1984 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2981 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Bus accident. Ms. Sanford –– 2981

Rail service between Vancouver and Edmonton. Mr. Passarell –– 2981

Northeast coal. Mr. Lea –– 2981

Government mailings of Alcan publicity. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 2982

Public employers of B.C. Mr. Howard –– 2982

Tabling Documents –– 2983

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Finance estimates. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On vote 36: interest on the public debt –– 2983

Mr. Howard

Supply Act (No 3), 1983 (Bill 38) Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2983

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

On vote 9: minister's office –– 2986

Hon. Mr. Smith

Ms. Brown

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Passarell

Mrs. Wallace

Mrs. Dailly

TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1984

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the second member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and myself, I'd like to ask the members to

welcome our constituency secretaries Mrs. Dorris Mutch and Mrs. Thelma

Pankiw, who are with us this afternoon.

MR. PARKS: Seventy-five years ago, in 1909, 30 families

settled in what was then the Fraser Mills community and became known as

Maillardville. Being 75 years ago this year, there are a number of

anniversary events being celebrated, and we have in the precincts today

three members of the Société Maillardville Unie. I'd ask the House to

join me in a bienvenue to Messrs. Leon LeBrun, Jean Aussant, Jean Rieu

and Patrick Martin.

Oral Questions

BUS ACCIDENT

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. In view of the very serious concern of

everyone about the tragic bus accident which occurred yesterday on the

road to Mount Washington near Courtenay, I'm wondering if the minister

has decided to initiate a public inquiry into safety and safety

inspections on buses in British Columbia.

HON. A. FRASER: I have some details to report to the House on

this unfortunate accident yesterday. On January 30 at approximately

4:15 a ConMac Stages Ltd. bus carrying approximately 55 students aged

14 to 16 left the road while proceeding down the hill from Mount

Washington. According to the driver, Mr. K. A. Griffith, the bus lost

its brakes. An RCMP accident investigation team and the motor vehicle

inspector assigned to Courtenay have recovered the bus. A thorough

mechanical examination of all braking and emergency systems is

underway. Unfortunately, as the result of this incident one student was

killed and several injured. The bus was found in good condition when it

was last inspected on July 19, 1983. A more comprehensive report is

being prepared on the scene and will be forwarded as quickly as

possible.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his information with respect to this tragic accident.

The regional vehicle inspector for Vancouver Island, Mr. G. E.

Crocker, has stated that there has to be a backup braking system for

school buses in British Columbia. In view of the fact that this was not

a regular school bus but was in fact used to transport schoolchildren,

I'm wondering if the minister has considered extending the requirement

for a backup braking system to all buses in British Columbia.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of what the member is asking,

but I'm not so sure that doesn't exist in commercial buses as well as

school buses now.

RAIL SERVICE BETWEEN

VANCOUVER AND EDMONTON

MR. PASSARELL: I have a question for the Minister of

Transportation. Will the minister advise what representation has been

made by the provincial government with regard to restoring rail

passenger service between Vancouver and Edmonton?

HON. A. FRASER: The government of British Columbia has made

representation to Lloyd Axworthy, the Minister of Transport for Canada;

I cannot recall when, but I believe it was late last fall.

MR. PASSARELL: On a supplemental, in view of the importance

of public transportation to Expo 86, the world fair, is the minister

studying the use of B.C. Rail on the Kamloops-Jasper run to link the

Edmonton-Vancouver rail passenger service?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Member, would you ask me that question again? Did you say BCR?

MR. PASSARELL: B.C. Rail — between Kamloops and Jasper to link it with the Edmonton-Vancouver run.

HON. A. FRASER: B.C. Rail doesn't run in that area, Mr. Member.

MR. PASSARELL: Maybe the minister is a little confused. I'm

asking: if there is not an Edmonton-Vancouver run, are you thinking of

using the B.C. Rail line, the present Kamloops-Jasper route, to connect

Edmonton to Vancouver for the Expo 86 world fair?

HON. A. FRASER: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think this

should be directed to the minister responsible for BCR. But I'll

attempt to answer. The BCR already connects with the CNR at Prince

George.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development in regard to his duties for B.C. Coal — the

northeast coal project. I can't put it any other way than to say there

are rumours surrounding the northeast coal, both volume cuts and price

cuts. I'd like to ask the minister if he has made up his mind whether

he is going to make a presentation to the Legislature soon — I'm

talking about in a matter of days — explaining to us, and to the people

of British Columbia, where we are on northeast coal. Obviously everyone

wants it to be a success, but I think everyone also has concerns that

with the price cuts and volume cuts, there has to be a point where the

project becomes not viable.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we must have the question.

MR. LEA: The question is: does the minister intend, within

the next short while — say a week — to make some sort of report to this

Legislature on northeast coal, and on where the viability for that

project ends with volume and pricing cuts?

[ Page 2982 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's

question, I would have to say that I am not aware of the rumour he is

talking about. I realize there were a lot of rumours, both before the

contract was signed and during construction, a tremendous number of

rumours about northeast coal, most of them emanating, unfortunately,

from the benches of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I could tell the

House that northeast coal was brought in on

schedule and on budget.

Certainly on schedule, which is a great credit to all the workers in

this province who showed the rest of the world that indeed our labour

force could handle such a tremendous project in such a short time. I

officiated at the loading of the first shipload of coal on January 8.

The first trainload of coal, which was really bedding coal, moved from

the northeast coalfields to the port of Prince Rupert on November 1,

one month ahead of time. I'm not aware of any price cuts, nor of any

cutbacks in tonnages. As a matter of fact, the project is functioning.

As you understand, Mr. Member, any negotiations on price are between

the coal companies and the steel companies. They were the ones who

negotiated the contract in the first place, and they're responsible for

those negotiations. I can tell you that we will be getting our

royalties and that I have been assured by the Japanese steel industry

that there will be no cutbacks in tonnages, if that makes you feel

better. There's no rumour to start with, but I'll give you that

assurance. With regard to price negotiations, that's between the coal

companies and the steel industry. We'll get our money because of the

negotiations that took place before the project was started.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, long questions tend to elicit long

answers, and it is incumbent upon members to make both as brief as

possible in fairness to other members.

[2:15]

MR. LEA: This is one of those cases in point, Mr. Speaker, where often questions are more important than the answers.

I'd like to ask the minister another question. He has insisted in

this House, over the months and years, that all negotiations between

the coal companies and the Japanese are between them. I would like to

ask the minister then what he meant by his statement to the Financial Post

reported on January 16, 1984. The minister is quoted as saying: "I used

some levers I'm not prepared to make public. I had to tell them, if you

don't go now...." The sentence died in midstream. The minister can't

have it both ways. If he's out in the public telling them that he used

levers and the pressure of government to do things, he can't come in

here and tell us that he's not prepared to do it, because he's

admitting that he's done it in the past. What were the levers the

minister used which he says he hasn't used?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, prior to

recognizing the minister I would remind members of Beauchesne's fifth

edition, page 133, which says that reading telegrams, letters or

extracts from newspapers is an abuse of the rules of the House.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, there is a man representing a

great riding which has a great port, thanks to this government. I've

told him previously that I might support him in his leadership

campaign, but after listening to his question today I'm sorry I can't

do that, because he simply doesn't understand the difference between a

negotiated contract and the government's role in providing the

infrastructure for this program. He just doesn't understand it, so I'll

tell him again that the contracts to sell the coal and to deliver the

coal are between the coal companies and the Japanese steel industry.

Our negotiations with the Japanese government and the banking system in

Japan, with the multiplicity of other interests in Japan, in other

countries and in Ottawa, all the players we had to talk to in order to

put this great project together, were on the basis of what

infrastructure this province would provide. I had to tell the Japanese

that if they don't go now, that money for the infrastructure might not

be there. That's what I told them. It was very simple. I said: "Either

you go now, my friends, or you never go." You said I couldn't negotiate

with the Japanese. You stood in this Legislature and said: "That man

Phillips, he went to Japan, had a steam bath and came home clean."

Well, I'll tell you, my friend, I'm glad you smile, because your smile

reminds me of an Edsel car grill.

GOVERNMENT MAILING OF ALCAN PUBLICITY

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's impossible to top that.

Yesterday I was asked a question by the member for Skeena (Mr.

Howard). If I may paraphrase the Blues, the question was: Can the

minister explain why Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources had mailed

Alcan publicity through the government post office? This very urgent

matter was discussed with staff, and I now have an answer.

Apparently it is standard procedure in this government that when a

corporation or a body purporting to put forward a project decides to

bring that forward to the lead ministry, they bring for distribution to

all the other ministries of government, and all the other concerned

people in government, that one block of information which is

subsequently distributed by the lead ministry. When Alcan brought the

information forward on their Kemano Completion application, there were

59 copies of the press release in Alcan's mailbag. As I go through the

list, I see two of them that were misaddressed: one to Mr. Andrew

Jackson of the NDP caucus and another to Mr. John McInnis of the NDP

caucus. This oversight on behalf of Alcan caused all their Victoria

mail to be included in one bag. I think it was at the convenience of

the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to forward that

mail directly to your caucus, but, as Mr. Gaglardi used to say, we

apologize for the inconvenience. In this case I would apologize for the

convenience, because instead of sending the mail back to Alcan to have

them spend 32 cents to mail you that letter, we mailed it on their

behalf. I think it went from our pigeon-hole to your pigeon-hole.

However, the other 57 people who are in receipt of this press release

had it distributed in the normal manner. We'll take steps to ensure

that this convenience doesn't happen again.

PUBLIC EMPLOYERS OF B.C.

MR. HOWARD: By God, the minister is a subsidiary — an agent.

I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I think I

have the correct ministry. Up until now the government has been

assisting in funding an organization called the Public Employers of

British Columbia to the extent of something in excess of $100,000 a

year in the last few years. If the Ministry of Finance is not the

correct ministry, could you

[ Page

2983 ]

pass it on to the appropriate ministry? Would the government consider discontinuing

that payment, to save the taxpayers this amount in excess of $100,000 a year?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the question would be more

appropriately directed to the Provincial Secretary and Minister of

Government Services (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

MR. HOWARD: Could I redirect that question, if the minister

was listening, and ask the Provincial Secretary, inasmuch as he is the

appropriate minister: will you discontinue paying over $100,000 to the

Public Employers of British Columbia, in the interest of restraint?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, if I can ask that member for Skeena a question: why?

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to have a few moments to answer the

minister and show him the proper course that he should follow when

questions are directed to him, namely to provide the answer. This is a

period of restraint. I thought the minister would be overanxious to

save the taxpayers of this province more than $100,000 a year by

discontinuing the payments to this superfluous organization that simply

duplicates on the outside what the Ministry of Labour is doing on the

inside. Why pay for the same service twice?

HON. MR. CHABOT: There will be a coordination of those

statistics between the Public Employers and the Ministry of Labour.

That activity is in the process of being put in place at this time.

Hon. Mr. Gardom tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

Vote 34: minister's office, $172,432 — approved.

Vote 35: government financial support, $56,128,016 — approved.

On vote 36: interest on the public debt, $181 million.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could tell

us what amount of money has been paid in interest on the debt; what is

the total direct debt at this point; and whether included in the

interest figure of $181 million — or whatever has been paid — is the

difference between the amount of money received when treasury bills are

sold and the actual face value of them. Is that considered to be

interest?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, as is the case in other jurisdictions,

the interest that is paid on treasury bills is included in the calculation of

interest on the public debt. It would be most improper not to do so. With respect

to the interest, the most recent information that I can make available is on

page 10 of the second quarterly report, which was released several weeks after

the end of September.

Vote 36 approved.

Vote 37: provincial capital commission, $363,022 — approved.

Vote 38: Compensation Stabilization Program, $861,845 — approved.

Vote 39: contingencies, $95 million — approved.

Vote 40: financial transactions, $10 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 3), 1983

Hon. Mr. Curtis moved the following motion:

"That in addition to the amount authorized under Supply

Act No. 1, 1983, and Supply Act No. 2, 1983, from and out of the consolidated

revenue fund there may be paid and applied in the manner and at the times the

government may determine the sum of $672 million toward defraying the charges

and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 1984, being substantially one-twelfth of the total amount of the votes

of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, as laid before

the Legislative Assembly at the present session."

Motion approved.

Bill 38, Supply Act (No. 3), 1983, introduced and read a first time to be considered for second reading forthwith.

[2:30]

HON. MR. CURTIS: In moving that the bill be now read a second time, Mr. Speaker, a few remarks would be appropriate.

This supply bill is the third for the fiscal year 1983-84, the first

and second having been introduced on July 11, 1983, and October 21,

1983, when the Legislative Assembly authorized the value of

expenditures for nine months and one month respectively. The members

will note that the bill is in the general form of this and previous

years' interim supply bills. It requests a further one-twelfth of the

tabled estimates to provide for the ongoing expenditures of government.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, as required by

section 21 of the Financial

Administration Act, special warrants approved by the

Lieutenant-Governor to cover certain essential government expenditures

are included as part of this supply bill.

Schedule 1 of the bill lists

those special warrants approved for the 1983-84 fiscal year since the

last sitting.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would point out the obvious — that is, the

requirement for early passage of the supply bill in order to provide

for the timely and ongoing expenditures of the government for the

1983-84 fiscal year. I move second reading of this bill.

MR. STUPICH: I must at least say the minister is not lacking

in intestinal fortitude in asking for timely passage of this bill

before us, which will in total provide for interim supply for 11 months

of the year. There have been many firsts

[ Page 2984 ]

by this present Social Credit administration, and

there's no question but that this is another. One doesn't have to look

back in history to see that asking for interim supply for a period

totalling 11 months is brand-new for the province of British Columbia

and, I would suspect, for any province in the whole country. The

government cannot point a finger at anyone and say the blame is not

entirely their own — if you can call it blame, and I do. I do not

believe this is the orderly way to run the finances of the province.

I did not agree with the Social Credit campaign that was carried on

in 1975 when the NDP administration was accused of trying to spend

public money without having public authority. The phrase used at the

time was: "Not a dime without debate." We are now told that as long as

the Social Credit administration does it, it's quite proper, quite

reasonable and should not attract any surprise. Indeed, it should not

attract any public discussion; we should deal with this expeditiously

and get it out of the way in a hurry. We should approve expenditures

totalling, without adding up the figures, and taking into account that

we have dealt with the estimates of some six or seven ministries.... We

should say that the government should have the right to spend not one

dime without debate, but $6 billion, without any opportunity at all to

ask the ministers how they intend to spend this money.

January is over; there are only two months left in the fiscal

period. Some five-sixths of the money no doubt has been spent, but of

what money we don't know. Very soon there will be a quarterly report

bringing us up to the end of December. Once again, after the discussion

of the estimates of the Minister of Finance and after discussion of

this particular interim supply bill, we'll be told how much money was

spent, and how it was spent, and we'll be able to arrive at a better

guesstimate of just how much will be spent in total by the end of March.

It brings into question the whole process. Why do we go through this

business? Why are the ministers now coming forward one by one and

saying: "We're prepared to tell you how we're going to spend the money

that is being voted for us for the period April 1, 1983, to March 31,

1984," today being January, 31, 1984? Two-thirds of the ministers have

not yet stood in the House and told us anything at all about the way in

which they have been running their ministries. They have not given us

an opportunity to ask questions, to offer directions or to make

comments on what has been happening. And all of this has been a

deliberate decision by the government, not something that happened

accidentally.

There was an election that intervened, but most of B.C.'s budgets

have been passed well before May 5 — May 5, 1983, was election day.

There have been very few budgets in B.C. that have been postponed later

than May 5 of any year — the final vote on them. This year the

Legislature had not even been called into session. There was no

possibility of anyone asking any of the ministers what they intended to

do. As a matter of fact, we didn't know until July 7 the total amount

that the government intended to spend. "Not a dime without debate!"

It's certainly easy to recall that phrase now, and to recall that the

government chose in 1983 to wait until July 7 to give the people of the

province any indication at all of their plans, if indeed they had any

plans.

We don't intend to prolong this debate. There's no point. There's

really little point in prolonging anything that has happened in the

1983 session of the Legislature. There was really no point in a good

deal of the legislative program that the government introduced on July

7 with the budget that took up so much time, so much debate in the

House and so much debate out of the House, and that created so much

havoc in the province and attracted so much undesirable attention to

the province — as did the budget, as did the budget debate, as did the

legislative package. The whole thing was a complete disservice to the

people of the province, and we're adding insult to injury today by

saying, let's approve, for another month.... Of course we're going to

do that, we're going to vote for it. We're going to vote for the

necessary expenditures, not knowing what they are. Perhaps by the time

this 11th month is over each of the ministers will have had some

opportunity to stand. But I question, Mr. Speaker, whether the

ministers themselves will have much heart in telling us what they are

going to do, dating back some 11 months. And I question whether the

members of the opposition will have much heart in asking the ministers

individually, "What are you going to do?" starting in a period some 10

or 11 months ago.

The whole thing has been a farce. The way in which this government

has operated the finances of the province has been a farce. Everything

that they have done has certainly added nothing to the reputation of

the province of British Columbia. One can only hope that when the

electorate next has an opportunity, they'll decide that this government

has been in office too long and it's time for a change.

[2:45]

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to make just a few

brief comments on this interim supply bill before it is passed. I would

feel remiss if I did not take my place to make these comments, because

I think any government which shows the arrogance that the Social Credit

government of British Columbia has shown — not only arrogance but also

contempt for the role of the official opposition in their handling of

the finances of this province and in the way they proceed with

estimates in this House — is a government which should be condemned,

and that's why I've taken my place to express my concern.

After all, Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues have been elected by the

people in our respective constituencies to stand up here in this

Legislature and debate the passage of estimates. That right has been

torn away from us for the first time in the history of British

Columbia. We have not been given the opportunity, except that we've

been asked to debate after the fact. We have had no opportunity to

stand up and try to persuade the government, as is our rightful duty as

members of the opposition, to move in different directions in various

estimates, areas in which we may have felt the government spent too

much money or in which they have not spent enough. That right has been

taken away from us by this arrogant government. They're making a

mockery of our role as members of this official opposition, and I'm

standing here to protest it.

I know that the government is hoping that the average citizen and

member of the public out there is so concerned right now with economic

and other problems that this kind of thing to do with the passage of

estimates will mean nothing. Well, I am not up here on my feet knowing

that I'm going to gain any great honour, prestige or votes by

discussing this, but I feel I'd be remiss if I did not point out that I

have grave concern over any government which strips away from the

parliamentary opposition of this province their due right to examine

estimates. I intend continually to make known in

[ Page 2985 ]

this House my complete contempt for a government which would do this to us.

MRS. WALLACE: We're discussing second reading of Bill 38. Do

you know what the last piece of legislation we discussed in this House

was? Bill 37, naturally. Do you know what that was? Interim supply.

What a ridiculous mockery the government is making of this Legislature

to bring in an interim supply bill on October 21, adjourn the House

until January 31, and the first piece of legislation we see is another

interim supply bill. It's an utter contempt for the whole legislative

process and absolute negation of the democratic procedures that have

been set for many hundreds of years in the British parliamentary system.

"Not a dime without debate!" My, how things have changed over there!

Now it's have your dimes and debate them afterwards. Not just dimes, but

millions and billions of dollars. Then come into the Legislature and debate

them. You've always got the opposition over the barrel, because by the time

you bring it in, if we don't let it pass right away, then you're going

to say: "Well, we can't issue the old age pension cheques. We can't

issue the GAIN cheques. We can't issue the payroll cheques." We're

caught between a rock and a hard place. I have seen it happen too many times

in this House.

Let me serve warning to the Minister of Finance and the government.

When this bill is passed and the remaining estimates are discussed and

passed in this House, then let's get back into session. Let's prorogue,

let's reconvene, let's have a throne speech at a reasonable time and

let's have a budget so that we can discuss it before the fact, not

after the fact.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to reflect a little for the Minister of

Finance, who does indeed come from a municipal background. I think it's

useful for the minister seriously to consider that the provincial

government does set rules and regulations, through the Municipal Act

and through other various pieces of legislation, or what municipalities

do in terms of the time horizons as to when they must have their budget

finalized and when they have to be public information, and the various

checks and balances that are ensured by the provincial government.

Municipalities follow those time horizons when indeed those budgets

have to be put forward and, indeed, if they are not put forward and

finalized by May 15 of every year, there are serious consequences. The

point I make is that the senior government tries to set regulations and

rules for junior government, particularly for municipalities and school

boards, that they have to be responsible in their financial management

and that they must by law bring in a certain budget at a certain time.

Indeed, in the last session, we saw this government in its wisdom make

serious inroads into local government autonomy in many areas, but

particularly in financial matters. Yet we see this government

consistently not practising what it preaches, in terms of obeying

certain rules, regulations and traditions of bringing financial matters

and budgets and spending to this House on time. I think it is incumbent

upon this government to change that particular way of doing things.

They are late with their budgets; they bring in interim supply or

special warrants without the scrutiny of the opposition or of anybody

else in this province.

I close by saying that if local government carried out its financial

arrangements — and there are many on the other side who have been

involved in local government — and did the various things with the

books and juggled and disobeyed certain rules and time lines, those

councils would not last very long. I would dare to say that the

citizens of those municipalities would be up in arms over the kind of

abuse this government shows for traditional tabling of financial

documents and bringing in the correct budgets on time, and not delay

after delay. I hope this government will start to treat this House in a

serious fashion. We are all involved in the financial matters of this

province. There are traditions vis-à-vis budgets and spending habits,

and we have seen far too many dollars spent outside the scrutiny of

this House. It is not acceptable to the people of British Columbia, as

they expect our local government to be honest and candid and upfront in

their spending habits — and this government insists they are. I would

hope they would bring that philosophy and that kind of financial

accountability back into the province of British Columbia and back into

this House, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with

the last part of the remarks made by the member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mrs. Wallace) in terms of moving as quickly as this House chooses to

conclude this session, to have a throne speech for the new session and

have an early budget. I think that both sides want that.

Mr. Speaker, rarely have I been moved to anger in this chamber in

the not quite 12 years that I have been here, but I am moved to anger

when I hear statements which could be described as hypocritical. I do

not attribute hypocrisy to any member, but statements made could be

described as hypocritical when one recalls the hours and hours and

hours of debate which occupied this chamber last summer when we should

have been dealing with ministerial estimates and spending proposals for

1983-84. Mr. Speaker, Hansard shows the record. I don't need to recite it here today. Hansard

shows the hours and hours and hours that we spent on the Tobacco Tax

Amendment Act. Remember that one, Mr. Speaker — 15 to 17 hours

concerning the increase on tobacco tax? Another one was the Regulation

Act.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'll ignore the interjections. The member

knows full well, as a long-time member of this House, that if those

bills which were not controversial but which simply carried out a part

of government policy had been dealt with in an appropriate fashion, we

would have been in estimates in August. We would have been in estimates

in September. That is a hypocritical position taken this afternoon by

those sanctimonious members opposite.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 38; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

[ Page 2986 ]

Preamble approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report Bill 38 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee on Bill 38 reports the bill complete without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. CURTIS: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 38, Supply Act (No. 3), 1983, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 9: minister's office, $185,732.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make a few general

remarks only, in these estimates, and more detailed remarks in the

1984-85 estimates. I will just acknowledge very briefly that my first

year in this portfolio was a challenging year because of the necessity

of operating within a budget which had an increase of 5 percent in the

estimates this year at a time when the demands in the justice system

for those major elements of expenditure that this ministry covers were

pretty great.

This ministry basically covers police services, court services,

corrections and legal services of all kinds to government — civil and

criminal. The demands for all of those were certainly great during the

year, and the expenditure level was up 5 percent. To maintain those

services within that level created a considerable challenge — not a

challenge that was shirked but one which I think produced a number of

changes, economies, efficiencies and better ways of doing things than

we've done in the past. We were able to learn from that experience and

to continue with economies.

[3:00]

Some of the increased costs involved in police services.... I think

the members are probably aware that the RCMP as the provincial force is

governed by a national contract which was renegotiated recently, and

that under that contract the percentage the province pays escalates

each year and ultimately at the end of the contract rises to over 70

percent of costs. In addition to that there were increases right across

the board in salaries. The justice system is a heavily salaried

component, just as the health system is, and the RCMP contract had

salary increases which are negotiated nationally, not provincially.

Those services were, I think, maintained in a healthy condition during

the year with the slight increase in budget.

Court services also were maintained reasonably well despite the fact

that there have been increases in the business coming before the courts

— certainly before the civil courts, in the fields of bankruptcy and

foreclosure, and the number of small claims actions brought about by

the bad economy. This has created additional demands. I have nothing

but tribute for those who have worked in the system of court services

and continue to provide excellent performance for the public in the

light of increased demands.

In the field of corrections, there were also increases in the number

of prisoners in the system, and we tried to deal with those increases

by a number of approaches that would both be preventive and allow the

use of other options than just the option of putting prisoners in

cells: making better use of their time, having day release, work

programs and others which not only reduce the costs but, I think, are

probably better use of the time of the person serving a sentence.

In the field of legal services to government, on both the civil and

criminal sides, we had a fair degree of privatization take place during

this year. That privatization, I believe, will not impair the service

but will provide us with a more flexible mixture of service so that we

will have certain important work done by lawyers who are permanent

public servants and other work done by lawyers who represent us on

either a contract or on a case-by-case basis. On the criminal

prosecution side, for a number of years in the province — during the

decade of the mid-seventies through to the last year or two — we had

moved toward a system where the vast majority of criminal cases were

prosecuted at every level by permanent Crown prosecutors. The result of

that was that we built up a very good expertise of in-house Crown

counsel, many of them under 40, highly trained and experienced. The

system that we have started this year and are going to follow will

again be a mixed system where we will keep in the ranks of the public

service a number of these excellently trained prosecutors, but others

will work for us on contract and some will work for us on an ad hoc

system.

I happen to believe, Mr. Chairman, that the best system of criminal

justice is one which has a mixture of people prosecuting cases, not all

of whom are public servants but some of whom are in the private bar. I

think that if you have that, you always have within the private bar

people trained in the criminal law who are working for the Crown upon

occasion but who can also take cases for the defence and who can as a

result have a balanced point of view when they appear on a case on one

side or the other. This tends to not lead to the system that exists in

some other jurisdictions, particularly south of the line where you have

a whole establishment grow up, over a number of years, of district

attorney counsellors who are interested in their conviction rate, with

on the other side a whole system of public defenders interested in

representing their clients. You have a highly adversarial approach to

criminal law in these jurisdictions,

whereas traditionally under our

system and in Britain — and the system which operated in this province

for many years until the early seventies — you had lawyers working back

and forth for the Crown and the defence. I think that's a healthy,

balanced system.

The budget estimates this year have been even more remarkable, I

think, because of these increased demands that I mentioned, and because

of the major steps we took to deal

[ Page 2987 ]

with the financial end of the ministry. As I think

members are aware, the justice system in the province has really been

totally restructured in the last ten years. The development of a

provincial court system, the structuring and operating of a whole court

administration system, and the organizing and structuring of the

corrections program in the province, as well as the development of a

Crown counsel system and a highly professional civil law

section of

legal services, have all occurred during the past decade; also, the

B.C. coroners' service, the office of the fire commissioner and other

services have been added to that array in the past decade. We were able

to continue all these services, but with policy and managerial reviews

taking place to reassess the need for and extent of those services in a

time of declining financial resources. So the budget represented a

meeting of the objective to continue the needed service with the

reality of economic restraint and the need to improve the effectiveness

of delivering our services.

I should also mention in my opening remarks that the successful

operation of any justice system in this province depends to a very

large degree on a number of people who are volunteers who work for

community groups or who are associated with community groups and

agencies who support, cooperate with and make an important contribution

to justice programs. I have a firm belief that individual citizens in

their communities have responsibilities to support and sustain justice

and public safety programs. This year we were able to maintain

resources, to make them available to those agencies which provide

important services and to agencies that mobilize and encourage the

involvement of citizens in the maintenance of the justice system. So

often, I think, in the social service field in the past ten years we

have come to look upon many of the tasks as being ones that can only be

performed by permanent salaried personnel or by part-time salaried

personnel, and we have overlooked the tremendous energy out there that

can be tapped and well coordinated by salaried people. There are those

who are prepared to devote their time to and put a great deal of energy

into the justice field.

I should, I think, pay tribute to our provincial police force and to

our municipal police forces in this province. The RCMP, which is under

the responsibility of my ministry, performs the services of a

provincial force on a contract basis for the province and, of course,

as you know, for a number of municipalities. I believe that we've been

exceptionally well served by the policing community in this province in

the years past and in the year that's just about gone by.

We will continue strong support to improving policing in this

province. We will also expect a great deal in terms of efficiency and

diligent management, which I think we are getting. As a matter of

priority in the policing field, we will continue to make it a major

thrust of the police to enforce the law of impaired driving and all

offences related to drinking and driving, and to try to reduce the

number of serious traffic accidents. In this regard, in the past year

we were able to proclaim the sections of the Motor Vehicle Act which

provided for compulsory blood-testing. In cooperation with my colleague

the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), we have

instituted a number of special programs to try to enforce traffic

safety at major holiday times.

I think that as a province, though, both through the police and the

community, we have to put increased emphasis on crime prevention and

make sure that that is an integral component of the responsibilities of

a police officer. Community-based crime prevention activities are

essential as resources available to both the province and to

municipalities are reduced and the demands on the criminal justice

system are increased. Accordingly, also, I pay tribute to those who

have taken the step of becoming involved in our auxiliary policing

programs, which are so successful, and can be an important link to

regular policing activity and assist our regular police in the field of

crime prevention. I support that program just as I support the program

on the fire side, which is so vital: that is, the work of the many

volunteer fire departments in this province who make the activities of

the permanent firefighters easier and provide excellent coverage to a

number of communities that cannot afford the complement of a permanent

firefighting force. It is our responsibility, I think, to ensure that

there is training, both to police and firemen, volunteer firemen and

auxiliary policemen, and that they receive proper training through the

Justice Institute and other programs.

The criminal law administration under this ministry is, to a large

degree, responsive to the Criminal Code of Canada, which, as all

members know, is a federal statute. I have tried to play a vigorous

role in making a number of direct representations to the federal

Minister of Justice and Solicitor-General as to the types of changes

and the emphasis that might be placed on Criminal Code offences. I know

that a number of amendments to the Criminal Code are going to be

introduced into Parliament in Ottawa within the next several weeks, and

I await those with a great deal of interest. I hope they will meet some

of the needs of people involved in policing and law enforcement in this

province.

In the last five years we have made a number of major strides in the

field of corrections. We have replaced outmoded and unsafe correctional

facilities with some new facilities. The two that I would specifically

mention are the Brannan Lake correctional centre and the new Vancouver

Pretrial Service Centre on Main Street, which are major initiatives and

have been very successfully received in operation. We're now proceeding

to renovate the Vancouver Island Regional Correctional Centre — more

affectionately known as "Wilkie" — which should be completed in several

years, transforming that from its previous state of antiquated

disrepair into a modern correctional facility.

We will also, during the course of this year, be reviewing our court

services operation throughout the province to do more streamlining of

that and more rationalization of existing facilities and locations, so

that we can give better service and meet the increased demands of the

system in an efficient, cost-effective way.

[3:15]

Before I sit down I would like to pay tribute to the recently

retired deputy minister, Richard Vogel, who left the post of Deputy

Attorney-General on September 1 and has now returned to private

practice in Vancouver and has accepted a post as a senior partner with

a major Vancouver law firm. He was one of a special breed of public

servants in British Columbia, like his predecessor. He came from the

private bar to Victoria and did a stint as a deputy minister. He left a

major practice, gave up his private sector work and came here and made

a contribution and then went back. I think it is a very healthy

approach to have people from private life who come and enter government

service, stay for a

[ Page 2988 ]

period, make a contribution and return. I acknowledge his contributions to public life in British Columbia.

I am also happy today to introduce formally to the House my new

deputy minister, Mr. Ted Hughes. Ted Hughes comes to us with a very

special background, in that he served as a judge in Saskatchewan. He

was a judge of the district and superior court, and when he last sat on

the bench in Saskatchewan he was a senior superior court judge in that

province. He moved to Victoria and came to work for the Ministry of the

Attorney-General about 1980. During the three years or more that he was

with this ministry he developed a reputation for being a very competent

person who could solve problems, both within the ministry and across

ministry lines, as a person who was consulted by people in all branches

of government. He gave a great deal of expertise in the field of native

and ombudsman matters, administrative law and various tribunals, and he

solved a number of very tricky problems. He is a man of a good deal of

maturity and patience and brings a wealth of experience to the job. I

acknowledge him and I'm delighted that he's here.

I should introduce also the assistant deputy minister, finance side,

Frank Rhodes, who is on my right, who served in the capacity of acting

deputy minister for nearly six months, when he worked far beyond the

call of duty and worked 17-hour days without complaint. He has a vast

knowledge of this ministry. Behind me is the deputy minister,

corrections side, Bernard Robinson, who is one of the most

distinguished experts in the field of corrections in Canada. I found

out he was well-regarded across the country, a very sophisticated and

modern expert in the field of corrections and a good administrator. I

have been delighted to work with these gentlemen and also with my

excellent associate deputy minister on the criminal justice side, Mr.

Alan Filmer, a very distinguished counsel who helped me greatly during

the last six months. I think with those remarks, I'll step down and

respond to matters from my critic on the other side.

MS. BROWN: After the irrational, uncontrolled outburst of the

previous minister just before he left the room, it was a bit of a

relief to hear the soft and gentle voice of the Attorney-General. But

as he proceeded, I began to understand and to feel a great sympathy for

the students who have been subject to his lectures over the years,

because surely he has to be the most boring speaker ever to speak on

the floor of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Personal reflections are quite unparliamentary.

MS. BROWN: That was not a reflection but merely a statement

of fact, Mr. Chairman. I want to extend my sympathy to the new Deputy

Attorney-General Mr. Hughes, and to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Filmer and Mr.

Rhodes, and hope that he doesn't make too many speeches to them but in

fact spends more of his time listening than talking. It seemed for a

while there that he was going to fall asleep in the middle of what he

was saying. However, the content was what kept me awake, because the

tone didn't.

I want to congratulate the minister because he said this is his

first year, and, as I say, I sympathize with the fact that it's his

first year as Attorney-General. I realize that it would explain some of

the mistakes that he has made in this ministry during his brief tenure

in that position. This is my first year, too, as a matter of fact. It's

been less than a year since I was critic of this particular ministry,

and it has been a learning experience because I have come to it without

a legal background, which was deliberate on the part of my caucus. It

was the feeling that maybe it was time that the ministry were looked at

and perceived through the eyes of someone who was the recipient of the

services of the ministry — and even the victim, really — rather than

through the eyes of another legal person. I know it has been the

tradition over the years for Attorneys-General and their critics to be

legal experts, though that's not necessarily true in every single

jurisdiction. I know there have been exceptions to that. So I bring a

different perspective to this particular role, and certainly a lot of

learning has to be done.

In that regard I want to say that I have appealed to various people

in the ministry by mail and through visits, and I have asked for their

help and their assistance. It has been very graciously given. I really

have received a number of letters in response saying whenever I needed

any assistance, by all means to contact them. On the occasions when I

have, this assistance has been very graciously given. I have also taken

the opportunity to visit — although not as often as I would like to do

— some of the correctional institutions and the community groups and

other areas, and I intend to do a lot more before I am through.

I want to deal with a number of specific issues. Maybe if I gave the

minister an indication of what I am going to touch on, he could start

preparing himself to deal with them. I'm going to look at legal aid,

which is very controversial in terms of what has been happening to that

particular area, and ask some questions about it. I'm also going to

look at the field of corrections, concentrating more on what is

happening to the women in the system at this time, because I have had

the opportunity to visit the women's units and some of the youth

institutions, but I haven't been to the men's unit yet. So I won't have

quite so many questions dealing with the men's unit until the estimates

are up again in the future when I've had a chance to visit these

institutions. I also want to look at the whole area of special projects

and the groups that are a little nervous about what is happening to

funding in terms of the work that they have been doing. I want to look

at the whole question of the enforcement of maintenance orders, which,

as the minister knows, was not touched at the federal level under the

new divorce act which is now being debated in the federal House. I also

visited the film classification office and talked a little bit about

what's going to happen in terms of pornography and whether there's

going to be any extension of their jurisdiction in that area. My

colleagues will deal with other areas, but those are specifically the

areas I'm going to be touching on.

I want to express some regret, Mr. Chairman....

Maybe I'm quite incorrect about this, so I'll put it as a question

first. In view of the fact that the minister has just struck a

commission to listen to statements and to accept submissions and briefs

from the community at large about the delivery of legal services in the

province, can the minister tell me whether it is his intention to

continue funding the Legal Services Commission right up to the maximum

they need until at least this particular commission has tabled its

report and we have had an opportunity to scrutinize it and to debate it

in this House? I know that some special warrants went through to pick

up the extra costs which accrued to Legal Services as a result of the

decision brought down on the Mountain case. I also know — the minister

has said this publicly, and I regret that he has made that decision —

that

[ Page 2989 ]

there are going to be amendments, or at least one

amendment, to the Legal Services Society Act to somehow circumvent that

particular decision. However, would it be possible for that amendment

to wait until this legal services task force has completed its travels

around the province and listened to the submissions made to it? I look

forward to making a submission to it too; I'm not sure whether that's

going to be permitted or not but I'm certainly going to apply to make a

submission to it. Can it wait until they've tabled their report, giving

us an opportunity to discuss it, before amending that particular piece

of legislation and putting the Legal Services Society in a compromising

situation where it will find itself unable to do as good a job for the

community at large as it needs to do?

The minister stated — and certainly seems to be aware of the fact —

that the need for the services of the Legal Services Society is

increasing, not decreasing, as a result of the economic times, of some

of the policies of this government. A number of reasons. There seem to

be more and more people needing the services of that particular branch

of his department. It seems to me that to strike a commission, and also

to be almost on the edge of receiving the report from the federal

commission which has been looking at the whole delivery of services at

that level.... To decide at this time to amend the legislation so as to

circumscribe the commission in performing its task effectively is a

little irresponsible. I hope that's not an unparliamentary comment,

because that's not what I'm intending. What I really am trying to

suggest to the minister is that if he's willing to listen, he should at

least listen first and then decide, after having heard all of the

arguments pro and con, whether he is in fact going to need this

amendment or not and, if he decides that an amendment is needed, the

nature of the amendment. For him to decide to introduce the amendment

before the commission completes its task is to render the commission

quite impotent and to make its job a mockery. So I want the minister to

respond and explain whether he's willing to do that or not.

[3:30]

The minister has said a number of times publicly that he has some

concerns about legal aid being extended to people.... I don't want to

misquote him so I should use one of his own quotes and be as accurate

as I possibly can; I may not always achieve it, but that's my goal.

Aside from saying that first offenders should be a priority, he has

been known to say that he doesn't see this as a right which should be

extended to people who have already disobeyed the law and have prior

convictions. But as I've said, it's important to me that I use the

exact words of the minister. I can't find them, so I'll suggest instead

that if he has not yet seen the editorial in the Vancouver Sun of January 18, I'll read just a small

section of it.

He says: "Attorney-General Brian Smith should take care lest his

plan to amend the Legal Services Society Act does not create two

standards of justice in British Columbia — one for the rich and one for

the poor. Mr. Smith says all he wants is to free the Legal Services

Society from legal constraints and allow it to 'set its priorities' for

entitlement to legal aid. But if the government reduces the society's

budget from the amount it needs to provide the services now outlined in

the act, that can have only one result: fewer people will qualify for

help." That concern has been voiced by the executive director and a

number of the board members of the Legal Services Society, and

certainly by individuals as well. That is the reason why, although they

have tried to fit into the budget restrictions....

First of all, the Legal Services Society welcomes the $500,000 to

cover the additional November and December costs which they had to

face. But they would like to get two commitments from the minister. One

is that the $250,000 a month will continue until the end of the fiscal

year at least — that is, to March 31. The second commitment is that the

amendment to the act will not be drafted until the completion of the

hearings of his committee.

Would the minister like to respond to that particular section?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the task force on legal aid is

quite separate from the sort of change that I discussed, which was

contemplated for the Legal Services Society Act and which would be

debated at another time. The change to the Legal Services Society Act

was an enabling change to give the society the power to set its own

priorities. Sometime last year the society, in order to meet its

budgets for 1983-84, did set some priorities. Included in those

priorities was a decision that they would not be providing legal aid

for most

summary conviction offences: that is, impaired driving and a

range of other offences that are dealt with in a

summary way, not an

indictable way, and are therefore less serious. Ultimately, as a result

of that decision, there was a challenge in the courts in a case called

Mountain, in which the courts decided that under the Legal Services

Society Act, as it now is in

section 3(2), the society wasn't free to

make those sorts of decisions, that they couldn't set those sorts of

priorities, that they had to follow the minimum service provisions of

section 3(2). In all cases they had to give a qualifying defendant, in

any criminal proceeding, legal aid if that proceeding could lead to his

imprisonment — not that it would, not that it might, but even if it

hypothetically could, he had to receive a defence provided by legal

aid. They made the decision that they were going to exclude the

summary

conviction category of offenders, except in those cases where it was

clearly indicated that if this person was convicted they would go to

jail. The Mountain case made it impossible.

So I have simply said that what I am going to do is introduce some

amendments which will make

section 3 provide discretion to the society

to set whatever guidelines they wish for service, bearing in mind some

general criteria but not forcing them to provide legal aid for this or

that category. Certainly the amendment will not tell them that they

have to not provide legal aid for someone, or that they have to

eliminate someone, or that there is some particular offence that they

shouldn't cover. It will be entirely up to them as to how they set

their guidelines, and it will make them free during this year to make

their own decisions while they and I await the report of the task force

on legal services and the report that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds

mentioned as being prepared for the federal government, which will also

be of assistance in dealing with legal aid on a long-term basis.

This task force has a pretty broad and general mandate, because it's

to look into the nature, range and priority of legal services which

ought properly to be deemed essential and provided at public expense.

It's also to look into the appropriate eligibility requirements for

recipients and the method of delivery of legal services and the

appropriate alternatives for the funding of these services. So it's got

a good, broad mandate to make recommendations which will assist not just

[ Page 2990 ]

in the short term but also in the long run. If the

member wishes to make a representation to that task force, that would

be welcomed, the same as any members of this House are welcome to make

representations. It's not going to be a task force that stays in

downtown Vancouver, either. It's going to get around the province and

hold some meetings in other communities. There will be ample

opportunity for anyone in those communities to come forward and present

briefs or to make oral submissions. There is a pretty well-balanced

group of people on that task force, many of whom have already worked in

the legal aid field and have run legal aid programs or have been

involved in legal aid. So I welcome the member's submission to that

task force, and I can assure her that there is no intention to make an

amendment which will set different criteria or will direct the Legal

Services Society to decide that any group or any class of offender

should or shouldn't have legal aid. But I have to recognize that there

is a limited amount of money in the system for legal aid, and that it

is not possible for me just to put my head in the sand and say that

everyone who comes forward and qualifies on a means basis for legal aid

shall have legal aid for every offence regardless of whether or not we

have overruns. There hasn't been that sort of money this year, and

there won't be that sort of money next year, I dare say.

It's my responsibility to encourage bodies like the Legal Services

Society, which is independent of government — half the members are

selected by government and half are selected by the Law Society — to

set their own priorities. That's what the amendment would do. It would

not tell them what to do but would allow them to set their own

priorities. I don't see that coming into conflict in any way with the

task force, because the task force will, I hope, suggest to us what the

long-term priorities should be. The society can respond to that, and

the government can respond to that. It will not be interfering with the

duties of the task force. The two will meld together.

MS. BROWN: The minister ends up contradicting himself. He

starts out by saying that the task force on legal services is quite

different from legal aid. Legal aid is provided by the Legal Services

Society. You can't have a task force on legal services and say that

it's quite different and separate from the delivery of legal aid. They

are one and the same. One of the things the Legal Services Society does

is to provide legal aid. This euphemism about allowing them to

establish their own criteria.... The Legal Services Society is quite

happy with the criteria set down. The problem they are having is that

their funding is not sufficient for them to do the job that they want

to do. That isn't going to change unless there is more funding. To say

that we're now going to amend the act so that they can establish their

own criteria is nonsense. They are as much upset as anyone else about

the fact that they really have been squeezed as a direct result of the

budgets that they submit to the government not being respected. They

don't get the kind of income that they need to do the job they must do

at a time when there is more pressure on their services than ever

before.

The minister establishes a task force and says to it, "Now I want

you to travel around the province and look at the nature and range and

priorities of legal services," and at the same time introduces an

amendment to the act which says that they don't have to do this;

therefore a person who is not served can no longer take you to court

and have the courts bring down a decision, as happened in the Mountain

case. It is euphemistic legalese jargon. The Legal Services Society did

not come to the Attorney-General and say: "Our hands are tied because

we cannot establish criteria." The Legal Services Society went to the

Attorney-General and said: "Our hands are tied because our budget is

insufficient."

As a matter of fact, the decision brought down in the Mountain case

was not even simply a case of "you have to obey the law." The decision

was quite critical of the Attorney-General's ministry and of the

government in general, and issued a reprimand. For the Attorney-General

to decide to deal with that by amending the legislation is going

against the spirit of the act, quite frankly. But then in the next

breath to establish a task force and give it this job to do, to decide

the appropriate eligibility requirement for recipients of publicly

funded legal services.... What if this task force decides to hang on to

the criteria they have? What happens then?

The third task placed before them is to recommend the method of

delivery of legal services. What if the recommended delivery of

services expands on what the Legal Services Society now has and is in

fact more costly to the government? I accept it when the minister says

that there are only so many dollars to go around and he regrets, most

profoundly, that he is unable to fund the Legal Services Society to the

extent that they should be funded so that they can meet the challenge

which they're facing during these tough economic times when more and

more people than ever before are eligible for legal services, for legal

aid, and more and more people than ever before need it. All of the

support services that the government used to have to deal with disputes

are being wiped out. Landlord and tenant disputes are now going to go

before the courts. More and more human rights disputes are now going to

go before the courts. That's what we are being told, at a time when the

family is breaking down under all kinds of economic pressures and other

crises. The criteria for legal services and legal aid to women

appearing before the courts have been tightened up too. They're not

going to get aid unless there is an incidence of violence involved or

it seems that the children are in some kind of physical or other

jeopardy.

At a time when the Legal Services Society should be in a position to

expand its services, it is being forced to curtail them, and the

minister is going to amend the act so that it can no longer act in a

protective way toward the victims who need the services of the Legal

Services Society. We get a euphemistic statement about permitting them

the freedom to establish their own criteria. That's not what they ask

for; they ask for more money.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm sure the member knows that there isn't

more money. Many worthy groups that deliver justice services and other

social services have asked for more money, but there isn't more money.

So the Legal Services Society itself, not at the suggestion of me or

the government, was to set some criteria this year to exclude from

legal aid people charged with

summary conviction offences. Mountain

said: "No, you can't do that under

section 3:2." I didn't read Mountain

as being critical of the government; I read it as saying that under the

act, as it's now drawn, this service has to be provided. We understand

that decision and we accept it on the basis of the existing law; and on

the basis of that decision I recommended to cabinet and obtained a

warrant to cover the additional funding following that decision which

arose from it — $500,000 for the months in calendar 1983 that the

society had to carry out the Mountain decision. If there are

[ Page 2991 ]

additional costs as well under that old act arising

out of Mountain, they will have to be covered. I accept that, but I

also have to face the fact that I don't have more money to put into

legal aid. Therefore in the short-term basis there has to be some

rationalization or some decision-making as to what the criteria are

going to be as to who is going to get it. There also have to be, and

the task force are charged with the job of trying to find, some

long-term recommendations, because it may be that there are some other

ways of funding legal aid than total funding by either government or

the Law Foundation. There may be some further system of trust accounts;

there may be a system of partial allocation of fines; there may be a

number of ways of getting some additional funding into legal aid. I

don't know that, and I know that the task force will pursue that.

[3:45]

There is also a dominion-provincial agreement which has to be

renewed; that is under negotiation. I believe the federal government

has to assume more responsibility in the field of legal aid,

particularly when they are introducing legislation such as the Young

Offenders Act, not yet proclaimed, which purports to provide counsel at

the order of a judge for any juvenile who comes before a court in this

country charged with a matter under the Young Offenders Act. If that is

going to require free legal aid counsel to be provided at provincial

expense, then the federal government is going to have to make more

provision for legal aid also, under a new agreement. Those are the

sorts of things that have to be looked at in the long run.

Also I can tell you, Madam Member, that while it may not please you

and may not please some members of the Law Society, the public of this

province is not clear that it wishes a system of total universal legal

aid in all criminal cases where a person can't afford a lawyer. I'm not

sure that the public of this province expects the state to provide

legal aid defences for people who repeatedly escape lawful custody,

people who repeatedly disobey a summons and are charged with a

summary

conviction offence. I'm not sure either that the public of this

province expect also that we're going to provide defences in drug

conspiracy cases for aliens. I'm not sure of that at all. These are the

sorts of things I hope will be addressed by the task force and I think

are properly in the realm of public discussion. I completely dissociate

myself from your point of view that everybody who needs it should get

it.

MS. BROWN: You've just yourself stated the arguments much

more succinctly than I could have for why you should not tamper with

that piece of legislation until you've had the report from your task

force. You've just argued my case for me very effectively. I didn't

know you had it in you, quite frankly, but you just did. For precisely

those reasons you just stated, you should not amend that piece of

legislation until this task force has reported back to you. You don't

know whether the public is prepared to pay for this, and you don't know

whether the public is prepared for that. You will know what the public

wants to pay for once that task force has heard what the public has to

say and brought their report in to you. At that point you can decide

whether that piece of legislation needs to be amended or not and in

what way. This is why it doesn't make any sense that you should go

ahead, not knowing what the public wants, and start tampering with the

legislation.

I agree with you that you haven't got as much money as you should

have. The other incompetents on your side have wasted quite a few

dollars that could have gone into the delivery of the justice system

and into improving it and maintaining it at the quality and level at

which you inherited it in 1975. I know you haven't got as much money to

spend on justice as you should have. But in terms of establishing

priorities, of deciding where the money should go, your task force,

which is very impressive.... There are a number of people whom you have

appointed to this task force — including the chairperson himself — who,

putting all their heads together, will come down with some

recommendations that will be worthy of your consideration. There's no

question about it. All I'm asking is whether you would postpone the

decision to amend the legislation until the task force has completed

its round of hearings and its report. Again, because of the

federal-provincial cost-sharing, we should wait, surely, until the

federal report is completed as well. You should have those two reports

on your desk. Use some of the brilliance that you have around you in

your department, put all those heads together and come up with some

ideas that will help the Legal Services Society, among others, to

really deliver a top-notch justice system in this province.

B.C. used to be the envy of Canada in terms of the nature of its

justice system. You're presiding over its erosion. I don't think that's

good enough. All I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister give me

a yes or no. Is he prepared to at least wait until those two reports

are completed before he starts tampering with that piece of legislation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I'll advise the committee at this

point that discussions about legislation do offend the rules of

anticipation. We are in Committee of Supply and we discuss the

administrative actions of the minister and of the department, and not

the requirement for legislation.

HON. MR. SMITH: You have said it. I was going to tell her

that she had better await the legislation and deal with it when it

comes, but I will certainly not give that undertaking.

MS. BROWN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I was not discussing

legislation. I was just trying to help the minister to make some

decisions prior to finding himself in a dilemma, but it's absolutely

clear that he's not prepared to do so.

My second question then, which he may like to respond to, is: does

the minister intend to continue meeting that $250,000 a month for the

Legal Services Society until the end of the fiscal year?

HON. MR. SMITH: Those cash requirements that continue to be brought about by Mountain will be met, yes.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to leave the matter of the

legal services committee at this time, and I guess I'm just going to

have to wait until the legislation is brought down in the hope that it

won't arrive until after the task force has tabled its report. I'll

talk about it at that time.

I want to talk a little about my visit to the film classification

branch and to do it in two parts. I want to start off by asking the

minister if he has read a survey prepared by the Public Interest

Research Group of British Columbia on the topic of.... I think there's

a legal term for it: "community standards." This has to do with

pornography and Red Hot Video and all that stuff. That's the area I'm

moving into now.

[ Page 2992 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm aware of it.

MS. BROWN: Have you got a copy of it?

HON. MR. SMITH: No.

MS. BROWN: I'd be very happy to share my copy of it. The

Public Interest Research Group, which operates out of the University of

Victoria and Simon Fraser University, conducted a survey in the summer

of 1983 into the whole question of community standards. Red Hot Video

was being prosecuted at the time and the whole question of community

standards was raised. The research had to do with the publicly

expressed concern of many citizens at the proliferation of sexually

explicit material as content for publicly available entertainment, the

rationale that the public acceptance of such material is indicated by

its marketability, the necessity of including the views of the female

half of the population in the setting of standards in our society, and

the interest of many community groups in the project and its result.

That's the background. The survey

summary said that the purpose of the

survey was to hear women's voices on the issue of sexually explicit

material promoted as entertainment. As women make up a statistically

insignificant number of the decisions to purchase pornographic

material, their opinion cannot be gauged by market dollars. Therefore

other methods, such as this survey, are needed to measure women's

opinions on the content of pornography and its place in human society.

I am doing this in conjunction with talking about the film

classification branch, because I think that at some point not the

present minister but the previous minister talked about the possibility

of extending the responsibility for classification to video. We haven't

heard anything from this particular minister about that, and so my

questions are going to be on whether he has in fact decided not to do

this, or if he has alternative ways in which we can deal with the

proliferation of pornographic material in the video field, or if not,

whether he has some other ideas.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The survey showed that women in the city of Vancouver — and most of

the women interviewed were in Vancouver — thoroughly rejected the

association of coercion with sexuality. Ninety-five percent of the

women interviewed rejected the combination of coercion and sexuality. I

think that's about the same position that the film classifier takes in

terms of movies in the theatre at this point. Ninety-seven percent of

them said that it was not acceptable to portray masochism and sadism,

declaring as unacceptable the use of physical violence against women as

sexual beings. And 94.5 percent of them think that substituting

realistic dummies to receive the violence and mutilation serves to make

the portrayal of violence against women as unacceptable as if it were

the real thing. They were not in support of that either. That is one of

the grey areas as far as the film classification branch is concerned —

whether, if these acts of violence coupled with sex are taking place

not with a real live person but with a dummy, that is acceptable or not.

[4:00]

I want to give their final statement: "The women said that they

would approve nudity as suitable content if it applied to both men and

women." I want to also say that most of the people answering this

survey were 40 and under. They said that if it could be shown that the

pornography market is geared to portraying sexual relations that are

not coercive, then it could be stated that such a market would reflect

the views of some 21 to 49 percent of the women under 40, depending on

the particular practice. However, until coercion is taken out of the

pornographic content and people are no longer treated as

one-dimensional characters, it can safely be concluded that the views

of the female half of the population are opposed to it — as I said, the

97, the 95 and the 94.5 percent figures.

In view of the fact that he has not read the surveys, my question to

the minister is: has his department conducted any similar kind of

investigation in terms of the acceptance of this material by women in

the community? We know what the acceptance level is in terms of men; I

know that surveys have been done on that. Secondly, has a decision been

made to make the film classification branch extend its jurisdiction and

responsibility to cover videotapes, the video market, whether for

public or home consumption?

HON. MR. SMITH: Certainly we've heard from a number of

community groups, not just in correspondence but in meeting with them.

Some excellent material has been prepared by community groups, as the

member knows. North Shore and Coquitlam come to mind. Quite a bit of

work has been done in the community in trying to develop community

standards, so we've got a fairly good basis upon which to build if we

decide to go to a system of classification of videos, which is actively

under study right now by the director of film classification. I have

asked him to prepare recommendations and also to put forward some

regulations that would allow us to get into this field. But I have been

reluctant to jump in and set up a large regulatory bureaucracy to deal

with a problem of this magnitude. Some of the control of course is

quite beyond control at the distribution level. It involves customs

control as well as the subversion of customs inspection, because many

of these videotapes enter the country by means of electronic

transmission and are not even smuggled in.

The problem is more than just one of preparing some kind of

classification and regulation. The first response to this problem, as

you know, was a prosecutorial one. With several major high-profile and

costly criminal prosecutions we meant business; we went after these

distributors and got convictions. Perhaps we didn't get tremendously

strong penalties in the recent one, but the first response was a

prosecution one. The police have been aware when it's brought to their

attention, dealing with the worst violations.

I understand what the member is putting to me from that survey,

because it's the sort of thing we've been getting directly from some of

the really well-informed community groups. Rather than galloping off

and saying that we're going to set up a regulatory system, I've been

trying to look at all aspects of it — the production of them, the

importation of them, inadequacies in the obscenity law in prosecuting

and what we can do, and whether we can be effective by getting into the

regulatory business. I would not like to hold out false aspirations for

a regulatory network if it wasn't going to be effective, but we really

haven't sat by and watched it go on. We're looking very seriously at

the preparation of a regulatory system, which we'll study, and then

probably we'll make those proposals public and see what the response

is. I've tried to take an approach on a number of fronts and not just

on the classification front.

[ Page 2993 ]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm really pleased to hear that the

minister is actually looking into this field, because he's been very

silent. That's one reason why I tried to raise this as early as

possible in his estimates, while he was still fresh and able to deal

with it. If he could somehow keep us informed as his study progresses

so that we know what is happening, it would be very useful to us.

As he knows, the federal government has a royal commission looking

at the whole area of pornography, which is going to be in Victoria on

April 2, just prior to its hearings in Vancouver. I wonder whether he's

going to be making any kind of presentation to that particular

commission; that would be interesting to know.

In the meantime, what are we to do about this material that is still

available in a number of video shops around the city? There is no

classification on them, so anyone can go in and rent them. There are

all kinds of suggestions about what material should be in special shops

and not as accessible. You probably saw the Vancouver Sun ,

which printed the results of the various surveys that were done on this

issue. In the meantime there really isn't anything, and that's my

concern. While he is studying what to do about importation, the

licensing laws and whether to have classification or not, nothing is

happening. What is happening in the meantime, or what can we do about

this in the meantime?

HON. MR. SMITH: There have been changes made in the Ontario regulations, as the member may have seen this week, and there was a piece in the Globe and Mail

earlier this week that dealt with that. My understanding is that that

dealt with public viewing and not private viewing. If you get into

private viewing.... I do not think that it is possible for us to

effectively regulate private viewing. We would have to regulate

distribution or attempt to regulate the distribution of these video

tapes before they get into the home. I must say that my preference is

not in favour of a regulatory scheme that is either costly or

extensive, but if we can find a way, under licensing, of preventing the

distributors that are now distributing these films.... I would have no

quarrel with what the member has been complaining of — the type of

film. I think there is general agreement as to what is absolutely

inappropriate in the public sale of video material, and that is

material that has to do with sex with children, brutality and violence

together with sex, and other forms of brutality that may not even be of

a sexual nature. I think that a classification system could be devised,

but the obscenity sections under the Criminal Code are so broad and so

vague now that prosecutions under them have always presented

difficulties and have not been easy to prosecute. I can remember in my

other life prosecuting several of those cases and the tremendous time

and costs that were entailed in trying to establish beyond a reasonable

doubt that a particular film offended public taste and was within the

prohibited

section of the Code.

I will be interested in that commission, hon. member, when it comes

here, and we will certainly make some representations to it, probably

on both of the issues that are before them.

MS. BROWN: They have completed prostitution already. You missed that.

You've only got pornography left.

HON. MR. SMITH: I guess I've made my views on prostitution

known to the minister and publicly. I really align myself with those

who say that the amendment that was proposed by the parliamentary

committee last year would have improved the situation greatly, if not

settled it finally, and would have provided some kind of framework to

allow the police to alleviate the situation that now prevails in

Vancouver and other cities.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to deal with

prostitution. I just want to complete the statements on pornography and

to talk about the film classification area.

I think we have to start with the public viewing. There isn't any

question about that. The tapes that are used for public viewing have to

be the number one priority. But as difficult as it is, I would hope

that we would be able to come up with some way of dealing with the

other tapes as well, if not by prohibiting them, at least making them

so difficult to be available to minors for example or to other people,

rather than just sitting on the shelves in the video shops. And heaven

knows I like watching video myself. I find it is much more pleasant to

sit around with your kids and watch a movie than to go downtown and

stand in the rain or something to get in. And when someone goes to pick

up two tapes for home viewing because you get two for $5 rather than

one for $3, or something, right there, easy to get, if that's what you

want, is this other material. It seems to me that that's something we

should be able to deal with. So maybe you could look at that.

The budget for film classification has been cut. They've had a

decrease, Mr. Chairman. At a time when they are already short-staffed,

I gather from my meeting with them that there is no inspector any more

on staff, that there are all of these films which they are classifying

and they have to rely on the honesty and the integrity of the theatres

to use the film as they show it to them. They have lost their

inspector. There is no one there any more, because they just haven't

got the budget for it. There has also been a decrease in their supplies

and services.

If I can put in a couple of good words for the film classification

branch, it seems to me that at a time when we are looking at the

possibility of expanding their responsibilities, we shouldn't be

cutting their budget even by one percent, or whatever it is, Mr.

Chairman. This is one of the areas that we should be looking at in

terms of either freezing it at its present level or at least giving

them a sufficient increase so that they can hire themselves an

inspector. They've worked out, of course, that the additional

responsibility for video tapes would mean that their budget would have

to go up considerably because they would need quite a few more people,

not just to sit and view all those tapes, which sounds like a

horrendous job to me, but also inspectors to go to the video stores to

see to it that the material being censored out is in fact not replaced

and shown that way.

I also want to speak to the minister about the Coquitlam resolution.

I'm very strongly in support of it. I wonder whether this isn't

something that we should encourage other municipalities to look at in

terms of their own existing bylaws. Would the minister just respond to

me about the film classification budget, because I promised them that I

would say a word or two about their decrease.

[4:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm at a bit of a loss to know what the

member is referring to by cuts in staff, because it appears that the

budget is virtually the same. I think it's $2,000 less this year than

last year: it's $182,827 this year, and it was

[ Page 2994 ]

$184,264 last year, so it's almost a $2,000

difference. The staff, I'm told, is constant. There are also, of

course, people who work under contract for that branch — projectionists

and people who assist with viewing. There's no doubt that if we were to

expand the classification or regulation into the video field, then we

would require more resources. I don't think there is any doubt about

that. I think it's just been kept constant. They're probably doing more

with the same.

MS. BROWN: They reported that they did have a cutback in

their budget. I'm quoting verbatim from my visit with them. They had to

deal with increases in salaries, so a lot of juggling went on. The end

result was that they ended up without an inspector at all. It says that

because of the restrictions on overtime, it is impossible for the staff

that's there to conduct proper theatre inspections, etc., and as a

result of that they have no way of knowing whether in fact theatres are

honouring the decisions made about the various showings of the film.

There is just one final thing: pay TV and whether in fact the classification concept can be used on pay TV at this time.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't think we have jurisdiction over pay

TV — I mean jurisdiction to regulate it and classify it; that's the

CRTC's jurisdiction. I'm still bothered by what you say about

inspection. My instructions are that that is not so, that inspection is

taking place. It may be that because of increases in salaries that they

are doing a little more with less, but I understand that the work is

being done. The cutback was virtually a freeze, which is true in so

many other branches and ministries. I have no doubt that that has

resulted in some cutbacks in the resources they have available. I met

with the director, and the reports I have received from what she does

and what they do is that they are doing a darned good job on a very

lean budget.

MS. BROWN: They are doing a very good job on a very lean budget.

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a couple of questions for the minister.

I don't want to prolong this. In the corrections area I'd like to

congratulate the minister for some of the new programs that his

department is going to. I see they're privatizing some of the juvenile

programs within the correction system. I'm wondering if he could tell

us if there are any plans over the next year to increase the

privatization into other areas in the corrections field?

HON. MR. SMITH: As you have alluded, hon. member, some

privatization has always been around: that is, nursing service, some of

the residential attendant centre programs. Even community service order

supervision has been delivered on contract. There will be, I think,

more of that. The food services in one institution are already

privatized, and we're examining an extension of that to other

institutions. Where it is possible to do more privatizing, and to do so

without offending — taking into account the collective agreement.... It

is our intention to do so where it makes good sense. I would think that

there is a range of areas where it would make good sense. So you can

expect, I think, some further extension of that: not to disregard the

collective agreement, but to try to promote more efficiency and

flexibility.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm very happy with what the minister is

saying. I'm just wondering if they've looked into probation and those

areas, and, with or without offending the agreement, if it would be a

better method if we turned some of the great numbers of people we do

have in this province now who are out on probation over to different

groups within the private sector. Not only could the government save

money, but we might experience a better result and a smaller rate of

recidivism.

HON. MR. SMITH: I can give you the same answer with probation

that I gave you on the others. I don't know that there's any intention

of turning the entire probation service into a contract service, but

food services and juvenile attendance programs — many of which are now

delivered by agencies and not by public servants — can, I think, be

done on a contract basis just as well and sometimes even more

effectively, because more community involvement takes place. So across

the whole array you mentioned we are actively considering sensitive and

sensible privatization — not just privatization for its own sake, but

privatization that works, is effective and takes into account the

collective agreement, as we're bound to do.

MR. REYNOLDS: One final area, Mr. Chairman. With regard to

Oakalla, can the minister give us any definite plan as to whether that

institution will be closed down? If it isn't going to be closed down,

would there be any plans to get Oakalla back into the situation it was

in years ago where the inmates inside the institution started looking

after some of their own needs in relation to growing vegetables and

looking after animals in the institution that would feed not only the

inmates of that institution but of other institutions, in order to save

some money? I'm just wondering what the overall situation at Oakalla is.

A final question, after you've answered that question: was there any

discipline taken against any officials within the minister's department

after the last riot at Oakalla?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer to the last question is not to date, because the investigation is still underway.

The answer to the question on Oakalla is yes, it is the intention to

carry out the Oakalla phase-out. It has been slowed by the restraint

program and the lack of capital funds available during the current

year. The first delivery of that phase-out program was the opening of

the Vancouver pre-trial centre, which makes unnecessary the

incarceration in Oakalla of those prisoners awaiting trial and their

escort across town. We're working at present with the municipalities of

Burnaby, Maple Ridge and Port Coquitlam on the next phases. We'll be

continuing with that, but it has been slowed down because of the

restraint on capital funding.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a number of constituency issues for the

hon. minister. The first one is the constitutional aspect, as the

Attorney-General is responsible for native affairs. In October we

passed a resolution unanimously in this House regarding the

constitutional aspect of native affairs, and I was wondering if the

minister could bring back to this House exactly where that resolution

is today. Is it being debated with the federal minister? Have they made

any decision regarding the constitutional aspect?

[ Page 2995 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: I take it that what you are asking is what is

the state of the negotiations that are taking place with the native

people under that amended

section of the Constitution Act, which was

part of the accord arising out of the first ministers' agreement. There

have been two meetings of ministers — not of first ministers. A meeting

took place in the fall of last year — I believe it was in Ottawa or

Toronto — which I wasn't able to attend, because I was here in the

House doing something else. But my colleague the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) attended that, and he and

I both attended the second meeting which was held in Yellowknife last

week. We have joint responsibility for that; we are working together.

He is sort of the external relations representative of the government

and I have the native branch under my ministry, so we work together.

At the meeting in Yellowknife which I attended, we discussed two

working-group studies. The meeting was attended by all the native

leaders who were included in the accord — including, I might add,

Messrs. Gosnell and Robinson of the Nishga band, which you would be

particularly interested in — and I met with them in Yellowknife on

other matters. All the provinces and the territories were represented

and there were three federal ministers there as well, in and out, but

it was presided over by the Minister of Justice of Canada. They dealt

first with the study group paper on equality rights; that is, the

rights, particularly of women under the Indian Act — or whatever

changes are made to it — and whether those should be further enshrined

in the constitution, having already been enshrined to some extent.

At the second meeting, probably a much more complex issue, and one

which was by no means resolved, was the issue of aboriginal title and

rights, what those constitute and whether it is desirable to make some

form of definition of those rights in the constitution. I would believe

that considerably more discussion and work will be done on that.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There is a third meeting that is set for Toronto in the midpart of

February, at which the officials and the three groups — that is, the

provinces, the federal government and the native representatives — will

be meeting. Then the first ministers will be meeting with the Prime

Minister and the native groups in Ottawa on approximately March 8. It

is at that meeting, one which is required under the accord, that the

real decisions will be made.

As part of the group of cabinet ministers from the various provinces

and Ottawa who are meeting with the native people, I can just say that

the study group reports were excellent and there was good discussion;

but we have got quite some way to go.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's response on the constitutional aspect.

I have another question regarding two specific bands and aboriginal

title. They are the Kaska-Dene band in the northernmost part of the

province and the Tahltan band on the Stikine. The question I have for

the minister on these aboriginal studies.... If I'm not mistaken,

approximately $100,000 was granted to each of these specific bands to

do some aboriginal studies. Is the province having input into the

studies? Is there a time limitation on them? Is the province in a

position to increase that funding if the first reports show that there

is much more detail regarding the aboriginal studies for the Kaska-Dene

and the Tahltan?

[4:30]

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm not equipped to answer that. That would

be something on which I could try to get an answer back to you outside

of this chamber, and which I'll do, or something which you could

address to my colleague, whom I could give some notice to that you're

interested in it. But either way we'll get a response back to you. I

just don't know where we stand in relation to those studies of those

two particular bands. I suspect that they are solely federally funded

studies at this stage, but I wouldn't be able to give you an adequate

answer.

MR. PASSARELL: I appreciate the minister's statements

regarding that, and I hope that he'll get back to me in the near future

regarding those two specific studies.

The last question I have is in regard to a number of letters that

have gone to the minister over the last few months regarding the RCMP

in Telegraph Creek. The present program the government is embarked upon

is to allow one constable to stay in Dease Lake to cover the community

of Iskut, which is 60 miles south of Dease Lake, and the other to cover

Telegraph Creek on a rotating basis. The minister's response to me and

to the inquiries from the MP for the area, Jim Fulton, was that the

constables in Dease Lake would be able to cover both Telegraph Creek

and Iskut. One of the problems in having this policy of the police

covering both communities is the road conditions. If the minister has

ever travelled between Dease Lake and Telegraph Creek, he will know

there can be pretty horrendous road conditions. You're up and down

through the Stikine Plateau, across the Stikine Mountains, and in. Even

though it's the same mileage between the two communities the police

serve, you're talking about an hour and half to Iskut, but if you're

driving into Telegraph Creek, you're looking at three or four hours. If

there is snow or rain, it could be a day or two.

MS. BROWN: He couldn't go without his lunch that long.

MR. PASSARELL: My concern is much more serious. There's a

serious problem in Telegraph Creek. You have an individual police

officer coming from Dease Lake, which is going to take him, if he's one

hell of a good driver, three or four hours to drive. You could have

some problems. One of the things the minister should be aware of is

that there is an airport in Telegraph Creek, just a strip, but the

government and the regional board do not pay for the snow removal. If

you're looking at a serious problem in Telegraph Creek and want to

charter a plane from Dease Lake into Telegraph Creek, you're not going

to be able to land there half of the time. You're going to have to

drive into it.

I know there's a serious problem when we come to restraint, but I'm

wondering whether the minister has decided to see if there is some

additional funding whereby a constable could come from Dease Lake and

spend maybe two or three days. There is still a home there. I don't

know if BCBC or the federal government owns it, but there still is a

home in Telegraph Creek where a police officer could stay. It's my

understanding that it is not being used, and if there could be some

funding available whereby a police officer from Dease

[ Page 2996 ]

Lake could come into Telegraph Creek and spend two or three days....

HON. MR. SMITH: I will discuss that matter with the deputy

commissioner. The deployment of the police manpower is not something

that my department does. It's something that the deputy commissioner

does. I will again take the matter up with him. In addition to that, I

will look at the alternative that you suggested by which some basis

might be found to keep the airport open, so that they could get in by

plane if there was a need to have a constable deployed quickly to

Telegraph Creek. That is something I must deal with the deputy

commissioner on because, as I say, we do not guide the deployment. We

negotiate the contract, but we leave it to the force to decide the way

in which the manpower is deployed.

MR. PASSARELL: My last question for the minister is that I

appreciate that the deployment of police officers really does not fall

under his jurisdiction, though the money allocation does, and I hope

that the minister will be able to emphasize to the RCMP that they use

that program. I would also appreciate it if the minister would look

into the aspect of keeping that airport open through the regional board

or the Ministry of Highways.

I addressed four or five questions to the minister, and I appreciate

the comments that came back. I also appreciate my colleague the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), sitting there smiling at me.

MRS. WALLACE: I have three entirely unrelated items to take

up with the minister. Perhaps if I deal with them separately, he can

answer them, rather than running through them all.

The first one relates to a presentation that was made to the Premier

and cabinet in May of last year by the B.C. Business and Professional

Women's Clubs. In the

preamble to their presentation, they say they are

enclosing several resolutions that were passed at their 1983 conference

for the consideration of cabinet. Then they say: "Our first resolution

deals with pornography, and we are most anxious that you and your

cabinet, especially the Attorney-General, read this submission." I'm

wondering, Mr. Attorney-General, whether or not you have perused this

and whether or not you have dealt in any way with the Business and

Professional Women's request.

Just to refresh your memory, what they are demanding — and they do

use the word "demand" — is that "the Attorney-General fulfil his duty

forthwith by clearing the way for every agency to enforce the law and

prosecute to the letter of the law all such offenders." They have

preceded this with several explanatory statements which I don't want to

repeat at this time, because I'm sure you're familiar with them. They

go on: "If the law is found to be unenforceable, then the

Attorney-General should now move expeditiously to change the law before

the problem becomes insoluble and damage to the community

irreversible." I wonder whether you have considered their request, Mr.

Minister, and whether they have had any reply from you regarding this

request.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I might just indicate that there was another resolution, one aimed

specifically at the Attorney-General, dealing with legal services in

our society. They made the point that the persons most seriously

affected by the cuts in this service are women, the disabled, native

Canadians and the unemployed. They were requesting reinstatement of

legal counsel and family courts by provision of adequate funding to the

Legal Services Society. We're close to the end of this fiscal year and

that funding has not been made available. I know the minister cannot

tell us what is happening in the next budget, but I would like some

assurance that at least he has read these recommendations from the

business and professional women and hopefully has responded to them as

a provincial body, and is giving some positive consideration to the

requests that they have made in those two areas.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I didn't read that. I was not in this

office until the end of May 1974. It is a submission that may well have

reached my desk; nevertheless, it is not dissimilar to those that other

groups have made. You have very kindly read them out and not just

referred to the brief.

My response to the legal aid part would be that the services

provided for women who are before the courts are certainly limited on

the family law and civil side, but some services are there and are

intact. One is the family court counsellor, who is a pretty important

individual in that structure and particularly gives assistance to women

who go before that court with problems of abuse, custody or

maintenance. The provision of legal counsel by legal aid is still done

in family court in certain extreme cases. Unhappily, I can't tell you

that there's widespread provision. There is provision in extreme cases.

The comments on enforcement of the obscenity laws are similar to others we

have received. I outlined to your colleague, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds

(Ms. Brown), my view that you could not deal with the problem in isolation;

simply prosecuting every firm in the province that distributes videotapes is

not the answer. There has to be a more effective approach than that; otherwise,

our courtrooms and our law enforcement officers will be involved in nothing

else. My limits in changing the law are really to bring in some kind of a classification

system, which I am looking at right now. You will have to ask Mr. MacGuigan

to change the criminal law, and I trust you will be making some submissions

as well when his task force is in these parts in the early part of April.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Attorney-General. I am sure your

last suggestion will happen: that the business and professional women

will follow this through. I will make sure they have a copy of your

remarks, just as I have now forwarded their brief to you for your

interest.

In regard to the legal services, it's a bit tragic. I don't know

what happens in your constituency office, but the number of women who

come into my office.... It's only through the good grace of several

women, lawyer friends of mine in the Cowichan area, who provide that

kind of legal advice, because it is legal counsel that they really

need. Those young women lawyers, several of whom are members of the VPW

and have been responsible for the drafting of those resolutions, offer

free advice to these people, because those women just do not have any

funds to hire a lawyer. It doesn't seem fair that that is the kind of

concept we have relegated women in trouble to, but that seems to be

what it is.

[4:45]

The next item I want to raise with you is the matter of holograph wills. We discussed this briefly in this Legislature

[ Page 2997 ]

last fall during the discussion of the private bill

of the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree). At that time the

member for North Vancouver–Capilano raised the point of the number of

people who die without wills. Seven provinces and the two territories

currently have a provision for holograph wills; B.C. still doesn't.

They only permit such wills if there's a conflict of law or as a

privileged will, but not under ordinary circumstances. I'm wondering

whether or not the minister would take under advisement the need for

instituting holograph wills in British Columbia. If he needs any draft

legislation, I have the draft acts from all the other seven provinces

which I would be happy to forward to him. It seems to work in those

areas. It precludes the thing that happens so often when people die

without a will. I wonder whether or not he would care to comment on

that request.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't have a lawyer's enormous aversion to

holograph wills. They are common in other jurisdictions. My deputy

tells me that the classic one in Saskatchewan was the dying man in a

tractor accident who with a nail wrote on the tractor, "I leave

everything to my wife," and part of the tractor was filed as an exhibit

in the case of probate, which proved that as a holograph will. In the

prairie provinces and in other jurisdictions there is a long tradition

of holograph wills. I think I'll ask him to bring his experience as a

judge to bear in a jurisdiction that has them and give me a report on

them.

I guess you would always have cautious legal purists who would say

in response to you; my goodness, there can't be certainty as to the

attestation and the witness and everything else, and how do we know

that at the moment he did that he was of sound mind if he didn't sign

really don't have those lawyer aversions to it. I'm quite prepared to

look at it from the standpoint of social need, bearing in mind that it

may well be an issue that the Law Reform Commission have already looked

at, and if they have not, would like to address me on.

I should have said in my opening remarks to my critic and to members

of the House that a great deal of law reform is yet to be done in this

province, and that I will endeavour to make it a priority to do some

law reform. I'm going to very promptly review in depth all the

recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia over

the past years that haven't been enacted, some of which are darned

good, but we just haven't gotten around to doing them. I'm going to try

to address private law reform and law reform in general. I think we've

gotten a bit behind in that field. I'm glad you raised the subject of

holograph wills; I'd be happy to consider it.

MRS. WALLACE: They've been in effect in England since 1883

and haven't seemed to cause any great problems there. A holograph will,

like any will, can be contested if there is a question of authenticity.

The third and final subject I want to raise has to do with the

public trustee's office. In my duties as MLA I have been extremely

concerned about the delays that occur in that office. I've had several

occasions to phone the public trustee, to try to get hold of someone

there — and that's a problem in itself — to find out what is happening

regarding a certain estate. I'm not suggesting that there is any

wrongdoing in the public trustee's office; it's just the matter of

time. I don't know whether they are understaffed or what the problem is.

As an example, I brought one case with me into the House. The file I

picked up only goes back to May 1981. It's interesting that the file

starts with a letter from the solicitor involved in this case on behalf

of the husband. It was a divorce case, and the wife's estate was put in

the hands of the public trustee, and the husband's lawyer wrote me in

May 1981. As I say, this is as far back as this file goes. The letter

reads: "I think that Barbara Wallace finally prodded the public trustee

into action. The examination for discovery has now been set." That

examination for discovery was held on June 5, 1981, and I assumed the

thing was all cleared up. In September 1983 the lawyer in question came

into my office with a file of correspondence, and nothing had been

settled. They had had the examination for discovery on June 5, 1981,

but as of September 16 no settlement had been reached. He brought in a

letter from the public trustee's office dated August 12, 1983, saying

that they would prepare a separation agreement — this was after I had

been involved again — and as of September 9 nothing had happened there.

Now I haven't heard again from the lawyer in question, and I really

should have picked up the phone and called him to see whether or not

this has been resolved.

But whether or not it has been resolved at this point, it's still

too long a delay. The things that happened there, of course, related to

the value of the property, because we were in a period of declining

markets; the property that was to be offered for sale has deteriorated

in price, so there's not as much coming out of the estate. The other

thing is that two of the children who were interested in buying the

property gave up in despair and bought other property, so are not now

in a position to take on the family home. Those kinds of delays seem to

me to be inexcusable. The middle of the case was 1981, and here we are

possibly in 1984 but certainly in late 1983 with no solution. I wonder

whether or not the Attorney-General can use some influence to try to

speed up operations in that public trustee's office.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. SMITH: I used to hear those things when I was in

practice too. There has been a fairly major investment in a

computerized management system which has been introduced there. Over a

million dollars....

MRS. WALLACE: Maybe that's the problem.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I don't think so. I think that it will

help. The budget is slightly down but basically static, and the staff

is about the same. It's an office which lends itself to criticism

because it is dealing with a number of estates and patients, and you

just pointed out an example of what happens when you delay on a piece

of real estate in a declining market. The value is wasting, really,

while that is happening.

If you would like to give me some

chapter and verse on that one,

I'll give you some kind of specific response. But I think it would be

better if I had those details, because any criticism of that nature is

pretty vital if it affects value and the children's assets as much as

that did.

MRS. WALLACE: Just as a point of interest, I note on the bottom of my letter of September 16 to the public trustee:

[ Page 2998 ]

"carbon copy, Brian Smith, Attorney-General, with the complete file."

MS. BROWN: I just wanted to say to the Attorney-General while

the other questions were being asked that I'm still doing some reading

and nagging away at the whole business of what's happening to the Legal

Services Society and to the delivery of legal aid in the province, and

so I'm going to be raising it again. I'm not really finished with that

topic yet. However, he accused me of believing that everyone who needs

to have legal counsel should have it. He said he doesn't share my

opinion. I just want to suggest to him that I share the opinion which

was voiced by, I think, Mr. Justice Farris in the case of Regina v.

Ewing and Kearney, in which he said: "Simply stated, it is my opinion

that (1) an accused person is entitled to a fair trial, (2) that he

cannot be assured of a fair trial without the assistance of counsel,

and (3) if owing to the lack of funds he cannot obtain counsel, the

state has an obligation to provide one." So I'm not as unique as the

minister would like to suggest, nor as feather-brained or

bleeding-heart — or whatever other term he would like to place on it.

But I am concerned enough about the legal services thing that I am

going to be nattering away about it, because I'm not satisfied. I have

some stuff from Ontario which shows that they're handling it. I'm a

little bit confused about why they can do it without having to cut back

on the level and the quality of service that they are giving, and we

can't. So I'll be raising that again.

Two questions. The minister has had an opportunity to rethink the

decision to terminate the services of the special probation officer who

travelled with what is euphemistically referred to in Vancouver as the

"kiddy car." That is a car which has two police officers and a

probation officer, and they are responsible for monitoring the streets

of Vancouver and picking up the child prostitutes and trying to get

them off the streets. As the Attorney-General knows, because these kids

are juveniles the only person who has the clout of the law behind him

in dealing with these kids is the probation officer. Yet the decision

was made that that officer is redundant and that as of April 1 his

services were no longer needed. There was a hue and cry about this, and

I am quite sure that the minister has had an opportunity to rethink

that decision.

Can the Attorney-General state whether the termination notice for that particular probation officer has been rescinded?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I understand that they have been notified

that they are going to be reassigned. They haven't been handed pink

slips. There is one in Vancouver and one in Victoria.

MS. BROWN: Reassigned to what?

HON. MR. SMITH: Reassigned to other responsibilities but not

riding in the kiddy car. What you maybe neglect to remind us is that

although the backup probation officer wouldn't be riding in that car,

the two police officers would be there. This program was a very costly

one because of the shift and the time, and I think I would have to be

very strongly convinced that it was a core program, which I do not

consider it to be, in order to make a different decision. Both those

individuals who were in the kiddy car program were notified that we

would not be continuing that program in the next fiscal year; that is

correct.

[5:00]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I haven't got with me in the House

my file on child prostitutes, so I guess I'm going to have to wait

until tomorrow and bring it in. I didn't think I would have to go

through that debate on the floor of this House again. The number of

children operating on Davie Street as prostitutes, for whom there is no

recourse....

The Ministry of Human Resources cannot deal with them. One of the

things that came out of a community advisory committee on this issue

was the design of this thing which is referred to as the kiddy car. Now

the two police officers riding in that car cannot prosecute or do

anything with these kids, because they are juveniles. The only person

who has any clout over these kids is the probation officer. Most of

these kid