1995 Legislative Session: 4th 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, APRIL 24, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 4

[ Page 13591 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Today in the members' gallery we have some very special visitors. His Excellency Walter Fernando, High Commissioner for Sri Lanka to Canada, is visiting British Columbia with his wife, Chalini Fernando. The High Commissioner is accompanied by Mir Huculak, honorary consul of Sri Lanka at Vancouver. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

T. Perry: We also have some not quite as distinguished but equally important visitors from the great riding of Vancouver-Little Mountain today. Along with their teacher, Mr. A. Buium, are students from the social studies classes in government and history at Eric Hamber Secondary School. Would members please join me in making them welcome.

If they didn't get the message, we'll meet in the Hemlock Room at 3 o'clock.

F. Gingell: Seeing that the caucus of the previous administration is not in the House, I will take the opportunity to introduce to the House a gentleman who played a role: Mr. Bill Clancey. Would the House please make him welcome.

R. Neufeld: I rise on a different matter. I would like to say a few words about six young people who passed away in a community that I represent. Six young people in a community of 5,000 or 6,000 people is a tragic incident, and it reminds each and every one of us how quickly it can happen to those who are close to us. Five of the youngsters lived in Fort Nelson and one lived in the community of Fort Liard, which is a little north of Fort Nelson. I lived in Fort Nelson for 20 years and knew five of the youngsters. Also, my children attended school with these young people.

It certainly reminds us that in today's world we have to start looking seriously at some of the things that can happen with vehicles and young people when they're not working together in the right way. So I would just ask for a moment's silence, please, in memory of these youngsters, and our condolences to their parents and their immediate family.

Oral Questions

DELAY IN CONSTRUCTION OF MATSQUI-SUMAS-ABBOTSFORD HOSPITAL

L. Reid: My question is to the Premier. On Saturday the Premier single-handedly scrapped the plans for the MSA hospital, thus delaying the project for an additional 15 months. What the Premier failed to announce was that this delay will cost taxpayers $5 million in wasted planning costs and $4.8 million in extra site-servicing costs. The Premier's announcement will add $28,000 per bed, and the project has not even begun. Can the Premier tell this House when the MSA hospital will open its doors and if this is what he means by cost savings?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I met with the city council in Abbotsford, and I had a very good presentation from the mayor and council about both the new MSA health care facility and the immediate utilization of existing beds and hospitals. I made a commitment to get in touch with them in the near future about both the short-term and the longer-term health care requirements. I said very clearly that the MSA facility was going to go ahead and that we were concluding with due diligence the process we've instituted on the construction and design costs.

That's saving us 10 percent on construction projects, because we're having a good hard look at the taxpayers of this province getting full value. I find it a little ironic when the health care critic on the Liberal benches is saying no to constructing the hospital in the first place.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

L. Reid: In 1993 the then Health minister said the MSA hospital would come on stream in 1997, yet with Saturday's announcement the Premier has condemned the people of Abbotsford to no facility until at least the year 2002. This project is now at least 11 years in the planning stages. Even the NDP candidate says he was surprised by the Premier's decision. Can the Minister of Health tell us simply: does he condone the Premier's condemnation of new health facilities for the people of Abbotsford?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As the Premier has already said, the MSA hospital will be built. It is an integral part of Ensuring good health facilities for the people of the Fraser Valley. That's this government's commitment.

[2:15]

If the people of Abbotsford and the surrounding area are concerned about the future of their hospital, I think they can take confidence from the Premier's and my commitment to make this hospital a reality. If they are concerned about the future of this hospital, then I would suggest they might want to consider supporting a government that is committed to building hospitals and committed to building schools, rather than the Liberal opposition, who would cut and slash.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD UNFUNDED LIABILITY

A. Warnke: My question is for the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour. According to

section 69 of the Workers Compensation Act, the Workers' Compensation Board must provide the minister with its 1994 annual report by March 25, and the minister must table it in the House promptly. It hasn't been tabled, maybe because some analysts are correct that there is a $317 million unfunded liability, an increase of 66 percent over last year. Will the minister immediately table the 1994 WCB annual report so British Columbians can find out why the board is unable to keep its finances in order, while services to injured workers are deteriorating?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm actually quite strongly tempted to read today's Province editorial back to the Liberal caucus, with respect to what they have to say....

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, all right. My colleagues....

The Province editorial today -- and I don't always agree with Province editorials -- does say with respect to the leader of the...

[ Page 13592 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. D. Miller: ...Liberal Party: "The man is full of gas; it's time he was burped."

Hon. Speaker, I'll be delighted to table the report as soon as possible.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

A. Warnke: It's one thing not to get an answer; it's quite another to be exposed to the floccinaucinihilipilification of the minister.

With the WCB's unfunded liability growing at an alarming rate and the board being unable to control its spending -- and the minister knows this -- the minister must finally face the fact that the WCB is in chaos. Therefore my question to the minister is: what will he specifically do to control the outrageous growth in the unfunded liability of WCB?

Hon. D. Miller: As I indicated, I'd be delighted to table the report as soon as it's available.

Beyond that, I remind the House that last year the Liberals tried to play politics with the WCB and failed. In fact, the British Columbia Workers' Compensation Board system, on a comparative basis with every other system in Canada, stands second or third. It has the best record with respect to its assessment rates and its funded position. I look forward with absolute delight to debating both the Liberal Party and the Reform Party on the WCB estimates when they appear before this House, because they tried and failed last year, and they're going to try and fail again this year.

FEDERAL GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION

L. Hanson: I have a question for the Attorney General. On Friday last we released a letter to Alan Rock, in which the Attorney General said: "...the province now has a better understanding of the cost of the new firearms control initiatives." Will the Attorney General tell us how much the province thinks the federal Liberals' gun control legislation will cost to implement? Will he tell us how high his government is prepared to raise gun-owner fees to fully recover the cost for this ridiculous assault on responsible gun owners?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wish the member had looked at the date on the letter; he would have noticed it was 1993. He would have realized, if he'd read the letter carefully, that in fact the discussions were part of our attempt to reach an agreement with the federal government in respect of the old gun control laws and the way in which the funding is organized between the federal government and ourselves in respect of administering those old laws.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

L. Hanson: I do know the date of the letter. I wonder if the Attorney General knows the date of the letter and if the government's policy has changed considerably since that letter was written.

But in the letter to Alan Rock, the Attorney General stated: "If it is found during negotiations that the current fees do not permit full cost recovery...then I must strongly suggest that it is the fees that should be increased, not the payments to the provinces reduced." Instead of demanding fee hikes for responsible gun owners, why doesn't this government stand with the other western provinces and say no to the Liberals' new scheme? Why doesn't the Attorney General tell Ottawa that British Columbia won't raise one cent, one red cent, to pay for this costly bureaucratic assault on legal gun owners?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member has still failed to look at the letter. The letter in question relates to the ongoing discussions in respect of the financing arrangements that each province has with Ottawa to deal with the legislation that is now in place and has been for some time. We have yet to reach an agreement with the federal government, primarily because we are unwilling to saddle British Columbia taxpayers with costs that we believe belong in Ottawa.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

G. Farrell-Collins: I was encouraged to hear from the Minister of Labour how wonderful everything is at the Workers' Compensation Board. The Liberals have received, through freedom of information, the severance packages of a number of WCB executives that were fired by, I guess, the former minister -- and things have yet to turn around at the WCB. Some of these severance packages are as rich as 30 months' severance and include over $300,000 in payment. How can the minister approve of these types of gold-plated severance packages when the WCB is in the shape it is?

Hon. D. Miller: Just to retrace a little bit of history, perhaps the member.... I thought he was aware, but last December, upon learning of a particular payment to an individual employed by the board, I demanded that the board respond to my request to clean this up. They did respond last week. The report is public, and I would suggest that the Liberal opposition take the time to read it. I think there has been a pattern. For example, we saw in the past the former Social Credit cabinet minister, Jim Nielsen, appointed to head the WCB.

When he quit voluntarily after a period of two years, he got two years' severance pay. I find that unacceptable. The board is finally acting on my request to clean those things up.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: I find that very interesting, because the minister was acting on our freedom-of-information request into Connie Munro's outrageous package, the benefits she got. That's the only way he found out what was going on at WCB.

The report issued on Friday was a damning indictment of this government's administration of the Workers' Compensation Board. My question is directly to the minister: what does he intend to do about the severance system and the severance packages given to WCB people that are over $300,000 per person? Will he tell me what he intends to do to start really cleaning up WCB, besides just putting his deputy minister in there?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm delighted that this government brought in freedom-of-information legislation to assist the

[ Page 13593 ]

Liberal Party in doing their job. I must say that even with freedom-of-information legislation, this Liberal caucus over there is not doing their job.

The member raises an interesting question. Is he proposing that we go back and retrieve the severance paid to Mr. Nielsen -- and, in fact, to some of the people who are currently advising the Liberal caucus and who also receive some pretty hefty severance payments? Is the member proposing that we go back in time? If so, how far?

SOLICITATION OF TAX-DEDUCTIBLE POLITICAL DONATIONS

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Finance, and it speaks to the integrity of every member in this House. I have here a document with respect to a fundraising proposition put forward by Mr. Martin Zlotnick of the Liberal Party to legal companies of Vancouver, in which Mr. Zlotnick requests that the legal firms make a $250 donation for each lawyer -- not each partner, but each lawyer, in their firm -- for which a tax receipt will be arranged.

Each lawyer will get a $150 tax deduction from their payable tax, despite the fact they will not have shown that as declared income, and they will in fact receive that benefit whether or not they wish to make that provision. My question to the Minister of Finance is: will she initiate today an inquiry into this practice to find out how much money was in fact taken from lawyers at those firms, and whether or not they were aware of that deduction being made? Will the Minister of Finance commit to have that inquiry done under both the Income Tax Act and the Society Act of British Columbia?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm not familiar with the letter that the member is referring to, but if he would care to share it with me I would be happy to look into it.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour. Through yet another freedom-of-information-and-privacy request, the opposition has learned that WCB appeals commissioner Connie Munro took a six-week executive course last fall. The cost for this six-week course was $30,000 -- $14,500 for tuition, $2,000 for airfare and $14,000 for salary while not working. How does the minister expect injured workers in this province to deal with this news of yet another perk to a failed NDP candidate, while the unfunded liability of the WCB has grown by an alarming rate in the last fiscal year?

Hon. D. Miller: I repeat, that information has been public now since at least December, before Christmas. I have taken action. There was a report delivered to me last week. That report is public. It details the efforts that are now going to be taken by the board, at my request, to ensure that those kinds of things don't happen in the future. The report was apparently well received. I think the board of governors is taking responsibility, as they should, for WCB. If the Liberals want to continue to recycle old news because they have no important questions to ask during this question period, they should be my guests.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to table a document.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: I wish to table a document which is the letter I referred to in which this deal is being proposed.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply. In Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality; and in Committee B, I call the Attorney General's estimates.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

(continued)

[2:30]

On vote 17: minister's office, $424,063 (continued).

D. Jarvis: Last Thursday, I wanted to make a comment regarding a statement you made about the fact that crime was down in the past ten years throughout nearly every community in the lower mainland. I didn't have an opportunity to ask you on Friday because I was busy elsewhere, but I did talk to you later in the evening. I find it quite surprising that crime is down over approximately the past ten years, and I wonder if the minister has specific figures. Are there fewer murders and violent crimes now than ten years ago? Are youth problems less than they were ten years ago, or break and enters?

In my riding, very few people take comfort in the fact that crime has gone down. As a matter of fact, they feel that crime has exceeded what it was ten years ago. Even in my own office, I've had three burglaries in the last three and a half years, and after the last one I was required to put in steel-barred doors and steel-barred windows. They took a rope to the door, after smashing the windows, and ripped the door off. I'm quite sure that it's not that they don't like me; it's the equipment inside that the thieves were after. As I said, crime in my area seems to be rising rather than decreasing.

I was wondering if you could clarify that. If you have a statement as to numbers and figures, could you send it over to me at some other time?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, let me deal generally with the member's comments. As I said last week, there's no question whatsoever that our perception is that crime is up. People believe that there are more crimes being committed today than ever before. I don't have this in front of me, and I don't quite remember, but on a per capita basis, I think 1907 was just about the worst year ever for murders in this province. Since then the murder rate has gone down and continues to go down -- although, as I said last week, if you watch the news on television, you would be surprised at that reality.

There is a wide range of material available. A lot of the confusion around this data comes from the fact that comparisons are made for different blocks of years. I'm just going

[ Page 13594 ]

to share with the member the 1984-through-1993 period. That's a ten-year period in which '93 is the last year that we have complete statistics. We don't have the '94 statistics yet -- at least, I don't have them yet.

Total violent crime in that period has increased by 44.5 percent, total property crime has increased by 4.7 percent and total other Criminal Code offences have increased by 28.8 percent. Excluding traffic offences, the total number of offences under the Criminal Code increased by 14.6 percent in those ten years. That's one set of figures where you could say that crime on all of those counts is higher in '93 than it was in '84 -- significantly higher, I think it's fair to say, in terms of violent crime. The actual numbers for violent crime in 1984 is 10.6 incidents per 1,000 population, which increased to 15.3 incidents per 1,000 population in '93.

Interesting recent evidence is that in the last several years the numbers have been going down. That's what members will have read in the media and will have heard me talk about on occasion, as well. Because it's only for a short period of time, I think it's statistically not as useful as these longer periods of time that I just cited. The change between calendar '92 versus calender '93 is: violent crime increased 2.3 percent year to year, property crime decreased 3.4 percent and all Criminal Code convictions decreased by 3.1 percent. There are a number of other figures in here, but I think I'll just get it too confusing if I do too much of this.

Basically, what we've seen in the last couple of years is a decrease in crime rate by around 3 percent -- 3 or 4 percent, depending on how you count it. As a part of that, we have seen violent crime increase, while property crimes have decreased. That's just the 1992-93 figures. In the media I've seen some preliminary 1994 figures which tend to support the trend continuing, but I don't have those precise figures in front of me.

It's back to a question about how people feel -- that's what really matters -- and people feel that crime is a problem. People worry about it; they are more fearful now than they were some decades ago. I talked about that as well last week. I don't put too much stake in the numbers. It seems to me that if you have one crime, that's one crime too many, and we don't pat ourselves on the back if the rate starts to go down. What we do is try to figure out why it goes down, if it does, and see if it's going down as a result of some programs that are underway, and then try to emphasize those programs.

The other thing that members should know about crimes is that it's a question of reporting. There's plus and minus on this. It may well be that some people don't bother to report minor B-and-Es now. I suspect that happens in some cases -- a case of why should we bother, especially if there's no insurable loss. There may not be a need. I don't know that there are any statistics available on that. Anecdotally I hear about it. I would expect that most citizens would report, even though they may not expect an apprehension to follow the reporting. It is important, I think, for all citizens to report whenever there is a crime or apparent crime committed.

That's on the one side, where it may not be reported, but on the other side of that is the increase in the number of violent crimes, which may well be occurring as a result of an increased sense of importance about crimes against the person, partly because society is moving in that direction and partly because we have programs that encourage people in a family situation to report a violent crime that may occur in a family.

It used to be that often those crimes were not reported; they were swept under cover. More and more now, those kinds of personal crimes are being reported. That may not account for the entire increase in violent crimes against the person, but I suspect there is a significant part of the increase there.

So when you look at statistics, the old adage about statistics is true: you can do with them whatever you want. In a sense, they're always going to be faulty, because it depends on what gets reported and what doesn't and what the current climate is in society at any time.

What's important to me -- and I'll conclude with this -- is that, first of all, people perceive crime and violent crime to be a problem; therefore we have to treat it seriously and do whatever we can to reduce it. Secondly, I would simply say that I don't go around trumpeting reduced crime rates. I answer questions about it; I don't lead with it, because I don't think the particular numbers mean a heck of a lot, given the reality of people's perceptions.

D. Jarvis: Well, great minds must think alike, because you went into the aspect of non-violent crimes -- B and Es and general burglaries. For example, I have failed to report them to the RCMP, because I don't have any insurance. I'm at the stage where I can't get insurance, but I've talked to a lot of people in my area who say they just can't get insurance, or they're afraid of losing their insurance, and thus they fail to report them.

Putting that aside, will the report be coming in the near future as to the number of burglaries, break and enters, and whether they're going up or down versus the violent crime? Having said that, I would appreciate it if you could send it to me if you have it.

Another aspect I want to bring up is that the minister and I have talked with regard to the rather unfortunate incident -- and you probably know what's coming -- of the Lynn Duggan murder that occurred some time ago in my riding. Have you had any conversations with Minister Rock in Ottawa with respect to blood-testing for anyone who is suspected of a crime? I believe the federal government was going to make it mandatory, or was preparing legislation along that line. Have you been in touch with them? Would you be in a position to support mandatory DNA testing in the event of a violent crime?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, we've raised the issue with the federal minister. And yes, the federal minister is looking at that at the present time.

D. Jarvis: I assume that you have endorsed the DNA aspect of it. Are you aware of whether the potential legislation could be retroactive?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Any comments I made on what the legislation would look like would be purely speculative, because I don't know. So I don't think I should even try to answer.

C. Serwa: I was disturbed by the sequence of the questioning, so I thought somebody had better get up in a hurry. While we're on the subject of crime, there is a continuing

[ Page 13595 ]

concern. I recognize that the Young Offenders Acts is a federal act, nevertheless it appears that it is a continuing and growing concern.

[2:45]

One of the suggestions that has been made a number of times with respect to the Young Offenders Act is the potential for publication of the perpetrator's name. What is the minister's position on this, what has the minister done with respect to the federal government submitting a provincial perspective, and what can we do with the Young Offenders Act? That is part of the problem. The other part of the problem -- and the minister is well aware of this -- concerns the long delays in our present court system. Something has to be done, because with procedural delays it may take up to a year for a person who is being charged to be brought to court. So there are two aspects to the question.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We have and I have supported the relaxation of the YOA provision which bans publication of names, in order that names can be released in certain circumstances where names should be released. At the present time, it's clear that the rules are tougher than they ought to be. But I am not in favour of an across-the-board release of young offenders' names. I think the original design of the statute in '84 was appropriate, but it needs to be more relaxed now than it was then in respect of release of names so that more names can be released in the appropriate circumstances.

I talked a bit last week about court delays, and I covered it in my opening comments. We see it as a serious problem. To try to recap in a sentence or two what I said in a more lengthy way in my opening, our view is that you don't solve the court delays by throwing more money at the system, by hiring more judges and by building more courthouses. What you do is try to find ways of getting those matters that are in court but shouldn't be out of the court system and getting matters that should be in court handled more quickly than they are now.

I notice that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada was quoted in the media last week advocating the very same thing: that trials should be conducted more speedily than they are now. If we could do those two things alone, we would move a long way toward the situation where we all want to be: where there isn't a delay, and justice can be done quickly. For it to be delayed is often for it to be denied.

C. Serwa: I'll ask a couple of questions and turn it over to my colleague, and then I'll have an opportunity to get back to this.

There are two elements here. The minister has indicated that the name of a young offender would be published under certain conditions and not under other conditions. I don't understand how you can treat young offenders -- infants -- in two different ways. We went through that debate some years ago, and the minister supported that particular philosophy. My concern is that there seems to be no obvious deterrent at the present time, in spite of all that. There should obviously be a penalty. I think the public will insist that there should be some sort of penalty, though I don't think it should be a lifelong penalty. I'm really concerned, because if an individual is responsible enough to commit

an act, he should be willing to reap the consequences of it. There must be a penalty for the act.

The other aspect of the two-part question is with respect to court cases. As far as I'm concerned, when I witness the present court system, there's absolutely no incentive on anyone's part to shorten the scope of a trial. The public, which means each taxpayer in the province, is funding the whole process through our system: from the judge; in some cases, the jury; and probably in most cases, both lawyers. There's no reason to stop the process -- absolutely none whatsoever.

Until you face that fact, there will be continued delays, because whether it's on the prosecution or the defence side of the case, there is absolutely no need to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. That's the real problem; it's not one of justice. The fact remains that if you can keep the account over a longer period of time, it means more money in your pocket. For a public prosecutor, it simply means that you've got a continuing job and room for more colleagues to come in on that side of it.

There seems to be a need for a disincentive or some sort of a restraint, but the public purse is not providing that restraint.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understand what the member is saying. Notwithstanding that, we have implemented some new procedures that are going a long way in dealing with the question of delay. I think the best example is disclosure courts, where the parties are brought together in advance of a trial. The result of that disclosure court process -- which is only now in place in a half-dozen locations in the province and some very recently, is that 80 percent of the matters are resolved there, mostly by way of guilty plea, which is a great savings to the system.

While the member makes some suggestions with which I'm not going to agree or disagree, it's fair to say that we are working the system to try to find ways of eliminating the problem. The disclosure courts are an excellent example of that.

R. Chisholm: I have a couple of questions for the minister, and the one I'd like to start with is the prison up the Chilliwack River valley. You heard some commentary on that the other day by the critic from the Liberal caucus, and I have a few questions pertaining to that particular situation. As you know, I tabled a petition, and more than 3,000 letters went to the Premier's Office shortly thereafter. One of the questions that needs to be asked concerns about the $17 million prison in the Chilliwack River valley.

An awful lot of people have been against this project, and they're worried because you're talking about keeping the old Mount Thurston Camp prison open for a term of seven, eight or nine years after this prison is completed. They're worried because seven or eight years down the road.... We don't have room in the prisons now. What's it going to be like in another decade? I guess the incentive for the government of the time would be to rebuild that prison on site and utilize that eight years down the road. They see that as a particular problem. All of a sudden, instead of having three prisons, they now have four.

That is a particular problem that needs to be clarified for the people of the Chilliwack River valley. I'll just start with that question, if the minister will respond, please.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: At the moment, the situation with Mount Thurston is that we have an application in front of the Agricultural Land Commission, as the member knows, for a new site further away from Chilliwack, which would accommodate a larger number of inmates than the present site can now handle. When and if the new facility is built, then the old one would be closed.

R. Chisholm: That is one of the problems, hon. minister. The people of the Chilliwack River valley don't believe that

[ Page 13596 ]

that prison is going to be closed. They've been left with the assumption that it will remain open for a period of time. Of course, people -- being the cynics that we are -- have a tendency to question whether the government will be true to its word in closing that prison. They realize, too, that there's going to be a need for further prisons later on down the road.

As for the new prison, I can fully and wholeheartedly agree that a new prison with better security would be much better. After all, we've had over 51 escapes from that prison in the last little while, so it is definitely needed. But that particular area -- what you're going to do with the old prison -- would clarify an awful lot of things for the people of the river valley. If you could clarify that publicly, it would help a lot.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If it wasn't clear enough in my previous answer, let me say it again. When and if the new facility is built on the location where we are trying to get permission to build it, it will be a larger facility. The old prison -- the one now in place that's known as Mount Thurston, which is on a floodplain -- will be closed when and if we build the new one.

R. Chisholm: The minister might have heard me talking about a system, an outreach type of program. You might even have heard the words "boot camp" used. I'm talking about the use of ex-military bases that are empty at this time, like Baldy Hughes, Masset or Holberg -- these types of organizations, which are federal institutions.

We do have an awful lot of young offenders in prisons of whatever nature. I'm looking for a proactive type of system. Instead of putting these people into prisons to turn them into hardened criminals, put them into a proactive program which could change their attitudes and, with counselling and education, get them back into education and schooling and make them productive citizens.

I wonder if your ministry has experimented in this area or looked down this path to see if this is an alternative. After all, they've tried it in the States, but they didn't do it for a long enough period of time to make it effective. If you do have a young person of 15, 16 or 17 years of age in an environment which is constructive, it could help in easing the strain that we have in our prison system right now with the double-bunking and the overabundance of prisoners. As we all know, we cannot afford to keep building new prisons.

My question is: is the minister or his staff looking into some sort of program that would help alleviate that, which could be assisted by the federal government? After all, this is a joint jurisdiction. Possibly they could assist in funding that type of program.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We already have a residential wilderness program, Camp Trapping, which does what the member is saying. We don't call it a boot camp. The Minister of Justice in Manitoba talks about boot camps and runs a system with less discipline than some of our facilities. We don't call them boot camps. It depends on whether you try to obtain political benefit from this or just try and do a good job. I prefer to try to do the latter.

The things that are important, particularly for young people -- and young people over the age of 18 as well -- are discipline, regularity, procedure and learning to work. The prisons are not places you can sleep in in the morning. They are not places where you can avoid working -- in remand, maybe. In a regular prison system you're obligated to put in your day's work; you're obligated to get up at a certain time; you're obligated to follow a routine, a regimen, and I think that's really what the member is asking for. If the member is asking for something akin to the madness that was tried in a couple of American states, which clearly doesn't work, then he and I are on a different wavelength.

R. Chisholm: No, I'm not asking for that madness. I'm asking, I guess, for a longer duration, for a higher percentage of the population to utilize that system and for putting more emphasis and more resources into that to become more proactive than we are right now. We can't afford the prison systems we have at this point in time, and in the near future it's just going to grow more and more.

Along the same lines, StatsCan has looked at other prison systems and says that violent criminals are approximately 9 percent. If violent criminals or criminals who should be in prison are at 9 percent, that means we're putting an awful lot of non-violent criminals in jail. I'm just wondering if electronic monitoring and community service hours -- this type of thing with heavier fines....

For instance, if it's a crime against property, maybe we should be looking at 250 hours at the SPCA, cleaning out the cages and that type of thing, along with a fine, for these types of crimes -- rather than putting them into cells, which is taking up a position that we can ill afford. We can't afford to build new prisons. Is the ministry looking down this line too?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is an absolute and unqualified yes. I think what the member talks about makes absolute sense. It's something I have been saying since the first day on this job. We continue to incarcerate too many people. We continue to incarcerate people who are not a risk to society, who could be putting something into society by way of community service or some other sanction that could be imposed by the courts, and I'm very much a supporter of that.

It costs money to move a system into transition, because as I said last week, you still have to pay for the old system while you bring in the new one. But as a matter of priority, we are attempting to move toward the kind of situation the member talks about.

[3:00]

R. Chisholm: Maybe the minister could give us some sort of time frame where we will see some response towards that system.

My next question I'd like to talk about.... I have to give the minister a lot of praise for his professionalism on how he's handled the Chilliwack courthouse, and I appreciate what he has done in the past.

In 1992 we discussed the courthouse in Chilliwack during estimates. The land has been procured since, and we've had many meetings over whether it will be a Provincial Court court or a Supreme Court court, or both. That has been solved now, so it will be a provincial Supreme Court. But we have yet to hear a time frame for the building to be actually built. After all, the minister knows the problems: counselling in the hallways and no place to keep the prisoners. We've had stabbings of the sheriff's people in that courthouse; we've had

[ Page 13597 ]

numerous problems with it. Can you give us a time frame when we might expect construction to start on the new courthouse in this area?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Within a few years if we're re-elected; never if the Liberals -- God forbid -- were ever elected. One of the reasons why we're not moving as quickly as I would like on the Chilliwack courthouse and a number of other capital projects is that the province is already borrowing significant amounts of money for schools and health facilities, as well as for courthouses and jails.

There's only so much money that the taxpayer can afford to borrow and sustain, and as a result of there only being so much money, and of a political climate -- helped in considerable measure by the member's former party -- which is opposed to any of these initiatives, it's very difficult, for all of those reasons, for us to move forward.

I cannot give a time frame on that particular facility, but I can tell the member -- as he knows, because I've said this to him in another setting, on another occasion -- that I think the courthouse in Chilliwack is very near to the top of the list, if not at the top, of outdated facilities that exist in the province and are inadequate for their purpose.

Hon. R. Chisholm: I appreciate your answer, hon. minister, but in the meantime is there any sort of temporary system we can put into effect so that we ensure the safety of the sheriff's people and of the court staff, and so that we can segregate the prisoners from the judges, and vice versa? You know that this particular situation has a tendency to create an awful lot of antagonism within that courthouse in the very small, confined area in the hallway, We are just looking for a potential disaster here if we continue in this vein.

The other portion of that previous question was, roughly: when will we start to see the difference in the crimes committed and in what punishments are then given?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I forgot to answer the other part of that question, and I'll come back to that in a moment. With respect to the Chilliwack courthouse, there are some issues, which I think it's fair to say are minor, being considered right now which will, hopefully, enable us to reconfigure how the place works and to make it a little safer and more amenable than it obviously is. So there is some consideration being given to that at the present time.

With respect to the move -- which the member supports and I'm encouraging -- to alternatives to incarceration, I should just say that we have moved relatively aggressively on electronic monitoring. We now have up to about 400 people in British Columbia at any one time serving their sentence by way of an electronic bracelet. That's a program.... Is that number correct? It's 300. I don't know where I got.... I said 400 last week. We lost a hundred bracelets on the weekend, or something.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. As they say in this business, the minister misspoke himself. Last week I may have said 400; I think I did. What I meant to say was that we have 300 in place at the present time and we're moving to 400, which is where we want to get to in the very near future. I don't know what the optimum number will be at any one time for electronic monitoring. You get to a point where you run out of eligible candidates for that particular mechanism. But it's 300, moving to 400, on EMP.

I have a couple of interesting statistics. We are making progress, as slow as I think it is and as frustrated as I get with the pace. In our prison population.... For persons charged with criminal offences, the adult correctional institutional population is 10 percent less than it was 25 years ago, and that's with a significant population increase in these last 25 years. So we have made pretty good progress with respect to that, although I think there is a lot more we can do.

Probation as a sentencing alternative for adult offenders is used much more often in B.C. than the national average. Courts here in B.C. impose probation 50 percent more frequently than the national average. I think many judges would like there to be even more resources in the community so that they would have that as a more effective sentencing option, and it's our job to try and build up those resources. But as frustrated as the member is, and as I am, about the pace -- I was going to say lack of progress -- at which we're making these changes, it's encouraging, at least, to know that we are by far the best in the country on this issue.

R. Chisholm: Hon. Chair, through you to the minister, thank you for your answer so far.

Getting back to the Chilliwack prison again, if you look at per capita, per 100,000 population by regional district, we have the greatest population of prisons of any regional district within the province. I'd like to hear the minister's observations on this particular issue and whether he sees that being diversified into other areas of the province. I realize the criteria for building new prisons -- being 30 minutes from a courthouse and all of these criteria; I understand the prerequisites there.

But right now we are sitting in that end of the valley with a much greater percentage of prisons than anywhere else in the province. I'd like to hear your observations on that or if that's going to change in the near future.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think what's changed in the member's regional district is that the population has moved into that area. The prisons were there first, and I guess people liked living by a prison so much they decided to move in -- he said, facetiously. The fact is that most of both the federal and the provincial institutions have been there for quite some considerable time. It's probably a reality that the regional district in question -- the Regional District of Fraser-Cheam -- is among the highest, if not the highest, on a per capita basis. Is that going to change in the near future? I doubt that people are going to see any significant change in the very near future, quite frankly.

D. Symons: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Symons: Seated in the gallery this afternoon are 29 grade 5 students from St. Paul's School in Richmond. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mrs. Lisa Lawrance and Mr. Frank Dragojevich, along with several parents. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

R. Chisholm: In the last couple of questions I'd like to pose to the minister today is again a problem we have with the court system. I'd like to quote from an article. This is from an individual from out my way. We're talking small claims court at this point in time, and we're talking about a man who

[ Page 13598 ]

spent more than $500 trying to collect $300 through the small claims system. This fellow's name was Alf Racz, and he was talking about December 1993, when he was awarded a judgment of $307. He has had five court orders since that time, and he still has not collected the money. He's still going to fight this issue. We are talking, now two years later, about five court orders. He has spent upwards of $500 and still hasn't collected the $307.

Somehow or other, I think the hon. minister has to take a look at these small claims courts and at the enforcement aspect of it, because there's not much use having a small claims court if there's no way of enforcing the court order. That takes the credibility of our court system, our justice system, and throws it right out the window, which I think is a very dangerous precedent for us to be following -- down that road.

I'd like to hear the minister's observations on this issue and what he foresees he can do to help alleviate it and bring credibility back into the system.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Without getting into any of the issues around a particular case, I concede that there are problems now with the small claims court. I guess it was five years ago or thereabouts that the limit was raised to $10,000. The infrastructure was not adjusted significantly to deal with that increased volume. The first year after it went from $3,000 to $10,000, which was February '91.... February '91 was the change, so in the year following that, the volume of small claims increased by 42 percent. Members will know that there was not a commensurate 42 percent increase in the resources to deal with it.

Given all of that, and given the problems we've identified that have been of concern to me, we have been involved in a number of discussions. Obviously those discussions need to include the Provincial Court and the Chief Judge. We have had discussions about small claims and how it works, and we have been exploring ideas that may lead to a more effective system in the future. At this stage, it's all a bit too preliminary to go into more detail than that.

R. Chisholm: Maybe the minister could just elaborate a little bit more on that answer, especially on the enforcement aspect, because I think that is the key to it. If court orders can be enforced, credibility will come back to the justice system; but if they can't or won't be enforced, we're heading down a path that we really don't want to travel.

My next question, which the minister could answer at the same time.... We're looking at the court system and traffic laws, and we're taking a look at fines. We're talking about in the vicinity of $126 million that have not been collected. I'm just wondering if the ministry is looking at some way of collecting this -- through a collection agency, if need be -- and whether it could be used for community policing.

After all, I'm taking a look at Chilliwack. I can see where other precincts have spent money on community policing, and it could be very well used in a place like Chilliwack. When we talk about policemen on bicycles and offices downtown and extra money for marking goods, this type of community policing would greatly enhance some of these smaller communities. There are an awful lot of unpaid bills out there. If they were collected, they could finance an awful lot of good things within the justice system and help to alleviate some of the problems we've got at the present day.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Most of the outstanding fines that exist in British Columbia are as a result of motor vehicle infractions. The responsibility for collection is part of the ministry of.... I used to have it, but it is now done by Transportation and Highways, motor vehicle branch. I can say -- and I think the member would know this -- that the motor vehicle branch has embarked on a program which will include charging interest and also sending out collection agencies to collect these outstanding fines. So they are working on a number of initiatives, but it is another ministry.

[3:15]

R. Chisholm: The first part of that question was part of a previous question, and that was enforcement in small claims court. I think that is the key to it. Could you just make some observations on where you're going with that one?

When it comes down to the Minister of Transportation collecting these fines, that's all well and good. But if these fines -- which come from a criminal type of situation, after all -- were put into community policing, this would greatly enhance a system that has proven itself over and over again over the last number of years. I'm just wondering if those moneys would be earmarked for that, which would help to alleviate a lot of our problems within the smaller communities.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: On the enforcement of small claims, the member raises an important issue -- one that I don't have a ready answer for. You have to go through an elaborate process that is more expensive than the results will produce. As part of looking at this whole issue, that question needs to be looked at more closely than it has been to date. I thank the member for reminding me of that particular issue, because it's one that I think we need to see whether or not there are any solutions to.

With respect to collecting the unpaid fines, I agree. If we had that money in hand, we'd certainly have some very good uses for it. I was busy trying to deal with another one of the member's questions, and I may have missed some part of the last of his comments. But if that's the general thrust of it, then the money would not be earmarked specifically for any particular initiative; it would go into general revenue. But obviously if general revenue were enhanced, then we would be better equipped to do some things that need to be done.

R. Chisholm: What I was stating was that because this money comes from somebody breaking the law, maybe it should go back into the justice system so that we could earmark it for community policing or this type of program, which has proven so effective in the last number of years. Somehow or other they equate, and maybe this money should be utilized in that manner.

My last question to the minister at this point in time is on impaired driving. I'd like to hear his observations on impaired driving and exactly where we're going. There are far too many people being killed on our highways. I don't have to elaborate on the carnage that is out there, so I won't. But I'd like to hear the minister's comments about after a person has been convicted and what kind of educational program we're looking at. Are we looking at stiffer fines or relieving the person of their driver's licence for a longer period of time? Are we looking at a mandatory education system that they have to go through -- this type of program?

It seems to me that we are very much lacking in the proactive end of our justice system. We need to be doing an

[ Page 13599 ]

awful lot more proactive types of things to correct this situation, and I think education is probably the best tool we've got available.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: On the question of education being the most effective tool, I agree. There are two levels where it's important. One is before young people get to an age when they're even considering driving and/or drinking. I think education at that stage is just about the most important thing we can do on this question. Once they have been convicted of impaired driving and are serving time, then more often than not -- in fact, in most cases -- those people will be enrolled in a program in the institution which deals with alcohol education. So that does occur now in the system; there are programs in place.

It doesn't happen in every situation, because we don't have the kind of resources that we need, but I understand it does happen in most situations of impaired sentences.

In addition to that, the government as a whole, but led by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, is looking at further initiatives to find ways to reduce -- as the member puts it -- the carnage on the highways.

R. Chisholm: I think the introduction of an education, assessment and treatment program is essential for this situation that we seem to have. If you take a look at other jurisdictions -- whether we talk about other Canadian provinces or the States or we take a look at Australia -- you will see that we in British Columbia lag far behind them. I hope that the minister will look very seriously upon this situation, because as a result of our lagging behind, the toll on our roads is very, very expensive in lives and in cost -- and it's a phenomenal cost. This could be alleviated if we got far more proactive and did it rather quickly.

So I guess I'm urging the minister to try to speed up whatever solutions they have for this situation -- what they have in mind -- and possibly we'll save a few lives and an awful lot of money in the process.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to raise a few comments and questions that are of concern to my constituents out in Port Coquitlam. I will put my remarks in context, and at the end I will have a couple of questions for the Attorney General.

Some of my comments will refer to issues that are very much under federal jurisdiction, such as the Young Offenders Act and the Parole Board. I recognize that, but they are issues that constituents want raised. Recently in the tri-cities area there have been a number of rather brutal and savage crimes against people which have really highlighted the public's perception about crime, the problems around crime and ways that we deal with it in our area. There is a wide range of opinions and a wide range of solutions proposed.

There has been a lot of work done, too, by individuals such as Mike Cotton and Les Keen in getting community policing going -- and Neighbourhood Watch and Block Watch. Efforts from people like these are to be commended; that's where the solutions lie.

There has been a lot of concern about the Young Offenders Act. I have shared that concern. I have lobbied, for example, and worked with our federal MP in trying to achieve changes to the Young Offenders Act so that it is easier to raise people to adult court who have been involved in violent attacks on individuals. As well, there is a petition in my office that people can come in and sign to get changes to the Parole Board. I know one of the areas of greatest concern is around sexual offenders.

A few moments ago, the minister raised the fact that we have too often the wrong person being locked up, when they could just as easily be out on an electronic monitoring program. And we have the wrong people being let out at the wrong time.

I know in my own constituency there is a great concern around that, particularly around sexual offenders and the fact that they direct their attacks against women and children, the most vulnerable members of our society. There have to be changes at the federal level that address that, because more and more we are beginning to realize that for problems such as these, treatment is not available; so we have to find some way of dealing with it. I think that we need to have a review of the way that the parole system is dealing with these, and we have to address those concerns from that point.

But at the provincial level, I think there is a great deal that we could be doing, particularly around the area of community policing and the area of electronic monitoring. I think we need to see that expanded. That is one of my questions for the minister: are we looking at expanding the electronic monitoring program? I think one of the most apt phrases that has ever been coined in the discussion of crime throughout the ages has been: let the punishment fit the crime. That's an extremely important point; it's an extremely valid idea. Too often the punishment bears no relation to the seriousness of a crime that an individual has committed. Sometimes we lock up the wrong people.

One of the problems we have, particularly with youth crimes, is that violent offences seem to be on the rise. They are a real problem, and there are a number of areas we could be addressing. We see a rise in hate crimes in the immigrant community. People are targeting individuals on the basis of their skin colour or race. In the case of sentencing, you should take into account more than the severity of the crime. Part of the punishment should be that an individual who has attacked somebody on the basis of race or ethnic origin should be required to work in an immigrant centre, for example, in order to realize what people have to go through when arriving in this country.

There are other areas where I think this is valuable. We've seen a rise in attacks on people on the basis of their sexual orientation. People convicted of those sorts of crimes should be required to work in an AIDS hospice, for example, to see exactly how different communities within our society as a whole have to cope. Seeing the problems they face will give people a better understanding.

We have to recognize that there's a strong call for tougher enforcement and tougher penalties. In many cases that's extremely valid, because people don't feel safe. There's a lot of work being done by groups such as CAVEAT and CRY to make the necessary changes I alluded to earlier to the Young Offenders Act or to the Parole Board. Punishment isn't the whole issue. Punishment gets the people at the end when too often it's too late. Antisocial behaviour at the age of 17 and 18.... Too often it's too late, and too often the only answer is to lock somebody up at great expense to the taxpayer. The same is true of such things as sexual offenders and pedophiles.

We're very tough and need to get tougher on the sentencing, but we also have to remember that a crime didn't just

[ Page 13600 ]

happen overnight: there was a steady buildup over time that led to an individual.... Bringing them to a certain point where they are able and will commit a violent assault on someone or a violent sexual crime.... Often the conditions that caused that are established very early on. Just as we have to be tough on the sentencing, we also have to be tough on the root causes. We have to have programs in place so people can identify problem individuals, they can identify antisocial behaviour, and we can put the tools in place to deal with that.

One of the ideas that is popular in my community, as I said before, is an expansion of the electronic monitoring program, and I'd like to hear the minister's comments on that.

In the area of community policing, the idea is that the police are seen as a presence in the community outside of the car. The police car is a very remote vehicle. I'm very supportive of the idea of having police on bicycles, as we see in the city of Vancouver and are now seeing more and more in the suburbs. We have to encourage our communities to expand programs like that. We have to make provincial assistance available for community policing centres, and that means working with local groups to identify what the problems are.

In my own area, SUCCESS has been very active in working with the community and working with the province to establish community policing. I want to ask the minister: is provincial funding going to be there to enable community policing centres to continue to be established? Those are questions that I'd like to have answered. Is provincial support going to continue to be there?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member may have asked more than two questions; I heard two. The first was whether or not we would be continuing to expand the electronic monitoring program. I think the answer to that, in general terms, is that it will be expanded as long as we have the profile of inmates who can qualify and the programs of support that make it worthwhile, and as long as it continues to be cost-effective in that respect. There is a line that is reached at a certain point, where we have a maximum number, but I'm certainly committed to having as many people as possible serve their sentence that way rather than in an expensive facility.

[3:30]

The second question I heard the member ask related to commitments to community policing. The answer to that is that there is a very strong commitment on the part of the government and, I might say, on the part of both municipal and RCMP jurisdictions in this province. In fact, the RCMP have a significant community policing project -- a pilot project, I think, from their perspective -- underway now in Burnaby. There is a developing interest in the idea; there is developing support for it. I would like to get as many police officers into the community as we can possibly get.

I'd like to get as many of them out of their automobiles and on foot or onto bicycles as is practical and appropriate. I'd like to see as many community policing stations, or community offices out of which police can work -- although they may not be stationed there -- as possible. There are a variety of initiatives that I think are appropriate. Justice Oppal's report encouraged it; all of the policing wisdom today encourages it as well, and we certainly do everything we can as a ministry to encourage and support it. We don't have a lot of money to throw at it, but that's the name of the game these days.

We're trying to find ways of encouraging, fostering and supporting it without throwing huge dollars at it.

R. Kasper: To the Attorney General: you mentioned the Young Offenders Act on a number of occasions, and questions have been asked with regard to your position on the publishing of names. To put it in a proper context, do you support the publication of the names of young offenders -- not in the broad sense, but those individuals who pose a risk to society? Also on the Young Offenders Act, I know that the whole issue with regard to the transfer provisions that currently exist for young offenders has been quite a concern in my riding.

What are your views on enhancing or strengthening transfer provisions in the Young Offenders Act? I know this comes under federal jurisdiction, but I'd like to hear your views on that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is right: it is under federal jurisdiction. But we, of course, have continuing -- and, I might say, constant -- discussions with the federal government at various levels of the ministry, including the ministerial level, about the kinds of matters the member raises. The first question was about whether I support the publication of names of young offenders who are a risk to society. I think in general terms my answer is yes on that question. On the question of transfer to adult court, we have pushed for some time to have that process made easier than it has been.

Even with the old process, which has not been particularly easy, we have made more applications for transfer -- for raising to adult court -- than other jurisdictions in the country on a per capita basis. The amendments that were approved in the House of Commons earlier this year will reverse the onus on the transfer of 16- and 17-year-olds charged with murder, manslaughter, attempted murder or aggravated sexual assault -- the kinds of violent crimes I think the member is concerned about.

In those cases, the 16- or 17-year-olds charged with those offences will automatically be raised to adult court unless it can be demonstrated that that's an inappropriate transfer, and the court would make that decision. I hope that answers the member's questions.

R. Kasper: Throughout the province we've seen some pretty horrific situations dealing with sex offenders and a number of alleged incidents. Many of those have come as a result of offenders being released under that mandatory release program, having served two-thirds of their sentence. Could the minister indicate his views on toughening the existing laws and procedures relating to these adult dangerous offenders?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I waited for a moment before answering, because I was looking for some statistics. There are two parts to this answer. First of all, under the current provisions of the code there is the ability to seek and have the court impose a dangerous offender designation on an individual. Should that happen, then someone who is so declared could spend the rest of their time in jail. They have periodic reviews by the National Parole Board to consider whether or not to release them, but theoretically they could spend the rest of their lives in jail.

The figure I was looking for is this: one-quarter of the dangerous offenders who are now incarcerated in Canada have actually come from British Columbia as a result of our aggressive use of that provision of the code in this province.

The second part of the question relates to high-risk dangerous offenders, what we are saying about that and what we think should happen. At the federal-provincial meeting of ministers held in Victoria in January, I made the argument

[ Page 13601 ]

strongly that we had to find ways to allow the justice system to keep dangerous offenders in jail beyond their term, if it was clear -- and demonstrably clear -- that those individuals would most likely go out and reoffend. Post-release detention, I think, is the term that people use to characterize this.

In our pushing on this issue, the federal minister, Alan Rock, was reluctant at first, I think -- it's a concept that was foreign to our system heretofore -- but as a result of us being aggressive, he agreed to open his mind to the question; more than that, he agreed to convene a panel of experts in criminal law who will deal with this particular issue to see whether or not we can find some way to ensure that clearly dangerous offenders who are due to be legally released can, in fact, be kept beyond that release date. So that work is underway right now, or the preliminary work is underway.

There will be meetings in the very near future. We will be involved in those discussions, and hopefully they will bear some fruit.

R. Kasper: It's nice to see that you are taking an aggressive position on that issue.

When we have offenders, we also find ourselves with the victims. Having had some background at the regional government level in establishing the Capital Regional District's victim services program -- and I note that in previous budgets victim services was supported within the ministry -- on behalf of my constituents I have been advocating a broader base of victim service programs, and perhaps enhanced funding to deal with the circumstances that victims find themselves in.

Can any additions be anticipated within this budget for enhanced victim services because of the impact it has on family members and their own personal situations with respect to lost employment opportunities, etc.?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member may be interested in going back to the Hansard of last week and looking at some of the specific detailed numbers that I talked about in the House. I don't think I'll repeat that, given that it is on the record. I'll just say in general terms that we see victims' programs as being a significant issue. I have often said that I think the victim is the forgotten individual in the justice system. The victim is often twice victimized -- first, at the time of the crime, and second, by the way the system all too often ends up dealing with the victim.

So we have funded various victim services around the province in what I would say are significant dollars, although clearly many more could be spent.

First of all, the criminal injury compensation program paid out some $24 million last year. We have 125 victim service programs, which served 39,000 victims in the province in '93-94. And in the weeks and months to come I hope to be able to indicate to members of the House further initiatives that I think are important and which I want to this province to adopt. I know it's due to the efforts of members like this one that there's increased awareness of the need for government -- and the justice system in particular -- to pay more attention to victims.

I thank the member for the comments he has made on many occasions in conversations in this building.

R. Kasper: Now that we've talked about the criminals and the victims.... Throughout my community -- and I know from my own personal background, having served in local government -- the whole question of crime prevention and crime prevention programs becomes even more important and more relevant in today's society.

I know that a number of jurisdictions have taken it upon themselves to work with local police forces and to put together community groups which will assist local government and local police authorities in designing and putting together crime prevention programs or measures that can deter the criminal element and, at the same time, prevent us getting more victims, as far as statistics are concerned.

Throughout municipalities and regional districts people have been asking for more assistance to put together a support network, or additional support network, with the tools and the funding, so that they can take a proactive approach to crime prevention instead of having to react to crime, which seems to be the case now. Could the minister respond to that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the very best value for dollar in this ministry is crime prevention community programs. For every dollar you spend there, you save many, many dollars later -- not to speak of saving many heartrending situations from occurring.

I very much want to find resources to assist in crime prevention and to do more of it than we're doing now, although -- and I don't think I'm boasting when I say this once again -- I think we lead the country with respect to the programs that are in place. I think of the programs that our community justice branch is organizing in the schools through the gang line contact and through 841-KOZ, the group that goes out and play-acts various situations to school students. There's a lot of support for the more traditional kind of community groups -- Block Watch, Crimestoppers and those kinds of initiatives.

We funded a particular initiative that Crimestoppers had for a provincewide TIPS media campaign.

[3:45]

I think the anti-violence initiatives are an important part of the whole prevention of crime. We have three main areas of programmatic activities there. We have skills training for professionals and volunteers active in violence prevention programs; we co-sponsor workshops with the Justice Institute. Again, they get delivered at the community level, where it's really important. Secondly, there's the development of community anti-violence programs. In particular, there's a group in North Vancouver and another in Surrey that have developed interesting programs, again at the community level.

The third feature of these anti-violence initiatives is to reduce violence through public education. We've provided grants to the Knowledge Network, the Open Learning Agency, the Green Thumb Theatre for Young People and other organizations to deal with anti-violence education. We've also contributed to curriculum development in this respect. Those are just a few of the initiatives.

But just to wrap it up and bring it back to the first point, I try through our budget process to extract every dollar we can that might be available and move it into community crime prevention programs, because I think that's the way to turn the system around, if it ever can be turned around. We don't have very much money in these tight times for this initiative, but I'm hoping we'll be able to scratch some together so that we can do even more than we're doing now.

R. Kasper: It's nice that the ministry is taking that position.

[ Page 13602 ]

My last question deals with a local issue in the Sooke area. There have been some recent media reports coming from the RCMP. They were concerned about the level of policing for the Sooke RCMP. There is reference in those reports that some of the basic services that the RCMP has currently been providing.... The RCMP would not respond to vehicle accidents that were under $2,000 in damage if there were no injuries or no traffic problems as a result of those incidents, or to some of the standard things, like if there was a bicycle stolen from somebody's house.

The RCMP had said that they would not respond to those situations when they received a phone call. The message that I had been getting from the Sooke RCMP detachment was that they're anywhere between three and four staff members short. From my own research I've looked into what is called the MALLOC program, which is a computer program used by the RCMP to redistribute resources for detachments on provincial contract. I'll give you some figures for the past three years, and I'm citing the years 1992, '93 and '94. In 1992, this computer model showed that the Sooke detachment was short one regular staff member.

In 1993, it showed that detachment two members short, and in 1994, four members short.

Could the minister give me an indication as to whether the provincial contract does in fact supply 1,505 members for the province? That's the first question. When a computer program such as the MALLOC one is developed internally, and a recommendation is brought forward that additional staff would be required for a particular detachment, who makes the decision as to how the RCMP will be redistributed within the confines of the provincial contract for 1,505 officers?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is correct that there are 1,505 provincial RCMP positions in the province. That includes particular contracts we have in both Langford and Qualicum Beach as the result of amalgamation or expansion of boundaries.

The determination as to how those positions will be distributed around the province is one that is made as the result of the technical process the member referred to -- the MALLOC process. The RCMP make those decisions, and they consult with us about the decisions. It's fair to say that if we had concerns, we would raise them with the RCMP, and they would look at what our concerns were. In the final analysis, the decision is theirs to make as to how to allocate their resources.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

R. Kasper: Further to that, I was advised in January that the RCMP had indicated to the Sooke detachment that they would be getting one additional staff person in February or March this year. It was then decided -- and by whom I don't know, but based on your answer, I would assume it was the RCMP -- that the Sooke detachment would not be receiving an additional officer.

Before the minister responds to that, I would like to reiterate something in those discussions that would be taking place, or which have taken place or continue to take place, with the RCMP. To give you an example, the Sooke area's growth was approximately 3.9 percent in 1994 alone, but the complaint load within the Sooke detachment rose by some 7 percent. We're looking at almost twice the number of complaints in relation to the population increase for that particular community.

What I and the community are after, in essence, is some additional staffing. The additional staff could hopefully be facilitated through the Langford contract, which was renegotiated as a result of the incorporation restructuring. That will potentially free up some 16 additional officers who were normally part of that provincial component of 1,505. I'll wait to get an answer on those two issues.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The allocation of an additional position to the Sooke detachment was predicated on the RCMP being given a number larger than 1,505. Budgets this year were such that we were unable to do that, and the RCMP were therefore unable to deliver the extra position.

With respect to the second issue, the member talks about Langford positions freeing up; that will happen over time. It doesn't happen quickly, as the member knows. For a variety of reasons that happens occasionally around the province where, for example, a municipality goes from a population under 5,000 to over 5,000 or, as in Langford, a situation comes about as a result of amalgamation. Those resources are freed up; they aren't sort of spilled out to the immediate neighbourhood. There is a provincewide consideration of where best to allocate those resources. Again, that's a decision the RCMP makes, although in consultation with us.

J. Sawicki: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Sawicki: Here today are 20 students from Burnaby Central Secondary School in my constituency, along with their 20 guest students under the Voyageur program. They are accompanied by their French teacher, Madame Roy, and parents Selina Nakatsu, Mrs. Ismail and Don Francis.

Je voudrais dire bienvenue aussi a vingt etudiants qui viennent de l'ecole La Seigneurie a Beauport, Quebec. Ils sont ici aujourd'hui avec leurs professeurs Gaetan Drapeau et Gilbert Gauthier. J'espere qu'ils s'amusent bien en Colombie-Britannique. Would the House please join me in welcoming all of my guests today.

The Chair: Votre francais est tres bien.

R. Kasper: I have one last question in regard to the Sooke issue. Based on the Langford situation, where Langford was incorporated in 1992 as a district municipality and prior to that was policed under the rural policing contract -- the provincial contract -- would it be fair to assume that if the Sooke area was to incorporate with a population of 11,000 people, the ability to perhaps negotiate or renegotiate policing strength within that municipality would be far greater than what we currently have?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As a municipality of over 5,000, Sooke would then be responsible for its own policing. Depending on the council's decisions, the result could be an enhanced policing capability. That would remain to be seen. Off the top of my head, I don't know how it would work out,

[ Page 13603 ]

and I don't want to venture into what I assume would be interesting local politics. That's really all I can say on the matter.

R. Kasper: I'm not trying to put the minister on the spot regarding whether the area should incorporate or not. It's just that the process currently, based on the Langford experience.... It was a lot easier for the municipality of Langford to negotiate and put together the opportunity for additional police officers based on Langford's status as a municipality. This is based on the sort of historical situation in Langford being a fairly large urban area with a substantial population in excess of 15,000 people.

There were always complaints and concerns raised by previous MALLOC reports about what was called the Colwood detachment, actually sitting in Langford. Those reports had continually shown that the levels of officers on the street serving that community were substantially lower than they should have been.

The only point I want to flush out is that, technically, the way for a community like Sooke to get additional police officers in the most time-efficient fashion would be to look at this whole question of incorporation, because the ability for the community to work with the RCMP and the provincial government, under the restructure grant process when an area incorporates, would be a lot easier than it is now.

[4:00]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member may well be right, but he should know, as should residents of Sooke, that the restructure grants are don't automatically produce a Langford result. As times get tougher, I suspect that the likelihood of those kind of results will become even rarer. So I think a fair amount of homework needs to be done by the member and interested citizens in Sooke, working with the ministry, to determine what is in the best interests of Sooke over the longer term.

R. Kasper: I would like to thank the minister for addressing the number of questions that I had, covering changes to the Young Offenders Act, dealing with violent offenders, the issues relating to crime prevention measures and also, more importantly, the question of victim rights and victim services and the programs that are offered. I hope the opposition does not mind me taking up this time.

D. Symons: To the minister I have just a few questions. Actually, the member for Chilliwack asked some of the ones I was going to ask regarding drinking and driving and penalties for it. But I wonder if I might delve into that just a little further, because I'm somewhat concerned about the 24-hour curbside suspensions that are given. I've a feeling that maybe that's a little inadequate if the police have had suspicion of a driver and pulled them over, and there has been enough of a suggestion of alcohol that they will simply give them a 24-hour suspension.

I don't think that's enough of a deterrent, and I'm somewhat concerned. The other ones, when they get beyond that, where they are given a breathalyser test and are found to be impaired, possibly after a second or third offence, even in spite of the new restrictions brought in recently, mentioned by the Minister of Transportation and Highways, about a month ago.... These still don't go far enough for the offenders in that sense.

The member for Chilliwack asked if there was going to be some mandatory education program that they had to go through, which I think is very good. I'm wondering if the minister has been considering vehicle impoundment for repeat offenders in alcohol-related instances of driving. Last year, I mentioned during the estimates of the Transportation and Highways minister that maybe an identifiable licence plate.... I mentioned a shocking-pink licence plate, which seemed to catch the media's attention. Is there something beyond what we're currently doing that could be done and that may get the message through to these drivers that we aren't going to take that sort of behaviour on the highway?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, there is. Clearly there needs to be a stronger message delivered to a smaller number of British Columbians than used to be the case who are drinking and driving. Increasingly, the statistics demonstrate that we are dealing with people who have repeat offences and a suggestion, perhaps, of an alcohol disease. The member is going to have an opportunity during the Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates to canvass this more clearly. I know, specifically in response to vehicle impoundment, that that's certainly an issue that the Minister of Transportation and Highways is looking at.

It's something that I very much support, and I think it will be a useful initiative, as will some other initiatives.

I don't want to steal the minister's thunder, but we need to look at administrative prohibitions that are longer than the 24-hour roadside suspension, and we need to look at ways to allow first-time drivers to gradually acquire full status -- some kind of graduated process. In that regard, I think it's entirely appropriate that in the first, say, couple of years after acquiring a driver's licence, you should lose it if you are caught with any alcohol on your breath.

D. Symons: Those were announced by the Minister of Transportation and Highways approximately a month ago.

I'm just curious. There may be a bit of jurisdiction here because, indeed, some of those things you referred to were announced by the minister. Where does the jurisdiction fall? I gather that drinking and driving is a criminal offence. Therefore, is this an offence that the Attorney General is responsible for? It seems that the Highways minister is making announcements relating to those offences. I'm just curious as to who sets the penalties and so forth and is responsible for that aspect of driving.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In short, the federal Minister of Justice has conduct of the Criminal Code. He determines what should be presented to Parliament, and the Parliament of Canada makes those rules. In British Columbia the Motor Vehicle Act is the responsibility of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and she determines what legislative initiatives come forward to this House. I get the joy of enforcing all of those rules.

[ Page 13604 ]

D. Symons: Thank you. That clears up a little bit of misunderstanding on my part.

I'm wondering, again dealing with driving.... There was some mention by the city of Chilliwack that they were going to try to collect the fines for driving in Chilliwack. The minister, I gather, basically told them that they'd better not do this or we'll change the law in order to prohibit them from collecting speeding fines within Chilliwack. I'm curious because their argument was that they're paying for the enforcement; the policing of the area comes out of the municipal budget, yet the fines that are collected from that enforcement simply flow back to Victoria. I think they have a point in that argument.

Somehow, if they're responsible for that enforcement, some of the cost of enforcement should flow back to the community. I wonder if the minister might comment on that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the province unconditionally remits more money to the municipalities than is collected by way of speeding infractions within those municipalities. I've forgotten the exact numbers, but we collect approximately $65 million; unconditional grants to the municipalities in this year's budget are somewhere around $100 million. So they're getting more than their fines back by way of unconditional grants.

More importantly, we don't look philosophically -- nor practically -- at speeding tickets or moving infractions as a way of raising money. I would prefer that no money were raised by way of moving violations because there were no moving violations. My concern is that it would be very tempting for a municipality desiring to keep property taxes and business taxes down to devote an inordinate amount of its police time to moving violations in order to raise revenue and thereby distort policing in their community as a result. This could be a wee bit of a cash cow, and I'm very concerned about that.

I'm also concerned about the fact that the incursion into our jurisdiction that the member referred to, which is occurring in one or two municipalities around the province, may have the negative impact of having drivers who are in violation of the law -- and maybe repeatedly in violation of the law -- not pay by way of penalty points if they're caught in a municipality in the same way that other drivers who are caught in an area under proper provincial jurisdiction would pay.

Even more importantly, their records will not be available through the motor vehicle branch record system, so they would not be available to the courts or for any appropriate purpose if they're involved in repeated infractions of one law or another with regard to their automobile.

So my view is firm, and it is that moving violations are a provincial jurisdiction. We have to ensure that that policy, which has long been in place in British Columbia, is maintained.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer. I tend to agree when you mention the business of communities using this as a cash cow. I was rather surprised by the figures you gave for unconditional grants to the municipalities and the amount collected from motor vehicle fines. One is almost twice the other. I'm surprised that that much of the municipalities'.... In a sense you could say that they're financed through fines from those areas. A fair percentage of the money that's given in unconditional grants could theoretically, if it were dedicated that way, come from traffic fines.

I've got another question that's on a different topic. I have a letter from a meeting of correctional employees held at New Haven Correctional Centre. During one of the workshops, they gave some feedback. This is just in point form, but the feedback from the workshop is: "A sense-of-false-security message given to the public regarding safety." What they mean by this is that public safety and the ministry and its officials are giving a sense of false security to the community in relation to those who are held in the New Haven Correctional Centre. I wonder if the minister might comment on the employees' sense that they're giving out a sense of false security to the neighbourhood.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is not a concern that has been drawn to my attention by the employees. I'm a wee bit at a loss as to how to respond to some material that the member has but that I don't have, nor have I had a chance to consider it.

D. Symons: Another item on the same paper, again from the workshops, was: "Relaxed standards, specialists' needs and sites were discussed." Particulary, "relaxed standards," meaning standards of safety and dealing with people in the community.... They're somewhat concerned. This is the employees, again, who are concerned partly for their safety because of these relaxed standards that they feel are taking place at New Haven.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know the date of the workshop, nor whether it was....

D. Symons: March 30.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: March 30 of this year?

I'm a little surprised to hear this, given that a number of procedures were, in fact, strengthened at New Haven, among other places, following some events of last year. I would encourage the employees to share their concerns with the ministry if they haven't already done so. There may be an opportunity for a better response than by sharing them with an opposition member who doesn't have the administrative means to solve the problems.

D. Symons: My concern is that if it hasn't been drawn to the attention of the minister or somebody in the ministry, there might be some fear of speaking up. That would not be in the best interests of the employees, nor of the people who are held in that correctional institute, if they somehow fear for their jobs if they speak up when they have concerns. Maybe a suggestion box or something that goes beyond the immediate supervisors might be an idea.

There's something else in here; it's the last one I'll ask on this. I don't understand what this is -- it might mean something to you: "Funding was discussed, as well as rationalization for costs provincewide." And then there's a question: "Is it possible to avoid double-dipping, and should user fees be considered?" I have no idea what they would mean by user fees in a correctional institute. Would the minister know?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't have a clue what the reference in those alleged minutes is to, but I have a suggestion for the member. We have a very cooperative senior management group in the corrections branch who would be delighted to sit

[ Page 13605 ]

down with the member to go over some of the concerns and see whether or not they're legitimate. I have no doubt that if matters contained within are legitimate, we will find ways of dealing with them in an appropriate and positive way. I should also say -- I said this last year, and I said it directly in response to a question from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi -- that no one who works in our ministry should ever feel their job is in jeopardy if they are bringing forward legitimate complaints or concerns about safety issues, whether those issues relate to the workplace or the community.

People should come forward, and I would encourage that. The response would be positive from senior management, because we want to make sure that the systems are working in the best possible way for both community and workplace security.

[4:15]

J. Dalton: It's interesting to sit here and listen to the variety of viewpoints and questions the Attorney General is experiencing this afternoon. I appreciate that probably sometimes.... It may be that the last line of questioning was an example that sometimes something may come at the Attorney General and his officials which is either unexpected or maybe a little off-topic. I would also add that given the nature of the Attorney General ministry, there's obviously a great volume and variety of topics that members will wish to canvass. I have a few in front of me. We probably won't get through all of them today. There are other members as well who may wish to come back in later.

The topic on my agenda that I wanted to start with this afternoon deals with something we touched upon last Friday before adjournment. As the Attorney General, if I recall, alluded to, there may very well be some pending legislation in this area, in which case I know you won't comment; but I think there's an important general issue at least. It deals with the Criminal Injury Compensation Act and the compensation that is provided out of that statute. The Attorney General did remind the committee last Friday of the recent amendment to the

schedule of that act dealing with stalking, and I have that announcement in front of me. So that's fine. I think it demonstrates that the ministry is obviously aware that there are, unfortunately, many more victims that we have to pay some attention to.

I appreciated, by the way, the remark that the Attorney General just made -- probably about half an hour ago -- about the forgotten victim. In fact, that was the very subject matter of a Friday private member's statement I made last year. I think too often it is easy for us to get into some of the details and nuances of the administration of the Attorney General's area and forget that there are, unfortunately, too many people out there who are indeed forgotten either because they are directly affected by criminal activity or because indirectly there is an impact.

As other members have demonstrated this afternoon, obviously in every community there are victims of one sort or another. That is something we all have to work on and continue to address. I know that the Attorney General certainly does that, and his officials do that as well.

The particular issue that I wanted to canvass with the Attorney General deals with the possible expansion of the Criminal Injury Compensation Act to include family members of homicide victims. In particular, I have had some correspondence.... I know the Attorney General has as well and, in fact, I believe all members have received correspondence from a woman in Whitehorse who, unfortunately, is one of these victims. Her father was tragically murdered in North Vancouver, and as a result of that, there is a lot of family trauma and upset, needless to say. These people are not alone.

I am only citing this as one example. But I think we should applaud this woman for being prepared to come forward, to take the initiative, to write the letters and to attend the meetings. Keep in mind as well that this woman now lives in Whitehorse; she is not close by. So it is not easy for her to try to address these issues that perhaps people who are a little closer to home might be able to do. The first question I would ask the Attorney General is: is there an intention on the part of the government to expand the

schedule at the back of that statute to include non-dependent family of homicide victims, as this woman describes in her letter?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Chair, I am not a stickler for the rules, so I am going to break them by anticipating discussion on legislative matters, which is not in order in estimates. It is my hope that this Legislature will be able to deal with issues so that we can address some of the concerns that the member alludes to. I know of the young woman the member is referring to; I don't know her personally. I have certainly had correspondence from her, and she raises issues that merit addressing. I hope the Legislature will be in a position to do some of that soon.

J. Dalton: I certainly appreciate hearing the Attorney General saying let's not be sticklers for the rules, although we do have to at some point adhere, of course, to at least a protocol, if nothing else. However, let me just have this point clarified. In fact, I made a comment to the Attorney General just as we adjourned last Friday -- it was out in the corridor -- about changing the

schedule at the back of the act. For example, the stalking situation that was brought in last month did not require a legislative change. That simply required an amendment to the

schedule through regulation. So before we get into other questions that come out of her letter, is it not possible for the government to simply add a new class of victim, as a form of compensation, at the back of the statute?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think that would be a remedy that would work in respect of the issue the member raises. What the

schedule at the back of the act does is set out a description of the offences and which

section of the Criminal Code is being referred to. If I understand what the member wants to do, he wants to take a

section already listed in the

schedule and broaden its application. That's not something that can be done by way of an order-in-council amending the schedule.

J. Dalton: I appreciate the response from the Attorney General, because it does help to give some of the background. I anticipated that that would be the response, and I think I can certainly say, on my behalf and that of our caucus, that we will be more than happy to see proposed legislative changes on the floor so we can properly debate them. I don't want to get into too much other detail about the concerns that these people have raised.

One other issue that the Attorney General will be aware of is whether any legislation would be retroactive. Of course, that would depend on the package that's brought forward. Perhaps the Attorney General, if he cares to, would at least address that topic in a general sense while we're here. I think

[ Page 13606 ]

it's important that all of us at least share in some legal advice and some legal opinions, even though the legislation will be something we have to deal with later.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Again, it would be technically within the authority of this House to bring in retroactive legislation. It happens on occasion. It happens rarely here, for good reason. When one does consider retroactive legislation, one has to have very, very good reason. It may have to do with an unintended consequence of drafting or with a court decision. That would not be the case in this situation. Then one has to ask oneself, if there is to be retroactive legislation, how far back it goes, because whatever date you pick, someone will be in and someone will be out. It becomes a very complex, difficult question that I don't have an answer for yet.

J. Dalton: I think my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour also has some questions that probably came out of his earlier point, but there is just one other thing I wanted to deal with. This is more general, not specific to the issue that we just addressed.

The Attorney General did comment, although his figures weren't quite accurate, that he thought the pay-outs under the Criminal Injury Compensation Act for 1994 were about $24 million. In fact, the pay-out for 1993 was $24.5 million, and then, interestingly enough, in 1994 the pay-out went down to $21 million. I'd like to ask the Attorney General why there's such an interesting decrease in criminal injury compensation pay-outs from 1993 to 1994.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the answer can be as simple as this: the annual report, which is what the member is drawing his figures from, is for a calendar year; the numbers I've been referring to are for the fiscal year, which we operate on here, obviously.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Minister, going back through the last topic of conversation with regard to various incidents that have occurred on the North Shore.... As I mentioned earlier today, you and I have written quite a bit back and forth with regard to the Duggan murder and the Flather murder. In the Duggan situation, I was concerned that the WCB....

I appreciate the fact that the WCB is a little reticent about making any kind of financial settlement to an individual who perhaps isn't a direct relative, like a son, a daughter or a wife, but in this instance, as you are probably aware, the main party that discovered the situation -- and I don't want to go into it here -- was the twin sister of the individual. The stress level of this individual has increased to the point where she's unable to work or hold down a job; she's lost all her medical....

So I was wondering, when we're talking about the fact that workers' compensation may be enhanced to cover a situatioh like that.... In other words, the WCB said the twin sister does not comply with the rules, and that if there's going to be retroactive legislation.... And you said: "Well, that's quite a bit."

I look back at the women who remarried after their husbands died and Workers' Compensation cut all these married women off their pensions -- their husbands had been killed while working on the job. Then they put in retroactive legislation to say that they now can go back to -- I think it's 1970 -- and a woman who remarried after 1970 wouldn't be able to collect the pension. Why would there have to be specific legislation with workers' compensation? Why not just pass a regulation to say that this would apply in today's situation regarding the Duggan case, for instance, where they are not asking for financial compensation but just looking for medical compensation?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The role of the WCB in this issue is simply administrative -- it is an arrangement we have with them that they will use their resources to make decisions under the Criminal Injury Compensation Act, as well as the Workers Compensation Act. So when they're making decisions with respect to criminal injuries, they're governed exclusively by the provisions of the Criminal Injury Compensation Act and any regulations.

What happened in this situation was that, I think, on occasion over the years, the adjudication panel at the WCB did not pay particularly close attention to the wording of the Criminal Injury Compensation Act, which prevented payments being made to individuals who were not the victim of a crime in the direct sense, but rather were relatives of a deceased individual who was killed by way of a crime, to pick the situation the member is referring to. A few years ago, attention was paid to the language of the Criminal Injury Compensation Act, and as a result, for the last few years there has been a strict

interpretation of the act, which has been in place since the beginning in 1973 or 1974, and which prevents payment being made in situations as described by the member.

So it's not something the WCB can do anything about; the WCB board is not involved. The only remedy is by way of amendment to the Criminal Injury Compensation Act.

[4:30]

J. Dalton: Sorry, we're bouncing back and forth a little bit, with who's on his feet, but it's certainly of interest. Obviously, the last two topics are quite interrelated, and I think I could say, most unfortunately in both cases, that the initial victim was in both of our communities. However, we won't dwell on that aspect. I don't think any community is unique or the only one that experiences these things.

I wanted to deal with another crime related topic. Most of the things people have been raising this afternoon certainly have a crime theme to them -- not that that's the only topic we might cover or the only thing we'll deal with today. But in response to a question, the Attorney General touched earlier on the question of identification of offenders, particularly serious offenders who may be released back into communities.

Of course, it goes without saying that eventually all of those who are incarcerated, unless they're on an indefinite or indeterminate sentence -- of which there are relatively few -- eventually have to be assimilated back into the community. I can also add that I'm happy to hear the Attorney General repeatedly remind us, as well he should, that public safety is paramount. It has to be the bottom line. If public safety is being compromised, then I think we have to rethink the process and why that is so.

If this is of help to the Attorney General -- and it's strictly an editorial comment -- I might add that I am no fan of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I said that the day I saw the initial proposals Pierre Trudeau was going to present to Parliament. I thought: if it ain't broke, why fix it? I really could not see.... I see my colleague from Delta South is here, and he'll

[ Page 13607 ]

certainly support me on this, coming from England, where they don't have a Charter of Rights and yet seem to function reasonably happily. I will be happy to stand here on my feet and go on record as saying I think the Charter has done more of a disservice to this country and the process of justice than it has done a service. It has certainly been a great growth industry for many lawyers, unfortunately. That's an editorial comment, just so you'll know where I'm coming from.

What I want to canvass with one or two questions -- I know the Attorney General has been looking at this -- is the issue of mandatory criminal checks on people who will be released back into the community after serving a sentence -- particularly people who are going to be working with young children. Obviously the Charter of Rights that I've just commented on is a factor that we all have to think of. We cannot forget the fact that it's with us. I would also add that we cannot deny people their right to privacy or deny the fact that they've served their sentence.

But if, indeed, public safety is the underlying theme, are there ways in which we can all be thinking along lines and methods so that the community can be properly advised?

For example -- and we've touched upon this very unfortunate case in some opening remarks last Thursday, if I recall -- I have a newspaper

article that reminds me once again of the Gamache case, which was the very unfortunate situation of where somebody who had served his time, and who was a very dangerous sexual offender, was released back into the community of Comox and murdered a young girl.

Putting aside the fact that sometimes we can get on our feet and be somewhat dramatic and point out the obvious -- that this sort of thing shouldn't happen -- can we not be thinking along the lines of Washington State, just to cite one example? I know that sometimes the Attorney General thinks, when we start citing examples from American states such as Florida....

I think somebody alluded the other day to the "three strikes and you're out" process, and I agree with the response the Attorney General made that it has gotten out of hand -- when you hear of somebody who's stolen a pizza or a pepperoni or something and is facing lifetime incarceration. I don't think that was the intention the legislators in many American states had in mind, but that may be the unfortunate consequence.

Perhaps the Attorney General could respond to this. In Washington State, in dealing with sex offenders -- these are ones who have been incarcerated and have served their time -- they are dealing with things like registration with local authorities, public notification when warranted and indefinite incarceration. Maybe we can come back to the third one in a moment. What legal advice is the Attorney General receiving with regard to the rights of the individual, the Charter itself, and the rather interesting dichotomy between public protection and individual rights? Quite frankly, there are many times the two of them are not compatible, and at some point we have to work those through.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have a couple of comments dealing with the broader range of issues that come under this general topic. In November '94, we were the first province in the country to implement a notification scheme that enabled police in this province to notify appropriate audiences of the presence of dangerous sexual predators in their community.

Section 25 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act allows police in a case such as this to violate that privacy when there is potential danger to the community. Based on the necessity in that particular situation, the police can notify any range of individuals within the community. So it might be the immediate neighbourhood, or it could be the high school principal. It could be as far-reaching as the local media. Under our policy, the police now have that opportunity.

There has been a lot of pressure in terms of registration. It has diminished in recent months, but there has been a lot of pressure on me in the last couple of years to establish a provincial registry. I have resisted. If we are going to have a registry, it has to be national because of mobility. People move from one place to another, and the sense of security that might be obtained with a provincial registry would be a false one, because it would just not be comprehensive.

Many people now cite Washington State as an example of a jurisdiction that has implemented registry, but it's not widely known that 50 percent of the people on their registry don't live at the address noted on the registry. You have a pretty horrendous bit of information as a result of that.

In respect of criminal record checks of employees at workplace locations involving children, the member will know that we have been involved in extensive consultation with a wide variety of communities in British Columbia to see whether a scheme of criminal record checks can be implemented in the province, to ensure as best we can that employees working with children do not have a criminal record which could indicate they may be a threat to the children they're working with.

The reality in all of this, however, is that most sexual predation occurs by people who are not known to the system and who are not possessed of a criminal record. Sad as it is, most sexual predation in fact occurs within the family or extended family. Most victims know personally the individual who is guilty of assault or predatory behaviour, and they have known that individual for some time. No system in the world and no amount of law is going to prevent Uncle Johnny from molesting his niece or nephew, and that's a reality of the situation.

Those people who think we are going to be able to set up a foolproof system in this country -- or in any country, for that matter -- should not be lulled into a sense of security. What we have to do in our society is a lot more educating around these issues. A lot of our focus is in that direction, and much more has to be done in terms of basic issues of respect between girls and boys, to begin with, and between men and women throughout their lives, and in particular, between adults and children. There's an immense amount of education that has to occur.

Again, it all has to be community-based and family-based, and we need to provide the supports -- as a society; I'm speaking generally now -- that would enable those kinds of programs to be successful.

That's the answer: notification is now available and has been since November. As for the registry, Ottawa is working on it and we're cooperating with them to establish such a registry. We have been involved in discussions about establishing a criminal record check process here in the province.

J. Dalton: I appreciate the endeavours that are in place or are being contemplated.

I want to ask the Attorney General -- and it leads into another line of questioning that I'm going to present anyway

[ Page 13608 ]

-- a question with regard to registration. He's quite right that it obviously has to be national in nature, otherwise people would just cross back and forth across provincial or even international borders. Naturally, it's not necessarily going to be helpful if we can't have an effective registration scheme, and there would be a false sense of security, admittedly, if people think that registration is going to take care of the problem, because it won't.

I certainly do agree with the Attorney General's comments about education, although that takes on many facets, which, of course, could be formal or informal in nature. Unfortunately, there are many people in our society whom you cannot educate, anyway; you could hit them over the head with a hammer and they wouldn't get the message.

But I do want to ask the Attorney General about the meetings of the various Attorneys General; of course, we had one recently in Victoria. What kind of appetite is expressed around the table? Do you get a variety of opinions? Do people generally agree that this sort of thing should be done, and say: "Let's try and overcome the legal niceties," -- if I can put it that way? For example, they can remind the Attorney General that there is a notwithstanding clause in the Charter. I would certainly advocate that people should be using it more. I don't recall any incident in which it has ever been used.

That's the sort of thing that I think we have to take the problem on, from not just an educational.... Admittedly that's important in advising the community. We have to take it on from the point of view that if there's going to be a predictable roadblock thrown up -- of a national registration system, for example -- can we then address our mind to that?

In fact, I can just tip the Attorney General off that later -- it probably won't be today, but at some point -- I want to also invite his opinion about the cost of gun control that may be imposed on each province, including this one. I've heard some comments that Attorneys General of other provinces are supposedly of the opinion that the notwithstanding clause could be used -- not, I think, to opt out of the gun control provisions if they're brought in, but maybe in some way to alleviate the problem. But that's a different topic. I just wanted to flag that for future reference.

Perhaps the Attorney General could comment on the discussion around the table about a national registration system, and about whether the legal barriers that predictably could be thrown up have been addressed and how we might approach those difficulties.

[4:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's fair to say that....

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt the member's conversation. I wasn't quite sure who he was having it with.

I think it's fair to say that at the federal-provincial meeting, and at previous meetings, there has been generally widespread support for notification policies. I think all of us worry about a notification program that would have the effect of driving people underground and making it more difficult to identify where they happen to be at any particular time. But the answer is that there is general support for the notion. There aren't any Charter issues with respect to the notification policy -- raised in a way that I can identify the need for the notwithstanding clause.

There obviously are privacy issues, but there is privacy legislation as well that deals with that, and our provincial privacy legislation has a particular clause --

section 25 -- enabling us, in fact, to allow for notification in appropriate circumstances.

J. Dalton: That last comment perhaps.... I don't need an answer to this, but maybe that begs the question that predictably, no doubt, somebody is going to challenge the authenticity or the legality of that provision. I suppose that goes back to my earlier editorial comment about the Charter, that I think, unfortunately and too often, lawyers.... I used to be one; I'm not in practice anymore, so I guess I can take shots at them. I think lawyers too often look for arguments that don't really reflect the spirit and the purpose of the legislation that they may be doing....

However, that's a comment I have to be a bit cautious of. I would remind all members that we are invited to and are attending a reception with Law Society officials tonight, and they will probably ban me from the meeting. But so be it.

I want to get into some other questions about interprovincial meetings that the Attorney General attends. I do that because he already made some comments earlier today about the meeting back in January. There wasn't a lot of detail then, but I think we can get into some more discussion. Before that meeting of Attorneys General and other justice ministers took place in January, there was a press release that the Premier put out and a four-page letter attached to it.

A few items came out of the release and the four-page letter that I think are of interest as we discuss these topics of the criminal process -- identification of offenders and other related items. I'll just take one or two things, firstly out of the release itself, and then we can get into some of the content of the letter. This letter, by the way, was written by the Premier to the Prime Minister of Canada. It is dated January 18, 1995, and I am quite sure the Attorney General and his officials have a copy in front of them. It looks like they do.

One statement in the release, for example, has caught my eye. It deals with a comment the Attorney General made earlier about transferring of young offenders to adult court. This would be the older young offenders, dealing with serious offences. I'm sure the discussion on that topic around the table in Victoria must have been interesting. Did the Justice minister, Alan Rock, show a real concern for -- what I hear from the public, and I am sure the Attorney General does as well -- the serious young offender and how those people should be dealt with?

I ask that because I think that, too often, justice ministers sort of get stampeded into whatever is the popular topic of the day. Maybe then we'll move on to other things.

As I said earlier, I'm probably going to ask some questions about gun control later, which will also relate, of course, to the Justice minister's perception of public concerns.

That was my first question that came out of the release -- about the transferring of the serious young offender to adult court. It's important, as well, that we get the Attorney General's opinion, because, of course, the enforcement of the process is in his ministry. Personally, I would like to see more initiative of young offenders being -- at least the attempt being made -- elevated to adult court. Whether, in fact, it succeeds or not is up to the judge, of course.

[ Page 13609 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We have consistently, over the years, made representations to the federal minister of the day to strengthen the provisions in the Young Offenders Act which relate to raising to adult court -- this despite the fact that we have the most applications and the most successful applications, I think, on a per capita basis in the country in respect of raising. The current federal minister's -- Alan Rock's -- response to that, I think, is best captured by reading the amendments that were presented and passed in the House of Commons.

In particular, with respect to raising -- I talked about this earlier this afternoon -- there were five or six Criminal Code offences which reversed the onus for 16- and 17-year-olds.