell, which takes us a quantum leap forward in respect of domestic violence. I'm determined that we get at this issue, because the member's first comment is absolutely right: it's a crime. I said yesterday that somehow society has said violence is a crime if it happens in the street, in a bar or in the community, but if it happens inside somebody's home, it isn't a crime.

Well, that's nonsense and that's wrong. It's a crime wherever it occurs. That's the premise on which we're basing all of our programs and I'm determined that we get at it.

We talked this morning about youth acting out and youth in trouble with the law. I said that a lot of the trouble comes from kids learning that violence is how you respond to problems, because they watch it at home. We have to do whatever we can. I'm not so naive as to think that we're going to eliminate it entirely, but we surely have to make it clear to people in our society that beating -- wife-beating, to put it directly and bluntly -- is a crime. It has huge consequences, and people who are involved in it should pay the same consequences they would if they were involved in a beating down the street with strangers, or with anyone else for that matter.

L. Stephens: I have to say that I agree 100 percent with the Attorney General's comments. There's a lot of lip service paid to those comments by many people. I think what a lot of women and women's organizations are looking for is some kind of concrete action to deal with domestic violence, making it very well understood that it is not acceptable, it is a criminal offence and it will be treated as such.

I know the police have a policy that they now lay charges,

whereas before it was the woman who had to lay the charges. Apparently research has demonstrated that using

[ Page 9915 ]

criminal justice intervention deters offenders from future violent acts. I wonder if the Attorney General is going to be pressing prosecutions much more vigorously than is now the case.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As the member knows and has alluded to, the fact that the investigation and recommended charges are in the hands of the police, as opposed to the battered spouse, takes us a long way toward ensuring that more of this is dealt with. That's the first point. In reviewing the evidence, the prosecutors use the standard charge approval used for any other substantial likelihood of conviction, and it must be in the public interest. Those basic underlying principles are in place for these charge approvals in the same way they would be for any other charge approvals.

But I can tell you that the whole system is being more sensitized to the serious nature of these crimes. By that I don't mean the charge approval system; I mean society in general, from the police right through to the courts. I think that will lead to far more prosecutions than we've been used to and have a very good effect on continued patterns of violence in homes, I'm sure.

L. Stephens: The words that you just expressed don't give me comfort, Attorney General, because, again, these things have been said many times. But there don't seem to be any real concrete efforts made at the judicial level -- and in sentencing and laying charges, either. I would like to know whether or not your particular ministry can direct in some way, shape or form the police services to be a little more vigilant than simply following the policy that is there now, and if there can be more vigorous enforcement, in a more directed way that the ministry would like this particular issue dealt with.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: One of the things I do on an annual basis is convey the ministry's and my policing priorities for the year to the RCMP in British Columbia. I can tell the member that the issue of domestic violence is very high on that list of priorities. We're working with the police to implement that policy in an aggressive way. I think some of the evidence that's in about the spousal assault caseload in the court system....

From April 1993 to September 1993 -- that's from the announcement of the policy and initial training through to six months later -- we went from 53 cases completed in April to 473 in September. The graph.... I'm not supposed to do this in the House, but this is Committee of Supply, so I can pretend that I can do it. The graph line is very steep; completed cases, and the new cases as well, have a comparable -- slightly different, though comparable -- graph line increase in the number of cases in the system.

I think that even in the first six months -- and we're now another six months since then -- the evidence is in that the policy is having a very direct impact.

[3:45]

L. Stephens: Thank you, Attorney General. That was very helpful. You mentioned earlier that the ministry is spending $2.5 million on spousal assault. Could you elaborate a bit more on how that money will be spent and what programs will be initiated?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm sorry; I owe the member another answer from earlier, and I think I'm going to owe her an answer on this. Here we are -- didn't take us long.

The total is $2.7 million: $1 million on assaultive men's treatment programs; $250,000 on aboriginal family violence programs; $400,000 on developing policies and programs for wife assault coordination -- in other words, the training and structural basis for the initiative; $550,000 for continued implementation and development of all three components of the policy on violence against women and children -- that is, wife assault, sexual assault and child abuse. When I say "continued," that's continuing from the previous year.

Another $500,000 has been allocated this year to the known abusers project -- people who have been convicted of sexual abuse or sexual assault and are no longer in custody.

As the member knows, we haven't had a lot of discussion about that in the House. But I have had an immense amount of discussion in the corridor with interested members of the press gallery about this issue, and we've been developing policies with respect to education and other initiatives about how a known abuser is described. That work will come to fruition this fiscal year.

C. Serwa: I have a question for the Attorney General. The other day, in opening, you indicated the number of different areas in your ministry, which is very large. Did you and the official opposition critic come to any conclusion as to the sequence of the questions? At the moment it seems all over the map, and it makes it rather difficult. I am wondering if you are going to propose.... No? So you will continue to accept questions all over the map? Okay, thank you very much.

G. Wilson: Not wishing to abuse my privilege in the House, I'd like to say hello to my friend Cass, who I know is watching this afternoon.

I have some specific questions with respect to ad hoc prosecutors and how they are appointed, how they are paid for and how much they cost. I'd like to home in on this area, recognizing that there are other areas I will come back to. Once I have addressed those questions I will yield to other members who might carry on a more general line of questioning. I wonder if the Attorney General might tell us the nature of ad hoc prosecutors: how they are selected, how they are appointed, how much they cost and where they are paid from.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Offhand, I don't know what amount of our criminal justice branch budget is allocated to ad hoc counsel. Ad hoc counsel are used throughout the province on an as-needed basis. They are used to supplement Crown prosecutors on staff when we have a need to do so. We don't do what the federal government does, which is in large measure to use ad hoc. We have a much higher proportion of staff lawyers.

I want to get the number of dollars for the member to give him some sense of proportion as to how much is inside and how much is outside. I think that's part of the question. If he will just give me a minute, I will provide that information to the member. The payment to ad hoc prosecutors -- let's call them that -- is projected in this fiscal year's budget at about $1.5 million.

G. Wilson: Is there any estimate as to the number of prosecutors that that $1.5 million is divided among?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't have that number, but if it's available, my office staff may well be able to get that to me in a few minutes. But I would expect that there are hundreds of lawyers retained throughout the province. In a small community, for example, if a prosecutor isn't present and an appearance in court has to occur, it may be a lot cheaper for us to retain a local lawyer simply to show up in court on our

[ Page 9916 ]

behalf. I don't know what those numbers are -- other than to suggest that the number of lawyers around the province is probably in the hundreds.

I've just been handed a note which says that the ad hoc budget is $1.5 million, which is 3.3 percent of the budget of the criminal justice branch -- just to put it into perspective as to its proportions.

G. Wilson: The second half of that question was: how are these individuals selected? I recognize that there may be a need in small, isolated communities and in some rural regions. I would argue that it's unlikely to be done in urban areas. I just wonder what criteria are used with respect to the appointment of ad hoc prosecutors, and what kind of review would be done with respect to credentials and abilities and so on.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's fair to say that in routine matters the regional Crown counsel -- one of whom exists in each of the five regions around the province -- would make the decision. When they need an ad hoc counsel, they would use their experience to pick someone in the field who they know is competent and who can do the job for them. If it's a major issue, a significant prosecution, and the decision is that there should be an ad hoc counsel for some reason, that decision would be made at the senior levels of the criminal justice branch. They have their own criteria for making those determinations. I don't know how that's constructed. I haven't seen those criteria.

G. Wilson: If I might, I'll focus in, because I want to be completely upfront with the Attorney General as to where I'm headed with these questions. I'm interested to know how that selection might be made in high-profile cases. There may well be high-profile cases where the Crown counsel or senior staff of the justice department may decide that ad hoc counsel is required. The instance where I am headed -- and I'm most respectful of and prepared to be guided by the sensitivities of certain matters, of course -- is toward the matter with respect to Peter Leask.

I'm anxious to know how that appointment can be made, how that appointment was made, and -- in light of what I'm sure the Attorney General is aware is an alleged conflict in that case -- who would make the decision on whether that ad hoc prosecutor would be an appropriate person to continue.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I hate doing this, but I have to be a bit careful about specific reference to matters that are before the court right now. The member has made some reference to a matter that is before the court. The official opposition critic did the same thing yesterday, and I had to decline to participate in that discussion. That doesn't preclude me from giving a more general answer.

We're talking about ad hoc, not special, prosecutors. There's a very important distinction. I can talk about special prosecutors later if the member wishes. But in some instances -- I'll put it that way -- ad hoc counsel might be retained to give a second opinion. Where the branch may have developed an opinion about a particular issue, there may be a desire to get a second opinion for some reason. Rather than going to someone else in the branch for a second opinion, we will generally go outside.

Who do we go to outside? Generally the decision about that would be made at the very senior levels of the criminal justice branch -- if not by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, then someone at a very senior level next to him. The decisions would deal with experience, competency, availability, stature -- all the qualities that one would look for in a senior lawyer.

It's possible, but not necessary, that in particular ad hoc cases the Crown might look to the list of special prosecutors, which has been developed in conjunction with the Law Society, to see if one of the senior lawyers on that list is an appropriate appointment. Again, the decision is made using the criteria I've suggested, but it is made at senior levels for the high-profile or "major" cases.

G. Wilson: If I understand it correctly.... I'm sure the Attorney General will correct me if I'm wrong. I'm acutely aware of the need to tread the line on what we can and should appropriately discuss here with respect to matters that are before the court. Yet to get a general understanding of what is now in the public domain.... Some general questions are coming from members of the public that are legitimate parts of this canvass through the estimates debate.

[4:00]

It's my understanding that where a case is deemed by the Ministry of the Attorney General to require either a second opinion or some legal services that might be better provided by an ad hoc prosecutor, the senior members of the justice department would take those conditions, review them and make a decision as to whether or not an ad hoc prosecutor would be appointed.

If I've got that

part correct, let me go to my second set of questions. Given that's the case, would it be normal that a second prosecutor be appointed in addition to the ad hoc prosecutor? Is it normal for there to be some backup, some assistant or junior person, who might equally be assigned in that case? Would that be a normal course of events?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In cases that could be described as high-profile or complex -- and we're not talking about the

run-of-the-mill case here; these are complex matters that would probably be in the public eye -- the branch will, on occasion, go outside to get a particular lawyer with a particular experience or skill in that area, so that we can get the best possible prosecution. Generally when that happens, the ad hoc has working with him or her members of the criminal justice branch -- regular Crown prosecutors working in a secondary or backup capacity. That happens not frequently but occasionally, and as I say, particularly in high-profile cases.

G. Wilson: So in the event you have a high-profile case and this is all undertaken, specifically what would be the role of the ad hoc prosecutor and any subsequent assistants with respect to decisions taken on a final prosecution or movement toward litigation, and to what extent could the public have access to that special prosecutor? What is the normal role that prosecutor would play with respect to submissions that may be forthcoming from the public and may form part of a report, for example?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Because the member talked about special prosecutors in his comments, I'm going to make it really clear that we're talking about ad hoc, not special, prosecutors. Again, the member did use the term -- I think, inadvertently.

In these special cases, where an ad hoc counsel is retained, the ad hoc has conduct of the case. He or she would take advice and direction from the senior members of the criminal justice branch in the same way as a regular prosecutor in the branch would do. The advice, direction and consultation would be with senior members of the branch, not with the junior members who are attached to the prosecutor. In other words, the Crown counsel who are

[ Page 9917 ]

assisting the ad hoc prosecutor wouldn't be involved in the direction and advice; they'd be involved simply in assisting the ad hoc conduct the case. If direction or discussion are required, that would be done with the senior members of the branch here in Victoria.

G. Wilson: What I'm driving at here is the extent to which the ad hoc prosecutor.... I appreciate the Attorney General making a distinction from a special prosecutor. We've been talking about special cases and I think I blended the two terms, but I am talking about ad hoc prosecutors. To what extent can or should the public have access to that ad hoc prosecutor with respect to information that may be relevant to a particular case, and to what extent is the ad hoc prosecutor bound to accept and review that material? To what extent does the ad hoc prosecutor make subjective decisions as to what he or she will or will not receive or hear?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The ad hoc prosecutors have to follow the policies of the branch, so they would be under the same obligations, requirements and policies as a senior Crown counsel prosecutor. I think I know where the member is going on this. The policy is that the public always has the same access to the ad hoc as they would have to the in-house, and if the public has any concerns, complaints or frustrations, or any sense that they're not getting access, then they should directly contact the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Quantz, who will take the concern.

G. Wilson: I think that is useful information for those people who may feel that they're not getting satisfaction in that instance. On the question of these ad hoc prosecutors, I think the Attorney General might also agree, and I hope he would agree, that it would be critically important that any ad hoc prosecutor who reviews a case which may or may not be high-profile -- but let's say that this case is high-profile -- must be seen to be, and indeed be, completely independent of any other counsel who may be involved in the litigation at any point. Would the Attorney General agree that this is a reasonable assumption?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is straying perilously close to territory in which we will not engage in discussion, but let me say that the obligations of the ad hoc counsel are the same as those of the Crown prosecutor. I think I have said that the obligations are the same. With respect to some of the suggestions the member is making and the path down which he is walking, the ad hoc prosecutors have the same obligations that all other lawyers have about conflict or any other issue that might be alleged. I don't think I want to say anything more about that, and the member will understand why.

G. Wilson: I recognize the difficulty that the Attorney General finds himself in, and I think he also recognizes where I'm headed with some of these questions. Let me move not so perilously close but more specifically in the hypothetical case that I've built here. In the event that the normal standard practices that occur to Crown counsel or to an ad hoc prosecutor are deemed.... Recognizing that there is no distinction made, whose obligation and responsibility is it to ultimately determine whether or not that ad hoc counsellor could or should continue? To what extent is the Attorney General obligated to take action in the event that recommendations are forthcoming?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer to that is in

section 3 of the Crown Counsel Act. The Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Quantz, makes the decision; and if he doesn't, then the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Neal, would make the decision.

G. Wilson: Given that the Attorney General has made it very clear that he's not prepared to discuss specifics of any case that may be before the courts -- and I appreciate that -- my last question along that line is: who may make representation to Mr. Quantz if indeed there are allegations or if there is evidence to suggest that some form of conflict may exist? Is it only that which may be heard through legal channels or other sources of legal input, or can it be made directly from members of the public who may feel that their interests are affected in the case?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Any citizen has the right to make representation to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General on any matter within his purview at any time if they feel there are issues that need to be drawn to the senior prosecutor's attention.

G. Wilson: I would like to change directions slightly. Not to mislead the Attorney General, I'm not drifting off the topic we are talking about here. It goes to questions that were raised a little earlier today by the member for Prince George-Omineca, who talked about the potential problem citizens may find themselves in if they have to litigate against an agency that has litigation funds provided through public accounts -- from the taxpayers.

I wonder if the Attorney General might tell us what moneys are directed to physicians, for example, who may find themselves under some legal challenge with respect to conduct, and whether the Attorney General's office makes provision for moneys to be made available in a defence fund or any other fund that may be set up by medical service agencies or those people who may regulate physicians within B.C.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Again, we're skating dangerously here, as the member for Matsqui will understand. The answer is that they're on their own, together with their insurance companies.

G. Wilson: Let me move, with respect to matters that are internal to the College of Physicians.... To what extent is the college provided with assistance on matters, and are any moneys available for the defence of members who may be charged with misconduct?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No assistance would be provided. I might say, parenthetically, that they're not likely to be eligible for legal aid either.

G. Wilson: I would agree with that. I will wrap up on this line of questions. I will then yield to other members, reserving the right to come back.

Recognizing that we can't specifically come to this case with respect to matters that may be contained in alleged conflicts, is it anticipated that information coming to the Attorney General in reports formulated about ad hoc prosecutors will be for the public record? Will there be opportunity for people to review any internal documents with respect to the eligibility of ad hoc prosecutors to continue?

[ Page 9918 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Reasons are given for any decisions made by the assistant deputy in the kinds of situations the member talks about; but that would not be done if in any way it could jeopardize an ongoing case. So, in other words, it may be done after the fact if disclosing the reasons could put the case in jeopardy.

G. Wilson: I was going to say this is my final question, but it may not be, depending on the response from the Attorney General.

So in the hypothetical event Mr. Quantz reviews an instance of alleged conflict -- despite the case being well advanced and, indeed, before the courts -- and a decision is taken that the ad hoc prosecutor cannot continue, reasons would not be made public or would not be given. In the event they are not given, would that not automatically put in jeopardy a successful prosecution? If it would not, in the event conflict was discovered, maybe the Attorney General might tell us why it wouldn't.

[4:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think I can only answer this is in a general way. I have no doubt that the Assistant Deputy Attorney General would take action, or delay or not take action, based on the need to ensure the case could proceed in a way that was not jeopardized by whatever he did or didn't do. It's a convoluted way of saying that I have full confidence he's not going to do anything that's going to jeopardize the case.

G. Wilson: We would all hope that is true. The concern may be that due to actions overlooked in the original appointment -- and I'm talking of ad hoc prosecutors -- or actions taken subsequent to an appointment, the ministry may find itself.... Either a lack of due diligence in the initial stage or subsequent actions of an ad hoc prosecutor may indeed put a case in jeopardy. In that instance, my question is: on whom does that responsibility fall, and to what extent is the ministry empowered to take action that will override that situation?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Again, I want to be very careful here. I don't want to do anything in this chamber that would jeopardize anything in the courts, either. Members understand that.

Let me say this in a very general way. If the assistant deputy has taken some action that the member or someone else feels needs to be reviewed, then the act, in

section 3, declares that the Deputy Attorney General can make decisions. In the final analysis, I can give direction and make decisions, as long as I have those directions published in the Gazette, so that it's in full public record that those decisions have been taken. That is in the Crown Counsel Act as well.

M. de Jong: I will also indicate to the Attorney General that I will endeavour to restrict my questions today -- to the Legal Services Society aspect of this. Just a couple of very basic questions -- whose answers perhaps should be apparent to me from the documentation provided us, but I'll ask them anyway. Firstly, what was the grant from the ministry to the Legal Services Society for the year past, and what is the anticipated grant this year?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Last year it was $85 million, plus $6.8 million that was granted by way of a special warrant a week or so ago. The budget for the community justice branch is $108 million, and the money within that budget for legal aid is $82 million for their regular services and $3 million to assist their start-up costs for the new blending model that they're beginning to adopt.

M. de Jong: This may have been covered this morning; I was quickly reviewing the Blues. Just by way of accounting, the allocation to the Legal Services Society represents a significant percentage of the community justice

section of the budget. My understanding is that in the past it was set out in a separate line. If that was the case, why has it changed?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We talked about that this morning. I appreciate that members have to be in two Houses at once and also have a lot of other obligations, so I don't mind repeating it. I assume that the decision to no longer have a separate line item for legal aid was made by the Treasury Board staff in the Ministry of Finance who prepare the blue book. We didn't make that decision; they decided how the blue book would actually be laid out. I would be just as happy to have it laid out separately, but they made the decision to lay it out in an integrated way. I don't know why they did that.

It would be easy to find out by calling down to Treasury Board. They may have some very good reasons, but I'm just not aware of them. I'm quite happy to tell everybody that the total number is $85 million.

M. de Jong: The minister took some pains to explain and emphasize to other members who were asking questions that the society is a separate board, and implicit in all of my questions today is the recognition of that fact. However, given the amount of money that flows from the ministry to the society, there is also an assumption that the ministry looks very carefully and closely at what is undertaken by the Legal Services Society and has an intrinsic interest in what goes on there.

The minister won't be surprised that I will focus on the Tim Agg report and, more specifically, on his recent appointment to the board. There have been questions about his appointment that centre around the sincerity with which the ministry will be accepting representations from others in the legal community, given that he is the author of the report that appears to be the foundation upon which a very significant change is about to be undertaken. Can the minister render some explanation or assurance about the timeliness -- or untimeliness -- of Mr. Agg's appointment to the board?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As I said this morning, Mr. Agg is one of 14 members on the Legal Services Society board and one of seven government appointees. He was appointed together with a private practice lawyer in Vancouver a few weeks ago when two vacancies existed on the government appointment side. It seemed to make a lot of sense to have Mr. Agg on the board. At the board meeting on February 18, the board voted 12-0 to implement changes based on a blended model, much of which they had drawn from Mr. Agg's report. Following his report, Mr. Agg continued to be on a

part-time contract with the ministry to assist me and the ministry on legal aid issues. He also worked in assisting Marion Buller, who did the review of native legal aid in British Columbia. It seemed to make a lot of sense to me -- given the directions that clearly were being embarked upon and given the knowledge and experience that Mr. Agg gained in the last few years dealing with this subject -- to have him directly on the board. He's one of 14. That's all the power and influence he has. He will be able to contribute a

[ Page 9919 ]

fair amount because of what he has learned in his work the last couple of years.

M. de Jong: As the agency that will be charged essentially with funding the implementation of the Agg report in its present form as contained in the proposal, my fairly general question to the minister is: does he support wholeheartedly the approach recommended by the Agg report, and on what basis does he hold that support?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, it's important to understand the distinction between the Agg report and the reforms and proposal for reform which emanated from the Legal Services Society board of directors. What is being implemented, in fact -- as I referred to earlier with respect to the 12-0 vote -- is not the Agg report but the reforms that have been developed within the Legal Services Society itself. That's an important distinction. What the Agg report did was provide me with an understanding and guidance about the direction that legal aid might take in British Columbia.

We were concerned about it because of the spiralling costs. We were concerned about a number of issues, but it's fair to say the one that really drove a decision to look closely at legal aid was the ever-increasing -- in dramatic terms -- cost of legal aid.

Mr. Agg provided his report. That has given me a lot of information with respect to directions that might be taken. But I don't -- and the member knows this -- direct the Legal Services Society. If they chose by majority vote to embark on a different direction, or a direction contrary to Agg's report or contrary to my own views, as long as it was consistent with the legislation, they would be free to do so.

As I've said before, the only way I can have any impact on the direction of the Legal Services Society is through the legislation, which obviously could give this House a lot of control if it was very directive, through the budget, which obviously puts limits on what's done, and through the appointment of 50 percent of the directors. The Law Society appoints the other 50 percent. I can't tell them what to do.

The member wanted to know what my personal views are and what the government's views are. I have to tell you that I'm delighted that the board voted unanimously to proceed with implementation of this reform package, because it moves in a direction that will enable us to get hold of the costs. It moves us in a direction that will get the communities involved in the provision of legal aid in a much greater way than they have traditionally been in many parts of British Columbia.

It moves us in a direction which I hope and believe will enable a lot of issues to be resolved in a non-litigious manner, so that we don't end up in court all the time but rather end up having resolution in advance of embarking on the path to the courthouse. I'm delighted that the society has embarked on these programs. I've said this today, and I'll say it again here: I hope that they do it quickly and in a serious and rigorous way, because we can't afford to continue with the spiralling costs. The taxpayers won't stand for it, nor will I.

M. de Jong: I appreciate the minister's candour, although I would remind him that insofar as the unanimous passage of that particular recommendation is concerned, there is a dispute within the Legal Services Society about the format followed in that respect. It may not be as cut and dried as the minister would like or would have us believe.

The minister correctly points out that one must distinguish between the original report and how it has now manifested itself into the Legal Services Society proposal. The proposal obviously has as an objective the capping of costs and bringing those under control. One of the difficulties I'd like the minister to comment on insofar as the proposal is concerned.... Again, I preface the question with the assumption that the minister is contemplating funding the society on the basis that it will represent a cap in costs or will bring costs under control. I presume that is what's motivating the minister to look at this program and to endorse it by making the requested funding.

[4:30]

The assumptions that the society's proposal are based on are cause for serious concern in some quarters at least. For example, the proposal recognizes -- based on increased arrest rates and charge rates and increased activity in family law areas -- the continued escalating costs that would result from continuing with the tariff-based model. Yet it doesn't seem to acknowledge and take account of the fact that those same arrest rates, charge rates and prodigious rates of involvement are going to continue.

In planning this model, the proposal doesn't appear to incorporate those rates and increased costs into its projections. My question to the minister is: is he aware of that, and has he taken account of it and the fact that they may be on his doorstep very quickly looking for more money?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm certainly aware of that suggestion. I've had it put to me by a number of the member's professional colleagues on several occasions. In a sense it's not for me to say whether or not the report, which was adopted by a motion, is complete. There are suggestions that it has failed in some elements, including the one the member refers to. But others say that that's not the case at all and that they have taken into account the increase in volumes that we clearly face.

They have taken that into account by recognizing the load that staff lawyers can carry and by recognizing revenues that may come from some cost-sharing at the margin, in terms of people who are earning little enough to be eligible, but more than people at the bottom end of eligibility, so that they can contribute to the cost of their case -- as well as other reforms that we have talked about before in the House.

I have to say that the 12 members of the board, all of whom are experienced in this issue.... I don't know what the proportion of the 12 was in terms of representatives of the LSS and the government. Of the 14 members, I don't know which two were not there. The motion was really clear and specific, and as I say, it was unanimous.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

The motion was that the LSS adopt the mixed model as the model for reform and that the society move for implementation of the model in the 1994-95 fiscal year and that the society obtain and have ongoing consultation with all interest groups as to the implementation of the model. They have said they want to move toward a balanced model in '94-95, and as they develop the implementation plan they are open to discussion with anybody who has an interest in the subject. If they haven't predicted correctly, we'll find that out during the course of the year.

My responsibility is to give them a legislative and budgetary framework. I have given them that, and they've got a job to do within those constraints.

M. de Jong: Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but I think the minister has an obligation to satisfy himself that the assumptions upon which the project he is being asked to fund are based.... To suggest that we will find out during

[ Page 9920 ]

the course of the year whether the assumptions set out in the proposal I have just canvassed with him are correct, I would suggest, isn't entirely satisfactory. This is a very significant amount of money, and a tremendously significant amount of money in terms of start-up costs. I would suggest that the minister and the ministry have a serious obligation to satisfy themselves that each of the assumptions upon which the society would propose to proceed are accurate and defensible.

The minister again referred to the meeting that took place by which this proposal became part and parcel of the society's course of action for the coming year. The minister will also know that the proposal that was ultimately passed differed significantly from what several members of the society board had been led to believe would be before them on that occasion. Specifically, the original program called for the maintenance of a number of pilot projects throughout the province that were to be studied, and recommendations would flow from them.

The program has clearly been accelerated and the concern is that the jury is still out -- pardon the pun -- on the pilot projects, one of which is located in my riding of Matsqui. The minister was there several months ago for the opening of that facility.

It was understood that those pilot projects would be open, be administered, would operate, and the results would be studied. Is the minister comfortable knowing that the pilot project process hasn't been allowed to run its full course as originally contemplated, and that he is being asked to invest significant sums of money in and commit over a long haul to a project that truly remains untested?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The short answer is yes. And yes, it is a significant amount of money, but it's less than would have been required if we made no changes. Even though I don't direct the LSS, and even though they're on their own and have their budget and have to follow the legislation, I made it my business to talk to a number of people who were involved at various levels of the pilot projects and to become familiar with how it worked and how successful the staff model was from their perspective. The reports are overwhelming.

There is not one person who works within those communities who doesn't think that both the Agg report and the LSS reform proposal are understated. They are all convinced that the mixed model will in fact produce greater benefits than have been identified by either Agg or the LSS. The evidence for that is the success they have had in handling cases at the staff level. I'm not going to get into specific issues, because you end up identifying people if you make it too specific.

But I can assure the member that I made it my business to talk to people who actually provide those services in those communities, just so that I would feel comfortable that we are in fact moving in the correct direction. I feel comfortable that we are.

G. Wilson: I really want to thank the member for Matsqui for yielding and allowing me to just jump in. There are two very quick questions that I would like to ask to wrap up the

section of questioning I was dealing with before. The Attorney General said that the British Columbia government does not provide any money for defence of doctors who may be under prosecution. Does the government not pay the BCMA an $11 million contribution toward the Canadian Medical Protective Association? Is that not part of a contribution that can be used in a defence?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not familiar with that fund, other than to say that if it exists, and if there is that amount, I assume that it would come from the Ministry of Health and not from anything to do with the Attorney General.

G. Wilson: I think that's a fair response, but with respect to those questions, the government does indeed pay $11 million. My understanding is that a contract signed by this government provides $11 million to the Canadian Medical Protective Association directly for the defence of physicians who may be charged, and that when people have to contest physicians who are under review by the college, the college is indeed financing those physicians' defences directly with taxpayers' money -- or, at least, in part with taxpayers' money, because there is a contribution from physicians. I think that needed to be clarified.

The second question -- and then I would go back to the member for Matsqui.... Not that I want to let that first question slide by without some underscoring; we might bring it up in the Health estimates. The second question is with respect to what we hear a lot of in the chamber from the Attorney General, about his ability to comment on matters before the court. In the event of a situation where no charges are laid, despite the fact that there may be an ongoing investigation, is it the Attorney General's

interpretation that if no charges have been laid and there is no active prosecution or litigation taking place in the courts, it is constituted as being before the courts because an investigation is underway? Is that the position of the Attorney General?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, and maybe this is a good opportunity to clarify that. In general terms, there are two occasions when I don't comment. One is if it's before the courts, and the member has just identified that; the other is if there is an ongoing investigation. It's inappropriate for me to comment on matters in which there is a police investigation, and I don't if I can possibly help it.

M. de Jong: Returning to the legal services theme, one of the comments the Attorney General just made was about his belief that based on the discussions he'd had in various communities, there is widespread support for this blended model having greater benefit for the people who need it most in the community. I dare say that if one were to discuss this with people and present it in those terms only, the vast majority would be inclined to agree. The fact of the matter is that you will be injecting more lawyers into the community who are presumably devoted to dealing with lower-income people.

On that basis it's irrefutable that there are benefits to be had by those low-income folk in need of legal services. That's not how it's being sold, though.

The impetus and motivation for this was to save money, and that is where the criticism lies -- criticism that is most vehement among private members of the bar. The assumptions that lead one to conclude that this will save money are not valid. So the minister should be clear. No one is denying the potential for an increased benefit to low-income earners. That's irrefutable when you are injecting those resources. The debate exists purely at the economic level.

One of the other assumptions that the proposal is based on is a slight increase in revenues resulting from further contributions by certain individuals. That may be so. The minister will point out, I'm sure, that the Legal Services Society has its own mandate and its own jurisdiction to determine eligibility requirements -- although I will ask the Attorney General a question about that later. But with respect to the proposal, the issue once again is that yes, there

[ Page 9921 ]

is an assumption of greater revenues, but one has to concede that those revenues will arise from greater demands on the service, and that great volume will increase the financial drain on the system. The proposal doesn't include a recognition of that. My question to the Attorney General is: is he satisfied with the assumptions that are made in the proposal with respect to the increased revenues without acknowledging a requisite increase in cost?

[4:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm satisfied that the LSS staff and board have reviewed the cost implications of moving to a mixed or blended model. I'm confident that they have recognized the increased volumes that we face every year. I'm confident that they recognize the additional output that can be provided by the staff model in many parts -- but not all -- of the delivery of legal aid, particularly the value of duty counsel. I'm confident that they have put it together in a way that will prove successful.

Having said all that, they're going to have to make further adjustments to a lot of their expenditures in order to fit within their budget. I think they're going to have a tough time this year. The primary reason relates to the fact that a significant portion of the payout this year relates to tariff charges from the past year, and even from years before that. That is going to be very difficult to manage. I know that; they know it. I'm counting on their ingenuity and creativity and effectiveness at implementing changes so they can live within the budget. They're going to have to, and I've said that to them very clearly and very directly.

M. de Jong: The Attorney General made mention earlier of some assumptions that the proposal includes regarding staffing levels, particularly the teams that will be set up and established to administer the projects located throughout the province. One of the interesting facets -- and again the Attorney General correctly distinguishes between the Agg report and the proposal that has arisen -- is the different assumptions that exist regarding the cost of staffing a criminal team and a family team, for example.

The proposal that emanates from the Legal Services Society includes significant reductions, which presumably will impact directly upon the delivery of service. Just so the Attorney General is clear and I don't mislead him, from the perspective of this recent practitioner, the assumptions contained within the proposal about the caseload and ability of support staff to service that caseload are absolutely unrealistic.

My question to the minister is: what, if any, inquiries about the proposal has he made of the private bar and those individuals practising, particularly in the family law area? Is he confident that the proposal includes realistic assumptions about the capability of staff members and staff lawyers to service those needs?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, I am. Earlier today -- this morning or this afternoon, I forget which -- I talked about my sense that these caseload numbers for staff lawyers are on the conservative side. The actual ability to handle cases will produce higher numbers than the 230, or thereabouts, that the report is predicated on, if my memory is correct.

There are tariff lawyers doing legal aid now who carry more cases than that on a tariff, earning considerably more than they would if they were on staff. There are staff lawyers who work in the community offices now who are carrying considerably higher numbers than the numbers on which this report is based. Clearly, staff lawyers are going to get the easier stuff and are going to be able to carry greater numbers as a result of that. I understand all of that, and we talked about that earlier today, too. Legal Services don't report to me in this sense, so I don't go through this in great detail.

But as I understand it, when they did their projections -- they did their surveys to try to determine what caseload would be appropriate on average for staff lawyers -- they came up with numbers that were higher than the Agg numbers. In other words, they concluded that staff lawyers could handle more cases per year than Agg had concluded. That evidence was obtained not only by surveying British Columbia but also by looking at what was happening in other jurisdictions.

However, they did not base their modelling on those higher caseload numbers. They used the more conservative numbers that Agg had concluded a year and a half ago. Just to say it again -- we're going to tire this subject out -- I had talked to people in the community offices in charge of staff lawyers who are, in fact, delivering caseload numbers that are dramatically higher than the numbers included in the report.

M. de Jong: The Attorney General will know that the proposal in large measure is predicated upon an assumption that a family law referral handled by a staff lawyer represents one less family law referral handled by a tariff lawyer, or a private bar lawyer.

Is the Attorney General confident of that assumption, recognizing that it flies in the face of experiences where some of these projects exist, particularly in some rural areas of the province where quite the contrary has happened -- staff lawyers have been booked to their maximum caseloads and the outflow to private bar lawyers continues at an unabated pace -- and there is simply that pent-up demand? The question is relevant from the perspective in that sort of scenario: where is the cost saving?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is some truth to the suggestion that if you provide the community office with staff lawyers, more activity will be generated. We are only meeting our obligations as a society if that's the case.

In combination with the family justice centres we are piloting, as a result of these two initiatives I hope that far fewer family matters end up in court. That's the fundamental objective. The community legal aid offices can play a significant role at an early stage in helping to steer people to a mediation course rather than a litigation course. I think that will have the opposite effect of the pent-up-demand concern the member is talking about.

The bottom line is that we're spending approximately 10 percent of our budget on legal aid. That's not going to be increased, and the system will have to find a way of providing service to everybody who's eligible for it and who needs it, and they're going to have to find a way of doing that within that budget. That's going to take some creativity, and there is still lots of room for creativity in how we deliver legal aid in this province.

M. de Jong: The suggestion from the Attorney General is that staff lawyers maintaining the sort of caseload that the proposal contemplates will have at their disposal additional time not available to members of the private bar for further mediation, to play more of a mediator's role. Perhaps I have misunderstood the minister.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: A significant component of these offices is going to be paralegals and others trained in mediation and other skills assisting people by steering them to the right place or in a different direction, advising them of

[ Page 9922 ]

their rights, or doing things you don't need a lawyer to do. The lawyers will not be spending time doing work that counsellors or paralegals could do. That's an important element in this whole initiative. I don't expect staff lawyers to be doing work that doesn't require a law degree.

M. de Jong: The Attorney General knows that the amount of staff at the disposal of the lawyers -- paralegals, secretarial and clerical staff -- is significantly reduced from what was contemplated in the Agg report to what has emerged in the proposal. I suggest that that will significantly impact the ability of those individuals to carry on in the way I'm sure he hopes for. But my submission to him would be that it represents an unrealistic expectation.

Another area I would like to canvass with the Attorney General relates to something he may have mentioned earlier. It relates specifically to the issue of choice of counsel. The proposal that has arisen from the society -- and which, again, the society is asking his ministry to finance -- does not, in a meaningful way, embrace the concept of choice of counsel.

That is particularly the case with respect to young offenders who, as I understand it, will be required, pursuant to the terms of the proposal, to accept the selection of counsel that derives from the Legal Services Society office or the community legal office. My question to the Attorney General is: is that a state of affairs that he is comfortable with, knowing that individuals in our society will have counsel thrust upon them, perhaps counsel that they are not confident in or content with?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We have had the discussion on choice of counsel before, and I indicated to the House that my own view is that there should be a choice of counsel; people should have that right. But it is severely constrained by all kinds of realities. The reality I used before was that somebody who is facing a minimum jail term in Prince Rupert shouldn't be able to ask for the highest-priced criminal defence lawyer in Vancouver. If there's an available defence lawyer in Prince Rupert, then that's who should be assigned. Even

section 7 of the Charter doesn't put a requirement on us that unlimited funds be made available in defending people who are eligible for assistance. There has to be some give-and-take.

There is that kind of give-and-take now. At the present time, as the member knows, clients of Legal Services are given a choice of legal counsel, if the lawyer they ask for is prepared to do it in their own community. That kind of logic makes some sense. Most people who haven't been influenced through duty counsel or some other arrangement don't have a particular counsel they wish to name. Recidivists who have been through it before and have developed a relationship with their defence lawyer might, and that's going to happen a lot.

I'm going all over the map. Basically there needs to be a right to counsel, but it needs to be constrained by financial realities and some common sense. I would expect that the Legal Services Society would develop that kind of commonsense policy within a framework which underlies the basic right of choice. If you're facing a life sentence and you want a top-notch defence lawyer from downtown Vancouver and the Prince George legal aid office says, "No, you can have this staff guy," I think the right of the person being charged to have their choice should prevail in that situation. I have no doubt about that.

There's no absolute right of choice now, nor could there ever be, because we couldn't afford that. But there needs to be in certain circumstances, and the policies need to be worked out by the board that is mandated to make those decisions.

[5:00]

M. de Jong: As I listened to the Attorney General's response, my observation, with the greatest respect, was that he's got it half right. It has worked to this point because there are some built-in checks and balances and equalizers. The top-notch lawyer from Vancouver probably isn't going to go up to Prince George, because it's just not worth his while on the tariff, and there's business for him in Vancouver.

The issue here that I want to emphasize and bring to the Attorney General's attention is that we're moving away from the freedom to choose that exists now. What we're contemplating is a very serious erosion of that, whereby young offenders in particular would be precluded from having any choice insofar as the appointment of counsel is concerned.

I'm wondering if the Attorney General can articulate, in any meaningful way, the basis upon which that differentiation between young offenders and adult offenders can be made, particularly when everything we hear suggests that amendments to the Young Offenders Act are being contemplated that will seriously and significantly change the penalty provisions of that act.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I referred to the Young Offenders Act earlier today. It requires that if there is a legal aid scheme in a province, that aid must be provided to all people charged under the YOA. That makes it different from the adult side, in my view. Where there is the legislated requirement that legal aid be provided, it's fair to say that the right to counsel is going to be diminished, given limited resources.

I would also say that in circumstances where a youth charged with first-degree murder is raised to adult court and wants a particular lawyer and does not want to be stuck with a staff lawyer, I can't imagine anybody forcing the staff lawyer on that individual. These issues are going to be determined as we go.

I need to say again that these aren't my decisions; these are decisions of this independent board. They have a lot of issues to face. I'm getting tired of hearing myself say this, but the major one is that they've got to find a way of living within a tighter budget.

M. de Jong: In response to the Attorney General, I recognize the distinctiveness of the society, but I also recognize that he does influence those decisions in the ways he has already articulated. He facilitates them by the appointments he makes to the board and financially, which is more direct and the reason that this concerns us today. So he certainly does have a stake in endorsing what the society does.

I would submit to the Attorney General that the choice-of-counsel issue is a serious one. Though he may have a different view than I about how this will work in practice -- and he relies on the example he gives about the murderer -- I can tell the Attorney General that it is not uncommon for one to be in the youth courts on a daily basis and see young offenders facing serious trafficking charges. His concept of what constitutes a serious charge may be different than mine, and it will undoubtedly be different from the accused facing the charge.

But the penalty provisions of all of these acts are very serious, and though in many instances they aren't implemented to the full force of the law, they exist nevertheless.

I will leave that issue with those comments and move on to the question of eligibility. Again prefacing my remarks in anticipation of what the Attorney General will say -- that it

[ Page 9923 ]

is a matter to be determined by the society board -- I will suggest to the Attorney General that it has long been a concern of members of the private bar who practise within that area that the society adopts what is essentially a threshold test: if you pass, you qualify; if you don't, you don't. The question I have for the Attorney General is: has he or his ministry made submissions to the society to bring some of these escalating c