1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 14, Number 25

[ Page 12317 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

M. de Jong: John Mitchell is a former resident of Abbotsford, and he's now returning home to British Columbia after living in the U.K. for a number of years. He is noteworthy for many endeavours, but most notably, he is the father of our researcher, Hazel. I hope the House will make him welcome.

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Health.

Hon. P. Priddy: I will actually -- because I think he wants to do it first -- defer to the member for Surrey-White Rock and do it after him.

G. Hogg: For the introduction, or for many things? Is this an omnibus deference, or just for the introduction?

I have the privilege of introducing a school trustee from Surrey, a woman who has been a trustee for 14 years, Ms. Laurae McNally. Would the House please make her welcome.

On behalf of the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale, I'd like to welcome 65 students from Martha Currie Elementary school and their teachers, Ms. Crowdis and Ms. Beaubien. Please make them welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to make a very special introduction. In the gallery today is a group of wonderful young people representing youth-in-care from around the province. They had lunch with the Premier and me today, and I would like the House to welcome them: Jamie, Arthur, Gurjeet, Chris and Panja. With them -- not youth -- is their social worker, Elain Lamb; also with them -- and very much not youth -- is my deputy minister, Mike Corbeil. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: I, too, as someone from Surrey, would like to welcome Laurae McNally to the precincts today. But I'd also like to do that because I served for quite some time with Laurae when she was the board chair of the Surrey school board -- which she was for quite a period of time. What I frequently tell people about Laurae is that some of the most creative and innovative programs in the school district in Surrey came about under her tenure as board chair, and I want to acknowledge that work. Will the House please make her welcome.

The Speaker: The Chair has a couple of guests in the gallery: Alison and Jim Prentice. They have moved to Victoria from Toronto, where they, at that point, were academics in very significant enterprises. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

ICBC REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTO GLASS REPAIR SHOPS

M. de Jong: Sid Smith has been operating a small glass business in Princeton for over 20 years. He can't comply with ICBC's accreditation demands. It's not just the money. You see, Sid only has one employee, and oftentimes they have to leave the shop together to go to a job site, and that violates ICBC's policy. So before the minister puffs up his chest and tells us how this was a scheme that the industry wanted and how he's now asked ICBC to go back and talk about it, maybe he could tell Sid Smith of Princeton Glass what's he's supposed to do if this puts him out of business.

[1410]

Hon. D. Lovick: I would have thought . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. D. Lovick: . . . that after this many days of discussion, the member opposite would know that the program is entirely voluntary.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Let me get this right.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

M. de Jong: The minister, the NDP minister, the minister for the party that used to stand up for the little guy -- or claim to stand up for the little guy -- describes as voluntary a program that, at least for Mr. Sid Smith in Princeton, means that if he doesn't comply, if he doesn't get accredited, ICBC has said it will no longer accept his claims over the phone. His customers are going to have to go to Princeton. He's going to lose 30 percent of his business, and he's going to go out of business.

Sit down, minister -- I'm not done yet.

The Speaker: I beg your pardon. The member for Matsqui will take his seat, unless he wishes to ask a question in an appropriate fashion.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I appreciate it, but there were some other words that the member said that were totally inappropriate. I recommend that you withdraw those remarks and get on with the question.

M. de Jong: My question for the minister . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member, member. I did ask the member to withdraw those particular comments.

M. de Jong: I withdraw whatever it is that seems to offend the Chair or the minister, Madam Speaker. It's withdrawn.

The Speaker: Thank you.

M. de Jong: The question to the minister is: if he really did want to stand up for the little guy, for the Sid Smiths of the

[ Page 12318 ]

world in Princeton, why doesn't he tell ICBC to cancel this program and start again -- and start from the perspective that we should be protecting small business in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Lovick: Not only, alas . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . . is the member apparently incapable of listening, but he's also apparently incapable of reading. This morning a document was released that says very clearly that I have directed the president of ICBC to meet with those small business owners who are concerned about the negative impact that this might have on their business and to put the program on hold until we can review it to ensure that it isn't harmful to small business. That's the point.

G. Plant: Earlier today I talked to Joe Mann, who runs a glass shop in Nelson. He's been in the auto repair business for over a quarter of a century. According to his reading of the guidelines, he's going to have to spend $75,000 completely reconstructing his house and $2,500 to move a pole that sits in front of the house that he lives in, which is the heart of his business. Will the Minister for ICBC tell Joe Mann: what is it about this program that is so good that even today he stands up in this House and defends ICBC's oppressive overregulation of the very small businesses that his political party used to stand up and defend?

[1415]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order!

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, we've had three shots now, Madam Speaker: inability to hear, inability to read and inability to comprehend. So let me repeat what I said just a moment ago. I said that I have directed the president of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to review this matter to ensure that it is not harmful to small business and that the program will be put on hold until it is resolved to our satisfaction. I can't make it more clear than that. Sorry, member, if you can't comprehend.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: Well, here's what's perfectly clear: two days ago this minister didn't even know about the problem, yesterday he was happy to stand up in the House and defend the program, and today he's having discussions with ICBC. Will the minister not have the courage to stand up and do exactly what is required for small business in British Columbia and shut the program down altogether now?

Hon. D. Lovick: Wrong again. Wrong again.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: I have been saying for the last week that I would look into this matter. I would discuss it with ICBC and ensure that the program did not have that negative impact. That was in Hansard last week. If the member has forgotten, that's his problem.

What I am being asked to do today, however, is to scrap a program that, frankly, has been in development for about three years, a program, moreover, that has been developed in consultation with the authorized representative of the people who provide those services in the province. They represent some . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry that I'm stretching the ability of members opposite to follow . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: The minister is finishing up his answer.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . . but I'll be as simple as I can. That organization worked in consultation with ICBC to put this accreditation program together. They represent some 80 percent of the total volume of business done by that industry.

The Speaker: Thank you very much, minister.

GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN SKEENA CELLULOSE

H. Giesbrecht: This is Thursday again . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, members.

H. Giesbrecht: . . . and my question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Northern Development.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The member will . . . . Thank you.

H. Giesbrecht: This is Thursday again, and my question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Northern Development. I have received dozens of letters from constituents, from mayors, chambers of commerce, logging contractors and business folk -- asking the government to continue the next phase of the investment in Skeena Cellulose because of the importance of Skeena Cellulose to the economic stability of communities in the northwest. Can the minister confirm that the government is still committed to the people of Prince Rupert, Stewart, Terrace, Hazelton and Smithers, and that the investment is under active consideration?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

[ Page 12319 ]

Hon. D. Miller: I thank the member for not only the question but also the hard work he's put in on this file. I can confirm that -- in part thanks to the tremendous support of people in the northwest -- the chambers of commerce, the mayors and councils and indeed the members and the presidents of the Liberal parties in those constituencies have strongly supported our efforts . . . . I'm pleased to report that the management and the employees have dramatically reduced the operating costs, and I'm pleased to report that, in fact, Skeena Cellulose made a very modest profit starting in February.

It's still very difficult going, but we will go forward to Treasury Board. We will present a business case. Hopefully, if that passes the test of Treasury Board, we can get on with making further investments and strengthening the economy of northwestern British Columbia.

[1420]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

ICBC REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTO GLASS REPAIR SHOPS

G. Farrell-Collins: I know that the Minister Responsible for ICBC doesn't think there's anybody in British Columbia quite as smart as he is, but I'd like to ask a question on behalf of one British Columbian, Tim Smith. Tim Smith is the owner of the Glass-Smith. It's the oldest auto glass repair shop in Victoria. It's been in business for 34 years; it was handed to him by his parents.

Tim Smith tells us that it's going to cost him between $15,000 and $30,000 in renovations to his 34-year business to move the bathroom from the back of the shop to the front of the shop in order to be accredited by ICBC. If he doesn't get accredited, he's going to lose up to 30 percent of his business. Why does the minister responsible for ICBC, who didn't even know about this program two days ago . . . ? Why didn't ICBC in the last three years once talk to one of the individual small businesses that isn't represented by the big guys?

Hon. D. Lovick: Watching members opposite embrace the cause of the little guy is like listening to the Marquis de Sade talk about clemency or something. I mean, come on. Come on.

The Speaker: Minister . . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: Look, come on. The point, alas, has not yet been made, try as I have in the last 12 minutes. The point is that it is precisely because of the Tim Smiths of the world that we have done what I announced today. That's why we're doing it. I had been given advice from the corporation and, indeed, from the Automotive Retailers Association that they had significant buy-in from large numbers of their members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Minister, finish up.

Hon. D. Lovick: Alas, it has come to our attention that it is apparently not the case. I have therefore done what I think is the responsible thing to do. I have asked Mr. Thompson, CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, to review the matter as expeditiously as possible and to put the program on hold until we get those assurances.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: Unlike the union movement, small businesses . . . . There may be some representatives, but they don't necessarily speak for everybody that's in their association -- or not even in their association. The reality is that this group is one small group in the automotive industry. If the minister can finally tell this House the answer to the real question . . . .

If this program has been in development for three years, why in those three years did the Minister Responsible for ICBC not once meet with the small people that are working in this industry, trying to get by, trying to pay their bills, trying to keep their family business alive? Why does it take three years and three days in question period before the NDP listens to small businesses?

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that indeed there has been significant consultation in the past few years in the development of this program. In terms of whether the minister directly had any involvement, certainly I can't comment, because, as you know, I've only had this file for a very short space of time. I have . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Minister, finish up your answer, please.

Hon. D. Lovick: One gets the distinct impression, despite the non-partisan flavour of what's happening in Nanaimo tonight, that maybe these people who've suddenly rediscovered or discovered ICBC and question period have a connection with that. Is that possible?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Members, come to order.

[1425]

NDP OBLIGATIONS IN NCHS AFFAIR

C. Clark: It's interesting that the minister should mention Nanaimo, because it was only three years ago that the Premier promised that he would pay back every penny that his party ripped off from charities in Nanaimo. While the nuns and the senior citizens in Nanaimo, the little people there, are still waiting for their first cheque, the Premier's putting on an exclusive downtown fundraiser for his high-priced political friends in the PDA. Will the Premier explain for us today why he's so prepared to dig deep for his pals in the PDA, while he's content to turn his back on his moral obligations to the charities that his party ripped off in Nanaimo?

The Speaker: The question is out of order.

The bell ends question period.

[ Page 12320 ]

Ministerial Statement

YOUTH WEEK

Hon. L. Boone: I rise today to make a ministerial statement regarding Youth Week. I am pleased to be in the House today to recognize and officially proclaim May 2 to May 8, 1999, as Youth Week in British Columbia.

Youth Week is a unique opportunity for people of all ages across the province to celebrate the diversity, the energy and the contributions of youth in our local communities. This week is a time for us to really appreciate the enthusiasm and drive of youth, for they are not just our future, they're our present.

I'm sure we can all think of many examples of young people in our own lives who really make a difference and who may have faced serious obstacles. In my ministry alone, there are many youth who have turned their lives around.

Today I would like to share a couple of stories about the wonderful achievements of our youth -- like the former youth in care who recently got her degree in criminology instead of ending up on the other side of the law; like the UBC student who has supported her family as well as herself but who has been able to stay in school because of earned tuition credits through Youth Community Action. Or we have the E-team leader who, despite ongoing surgery to remove a brain tumour, worked with her 14 team members to add five new kilometres to the Trans Canada Trail.

I mention these three youth; however, there are literally thousands of youth across this province who are proving themselves on a daily basis. They are excelling in academics, in sports and in society as a whole. They are overcoming obstacles in their lives and making a difference in others.

I encourage all British Columbians to take

part in Youth Week 1999. Events celebrating the contributions of young people are planned across British Columbia. I believe that together we can make a difference. I believe that the young people are counting on us, and I know that we're counting on them. Please join me in paying tribute to the youth of B.C. and the future of this province.

L. Reid: I believe, fundamentally, that we have an obligation and a responsibility to safeguard the next generation. There's no question in my mind. I'm tremendously proud of the young people we have in this province, who work very, very hard. I have numerous experiences as a teacher, as a school administrator and certainly as a member of the British Columbia Youth Parliament. I sat as a member of their board for many, many years.

One of the issues that concerns me is constancy of purpose -- the commitment of this government to deliver services. I think it's interesting that we would have a discussion honouring youth. I think it's useful; I think it's helpful; I think it's important. But it concerns me that we would have it at the same time that we would have a 1.5 percent clawback in the budget. Those decisions will dramatically impact on young people in this province and on the choices they will be allowed to make. That's a concern.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, replies to statements are to be brief, and factual as well -- not debatable.

L. Reid: Absolutely factual, hon. Speaker. That is a fact.

The question I would leave this government with is: how many young people will be impacted? They won't be impacted positively by this decision, which will impact every, single contracted provider in the province. That's a decision and that's a discussion, I think, that the minister has to have in a more forthright way. I take nothing away from the young people in this province who have every opportunity to go forward and accomplish wonderful things. I have tremendous concern for those who are compromised, those who are hindered and those who are hampered by their ability to get on and have some choices that are truly theirs.

I respect the ability of each and every young person in this province to make some choices. It confounds me that the constancy and the consistency of the message from the members opposite is often lacking.

[1430]

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. In this House, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members here, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General.

The House in Committee of Supply B; P. Calendino in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL AND

MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM,

HUMAN RIGHTS AND IMMIGRATION

( continued )

On vote 18: ministry operations, $803,358,000 (continued).

L. Reid: In terms of the hon. minister's response, my questions may indeed be very condensed. I have questions surrounding the funding, the budget items, for the royal commissions that have been called. It's my understanding that it falls under the Inquiry Act and was funded on behalf of the Ministry of Attorney General last year.

[1435]

The first one I want to canvass is the cost of the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation, and I believe the title was "For the Common Good: Final Report of the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation in British Columbia." It's my belief that those items don't come to this Legislature for debate. They are simply appointed, and they go forward. But it's my understanding that they fall under the Ministry of Attorney General for funding. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that we administer those issues, but the money comes directly from consolidated revenue.

L. Reid: I bring it up at this juncture because when I attempted to canvass both of these issues under their separate ministries last year, whether it was the Ministry of Labour or

[ Page 12321 ]

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, when we talked about the Barrett commission on residential construction, in both instances I was directed back to this ministry. If that is indeed not the case, and if that is on the record today, I'm happy to pursue it with those two ministries.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We'll be able to give you the answer that you're seeking in terms of the amounts, and that information is coming. I'll be happy to give that to the hon. member. How it's administered, and who is responsible . . . . At the end of the day, I guess the buck stops with the Ministry of Attorney General in terms of . . . .

L. Reid: I am happy to pose my financial questions to this minister at this time. Is the minister saying that further questions surrounding the administration of those dollars will be in the bailiwick of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Labour? Or will all the questions be answered today?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Ministry of Attorney General administers the process. Therefore we'll be able to give you the answers as to both the amount and where it might have gone. But the hon. member must recognize what happens with royal commissions and the like. They are absolutely independent. We quite often simply end up picking up the tab on behalf of the taxpayers, obviously, at the end of the day. I'm being told that there are Treasury Board guidelines with respect to those matters. All those expenditures are usually within those guidelines.

L. Reid: Perhaps if the minister is prepared to share those guidelines, that may suffice in terms of my questions. If not, I certainly am interested in the actual expenditure for each of those royal commissions. I'm interested in each of the overruns. I'm interested in the review process that allowed for those overruns.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe there is an overrun per se with respect to those matters, because they don't have a budget. They're estimated expenditures. When I refer to the Treasury Board guidelines, there are no specific guidelines for royal commissions. They are guidelines for hotel expenditures and the like for governmentwide purposes.

L. Reid: When those commissions were announced -- whether it was the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation in British Columbia or indeed the commission on residential construction in British Columbia, hereinafter referred to as the Barrett commission -- each of them came to the table with a sum of money that was the anticipated expenditure. Both of those went back, I assume, to Treasury Board and received additional dollars. So, to me, that's an interim supply debate. They went back at some point in their process and asked for additional dollars.

There was never any opportunity to debate that additional expense, to review it or certainly to ask any questions about it. I hope that this is the forum to do that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The OIC that's put in place does not deal with the money. It only deals with the term and the mandate. It doesn't deal with the money. Therefore I would say that those matters don't go to Treasury Board in terms of the expenditures.

[1440]

L. Reid: I have some concerns around the accountability mechanisms. The minister will know that each of those commissions was costed out at a cost per day. If the government is going to increase the number of days that those commissions are in fact operational, it's only obvious that the costs will increase. So what I think the minister is saying is that yes, we've increased the number of days, but we take no interest in what actual figure that generated. I have some concern about that, because it was an enormous sum of money -- in the millions of dollars. I await the Attorney General's response.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't really want to get into an argument over whether or not I'm a responsible individual. I believe I am, and I view these issues in a very responsible manner. I'd leave the hon. member to determine how she conducts herself. I simply want to say that when the term has to be changed at the request of a particular commission, that issue is appropriately and thoroughly considered both by the minister that might be bringing that forth -- which would be the Attorney General, usually, on behalf of royal commissions -- and by cabinet when cabinet grants that extension.

Obviously one knows that if a commission is going to work for a larger number of days, it's going to cost more. But they don't have a budget per se. You have a sense of what the expenditures are, and you know that the longer the commission goes, the more the expenditures. I think it's highly argumentative for us to say to each other here in this chamber whether one is more responsible than the other. I don't really want to get into that kind of debate, because it's not helpful. Let's deal with facts.

L. Reid: I await the facts on the question. Are those dollar values indeed available in terms of what was first approved for the commission on workers compensation? What was first approved for the residential construction commission? What was granted as interim approvals, and what were the final costs of both of those commission reports to the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I've said before that budgets for royal commissions and the like are never approved by cabinet or Treasury Board. There usually are estimates generated by the ministry that may be directly concerned with the commission. In the case of Workers Compensation, it may have been the Ministry of Labour that estimated what the costs might be. I don't have access to that information. I may have access to what the bill finally came to. I can assure the hon. member that once the bill comes into our ministry, we do due diligence on it and determine whether or not the expenditures are appropriate, and then they're paid.

L. Reid: In that I am truly interested in the process, can the Attorney tell me whether or not that information will be available to me from the other ministry if indeed the estimates are contained within the Ministry of Labour? Can he indeed send that information on?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would undertake to provide the information that I can provide -- within the constraints of the law, including FOI and all of those issues -- that resides with my ministry. I'll be happy to provide that. I understand that some information is coming, and as soon as it's over, we will hand it over to the other side. I don't have a problem with that. If there are estimates that my ministry might have, I'll be

[ Page 12322 ]

happy to provide those, but I doubt that there are such things as estimates that exist within my ministry on those kinds of issues.

L. Reid: In terms of commission X that's going to be appointed, do I understand that there is no discussion about the parameters of the cost, that each one is indeed considered on its individual merit, that those dollars come out of consolidated revenue and that there is never any opportunity for any kind of public debate as to the cost?

[1445]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm now simply talking in general terms, not about a specific commission. The process is that, let's say for the Workers Compensation Board . . . . I'm assuming what may have happened. The ministry may have spoken to the person who was going to chair that particular commission as to what is expected and what the budget might be like. Those are the kinds of issues that remain between them. The Attorney General, because of the unique nature of the office, is simply responsible for the Inquiry Act, and therefore, technically and practically, all the matters go through the Attorney General office.

Whenever a commissioner usually wants a term extended, the commissioner may speak to the specific ministry with respect to which the work is being done. But more importantly, they definitely speak to the Attorney General or to the Deputy Attorney General, because it's the Attorney General office that then takes the request forward for an extension and the like. That's the kind of process, and that's a process that's followed generally.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that.

He will know that I have enormous concerns around the lack of transparency of that process. Certainly the residential construction commission report started out as: "Let's take a look at leaking condominiums." Then it expanded into residential construction in the province and went on far longer than was anticipated. We've yet to learn the actual cost, and there doesn't seem to be any mechanism for the taxpayer to even review that level of expenditure. The Attorney is saying that he will provide that to me. I certainly appreciate that, and I thank him.

G. Plant: Earlier today we canvassed one or two items where there was the possibility that further input from the criminal justice branch would be sought and would be helpful. I don't know if there's anything back from that branch on those matters yet.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't have any information with respect to those matters. I know that people from the ministry are watching, and I expect them to bring that information before 5:30 this evening.

G. Plant: The minister will know that earlier today there was a judicial decision in the case involving Glacier View Lodge on Vancouver Island.

Interjection.

G. Plant: Well, the minister now knows it.

My understanding is that the judge hearing that case decided that the issue with respect to the expropriation of the assets of the society was moot because there had been an agreement negotiated between the society and the government. I don't know if that is a correct description of the outcome; my information is, at best, secondhand.

But there is a question that exists in the volunteer sector with respect to a practice that the government has followed in some cases of expropriating the assets of voluntary associations and societies under, for example, the provisions of the Health Authorities Act, I think. The government has been on the receiving end of at least this one lawsuit, involving Glacier View Lodge. The question that arises, I suppose, is why the government is vigorously defending these claims and, in particular, what the cost of this defence has been to government.

I assume that the Glacier View Lodge case would be a case where it would be the legal services branch that would be responsible for ensuring that the Crown was represented in the courts.

[1450]

It may be that in the case of Glacier View Lodge, the Crown's representation consisted of people who were employed as lawyers by the branch, as opposed to outside counsel. In which case, trying to put a number on the dollar figure of the cost to the Crown of defending that case would be, I suppose, more a matter of allocating the value of the allocation of internal resources.

Just to figure out where this inquiry or discussion will go, can the minister tell us whether the Glacier View Lodge case -- the expropriation case -- was handled internally, by counsel inside the legal services branch, or by outside counsel?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It was handled by in-house counsel.

G. Plant: In order to attempt to attribute any kind of cost to government in respect of the defence of that action, one would have to engage in the exercise of ascribing a value to the time spent by someone who was an employee of the ministry and who presumably, some days or weeks, engaged in the defence of the action. Or it may have been more than one employee. There would not be, in that case, I suppose, a readily identifiable cost in the form of bills of outside lawyers paid, because there were no outside lawyers. Is that a fair analysis?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I correct my previous response. I now understand that there may have been someone from the outside brought in at some point during this, but ultimately the case was concluded by in-house counsel. The hon. member's

interpretation is fair, with the exception that there might be a better way of quantifying, at least, what the outside counsel cost.

G. Plant: From time to time I am asked questions about the cost of legal services in circumstances where the Crown has hired outside counsel. My understanding is that generally those costs, if they ultimately took the form of bills for services rendered by a lawyer to his or her client -- in this case, the government -- would be disclosed as part of the public accounts of British Columbia, according to the rules that govern disclosure of those accounts. This would require doing a fair bit of research into the public accounts, according to the amount of the fee and the rules that apply to disclosure at different levels of accounts. Is that a correct statement of the way it works?

[ Page 12323 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it's accurate that information with respect to legal fees does appear in the public accounts, but not with respect to a specific case.

G. Plant: That is, the public accounts are organized by the identity of the recipient of the money, not organized by the subject matter of the work done. You might find a particular law firm with a dollar figure beside it, but that dollar figure could represent fees for one matter or a dozen matters. Is that correct?

[1455]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: Let me ask another question about activities within the legal services branch. I suppose I could begin with the observation that the budget for the legal services branch is experiencing a fairly significant increase. I am given to understand by the officials who helped me with the briefing that a very significant component of that increase is represented by the cost of creating, within the branch, a group of lawyers specifically organized to deal with litigation in aboriginal matters -- an aboriginal litigation group.

I wonder if the Attorney General could provide a little bit of flesh to those bones that I've just described. Is there such a group being established? What are the parameters of that group? Am I right that the creation of this group represents a relatively significant initiative on the part of the legal services branch to take a slightly different approach to how it contracts for and provides litigation representation to the Crown in respect of matters involving aboriginal rights?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I didn't understand the latter part of the hon. member's question.

In response to the part of the question that I did understand, yes, there has been an increase in the number of lawyers, and that's to make sure that we are appropriately equipped to deal with aboriginal litigation as well as treaty negotiations. There are several tables currently in progress in terms of the B.C. Treaty Commission negotiations. We need to provide all of those tables with appropriate representation to assist them so that they can move forward, as well as, obviously, to have people defending litigation that's being launched from time to time.

G. Plant: Is it the minister's observation that there has recently been an increase in the amount of aboriginal litigation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer is yes. The temptation is to say something about the opposition's own litigation, but I won't, because I think it's fair to say that everybody has a right to go to court. We were talking about that this morning. I think that generally there has been an increase in litigation and that Delgamuukw -- and this is no comment on the Supreme Court of Canada -- certainly hasn't helped in that regard, in the sense that that has obviously provided more clarification for rights and obligations of different parties. That has led to both an impetus for negotiations and the inclination on the part of some to go to court rather than negotiate.

G. Plant: Responding to both an increase in the volume of litigation and the increased demand created by the scope of activity on the treaty negotiating front, the ministry has made an investment of additional dollars and hired additional staff in order to ensure that it can meet the demands that are being made upon it. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. I think there has been an increase of $5.58 million and 26 FTEs, and that includes support staff, as well, for this purpose.

L. Reid: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Reid: It's my pleasure to introduce a grades 3 and 4 class from Rutherford community school that are joining us today and are going to be watching the proceedings for a short while. Would the House please make them very welcome.

[1500]

G. Plant: Sometimes program responsibility is transferred within government from ministry to ministry, so that what looks like an increase in spending in one ministry, in the form of new spending, may actually just be the result of a reallocation of responsibility from one ministry to another. I'm thinking, for example, about young offenders corrections issues, which moved from the Attorney General's ministry to the Ministry for Children and Families. I want to be clear, in my understanding about this aboriginal litigation group, that it represents a new investment by the government in terms of dealing with these increased demands in the two areas that the minister has earlier described.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: The other issue I want to deal with in the context of the legal services branch is the question of the policies and practices of the government in providing an indemnity to government employees and elected officials in cases involving lawsuits. I guess that I have a couple of points to make here. I've had provided to me a copy of an extract from the government's "Personnel Management Policies and Procedures" -- I think it may be directive 119 or something like that -- that deals with the issue of indemnity protection for employees in particular categories.

I don't want to go on, and I'm not proposing to examine this document in detail. But at the risk of oversimplification, it appears to me that the provisions of this policy are fairly clear, in terms of the extent to which the government has undertaken an obligation to indemnify employees of the government in respect of the legal costs that they assume or experience as a result of having been sued for something done in the course of their office or employment or, in some cases, in relation to actions for defamation.

What the policy does not really say at all is what the Crown's obligations are to indemnify employees in respect of the costs of retaining counsel in circumstances where the employee is not being sued or about to sue, but, rather, may be called upon to give evidence in connection with a proceeding -- whether it's a proceeding in court or a proceeding in the form of an inquiry or an investigation. That would be a situation where the individual -- the employee -- is not, as I say, named in the action but is called upon to give evidence.

[ Page 12324 ]

My understanding is that while the policy does not clearly state an obligation on the part of the Crown to indemnify employees for those costs, it is the practice of the Crown to do that. I'm wondering if the Attorney General could confirm whether my understanding is correct and then explain the basis upon which the Crown makes this decision, which I understand engages the officials of the legal services branch to some extent.

[1505]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's understanding is correct. It's a Treasury Board policy, which is obviously assisted by PSERC from time to time, as to whether or not a particular matter comes within it. Our role at the end of the day is to determine whether or not the fees that have been charged are appropriate. That's the role of the Attorney General ministry.

G. Plant: I think the ministry has additional responsibilities in terms of providing opinions with respect to whether or not there is a cause of action and defamation, if it's a case to which that part of the policy applies. I think the Ministry of Attorney General also has obligations to undertake the defence of lawsuits against government employees. There's clearly a bit more to the ministry's obligations, looking at the policy as a whole.

Coming back to the specific question of who makes a decision about the reach of the policy in cases where the issue is whether an employee of government is entitled to legal representation when he or she is not a party but, rather, someone whose evidence is being sought, is the minister saying that that is not an issue that his ministry has any responsibility for? The question of whether or not to apply the policy to those cases has nothing to do with his ministry; it belongs somewhere else?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Those kinds of decisions are made by PSERC, in consultation with the appropriate ministry to which the employee may belong. But the Ministry of Attorney General is consulted to determine whether or not what they're doing is appropriate if there are any legal questions.

G. Plant: There is a public policy issue here. At the risk of oversimplifying it, let me explain how I think it comes into existence. The policy, generally speaking, is directed at ensuring that employees of the Crown who are parties to litigation have legal representation. The policy, generally speaking, is not directed at the issue of whether employees of the Crown whose evidence is being sought in connection with a particular matter should be represented, yet the practice followed by the Crown, in some cases, is to provide that representation.

The issue that arises is whether or not there's a gap between what the policy says and the practice that should be dealt with. Is it the minister's view that there is a gap, and if so, how does he respond to a question about that gap?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member has obviously constructed the question in a particular way. The only way that I can answer it is that it is PSERC's policy to implement, and they take advice from us, from time to time, as to what they're doing. It would be difficult for me to say, in a specific case, whether or not a particular action is appropriate.

[1510]

G. Plant: I can understand the Attorney General's concern to ensure that we don't have a debate about the legal advice that his ministry officials may give to PSERC from time to time with respect to the reach of the policy. I don't want to invade the ministry on that front. It may not be as subtle a question as that. because I think that the issue we're talking about is one that even a non-lawyer looking at the policy . . . . I would think that even a non-lawyer looking at the policy would see that there's a gap in the policy, and that does raise at least the potential of a public policy question.

It may be the minister's view that the place to take that up is PSERC, because it's PSERC's decision whether or not to afford that coverage. PSERC may get advice -- and who knows what that advice from the ministry is -- about the reach of the policy, but it's PSERC that makes the decision. I take it that if the minister is agreeing with that, then the minister's earlier comments about assessing the reasonableness of fees and so on don't involve second-guessing the issue of whether it was appropriate to afford coverage.

They're simply looking at the statement of account and saying: "Well, if that's the work that's being done, then the question is, 'Is this a reasonable fee?' " -- and that's the end of it. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: Does the minister have a view on the question of whether it's good public policy for the Crown to indemnify employees in respect of the cost of representation where the issue is simply giving evidence and not a case to which they are actually a party? We identified an issue of public policy, and we identified the fact that PSERC has a decision to make, and that's fine. We can deal with that one way or the other in terms of the way the actual policy is written and what PSERC does or does not do. The question now for the minister is: what is his view of good public policy here?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm sure I'm going to be shot down by another minister, because it's not my ministry's policy. It's a policy governmentwide that doesn't reside with the Ministry of Attorney General.

Let me make some general comments -- not about the policy specifically. When an employee is asked to give evidence or be interviewed by someone with respect to what may have transpired during the course of his or her employment, I think it's only appropriate that if the individual feels the need to have some representation, then that representation should be provided. I think that's good public policy. I don't think it's appropriate for employees to be left hanging out there if they believe that they require and need representation.

G. Plant: So far we've been talking about the situation of employees. There is also a separate mechanism in place by which the government indemnifies ministers of the Crown in respect of legal costs that may arise in connection with their office as minister. The way in which this mechanism works is that ministers get the same coverage, in effect, as is available from time to time under the terms of the PSERC policy. Maybe just to begin, I could ask the minister if that's his understanding of the way the indemnity works.

[1515]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Does it follow, then, that the responsibilities of the Ministry of Attorney General, in respect of the implemen-

[ Page 12325 ]

tation of this policy on a case-by-case basis, are the same as they are in respect of the implementation or the administration of the PSERC policy? In other words, there may be situations where the legal services branch has to give some legal advice about the nature of the claim or where it may have to do other things, including looking at the fees of the lawyers that are retained by the Crown on behalf of the minister in respect of these cases. Is that pretty much the same?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: This issue of indemnifying government officials for legal costs has recently arisen in the context of the auditor general's report on the estimates process. That report took a long time to prepare. During the course of his work, the auditor general apparently sought assistance, evidence and statements from a variety of government officials. I assume that to the extent that those government officials had legal help or representation -- and to the extent that that legal representation was paid for by the government -- it was done so under the PSERC policy that we talked about earlier.

One of the questions that flows from that -- which relates to, I guess, the issue of public accountability -- is: what did that cost? How much did the government spend for legal advice to those government officials who were called upon by Mr. Morfitt to give evidence and who obtained legal representation at the Crown's expense in order to do so? Is the Attorney General able to assist in answering that question?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to those matters, the Attorney General's ministry pays the bills after determining that they're reasonable and then journal-vouchers the appropriate ministry with which the person may be associated. Now, with respect to the amounts and the like, that information is the subject of solicitor-client privilege, and it's difficult for me -- impossible for me -- to actually give the hon. member that information without violating that confidentiality.

G. Plant: But the government does, through the public accounts process, make public the cost of outside legal services. Admittedly, it does so without allocating the cost on a matter-by-matter basis, so I'm not sure how I reconcile those two facts -- that is, the assertion that solicitor-client privilege operates to prevent disclosure of the amounts, but on the other hand, the public accounts process ensures that the public does get to see how much the costs are. Perhaps the Attorney General could clarify that for me.

[1520]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member has raised an issue that obviously speaks for itself. We are obliged to provide the information that we do provide in the public accounts. Yes, it's quite possible that that information may lead to identification of certain issues, but that's something that is done because we're obliged to do that under the law -- but not more than that.

G. Plant: I was going to say that when I heard the minister give that explanation, I think the minister's conclusion expressed the principle that in the contest between the obligation to make public disclosure on the one hand and the obligation to protect solicitor-client privilege, the Crown yields to the obligation to make public disclosure but attempts to do so only to the extent absolutely necessary in order to protect solicitor-client privilege. Is that a fair statement of the approach?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Community justice. I want to talk a little bit about legal aid and a little bit about residential tenancy, family maintenance enforcement and the community accountability program.

I think we can maybe begin with the family maintenance enforcement program, because I think the discussion that we're going to have is at a high level of generality. If I were to bring to the Attorney General every case, every letter from someone who has a concern about the application of the family maintenance enforcement program in their lives, we would be here a very long time. So I don't propose to do that.

I believe it was during his opening remarks that the Attorney General made reference to the number of cases that are currently enrolled in the family maintenance enforcement program. Of course, as I understand it, there have been some changes in those enrolment figures, partly because of recent changes in the way in which Ministry of Human Resources benefits payments interact with that program.

One of the things that people who either make payments or receive them under this program often have a hard time understanding is that the role of the program is not to determine what is a fair amount of support but simply to administer the enforcement of court orders. The challenge presented by that fact can work itself out in the real world in ways that undoubtedly create hardship.

Not everyone who is on the side of a support order, where it's their obligation to make payments, is going to be an individual who understands well the court process for obtaining a variation in support obligations or who, even if they understand it, is going to be someone who'll have ready access to lawyers and the processes for getting before a judge to apply for a variation.

[1525]

Yet what happens is that for some of those individuals -- for many of them, I'm afraid -- the clock ticks every month on the amount that is owing, and the amount that is owing will rise every month until the support payer goes to court and persuades a judicial official to make a change in the support order to reduce the amount payable. Sometimes, when that finally happens, there may be a significant body of accrued amounts owing, and there may be, in practical terms, very little ability to pay.

I'm not sure that it's correct to describe the family maintenance enforcement program as inflexible in this regard, because the problem is that that may imply that they have some control over whether or not they can affect how the program works.

It does seem to me that there is enough of that hardship out there that it's worth looking at whether or not there could be some introduction of some kind of mechanism that would mean that in circumstances where someone who was obviously a regular employee earning a salary with a paycheque every couple of weeks then found themselves without a job and on welfare could at least suspend the increase in the accrued obligations, or do something to ensure that the system is not piling up his indebtedness -- or her indebtedness, but most of them will be men -- while the issue of a variation

[ Page 12326 ]

application or order is dealt with. It does seem to me that in this respect, the program is sufficiently inflexible that there is the potential to work hardship in a number of cases where that's unnecessary -- where it's obvious that the person used to have employment at a certain income and no longer does. It's obvious that at the lower income, no judge would maintain the same level of support obligations.

Before I ask the Attorney General what is really a policy question, let me make this observation: there are lots of people who make support payments and who receive them whose lives are organized in a very complicated way, some of whom become experts in the art of obfuscating what their income is for the purpose of making it complicated to figure out what the support obligation is. I would be reluctant to support any change in the way that this program and the courts work that might encourage that phenomenon. There is already enough of that.

Nonetheless, it does seem to me that in a number of cases . . . . The way this program works, in conjunction with the way the court system works, there are cases where the program is just not quite as flexible as it should be in order to achieve fairness. I don't have the practical solution to that problem. I'm not sure whether you put a box on the form or whether that's just an invitation to abuse. I want to know what the Attorney General's thoughts are on that problem, which, over and above the question of bringing individual cases before him here, is perhaps the one general question that concerns me about this program.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member's comments are well made, because they both raised the concern initially with respect to some unfairness that is visited upon some people so that everybody else could be made to remain fair. That's unfortunate, because there is no system in place anywhere in Canada that takes into account the kind of eventuality that the hon. member is talking about.

[1530]

Quite often there is disagreement as to whether or not a particular individual's -- a payer's -- income has gone down or has essentially disappeared. It is difficult. I think the only thing that we can do at this time, until we find a system that will deal with this dilemma, is to try and get these cases to court faster and try and at least have . . . . Based on some evidence, the applicants can have interim orders suspending or reducing the obligation until a final order is made. That's a way that's open for applicants to vary.

We have family justice counsellors and other programs that we're trying to put in place, such as family court rules and those changes, to assist people to get before the courts sooner. As well, I think the maintenance guidelines -- the child-support guidelines -- are very clear. If there is evidence and the payee is persuaded that the payer's income is now below what it used to be, they can really settle this very quickly without even going to court. I think these matters are only difficult where there is a level of distrust between the payer and the payee and things are not very clear.

G. Plant: The Attorney General points out the possibility of varying maintenance obligations by consent. But does that not also require the sanction of the court in the case where there is a court order with respect to maintenance?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it does. But I'm sure that courts are much faster than they used to be, seven or eight years ago when I last practised before them, in terms of allowing consent orders of the nature that we're talking about to go through.

G. Plant: I appreciate the Attorney General's comments on what is obviously a difficult issue. I think it's probably some progress that at least there is the identification or the recognition that the potential for unfairness exists in a certain number of cases. Perhaps over time a better solution to that problem will present itself.

I want to ask about one component of the complexity of that solution. In terms of fixing the amount which should be payable -- that is, of determining what is a fair and reasonable and appropriate level of support that an issue which, on the law as it now stands, has to be the province of the courts, as opposed to a program within the Ministry of Attorney General. The government's understanding is, in effect, that the constitution requires that it be so.

I may be wrong on that, but my sense has always been that one of the challenges that governments are faced with here is that it is not possible to remove that decision from the judicial arena. Now, that may not be an issue of constitutionality. It may simply be the fact that the Divorce Act is federal and the province can't change the Divorce Act. The Family Relations Act is as it is, and therefore it works as it does, which is to make judges the decision-makers here.

I guess the question is: in terms of looking at the possibility of changing the system someday to accommodate this potential issue of unfairness, are there barriers presented by the constitution here? Or are we simply looking at a program that works the way it does, because the government sees it as being, as a matter of policy, appropriate to leave it to the judiciary to fix the amount which should be owing?

[1535]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I missed the first part of the hon. member's remarks. If I give the hon. member the wrong answer, then he will understand that I didn't follow the first part of his remarks. If the hon. member is talking about being able to amend or vary court orders that have been made by the Supreme Court -- by the Provincial Court -- obviously that is a constitutional problem. If that's what the hon. member is talking about, then that is a problem.

There is, of course, always the talk about a unified family court. We had that in British Columbia once; it did not work. I know there are currently three or four unified courts in Ontario, and I understand that the results -- in the survey results -- are not bad. I haven't seen them, but I've heard about those results. Obviously, at some point, we may try and have another go at it to see if that works. I think that's the only answer to the concern that the hon. member has raised -- unless we change the constitution, which I think, as the hon. member knows, is much more difficult to do.

G. Plant: I suppose the point of my question was in part to open up that issue just a little bit, and we're not going to pursue it at great length. I think that we sometimes look at changing the structures of legal institutions as a way of fixing social, economic or cultural problems. Perhaps a more appropriate focus for the issue presented by family maintenance and support is how to reduce the incidence of family breakup and, in cases where families break up, reduce the incidence of litigiousness following that. The minister has talked about some of the initiatives underway in his ministry on that front.

[ Page 12327 ]

I want to ask about legal aid. The contribution made by this government to the Legal Services Society for the fiscal year that we are now engaged in remains $81.5 million. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: One of a number of issues that was raised a while ago when there was a considerable amount of stress between the Legal Services Society, on the one hand, and the government, on the other, in terms of the budget for the Legal Services Society, had to do with the problem presented by major case funding. The Legal Services Society, as I recall, responded to that problem by creating a cap of $50,000 for major cases.

That cap ran up against the problem that there might be cases where the courts would order that someone be afforded a defence in a case where the cost of that defence might exceed the cap. There was some correspondence that went back and forth between the society and the government in which the government, I think, at one point said that if the Crown was forced to bear the cost of providing a defence in a case where that exceeded the $50,000 cap, the Crown would take the position that the excess should be set off against the contribution to the Legal Services Society.

[1540]

Without engaging in the debate over whether or not that would have been good public policy, my understanding is that the government and the Legal Services Society have agreed to attempt to continue to work on that problem and that they have done so over the last number of months, perhaps as long as a year. In fact, the threat of a setoff has not yet actually materialized in the form of any reduction in contributions to the LSS, because there has been some constructive dialogue between the two. I'm going to ask a question about that in a moment, but have I fairly or correctly summarized the state of play with respect to this issue?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Absolutely.

G. Plant: I want the Attorney General's commitment to continue to work hard to fix the problem in a way that ensures that there is no resort to a setoff. I'm not asking for his guarantee that the problem will be solved, but I do ask for his commitment that he will continue to attempt to achieve a solution which does not result in a setoff.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. That commitment is there, and we have been working . . . .

I'll take this moment to say on the record that the board has been very helpful. The board has been trying very hard to live within the budget they have. In fact, they've had discussions with me where they are thinking of making some enhancements to the services that are available to the needy and the poor. In matters like that, within the context of the budget they do have, I think they need to be commended. I do so publicly today on the floor of the House, because I think they've done an excellent job under very difficult circumstances.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

G. Plant: Another flashpoint, if you will, in the relationship between the Legal Services Society and government has to do with the accumulated deficit of the society. Not that long ago -- a couple of years ago now -- the government, having frozen funding, if you will, also took the position that the Legal Services Society had an obligation to repay the accumulated deficit over time. A time period was imposed as part of that original decision by government.

I wonder if the Attorney General could assist in explaining the status of that arrangement -- whether the society has in fact repaid any of the accumulated deficit or not and what the government expects on that front over the next little while.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm told that the Legal Services Society continues to repay the deficit and reduce it. I understand that the deficit, according to my information here, was the highest in '96-97, at over $17 million, and in '97-98 it was just over $16 million. I understand that at the end of March of this year, it was about $15 million. That is in addition to the fact that 85 percent of the accounts of all the lawyers who bill legal aid are now paid within 30 days. I think that's good news.

[1545]

G. Plant: The requirement to repay the accumulated deficit, in the order of $16 million or $17 million, was imposed . . . . My recollection is that the original timetable for repayment of the entire deficit was the year 2000 or 2001. Certainly, the Legal Services Society had some concerns about whether it could in any way meet the obligations it has to fulfil its mandate within the existing budgets and to also repay the deficit at the rate that would be required to repay it in full by the year 2000 or 2001.

When the Attorney General explains the progress that the society is making in reducing that deficit, it sounds like it could take a number of years for the deficit to be repaid in full, and that the government, while committed to having the deficit repaid, is committed to doing so in a way that will not cause -- not unfairly, at least -- the impairment of service delivery by the Legal Services Society. In other words, the government wants to act as reasonably as it can here. Does the Attorney General have in place, at this point, a time limit for the expectation that the deficit will be repaid?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it's fair to say that I recognize that if they had to repay it by 2001, they wouldn't be able to without impairing services that are particularly for the needy. Therefore we are speaking to them, and we're trying to make arrangements. At the end of the day, those are decisions that are made by Treasury Board. All I can do is try and present the case. At the end of the day, I think we all recognize that these are very difficult issues. We have tried to assist the society before in terms of carrying a certain amount of deficit, and we will continue to try and do that in the future.

G. Plant: Recognizing that the Attorney General is not the decision-maker here, he is obviously, nonetheless, somebody who has influence; more importantly, his perspective is relevant. At the risk of overgeneralizing, it sounds to me like there has been, from the ministry's perspective, some progress. There is a constructive dialogue, there is the sense that there will continue to be progress, and there is as close a commitment as you can get -- by this ministry, anyway -- that as long as those conditions are present, then there may be nothing more required.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Generally, the hon. member's observation is correct. I want to add that if the deadline for repayment

[ Page 12328 ]

of the entire deficit is 2001 -- and I don't recall what that is -- they obviously wouldn't be able to do that without impairing services, and I would want to make sure that doesn't happen. So that's why we're speaking to them and trying to work these things out. The commitment is there.

[1550]

G. Plant: I think my question was not clear enough. I think we share the goal of trying to avoid an effect on service delivery. Maybe restating my earlier question . . . . As long as there is some progress on this front, the ministry is, I suppose, willing to make the question of service delivery the most important question and do what it can to avoid impairing service delivery just by requiring the accelerated repayment of the deficit, which I'm sure the minister is right in saying would result in a significant effect on service delivery.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

So I'm asking, firstly, for the number, if the minister has it, that represents an allocation of the CHST that, from the government's perspective, should be going to the provision of legal services under the legal aid system and, secondly, whether there are any specifically targeted funds.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that government, in the last several years, has taken the position with respect to CHST that there can be no allocation to legal aid. But with respect to criminal legal aid, I understand that the province receives $9 million a year.

G. Plant: So that latter number hasn't changed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, that number has not changed. Actually, my concern is that over the years their share of the funding has decreased because ours has increased. They now pay a very small share of legal aid funding in the province.

G. Plant: Residential tenancy. I'll begin by identifying the fact that rules of procedure to govern the process in arbitrations, which were talked about a year ago, have come into being. In addition, the ministry has put forward guidelines that deal with -- I suppose you could say they are policy questions on -- how the act should be interpreted in a substantive way; that is, what does it mean to give somebody reasonable notice or to not give reasonable notice, for example. I understand that the ministry is continuing its work on that front.

The other question that has been pursued in this debate annually for as long as the minister and I have been doing this is the question of rewriting the act. That question is sometimes talked about as though what was required was a plain-language rewriting of the Residential Tenancy Act. The act is a lawyer's dream; it's not really the kind of statute that is very user-friendly for people without legal training. We've had the debate here on an annual basis, and on an annual basis there have been commitments given with respect to delivery of the plain-language rewrite of the Residential Tenancy Act.

[1555]

I am told by the minister's staff that, at least over the last little while, it's been recognized by the ministry that the challenge here is no longer simply a challenge of trying to give expression to the requirements of the act in terms that ordinary British Columbians can understand, but in fact there is an identified need for some policy changes to the way the act works. Perhaps I could ask the minister if what I've said represents a fair description of the status quo.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it does.

G. Plant: Could the minister assist in explaining what, if any, process is underway to make progress towards the goal of updating the Residential Tenancy Act in a way that ensures that it works better for landlords and tenants.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As the hon. member has mentioned, there have been some policy issues that have arisen or have been brought to the attention of the ministry by both the Tenants Rights Action Coalition and the Rental Housing Council. We're looking at those and determining whether or not it might be possible to bring forth some amendments to clarify some issues. But I think the rewrite would have to await . . . . There are other, larger policy questions that would have to be taken into account in the rewrite; therefore I don't believe that the rewrite would be before us this sitting. I want to be quite candid about that with you, hon. member.

G. Plant: Does the ministry have any kind of time line for the completion of the project of updating and rewriting these things? And if there isn't such a time line, then the minister could tell me . . . . I ask the question about time lines partly to know if we can measure progress or not. If there's progress happening, clearly that's a good thing, and an artificial time line is not necessarily a good thing. But I guess the question really comes down to this: what is the likelihood that other things being equal, the minister and I will be having somewhat the same discussion a year from now?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's reasonably likely that we may be having the same discussion next year, but I want the hon. member to know that we are making changes, although we haven't been able to do the rewrite and present it to the Legislature. We continue to make changes with the guidelines, and other issues that are currently being considered continue, I think, to enhance and improve the Residential Tenancy Act.

One of the things with respect to the rewrite is that even if we are able to complete it next year, it's a question of legislative time. There are competing and contending demands, and that's why, in fact, we've adopted the approach that we should make the changes that we can, given all of the pressures, and do the rewrite whenever it can be done.

[ Page 12329 ]

[1600]

G. Plant: Community accountability programs are another initiative of, I think, this branch. My recollection is that something like a million dollars was set aside to provide a source of small-grant funding for community initiatives with the aim of setting in place community accountability programs similar in broad terms to the successful initiatives in Sparwood and Maple Ridge, I believe. As I understand it, this program is still rolling out, if you will; there is still money available.

It's part of the original million dollars set aside, and over the course of this year, there will presumably be grants made to communities for seed funding, to help them develop local accountability programs. Is that right?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

B. Penner: I've been contacted by people in the northeast part of the province -- by the president of the North Peace Justice Society, which, for three years now, has operated a community justice program. I'm told that that program has been a tremendous success in Fort St. John. In fact, they estimate they have saved the courts, police and others up to $525,000 over the course of the last three years. Not all of their success can be measured in monetary terms, but I think that is one indicator we can look to.

This organization, like other community justice programs, works by bringing together victims and offenders, families and friends under the guidance of a facilitator, who works with everyone to discuss the impact of the crime and to attempt to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution designed to repair the harm of the offence.

This program started before many others in British Columbia and did not receive the benefit of a startup grant, like the one in Maple Ridge or even in my community of Chilliwack, where there is a similar program now underway. The North Peace Justice Society has helped about 2,100 people since it started, and they claim a compliance rate of approximately 97 percent.

However, the program is in dire financial straits. They did receive a one-time grant last year from the municipality of Fort St. John, but apparently that funding has not necessarily been approved for this year. The question that I was asked by the president of the North Peace Justice Society, Mr. Bruce Lantz, is whether the provincial government, through the Attorney General ministry, has any plans to fund these community justice programs in an ongoing manner.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that my temptation is to say that we would help, but I'm constrained because of the lack of funding available within the ministry. This $1 million is only available for startup funds. These people were way ahead of us and started the program, and that's a wonderful thing. They have served many people and individuals and saved time and expense both to individuals and, more particularly, to the treasury, by saving court time, police time, and the like.

We would certainly be interested in speaking to them. I would certainly hope that someone from the ministry, as they're listening and watching, would speak to this particular group and see if we can assist them, perhaps, in starting alternative measures programs which are then funded through contractors as well as the Ministry for Children and Families, which has responsibility for youth. They might be able to assist them with some funding -- at least to carry them over for a certain period of time.

I'm not committing on behalf of the ministry -- I don't want the ministry to be throwing bricks at me -- because that's the responsibility of another minister. All I'm saying is that my ministry would be prepared to actually sit with them and determine how we can help them, given the constraints that we have fiscally. They're doing good work.

[1605]

B. Penner: I agree with the minister that it appears they have been doing good work. They claim to be a leader in Canada in this type of alternative measures program.

I wonder if the ministry has undertaken any type of study or review to determine what kind of financial benefit there is to community justice programs. To be more specific, is there any plan to determine how much of a payoff the taxpayers get for every dollar invested in community justice programs? If the stated goal is to reduce court backlogs and reduce the need of police to come to court to testify while receiving overtime pay, obviously that will result in financial savings.

I'm curious as to whether we could try to quantify those savings and come up with a cost-benefit analysis that determines what the appropriate amount of investment should be in community justice programs, as measured against the return on that investment by savings elsewhere in the system.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm certain that there is not just financial benefit but benefit to the communities in terms of reintegration of people that go through these programs. They're obviously then at peace with the community that they're part of, and the community is healthier and happier as a result of that.

We are trying to compile a report for the last one year to determine what has happened in that one year with respect to these programs. I don't think there has been a study done with respect to the savings both to the individuals and, more importantly, to the system of justice.

One of the things that I made very clear when we started this program and had discussions across the province was that I was leery of starting another layer of programs that are government-funded. In fact, we've been told by police officers and by people who have been involved in these programs that they work best if there is no funding coming to them -- if the impetus comes from the community and if we don't have people directly employed by the ministry or anyone else that is doing the work, in terms of the actual panels that deal with individuals that come before them.

Yes, you need money for an office and perhaps a coordinating function. Our view was that the communities could come together and perhaps fundraise to do that as part of being healthy communities. But at some point, maybe a year down the road, once we've been able to evaluate it and we have some more money, we may want to actually fund a small amount of core functions so that the volunteers and the like can be supported to do the work they do free of charge.

G. Plant: The corrections branch is what I hope to move to now.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's colleague from Richmond East was asking questions about the cost of the commissions. The Barrett commission cost $414,573. The total

[ Page 12330 ]

cost of the Workers Compensation Board commission, the Gill commission, was $6,642,023. The projection was slightly less than that, so they went over the projected expenditures by, I would say, a couple of hundred thousand dollars.

[1610]

G. Plant: In speaking of the projection having been slightly less, is the Attorney referring to the Workers Compensation Board or the Barrett commission?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Workers Compensation Board. That's the only information I have; that's the only commission that I have that information on.

G. Plant: I have some questions on the corrections branch now. I suspect that they are questions where staff are going to be helpful.

First, I am going to simply ask the Attorney General to outline what the drug interdiction programs are in provincial corrections facilities. This is in the aftermath of the public controversy around the program known as IPSO. I have had discussions with the minister's officials about some of the details of current initiatives. If the minister is able to provide some explanation or exposition of those matters, I would like to hear it.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member is perhaps interested in sort of determining what we have put in place subsequent to the Stewart review. Let me just say first, generally, that elements of the drug interdiction strategy obviously include the use of ion scanners, an additional drug dog, sharing of criminal intelligence with police, and changes to the inmate visiting areas and procedures.

The information with respect to the review and the implementation of those recommendations . . . . I understand that the following action has been taken, and here's a list that I've been given. In consultation with the police and federal corrections, a new drug interdiction strategy has been implemented. Protocol agreements have been developed with the RCMP, Vancouver police and Saanich police to assist with information-sharing and the investigation of illegal drug activity. An information exchange through a linked computer-based program is being established between correctional centres and local police agencies.

Two ion scanners used to detect and identify trace amounts of illegal drugs have been leased and tested at both Fraser Regional and the Vancouver facilities. Amendments to the correctional centre rules and regulations are being developed to include urinalysis. Revisions are also being made to the policy and procedures used in correctional centres for drug interdiction, visit supervision and search and seizure. An additional drug-detecting dog, which I've referred to, and handler are in training and will be available by early June for use in lower mainland centres.

A senior branch official has been assigned responsibility for the implementation stage, which includes specialized training with other agencies, security improvements and new policies. The director of operations in each centre has been designated the local manager responsible for drug interdiction strategies.

And there are some other changes that have taken place. So the work has been underway; obviously it's not complete, but it's slow and steady.

[1615]

G. Plant: The question that occurs to me at this point, having been given that progress report, if you will, is: how will the ministry determine if it's achieving success? There was a problem in terms of illicit drug use within provincial correctional centres. There is undoubtedly still a problem. The initiatives that the minister has outlined are the ministry's response to the Stewart report, and the intention of those initiatives is clearly to deal with that problem and, hopefully, to ameliorate it.

Can the minister indicate whether there are specific success indicators attached to these initiatives, and if so, what they are? Or is this left hanging in a more general way, awaiting the possibility of review at some point down the line?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would assume that once the implementation was completed, the assistant deputy minister who was in charge would take a look and come and give me a full report. We will then set some goals in terms of determining whether or not the whole apparatus is functioning appropriately. If that means having someone else look at it to see what progress we've made and how we've changed and whether or not it's been effective, that's an option always available to ensure that we're doing the right thing.

We have someone in the ministry at arm's length from Corrections -- the investigation, inspection and standards office. Mr. Anderson heads that office, and he's done many investigations. He might play another role which he hasn't done so far in this respect. I might at some point -- a year down the road -- ask him to take a look at how it's functioning. Those are possibilities.

G. Robertson: Hon. Chair, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Robertson: With us today, all the way from the North Island, from Zeballos, we have Zeballos Elementary students from grades 4, 5 and 6. They're down here on a field trip and are going to be spending four days in Victoria. It's a real pleasure to have them down here today. Accompanying the students is their teacher Kathleen Woodley, Bill Heidrick, Debbie Hawkins, Elizabeth Hanson, Fidelia Haygupis and Debra Brown. I would ask the members to please make them welcome.

G. Plant: The Attorney General spoke about the possible options for identifying goals for the drug interdiction strategy that he has outlined. Well, let me just say this: it may be that the specific means by which the success of this initiative is to be assessed are not as yet identified. But then the more general question, I suppose, is: do we have the Attorney General's commitment to ensure that once the program is fully implemented, there will also be put in place some process for review and assessment and monitoring to ensure that the program does achieve whatever objectives are eventually set for it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

[1620]

[ Page 12331 ]

G. Plant: I want to ask a question about one specific fallout, if you will, from the IPSO story. On December 1, 1998, the TV program called "Fifth Estate" aired a documentary on Ron Leskun and the IPSO drug interdiction program at the Fraser Regional Correctional Centre. A corrections guard named Wayne Pasiecka appeared and stated -- and this is apparently from the transcript of the program:

"Staff decided they were going to have a little party off the grounds, and I attended that party. The staff were drinking, and all of a sudden they started passing drugs around. They say what staff do on their own time is their own business, and it shouldn't matter to anyone else what they do. I disagree with that because, as a correctional officer, you're a peace officer, and second of all, that's illegal. As a peace officer, if you know someone's breaking the law, it's your obligation to report it."

Later in the show, Mr. Pasiecka, who was supportive but not a member of the IPSO program, apparently stated this: "To be quite honest with you, I have more respect for the clients that I work with than I do for the staff that I work with." Apparently, very shortly after Mr. Pasiecka granted this interview, he was suspended without pay indefinitely by the corrections branch -- an unhappy story from a number of fronts.

Let me ask, first of all, the general question: does the Attorney General agree that a corrections officer who sees lawbreaking -- on or off the job -- by his colleagues should report that illegal activity to the appropriate authorities? In general terms, what is the Attorney General's sense of the obligation of a corrections officer who sees lawbreaking taking place on or off the job?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that it's a very clear and basic rule that if you are an employee and you see wrong being done or a law being violated, you do two things: (1) you report to your superiors that this is happening; and (2) if it's a criminal matter, you report it to the police. I think that if that happens, then appropriate actions could be taken.

G. Plant: That statement applies to corrections officers, as it would, presumably, to any other employee in the service of the Ministry of Attorney General?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Turning now to the specific instance of Mr. Pasiecka and the CBC "Fifth Estate" program, why was Mr. Pasiecka suspended? Was he terminated or simply suspended? What is the status of his employment at this point?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it's an appropriate practice for a minister of the Crown not to talk about personnel issues on the floor of the House -- or otherwise -- because I think those are personnel issues involving personnel matters and privacy issues. I'm reluctant to get into that line of questioning. I understand that the matter is still unresolved.

[1625]

G. Plant: Let me then move from the specific back into the general, just for one further question. This was an instance where someone -- apparently a corrections guard -- also spoke to the media about this issue. That is certainly how it has come to my attention. We talked a moment ago about the obligations that corrections officers would have if they saw lawbreaking -- or what they suspected to be lawbreaking -- in terms of reporting the matter to their superior and, in the appropriate case, to the authorities.

What is the policy of the Ministry of Attorney General with respect to employees of the ministry who speak to the media without express authorization to do so from an official in the ministry?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it's quite clear that what's appropriate in these circumstances is first and foremost for the employee to speak to his or her superiors so that the matter can be rectified. And then, obviously, there are other avenues for reviewing those approaches if the matter is not rectified. I think that in an area as sensitive and as difficult to manage as corrections, if employees did not act appropriately, there could be rather difficult consequences for others. And I think it's important that that be done. I don't think there's a specific code; I'm not aware of any. I think that's just the general practice. I think that's good practice.

G. Plant: The practice the minister refers to is a practice at least, I suppose, of caution around media statements. Is that what the minister meant?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, because that would mean that you would be talking about information that might be personal, private information relating to either other employees or inmates. I think it's appropriate that there be that caution, and there is that caution.

G. Plant: Moving to a different subject, the minister recalls that not that long ago this branch was responsible for youth corrections as well as adult corrections. That's no longer so. Youth corrections are now the responsibility of the Ministry for Children and Families. There were implications flowing out of that transition for probation officers who in many cases had responsibilities for adult probation, young offender probation and also responsibilities around custody reports and family matters.

[1630]

I don't intend to pursue the issue, which I think we've discussed before -- well, I guess it's a Ministry for Children and Families issue -- of whether the transition has worked in a way which makes good public policy sense. But when I look at what the corrections branch is responsible for, the issue of family justice services is still there.

It just occurs to me that a branch that is primarily responsible for corrections matters, whether that be in jails or prisons or transition programs or whatever, is a hard fit with the idea of family justice services, unless those are services that are exclusively around people who have been sentenced for criminal offences and so on.

I guess, just from an organizational perspective, the question is whether it makes sense, given that the Children and Families transition is taking place, to continue to have family justice services administer it as part of the corrections branch -- as opposed to, say, in the community justice branch or some other part of the ministry.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member makes a good point. I think, historically, it has developed the way it has. I think the ministry did consider, actually, transferring those matters to community justice. One of the reasons that wasn't done is because community justice doesn't have a provincewide

[ Page 12332 ]

structure in terms of management and the like,

whereas corrections does. It's far easier to provide and deliver services through the corrections network than with community justice, which doesn't have a network across the province.

G. Plant: I spoke earlier about the three different roles that the individuals who are probation officers might be fulfilling -- adult probation, youth probation and responsibilities around custody reports and so on.

My understanding is that one of the ways in which the transition and the change into Children and Families in respect of youth offender matters has resulted is that there are now, generally speaking, people who are adult probation officers, and that's all they do; people who are young offender probation officers, and that's all they do, although they do that for a different ministry; and people who have responsibilities only around family matters. But it may be that there are still places where there are probation officers discharging both the adult probation function and the family function.

Is that the case, or has the separation been complete?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the separation is now complete.

G. Plant: Presumably that creates the challenge of delivering the responsibilities associated with family custody and access reports and so on in rural areas. I assume you have the situation where there may be just one of these individuals in a community who's now responsible for a fairly large area of the province. If that assumption is right, can the minister indicate whether that's working or what the ministry's experience is with that new situation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously, when you have fewer bodies to provide services in as many locations as you did before, it does provide some challenges. Therefore I think the ministry does enter into contracting for services in some areas where they can't provide them directly. Those are difficult challenges, but the fact is that the separation is complete, and there's no going back. We've got to contend with limited resources and the need as it is.

[1635]

G. Plant: Just one last question. There's a new facility coming on stream in Port Coquitlam in the near future. The Vancouver jail project is, I think, nearly done. The Vancouver jail project -- I'm sorry if I'm not calling it the right thing -- will eventually create a secure facility that has the usual lockup for the night before bail hearing but will, as I understand it, also be responsible for housing provincial inmates or people who are the responsibility of the Ministry of Attorney General.

But my understanding is that both the Port Coquitlam facility and, if you will, the provincial side of the Vancouver jail are going to be -- or at least it's intended that they be -- exclusively used to house remand prisoners. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's true.

G. Plant: With the objective, hopefully, of reducing the remand inmate count in facilities like FRCC and other provincial secure custody facilities -- is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: That's with the further objective, as I understand it, of perhaps enhancing or helping to enhance the delivery of programs inside the secure custody facilities like FRCC, which, I gather, is made more of a challenge when the institution has a high percentage of remand inmates. So perhaps one consequence of this initiative, from the ministry's perspective, is that there'll be easier-to-deliver programs within institutions like Fraser Regional Correctional Centre than there are now.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that it's our hope and our intention.

G. Plant: I propose moving to public safety and regulatory services.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, until the officials come, I have this information. I understand there has been no change with respect to policy regarding impaired drivers and charges in terms of the Crown counsel policies. I would be happy if the hon. member wants to discuss that matter with the Assistant Deputy Attorney General. That's the information that has come to me from him.

G. Plant: Well, I appreciate the clarification. That, of course, relates to the criminal justice branch question we were asking earlier.

There are a number of issues I want to pursue under the heading of public safety and regulatory services, with the consequence, I suppose, that Mr. Stackhouse may be here for longer than Mr. Demers was. But I'm sure he's happy to hear that.

[1640]

Let me deal first with one or two narrower but not unimportant issues. This has to do with security programs, and there are two issues here. One is an issue around the uniforms of security guards and people in the security industry. There was a bit of a concern in the security industry late last year when there was . . . . It appeared that the ministry was going to be moving to implement some new regulations around security guard uniforms. It appeared that the ministry was going to be moving to implement those regulations on a fairly speedy time frame, a time frame that some people involved in the industry thought was not terribly sensitive to their particular concerns.

I don't propose here to debate the issue of the need for regulation. I understand that the ministry has a concern that there are some security guard companies where the uniform worn by employees is confused with the uniforms that are worn by police officers. So from the ministry's perspective, there is a need to make sure that it's easy to recognize security guards and to not confuse them with police officers. We'll take that policy objective for granted for the moment.

The fact is that the implementation of this kind of a regulation, if it happened in a way that did not respect the cost implications of changing uniforms for some small businesses and according to a timetable that was perhaps faster than it really needed to be, could be serious. We're talking about the potential for some serious harm, at least to some smaller outfits.

That is an issue that has been raised with the ministry. My understanding is that the ministry is now taking the position that the proposed new regulations will not be implemented until there has been a fuller and broader consultation with people in the industry and, hopefully, even some consensus

[ Page 12333 ]

within the industry as a whole around these issues of timing and cost. What I'm looking for is the Attorney General's commitment to ensure that these regulations, if implemented, are done so in a way which respects those concerns and is fair -- without, of course, compromising public safety.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Yes means that we have the Attorney General's commitment along the lines that I outlined?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, I understand that consultations are ongoing. I also understand the need to, firstly, bring in regulations upon due consultation and, secondly, to perhaps phase them in so that there is no undue cost to those that are involved.

G. Plant: So that being the minister's understanding, he supports that approach and will do what he can to ensure that all this happens with the minimum of unnecessary expense and hardship?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: The second issue, under the general heading of security programs, concerns armoured vehicles. Here the specific question relates to training with firearms for people who are in the armoured vehicle business. Again, I think this is an initiative of the director of security programs: to upgrade safety and training requirements in the part of this business that deals with armoured vehicles. But, again, this may be a situation where there is a need to ensure that the regulations that are brought into effect -- or the rules or the practices or the requirements -- are responsive to the particular conditions of participants throughout the industry.

[1645]

Let me give a specific example. It's one that was raised to me. There was the suggestion made that all employees in the armoured vehicle business would be required to take specialized training in the use of shotguns. But not all armoured vehicles are operated with shotguns. It seems unnecessary and impractical to impose a universal requirement that everyone in the armoured vehicle business has shotgun training if there are some people who don't have shotguns -- a small point, perhaps, but one of those things that, when you're on the receiving end of a letter from government, can sometimes get misinterpreted.

Again, my concern . . . . While I recognize the public policy interest in ensuring that security guards on armoured vehicles have adequate training, I want to have a sense from the Attorney General that whatever initiatives are going to be undertaken here will be responsive to and sensitive to the particular circumstances of the industry and won't impose unnecessary hardship or requirements.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct. If the individuals involved don't carry guns, there's no need for training.

G. Plant: I want to move to the issue of photo radar as it affects the operations of the public safety and regulatory branch, and my colleague from Chilliwack, I think, will have some questions on that subject.

B. Penner: At the outset, I'd like to acknowledge that we asked a number of detailed questions of the Attorney General by way of a letter from the official opposition some weeks ago, and on May 4, 1999, we received a reply to a range of questions. I thank the Attorney General and his staff for providing us with that information; that will shorten the need for exhaustive questioning here today. However, there are still a few questions that need to be asked.

On Monday of this week, many news agencies reported that the B.C. government was acquiring ten additional photo radar vans to be added to the current fleet of 30 vans. These vans are the vehicles which motorists see parked alongside B.C.'s busy highways and byways. Can the Attorney General tell us how much it will cost to acquire these vans and whether this purchase has been put to public tender?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the total cost of leasing is $50,000 a year for all of the ten vans. I understand from the staff that it was tendered; if I'm wrong on that, I will bring that information on Monday to rectify the answer that I've just given.

[1650]

B. Penner: Last year, during a debate on the Attorney General's estimates, we were told that 83 police officers were kept busy with a photo radar program, which at that time consisted of 30 vans. My question is: how many additional police officers will be required now that we have an expanded photo radar van fleet of 40 vehicles?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Seven more police officers.

B. Penner: Can the minister indicate what the cost will be for each additional police officer to operate the additional photo radar vans?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the total cost for the officers would be $560,000. Divide that by seven, and that's $80,000 each.

B. Penner: Does the Attorney General have any plans this year to replace the fully trained police officers that currently occupy the photo radar vans and take photos -- or monitor the process of taking photos -- of speeding vehicles? Does he have any plans to replace the fully trained police officers with enforcement officers?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That has been the intent all along. But I understand that the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police has some serious concerns about it. They believe that it is appropriate for police officers to do this, because this is law enforcement. I would leave the matter at that. I think there has been some desire in the past, on the part of the ministry, to make that change. The subject has been broached, and the decision at this time is to continue to utilize the police officers, as that is the opinion of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police.

B. Penner: With the addition of seven police officers this year for the expanded photo radar program, will the total number of police officers employed by the program now be 90 individuals? What will be the total number of police officers employed by the program once the fleet has expanded to 40 vehicles?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, 90.

[ Page 12334 ]

G. Plant: Am I correct, though, that there are also 20 municipal police officers who are, if you will, in addition to the RCMP officers that are assigned to the program? Or is that number that was just established the totality?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that's the total number. If there is a breakdown and the municipal police are involved, we'll bring that information and let it be known.

B. Penner: Does the Attorney General have an estimate of how much more revenue will be collected from photo radar this year due to the expansion in the number of vans taking pictures of speeding vehicles?

[1655]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I've answered this question, I think, many times -- both publicly, outside of this House, and here. I have said -- it's almost like a mantra for me -- that photo radar is not about money; it's about enforcing the law so that we don't have carnage on the roads in British Columbia. So far it has not made any net money. It has barely met its expenditures. I believe that that will be the case even with these ten vans. I have no projections of how many tickets they would issue; that has never been taken into account by me in dealing with these issues.

B. Penner: The minister is quite correct. A Vancouver Sun

article which I happened to clip, dated December 2, 1998, "Photo Radar Proves a Bust for Taxpayers," detailed the litany of cost overruns and other expenses related to the creation of the photo radar program here in British Columbia. In that same article, it was noted that it cost British Columbians $6.3 million a year in police enforcement to staff the vans used to photograph speeding vehicles. But this morning, during debate with my colleague the member for Richmond-Steveston, we learned that the projected costs this year on the enforcement side of photo radar will be in excess of $10 million. That's an increase of better than 50 percent over what was reported last year.

I wonder if the minister can confirm if in fact the operational cost of enforcement was $6.3 million last year or if the newspaper was incorrect in its report. If the newspaper was correct, I wonder if the Attorney General can explain to us why the enforcement costs have risen so dramatically, from $6.3 million last year to over $10 million this year.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm told by the assistant deputy minister that the cost last year was $9.6 million and that this year it will be $10.74 million.

B. Penner: In the past, I was told that an average of 25,000 photo radar tickets were issued per month across the province. However, according to information contained in a letter we received from the Attorney General on May 4, the number has apparently dropped to less than 18,000 tickets per month during the first three months of 1999. Based on my rudimentary mathematical skills, I've determined that that amounts to a decline of about 35 percent. Can the Attorney General explain this rather dramatic decrease in the number of photo radar tickets being issued this year?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's good news. People in British Columbia are paying attention, finally. They're not driving as fast on the roads; they are keeping within the speeding limits. We have fewer injuries, fewer crashes and fewer deaths in British Columbia. That's why you don't hear much about photo radar nowadays: because people know that this is an essential tool, not for making money but for saving lives, saving injuries and saving costs.

B. Penner: I believe that's another part of the minister's mantra -- that thing that we just heard. We had this debate last year -- the difference between correlation and causation -- and I don't intend to repeat all of that this year. But I just wish to confirm, if the minister can set us straight, that there is no other thing taking place in B.C. than that there are simply fewer vehicles being caught speeding -- and that accounts for the 35 percent decrease in photo radar tickets being issued. Or have the operations of photo radar been curtailed somewhat in the first three months of 1999?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In fact, it's even better news, if you look at the fact that the number of cars in British Columbia is going up every year -- because the number of people living in British Columbia has gone up every year; every month it's increasing -- and the enforcement has not been curtailed. If you look at all of that, then you come to the conclusion that photo radar is finally working the way it's supposed to.

[1700]

B. Penner: If I could try and extract a precise answer from the minister . . . . There has been no curtailment in the operational deployment of photo radar vans in British Columbia in the first three months, or . . . . I'm trying to think of some other explanation perhaps. Has the threshold been raised, or the tolerance been increased, on the speed limits registered by photo radar speeding equipment?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe there have been any changes in the threshold, and those changes are made by police as operational decisions. There has been no curtailment -- as I've been told by the assistant deputy minister -- of enforcement.

B. Penner: I agree with the minister that there has been a decline in the number of injuries and accidents in British Columbia. In fact, the last time the rate of injuries and accidents was this low was during the last recession, in 1982-83. That's according to ICBC and a detailed analysis they did of the accident and injury rate -- the decrease that took place in 1982.

I have a question now related to prosecutions of photo radar tickets that are disputed by motorists. It's my understanding that up until last year, photo radar prosecutions were handled by Crown counsel lawyers in a number of central locations. This meant that local Crown counsel offices didn't have to worry about assigning their staff lawyers to deal with an increased burden of contested photo radar tickets. To state it differently, the presence of photo radar cameras in communities across the province didn't distract the local prosecutors from more serious crimes.

However, I'm being told by local Crown counsel offices that they are now responsible for prosecuting photo radar tickets that arise in their communities. In most communities, additional prosecutors were not provided by the government in the past year, so the workload for individual prosecutors has increased. I wonder if the minister can confirm what appears to be a change in policy and perhaps explain the purpose of the change.

[ Page 12335 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that question would be better answered through the Assistant Deputy Attorney General responsible for the criminal justice branch, because I don't have information on this very issue right now. I think that initially, obviously, lawyers were required to deal with these issues because this was new. There may have been some test cases, and that's now no longer the case. We're functioning smoothly. These cases are not very difficult to prosecute. I'm prepared to have the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, who's responsible for Crown counsel, speak to the member and provide that information, since we have finished the estimates with respect to the criminal justice branch.

B. Penner: I'd appreciate confirmation from his deputy on that.

Moving to the question of intersection cameras, last year during budget estimates I asked the Attorney General about this. He said at that time, I believe, that a pilot project was underway in six different locations across British Columbia and that ultimately the hope was to have a total of 30 cameras purchased by the provincial government and used in a total of 120 selected locations. Can the Attorney General provide us with a status report on the intersection cameras?

[1705]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that we are still negotiating with the vendor of the technology for purchasing these cameras. There are some locations where the warning letters are underway right now. There are others that want to have us do that, and we're in the process of arranging all of that.

B. Penner: It seems to me that this program is a little bit behind schedule, if I remember what the Attorney General expressed last year. It's my recollection that he indicated a desire to have the program up and running by this point in 1999.

The minister is a little bit vague in his setting out of the details of the project. We have a number of cameras now that are being tested, presumably on a prototype basis. Has any decision been made by the government about which type of camera they wish to purchase and from which vendor? If that decision has been made, was that decision reached as a result of a competitive tendering process?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there are negotiations between ICBC and a potential vendor of the technology. We're involved in those discussions, but we're not carrying those discussions. The ministry doesn't carry those discussions. The technology is purchased by ICBC, and the discussions have not concluded at this time.

B. Penner: Does the minister have any target date in mind for when the program will be operational?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We're hoping that that will happen by, hopefully, mid-July or the end of July -- that it will be operational, maybe not necessarily fully, in terms of 30 cameras, but perhaps with fewer, if we can at least get that going. It will take time to expand.

This is obviously a law enforcement issue. I have said before that the law needs to be enforced right across the province in a uniform way. Obviously, we are speaking to the municipalities in that regard. Those 120 intersections have been identified in various localities right throughout the province. Those 30 cameras, if and when we do have them -- hopefully, this year -- will then rotate in those locations.

B. Penner: Has the Attorney General ministry budgeted any specific amount for the startup cost of the intersection camera program, and if so, how much is it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Those would be ICBC costs, not Ministry of Attorney General costs, because they would be purchasing the cameras and installing them. They're responsible for processing the tickets and the like. The matter is only dealt with by us indirectly, as part of the court services when the tickets come up and they're disputed.

B. Penner: Is the minister aware of what the startup costs will be?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that question would appropriately be addressed to the minister responsible for ICBC. I can give you, generally, some information about what I know. The initial cost of implementing the program would run to about $14 million. That would include purchasing, installing and the like. I think the exact cost of implementation and the annual cost of operation would be better addressed by the minister responsible for ICBC.

[1710]

B. Penner: I wonder if there has been any progress made in securing a revenue-sharing agreement with the various municipalities where the intersection cameras will be located. I remember that we discussed this issue last year at some length.

I recall that a number of municipalities were saying to the Attorney General: "You're not going to put those cameras in our community until we have a revenue-sharing agreement." The Attorney General's position last year -- as I reviewed the Hansard -- was: "We'll put the cameras in and then negotiate a revenue-sharing agreement." Various municipal politicians didn't feel comfortable with that approach, because they felt that once the cameras were in their communities, they would no longer have the leverage to negotiate an acceptable agreement with the province.

So I wonder if the minister can update us on where we're at in terms of securing a revenue-sharing agreement with the municipalities.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I may have misspoken, but I don't think that there was ever any intention to specifically say that the municipalities that allow photo radar cameras would get a cut of the photo radar fines. I think there was a general understanding that the municipalities would get a share of traffic fines, and that has been negotiated with them -- with the UBCM -- and announced. I believe it was announced in December of 1998 by the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I think, if I remember my figures correctly, the amount involved was about $13 million, and the amount of the $13 million that you would get would be based on policing costs. It wouldn't have any relation to where the tickets were issued and what you'd get based on the tickets being issued in your locality.

B. Penner: I anticipate that this will be my last question on this topic. Just to clarify, then, the minister does not anticipate any specific revenue-sharing agreement with municipalities for intersection cameras?

[ Page 12336 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: I did have another question which relates to the security programs division. I apologize in advance for the fact that I probably should have pursued this with the minister's staff.

I'm told that Justice Oppal recommended in his report that non-police personnel involved in providing security services to the public -- specifically, locksmiths -- be required to demonstrate an appropriate level of competence before obtaining or renewing a licence from the security programs division. I'm also told that the Attorney General -- and it may have been the current Attorney General's predecessor -- accepted this recommendation, and that the B.C. Association of Professional Locksmiths was appointed by the government to work as an industry liaison to establish a qualifying exam for all locksmiths.

Over the past couple of years or so I've certainly had correspondence around this issue, and while there is a public interest component here that relates to public safety and security, there is also an issue with respect to the impact of regulations like these -- training requirements, examinations and so on -- on people who oftentimes conduct their businesses as pretty small operators in small towns across British Columbia.

I guess the question is: where, if anywhere, are these particular reforms at, at this point? That is, what is the situation with respect to creating a standardized licensing procedure for locksmiths in B.C. at present?

[1715]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there are discussions ongoing between the ministry and the industry. I also understand that there isn't consensus amongst those involved in the industry, and that's why the discussions have taken a bit longer to conclude. The work is ongoing.

G. Plant: By that, does the Attorney General intend to suggest that there is forward movement, as opposed to the matter simply being stalled out there in limbo?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hopefully, forward movement.

G. Plant: The minister's staff have provided me with information about the protection order registry. The minister himself talked about the progress that's been made in terms of the volume of requests -- or the volume of applications for registration, I suppose -- that are being made and the progress in ensuring that there is no backlog -- or rather, that there is a rapid turnaround time for processing entries on this registry. I don't want to pursue the details of the way in which the registry works.

But I understand that on most days, the people who operate the registry are now able to provide same-day service -- that is, an order enters the registry the same day as it's brought to the attention of the registry. There are days, I am sure, where that is not possible, but presumably efforts are made, as required, to make sure that there is no accumulated backlog. That seems to me to be an achievement worth noting.

My question for the Attorney General is to secure his commitment that that level of service, if you will, is his continuing commitment for this service -- that is, that he is committed to ensuring that this registry will continue to provide same-day service for as long as the foreseeable future.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is the commitment, and we will continue to do work on that. Sometimes, despite best efforts, one doesn't succeed, but the aim is to continue to do what is being done and not let these orders accumulate and have a backlog. I just want to say for the member's interest and others' interest, that we now have 65,000 protection orders maintained in the registry, and the police agencies have 24-hour, seven-day-per-week access to those orders.

G. Plant: Well, I appreciate the Attorney General's commitment in respect of continuing to make the registry work on the basis that we've discussed.

I want to ask questions now about firearms registration. This is the province's responsibilities in respect of the imple