1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 2, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8463 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

U.S. lumber tariffs and free trade. Mr. Howard — 8463

Bud Smith's expenses. Mr. Stupich — 8463

Casino gambling. Mr. Hanson — 8464

Ministry of Tourism TV advertising. Mr. MacWilliam — 8464

B.C. Rail cost overruns. Mr. Williams — 8464

Financial Disclosure Act. Mr. Lauk — 8464

General insurance. Mr. Cocke — 8465

Ministerial Statement

Proclamation of environment week. Hon. Mr. Pelton — 8465

Ms. Sanford

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

On vote 10: minister's office — 8466

Mr. Lauk, Mr. Macdonald, Mrs. Dailly, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Rose, Mr. Cocke, Mr. Nicolson

On vote 11: ministry operations — 8479

Mr. Lauk

On vote 12: judiciary — 8480

Mr. Lauk

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 65: minister's office — 8480

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy, Mr. Hanson

MONDAY, JUNE 2, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, visiting with us today is Mr.

Hayden Kevin Shell, a Member of Parliament with the Australian Labour

Party. I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, also visiting with us today is a

well-known British Columbia local politician, Mrs. Helen Boyce, with

some friends from Vancouver. Would the members please make her welcome.

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

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) I'd like the members in the House to

welcome 50 grade 5 students from Queen of Angels, an independent school

in Duncan, and their teachers, Miss Hannon and Mr. Scigliano.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon we

have some visiting students, and on behalf of my colleague from Langley

I would like to ask the House to welcome the students from Credo

Christian High School, who are accompanied by Messrs. Siebe DeJong,

Bert Moes and Harold Leyenhorst.

MR. REE: This afternoon in the gallery we have two lovely

ladies: Mrs. Helen Lindholm, the wife of that esteemed lawyer, Louis

Lindholm of Oak Bay; and with her is Mr. Lindholm's cousin, Inger

Hakansson of Ystad, Sweden, who is here to visit the Lindholm family

and also to attend Expo. I ask the House to welcome them both today.

Oral Questions

U.S. LUMBER TARIFFS AND FREE TRADE

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of some 10 or 11

cabinet ministers, including the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), I'd like to direct a question to his

backup minister — or whatever they're called these days — and ask

whether or not the trade agreement that may result from the trade

negotiations between Ottawa and the United States will be presented to

this Legislature for ratification before any other action is taken on

it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, is there a minister to whom the question is directed?

MR. HOWARD: Yes. Just in case the minister has forgotten who he is, that backup minister is the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly appreciate it if the member would repeat his question.

MR. HOWARD: Are you running for office of any nature?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: I asked the minister whether any agreement

resulting from the trade negotiations between Canada and the United

States of America will be presented to this Legislature for

ratification before any executive action is taken on it.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that my colleague the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations will be pleased that that

question has been presented. I will take it on notice and convey the

question to my colleague.

MR. HOWARD: Will the minister also present to his colleague

what I'm sure would be the unanimous view of this House, that that

assurance must be forthcoming because British Columbia's whole economic

foundation is at stake?

I'd ask the acting minister another question with respect to a

report emanating from Washington over the weekend that a senior

Canadian diplomat had wrongly advised the United States government that

it would be no big deal in Canada, maybe a couple of days of rhetoric

and that's all, if the Reagan administration put a tariff on Canadian

shakes and shingles. The report is that that conversation took place

well over a month ago. I wonder if the minister can advise whether that

situation has been investigated, and will the facts thereof be related

to us?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, again, questions

must be directed to a minister on his or her responsibility. With the

greatest of respect, hon. member, the statements by a member of another

jurisdiction would be very difficult to direct to a member of this

body. The member may wish to somehow rephrase the question.

MR. HOWARD: With respect, Your Honour, the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations is charged by this Legislature with the

responsibility of dealing with another government — namely, the

Canadian government — and this is a representative of the Canadian

government in Washington who is reputed to have made the statement that

he did make. That needs an inquiry, I submit, to protect the lumber

industry in B.C. I think Your Honour should permit the question to be

advanced. There is too much at stake to quibble about some minor point,

with respect, Your Honour.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I am sure that if my colleague the Minister

of Intergovernmental Relations were here he would indeed refer the

question to the proper minister. That minister is the Minister of

International Trade, Science and Investment.

BUD SMITH'S EXPENSES

MR. STUPICH: In the absence of the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis), I'd like to put a question to the acting minister. It has

been reported that Bud Smith was involved with a Social Credit Party

membership drive in which he travelled throughout the province, during

which time he was also principal secretary in the office of the

Premier. In his capacity as minister responsible for the office of the

comptroller-general, can the minister assure the House that Mr. Smith

received neither salary nor expenses from the government for this

activity?

[ Page 8464 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'll take the member's question as notice and refer it to the Minister of Finance for review and comment.

MR. STUPICH: Would the acting Minister of Finance also ask

the minister whether or not he has undertaken to determine whether the

taxpayers paid all or a portion of Mr. Smith's preview political tour

of the province?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to that

question is yes, I will take the question to the Minister of Finance

and ask him to review and comment on it.

CASINO GAMBLING

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Minister of Environment

in his responsibility as a backup to the Provincial Secretary. The

press release issued by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

on Friday announced new casino gambling regulations. Our staff

contacted the lotteries branch today and were advised that no such

regulations are currently available. Could you tell us what the deal is

here, and is this according to Hoyle or...?

[2:15]

HON. MR. PELTON: I certainly know it doesn't make for a very

interesting question period when we have to stand and give an answer

such as this, but I'll have to take that question as notice and pass it

on to the Provincial Secretary. I'm sure the minister will be pleased

to answer the question at the first opportunity.

MR. HANSON: I have one other question. Has the minister

decided that the public should have some opportunity for input into the

new casino regulations before they come into effect? That process was

undertaken with bingo but no such public input is in place for casinos

— the wheeling and dealing and what have you. Will the minister

undertake to provide information on that?

HON. MR. PELTON: I certainly will undertake to bring that

question to the attention of the responsible minister and I'm positive

she'll respond at the earliest opportunity.

MINISTRY OF TOURISM TV ADVERTISING

MR. MacWILLIAM: To the Minister of Tourism. The minister has

taken the extraordinary step of inserting himself into Ministry of

Tourism ad promotions on television. I might add that until now, this

has been one of the few areas of government advertising untouched by

the partners in propaganda program. I wonder if the minister could

advise the reasons for this change; is the politicization of these TV

ads for Tourism in fact the kick-off to his leadership campaign?

MR. SPEAKER: Part of the question is in order, hon. member.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is quality.

MR. MacWILLIAM: That in itself is a debatable subject. In

view of the importance of the travel industry in British Columbia,

would the minister agree to return the ministry advertising program to

promoting tourism in B.C. rather than promoting himself?

B.C. RAIL COST OVERRUNS

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister responsible for

B.C. Rail. Recently the president, Mr. Norris, indicated that there had

been cost overruns on the Tumbler Ridge line to the northeast coal

fields. Could the minister advise us how significant those overruns are?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I do not have an answer to that particular question. I will take it as notice and make the appropriate inquiry.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister then also check on the actual losses on the operating of the line relative to those costs and report back?

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE ACT

MR. LAUK: A question to the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. This is a filler question. [Laughter.]

In the absence of the entire inner cabinet, to the Attorney-General.

The Premier promised in 1975 and in 1977 and in 1986 that his

government would pass stringent legislation regarding conflict of

interest. Has the Attorney-General decided to make good on this

commitment prior to the Premier's leaving public office?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, again with due respect, questions

of legislation cover a very thin line in our question period, and on

that basis I would recommend that members give some time to reviewing

the questions during question period.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member

knows that the Financial Disclosure Act is administered by the Minister

of Finance, and that he inadvertently asked the question of me.

But since he did, can I say that the subject to which he alluded is

having the serious ongoing study of the government, and that we are

well aware of the problems that he refers to.

MR. LAUK: Does that study include either exposing a program

to deal with a conflict of interest or devising an inner cabinet

program dealing with the whole matter of conflict of interest in

secrecy?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I think that one thing that has

been learned on that subject in the past six months in Canada is really

how inadequate the legislation that the members opposite passed when

they were government has become. Indeed, the....

Interjections.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, if you don't have any holdings, Mr.

Speaker, I guess it's difficult to have conflicts, isn't it? But there

are people who want to run for public life who have built some

holdings, who have portfolios, who have successfully achieved things,

and they might be a little bit

[ Page 8465 ]

concerned about the method by which disclosure and

conflicts are going to be dealt with. The object is to ensure that

there is a form of open disclosure that is fair and also to ensure that

able people and people who have achieved things in this society are

encouraged to run for public life, and are not discouraged from running.

I will tell the hon. member that a full study of

conflict-of-interest legislation and disclosure legislation is

underway. I also should say, Mr. Speaker, that no form of legislation

devised by man in the United States or in other countries can replace

an honest approach to one's affairs when in public life.

GENERAL INSURANCE

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the

Minister of Health, the Minister of Human Resources, and various other

ministries, in his responsibilities for ICBC. The Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt) sold the farm and got rid of general insurance. By

virtue of the fact that the casualty companies — the general insurance

companies — in this province have reneged on their responsibility to

provide general insurance for various groups including driving schools,

municipalities, etc., will the minister get us back into liability

insurance, since they've broken their contract? They haven't made

available that contract in this province.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that the

conclusions reached by the member at the moment rely to a very large

degree upon his opinion. I would be very pleased to put those questions

to ICBC to determine if they feel there has been any breach of

understanding or contract. ICBC is contractually obliged to live up to

its end of the understanding of the contract, but I'll be pleased to

send those questions to ICBC to see if they feel that there is a base

for the member's conclusions.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm really pleased today to

be able to welcome to this House Pastor Lennox of the Seventh-Day

Adventist Church in Abbotsford. I believe that Commissioner Helen

Boyce, vice-chairman of the Board of Parks and Recreation, has already

been introduced. I'd like to welcome her and her guest, Mrs. lva Mann.

PROCLAMATION OF ENVIRONMENT WEEK

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a short ministerial statement.

I have the pleasure today of announcing that this week, June I to

June 7, has been proclaimed as Environment Week in British Columbia.

During this special week I'll be asking British Columbians to pay

particular attention to the ways in which they can personally

contribute to the preservation and enhancement of our environment.

Since British Columbia Environment Week also coincides with Canada

Environment Week and World Environment Day, which is to be observed on

June 5, we have the opportunity to show our concern in concert with

both the national and international communities. I would ask that

members offer their encouragement to any groups in their constituencies

who may be undertaking appropriate community activities during this

week.

Among the events in which my ministry will be involved is a free

clinic co-sponsored with Environment Canada whereby vehicle owners can

have their vehicles' exhaust tested for harmful emissions and unburned

fuel. This event will take place at the Lansdowne mall in Richmond,

June 2 to June 5.

I would also like to take this opportunity to inform the House of an

initiative which we have taken in concert with the other provinces

which will significantly benefit the quality of the environment in our

province. It concerns polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, which have

been causing considerable concern because of the potential health

hazards and because of their tendency to persist in our environment.

The use and the transportation of these materials has been severely

restricted under a variety of federal and provincial legislation, but

we have recognized for some time that an effective strategy for dealing

with them also requires the establishment of rigorous standards for

determining the allowable levels that will be permitted in the

environment. I am happy to report that during a recent meeting with the

other members of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment

Ministers, interim environmental quality objectives were approved for

PCBs in both ambient air and ambient water. These objectives will

provide a clear standard for the future management and control of these

troublesome materials.

In addition, I would like to announce the introduction of a new

program which I believe will make a substantial long-term contribution

to environmental awareness among our province's younger citizens.

During this Environment Week of 1986, my ministry will be releasing a

new education kit on waste management and recycling entitled "Resources

and Wastes." This program was developed for use in secondary schools in

a variety of subject areas, including consumer education and science

and technology. I urge educators to help make this valuable material

available to as many of our students as possible. We want to ensure

that young people are fully equipped to deal with both present and

future challenges of waste management and resource conservation in our

province. To make sure that teachers have access to the kit, copies are

being sent to each of the province's 87 school district resource

centres.

In the future, my ministry will continue to focus its efforts, as it

has in the past, on ensuring that environmental information is

available to British Columbians of all ages, and especially to the

province's school and youth organizations. I can think of no better way

to make the spirit of Environment Week a reality, not just during the

first week of June but for all 12 months of the year.

MS. SANFORD: In the absence of the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), who is attending an environmental

conference in Ottawa, I would like to congratulate the minister on

ensuring that we do have a week that focuses some attention on the very

important issue of environment and environmental protection. There is a

lot that we as individuals can do. There is also a lot that governments

can do, and I hope that during this week and throughout the following

year the minister will harken to the requests from this side of the

House related to improvements in the environment in British Columbia

and will also harken to the words of advice from the federal minister,

who indicated that the provincial

[ Page 8466 ]

ministers should get tough with those who pollute

the environment and make sure they're taken to task for any damage they

might do.

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 10: minister's office, $200,422.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm not going to make an opening statement on

these estimates, just to say it's been an absolutely fabulous year in

justice. The police have received strong encouragement to enforce the

law; the corrections system has received strong encouragement to keep

convicted people behind bars, safe and secure; and the court system has

flourished. I have very lengthy speaking notes here, all of which I

will defer to comments from the gentleman opposite with the seminal

brain, who is waiting to pounce.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I'm a little disappointed that the

Attorney-General would not report on the many controversial

administrative issues involving the department over the last year. It

may be that he is not aware of them, so I will try to refresh his

memory.

Before getting into some of the events that have some vintage, it is

of great disturbance to the.... I'll wait until the Attorney-General

settles himself. There has been some public reaction over the.... Can

someone bring the Attorney-General his medication? Or what is he

looking for? Mr. Chairman, just prior to the weekend four individuals

who have been charged with the attempted murder of a visiting minister

from India were granted bail. I am not aware of the details of the

evidence, and I understand evidence was called before a provincial

court judge, His Honour Judge Sarich, and I would not want to

second-guess His Honour's decision with respect to granting bail. I

want to make two or three comments, though. One is that the granting of

bail in this case from a policy point of view has already attracted

some negative public attention. The law-abiding Sikh community is of

the view that the law in Canada is soft on fanatics who are political

assassins. With this in mind, they find it difficult to explain why the

court granted bail. I am told that it is the view of some in the

administration of justice that the provisions of bail were stringent.

It is still very difficult to explain to the average citizen why people

charged with a serious offence such as attempted murder on a visiting

minister of government should be released.

Internationally the demand on Canada by the United States and Great

Britain to get tough on terrorism, it seems to me, should be taken

seriously by provincial governments as well as the federal government.

With that in mind, I simply ask the Attorney-General whether he has

directed regional Crown to appeal the decision of His Honour Judge

Sarich and have the bail reviewed by a supreme court judge.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, when those unhappy events

occurred last week near Campbell River on the Gold River road, I was in

touch with prosecutors and police for several days on that matter as to

the evidence and the strength of the case. The bail hearing took place,

I believe, starting on Thursday, and the decision was made by the

provincial court judge to grant bail, but it was bail in a fairly hefty

amount with a number of sureties required. I should also say that, yes,

we have appealed it. We took the position before Judge Sarich that it

was not an appropriate case for bail.

I have absolutely no quarrel with the hon. member at all on really

anything he said in regard to this matter. It is my own belief that the

provisions of the Bail Reform Act are wanting in cases of this kind.

The primary ground, of course, which the obligation is on the Crown to

show is that the detention of the prisoners is necessary to assure

their attendance in court. When you have people who don't have anything

but roots, and reasonable roots, in the community, it is sometimes

difficult to justify on the secondary ground that their detention is

necessary in the public interest. But we made the case, and we made

submissions and put material before the learned judge who granted bail,

and I can assure you that promptly and immediately we appealed that

decision.

Now I don't intend to comment on that case, nor was my friend

specifically commenting on that case. He was commenting on something

much larger, and that is the ability that we have in Canada under our

existing law to deal with this kind of political terrorism or

assassination or attempted assassination. I would even go farther than

my friend. I am absolutely appalled when I hear of arguments being made

before the federal court that persons have the right in airports to

have mass demonstrations and to advertise their points of view in

airports in the vicinity of departure lounges, and that that is somehow

freedom of speech and something that is justified under the Charter.

How are authorities going to keep our airports and our transportation

avenues safe if freedom of speech reaches into that kind of area? We

have serious problems, and it may be that changes are going to have to

be made to national security legislation and to the Criminal Code to

allow the police the tools to act promptly and swiftly in the face of

terrorism and international crime. Of course, we had a very bad

incident earlier in Ottawa, where an attack was made on an embassy and

a person was killed. I think all of this heightens the fact that we've

got to not only look at our security and services to see whether

they're adequate, but also look to see whether the criminal law is

adequate. So you don't have to pitch me on that, hon. member. I agree.

I also want to second something else that you said, and that is that

the Sikh community in this province is a law-abiding community, and it

is a very old community. It is a community that has been with us for

the better part of a century, and the stable, law-abiding Sikh

community in this province is absolutely appalled by these kinds of

incidents, and also appalled at latent backlash against a community

which we should be proud of. I spoke yesterday with Deputy Commissioner

Venner of the RCM Police and asked him to address this whole issue very

specifically, and to give me some recommendations and a plan of action,

because we cannot allow any threats to the safety of our law-abiding

citizens to occur because of international terrorists.

MR. LAUK: Is the Attorney-General satisfied that Crown

counsel presented an adequate case with respect to bail — that is to

say, sufficient evidence of the likelihood of repeat offences while out

on bail, having regard for the fact that this was or appeared to be a

politically motivated assassination attempt unique to our law and to

our experience?

[ Page 8467 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: Having not been in the courtroom or seen the

brief, I can only say that the counsel who argued the case, Mr. Jim

Taylor, is not only experienced, but a very determined and tough Crown

prosecutor, and I would be very surprised if he hadn't put everything

that could possibly be put in favour of that case before the court. I

can tell the member that the appeal has been prepared and will be heard

this Friday in county court in Nanaimo.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, one other event has occurred, and

because it was a jury verdict I do not want to reflect too much on it.

I'm a firm believer in juries, and apart from the concerted attack of

both bench and bar on jury verdicts, I fundamentally believe in them.

Recently a jury decided that a bus driver charged with murder was

innocent by reason of self-defence. Have the Attorney-General or his

officers reviewed that case, and has the Attorney-General decided to

launch an appeal?

HON. MR. SMITH: No decision has been made, but the charge to

the jury is being reviewed. As the member knows, I too am a strong

supporter of the jury system. The Crown's position on an appeal from a

jury verdict that we don't like, if indeed we don't like that verdict —

and I am not able to say what the review will find.... You cannot

appeal a jury verdict unless it's on the basis of an error in law on

the charge; you can't appeal it because it's perverse. An accused can

appeal a jury verdict on the basis that it's perverse, but the Crown

cannot. So if we were going to appeal, we would have to be able to find

a material error in law on the charge that could have influenced the

jury. So it's an uphill thing to appeal in a jury verdict. But we are

reviewing the charge and the facts that were before the jury.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I've given the Attorney-General

notice of a very serious problem that has occurred in this past year in

the community around Quesnel. In all 14 years I have not, gratefully,

called into question the conduct of a judge. I have provided the

material to the Attorney-General and I have serious questions to put to

the Attorney-General with respect to the conduct of His Honour Judge

Cullinane in the provincial court in Quesnel.

[2:45]

As the committee will remember, three men in that community were

charged with violent sexual assault of Dora Laurent, who is an

aboriginal person, a woman in that area. The facts, which I'm told are

not in dispute, are that this woman was picked up by these three men,

driven to a remote area, was raped and was the victim of other sexual

acts, was beaten and left.

Charges were laid against the three men. In advance of the date set

for trial, one of the three men, Wade Parrish Joyal, appeared before

His Honour Judge Cullinane — that is to say, January 13, 1986 — and was

given the opportunity of pleading guilty to an offence of mere common

assault. The facts, as read to the court, indicate that Joyal was

probably guilty of sexual assault. Judge Cullinane, in spite of a

previous conviction, although somewhat minor in comparison, gave the

accused a discharge. The transcript of that sentencing I have provided

to the Attorney-General.

To complete and round out the picture, the two other accused were

committed for trial before a superior court judge and again both the

other two accused were allowed to plead guilty to common assault. They

received, under the circumstances, a jail sentence of short duration,

but pretty well a heavy sentence for the mere charge of common assault.

I have two complaints that should be aired. One is with respect to

the conduct of Judge Cullinane and, two, the conduct of Crown counsel

before the provincial court and the superior court.

Firstly, dealing with Judge Cullinane, one of the accused was named

Reimer. Joyal was the one who received a discharge from Judge

Cullinane. There was some evidence sufficiently grave for the chief

judge of the district to caution Judge Cullinane and advise the chief

judge of the provincial court, Judge Coultas, as follows. The evidence

was that the accused Reimer was known to Judge Cullinane and was a

friend of one of the judge's children. Secondly, the accused Reimer

received an automobile ride from the judge to court on one occasion

when he was appearing on this charge. Thirdly, Judge Cullinane talked

to Reimer's father about these charges prior to their being dealt with

by the court.

These allegations were brought to Judge Cullinane's attention, but

he still proceeded in advance of the date set for hearing to take a

guilty plea from Wade Joyal to mere common assault. I am advised that

Judge Cullinane may take a retirement and will not be hearing any

further cases. I ask that the Attorney-General assure the House that

Judge Cullinane will not proceed to hear any further cases whatsoever

until there is a review by the Judicial Council or he accepts

retirement.

My second complaint has to do with the role of Crown counsel. It is

clear that before Judge Cullinane the prosecutor presented the facts to

His Honour as interpreted by the defence. No other characterization of

the role of Crown counsel is available, I submit. Although I have not

had the opportunity to read the transcript of the superior court

sentencing of the other two accused, I am advised that a similar

position was taken.

This is not the kind of situation that should pass as an aberration

in the system. In the interior of British Columbia there are large

populations of white and Indian communities who must live together in

peace and mutual respect. The administration of justice must be applied

with equal force and equal fairness.

My research has not been exhaustive, but I cannot arrive at any

other conclusion than that Dora Laurent, the victim, has not received

justice in this case, and it is interpreted as a racist issue

throughout the province by many representative groups. It is therefore

incumbent on the Attorney-General that he order an inquiry to determine

the conduct of Crown counsel involved, both in the provincial court and

in superior court — they may have been the same person — and the

responsibility of regional Crown, who, I am informed, was aware of the

circumstances.

This inquiry may or may not have the effect of bringing justice to

the victim in this case, but it most certainly may have the effect of

bringing the message to those involved in the administration of

justice, in Quesnel and elsewhere, that a vigorous prosecution must be

undertaken for victims of crimes and on behalf of the public

irrespective of who they are and who the accused may be.

I am urging, therefore, that the Attorney-General assure the House

that Judge Cullinane will retire or that the Judicial Council will

review his appointment; and secondly, that a thorough investigation by

way of inquiry be conducted into the conduct of Crown counsel in the

handling of this case.

[ Page 8468 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: As to the first point, Judge Cullinane has

agreed to and has taken sick leave leading to early retirement. He

won't be sitting again. As to the second point, I will have to review

the reports that we have on that aspect of it and report to the member

tomorrow, or to the House if my estimates are still before it.

I must say that I looked at that case primarily from the standpoint

of what was done judicially, and the Chief Judge did take action and

communicated that to me.

On the other aspect of it, I would not like to give an off-the-cuff

answer; I would have to review that and get back to you or the House

tomorrow.

MR. LAUK: I thank the Attorney-General for his reaction to

that serious problem. It is important that we get the message to all

British Columbians that justice is available to them all.

One other matter that I wish to raise to the Attorney-General before

my colleagues raise other specific issues is the question of police

complaints procedure. Recently this was brought to public attention by

the case of one Jacobsen, who I believe settled out of court with the

city of Vancouver for $75,000 in damages as a result of a beating that

he received from officers of the city police in the cells in Vancouver.

It was also clear that one or more officers in the vicinity at the

material time are guilty of perjury. I'm convinced that the chief

constable was absolutely committed to determining who the culprits were

and is still making every effort to bring them to justice and to

provide discipline to the force. He, more than any of us, is of the

view that to escape justice individually, as apparently happened as a

result of perjury, will destroy or at least negatively affect the

heretofore high morale of a very fine police force.

The Jacobsen case has served another purpose, however, and that

raises the question of the review of complaints about police conduct. A

rigorous system of reviewing and acting upon such complaints can only

enhance the morale and the quality of our police forces in British

Columbia. The announcement by the minister that a review of the process

is underway has left me with some residual questions. It is always

appropriate for the public to know who is assigned the task of

undertaking the review, when the review will be complete and if it will

be published. Will there be an opportunity for public input? The

Attorney-General might also mention whether amendments to the Police

Act are contemplated and in what form, bearing in mind that federal

changes are effective as of October I and that residents in municipally

policed areas will then have different and arguably less effective

complaint procedures.

When does the minister expect this government to act in a timely way

so that a disparity in this procedure does not exist with respect to

the Jacobsen case and others?

[3:00]

HON. MR. SMITH: The Jacobsen case: I don't think there was

any better action I could have taken than to refer that whole matter to

the B.C. Police Commission and ask them to inquire into it under their

own powers and under the powers of the Inquiry Act, and they are doing

that. As you know, applications were made to the Supreme Court based on

the same arguments used in the Nelles inquest in Ontario that the

matter should not go ahead at an inquiry level of this kind, and those

arguments were not successful. A decision of Mr. Justice Legg in the

Supreme Court directed that the inquiry could go ahead. That has been

appealed, and I'm told the appeal will be heard sometime before the

summer recess. In the face of that early appeal, we decided not to try

to push ahead with the inquiry when the same issue was under appeal,

but it would be our determination to have that inquiry by the

independent B.C. Police Commission and try to get at the truth as to

what occurred when Mr. Jacobsen was taken into custody.

If I could deal with your other more general observation about the

complaint procedures under B.C. police legislation, as opposed to the

federal legislation, you are absolutely correct that the RCMP

legislation has been changed. The new set of procedures will be in

place later this year. There will be some primary difference as a

result of that between the procedures of someone complaining about RCMP

or someone complaining about municipal police in Vancouver, New

Westminster or the greater Victoria area.

The difference is that under the RCMP Act appeals from decisions of

the commissioner of the RCMP will go to the Public Complaints

Commission; under the B.C. Police Act you appeal to the board and then

to the B.C. Police Commission. But there is a new procedure under the

RCMP Act which seems to us to be both a little faster and a little more

objective; that is, there's no police board involvement in the appeals.

It recognizes that a complainant may prefer to complain to persons

other than to the police. It also provides options to the appeal body

in handling appeals. They can refer it back to the police, they can

review and issue findings, or they can hold a hearing of inquiry. It

also provides specifically for an independent inquiry into complaints

by the commission whether or not the police have decided to investigate.

So I might say that those procedures commend themselves to me, and I

have some time ago had my branch prepare amendments to the citizens'

complaint procedure in our Police Act, to give our B.C. Police

Commission the authority to investigate complaints when in the opinion

of the chairman it is appropriate to do so. We intend to have a

procedure for municipal forces which more closely parallels the RCMP

summary procedure that I've outlined.

We would be bringing those forward. I would expect before the

amendments are brought forward to allow some time for discussion and at

least an initial time for some short experience with the new federal

force under the RCMP Act. But I would see it as being important that in

the session of 1987 we have legislation in place.

I don't like the idea of two procedures. When the RCMP Act was under

consideration for change several years ago under the previous

government, I did go to Ottawa and urge that we have not only parallel

procedures but that we have one reviewing and disciplinary body for

both the RCMP in British Columbia and the municipal police. I just

wasn't able to get anywhere with that, but I was able to get a more

cooperative approach in that we would become involved in RCMP

discipline in the sense that we would know of it and we would have

reports of it so that I would be able to answer for it as

Attorney-General. It would not just be something that only an official

in Ottawa had knowledge of.

So I would like to see parallel and ultimately common provisions for

discipline, and I would like to see them

summary, simple and providing

for an objective view so that citizens do not just feel that the police

only are investigating the police. I think that's one of the perception

problems. I'm favourably inclined towards the new

summary federal RCMP

procedures.

[ Page 8469 ]

MR. MACDONALD: The Attorney-General has referred to a problem

that's been extant since at least 1974, when the present Police Act was

passed. The RCMP and the feds are jealous of jurisdiction, and it's

very difficult to bring those two procedures together. I hope he

succeeds.

I wanted to ask about the background of the New Cinch Uranium case,

which I daresay the Attorney-General is familiar with. Just to recall,

the Attorney-General's last response to me in the chamber was that he

had considered the matter and there would be no criminal charges. It

wasn't a very forthcoming statement, I must admit. It was a matter of

three or four words from an Attorney-General who can be more voluble on

occasion and is seriously considering a higher position. There could be

two Smiths after the same job. There's nothing wrong with that, but

it's confusing to the public.

Anyway, there was a lawsuit, as the Attorney-General knows, with

Lac, a big Toronto mining company, claiming the defendants, who

included Canarim, Peter Brown, the Vancouver Stock Exchange and two or

three others, conspired together to send out only assays showing

significant gold deposits to create a substantial demand for New Cinch

shares and warrants. A great many millions of dollars were made by the

underwriters and Canarim. There were a couple of other underwriters,

but this was the principal one. They 'fessed up to this extent, that

they paid $4 million in damages, and then everybody clammed up as part

of the terms of settlement: "Don't say anything." The examinations for

discovery are now sealed in court. Brian Power of the Vancouver Sun did a very good investigative

article on the matter, and it hasn't been challenged.

So I am asking the Attorney-General just a series of questions. Did

the Attorney-General in the course of his investigation receive any

statements from any of the principals? Would they talk and give an

explanation of their conduct? The thing came down to the shares jumping

in a five-month period in 1980 from $2.50 to $29. Then when they found

that there were three other assay reports that had been with the

Vancouver Stock Exchange from reputable Canadian mining firms saying

there was no gold or silver there, the dammed stock fell to 15 cents.

But in the meantime an awful lot of money had been made and Lac itself

had put $25.6 million in, and the case was settled. The statement of

material fact on which all this happened — the certificate with the

statement — was signed by Peter Brown on behalf of the underwriters,

Canarim, Continental and McDermid. And then the underwriter in addition

to the usual thing picked up warrants and stock options of

insubstantial amounts. Then, of course, Michael Opp was killed in

Phoenix, Arizona, and the allegation is that it was related to the

salting of the mine in El Paso or close to there.

I don't think just saying there were no charges satisfies public

curiosity or public justice, and I am asking the Attorney-General

whether his investigators received any statements from any of the

principals — people like Peter Brown or any of the lawyers — and,

secondly, did he have access to the examinations for discovery which

took place prior to the civil suit being settled? Those are my first

questions.

HON. MR. SMITH: I am just going to pass on that for a few

minutes if I might, so I can respond a little more fully. Do you want

to move on to something else? I will respond to it.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll ask another couple of

questions. As the Attorney-General knows, the Securities Act is under

the direction of another minister as such, but the offences under the

Securities Act come under the Attorney-General. But of course the horse

had left the barn. There was a stop-trading order on the shares of New

Cinch Uranium. Those are fairly common, but it was very late. It didn't

take place until January 1981, after the shares had taken their

skyrocketing up to the $29 or $30 apiece. Presumably a lot of people

had got out at a very fancy price. The superintendent of brokers has

power to make an investigation. You have a corporate and financial

services appeal, and stop trading did take place. I suppose there would

be reasons given at that time, and I ask the Attorney-General whether

they could be made public.

But in addition to that, you have

section 135 of the Securities Act

which says that a false or misleading material statement of fact....

Well, this material statement of fact was unquestionably misleading. To

issue such a thing is an offence subject to.... Maybe I should just

look at the exact words. "If the person issuing it did not know that

the statement was false or misleading, and in the exercise of

reasonable diligence could not have known that the statement was false

or misleading.... Well, here you had four assay reports, one of them by

this fraudulent outfit, Chem-tec, in the United States, which was

financed by a principal of New Cinch Uranium, Applegath and one other

fellow whose name I forgot. I can remember that name, but I can't

remember the other. I think it was White. But here when you have the

source of the rumours, the assay of Chem-tee, and Chem-tec had been set

up by the company for whose benefit it discovered rich silver and gold

in three holes down in the United States, then you've got a very

strange situation, and an extremely undesirable one. But in addition,

it says reasonable care shall be taken to make sure the statement

wasn't misleading. In this case there were the four assay reports, and

it seems perfectly obvious that reasonable care could not have been

taken in respect to making sure that the statement of material facts

was not misleading. So that would be an offence under the act. I ask

the Attorney-General, in the light of that, what is the explanation as

to what materials were before him when a decision was arrived at that

this was not an offence, or that it shouldn't be a charge leaving it up

to the court to decide whether it was an offence?

[3:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm hesitant to answer any of this in detail

without going back and making some reference to it, which I will. But

certainly I know that an RCMP investigation took place into these

matters generally following the civil action. When the civil action was

settled, it was brought to our attention that there were allegations in

the evidence of the civil action that needed investigation. So we

launched an RCM Police fraud investigation into that at the time, and

the advice that we received from the investigators was that there was

no evidence that would support a charge. As for dealing with the

Securities Act, as the member has already stated, the administration of

that would not fall under me; but if facts were presented that would

give rise to a charge, that would have been investigated along with the

RCM Police investigation. It might well be that the charges were

time-barred under that statute, but I'd have to refresh my memory. I'm

absolutely clear that we had an investigation. It wasn't just a

peremptory investigation that they were cognizant of and

[ Page 8470 ]

looked at. The discoveries that took place in that

major civil litigation.... The police attended, and interviewed persons

in Vancouver and in Toronto with a view to ascertaining if there was

evidence to support the laying of a charge. The advice that we clearly

received was that there was not. Now those matters are in my

recollection because I remember them very specifically, but I cannot

tell you if we considered a securities charge or not. I simply don't

recall. I'd have to go back and refresh my memory. But there was no

evidence that would support the laying of a charge under the Criminal

Code.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, did the Attorney-General receive

from the RCMP investigators a written report setting out what they had

found and what they had been able to look at, which is their custom, as

I understand it? There is the famous Butler report, which takes us back

in B.C. history. But the Attorney-General says: "I received advice

that.... Was this in the form of a report summing up the evidence and

coming to the conclusion that a charge would not be sustainable, and

explaining what sources...?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, there was some written report, and then

there was a verbal report as well, which was made to my deputy and

assistant deputy at greater length. There was a written report, but I

can't recall how extensive it was.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it does seem to me that when

that much money is raised in Vancouver on one flotation, based upon

what was unquestionably a misleading statement of fact, the

Attorney-General should be able to make a statement about the elements

in the case and as to why he arrived at that conclusion. I know the

argument that you can't file the police report, but it appears the

Attorney-General hasn't really studied it and is saying that he'd

received this advice. I don't think that answers the complaints in this

charge.

May I ask the Attorney-General another question? Michael Opp was

murdered in El Paso, I think it was. He worked for this lab that were

getting away with murder, financed by Applegath and connected with New

Cinch Uranium. That's pretty good, you know, when the company floating

its shares in B.C. can finance the setting up of the assay lab which is

going to bring that company very good news. It's not very good. Anyway,

Michael Opp was involved down there with the assay lab. Then one night

two people kicked in the door of his apartment, marched him into the

bedroom and shot him through the head. The man who was said to have

done it was Trujillo. He came in with his girlfriend, and when the

suggestion had been made at the trial that this was an attempt to steal

an old TV set and things of that kind and not a killing, because he

knew too much about New Cinch Uranium, the girlfriend disappeared and

has never been heard of since — she said it had all been a lie, that

the break-in wasn't to do with stealing a TV set but with New Cinch,

and she's gone. Did this police report or advice cover whether or not

the killing of Opp...? There's a long letter from the father of Michael

Opp that says that he was killed as a result of the suppression of

information about New Cinch, and that it might come into the public.

Did the RCMP come to the conclusion that the Opp killing was not

related to what happened on the stock exchange here?

HON. MR. SMITH: I have absolutely no recollection of

investigating the Opp killing, nor was it ever put to me that it should

have been. I can't comment on that, but I can comment on the Lac-New

Cinch matter.

Yes, there were allegations, and those allegations arose from

evidence or allegations that were made in the civil action. I know that

that was investigated by the commercial fraud department, and I also

know that my deputies received full briefing from the RCMP on that.

There was a written report of some kind. I did ask questions about it

at the time — not recently, when you brought it to my attention — and

there was not a scintilla of evidence that would support the laying of

a criminal charge. But I am quite happy to go back and review that. I

have no intention of just dealing with it on the basis that there was

evidence. I'm quite happy to acquaint you with how extensive it was or

what occurred in the investigation. My recollection simply doesn't

allow me to go any farther than I can today, but I'll be quite happy to

talk to you about it.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in my capacity of trying to help

the Attorney-General in this matter — and not to spoil a good

relationship.... I don't know whether the Attorney-General has one, but

Peter Brown.... I don't know who he's backing in this leadership race.

It may be the Chairman for all I know.

In terms of Michael Opp, you have to hand it to good investigative

journalism; no libel suit came out of this. The story is in the.... I

don't know whether the Attorney-General has read it, but he should,

because sometimes investigative journalism is quite wrong. Sometimes

they're sued for libel and slander, but not in this case. It's the Vancouver Sun ,

June 20, 1985. Referring to the late Mr. Michael Opp, it says: "An

18-page letter found in the dead man's apartment by his father outlined

Opp's belief in Chem-tec's involvement with New Cinch. That letter was

ruled inadmissible in the murder trial of Hoyt Trujillo of Phoenix, who

was acquitted."

I would think that that would be something of interest not only to

the commercial squad but to the RCMP generally. I would have hoped that

this kind of thing, when it involves that much in terms of sheer

dollars, would result in a full report to the Attorney-General with

which he would be familiar in detail. I regret that that appears not to

be the case.

I don't know about the time limit under the Securities Act, but

clearly, at a certain point, the superintendent of brokers did step in,

because he made a stop-trading order in January 1981. I would have

thought that that would have alerted the superintendent and the

authorities to a possible offence when the facts came out.

There are other cases I hear about where the superintendent conducts

a hearing, and there's an appeal to the corporate and financial

services division, involving far less than this kind of thing. There's

one going to the court of appeal right now — Lionheart Resources Corp.

The main reason it's going up there is that the superintendent states

that there is stop-trading, that there appears to be insufficient

information to explain the rapid escalation in the share price. It went

from 30 cents to $12, something like that.

So they do investigate things, but in the New Cinch case the silence is astounding.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I'll be changing the subject here

now to the area of the Willingdon. detention home. I know that the

Attorney-General received a report

[ Page 8471 ]

from the former ombudsman, made out I believe in

February of 1985, to do with recommendations for changes at the

Willingdon Detention Centre for the young people who've been sent there.

First of all, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the

former ombudsman, Mr. Friedmann. He and his staff initiated a very

comprehensive, detailed evaluation of the situation at Willingdon. I

also want to pay tribute to the members of the Attorney-General's staff

in Corrections who actually went to work to follow through on some of

the changes recommended in that report. However, time marches on and

I'm afraid that unless constant vigilance is kept in areas such as

homes for delinquents — I hate to use that term, but I can't think of

any other; young offenders, I suppose, is the term now — unless we keep

a vigilance over the conditions under which they are placed, I'm afraid

things can become lax. The only way to prevent that, of course, is to

keep this constant vigilance.

My first question to the Attorney-General is this. A recommendation

was made by the ombudsman that there be a regular external monitoring

of the conditions in Willingdon. I would like to know if that has been

set up, if there is presently a structure that is monitoring what the

conditions are in Willingdon on an external basis, or from an external

group, rather. That's my first question.

I'm also wanting specifically to know if the minister can tell us

what the status is of the educational programming in Willingdon at this

time. That was criticized. I know that extra staff was to be hired. I'm

wondering if the minister can tell us if he has any idea of what the

percentage is attending regular classes. One of the weaknesses,

apparently, in the past was that there were a number of these young

offenders who were not attending any programs, any educational

facilities that were available for them at Willingdon. Have you any

idea if that has been checked on? Because let's face it, according to

the School Act you have to have education up to a certain age. It does

seem a bit ridiculous to think that that would not be enforced in one

of our own provincial institutions. As far as I'm concerned, it's very

important to have that enforced where these young people are being

incarcerated, put into locked facilities, because if anything can cause

problems, as we all know, it's boredom. If those young offenders are

not given proper programs, proper educational facilities, then we do

see problems resulting. And so it would be very foolish not to do a

constant check on the educational programs being offered.

I know some people say that we shouldn't coddle inmates. Recently

there was a discussion about possible strikes at Oakalla by the inmates

over the food quality. We also had a report on the poor food that was

being contracted by an individual caterer at Willingdon well over a

year ago. I know that Corrections, in charge of Willingdon, did make

some improvements and we thank them for that. However, there was to be

a constant monitoring by the Burnaby Public Health department, and I

wonder if that has been put into action and if it is being undertaken.

[3:30]

Personally I don't think it's coddling to ensure that proper food is

provided. I say that because I think if any of us were locked up day

after day after day in a facility where you cannot get out, food is

probably about the only thing there that keeps you sane at times. I've

talked to people who work in these institutions. These are pretty

toughened correctional officers who are certainly not the type to

coddle any inmate, and they say it is important to ensure that there's

a high standard, or decent standard anyway, of food provided. It makes

the whole situation less volatile in the institution. So it isn't a

matter of coddling; it's a matter of being rational and sensible about

the handling of the situation in these institutions. So I'd like to

know about that situation, whether the Burnaby health department has

been regularly checking on the food.

The other area of concern that was expressed was the number of hours

that the inmates had to spend in the lock-up facilities, and I wonder

if that has been checked on. Is it being watched over? Usually it's not

the staff's fault if they're locked up more than they should be; it's

because of lack of staffing. I'd like a kind of update on the staffing

facility.

Another very important thing is.... Well, to begin with, I think

it's tragic that we have to put in one institution young offenders,

young people who have, many times through no fault of their own, ended

up there. Yet I'm quite aware in talking to staff that it is a terribly

difficult job to deal with some of these young offenders. Some of them,

unfortunately, are psychotic. Some of them need serious care and

treatment, and to lock them up without proper forensic treatment, of

course, is negating the whole principle and the reason for locking them

up. I would like to know the status of treatment for those seriously

emotionally disturbed cases — perhaps even, as I said earlier,

psychotic cases. What kind of treatment is presently being given to

them in Willingdon? I remember that the thing that hit the headlines

when this report came out was the amount of slashing being done by the

inmates. There was much discussion on this and a detailed reference to

it in the report. I'm not going to go into that at this time; I can't

hold the Attorney-General's department, or the correctional officers,

responsible for the slashings. But when I talk about slashings, I do

want to refer to the Attorney-General my concern about access to

weapons. I know some of them perhaps are made there, but I am concerned

that....

Actually, what I'd like to know is, has the Attorney-General any

update information in the last year since that report? Have these

slashings decreased? I realize I'm asking for details that I don't

expect the Attorney-General to have at his fingertips, but I know some

of his staff may have them. If they don't have it here now, I would

appreciate some information on it.

It's unfortunate that an institution such as Willingdon has to

exist. The NDP government came under great criticism back in the early

1970s when one of their first acts was to close it. People complained:

"What's going to happen to those young inmates? What's going to happen

to the ones who are serious offenders? Are you just going to send them

back into the community where they can commit more acts of violence or

disturbances to many people?" I think the NDP's objective — and I'd

like to ask the Attorney-General's reaction to this — was that the

philosophy behind the closing of Willingdon was to say that we don't

think putting young offenders with a mix of problems — some violent,

some not violent — together is at all healthy. We realized, however,

that there had to be closed containment for certain offenders. What

moves are actually being taken to get some of those young offenders who

are not violent out into the community?

That leads me to a specific question. How many youth containment

facilities in British Columbia today are closed custody? We have

Willingdon and there's the Victoria detention centre. Are there any

other closed custody centres? I

[ Page 8472 ]

accept that you have to spread them around the

province, but I think it's not good to have them in large group areas,

because you catch in that net young people who should never be with

some of these others who have very serious problems. God knows what

happens to them when they leave that institution. What have they

learned? Roughly how many open custody camps do we have now? I'm

getting into detail, so I don't want to make too many specific

questions. What I'm really trying to get at is whether there's a move

in the Attorney General's department to provide more of the open

custody camps throughout the province.

We've also heard about a possible move of 20 youth beds within the

grounds of the Nanaimo correctional centre — formerly Brannan Lake —

which I understand is an adult correctional centre. For the life of me,

I can't see how anyone would conceive of putting youth beds in with the

adults. I hope the minister can tell us that this is not definitely a

policy. I would also like to know if there are any ongoing forensic

services — mental health services, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc. —

for the youth who are detained outside of the major centres. I know I

was concerned about Willingdon, but at least they're right beside the

mental health centre, so more services are available. Are there any

ongoing forensic services for youth outside of the major centres?

I think at this time those are enough specific questions. I know it

may take the minister a few moments to find the answers. While that's

being done, I'd like to switch, although still in the area of

Corrections, and talk about another area involved in it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. SMITH: If I interrupted the member and tried to deal

with the Corrections questions while they're fresh, would I be

interfering with her train of thought? It might be better to try to

keep some sequence.

Is an external review of Willingdon arising out of the ombudsman's

recommendations? I was very pleased — and I think the member was — with

the way in which the corrections branch responded to the ombudsman's

interim recommendations last year before his final report was presented

to the Legislature in June of last year. I think that the vast bulk of

the queries that he had raised had already been addressed and were....

And indeed the corrections branch had addressed some other things that

he had not. So I think it was a very cooperative attitude, and a number

of changes were made.

Now the external review at Willingdon is an annual inspection.

There's an inspection division in the ministry, hon. member, that makes

these examinations. I can't say that they're external in the sense that

it's a separate entity, but they do this according to criteria and

standards, not as a subjective thing. They found that Willingdon

provided.... They did find that a greatly improved educational

curriculum existed and that an increase in teaching staff and

courses.... Based on the program that the Burnaby School District

provides in there, everyone in Willingdon now who is there for more

than six days gets whatever education they're capable of taking. If

they're capable physically and emotionally of being in a classroom for

six hours, they go there. Some aren't and don't, but the opportunity

for them all to do that is there. So I think there's been a much higher

participation level, and that has been stressed.

You mentioned food, both at Willingdon and the problem of food

generally. There's no doubt that complaints about prison food are just

legion. I can never remember a year in which I was in this place, let

alone in this job, when we didn't hear complaints about institutional

food. Of course, I guess it's true about all institutional food.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: That's true about the ferries, although I think that the food on the ferries is pretty high calibre now.

MR. LAUK: Compared to the legislative dining room?

HON. MR. SMITH: No. The company on the B.C. Ferries is much

better, though, and there's considerably more privacy, I might say,

dining on B.C. Ferries, particularly when they're full, than there is

in the legislative dining room. But, of course, if we had the resources

of the parliamentary dining room in Ottawa, we would all cease to

complain, and we'd all just disappear into our stomachs.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) is an expert on parliamentary dining rooms, I think.

Interjections.

HON. MR. SMITH: He certainly is. Confess!

But seriously, the prison food services are now monitored externally

as well as internally, because we just don't trust the palates of those

among us who supervise only. We have a consultant with a very fine

palate who monitors these matters.

Interjections.

HON. MR. SMITH: That's right — an official taster.

Approximately 12 prisons are monitored annually, and meals are

generally found to compare favourably to community standards: so says

the bureaucratic brief that I'm referring to.

In any event, we're very responsive to any complaints about food.

They are always checked out. But one is certainly left with the

impression that some complaints about food are based in other problems,

and they are not food problems. But they focus on the food. It's a good

one to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: The Burnaby health department does monitor Willingdon, hon. member.

You asked me also if the inmates are spending extra lockup time

arising out of staffing. I can say that there was a complaint about

that about a year or year and a half ago, and that we did add

additional staff. We also built an outside track and increased the

recreational activity at Willingdon.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, it's a stretched track.

We also increased the forensic facilities that are available. You

asked me, I think, what forensic facilities were available outside the

major centres.

Interjection.

[ Page

8473 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: I'd have to give you, I guess, some breakdown, if

you want it, on the amount of time that that branch spends in smaller communities.

It travels to these communities, and it is available to provide this service.

It is not just service that is provided in Kamloops, Prince George or other

major centres outside of Vancouver and Victoria.

The incidence of slashing, which was of great concern at Willingdon

last year and which was addressed by the ombudsman, seems to have

abated. The staff have maintained a very careful surveillance of that

problem. It may be that some reorganization and some greater stress on

recreation and education has assisted as well in the abatement of that

serious problem.

You asked about closed custody centres and where we have them. In

addition to Willingdon and Victoria we have them at Boulder Bay Camp at

Haney, and also we will have them in the Prince George unit that is

approved for construction.

You also asked about the youth beds that are proposed in Nanaimo,

and it is correct that there are 20 beds proposed in the facility in

Nanaimo, but they will not be in the same building as adult inmates. It

will be an entirely separate building, and indeed under the Young

Offenders Act that is an absolute requirement: you cannot have shared

custody; you have to have separate facilities. We are spending a very

large amount of money in this province, as we are across the country,

to meet that separate-containment provision. We took the position that

we thought the legislation had gone too far, but if your philosophy

accords with that, you should be pleased in any event that the

facilities will be separate. That will include secure containment.

We have a number of facilities around the province; the majority of

facilities are open. In fact, since the early 1970s if you looked at

the ratio, you would find that there has been, certainly in youth

corrections, a philosophy of decentralizing and trying to have as many

open containment facilities as possible. The only ones in closed

facilities are those who are a danger to society. It's a last resort

that you want to have a young offender in a closed situation. I think

that's fairly general correctional philosophy, and it's not a

philosophy that this side of the House has and that side of the House

doesn't. It generally is modern penology in Canada that absolutely

nobody is advocating trying to move all young offenders into tighter

security. But we do have a small number of those who are dangerous to

themselves or to people around them, and they have to be kept in close

and secure facilities.

I think that's the list.

[3:45]

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you for the detailed answer.

I want to move to the women's facilities at Oakalla. I always forget the

name — is it Lakeside? Something I've never understood is why judges sentence

people who are mentally disturbed; for example, schizophrenics. Known schizophrenics,

I know, are sent to places like the women's

section at Oakalla. The correctional

officers, by and large, I'm sure, do an excellent job within their capacity.

But I'm quite sure that correctional officers who are hired to work at the

women's

section of Oakalla are not trained psychiatrists or psychologists.

That's not part of the requirement for them to be brought in as correctional

officers. I can't help wondering how on earth these people handle inmates

who have serious mental problems; those, for example, who happen to be schizophrenics.

They are not trained; they are, by and large, lay people. I know that they have

no choice but to accept when the judge sentences them there.

I wonder if the Attorney-General could tell me his opinion of that.

What could be done if they're not placed in that

section at this time?

What facilities would be available? Would it have to be Riverview —

which, frankly, would probably be preferable? I'm not quite sure of the

chains of command here. Would it be under the rights of the

Attorney-General to see that someone was sent to where they would get

some help for a mental problem, rather than being put in where there

will be no help received, except that I know they have the odd visiting

psychiatrist? I don't think it's required for the inmate to go and see

the psychiatrist.

The other final question on the women's

section at this time is:

what are the plans? We did hear that it was going to be all.... I

believe B.C. was going to end up with the mix, was it, which they

already have now of federal inmates who have been sentenced to over the

two years and are now in the women's

section of Oakalla. What are the

plans? Are we going to end up with a certain group of federal prisoners

in one area? Are they still going to be separated for those under two

years? What are the plans? I heard that Kingston was being broken up to

allow for this regionalization, and we have never heard anything more

about it.

HON. MR. SMITH: So far as women incarcerated at Lakeside who

are mentally ill, that happens at Oakalla. Indeed, it happens in

provincial institutions. When people are awaiting trial it happens. If

there has not been a psychiatric remand, that does happen. There are

people who fall through the stools and in doing so they put immense

strain on our correctional officers who work there. But there is

provision to have them remanded to the forensic unit at Riverview,

which is the appropriate place if there is that medical evidence

available. It is not common, but it does happen. That's all I can say.

We try to prevent it from happening.

The need to have a women's prison in British Columbia is something

that we've recognized for some time, and we are still in the process of

trying to plan a joint facility with penitentiaries Canada, whatever

its current nomenclature is. We would hope to have a 126-bed female

remand and sentence facility which would replace both Lakeside and Twin

Maples in Maple Ridge. Our proposal is that that centre would house 40

federal inmates, and we would have joint federal and provincial capital

construction money. We would like to go ahead with this, but I can't

say that we are yet quite ready to launch it. I hope that we will be.

We support it. When we have arrived at an agreement with our federal

counterparts, we will do so because it has long seemed inappropriate to

us that everyone sentenced to a greater sentence from British Columbia

of two years less a day, if female, has to go to Kingston. So there is

no quarrel with us on that.

MR. BARNES: I would just like to read into the record

excerpts from a letter by the Mount Pleasant block parents, April 7, to

Justice Minister John Crosbie, MPs Margaret Mitchell and Ian Waddell,

the Attorney-General, to myself and my colleague, the second member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), the mayor of the city of Vancouver and

council members, Chief Constable Stewart, Inspector Canuel, Judge

Libby, Chief Justice McEachern and even to the president of Expo, Mr.

Jim Pattison.

[ Page 8474 ]

"Let us begin by saying that the citizens of Mount

Pleasant are outraged at the slow progress our government has made in

dealing with our situation. It seems we are back to square one in a lot

of issues, for example prostitutes, that should have been resolved this

time last year. Our police are not really at fault here; after all,

they are only in power to enforce the laws you have provided. The

public knows those laws have been proven inadequate time and time

again. Bill C-49 is a prime example of the patronizing attitude being

shown toward our problems. We really do not need band-aid solutions to

old wounds that keep reopening.

"The prostitutes are not going to be dealt with

effectively unless our police are better equipped legally to handle it.

It is sickening to keep hearing of cases being thrown out of court

because of legal loopholes that should have been closed years ago.

Mount Pleasant may not be the only area affected by the 'pass the buck'

legislature that governs our country. But this is one teeny statistic

that is going to stand up and be heard.

"We will continue shouting our rights as human beings

to be granted a safer environment for our community until we are sure

to get some positive action on our part. If you people do not have the

power to change and strengthen our legal system, then please inform the

public who the hell does."

That is signed by the Mount Pleasant block neighbours' representative, Mr. Richard Lloyd.

Mr. Chairman, I am raising this issue because I believe that it is

one that puts the real test before all of us on all sides of the House

and from all quarters. I'm not here to badger the government, but I am

here to ask the Attorney-General to respond, perhaps as a legislator,

perhaps as the Attorney-General, perhaps as a human being, just perhaps

as a citizen. The issue is real enough. I'm not sure if it's the role

of the Legislature to concern itself with the morals of individuals in

a free and competitive society that elects on its own, by individuals,

to engage in various enterprises, of which one, of course, historically

is the sale of sex or the trade in sex. It is not unique to Mount

Pleasant or to any other place on the face of the earth.

Nonetheless, we have attempted in this society to enact legislation

prohibiting the sale of or the trade in sexual acts in public places.

Perhaps that was wise or unwise. Nonetheless, point number one is that,

for whatever reason — community standards or the government of the

times or just the way it is in our society — we are offended

sufficiently to want to stop that trade in public places.

The problem that I'm having, and I'm sure that the Attorney-General

is having, is to what extent do you enforce a law that seems to be

desired by the community, when at the same time there are other

citizens in society who are saying that to impose a law that says a

person doesn't have the freedom of movement in a public place or the

right to association or any number of fundamental principles in a

democratic society.... We have then the problem of how you enforce.

What is the real problem? It's not one that can be resolved without

an understanding of what the alternatives are. This is why I'm hesitant

to suggest that locking people up and coming down heavy-handed is a

solution; but nonetheless, the Attorney-General is faced with that

problem. The citizens in Mount Pleasant, and before that in the west

end, and I'm sure that it would be in Shaughnessy if they were to move

from Mount Pleasant, or it would be in Point Grey if they were to move

from Shaughnessy.... But you are going to have to deal with their

problem.

If the methods that we are using today, Mr. Chairman, are not

successful, if we have been unable to get legislation sufficiently

airtight enough to withstand a challenge in court, as Bill C-49 has,

unfortunately or not, obviously failed to survive, then what are the

options? Are we to simply walk away from the issue?

[4:00]

I want the Attorney-General to tell the Legislature, this committee,

what steps he is taking in light of the challenges being made to try to

appeal the decision — turning down the legislation as currently

enacted. Assuming that he will lose again, that his appeal will be

unsuccessful, what realistic options are there? What must we do? I

don't think that it's good enough to simply say: "If we can't enforce

the law, there is nothing we can do."

Many of the debaters on this subject know that the New Democratic

Party is very concerned about civil and human rights and about the

fundamental freedoms available and guaranteed in our democratic

society. Because of this, we have had to experience criticism for not

being willing to enforce stringently laws which will, in effect, punish

offenders for violating the appropriate legislation that is in effect.

Even the courts are hesitant to accept measures which will offend

fundamental democratic rights, arm's-length courts, the body that we

rely upon to assist in an impartial way to protect the fundamental

rights and freedoms of all people. So it is a dilemma for us as

legislators. It is a problem when your constituents day in and day out

phone you and complain and protest and send letters and describe the

awesome conditions under which they have to live in their communities,

when they can't get any sleep, when they are being abused, men and

women finding themselves subjected to propositioning by the so-called

strangers of the night. Now I haven't personally had to experience what

it is like, but I am satisfied that Mount Pleasant at one time was a

pleasant place. I am satisfied that those residents know what they are

talking about when they say that it is no longer a comforting, secure

environment in which they live.

But I am not anxious to thrown stones. I think the issue is

sensitive. It is an issue that we as politicians and legislators will

have to come to grips with, but we are going to have to think in terms

of the common good. We're going to have to think in terms of

cooperation, and we are going to have to have the resolve — perhaps the

political resolve or the personal resolve if you can't find your way

clear to do it politically — to be able to go to the community and find

solutions. I don't think it's acceptable to simply say that we have no

legal means by which we can deal with a very real human condition and

people who are screaming for assistance.

There has to be some merit in people complaining about the integrity

of their community, their fight to be able to live in peace and raise

their families in peace and walk the streets without offence. At the

same time, I wouldn't be too anxious to say that someone has no right

to freedom of movement. But maybe we don't talk straight to people.

Maybe we don't listen to those people on the streets. If I am to

believe the comments that are being made by sociologists who are

studying the situation, who are talking to the people who are on the

streets, by and large most of those people do not want to be

[ Page 8475 ]

there. In fact, consider yourself in the position

of a person who is selling their body in order to find the economic

means to function in this so-called free society where everybody has

equal opportunity. Hundreds of children are down there, let alone the

adults. They are down day in and day out. That is the other side of the

coin. There may be a law that we are trying to bring into place to try

to stop this activity, but why are the people down there? Are we

suggesting that they enjoy being down there? Perhaps a few do, but

maybe the Attorney-General should have an initiative, a task force that

goes and starts to talk to the people — himself, not some group that

finally go and do it on his behalf. Get down there and find out

yourself, find out if people are willing to cooperate and will want to

find some of the solutions.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I suggest that many of the people are down there for reasons other

than those that are pleasurable. There was one report, in fact, just

completed earlier this year with young people. These are minors who are

also on the streets. They claim that they find it to be a feeling of

disgrace in many instances when they have to get up each day, and many

of them have to get high on some kind of drug before they can stand on

the streets and sell themselves. They do not find it a comforting

experience. Each time they do it it becomes that much more difficult

for them to accept themselves. These are the personal tragedies that I

think we should care about and try to understand.

If the initiative is to lock people up, to create additional court

costs, more institutions and a punitive approach, what happens to that

person? Are we suggesting that that person must be permanently banished

from society and that the taxpayers will pay to keep them off the

streets at enormous expense, when there may be other options? Isn't it

about time we began to look at the quality of life that people are

having to live under and began to realize the value of investing, as

the member for North Burnaby was just pointing out earlier, in

preventive programs, to have a head-start approach? What is happening

in the Attorney-General's department? Corrections is after the fact.

What we want to have is preventative, to begin to respond to the needs

of those people.

I think that we have become so engrossed in the legalese that we

forget that there have to be new options in the future. There has to be

a different approach. I am not sure if there is an approach that is

going to be handled strictly from a legal point of view. This is what

the courts are telling us. They are telling us: "Try as you may, we

have problems when it comes to telling people that they cannot be on

the streets." So what do we do? Maybe we should go to those people and

find out what the options are.

I am asking the question. I am not telling the Attorney-General what

the solution is. I don't think that any of us know. What we're doing is

attempting to find a solution. Politicians are trying all kinds of

means within this system, but this system is perhaps not the only

system. At least let's recognize that there is a serious problem and

one that we had better begin to address, because our youth, our

families, the quality of life, our value system, the concept of

morality, all of those things are at risk because we are turning a

blind eye to the human element, to the emotional side of what society

requires.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with

some of the remarks that have been made on this subject, but I think

the solution does not lie in protecting the rights of people to solicit

on the public streets. I do not understand why that is a necessary

ingredient of the solemn right to express yourself freely in a free and

democratic society. Surely if you have rights in society that are

guaranteed, those rights have to bring responsibilities, and people

have a responsibility not to disrupt a peaceful residential

neighbourhood.

I'm sure the honorable member has seen firsthand evidence of street

prostitution in his riding. I certainly saw it in the West End and in

Mount Pleasant. I've been through Mount Pleasant from time to time and

through the West End observing it, and I had many people come and give

me firsthand accounts as to how it affected their lives. It was not a

mild interference with their lives; it was a major disruption every

night. At its height in the West End there were between 300 and 400

prostitutes in about four city blocks actively working from eight in

the evening until about two, three or four in the morning. There were

cars with pimps keeping them in line, and the customers were mobile

during those hours. People were unable to sleep, their tranquillity was

disrupted, their parking lots were used for customer services, their

lawns were in disarray from filth and litter, they were pushed off the

streets when they walked to the stores to shop, they were harassed, and

children were threatened and harassed as well by these prostitutes and

their pimps.

I cannot believe that freedom of expression has anything to do with

the right of someone to ruin my neighbourhood or your neighbourhood or

that of the law-abiding people of Mount Pleasant. Mr. Justice Harry

McKay, in the appeal we took, said that. In the case of McLean and the

case of Tremayne he said that the fundamental freedoms in the

constitution were never meant to enshrine values such as the right of

someone to sell sex on a public street. Surely society has to pass

rules to prevent this kind of thing.

That is not to suggest that the honorable member for Vancouver

Centre is not a very kind and compassionate man who feels personally

some sense of responsibility and also feels some sense of compassion

and the need to help women who are on the streets. I commend him for

that, because he is a very warm-hearted individual and he would feel

that way about them, and I'm not denigrating that point of view. But

prostitution on the city streets has got to be ended in Vancouver.

We're having considerable success since that recent court decision, and

we will press on. The police are doing an admirable job and so are the

member's constituents from Mount Pleasant who are coming forward to

cooperate, testify and provide evidence for bail hearings. We have to

use the law to clean this matter up, because it is a gross interference

in peoples' rights and tranquillity.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I don't think what I have to say will

take very long. The minister is well aware of one of two

representations that I made on behalf of a constituent which has to do

with the requirement of the land title office being unwilling to

release an original document which has to do with power of attorney and

the problems that policy causes. Just to refresh the minister's memory,

whether or not he needs it, my constituent lives in Toronto and he has

a mother who apparently is incompetent to handle her own affairs. There

are many affairs that he has to handle on her

[ Page 8476 ]

behalf, some of which, notably banks, mortgage companies and the like, require original powers of attorney.

The land title office maintains a proprietary interest in the

original power of attorney, and copies of that will not do for their

purposes; neither will other copies do for other purposes and

institutions. So the man's caught in a catch-22. When I raised it with

the minister earlier, I got, with apologies before I say this, a rather

bureaucratic response. The minister responded, not for the minister

directly, I assume.... But when the minister responded orally, he said

he had had a chance to think about it and that it would require some

sort of legislative measure, or at least a regulatory measure, or an

order-in-council, to change that requirement, and that upon reflection

he thought it wasn't insurmountable — although my constituent, and

perhaps many others, was caught in the catch-22 of this requirement of

the land title office — and that it would be altered. My question is:

when?

[4:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I agree with him. I think it is

a lot of bureaucratic nonsense. We're going to change the legislation.

I've got it drafted now.

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry, I missed the last part.

HON. MR. SMITH: The legislative changes are drafted, and we

hope to put it in in this session. I commend you. I think you and your

constituent were right.

MR. ROSE: Modestly, as I cough into my handkerchief, I say I was under extreme pressure from my constituent.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No. But it might be someday.

I thank the minister. I wanted to have it in the record, because my

constituent will be jubilant when he sees it in print. Hearing it from

me was thrill enough, but seeing it in print will make him even more

enthusiastic and enchanted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that legislation is not a subject matter....

MR. ROSE: Well, I'm not commenting on it. I'm merely

recognizing its existence. I hope the Chair will not remonstrate with

the A-G, because he was the one who first brought the matter up.

Another question on a completely different subject. That has to do

with.... I don't know whether this is the proper choice of words, but

the lack of facilities for female inmates in federal institutions in

the west. One of the extra punishments, and it's been long recognized,

which greets someone who is incarcerated is to be deprived of that

person's relatives, friends or their visits. In the case of female

prisoners, or inmates convicted of federal charges.... I'm not

questioning the convictions or anything flowing from those convictions

— the incarceration or the like. That is not my objective today.

My objective, though, is to ask the minister to consider again the

extra punishment meted to someone who is female and convicted of a

federal charge, where the only federal institution is in Kingston. I

know why that is. There are fewer females convicted of federal charges

than there are males. So if someone is convicted and considered

dangerous, the only maximum security prison setting available is in

Kingston. There have been and are, though, both provincial and federal

coeducational institutions, mainly at the community level. I know one

particularly. I don't know about these in any great detail, but I know

they do exist. I also know that sometimes "arrangements" are made

between federal and provincial authorities for the transfer of female

inmates to institutions, whether they be federal or provincial, closer

to their original place of residence so they can have family and

friends visitation.

I'd like to know, since a year has now passed since I brought this

matter up previously during the estimates — at least I recall that I

did — if there's been any movement in the direction to which I've

addressed myself.

HON. MR. SMITH: We're having more and more transfers of that

kind taking place. I think we've done about 20 of them. I'll just go

back to the remarks I made a little earlier when the member for Burnaby

North (Mrs. Dailly) was speaking on the women's facility at Lakeside.

It's certainly our ultimate intention to have a joint facility

constructed within British Columbia for provincial female prisoners and

federal female prisoners. We think that's the answer and the way to go,

and we've done quite a bit of planning work on that already. I think

that's a must. I don't like the fact that they're in Kingston. I think

the member is correct.

MR. ROSE: Well, since the debate leader is not back here....

I don't know if someone else wants the floor right now, but I wonder if

the minister could give us.... He mentioned the vague word "planning"

and gave his intentions, and I'm pleased with that. Is there any

further detail available at this time?

HON. MR. SMITH: At the risk of repeating what I said to the

member for Burnaby North, I said that the plan is to have a 126-bed

female remand and sentence facility, which would replace Lakeside and

Twin Maples at Maple Ridge and, in addition, house 40 federal female

inmates. That's the plan. We would have to identify location and the

sharing of the cost, and that would be something that would go forward

as a capital proposal. The exploratory discussion and planning with

federal officials has already taken place.

MR. ROSE: I take it then that what you're planning is a kind

of merger. I know that that's likely to spark a keen interest in the

future of Maples as a rural facility of that kind. Even though the

contemplated changes will be welcome, I hope there will be some real

interest in preserving Maples as a kind of rural facility rather than a

sort of urban Heartbreak Hotel.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, we most probably would have it in a

single facility and not keep the Twin Maples facility separate. I can't

say that that's crystallized in stone, but that's certainly the present

thinking, which would be to move to a single facility which would be

jointly provincial and federal.

MRS. DAILLY: I want to briefly ask the Attorney-General a

couple of questions on the matter of guns and licensing and so on. I

want to

preamble my questions by saying that I was really shocked

listening to a CBC broadcast the other day in which they talked about

one of the biggest problems they face today in schools in the state of

Texas, where more and

[ Page 8477 ]

more young people are turning up in the classrooms

carrying guns. One young boy found that he was being bullied by another

boy who kept stealing his lunch, and he said: "I've put up with enough

of this." So he went and got a gun out of a pawnshop, walked into the

classroom and shot this boy three times in the stomach. He got off. It

was considered that he had a right to do this. I'm sure the

Attorney-General would also be shocked at this thing. However, I'm

bringing up what happened because of the looseness of being able.... In

my opinion, the way you can procure guns in the United States is

absolutely shocking. I'm just glad that we live in this country and

have the gun controls that we do have.

Another interesting thing in the United States is that the country

yet they have, of course, recently created almost a bloodbath with the

number of executions that have taken place. I think I've heard the

Attorney-General state that he is in favour of capital punishment for

certain crimes. I know this is going to be done in the federal House,

and this is not the floor for that debate, but I just want to go on

record as saying that I completely disagree with capital punishment for

any crime. But it's interesting to note that a country like the United

States, which allows and has such lax gun control also, I want to

repeat, has the most crime per capita and certainly the most murders.

That leads me to the specific things in British Columbia to do with

gun-licensing. What I'm concerned about is how a society can be formed

to have not just rifle practice but the actual gun practice. I

understand that there are some shops, not in B.C. but in other

provinces, where guns are sold and at the same time an almost, I think,

shooting-gallery can be located close to that shop or right beside it.

I wanted to ask the Attorney-General if such a thing exists in

British Columbia, where a person who has a retail shop selling guns

also is allowed to have a shooting-gallery with a society formed so

that people can be members of that society and go there and practise

using these guns. I'm bringing it up with the Attorney-General because

I feel if we follow what's happened in some other provinces we are

perhaps going to find ourselves creating more access to guns by people

who should never have them in their control. I wonder what the status

is in this matter in British Columbia.

HON. MR. SMITH: Presently those are not permitted. Commercial

shooting-galleries or ranges operated in conjunction with firearm

retail businesses are not permitted in this province. There certainly

are organizations and people in Canada who wish to see them happen, but

it is not permitted here.

I don't think I'll join in the capital punishment debate today, but I appreciated your point of view.

MR. COCKE: I would ask the Attorney-General what is happening

to the Counterattack program. My understanding is that it's been either

suspended or certainly rolled back to a large extent. I would think

that right now is not a good time, particularly with B.C. celebrating

the way they are, for us to be moving back on that program. B.C. has

led Canada, to some extent, in the attack against drunken driving. I

think we should continue in that stance. Now what's the

Attorney-General saying vis-Ã -vis the Counterattack program?

HON. MR. SMITH: I certainly agree with the member. The

Counterattack program has been an enormous success. It has brought

awareness publicly and produced a number of very safe young drivers who

have been introduced to safe driving through the Counterattack program

in the schools. There is absolutely no move to lessen or diminish the

Counterattack program so far as my ministry is concerned. There was

some reorganization at ICBC, which I'm not responsible for, but I can

assure you, hon. member, that what I have said to them is that I don't

want any reduction of initiative in this field. Indeed, I think that

Counterattack is absolutely necessary, and I'm a strong supporter of

it. I would be very distressed if there was a slackening at all in

those initiatives. It is true that in the last little while, with Expo

and so on, maybe Counterattack and its thrust have been a little

blurred by other advertising. But I can assure you that there is no

intention of cutting back on it.

[4:30]

MR. COCKE: I'd like the minister to comment on a

article that

appeared recently: "Expo Forces Police to Drop May Blitz on Drunk

Drivers." It says:

"Expo has temporarily stalled the provincial

government's Counterattack program, but police say they are still

keeping a sharp lookout for drivers under the influence of alcohol. S.

Sgt. Grant Tyndall of Vancouver RCMP says that while traditionally a

Counterattack program has been held throughout the province each year

at this time, a decision was made to omit it this year because of the

unknown demands Expo would place on the force. 'Rather than plan a big

campaign and then have to cancel at the last moment, we decided not to

hold it this May."'

It seems that that is somewhat contrary to what the Attorney-General

just said: that he would be very distressed if the program was cut

back. The fact is, the program was cut back, and I would like the

minister to stand up and express his distress in a far more eloquent

way than he just did.

HON. MR. SMITH: Of course, the individual forces, and

particularly the municipal forces which have their own boards, have a

considerable amount of autonomy in how they deploy their men and their

priorities within their own region. You have the Vancouver force very

heavily committed with Expo security. I think that's all you can read

into that. It's not a policy directive or authorization by me at all.

If I can just say a tiny bit more about Counterattack to show the

importance that I place in Counterattack, the percentage of traffic

accidents that caused injury or death where alcohol was a significant

contributing factor dropped from 20 percent in 1982 to 12 percent in

1985 — just in that short period. This year Counterattack will continue

to serve on traffic safety committees, to assist the police in their

drinking-driving road checks, to produce and distribute public

education materials and mass media messages and to research and

evaluate traffic safety issues.

There will also be new initiatives, including the production and

introduction of comprehensive 700-square-foot drinking-driving displays

for use at Expo and in shopping centres across the province, and six

portable display units for community and police use. There will be new

public education materials, including brochures and posters which

identify specific issues. There will be field testing of the new

approved screening devices, and three RCMP subdivisions have been

selected for introduction of those. Introduction of

[ Page 8478 ]

three Counterattack station wagons to replace

retired BATmobiles; eight regional student leader conferences will be

held; production of an expanded database to allow the analysis of

traffic accident reports, records and so on.

So the provincial thrust in Counterattack has continued and is even

being extended. I think the explanation of the Vancouver situation is

really temporary deployment elsewhere; they're getting no message to do

anything like lessen up on Counterattack. They're not to do that.

MR. LAUK: Apropos a statement this afternoon by Ms. Messier,

the coroner investigating the death of young Karen Ford at the

revolving theatre at Expo, I want to draw to the Attorney-General's

attention the fact that on February 12, 1985, at page 4927 of Hansard ,

I drew to the Attorney General's attention that safety sections of

several statutes were being eliminated with respect to the construction

of theatre sites on the Expo site. I quote what I said to the

Attorney-General:

...I caution the Legislature to look at other

legislation dealing with the Expo site. What kinds of theatres are they

building on that site that they have to eliminate these safety

features? What kinds of dangers are being posed to the people who are

attending Expo, with respect to theatres, as a result of the

legislation being introduced by this government?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The Attorney-General will recall that this was a debate under the

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1985, dealing with

construction and safety of theatres as well as other matters. It was

treated, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, not with a great deal of

seriousness. In light of the ongoing inquest, has the government

decided to impose building code amendments and other inspection

criteria for all of the sites at Expo? I don't want to raise this issue

in an inflammatory way, but just to point out that these things escape

our attention. Even though they're brought to our attention, we don't

think they are serious until a fatal accident does happen.

What bothers me is, could the death of this child have been

prevented by stringent requirements? Mr. Pattison of Expo says that

Canada Harbour Place is a federal government project and out of his

jurisdiction. John Powles, deputy commissioner-general of the Canadian

pavilion, said that he thought the city had inspected the turntable and

that an occupancy permit was issued. Mr. Roger Hebert, the city's

director of permits and licensing, said that those things are not

covered in the code. There are several other relevant questions that

must be answered.

You remember that you were eliminating provisions of the Fire

Services Act, and the projectionists' union was exercised about that.

Under that act.... Your argument was that this will all come under the

building codes. But it seems that it has fallen between the stools you

were mentioning before. Nobody did an inspection on these sites from

the construction point of view.

HON. MR. SMITH: You certainly made those caveats in that

different context, when we were talking about whether one needed to

have a projectionist who had a certain ticket when the type of job he

now performs is so different from what he did ten or twenty years ago.

But I fail to see that that qualifies you as an oracle in this unhappy

set of events. Here you had a round revolving theatre platform which

was not covered, as I understand, by any code, and wouldn't have been

covered by a code prior to those amendments either.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't think so; I'm informed otherwise.

But the Vancouver city building inspection office approved this

revolving stage. They did the inspecting. The inspecting wasn't done by

the planning and advisory committee of Expo, and that's because it was

off-site — it was at the Canadian pavilion. So the inspection was a

Vancouver city inspection, and they approved it. I haven't yet seen the

coroner's findings, but we will certainly study them. I do not believe,

hon. member, that the change in those fire regulations would have made

any difference to this event.

MR. LAUK: I just want to point out — and I don't want to

belabour it, and I'm not placing the responsibility on the

Attorney-General's shoulders — that it was a thing that escaped all of

us to the extent that the city says it was not covered by the code. I

mentioned in Hansard that the Expo site theatres were falling into a no-man's-land and that these problems could arise.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I have every right to defend my well-known capacity as an oracle.

I am somewhat surprised that Mr. Hebert, the city's director of

permits and licensing, said that those things — the theatre's rotating

stand — were not covered in their code. I take it from that that they

didn't inspect it for safety. So there we have it. It would be

appropriate, I would suggest, for the province and the city to get

together to ensure that inspections are now being undertaken.

MR. NICOLSON: I'd just like to bring to the minister's

attention remarks made by Chief Justice Brian Dickson of the Supreme

Court of Canada when he was being offered an honorary degree at the

University of British Columbia. He implored governments not to continue

the trend of turning our educational system into a second-class system

and eventually turning us into a second-class nation. Mr. Chairman, I

would certainly concur with the thoughts of the chief justice in this

instance. It certainly is a contrast with his predecessor. It certainly

stands in contrast, I suppose, to reaction in the case of former

justice Thomas Berger. It seems to be becoming the trend, and I would

ask the Attorney-General if he agrees with this trend — that members of

the bench, particularly the supreme court, should be speaking out on

general interests of public concern.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's also a question as to whether or not in

Committee of Supply for the estimates of the Attorney-General we can

discuss what would appear to be irrelevant items. But the Attorney can

reply.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would think that by no stretch of the rules

would this fall under my estimates, but it would be appropriate to

raise with the Minister of Education or in his estimates. Tempted as I

might be to leap onto this ground, I think I'll resist the temptation

in this forum.

[ Page 8479 ]

MR. NICOLSON: I don't want to prolong these estimates, Mr.

Chairman, but the Attorney-General has entirely missed the point. It

wouldn't matter whether the Chief Justice had spoken out about

education or, as in the case of Thomas Berger, matters dealing with the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a departure from the predecessor

of the Chief Justice, namely Bora Laskin. I would like to know in what

direction the Attorney- General feels we should be....

MR. LAUK: Do you think judges should speak out on political matters?

MR. NICOLSON: That's right.

HON. MR. SMITH: I haven't seen his remarks, except a very

brief account of them in the Saturday evening paper. I would want to

see those remarks. I too attended convocation that same day at the

University of Victoria and addressed the student body, and I may have

strayed into the field of politics as well. When a Chief Justice is

receiving an honorary degree at one of the great universities in this

country, maybe he will stray into the realm of social policy, and I

wouldn't think that it was the end of the world if he did.

MR. NICOLSON: Let the record show that the Attorney-General said that the Chief Justice had gone astray.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 10 pass?

MR. LAUK: May I point out to the Chairman that vote 10 is an

amount for economic renewal of the agricultural market and food

industry development. I believe we're on vote 11. I wouldn't want to

vote on vote 10, having discussed the ministry's....

[4:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member might have the estimates book from the past year.

MR. LAUK: No. Oh, dear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it 1986-87, hon. member, or '85-86?

MR. LAUK: What year is this again? I demand to know.

I was just pointing out that you people switch numbers on us every year. [Laughter.] Now let's get on with vote 11.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It does happen annually, yes. Shall vote 10 pass?

Vote 10 approved.

On vote 11: ministry operations, $253,095,928.

MR. LAUK: I wanted to speak briefly on police services.

Mr. Chairman, year after year the city of Vancouver has pleaded with

the provincial government to meet its fair share of cost for the police

services in this city. It's clear that the provincial government has

been riding on the backs of the homeowner and the city taxpayer with

respect to the provision of police services in the city.

The city of Vancouver, apart from its uniqueness.... It's

downtown British Columbia. Citizens from all over the province, and all

over the world now, require the police force of the city of Vancouver

to service their needs, at tremendous cost. This is the most

appropriate year for the Attorney-General to stand in his place and

advise that a new agreement with respect to the provision of those

costs has been entered into, and the province is now more willing to

accept a greater share of those costs. That is the only fair way to

approach the city's unique position as the downtown area servicing the

province and the lower mainland, in addition the fact that it's a

municipal force funded almost entirely by municipal taxation.

I ask the Attorney-General to indicate if the policy is either

regrettably the same as it has always been, or if he is making a stab

for ever more popularity within the city by announcing a new policy

that will increase the contribution of the provincial government.

HON. MR. SMITH: I think that the unfair burdens of police

costs from community to community are long known and well documented,

because you've got some communities with a small population who do not

contribute to their policing costs directly except in their general

levy in the unorganized area. Some other communities pay 64 percent,

some pay 86 percent, and others, like the municipally policed areas

such as my area and the hon. member's area, are paying 100 percent of

costs. So that situation has been one that has long been in need of

being addressed.

Underway at present is a joint committee of the provincial

government and the Union of B.C. Municipalities who are studying police

costs. That is composed of a number of the municipal representatives:

the mayor of Richmond, the mayor of Saanich, the mayor of Lillooet are

on it, as are representatives of both Municipal Affairs and my ministry.

We have had for quite some time a great disparity of view in the

UBCM as to how to handle this, because they had representatives from

both situations, zero percent and 100 percent. But they seem to have a

pretty good resolve now that they want to be part of the solution. So I

am very hopeful that this study will produce a recommended formula so

we can move to much greater equity than we have now.

MR. LAUK: With respect to this

section on statutory services

boards and commissions, the Criminal Injury Compensation Board is now

achieving a notorious reputation with respect to the quantum of awards.

They are statutorily limited. The awards are rather small. They have

been from the beginning. Is it now not appropriate for the province to

move in a direction of a more substantial award for serious injuries?

I interviewed a young chap three or four months ago, and I remember

his case coming up in the newspapers. He was standing at a bus stop and

somebody who he still doesn't know to this day came up with a baseball

bat and smashed his head in. They didn't think he was going to live. I

don't think they ever found the kid — or the assailant. I'm not raising

it as an example that I am asking the Attorney-General to respond to,

but a young man who was employed, rising in his company, is now on

welfare. Criminal Injury Compensation has awarded, I think, $20,000 to

$25,000, and there may have been what I would call a nominal pension

attached.

But the $25,000 award for a permanent, total, lifetime disability is

minuscule in today's terms, and I am wondering whether there is a token

operation going on here. Is the

[ Page 8480 ]

government considering expanding criminal injury compensation to be

more substantive and meaningful to those seeking compensation?

HON. MR. SMITH: There is a review generally on victim

services underway. While the criminal injury compensation fund has

never been viewed as really providing anything that remotely would

approach general damages as he knows them, Mr. Chairman, or as I know

them, it is supposed to be a bridging payment during the period of

rehabilitation or to take care of some of the medical needs and the

obvious out-of-pocket expenses. It does not even begin to address

general damage compensation.

I daresay that it could be improved and strengthened. I think all of

our victim services are under review, so I will take his comments

seriously. I have some sympathy with him.

Vote 11 approved.

On Vote 12: judiciary, $15,430,735.

MR. LAUK: I am sure the Attorney-General would agree that this sum should be doubled.

Vote 12 approved.

Vote 13: corrections, $118,251,524 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL

SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

On vote 65: minister's office, $194,140.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The chair will recognize the second member for Vancouver Centre. Is this a point of order?

MR. LAUK: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Vote 13 was passed, but the

committee must also deal with special account, land titles survey,

under the Attorney-General, and I wanted to speak on that point

briefly. It's being listed as written out of estimates. It's not a

vote. You mean I can't debate that?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'll just issue a press release and the Sapperton Review will cover it on page 13.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it's a general policy of the Committee of

Supply that, really, anything under the minister's purview, or as it

indicates in the book that the amount is now nil, could have been

discussed under the minister's salary vote. I am sure all members of

the committee are aware of that. The Committee of Supply has been given

vote 65, the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services,

and with that said the Chair recognizes the minister.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: First of all, let me say I'm very pleased

to be representing the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and

Government Services. May I, in standing for the first time in these

estimates in this House, remind the House that I did have this

portfolio once before. I want to say that I am pleased to be back in it

again. I would like to pay tribute to my colleague, the member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), who carried this portfolio or this ministry until about six or seven weeks ago.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I know that all members of this House have had a lot to do with that

member, as he is one of the oldest members in this House, and we all

have appreciated the service that he has given. I know that he has

announced his retirement from politics after the next election, so I

would like to add my congratulations to those of all members on both

sides of the House who have appreciated his service.

I want to tell you that this ministry handles a wide range of

subjects, and I am going to, if I may in some opening remarks, just

address them in the various areas in which we serve — the arts and

culture and sports and the various other services that we have in

government. The diverse and broad range of programs to the general

public and to the government itself is very great indeed. In

administering the programs and services, we have achieved a greater

efficiency and have been able to redirect those funds into public

programs. If I may just say it again, I give credit to my predecessor

for having accomplished that, as I've been in this portfolio for such a

short time.

The cultural services are a matter of great concern to all in

British Columbia, and it is a matter of considerable satisfaction to me

that the arts have been very well assisted. The cultural communities of

our province have been very well assisted, and unquestionably the

social and economic trends point to growing demand for cultural

services.

This has certainly happened in the very past years because there has

been a recognition that, in partnership with arts organizations and the

municipal government, we have been able to increase our assistance to

the cultural community significantly. We do this through the use of

lottery funds in the province. That money flowing to the arts community

by way of grants administered has seen an increase over last year of

$7.5 million, so the arts and cultural services are richer by $7.5

million over the year before.

We all know that in order for the arts to survive, they must receive

adequate support. We must recognize that these cultural events become

an important part of the provincial economy and are significant factors

in the tourism industry. It's clearly time for communities throughout

the province to enter into partnerships and increase funding levels to

reflect the importance of the arts in British Columbia. Cultural

industries form one of our largest business sectors. They are the

country's fourth largest employer.

[5:00]

One-third of all tourists who visit Canada come here for cultural

activity, and for every dollar earned by a Canadian cultural

institution another dollar is earned by the community surrounding it,

the restaurants in those communities, the hotels, the manufacturers and

other industries. Directly and indirectly, Canadian cultural activities

contribute approximately $16 billion to the economy each and every

year. The most recent census in British Columbia indicated that there

are 28,000 people directly employed in arts-related activities. This is

an increase since 1971 by a dramatic 88 percent.

Our arts challenge fund assisted major arts organizations to

overcome current financial difficulties. Grants will be on the basis of

$2 from this fund for every $1 provided by local or regional

governments. The idea behind the arts challenge

[ Page 8481 ]

fund was that we would be able to assist those organizations that

had