1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 16, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 10

[ Page 10853 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like the House to help me make welcome my aunt and uncle, Eileen and Norm Richards. I think they're the first citizens of Cascadia, in that they've been living in Summerland and working out of Seattle for the last 25 years. They're guests here today of myself and my parents from Sidney, Jack and Kay Collins. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Lali: Visiting us today in the galleries is my niece, Rajwant Lali, who is here today to check out Camosun College. Would the House please make her welcome.

A. Hagen: I have the delightful pleasure today of introducing two groups to you. First, from the Purpose Young Adult Learning Centre in New Westminster, is a group of students who toured the building this morning and with whom I had an opportunity to have a chat. They're here with their instructors Phill Esau, Paul Richardson, Tony Douglass and Janet Simpson-Cooke. I'd like the House to give them a very warm welcome today.

It's rare that I have an opportunity to introduce someone from my family, so it's a great pleasure today for me to welcome Kristi Clifton from Prince Rupert. I know Kelli, Monika and Oliver will be waiting to hear about her visit to the Legislature today. Will you all join me in welcoming Kristi.

G. Janssen: It's a pleasure to welcome to the House a person visiting from my homeland in Holland, Dr. Trees Sloeker, en het is mijn hoop dat Dr. Sloeker het gezellig vind in Victoria. I pray the House make her welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act, 1994.

Hon. A. Petter: Bill 34 makes a number of administrative amendments to the Forest Act that will improve tenure administration, streamline administrative appeals under the Forest Act and the Range Act, and improve the ability of the chief forester to obtain information and set allowable annual cuts for tree farm licences. These amendments will provide necessary administrative powers to improve forest administration.

Bill 34 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FOREST PRACTICES CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act.

Hon. A. Petter: The Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act provides the foundation for the province's first forest practices code, which will fundamentally change the way we manage our forests. The act sets a new framework of forest management.

In particular, it establishes a clearer, more legally enforceable system of legislation, regulations and standards; stronger compliance and enforcement powers, including administrative penalties and offence provisions; a new, legislated forest planning framework; powers to regulate managed private forest lands and botanical forest products; administrative reforms, including the creation of a forest practices board; and greater public accountability. It will help ensure proper forest management.

Bill 40 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

SOCIAL SERVICES RESPONSE TO REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE

V. Anderson: The father of Matthew Vaudreuil has come forward with condemning words for the Ministry of Social Services. Ken Hutchins has clearly stated that Social Services is to blame for the death of his son. Will the minister wake up and listen to the growing demands of people around this province regarding this and other abuse cases? Will she ask the ombudsman to conduct an independent inquiry into the care of children in this province?

The Speaker: There are two questions there.

Hon. J. MacPhail: As we have discussed in this House several times, I am absolutely committed to ensuring a full accounting of our role in the tragic death of Matthew Vaudreuil. I have requested a review, as the opposition is well aware. I have also committed that if further action is necessary, it will be taken. The tabling of that review will be the first step.

The Speaker: A supplementary, hon. member.

V. Anderson: The situation is clear. Further action is needed regarding all children in this province. Last week we called for an inquiry by the ombudsman. Today I tabled a motion to refer this issue to the ombudsman, asking, on behalf of the Legislature, for an independent inquiry into the care of children in this province. Will the minister confirm that she will support our motion to have the ombudsman undertake an inquiry into the care of children in this province?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have committed to members of this House that I will be tabling my report this week, and I remain firm on that commitment. I also remain firm in committing to each and every member of the Legislature that, after they have received and read that report and are fully cognizant of the case, if further action is necessary, it will be taken.

The Speaker: The member has a final supplemental?

V. Anderson: Besides asking for the inquiry under

section 10(3) of the act.... I know that the minister is aware of public report No. 22 of the ombudsman, dated November 1990. Under the act, there was an interministerial committee for the concerns of children. Will the minister indicate when a

[ Page 10854 ]

report of that committee will be made available to the public?

[2:15]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, these are matters that we've discussed over the previous weeks with the hon. member and the House. I have committed to this House that further action will include changes to the law, and the House will be considering those very shortly.

PLANS FOR A NEW FIRST NARROWS CROSSING

D. Symons: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Apparently the Squamish nation and a consortium have put together plans for a new First Narrows crossing. I would like to know what discussions have taken place between the government and the Squamish band regarding any new crossing affecting Squamish lands.

Hon. J. Pement: I would like to say to the member that a number of projects, proposals and concepts have been brought forward. We have looked at a number of them, including theSNC-Lavalin one.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

D. Symons: My question, hon. Speaker, asked the minister what discussions have taken place with the Squamish band -- that we're aware of; they've been in the press a great deal. Almost all of these crossings will end up in their property on the North Shore. I didn't hear in your answer that they have been brought into discussions at this level. Have they?

Hon. J. Pement: Again, I have mentioned that this project is one that we have looked at in conjunction with other projects. We certainly have had meetings with the Squamish band with this issue in mind.

The Speaker: The final supplemental, hon. member.

D. Symons: This proposal that's about to come forward includes a price tag: a toll of $2 per crossing -- that's what it's going to cost the commuters to use the bridge. We haven't heard that with the other proposal so far. Does the Minister of Transportation and Highways approve of charging commuters who would be using this bridge daily what would work out to be more than $1,000 per year?

Hon. J. Pement: Again, I have to say to the member that no decision has been made at this point.

FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION COSTS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the minister responsible for freedom of information. In closing debate on the freedom-of-information amendments last July, the sponsoring minister said: "It's a red herring to suggest that there are going to be excessive costs as a result of this legislation." He balked at our suggestions about meeting the costs of the FOI legislation. Can the minister tell us how much it will cost to fulfil the average FOI request?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I will take that question on notice and get the information to the member.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member. That question was taken on notice.

J. Weisgerber: A new question, Mr. Speaker. I'll save the minister some time.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

J. Weisgerber: The 1992 Peat Marwick report....

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. I would remind the hon. member that the purpose of question period is to seek information, not to bring it to the House. Please proceed.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, I guess someone has to bring information.

The 1992 Peat Marwick report identified the average cost of FOI requests at $2,000 per request. Given those costs, can the minister confirm that the taxpayers of British Columbia are going to start getting their money's worth? Are they going to quit getting reports that are whited out and blanked out? Will the minister undertake to give taxpayers their money's worth?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member should know that the requests he and a number of his colleagues have made under freedom of information have gone extremely well. The information has been shared with members. If there are frivolous costs, it's the result of those members across the way who have been very frivolous with the legislation.

There is legislation, there is a process, and there is a commissioner who will gladly take your suggestions and complaints, hon. member. If you have complaints, I suggest that you use that process and ask the commissioner.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: I suppose this is what the minister considers working very well -- requests under FOI that even the minister can't read from across the way. The government's unwillingness to provide information is adding to the cost of freedom of information.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: When will the government start to come clean and give taxpayers the information that they ask for?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member across the way is part of the system of government. He knows the legislation and the process for lodging complaints or requesting changes. Hon. member, if you have not made your suggestions to the commissioner, please let my office know, and I will give you a hand with suggesting things to the commissioner if you have a problem with it.

PUBLIC OPINION POLL INFORMATION

J. Dalton: I have another FOI question, and this is for the Minister of Social Services. Maybe this one will be answered.

[ Page 10855 ]

On April 11 we wrote to the ministry asking for copies of all polling that they have commissioned. Last week the ministry informed us they had conducted one poll but that they could not provide us access as "it would reveal the substance of deliberations of the cabinet." Could the minister please explain why factual background information is being kept secret from the people who paid for it?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The freedom-of-information law provides for such a reply as you received; it's well within the law as provided.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon member.

J. Dalton: Again to the same minister, I would refer her to

section 13(2)(

b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It clearly states that her ministry must release public opinion polls. Could the minister please explain why her ministry is in breach of this act?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The law is quite clear on documentation -- it provides for the working of cabinet submissions.... If the hon. member wishes to challenge this, there is an appeal process in the legislation, which he supported.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Dalton: I hardly think the public is very satisfied about these continual diversions away from what this act is supposed to do. The hon. minister may know that tomorrow the commissioner is conducting two very important hearings on this topic.

My final supplementary is to the same minister. When this government passed the law two years ago, they boasted that cabinet deliberations might be exempt but that the factual background would be provided, and the act provides for that. A public opinion poll is just that. It is background data used by cabinet. Could the minister please explain what the government is hiding by refusing to release this poll?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are many who can provide this member with a full understanding of exactly how the act works, in case, on the face of it, he doesn't.... Cabinet has not made a decision yet. He is well aware that the law provides for the release of supporting documentation after cabinet has made a decision.

"WHISTLE BLOWER" PROTECTION FOR CORRECTIONS OFFICERS

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Attorney General. Contrary to an explicit commitment that he made in this House regarding the Prowse inquiry into the Danny Perrault escape, that inquiry is not offering protection or guarantees of anonymity to corrections officers or other government employees who are willing to come forward to tell the truth about what happened in that tragic incident. How can the Attorney General expect government employees to come forward when they're jeopardizing their careers in the public service by doing so?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Contrary to what the premise of the member's question suggests, I did not make any commitments on behalf of the Prowse royal commission. I cannot. They are independent and do not take direction from me, other than from the wording of the order-in-council. I did, however, indicate to the member and others that no reprisals would be exacted against people who come forward with information that would be useful to the commission or to the government.

D. Mitchell: Without whistle-blower protection of some kind, we're not going to get to the truth of the matter in what happened with the Danny Perrault escape. The Attorney General said in this House on April 21, in response to a question from me: "I will ensure that they are not disciplined in any way for providing the kind of information we need." Without whistle-blower protection, those corrections officers who have been willing to come forward through the news media with a guarantee of anonymity cannot and will not come forward to the Prowse inquiry.

Will the Attorney General consider having his ministry expand the terms of reference of the inquiry to guarantee anonymity for those corrections officers who are willing to come forward and tell the truth in this matter?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The guarantee I gave the member, which he quoted, stands today and will stand in the future.

D. Mitchell: Can the Attorney General then tell this House why, in spite of the commitment he's made in the past, the Prowse inquiry is not willing to offer any guarantee of anonymity or any protection to corrections officials who have contacted them so far? Why is he not willing to help us get to the bottom of the Danny Perrault escape and find out what is wrong with the corrections system in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: What I can say again is that if any corrections officer or official -- or anyone in British Columbia -- has information that they think would be useful to this inquiry and is concerned about reprisals, I give them my undertaking that there will be no reprisals for coming forward.

TENDERING PROCESS FOR SERVICES AT EXHIBITION PARK

L. Reid: My question is to the Attorney General and relates to horse racing at Exhibition Park. The minister's own executive assistant, along with the Pacific Racing Association spokesperson, have both confirmed that there was no open tendering process for racetrack technical services. Can the minister explain why an NDP government could not support such a tendering process?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure which issue the member is specifically referring to, so I would be happy to take the question on notice and talk to the member about whatever concerns she has.

Ministerial Statement

FEDERAL DEFENCE BUDGET CUTS

Hon. E. Cull: Last Friday I was in Ottawa to express the concern of our government with respect to defence installation cuts announced in the federal budget. I had the opportunity to meet with Ministers Masse and Axworthy and local MP David Anderson.

The defence cuts announced by the federal government continue a disturbing pattern that was set by the previous government, and that pattern was to focus a disproportionate share of federal restraint on British Columbia. Even

[ Page 10856 ]

before the cuts, defence spending in B.C. was well below what you would expect for a large province with a huge coastline. Despite the fact that 12 percent of the national population is in British Columbia, only 8.6 percent of defence spending is in this province -- and that's prior to the cuts. The latest federal budget has restructured restraint in such a fashion that B.C. will see defence spending fall even further now, to 8 percent.

Defence cuts are part of a larger issue, and they can't just be viewed in isolation. For years the federal government has been off-loading its deficit problem onto the provinces by applying restrictions to transfers to the provinces. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is continuing the Mulroney policies in this regard. What is less well known, though, is that these restrictions are being felt disproportionately by British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta. Thus, while B.C.'s population is 12 percent, B.C.'s share of federal off-loading in '93-94 was 14 percent, and it grows this year to 15 percent.

The off-loading has been particularly felt in B.C. with respect to federal contributions to social assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan. Federal contributions are now only 29 percent of provincial costs, down from 50 percent as recently as 1989-90; unlike the other seven provinces, which are still receiving 50 percent of their funding. In addition to off-loading, the defence cuts have another adverse effect on this province. They aggravate a federal habit of denying British Columbia a fair share of federal research funding. Even before the cuts, B.C. received an unduly small share -- about 7 percent of federal spending on research and development.

In meeting with the ministers, I outlined three areas of concern for British Columbia. First, the federal government must direct special attention to providing adjustment assistance in respect of the closing of the defence installations, particularly in the case of Masset, because of the significance that that closure will have on its economy. Second, a resolution for Royal Roads needs to be found that does not involve off-loading federal costs onto the province. Third, B.C. should clearly receive its fair share of research and development spending.

[2:30]

I want to speak briefly on each of these. With respect to Masset, the main concern is that the total spending of this facility represents 50 percent of that community's income. Therefore it is critical that the federal government recognize its responsibility to provide adjustment assistance to allow the individuals and businesses in that community to adjust to the changes relating to the closure. To accomplish this the federal government must commit to a process under the federal industrial adjustment service to identify the best action to effect this transition.

Provincial officials must be involved, as must local people, and the federal government must recognize its responsibility to provide for the transition in these communities.

With respect to Royal Roads, the decision of the federal government has been a major disappointment to this community. Before the trip to Ottawa, the federal government had reported that they were offering the facility to the province for a dollar. This offer has never been made officially and does not appear to be a legitimate offer. In any event, it would simply off-load the $12 million cost of operating the facility onto the province. The position of this government is that Royal Roads should remain a federal military college. Westerners deserve the opportunity to pursue their training in western Canada.

Not only has this become an important national institution providing military college access to western Canadians, but the local community depends on the federal grant in lieu of taxes. Twenty percent of Colwood's tax base comes from the grants in lieu of taxes. British Columbia must continue to receive equal treatment and must receive the same treatment that Quebec is receiving with respect to their military college. We want to receive a serious offer from the federal government plus the commitment that Colwood will not suffer any further tax loss as a result of the closure.

Finally, on the matter of federal research and development, British Columbia continues to come up short with respect to federal spending. Only about 7 percent of federal expenditures are made in British Columbia. The cuts to the Defence Research Establishment Pacific, DREP, along with the federal decision to withdraw support from KAON, erode the modest federal commitment to research and to the scientific community in British Columbia. Federal support for research and development in this province is becoming less and less adequate.

We need a renewed federal commitment for scientific research and development in B.C. Recently the Prime Minister and the Premier met and agreed to ask their officials to identify opportunities for increased federal spending. I think that's a positive first step towards addressing the problem.

As a result of my trip to Ottawa, I can report that the following has been agreed. The federal government has assured that the municipality of Colwood will not be short any local taxes as a result of their decision. They have also agreed to provide adequate transition funding and services, particularly with respect to the hospital in Masset, the community that is most affected by the defence cuts. They have also agreed to explore new federal funding for research and development in B.C.

However, in the final analysis, the decision to close Royal Roads as a federal university remains a disappointment to the province. We don't want this to be another example of how the federal government continues to off-load onto British Columbia. Quite frankly, hon. Speaker, this is not acceptable to either the government or the people of British Columbia.

F. Gingell: I am very pleased that the minister came back from Ottawa with some good results. What disappoints me is that this government continues to not look at the opportunities that are presented to it for good economic development in British Columbia. Surely Royal Roads in Colwood opens some opportunities for us to develop a facility that will have international recognition, draw students from all over the world and create good economic development in this part of the province.

Surely it is time for us to recognize -- and I would have thought that the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain and many other members of the NDP caucus would have recognized -- that in the 1990s we are turning away from military colleges toward the realm of the twenty-first century.

More good news came out of Ottawa. I'm sure that all members of this Legislature will join with me in showing their pleasure that the federal government has committed to do whatever is necessary to ensure that the minimum of two additional seats in the House of Commons will be allocated to British Columbia before the next federal election. I think that is a good example of what happens when all sides of the House feel the same way about an issue. The government, by bringing forward their motion, showed their support of our motion, which was put forward earlier. Who was on first? We were on first, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 10857 ]

Let us turn these things that cause us problems into temporary hiccups. I understand the minister also has a commitment that British Columbia will be treated in exactly the same fashion as will the province of Quebec with respect to the closing of the military training installation in that province. So let us all look at these as opportunities and work together to create a better economic investment environment in this province, so that we move forward into the twenty-first century and not backward into the centuries before us, which have been plagued by war after war.

J. Weisgerber: It was interesting that as I reviewed the minister's comments earlier this afternoon, a couple of things stood out in my mind. First of all, I thought that only this government would send their Minister of Finance to Ottawa on a Friday when the Liberal Party was having a policy convention. I notice that the minister went out of her way not to mention which minister she met with. I would be curious to know whether indeed there was anyone there or not.

But the other thing that was more obvious, looking at this document, was that again this government had gone to Ottawa and not dealt in any way with equalization payments. There was no mention of it. Indeed, the government went asking for more federal spending in British Columbia. It went the day after the Quebec budget had been tabled, indicating a $650 million tax reduction for Quebec taxpayers that was being financed, at least in part by British Columbia, through equalization payments. This minister, who was there the day after that event, didn't take the opportunity to even raise the issue.

Indeed, that should have been the central focus of our application and presentation in Ottawa.

We should be looking at ways to reduce spending across this country, not at ways to expand federal or provincial government spending. It seems incredible to me that we would allow British Columbia to continue, without complaint, as one of the three provinces in this country that make equalization payments. It seems incredible to me that the Minister of Finance wouldn't question the fact that Quebec continues to be one of the have-not provinces. Indeed, the minister apparently didn't think to raise the issue.

The minister didn't see anything wrong with a government that was able to cut $650 million in provincial taxes while still claiming equalization payments, with the assertion that they couldn't raise money of their own. It should have been at least one of the issues. Surely to goodness she recognizes that it is a responsibility of any Finance minister representing the province of British Columbia to raise, in the strongest possible way, the matter of the inequity that results from equalization payments being taken from British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario and given to the other provinces, including Quebec.

The minister clearly didn't have her priorities in order. She did what one would expect from this government, and that was to go on saying: "Spend more and more; we need more and more." The presentation made by the Minister of Finance reflects the mind-set of this government: spend, spend, spend; rather than save. The minister didn't serve British Columbia well. But that should be no surprise, because this government isn't serving British Columbia well.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rises on a matter?

G. Wilson: I request leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: The minister is to be congratulated on her recent trip to Ottawa. Quite clearly what we are dealing with here with respect to defence spending cuts is the removal of any officer training in western Canada. This is an issue that I think all parties in this House need to come together on and apply the same kind of rigour and force as we did with respect to Bill C-18. When British Columbia stands and speaks to central Canada with a united voice and says that we simply will not be ignored on questions.... The federal government is beginning to heed the kinds of issues we have.

Royal Roads is an officer training institution in western Canada. We must recognize that as such, it is a federal institution, with respect to a federal defence commitment. The federal defence commitment must have with it a commitment for western officers to be trained in western Canada. We have one of the largest undefended coastlines in this country. We have the Esquimalt base established here, as we do the Comox and Chilliwack bases. It is not enough to simply say that we are going to move those expenditures to Kingston in central Ontario.

I believe that what we have to do today is send the same kind of message to Ottawa as we have done over Bill C-18. We must let them know that it is not enough for British Columbia to have only lip service and a promise. That's all that we got on the weekend: a promise of electoral reform. British Columbia must have its fair share in Confederation.

British Columbia will not sit idly by and see our shipbuilding contracts moved to central Canada; see anti-dumping laws with respect to the Okanagan fruit growers ignored by Ottawa; see the KAON project, which was promised by the federal government, cancelled; and see Royal Roads, our own western officer training institution, cancelled -- all by a government which seems to think that somehow British Columbia need only get a little oil on the wheel every time it starts to sound "cranky," I think the word was, to quote the Deputy Prime Minister.

British Columbians have seen their share of transfer payments reduced. Given the amount of money this province feeds into Ottawa, 29 percent is unacceptable. Ottawa has to recognize that we will not stand idly by and allow this province to be dragged along, like a dog on a leash, to feed the programs of a monetary and fiscal policy decided and directed by central Canadians, with the view that British Columbia will always be a supplier, with less and less return for the people who live in this province.

[2:45]

I congratulate this minister's efforts and attempts, and I would urge all elected members of this Legislative Assembly to stand up and take a united and strong position on Royal Roads and military expenditures in British Columbia. That institution should be maintained as an officer training institution for western Canadians. We pay our fair share in taxes; it's time we got our fair share back.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply: the Attorney General's estimates in Committee B; and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in Committee A.

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

[ Page 10858 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

(continued)

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

J. Dalton: I am going to start this afternoon with some questions on a Corrections policy; I understand it's been recently implemented. The committee is well aware that we have an inquiry going on right now into another Corrections problem, but we're not going to get into that. The inquiry will run its course and hopefully will answer at least some of the many unanswered questions that the public has about Corrections.

I'm here today to ask some particular questions about a document I have in front of me. It's a four-page document, headed "Interim Policy and Procedures," on early reviews and automatic hearings by the B.C. Board of Parole. I understand this pilot project was implemented just last month. My first question to the Attorney General is: when was this policy implemented, and what is the purpose or rationale behind it?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The pilot project began on April 4 of this year. My understanding is that it's slated to be concluded by July of this year. It was initiated in order to give us a handle on the issues in respect of consideration for parole.

The way the system has worked in the past is that parole consideration was only given to those individuals who made specific application for consideration. People who did not know about their opportunity or were not advised about their opportunity or did not have the wherewithal, for whatever reason, to make an application for consideration were not being considered.

It is my strongly held view -- and in every way I take full responsibility for the initiation of this project, because I believe very strongly in it -- that it is very important that everybody in the system who has an entitlement to be considered for parole should be accorded an equal opportunity to be considered. In the past the system has worked only for those people who know their way around the system, who are pros at it, if you will; people who have been in before or people who have some of the abilities of amateur lawyers, as there always are in prison populations.

People who are more literate are generally considered. People who do not have literacy skills, people who are poor and, in considerable numbers, native Indians were not being considered for parole. I felt that that was unfair, and the reason they were not being considered was that many of those people did not have the literacy skills or whatever else is required to put themselves in a position to be considered.

There have been suggestions -- and the member may have picked this up from some media stories that have been done on the subject; I think U.TV, in particular, had done some stuff -- that the number of people who would be granted parole would somehow double. That's not at all the case. The number of people who would be heard could conceivably be in that doubling range; but the number of approvals is expected to go, I'm told, from in the order of 300 at any one time to up to about 350. But we're moving slowly. We haven't done it across the board, across the province; we've done it simply as a pilot project. We will learn from it as we go and make decisions following that.

J. Dalton: I didn't hear the Attorney General say this, so my question will be: is this project only being conducted in the Vancouver Pretrial and Fraser Regional institutions, as I understand it?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The pilot is being conducted in the Vancouver and Fraser Valley regions in our system.

J. Dalton: I'm going to get to a line of questioning in a moment about the lack of knowledge that some people entering the system may have about the right to apply for parole. Would I be correct in assuming that overcrowding in those two particular facilities may be the rationale behind it? Clearly, with double-bunking and other things, over-crowding is a serious problem, as the Attorney General knows. If this is a method to take care of that problem, I'm not so sure that this is the way to go about it, even though the overcrowding has to be addressed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are two answers to that. The first one is that the decision was made because I strongly believe it's a fairness question. Secondly, if there had been other reasons, it wouldn't have been as a result of overcrowding. The overcrowding that we face in the lower mainland is primarily in the remand-pretrial centres, and if you're in a remand centre, obviously you're not eligible for parole consideration.

J. Dalton: In response to that last question, that's fair enough. We know that the people on remand aren't eligible, but as the Attorney General well knows, many people in Vancouver Pretrial are not there on remand; they're serving sentences. I again suggest to the Attorney General that perhaps the rationale behind this is in part the overcrowding issue.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It may be that I misunderstand the member, but in the remand centre there are people who are there because they are on remand. It may be that in some cases people are also serving time for other offences for which they have been convicted, but they're in the remand centre because they're awaiting trial. You are not eligible for parole while you're awaiting trial. The crowding issue doesn't connect at all to this issue. Even if you could construct that case, which the member can't, for me this is a fairness question.

J. Dalton: Last Friday I had occasion to speak with a former member of the B.C. Parole Board. Obviously, I won't identify the gentleman; I'm sure he would be happy to come forward on his own if he chooses. Sometime last year he conducted his own informal survey of three Vancouver Island institutions. This was not a scientific survey, but I think the Attorney General should hear his results. He had occasion to go into the facilities on Vancouver Island and ask inmates why they had not applied for parole.

He tells me, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, that out of the 25 people he spoke to, every one of them knew that they were entitled to parole. When they enter the system, someone in the system sits down and tells them that they are entitled to parole.

I am disappointed to hear the Attorney General tell us that this is in honour of fairness or something else. We want to be fair, but we also have to be honest and upfront. So of the 25 responders, all knew they were eligible for parole. Why didn't they apply? That's perhaps more informative. There are a variety of reasons. Some said because at two-thirds.... As we know, they're going to get out anyway, unless they don't behave themselves. Some say they're better off within

[ Page 10859 ]

the system. That's an unfortunate statement, but it's true. That's their home, and that's why recidivism is so high.

I submit to the Attorney General that it's not completely a question of fairness. There are people in that system who don't want parole or don't want to face the unpleasant prospect that eventually they're going to have to be back out on the street. Unfortunately they will probably be back in the institution a day later. That is not what we're going to solve today in this committee, but it is a fact. Perhaps the Attorney General would like to comment on whether people entering the system -- whether they be first-timers or repeat offenders -- are advised of their right to parole. And why do we need this further documentation, which I don't think is truly well intended?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's undoubtedly true that among a variety of other things inmates are told when they enter the system is that they have parole eligibility, or they will discover that at one point or another. The system that has been in place requires that some initiative be taken by that individual. Under the system we've had they are also required to fill out forms. Many people can't; many can't even read the forms. A significant number of people in our society can't read forms -- much less the proportion that are in our jail populations.

It is my strong view that at the date they're eligible for consideration, everyone should have the consideration that the system provides for them. In many ways this is a public safety issue, too. It's an issue that I think assists in providing public security, because everybody -- particularly in the provincial system, for sure -- is going to get out one day. It's better that people come out gradually; where they're able to and where the Parole Board has made decisions suggesting they should, better to let them come out in a way that gives them some supervision and some gentle re-entry into our society.

If you want public security at the top of your list of issues -- and I do -- then that's the best policy in that respect. Beyond that, I think the British Columbia Parole Board is very much a non-political, non-partisan board of community representatives who are outstanding British Columbians and who have an excellent track record in respect of decisions that they have taken.

Once in recent years -- about six years ago -- some politics entered that system, and it was an unfortunate blip. But we're beyond that again, and I think the decisions they make are excellent decisions and are in the best interests of the community.

[3:00]

We should all remember, in discussions about parole and all these correctional issues, that people are going to go back into the community. There needs to be some planning and some preparation. The parole part of all of that is a very important element. If people don't understand or are unable to take advantage of the ability to request a parole hearing, and are therefore unable to include that element of the release planning in their agenda, the public is poorly served. I see this as a very good public policy.

J. Dalton: There are several things I would like to comment on in reaction to those statements. Firstly, I am certainly happy to hear the Attorney General applaud the members of the Parole Board, because I agree. My father happened to be on the Parole Board at one time, but that was years ago and this is now.

The Attorney General talked about security. Well, that's true; obviously that's the issue of the day. That's why the Danny Perrault case is going on, because there unfortunately are examples where security and decision-making within the system are not always what they should be. This is a little off the parole discussion we're having right now, but I suggest it's symptomatic of the problem within the system. As I've said to this Attorney General many times -- and I will continue to say it -- the bottom line has to be public confidence and public safety.

The particular point I would now like to pursue on this is: will there be appropriate and adequate staffing and proper training for the extra staff presumably needed to implement this pilot project, and taking it further, is this project likely to become general policy throughout the system once we've gone through its test stages?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not going to prejudge the results of the pilot project. We'll let this project take its course. In July it concludes, and we'll make decisions following that.

In terms of staffing, the uptake has been minimal so far. The amount of extra work has been minimal, and there have been additional resources provided. Twenty-one people graduated from the JI training program in early May, and we're finding no resource-related issues developing as yet.

J. Dalton: The Attorney General also mentioned previously the need for parole, and that is certainly true. Obviously we have to have a mechanism in place. Those who are ultimately going to serve their sentence will be coming back out on the street, and we have to provide the best possible system within the concepts of confidence in that system and public safety.

In a moment I'll get into some of the specifics of this four-page document that I have, because some of it causes me concern, and I think it should cause the public some concern. But putting aside the obvious need for easing people back out, if the corrections system has difficulties within it.... Again I cite Danny Perrault as the obvious example, and of course the hon. Attorney General also knows there's an ongoing federal inquiry into the Ferndale situation. So it is not just the B.C. system that I'm taking shots at. I think we can certainly raise questions as to how corrections is working both federally and provincially.

So when the Attorney General launches a pilot project like this.... He also told this committee earlier today that he doesn't feel the numbers of those released under this pilot project will go up. I would suggest to the Attorney General that that is not likely. It's appropriate that people be advised of their right to apply. But the way I read this document -- and this is probably most important -- I think they're being encouraged to apply.

Maybe that's not so bad, but I would submit again to the Attorney General that if you're going to encourage people to seek early release, you'd better have proper staffing, proper training and enough parole officers to monitor these people out on the streets.

I don't want the Attorney General to tell this committee and the people of B.C. that they don't make mistakes. I open the newspaper every day of the week and am horrified by the things I read. Sure, that's headline-grabbing, and sure, the Attorney General may accuse the opposition of trying to grab headlines on this issue. That's not my style. That might be the style of the third party or Preston Manning or people from other places. My concern is that I don't think all the nice statements in this document are going to work, because I don't think the staff in the corrections system are properly trained.

I think there are too many of them there who are well-intentioned but don't get proper direction. Therefore I'll just make that general comment.

[ Page 10860 ]

Then I would like to refer to some of the statements that I see in this "Early Reviews and Automatic Hearings" document. "Early Reviews" is the first part of the document. For example: "These reviews will take place at one-sixth of sentence, and will consist of a file review instead of a hearing. If parole is granted on the strength of the file review, the inmate is released at the one-third eligibility date...." Probably a lot of people are going to qualify under this. So they will no longer be in the system; they will be out on the street. Do we have the proper staffing?

Do we have enough parole officers out there to ensure that these people will be properly monitored, so that for the balance of their sentence, which of course they will serve out on the street, they will indeed be looked after in that sense?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member says he's not headline-seeking on these issues. I note that he was available to media on the weekend, to make sure he gets Saturday morning Vancouver Sun coverage on occasion. So I'll believe the member when he refuses to take those calls from the media on some of these subjects.

I think it's important to put this into context, first of all, before getting back into the detail. When one considers the number of people who are coming in and out of the B.C. corrections custodial system every day -- the thousands of people who are processed, the literally more than 10,000 classification decisions that are made every year -- the corrections system really has a very good record for its decision-making ability. Occasionally things go wrong, and when they do, sometimes they go wrong in a very high-profile and horrific manner.

But I think that if members stop to think about it, if that happened very often it would become commonplace and it wouldn't create the kind of news story that the occasional event does create. The fact that there is such a high amount of attention paid to a particular incident I think is proof, or at least strong evidence, that in fact the system works very well, because we have that kind of failure very infrequently. The ideal is for those failures to never happen, and that's the objective.

Unlike members of the opposition, who never, ever make mistakes -- never -- sometimes members of the public service or the government do make mistakes. I think that those mistakes are very rare indeed in the corrections system.

With respect to the concern that the numbers of those who are eligible for parole will go up dramatically, they aren't. The fact is that of the considerations given so far, very few people in the pilot project have been actually released on parole as a result of the program. Many people will choose not to take advantage, and that's their opportunity. The Parole Board will be very careful, as it always is, about its decision-making.

But in the final analysis, if inmate A and inmate B are both eligible for parole, but inmate B doesn't understand how to go about obtaining a hearing and isn't advised in the days preceding the eligibility, why should inmate B, because of heritage, background, literacy, social skills or whatever else, be denied the opportunity that inmate A has as the result of having some skill in knowing how to use the system? I think each should have the same opportunity.

If we believe in parole -- and I do, and I gather from the member's comments that he does -- then parole as a principle is obviously a useful tool in the correctional system, otherwise we wouldn't have it. We have it because it is a positive and useful tool. If it is, then everybody who is eligible should be entitled to it so they can take advantage of the opportunities that exist to make sure that people don't in fact repeat and end up back in the system again.

If parole works toward helping people plan for their re-entry into society so that they don't come back into the system, then it's a very useful tool -- and parole does that. So why not make parole available to every individual who is eligible for it? There's no logic or sense that I can determine for saying that some people, because of their skill level, shouldn't be entitled and enabled to access this system and that others should. That doesn't make any sense to me.

J. Pullinger: I would like to ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Pullinger: Today I have the honour of welcoming, on behalf of the Speaker and this assembly, 20 grade 8 students, their teacher and several adults from Christ the King school in Seattle, Washington. I'd ask members here in the House to help me welcome our neighbours to the south.

J. Dalton: The Attorney General has talked about entitlement, and I do agree that everyone within the system should be treated the same and have the same opportunities. I guess the real quarrel.... In a way we are quarrelling now, but that's the job. The Attorney General also commented that the opposition never makes mistakes, which is true. It's unfortunate, however, that the government obviously makes mistakes, and sometimes these mistakes are very threatening to our society. That's my particular comment on that remark.

As for entitlement, I don't quarrel with that. The Attorney General is quite right. I don't oppose the opportunity for those who are entitled to and qualify for parole. They should get into that method of early release, because it does help to ease them back into society. We don't have a method in place yet, such as the one our neighbours to the south have, whereby after three strikes you're out and never seen again. Of course, for the most part we're not talking about dangerous offenders in the B.C. system. There are obviously some.

But again -- and I'm going to get to some specifics in a moment that from my perspective will reinforce it -- I am fearful that this is a rather open-ended and well-intended, though perhaps not necessarily well implemented policy. I agree that it's only a test pilot. Maybe we'll see that it crashes, and we'll never try to get it off the ground again.

[3:15]

Let me get to what is probably the essence of this document, as to whether it's going to work or not. It's on page 3 under the heading of "Interim Reviews." These are dealing with the people.... I will quote directly from the document: "High-risk offenders whom corrections branch staff regard as unlikely to be granted parole will be referred to the board for an interim review to decide if the inmate should receive an automatic hearing or be advised to apply for parole." Why are we inviting high-risk offenders, who are unlikely to qualify, to apply for parole? Danny Perrault fits this description.

If we are inviting and encouraging the Danny Perraults in our prison system to apply because we want to be fair and we want everyone to be entitled -- and all this other stuff that I'm hearing -- I'm sorry, but that compromises public confidence and it compromises public safety. I'm suggesting to the Attorney General that if that's the philosophy behind this, he had better revisit it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member focuses on an issue which is not the purpose of the policy.

Let me say, first of all, that the recommendation that people apply or be given the opportunity to apply does not

[ Page 10861 ]

mean that corrections officials are going to support parole being granted at a particular time. What is really important in these situations is that inmates who will be released some day begin to think about some of the obligations. One of the ways they can begin to think about planning for their future -- what they're going to do with their lives in the latter stages of their sentence and what they're going to do when they get out -- and be encouraged to embark upon that kind of serious self-analysis is by having parole as a focus of discussions. That doesn't mean parole is going to granted, but it means that people can begin to think about these kinds of issues.

The record with respect to release is good. We're not talking about a situation where we're dealing with decisions of the board that have gone awry. I think the member would agree that the board has a good record. We're not suggesting that for some reason this is going to encourage these people to have their freedom through parole. The fact is that they could have made that application on their own in any event. The policy is about making sure that it's an automatic procedure, the same way it is with parole boards that exist in other provinces and at the federal level.

This is making the policies across the country consistent. It's not designed to get people out when they shouldn't be out -- that won't happen. If it does, it would hopefully be completely inadvertently. I'm not going to say that it will never happen. Some mistakes will inevitably be made, but there sure haven't been very many when you think about it.

J. Dalton: I don't think I'm going to pursue this much further. Obviously I have one point of view, and the Attorney General has a different one. We'll just have to see who's right and who's wrong. I'll just make one further observation, and then I believe that my colleague from the neighbouring riding of West Vancouver-Garibaldi wants to jump in on the same topic.

Again, I point out to the Attorney General that when you set loose policy like this.... Sure, it's well intentioned. A lot of things that this government does are well intentioned, I suppose, but quite frankly, I don't think that a lot of the things this government does are right. And I don't speak alone when I say that. If we have well-intentioned policy that is not properly phrased, and if the project is not properly staffed and staff aren't properly trained.... I'm sorry, but I do not believe that these high-risk people will not, in some way or another, get out prematurely, before they are entitled to.

The flavour of the wording of this.... The Attorney General wants to downsize this and say that it really isn't part of the policy. Well, it happens to occupy the latter part of this document, which is only four pages in length. A fair amount of emphasis is placed on high-risk offenders. We can't lock them up forever. I might just share with the Attorney General an interesting comment that the last NDP Premier of this province shared with me the other day. I don't think I'm breaking any confidence by saying this. Mr. Barrett said to me: "You know, there are some people in the system who should never be released."

I will step aside for my friend from West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I just want one -- not argumentative, I trust -- additional word before turning to the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. The high-risk inmates the member talks about, generally speaking -- not always -- know the system and have been able to take advantage of the opportunity for a parole hearing in any event. The fact that there's a lot of detail in the policy in respect of that issue demonstrates the care and concern that the system takes in dealing with people who are in on serious offences and who are a high risk. That's all that this represents. We are taking exceeding care.

I will just repeat that we're not talking about anything more than an automatic consideration, rather than consideration if you know the system. Many of those high-risk people know the system all too well.

D. Mitchell: I would like to pursue a couple of aspects of this important line of questioning that has been pursued by the member for West Vancouver-Capilano. Before I do that, though, I'd like to ask the Attorney General if he could be a little more specific about a matter raised during the review of his spending estimates last Friday in this House. The member for Vancouver-Langara raised a question about what was referred to as the residential historical abuse program.

My understanding is that this is a program whereby individuals who have been part of the corrections system -- for instance, in British Columbia -- and have been abused at the hands of employees of the government, have some recourse and can receive some benefits through this program. Could the Attorney General inform the committee what the official stated purpose of this program is, when it was first established, how many people have applied for assistance under it so far, who is eligible and whether one must be a resident of the province in order to obtain counselling and other benefits?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not going to be as helpful to the member as I'd like to be, primarily because the program is administered by the Ministry of Health. It's not a corrections program; it's not a program that's particularly spun out of corrections. What we're talking about here is residential historical abuse.

Some people have at some time in their life been in the care of the province or in the care of an institution -- and not necessarily even an institution -- which could have been the responsibility of the Ministry of Social Services, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health or perhaps the Attorney General. If individuals who have been in those situations feel that the system has inflicted some abuse upon them, they are, on their own say-so, able to join in the counselling program that the Ministry of Health offers. I don't know how many people are taking advantage of that program.

The Ministry of Health could provide that information. If I can get that information before these estimates are through, I will certainly add that to the discussion.

D. Mitchell: I thank the Attorney General for that commitment. I was unaware that the Ministry of Health was responsible for this program on a cross-government basis. If that's the case, I'll pursue that during the Health estimates.

One aspect I am interested in, which perhaps the Attorney General's ministry might be able to shed some light on is: is there any limit to the retroactivity of such a program? Is there any limit on the residency of the individual who might apply for such benefits?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Before we get off track, the benefits made available are in fact counselling. It's available to anyone who believes that they were abused during a time when they were in the province's care -- at any point in their life, going back historically. I don't want to be categorical about this, but I understand that it's available to people who are now resident in British Columbia.

[ Page 10862 ]

D. Mitchell: I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, and I'd be happy to discuss it with the Attorney General outside of the spending estimates, but I'll just make one point: if a citizen of this province was abused by the system -- broadly speaking, the system being government -- when they were in the care of the government, and are residing outside the province, let's say in a neighbouring province, why they should be denied the counselling benefits that the Attorney General referred to is beyond me. It would seem that the obligation is recognized by the existence of a program.

I'm not sure I understand the rationale for someone living outside the province some years later not being eligible for the counselling benefits that the Attorney General referred to.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member raises a question to which I haven't given any consideration. As the member understands, this is a program administered by the Ministry of Health to which the other ministries that have some involvement contribute financially. It's certainly a question that raises a good point, and we'll have a look at it.

D. Mitchell: In reviewing the Hansard Blues, I see that one other point made last Friday by the member for Vancouver-Langara was that it might also be advisable for the government to have a brochure or some policy statement governing this program so that offices such as those of MLAs might have some basic information on this program. As the Attorney General is aware, our MLA offices are contacted all the time for information about this kind of program, and it doesn't appear that there's much available. I'm not sure if the Attorney General would want to respond to that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I hope to be able to send a copy of the brochure across the House to the member in a few minutes. I notice somebody scurrying out of the gallery. Hopefully they will find a copy for me.

The program was announced 18 months ago. The Ministry of Health does have a brochure that talks about it. It's designed to try to assist individuals who have a legitimate complaint about the way they were treated when they were in the care of the government. We see this as a positive means of providing some assistance. It grew out of the discussions around the Jericho Hill situation, to a certain extent, which is being treated in a unique way because of the unique issues there. But it's a program that we're not trying to hide at all.

D. Mitchell: I'm not going into any specifics. I've had some matters drawn to my attention that don't relate to the Jericho Hill situation at all, but I won't go into those right now. I'd like to familiarize myself further with the program.

I would like to return to some aspects of the corrections system, though, and the line of questioning that's been pursued today in the committee. In particular, I'd like to deal with vote 17 of the Attorney General's estimates, which deals with the corrections system. I realize that we're on vote 16, the minister's office. Hopefully he won't mind if I move back and forth a bit.

[3:30]

I'd like to begin with references to the replacement of inadequate facilities in recent annual reports of the ministry. In the last couple of annual reports -- 1991-92 and 1992-93 -- there were some very specific references. For instance, in the 1991-92 annual report there were references to the final closure of the Oakalla facility and the fact that the last of the three smaller institutions that replace it opened in July 1992, I think it was. Planning and consultation continued for the replacement of the Victoria Youth Detention Centre and the Willingdon Youth Detention Centre.

In the 1992-93 annual report for the ministry, there were references to the continuing process of replacing the Willingdon centre with two smaller centres, one of which would be in the Fraser facility in Maple Ridge. The branch also consulted with the community on the location of the new Victoria Youth Custody Centre, according to the annual report, and there are references to a couple of other smaller facilities. The year 1993-94 is now completed, but the Ministry of Attorney General's annual report has not yet been tabled in the House.

Could the Attorney General tell us which facilities were being worked on in that year? Are any replacements being planned right now for inadequate facilities that the Attorney General can tell this committee about?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to do this from memory, with some jogging of my memory by my helpers. The Prince George adult centre is well underway in terms of construction. It's replacing an old system that has some Oakalla-like features. Planning for Willingdon continues. The plan there is to build a new facility in the Maple Ridge area, as the member notes, which would house half of the people who have been in Willingdon, and to replace the building at Willingdon with a new building that would house the other half. The Victoria Youth Custody Centre is in a preliminary stage, but a site has been selected.

Municipal approval has been reached with the community of View Royal, if my memory is correct, and hopefully that antiquated place that we operate just a few blocks from here will be a thing of history before too much longer.

The Vancouver Pretrial expansion is expected to be ready for occupancy in July 1995. For the new lower mainland correctional centre, we are in a very preliminary stage for planning. The property hasn't even been acquired. Hopefully, if all goes well with the province's ability to secure funding for these capital costs, and the opposition doesn't give us too much trouble about borrowing too much money, we'll be able to be ready for occupancy in 1997. There are a couple of other projects in various facilities around the province where upgrading is a continuing matter.

D. Mitchell: I have the great burden right now of being the only opposition member in the House, so I'm sorely tempted to wind up these estimates. But unfortunately, I have a couple of other questions. If no one else enters before we get them answered, I'd be glad to do that.

The references the Attorney General just made were to sections of the annual reports dealing with inadequate facilities. I'm wondering if the Attorney General can tell us how a corrections facility is deemed to be inadequate. Can he tell us, for instance, what guidelines are used by the ministry to determine what is inadequate when it comes to facilities for housing criminals, dangerous offenders and others?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We use United Nations standards. For example, one of the.... Let me put it another way. I think if the member were to come with me to visit some of the old facilities, it wouldn't take reading a manual to know that they need replacing. Those of us who had an opportunity to visit Oakalla in years gone by knew, without reading a policy book or a set of guidelines, that this was an inappropriate and inadequate facility. One only has to go through the existing Prince George jail to know that most farmers wouldn't keep their animals in conditions like that. There are some pretty obvious standards.

But, to be more formal about it, there are United Nations standards which we go by.

[ Page 10863 ]

D. Mitchell: Approaching this from a different angle, I wonder if the minister might tell us if there are guidelines to tell us what would be adequate. If there are United Nations guidelines telling us what is inadequate, in terms of corrections facilities for persons convicted of crimes, for dangerous offenders and others, does the ministry have any guidelines for what is adequate? For instance, through the news media the general public hears about minimum security and high-security facilities. What do these standards relate to? Is it how high the fence surrounding the facility is?

What are the standards that make a corrections facility adequate? Can the Attorney General make references to higher levels of incarceration for more dangerous offenders, for instance? Are there guidelines for such things?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member will understand if I tell him that I don't know what those rules and guidelines are; but they exist and they're available. Certainly if the member wants to pursue the issues with staff in the corrections branch, he would be more than welcome to take advantage of that. Clearly there are different standards for high security as compared to minimum security; different rules are in place. To know what they are we'd both have to go and sit down and look at them and talk to people who do this for a living, as opposed to what the member and I do for a living.

D. Mitchell: The Attorney General must appreciate that there is some concern in the general community right now about this, especially with some recent high-profile and well-publicized instances of escapes or absences without leave. There are some real concerns in the community about the categorization of our corrections facilities -- so-called minimum security, medium security and high security -- and yet people convicted of serious crimes appear to be on the loose from time to time. Granted, the Attorney General has noted that these are exceptions to the rule, but there is some serious concern about that.

If the Attorney General is not wanting to discuss that in committee, I would take him up on his offer of following it up with his officials in order to understand it better myself.

I would like to ask about another issue dealing with inspection and standards. I know that the Attorney General has made some pronouncements on this recently. I've looked at the two most recent annual reports for the Ministry of Attorney General, and there are some references to inspection and standards in the corrections system.

For instance, in the 1991-92 annual report, there's a reference to the fact that "the division conducted 30 inspections of institutions, probation offices and contracted services, and dealt with 309 complaints from inmates and youths in custody...." In the 1992-93 report it said that complaints by offenders and clients were approximately 285 during the course of the year.

I'm wondering if the minister could tell the committee today what the nature of complaints coming forward from inmates and youths within the system would be. The volume is certainly quite high. The annual report of the ministry sheds no light on what these complaints might involve. Is it possible for the Attorney General to give us a flavour for what kinds of complaints come forward from inmates within the system?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's fair, first of all, to say that the complaints vary. I smiled when I saw the note that I was passed, because the variation in complaints ranges from lost socks to loss of privileges -- which occurs when correctional staff feel that's appropriate -- to disciplinary matters. If an inmate is disciplined, they may feel that the discipline meted out by staff at the particular institution was inappropriate, unfair or unwarranted and will often make a complaint to the inspection and standards branch. That's the nature, as I understand it, of most of the complaints.

D. Mitchell: I can imagine that some of the complaints might be of a more serious nature than the trivial examples that the Attorney General has noted. I'm sure that there is a variety of complaints. I'd be interested to know if the Attorney General or his ministry can tell us what the number of complaints was for the 1993-94 fiscal year just ended. I've listed the numbers of complaints for the last two years. Does the Attorney General have any statistics for the number of complaints for the last completed fiscal year?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm unable to provide the number for the year that ended six weeks ago. It may be that it's not added up and compiled yet, but if I can get that information to the member during these estimates I will. If I can't, I will undertake to write the member with that information in advance of the release of the report.

Going back to the main issue, all of the complaints are obviously not frivolous. On occasion, there are complaints that, on the face of it, are serious and warrant proper and serious consideration. More often than not these prove to be unfounded, but nonetheless, they do occur. I can't give a percentage. I don't know how many are of that kind, but some are seen at first glance to be serious and are treated in that way. They are dealt with by the inspection and standards branch in a way that, hopefully, provides some integrity to the system for both inmate and staff.

D. Mitchell: I have one other question on the inspection and standards branch within the corrections office. There are also references in the ministry's annual reports to a significant number of requests for review of correctional centre disciplinary hearings. In 1991-92, 244 such requests came forward. That was a significant increase -- about one-third -- over the previous year. In 1992-93, appeals of disciplinary decisions numbered some 208. So there is a significant volume of appeals of disciplinary hearings coming forward within the corrections system.

I'm wondering again if the Attorney General could tell us if he has the statistics available for 1993-94 -- the fiscal year just ended. Also, could he tell us who hears these appeals? What is the nature of the issues that come forward in the form of appeals?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure that I can answer the question with respect to the nature of the appeals without going back and looking at the list of issues that come forward, but they are heard by the inspection and standards branch of the corrections service. As the member knows, there is legislation on the order paper that will mean that in the future this matter will be dealt with in a different way.

D. Mitchell: I won't belabour this point, but I think this is an important issue. I'd like to thank the Attorney General, actually, for his answer to my question in question period in this House today, which dealt with the Prowse inquiry and looking into the Danny Perrault escape from New Haven Correctional Centre. I think his answer today in the House went a bit further in terms of a commitment to protect the corrections officers within the system who may wish to come forward and testify at the inquiry but are fearful for their jobs, of reprimands or of jeopardizing their careers by

[ Page 10864 ]

coming forward. But the question I'm getting at right now, in terms of appeals of decisions within the corrections system, is about my belief that some of the very matters that will now go before the Prowse inquiry, which is looking into one specific incident in the corrections system -- the Danny Perrault escape -- but which is also looking into the corrections system and the administration of corrections in the province, have been raised in some of these appeals. Correctional centre disciplinary hearings is how they are referred to -- and requests for reviews of those hearings or appeals.

What I'm trying to get at here is that there have been charges of abuse of power within our corrections system on the part of officials and government employees, and of abuse of people within the system. Individuals such as Danny Perrault -- and we're not going to discuss his case today, because it's before an inquiry -- and other individuals within the system have launched appeals, because they claim to have been abused by officials and corrections officers, sometimes at the most senior levels in the corrections system. I realize that this may get addressed before the Prowse inquiry.

I myself plan to make a submission to the Prowse inquiry on this matter. But my point is to ask whether or not there have been allegations that the Attorney General is aware of that are part of the statistics for 1991-92, 1992-93 -- which I just referred to -- or perhaps the fiscal year just ended, which the Attorney General can admit during this set of estimates are of a serious nature and that may in fact relate to the Prowse inquiry.

Or are there other instances where serious offenders, dangerous criminals within the system, have been involved perhaps in a high-profile way or in a manner that's never been brought to light before that the public was aware of.

[3:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm pausing because I want to be sure about my answer in this respect. Unless I misunderstand the member's question, I'm not aware of any issues of the sort that he's describing that are a cause of concern. There may be -- the member may have an illustration or two on his desk -- but not that I'm personally aware of at this point.

D. Mitchell: I'm not going to belabour the case, and I'm not going to bring forward incidents in this committee today, but I believe that the appeals that come forward within the system are oftentimes not of a trivial nature; they're of a very serious nature. I'm sure that some of them will come forward in due course. I think we have to wait to see what the Prowse inquiry can come up with first. I continue to be of the view that the Prowse inquiry's mandate and terms of reference are far too narrow and restrictive and that we need a much broader-ranging inquiry into our corrections system -- but first things first.

I'd like to ask one final question of the Attorney General in this committee today. It deals with the total amount of public money spent on corrections in our province. I'd like to actually help the Attorney General, if I could, to get more money for corrections, if that's what's needed. I'm not sure that is what's needed. The total vote for corrections in British Columbia this year is almost $211 million, according to the estimates that the Minister of Finance tabled in this House. Last year it was $198 million or $199 million; the year before that it was $185 million or $186 million, so there is an increased expenditure.

I wonder if the Attorney General can tell us if, during the period of time that he has been responsible for the corrections system, he has taken any specific initiatives in the way we manage the corrections system in British Columbia that would save taxpayer dollars. Has he taken any specific initiatives that would allow us to save money in this branch of government?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We've taken a number of initiatives. I think the most dramatic is the electronic monitoring program, where people serve their time on electronic monitoring rather than being in a custodial facility; this is considerably less expensive than the cost of prison. We are taking -- and have taken in this budget -- initiatives to spend more on the community side as opposed to the institutional side, with the view that it's a cost-effective way of dealing with correctional issues. By that I mean dealing with probation supervision of community service and work service supervision in the communities, which is, again, cheaper and more effective from a rehabilitation perspective.

A number of initiatives along those lines are being undertaken. I think that one of the reasons why the costs have gone up the way they have is because of the nature of the crime that is being committed these days. But more and more relevant is the profile of the inmate population, which is far less benign as a profile than it was, say, ten or 15 years ago.

D. Mitchell: The minister has identified some areas where there's an attempt to reap cost savings within the corrections system. He's spending $211 million this year on corrections in British Columbia. There may be some British Columbians who feel that that's not enough. If the Attorney General had been more successful at Treasury Board -- and I can't ask what happens in that cabinet committee -- what areas of corrections would the Attorney General, if he could, spend more money on? What would be the ministry's priorities in the corrections system if more taxpayers' dollars could be expended in this area?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, whether it's in order or not, I relish the opportunity to answer the question. I really feel very strongly that we need to do more on the community and community service side; on involving community through various local organizations in developing programs closer to home, if I can use that Health term; on finding ways of enabling native Indian bands to supervise their children rather than have them sent away to jail; and on finding ways of adding to the number of probation officers who are able to work in our province.

We have increased them this year by a fairly significant number, considering the economic and fiscal constraints that are around us. But that is the side of the system that I would want to put the most emphasis on. It's cheaper; it's more effective. It produces better results for the community in the long term by getting people to lead normal and productive lives rather than lives that put them in conflict with the law.

D. Mitchell: I would like to ask the Attorney General one further question. There is a broad-based perception in British Columbia that our corrections system is too lenient on criminals who are being handled within the system, if I can use that term. I'm sure the Attorney General is aware of that; I'm not sure whether he agrees with it or not. Certainly my constituents believe that is the case.

We hear about dangerous criminals being on parole and committing crimes. An inquiry is looking at the Danny Perrault case. We hear phrases like terminal temporary absences. The phrase boggles my mind: a dangerous offender on a terminal temporary absence. I'm not really sure that I understand completely what that means, but it means they're out in the community when perhaps they shouldn't

[ Page 10865 ]

be. That's my

interpretation of what a terminal temporary absence is. We hear about criminals taking fishing trips and having day passes, when they're out in the community and sometimes committing dangerous crimes. These may be the exceptions to the rule -- and I'm sure the Attorney General would argue that -- but there is deep concern in the community right now.

Would the Attorney General not agree that at the end of the day the one thing that can restore confidence in the corrections system in British Columbia is a full, wide-ranging, independent public inquiry into the whole corrections system, including parole and how dangerous offenders in particular are handled within the system? I think all members of the House would want to see confidence in the corrections system restored. It's not there today, and the Attorney General has admitted that.

Perhaps once we get through the Perrault inquiry, depending upon its findings -- the Attorney General may want to know what those are -- would he not agree that a full, broad public inquiry, no matter how long it takes, is actually necessary to restore confidence in the system?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I wouldn't agree, and I'm sure the member is not surprised by that answer. I think that over the last few years we have had very few issues as consequential as some of the recent events. If we can find out through the Prowse inquiry what transpired in this particular incident, we may learn enough to provide answers that a broader inquiry might produce some years down the road. I also think that we can begin the process of advising the public about how well the system actually does work. That's been a failure, and I take responsibility for that.

I don't think we talk about the positives enough. One of the reasons we don't is probably that we never get any coverage for it, so nobody ever knows if you do talk about something positive. But the system really works very well, and we need to say that repeatedly. That's probably as important in regaining public confidence as anything.

I intend to be far more aggressive in talking about the good decisions that are made and in talking about the reality. The reality is that all these inmates that the member is talking about are going to be out one day. So what we have to do -- there are other purposes too, but it's a primary public security focus -- is make sure that when the day arrives that they are going to be out, they're as ready for it as we can enable them to be. That's the crucial issue. The member talks about fishing trips. I don't know whether they occur, but if they do, I think it's a good idea.

You can't be in a jail -- in that inhumane, unreal atmosphere that is unrelated to life, to working, to relationships and to everything else that occurs in one's daily life -- and then suddenly one day be out and maybe be given a bus pass as you leave the jail entrance. To go where? Well, you're going to go back to your old haunts, unless you've had a program that helps you to reintegrate into society. That's what all these initiatives are about. That's what the temporary absences are about; that's what parole is about. That's what all of these programs are for; they are crucial.

Without them -- with the kind of mindless system that some would advocate where those opportunities aren't available -- we will have huge and horrendous public safety and public security issues, and we will have an increasing crime problem like they're having in the United States, where they have a regressive and repressive criminal justice system.

G. Wilson: I don't disagree with the Attorney General's last comments, save and except that we have to make sure that those kinds of things don't happen in the instance where an individual is out and a crime is committed, especially a crime against another person. It's obviously not an easy task, and one that we could debate for many more hours.

I'd like to change focus slightly and talk more specifically about aboriginal justice and the extent to which this ministry is involved in aboriginal policing and aboriginal justice systems. I canvassed this fairly thoroughly under the estimates of Aboriginal Affairs. I am curious on two grounds. One is the extent to which the ministry is consulted with respect to aboriginal policing, where that is becoming a functional part of some aboriginal communities.

Secondly, to what extent is the ministry actively putting money into it, either through commitments to the community justice system or to some other programs which would seek an interface between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities that are in close proximity? I thankfully remind the Attorney General of the moneys made available to the Sechelt Indian band, who were interested in putting together a program with respect to youth violence in that community. That program has proven to be fairly successful, and I think it is something that should be repeated.

I would like to start this discussion by talking about aboriginal policing and your involvement with it, and secondly, the moneys that may be available for ongoing programs with respect to interfacing aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I may get into more detail as we go on with this, and I have an opportunity to listen to and read some of the briefing notes. Let me say off the top that we are very much involved with initiatives in respect of aboriginal policing. First of all, we have worked closely with the aboriginal policing project in Lillooet, which has resulted in the tribal policing force established there, and it would be fair to say that the ministry has had a significant involvement. We are also working with the RCMP in respect of their native constables program.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

In provincial policing, I think the member knows that we as a province pay 70 percent of the cost -- I'm going to be corrected on the numbers if I'm wrong -- and the feds pay 30 percent on normal policing matters. In respect of aboriginal or first nations native constable programs, the federal government actually pays the majority; they pay 52 percent of the cost and the province pays 48 percent. It is estimated that in this fiscal year the number of native constables will be 67 and that there will be 29 tribal police in the province. That goes up from 58 to 67 in the fiscal year we've just concluded.

In tribal police, it goes up to 29 from 8 in the year we've just concluded. So there is a real emphasis on first nations policing. We do not dictate to native communities about how or who they choose; this is a matter for discussion. Different native communities prefer different options. Some prefer not to have the program and to rely on the traditional RCMP detachment. But we're open; we're available for and in constant discussion with them about that.

[4:00]

The member also talked about some other issues. I just want to say that we as a ministry are also considerably involved in what I would describe as getting at root causes that lead to a lot of problems with the justice system. Obviously in native communities a lot of the root causes go back to social ills that in many cases -- at least in my own experience -- can be traced back to the residential schools and the sexual abuse and other patterns of behaviour that

[ Page 10866 ]

became established. We are involved, with other ministries where it's appropriate, in assisting in funding programs to come to grips with these root causes of ills in communities that later lead to the kind of behaviour that often ends up putting people into conflict with the law.

I have just one final thought on this. A traditional response of governments historically is that the Attorney General's ministry, Solicitor General's ministry or Justice minister -- whichever is appropriate in which jurisdiction -- has always sort of picked up the pieces. The ministry hasn't worried so much about root causes but has simply been the agency to fix the mess when it finally arrives at the criminal justice door.

It's my view -- and I think this view is shared increasingly across the western world -- that we all have to begin to pay more attention to root causes and the sources of the ills that lead to the problems. We all know how much a factor drugs and alcohol are in the crime rates in our society. We have to get back to some of those root causes. While no government can do enough in that respect, we're certainly putting in as much effort as we can to get at those root causes.

The Chair: On a point of order, the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

C. Tanner: It isn't really a point of order. But if the minister could project....

The Chair: Is it or isn't it a point of order?

C. Tanner: It's a point of order, then. If he could project a little more, we could hear a little better over here.

The Chair: Would the Attorney General speak up or speak out or however it works.

G. Wilson: I wonder if we could just focus for a moment specifically on the Lillooet policing. How much has that cost the province in dollars to date?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We have the information, but it's not handy. If the member wants to go on to some other questions -- if that works in terms of his organization here -- I'll come back with that answer.

G. Wilson: That's fine.

The second thing is a question. I draw the minister's attention to a document that was actually received through his own office and dated May 6, 1994, so that the Attorney General knows where I'm coming from on this. It was written to Mr. Villa-Arce in his office. There were a number of issues with respect to recruitment and selection aspects of the mandate, expenditures of moneys, accountability and questions to the extent of who these native officers report to.

If we're waiting on the amount of money, then, I wonder if the Attorney General might tell us what the procedure is with respect to the authority lines there. To whom do these constables report? They are presumably there to enforce the laws of the province and of Canada. To what extent does the chief-in-council have authority over the actions they may take within their normal role as a constable?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In respect of the first question, I still don't have an answer. But I can say that the total amount for municipal policing, through the tribal policing program -- and I say municipal because that's the way it's organized -- is $336,000 in the current fiscal year that we're debating. I still don't have the answer as to how much of that is in Lillooet. But we begin to come closer to some numbers the member can work with.

In respect of the way the Lillooet police service operates, it is like any municipal force. It's under the Police Act and has its own police board. The B.C. Police Commission is responsible in the same way as it is for the 12 municipal forces. The pattern is the same, and these police officers are properly and fully trained, as are other municipal police officers. The theory is that it works the same as other municipal forces.

G. Wilson: I guess it's on that theory that I will start to focus some attention. There's an old adage -- and the minister will have heard it, I'm sure -- that if you see a person assaulted on the street, you call a cop; but if you see a cop assaulting someone on the street, whom do you call? We have to be extremely careful in the development of municipal police forces. In the selection process, the finest people should be brought forward and trained -- and in the vast majority of cases, I think that's done. Where abuses occur, there should be a very clean, legitimate and direct process for appeal, review and reconsideration.

I wonder if the Attorney General might talk a bit about how the community policing advisory committee was set up, how it was structured, what process is involved with respect to recommendations coming forward on that and the extent to which training is monitored through an agency outside the Police Commission itself.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member raised three issues; number two was on what I thought was a totally unrelated topic. I may have misunderstood when he talked about the community policing report, which didn't seem to be related to the issues of the training and accountability that exist within the municipal forces. I may have missed what the member was saying. I will answer it in the same way that I did before.

All the institutional apparatuses that exist for the 12 municipal forces -- the rules, training, accountability, procedures, the complaint commission and the commissioner -- also exist for municipally based tribal police forces. There's no difference in that respect. I don't know what more to say about that, other than that when Mr. Justice Oppal reports, I'm expecting to get advice from him in respect of these issues and ways in which we can improve the system that's now in place. I'm looking forward to those recommendations as well.

G. Wilson: Let's break down some of those issues, then, and deal more directly and specifically with some of the concerns that have come forward to this member. With respect to enforcement procedures in the particular tribal police forces, to what extent are those forces directed by chief and council and by policies developed by the band on band land? To what extent are they there to enforce strictly the laws of British Columbia, as would be mandated for a municipal force? Municipal police officers don't engage in bylaw enforcement practices, generally speaking.

Sometimes they do assist municipal bylaw enforcement officers, but only where there is some threat of violence or some problem associated with the enforcement of bylaws. My question is: to what extent are these tribal officers directed by chief and council?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The tribal police forces will enforce the law in their community in the same way as the New Westminster police department will enforce the law in their

[ Page 10867 ]

community. They end up enforcing the Criminal Code and other statutes in both cases. They also are responsible, in both cases, for some elements of local bylaw enforcement. That matter is determined between the police board and the chief of police in each case. I'm not sure where the member is going. The model is parallel. Conceptually, one needs to think of the jurisdiction of the Lillooet tribal police force as having the ability to do in their community what the New Westminster force can do in the city of New Westminster.

G. Wilson: I'll tell you exactly where I'm headed with this. It has to do with accountability for constables in the tribal policing section, in the same way as we would look at accountability for people in municipal forces. There may be difficulties with people who perhaps, for whatever reasons, have some difficulty knowing from whom they take their orders.

In this document that I just referred to, one of the concerns involved this question put to a provincial constable: "What is your jurisdiction or role, or under what authority do you enforce this infraction? I've broken no laws of the province." The response was: "I take my orders from band chief and band council, and I'm doing as I've been informed to do." The difficulty is that when you have that kind of enforcement.... And that may be a perfectly legitimate thing for them to be doing. I'm not for a moment suggesting that necessarily, on the basis of the information I have in front of me, there was anything particularly untoward.

The problem that we potentially run into here is an opportunity for those people who are empowered over others to be able to enforce the law in a manner that this Attorney General, I'm sure, and other people in British Columbia might find unacceptable. When those kinds of things occur, through what process is there going to be some legitimate appeal and concern expressed? And who is going to be overseeing and monitoring those kinds of appeals? That's the issue.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I prefer not to respond to second-, third- or fourth-hand suggestions of what he said and they said. The parallel would be for city constables in Vancouver, through the chief constable, to take their direction from the mayor and from the chair of the Vancouver Police Board. The police board sets the policy and the direction, and the chief constable is accountable to the police board. The elected mayor is the chair of the police board. In Lillooet the elected chief is in precisely the same position as Mayor Owen would be in Vancouver. That's the parallel.

[4:15]

Concerns or complaints may arise. If that occurs, there is a procedure to be followed through the B.C. Police Commission, which has, among its five-member board, one person who is responsible for dealing with complaints. But the commission is there in the same way it is for any other municipal force.

G. Wilson: That leads to the heart of some of the concerns that I'm hearing more and more as I travel to various communities -- mostly, I confess, in the lower mainland, but certainly to one interior community as well. It's important for the public to be aware that there is some kind of authority external to the police commission and that they have an avenue to it. There is a growing concern in the province, with respect to law enforcement and the justice system generally, that policing one's own and setting up commissions to police one's own are not necessarily the best way to proceed when complaints are brought against individuals.

There is often an accusation -- and I'll put it in those terms -- that people who have been involved as the chair of a commission, in the appointment of officers, as a chief of police or in bringing appointed members in as constables, have a tendency to want to deal with things in-house. They want to do whatever internal disciplining has to be done quietly and internally, and they will look after their own. While I can see that it may be an effective way of managing some minor issues, the public won't accept that any longer on major issues. The public is going to want an opportunity for a full and public review of these procedures.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

I only draw the minister's attention to this one particular set of concerns, but there are a number of concerns now with respect to the changing nature of economic activity on aboriginal reserves, particularly the introduction of profit gaming. There is going to have to be some very serious attention paid to the whole question of law enforcement, policing, how those officers are appointed, how those commissions operate, what kind of internal review there is and what public opportunity there is for those reviews to be considered when complaints are lodged.

Oftentimes complaints are discouraged -- let me use that word in a generous way -- before they can actually get to the point where they can be heard with any degree of authority.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Without agreeing with all of the implications and with everything the member said, I share the view that there has been concern about a variety of issues in respect of policing. It was one of the reasons, more than a year ago now, that we established the Oppal inquiry into policing. The act under which we operate is 20 years old, by and large, and policing and community attitudes and values have changed since then. It's time for a complete review. It's time to make sure that we are delivering the services and providing that accountability in a way that is in tune with where people are today.

That's why the Oppal inquiry is so important to me, personally, and will prove to be very important to all British Columbians. I would prefer to have my answer based on what seems like a cop-out, which is to say: let's wait for Wally Oppal. It's a serious issue that requires deep and careful thinking, and I'm sure that's what we'll get with the report when it finally arrives.

C. Evans: I'd like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

C. Evans: Hon. Chair, since you're busy, I'd like to introduce a couple of your constituents. Sheryl Beaudoin and Jason Albain are here from Nanaimo, accompanied -- or maybe even coerced into coming here -- by my son, Philip Evans.

The Chair: Did the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast finish a set of questions? I see the member for Saanich North and the Islands trying to get to his feet, and I'm wondering whether this is a logical point to go to somebody else?

G. Wilson: I would like to go back to aboriginal policing.

The Chair: In that case, I will recognize the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

[ Page 10868 ]

G. Wilson: I will recognize the Oppal report as something that we can chew into when it arrives.

I would like to hit two other areas with respect to aboriginal policing and aboriginal justice. My question has to do with the agreements now being made that deal more specifically with rights and privileges that may extend into aboriginal communities as a result of the Treaty Commission process. I raised this in the Aboriginal Affairs estimates, and sections of it were thought better to be raised here. It has to do primarily with this whole question of the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms which, as I understand it, must apply now in agreements in Manitoba -- although I'm not sure there's been an agreement to the effect that it will apply here.

My question also has to do with citizenship rights that may exist under tribal law in an agreement such as the one this government has just signed with the Nisga'a, in which eight Nisga'as can determine the citizenship of future Nisga'as. There can be an appeal process to two people, one appointed Nisga'a and one appointed federal officer. Under law, that is going to impact significantly on the rights of those people deemed Nisga'a citizens who are operating or living within that area under Nisga'a jurisdiction.

Yet clearly there could be a conflict between Nisga'a tribal custom and law and that of British Columbia. My question to the Attorney General is: where those conflicts arise, under what law will that individual be subject? They will be primarily civil matters, not criminal, but they may be something as simple as adoption law, as one example.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The continuing negotiations to reach a treaty with the Nisga'a have these items on the table. It seems pretty clear that the Criminal Code is going to apply, and there's not going to be any question about that. It seems pretty clear that the equivalent of municipal bylaws will be the purview of the local authority -- in this case the Nisga'a processes. Provincial statutes are issues that will be discussed at these tables. There may be instances where it's appropriate that a local procedure should prevail. It may have more relevance in that community than a provincial statute.

I can't say more than that about it, because these are matters that are not resolved and are the subject of discussion.

G. Wilson: I would come back again to looking at the whole question of money spent establishing a municipal police force or something similar in the municipalities and aboriginal areas. I don't argue with that. I think some pluses have been established. There have been some minuses, but that would be expected.

But the fact that the minister would suggest that we in British Columbia are currently negotiating the applicability of provincial law to one group over another -- one that is able to define itself, to define who may be a member of that group and to therefore define who will be excluded -- is a major departure from this country's traditional system of government, because this country has always argued that the law will apply equally to all citizens, that no distinctions will be made. Equality under the law is a very fundamental principle upon which the country was built.

My question to the Attorney General is more direct. How does the Attorney General feel about negotiating exclusivity of law or a parallel system of legal jurisprudence that may be applied -- and presumably we're talking about oral tradition, tribal law, customary law or whatever it may be -- to one group of people exclusive of others in British Columbia? Does the Attorney General not see that that is setting us up for some very significant conflicts in the future?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Like the former government, I have no problem with agreements about child welfare policies and rules that were signed with the Spallumcheen, for one, and with the Nuu'chah'nulth for another -- that I can do from memory, and I think there were others -- where different procedures and rules were in place. Beyond that, for about 20 years we have had a separate educational system for Nisga'a people in the Nass Valley through a Nisga'a school board, which operates very effectively.

The member is suggesting that somehow this is going to change if the local government -- in this case, the Nisga'a people -- get to choose who is covered by it. Well, everybody who lives in Vancouver and everybody who travels through Vancouver is covered by their bylaws, so I'm not sure where the member is going with this. I understand some of the issues where, if you put your imagination to work, members could think of dire situations, but none of those issues have been agreed to. Discussions continue to work out an agreement that, to echo the Premier's commitment, everybody in British Columbia, native and non-native, can be proud and happy with.

G. Wilson: The reason I ask these questions is that I believe it will have a very profound effect on not only this set of estimates but all sets of estimates as we work through this new proposition that's coming forward. With respect to the Nuu'chah'nulth, sure, there are rules and procedures that differ, but that doesn't change the law. The law's application is consistent, but there are rules and procedures that are different.

Yes, the city of Vancouver has a charter that governs people who live there, but notwithstanding one's racial origin, anybody who lives in the city of Vancouver is equally governed under that charter. One cannot argue the same of the agreement made with the Nisga'a. I can become a Vancouverite by going and living there, but I could never become a Nisga'a, because there's no way to do that. My citizenship could never be determined, because citizenship is tied to race in that case, and that is a fundamental departure in Canada.

I would argue that with respect to the provincial statutes -- and I recognize that the criminal statutes in this case are going to apply, although some, I believe, may come to the table.... But in this case let's look specifically at gaming. That's where I'm headed with this thing. Gaming was removed from the Ministry of Attorney General and given to another minister. In an earlier discussion in these estimates, this minister suggested that I should take up with that minister why he got it and this minister lost it, and I will.

But the costs of policing that will be a direct result of these kinds of activities -- especially on aboriginal reserves, where this government has said it will have no jurisdiction or authority -- are not going to be determined by a political or geographic boundary. If they spin off into neighbouring municipalities such as Kelowna, who is going to pick up the cost? Where is that money going to come from? The rules and regulations that may apply within that jurisdiction are clearly going to spill into the neighbouring jurisdictions, and guess who is going to pick up the tab -- we are.

That policing cost is going to come out of this set of estimates or next year's estimates or the one after that. So these are not just hypothetical questions. These are very specific questions that deal with real costs that people are going to have to bear.

So I would ask one last question on aboriginal policing, and then I will yield. Certain activities are inevitably going

[ Page 10869 ]

to be a functional part of gaming for profit. One can prove it statistically by looking at any other jurisdiction where gaming has come about. If indeed there is provision for relative autonomy in the regulations and procedures to getting profit gaming and there is a commitment that the policing costs are going to be borne by this ministry, where does the minister see the costs for those kinds of activities being absorbed?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Gaming is governed by the Criminal Code. The code enables the province to license, and that's not going to change. Any other questions the member has are presupposing the adoption of policies that the government has not adopted. So I don't know how we can take it any further.

[4:30]

C. Tanner: I want to ask the Attorney General some questions concerning the native alternative court system. I note in the newspaper reports after Marion Buller did her inquiry around the province: "After travelling the province to interview aboriginals and justice officials, Buller said a complete overhaul of the system is required -- that they are not getting justice within our system now." I know that until a year ago, we had an alternative native court justice system, particularly on the Saanich Peninsula, but I don't see it in operation anymore.

My questions are: What happened to it? Is it still available? If it's not available on the Saanich Peninsula, is it available in another part of the province?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: For a variety of reasons, the South Island project was put on hold last year while an evaluation was done of how it was working. Our philosophy in respect of dealing with native justice issues in their varying components -- whether it's policing, the prosecution stage, diversion, what happens in the court system or through to Corrections -- is that there isn't a cookie-cutter solution, a program that we can design and impose on native communities. That's not the way it works.

Our whole approach has been to try to work with native communities to help respond to issues and solutions that they have identified, perhaps to mould them in a way that we think may be a more appropriate resolution of a particular issue and to design programs on a case-by-case basis. That's what's happening.

I'd prefer not to go into detail about them in the estimates, but some problems developed in the South Island Tribal -- I've lost the precise name, but we know what we're talking about. It's the project that the federal and provincial governments and the South Island Tribal Council were involved with in terms of community justice. It ran into some problems that required it being put in abeyance while we saw whether we could find ways around those particular issues.

Some of the issues were raised by a group based in the member's constituency, the Naukana women's centre. I'm sure the member has met with them or has had comments from them. Some of the concerns that they raised helped us come to the conclusion that we did.

C. Tanner: I appreciate that the minister doesn't particularly want to talk in detail about why the withdrawal of that program took place. However, if inquiries are made and you find a solution for them, I couldn't find anywhere in your budget this year where funds would be available should you want to put that program back in place.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is an item in the aboriginal programs part of the budget for community initiatives -- and a number are already funded -- that allow particular initiatives to be funded by the ministry should those projects meet mutually satisfactory goals that we and the community have. We have a variety of initiatives in place around the province. If a diversion program were proposed that could solve some of the problems that come with the territory, then we would look very seriously at it. The money is located within the aboriginal community justice part of the budget.

C. Tanner: I take it that while it's there, it's not specified. Could the minister -- not necessarily now but maybe sometime in the future -- afford me a list of those programs still in place, if there are any, and a list of other programs that are taking place, so that if some of my constituents are interested, I could direct their attention to them?

Can I change the direction of the questions a little now? I would like to talk about the Buller inquiry. First, how long did it take and how much did it cost? Second, she has come to a fairly far-reaching conclusion. Frankly, it's one that I've heard in other jurisdictions in Canada and one that I've heard for some time on a subject that I've been interested in for ten years. They've come to the same conclusion that I suspect the minister thought they might. What is the department going to do about it? It's a fairly condemning report of our system.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll just deal with the issues in sequence. First of all, yes, the ministry will communicate with the member by way of a letter that will list the initiatives underway in terms of aboriginal justice issues being funded and/or supported partly by us. We'll get that information to the member and to any other member who would like that information either in writing or by way of a briefing, which I think might be a useful thing to do.

Second, the Buller commission cost approximately $96,000. It occupied about three months. It was done very quickly on a very low budget, as these things are done. Ms. Buller made some reference to that in the opening parts of her report. I don't blame her for doing that. It was low-budget, and it was quick. Nonetheless, she produced a report that I think should cause every British Columbian to stop and ponder.

Whether each or any of us agree with all of the conclusions she reached, the overwhelming sense of the report is that there are indeed serious problems with the way in which aboriginal justice is delivered in our society. I think it goes beyond British Columbia. It is a North American problem, and it is more acute in some parts of North America and Canada than it is in others. It's more acute in some parts of British Columbia than it is in others.

I come at this from the firsthand experience of representing a constituency which has a large proportion of native people and a wide variety of bands from four different tribal council groupings and three different language and cultural groupings. In one of them I see horrendous problems in respect of how people deal with or are dealt with by the justice system.

Most of Ms. Buller's recommendations are directed at the Legal Services Society. What she was looking at wasn't a comprehensive review of native justice but rather a look at how legal aid can be best provided to native people in British Columbia. Her recommendations were focused on that, and it's only by the way that the more pervasive kinds of indictments are rendered by her. I have indicated before in this House -- and everywhere I go -- that I share those general views and concerns. We have a lot to do.

[ Page 10870 ]

I have also been firm from the beginning that the resolution of the failure of our system to deal properly with native justice issues is not in setting up a separate native justice system parallel to the existing justice system.

I firmly believe -- and in this I think I'm supported by most native people and certainly most people in my constituency; I can attest to that -- that the direction of the solution is in finding parts of the system that can be applied differently or more appropriately in each community: whether it's diversion programs that could apply appropriately in a community; whether it's holding court in a different way; whether it's finding more aboriginal policing that is directly related and from the community; or whether it's in the corrections system in terms of having parole or probation supervised by elders or part of the elders council, or the extended family, which is a feature of aboriginal communities that doesn't exist in our fractured non-native communities.

There are a whole series of initiatives that I'm keen to pursue, all of which have to be done within a terribly limited financial framework. We're not going to make quick or easy progress, but I'm determined that we keep it at the very top of the priority list.

C. Tanner: The Attorney General is saying the sorts of things that I'm pleased to hear, and I agree with him. I have four reserves in my constituency as well, and those people are suffering from the court system we presently have. That is illustrated by the fact that 3 percent of the population of British Columbia is native, and 17 percent of the people who are now incarcerated are native. Obviously there's no relationship between those two figures. Something is wrong. You didn't need Marion Buller to tell you that. I'm sure the Attorney General knew that.

While I know he's sympathetic with it, I still haven't heard any solutions. Are we still studying the Buller report, and we're going to have something specific, or has she merely confirmed what the Attorney General and his party and many members on this side have known all along: that we've got a problem that we have to address?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is that we have not yet released a formal response to the Buller report. It's something that's still being worked on in the ministry, and we have not done that; nor has the Legal Services Society, to my knowledge, provided a response in respect of the issues that were directed at them. To date, what I have done -- in a public way, anyway -- is express my general agreement with the picture that is being painted by Ms. Buller.

In respect of solutions, even prior to her report, we have been working on a number of those issues, and we will continue to do so in as aggressive a way as we can, working with native communities and working within the budget that we have allocated to us.

M. de Jong: On Friday the Attorney General answered a couple of questions about some proposed capital projects. I'm not certain that this is the forum for members to go to the Attorney General and suggest that this riding or that community or somewhere else needs a courthouse; I'm not sure I know where that forum lies, but I don't know that this is it.

My question on that point is a little more general and is designed to encourage the Attorney General and his ministry, when giving consideration to capital funding and courthouse facilities, to not have regard strictly for historical judicial centres. The argument exists, as the minister correctly points out, for places other than Chilliwack and Abbotsford. It exists elsewhere in the province too. The various local bars have difficulty dealing with infrastructure that has arisen around a historical judicial centre that no longer necessarily matches population growth and courthouse activities. I wonde