1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 2

[ Page 13527 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: On behalf of the Premier, today I'd like to welcome a number of individuals to the legislature: Kirk Seggie of Andres Wines (B.C.) Ltd.; Ian Tostenson of Calona Wines Ltd.; Steve Bolliger of the Mark Anthony Group; and Keith Davis of Vincor International. Would all those who enjoy wine please join me in welcoming them to the House this afternoon.

B. Simpson: I'm delighted this afternoon to welcome the grade 11 class from Point Grey Secondary School and their teacher Mr. Bowman. I urge all the members of the House to join with me in giving them a warm welcome.

G. Janssen: It's a great pleasure for me to welcome a regular visitor to our galleries: my mother, Maria Janssen. With her are her friends, retired navy commander Tom Milner and his wife Shirley, who are constituents of the Minister of Finance. Tom was supervisor of music for the National Defence Headquarters and commandant at the Canadian Forces school of music. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Oral Questions

CLOSURE OF HOSPITALS

G. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Health. During his testimony to the conflict-of-interest commissioner, Mr. Chris Chilton, chief of staff to the Premier, testified under oath, and I quote: "The Ministry of Health had proposed cutting or closing ten hospitals." Mr. Chilton goes on to say that if we were going to close these hospitals we would need more time and that we should proceed slowly and start with a few. Can the Minister of Health tell this House today the names and communities where the ministry was proposing to close ten hospitals?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, I do not have that information with me today, nor does this government plan to close any hospitals. If hospitals are going to be closed in this province, it will be after this government and its commitment to medicare are not here, and when that Liberal opposition with its slash-and-burn philosophy on medicare assumes power.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Campbell: No one in British Columbia will have any confidence in this minister if he doesn't even know what his ministry is proposing. The Premier's Office has told the conflict-of-interest commissioner that the government was planning to close ten hospitals. They hired someone so they could tell them how they can do this -- how they can indeed carry on with the pattern of deception that this government has become known for. In fact, this government, this minister.... You can't even get your ankle set in Prince George because of this government's policies. Dialysis clinics are closing in Vernon because of this government's policies. This government, this ministry....

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Question?

G. Campbell: The question to the minister is.... The chief of staff to the Premier of British Columbia told the conflict-of-interest commissioner that this government was proposing to close ten hospitals. Which ten hospitals? And which ten communities are going to go without their health care service?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I can assure the Leader of the Official Opposition and all British Columbians watching the Legislature today that there are no plans of this government to close ten hospitals. I know very well that isn't right, because there are no such plans in place. I will repeat it. The Leader of the Official Opposition keeps moving his lips, asserting there is such a plan. There is no such plan. Listen up.

We have the highest-quality hospitals in this province. They stand up with any hospitals in North America. It's amazing that this Liberal opposition leader would assert that we are somehow devastating the hospitals in this province, the week after a publication was released called America's Best Hospitals. It gave awards to St. Paul's Hospital and Vancouver Hospital...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. P. Ramsey: ...and Health Science Centre. It said they are two of the 80 best hospitals in all of North America.

TENDERING OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. In testimony before Ted Hughes, the Premier's chief of staff, Chris Chilton, said that he himself asked NDPer Hans Brown to be involved in a health care project. Brown was then hired by NOW Communications to undertake this work. When asked if this was to avoid a charge of patronage, Chilton said anyone who thought this would do so would not understand the practical considerations in doing it through NOW. Can the Minister of Health tell the House what possible reason there could be to route Brown's contract through NOW, other than to hide this obscene and blatant patronage?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This happened, I understand, some three years ago. I'd be glad to look into it. The reality is that I have not hired Hans Brown, nor has NOW Communications under my direction.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Reid: In Chilton's testimony, he said that things were very much in a state of turmoil within the Health ministry and that there was a requirement for some coordination and direction from the centre. To allay this turmoil, Chilton negotiated a $30,000 contract, later increased to $55,000, with Hans Brown. This later revision was simply an easy way for the NDP to yet again break their own tendering rules. Why has this

govern-

[ Page 13528 ]

ment continually allowed his staff and this Minister of Health to ignore proper tendering guidelines and cover up contracts with NDP friends?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We have some wonderful selective reading of the Hughes report. Mr. Hughes said very clearly that the tender which was awarded to NOW Communications, as the agent of record for the Ministry of Health, was openly competed for and openly won on quality -- and quality is what has been delivered.

U.S. PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF TATSHENSHINI DECISION

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Shortly after the Tatshenshini decision was announced on June 23, 1993, it was reported that the White House actually had advance notice of that decision. A confidential White House memo, dated May 14, stated: "Recent information suggests that the British Columbia cabinet has decided to ban mining in the Tatshenshini." In view of the government's close relationship with Karl Struble and others in Washington, D.C., can the minister explain how the White House knew of the cabinet decision to kill Windy Craggy a month and a half before this decision was announced to British Columbia?

[2:15]

Hon. A. Edwards: There was a lot of talk about the proposal for the Tatshenshini and the eventual decision. It was an excellent decision. It was an extremely difficult decision, but it was a decision that was made in the cabinet room here. It has proven to be an excellent decision -- one that has been appreciated right across the continent.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Again to the minister. Given that the Premier's staff made hundreds of phone calls to Karl Struble before the date of the White House memo, many of which were over an hour in length, and given that the individuals making those calls were privy to the cabinet decision on the Tatshenshini, has the minister or any of her colleagues investigated how the White House knew of this decision a month before it was made available to British Columbians and was first reported in the Vancouver Sun?

Hon. A. Edwards: I have not yet heard that some information that was reliable went to the White House. I don't know what the Leader of the Third Party is trying to say, but if he's trying to say that everybody in this province and far beyond speculated as to what would happen on the Tatshenshini, he is correct. There were many people who speculated for many months before that excellent decision was made.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE ATTORNEY GENERAL

M. de Jong: My question is to the Attorney General. I wonder if the Attorney General can confirm that a special prosecutor has been appointed pursuant to the Crown Counsel Act to investigate allegations of misconduct by himself and his office.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, there was an appointment made some time ago dealing with an individual who has had an ongoing complaint with the Ministry of AG, which dates beyond the last election.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: I wonder if the Attorney General can advise the House when the special prosecutor was appointed with respect to the allegation that has been brought against him, and whether or not it was his intention to advise the House and the people of British Columbia about this allegation.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know the date of the appointment, but I'll get the date and give it to the member.

ADMINISTRATION OF SURREY PRETRIAL CENTRE

J. Dalton: Again for the Attorney General. I have a copy of an internal investigation of an alleged sexual assault that occurred last year at the Surrey Pretrial Centre. The inmate was assaulted by his bunkmate. This report was commissioned by the Attorney General and states that the Surrey Pretrial Centre neither communicated nor followed provincial policy on double-bunking. Can the Attorney General explain why the policies of his ministry are ignored?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Following the receipt of that report, the commissioner of corrections, who is the Deputy Attorney General, instructed that all of the inadequacies that were identified in the report be remedied, and they were.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Dalton: I just heard the Attorney General say that the situation was remedied. Perhaps that's not true, hon. Speaker. In this same Surrey Pretrial Centre, on March 10 of this year, a teenager, Raymond Merkley, was sexually assaulted by another inmate. Again I ask the Attorney General: can he explain why these incidents continue to happen, and what is being done to clean up the mess in that correctional facility?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If my memory is correct, there is a police investigation with respect to the incident referred to by the member. He is coming to conclusions that I don't think the police have yet reached.

IMPERSONATION OF TRIBAL POLICE

G. Wilson: My question is to the Attorney General. Some months ago the Attorney General's office and my office corresponded with respect to the actions taken by the so-called tribal police on the Apex reserve. It was confirmed that people who were wearing jackets with "Tribal Police" on them were not, in fact, tribal police and had no training. Indeed, there is speculation that they were not even Canadians and had come up from the United States. Can the Attorney General please tell us what the conclusion is of the investigation into this? What action will be taken with respect to people who were acting as tribal police who had no authority to do so?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: These individuals were not sworn peace officers. They were not tribal police in the sense that the term is used in British Columbia.

[ Page 13529 ]

The Speaker: Supplemental, member.

G. Wilson: Can the Attorney General tell us, then, what actions are being taken against the people who impersonated and acted as police officers and who violated the most basic codes of conduct at the blockade on the Apex reserve, causing both damage to property and assaults against people?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If there is an allegation of an individual impersonating a police officer, then that is a serious allegation and should be reported to the police. The police are then charged with investigating. If they determine that there's some substance to the claim, they will refer the matter to Crown counsel for consideration as to whether charges should be laid.

ADMINISTRATION OF SURREY PRETRIAL CENTRE

W. Hurd: A question to the Attorney General. The same interim report on the serious incident at the Surrey Pretrial Centre revealed that at the time of the first sexual assault, the centre was being run by an acting director, an acting director of operations, an acting director of programs and services and an acting director of the sentence management unit. Can the Attorney General, after a year, explain to the people of this province and to the House why this detention unit seems to have a revolving door, not only for prisoners but also for administrators?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There were a number of changes -- retirements and other changes -- in the corrections branch in the last year or so. When people move up to fill other positions, their positions become vacant. As a result of a considerable number of those types of changes, both retirement and otherwise, there were a number of acting positions in the branch. I think, in fact, that there are still some existing in the branch today.

The Speaker: Supplemental, member.

W. Hurd: The evidence is mounting that the Surrey Pretrial Centre is badly managed. After all, this was the same institution that released Douglas Fetterley, an HIV-infected inmate, onto the streets of British Columbia. In light of the overwhelming evidence of mismanagement identified in the interim report and the crisis generally in provincial Corrections, when will this Attorney General accept some responsibility for the safety of corrections officials and the public of British Columbia? Why does he sit there, day after day, when these kinds of serious allegations are being made?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd first like to correct an assertion that is wrong: that the Surrey Pretrial Centre or the corrections branch had any responsibility in respect to the release of Mr. Fetterley. They did not.

Secondly, there have been a number of management changes in the corrections branch. Those changes have been designed to make sure that the goals we all share in this House -- that people can be safe and secure in this province -- are accomplished. I have full confidence in the corrections branch and so should the member.

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

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A for the purposes of continuing debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In the main House I call committee on Bill 7.

COLUMBIA BASIN TRUST ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 7; D. Lovick in the chair.

On the

preamble (continued).

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

Leave granted.

D. Symons: It is my pleasure to introduce today a couple whom I have known since I was ten years old, and have very much admired. I have had their guidance and all the rest during my life. I'd like you to meet Bill and Gwlady Nesbitt. They are somewhere in the gallery, I believe.

The Chair: Vancouver-Fraserview, did you...?

B. Simpson: I want to talk on Bill 7.

The Chair: I'm sorry, member. I have already recognized another member, so I must go to the member for Surrey-White Rock before I take anybody else.

W. Hurd: Hon. Chair, I have no problem with.... Is it against the rules to allow for a further introduction?

The Chair: Oh no. It wasn't an introduction, however, member. That's why.

W. Hurd: With respect to the

preamble, having had an opportunity to reflect on the considerable debate that occurred prior to the lunch break, in the spirit of cooperation we on this side of the House have proposed an amendment to the

preamble which would eliminate the words: "WHEREAS the desires of the people of the Columbia Basin were not adequately considered in the original negotiations of the Columbia River Treaty...." It's a passage which seems to have aroused a considerable amount of discord in the house. The opposition proposes substituting the following:

"Whereas the province and the Columbia River Treaty Commission acknowledge that the region, as a site of operational infrastructure to produce hydroelectricity under the Columbia River Treaty" -- known as "the Treaty" -- "has suffered environmental and socioeconomic impacts as a result of the Treaty operations...."

I think the reason for the amendment is that it appears in the basin agreement, and seems to us on this side of the House to be a more reasoned assessment of what has occurred to the region. It eliminates the rather partisan tone in the first portion of the amendment. I look forward to the amendment being ruled completely and utterly in order, that we may move forthwith to debating it on its merits.

[ Page 13530 ]

The Chair: I'm sorry to advise the member that his psychic abilities have let him down. I've consulted Beauchesne, sixth edition, and it's a very clear ruling; so allow me, if I may, to read it to the committee.

According to Beauchesne's sixth edition,

article 705, subsection (1), regarding the

preamble: "When all the clauses and schedules have been agreed to, the

preamble is considered; amendments may be moved thereto if rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill." Subsection (2) notes: "Substantive amendments to the

preamble are inadmissable unless the modification is proposed for purposes of clarification or uniformity." The key

section is, of course, subsection (1), which says that unless there has, in fact, been an amendment made which necessitates the

preamble, it is not in order. I therefore have to rule the amendment out of order.

We are on Bill 7, still on the

preamble. I will now recognize the member for Vancouver-Fraserview.

B. Simpson: I rise today to talk on the

preamble of the Columbia Basin Trust Act. I note that the

preamble states that the desires of the people of the Columbia Basin were not adequately considered in the original negotiations. It might be asked why I, the MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview -- an MLA from the big city -- should be concerned about a piece of legislation that affects the people of the Columbia-Kootenay region. The answer is a simple one, and that is justice -- redressing a historical wrong.

[2:30]

While we in the big cities benefited from the power generated from the Columbia River Treaty of 1961, the people of the Kootenays paid a terrible price. The dams built under the treaty flooded Kootenay farms, forests and homes. Communities were wiped out, and lives were shattered. The region received nothing from the treaty's first downstream benefits agreement. The heavy hand of the former, disgraced Social Credit government, of which the present leader of the Reform Party was a member, shattered the dreams of those residents who were to become victims of an autocratic government's decision to develop power regardless of the costs.

I want to cite the case of Gerald Lewis and his young bride. He recalls how he lost his East Arrow Park waterfront property. He recalls the foreigners from the south with their surveying equipment who came up and down the valley during the Second World War. The Americans were the forerunners of greedy politicians in the United States, British Columbia and Ottawa who had that insatiable appetite for power.

Twenty years later, in the fall of 1964, Gerald Lewis would again notice these strangers. This time the foreigners were equipped with negotiation papers, promises and threats. Yes, threats. Gerald and his young bride Eleanor were in the process of settling on their 30-acre East Arrow Park waterfront property. This young couple was completing work on a two-bedroom home that had a fenced yard and a basement they had dug themselves, and they received an unwelcome visitor from B.C. Hydro. This unwelcome visitor from the big city offered them the grand sum of $11,000 for the homestead that Gerald and Eleanor had lived on for only one year.

Mr. Lewis remembers the threat. He said he was told that if he took it to arbitration, he would lose. That's what these strangers said to Mr. Lewis and his young wife. The Lewis couple and hundreds of their neighbours succumbed to the heavy hand of government.

An Hon. Member: Social Credit government.

B. Simpson: Social Credit government. That's correct. The disgraced Social Credit government, of which the leader of the Reform Party was a member.

Let's look at what happened to Ernie Roberts and his young family. They had an eight-room house on 32 acres in Arrow Park, a barn for 18 cattle, a woodshed and a separate workshop. It was a place for their children to grow up on, and they had lived on this land for 20 years. One day Hydro paid them a visit. Mr. Roberts recalled that it was awful: "They chased us out for no reason at all." The land was a mile away from the water's edge, and there was no reason why they had to leave. Hydro offered them the grand sum of $12,000 for a lifetime of work, and they were eventually forced off their land.

Hydro burned their house, and that land is still close to a mile away from the water. The Roberts family often visits their homesite and recalls the 20 years on this beautiful land and the dreams that were not meant to be.

Close to 3,000 people were displaced when the Columbia River Treaty was signed in 1964. Residential areas, farms, resorts, orchards, businesses, highways, and yes, even cemeteries are now under water. Lakes fluctuate as much as 14-storey buildings. The Valemount boat dock has been 20 miles from water.

The Chair: I'm sorry. Could I ask you to take your seat for a moment? I recognize very clearly that the

preamble takes us into the existential questions of the bill. By all that is honest, however, I think we have to at least confine our remarks on debate about the

preamble to the clauses themselves; i.e., whether or not the people's wishes were adequately considered. To go beyond that is quite frankly pushing the envelope and is probably out of order. I therefore ask this member and all members who propose to participate in what promises to be a protracted debate to please be guided by that caution.

B. Simpson: So the

preamble discusses and indicates that the residents of this wonderful area in this great province of ours were not consulted. I want to conclude by stating that it is for the question of justice that I'm speaking on this bill. I'm proud to speak on this legislation which will redress the terrible wrong that has been perpetrated on the people of the Kootenays. This legislation is a new beginning for the people of the Kootenays, and I'm proud to be part of the government that has introduced this new legislation.

R. Neufeld: It's interesting to listen to the member for Vancouver-Fraserview tell us what he thinks about power projects in the province of British Columbia. I'm not disputing the fact that there were people in the Kootenays who were displaced; I'm not disputing that at all, because there were; that's a fact of life. But the fact is that the member still lives in the city, which turns on its lights every night and probably burns the most electricity of any place in the province of British Columbia, and does it quite readily.

In places like my constituency, the Peace River area, some of the inequities also took place at the W.A.C. Bennett Dam, which has the largest man-made lake in British Columbia.

The

part I have problems with here is that we talk about -- in the

preamble, the first

section -- the desires of the people

[ Page 13531 ]

of the Columbia Basin not being adequately considered in the original negotiations of the Columbia River Treaty. That's quite possibly so in today's world. Maybe it was then. And it was in the Peace. It was when the railroads were built in this province. It was when the highways were built in this province. But that's all part of British Columbia and why it is the great province that it is today. We generate all kinds of electricity. We have forest products that we export. That's what keeps this province going.

Saying that the only people who were affected are those in the Columbia Basin is absolutely inaccurate and wrong. There are a lot of people in the province of British Columbia who were affected with power generation, and not just in the Columbia.

The minister, when he stood up yesterday and talked about someone making some remark -- you know, it's hard to believe -- about propping up six MLAs or five MLAs.... I'm not even sure how many are in that area. The minister was quite offended by that statement. Yet when I stood up yesterday and talked about the Peace area and what was going to happen with the Peace.... Is there going to be something the same as this? I don't see anything on the drawing boards; I hear nothing about it. And the minister said: "You have to vote NDP." Now isn't it amazing?

Is that really what we have to do to get some redress for some of the things that happened in the past? We have people in the Peace River area who are very close to the dam who don't even have electricity. I'm sure the member for Nelson-Creston has the same thing. I would like to see that redressed. I would like to see something the same as this in the Peace.

I take issue with the

preamble, and I would propose a friendly motion that we eliminate the first paragraph totally. At the second paragraph you take out the "and" and you just start: "Whereas the government desires to include the people of the Columbia Basin in decisions that affect their lives and determine their future...." That really addresses what this bill is all about.

The Chair: I believe the member for Nelson-Creston is rising on an introduction so I will take that.

C. Evans: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

C. Evans: There are three folks here from my constituency: Peter Kalesnikoff, the senior owner of Kalesnikoff sawmills; Ken, his son; and Brent Petrick, the fellow who does the cutting plans for these people. These are some of the folks we are talking about here, so would everybody please make them welcome.

The Chair: On the proposed amendment, I have again been consulting Beauchesne. The statement is very clear that substantive amendments to the

preamble are inadmissible unless the modification is proposed for purposes of clarification or uniformity. By that criterion it would seem that it isn't in order.

Given the uncertainty of this, I will allow a couple of speakers on the amendment and the admissibility of....

Hon. G. Clark: In heckling the member, when I said "vote NDP," I meant that it was with an NDP government we are finally seeking justice for the people of the Columbia Basin through this bill. If we are returned, it's appropriate for us to look at seeking justice for those in the Peace River country and elsewhere. I am very sympathetic to looking at these localized impacts when they come to benefit those of us in southern British Columbia and making sure that when the wealth is generated in the regions of British Columbia, some of that returns to the regions.

If the member is fortunate enough to be here in the next administration and the next parliament, I hope he will work hard. I am sure the subsequent NDP administration will look very favourably on the members, regardless of who is returned in the Peace River country. I think it really does require an NDP administration before we will move to seek justice in the Peace River country; the evidence is clear on that.

Whether or not we accept this amendment, we are opposed to any amendment like this. I say very clearly that it is critical for us, in terms of the spirit of the bill, to recognize that the people of the Columbia Basin were not adequately considered in the original negotiations of the Columbia River Treaty. That's what it says. The member opposite can say that he finds this offensive. I don't find that to be political or partisan; I find it to be a fact. It's an empirical fact that the people of the basin were not adequately consulted, and it's an important part of this bill that this House recognize that.

The whole bill flows from the recognition that the people of the region were not adequately consulted, or dealt with fairly.

I know that in his residual partisanship from being a former Socred, the member is reluctant to criticize the icon W.A.C. Bennett. I ask him, now that he is in another party -- it's the same party, but he pretends he's in another party -- to sit back and say: "Yes, these people were treated unfairly; yes, justice should be done." This

preamble is important. It's important to stress that the contents of the bill should be read through the

preamble. This House recognizes that the people of the Columbia Basin were not treated fairly. I ask him to support the

preamble as stated, not as amended.

The Chair: On reflection, I'm going to make a ruling on the amendment, then we can continue our debate on the

preamble. I am going to rule the amendment out of order, largely because in the member's justification for his amendment he was arguing that we ought to make provision so we can consider another region of the province, such as the Peace. Unfortunately, that takes us miles beyond the purposes of this act, therefore the amendment is inadmissible.

Having said that, I will allow continued debate on the

preamble.

A. Warnke: I found the discussions on the

preamble this morning kind of interesting. I could not help but go back to Hansard. Unfortunately, Hansard did not exist in the province of British Columbia in the early 1960s, but it certainly did exist in the House of Commons.

[2:45]

Having the New Democratic Party record on the Columbia River Treaty in 1964, when it was discussed in the House of Commons, I looked for some evidence that the New Democratic Party had actually taken into account not only some of the debates surrounding the Columbia River Treaty, of course, but the specifics which this

preamble addresses. I have to say that when I took a look at the New Democratic opposition to

[ Page 13532 ]

the Columbia River Treaty, it was almost exclusively on economic terms. The Hon. Andrew Brewin put forward a very eloquent statement in 1964. Wil Herridge, Colin Cameron and, of course, the Hon. T.C. Douglas.... I think it's instrumental, in the context of the

preamble we're looking at, and it's obvious that not even New Democratic Party members of the time had the tremendous foresight to see the consequences of the impact of the flooding of the Columbia Basin. The Hon. T.C. Douglas said in the House of Commons on March 3, 1964 -- and it's in Hansard, page 495: "No one is quarrelling for a moment with the idea of developing the Columbia river basin. This is a great natural resource which can serve mankind for generations to come." What the Hon. T.C. Douglas said at that time was that there was no objection to the development of the Columbia River Basin.

The primary objection, however, of the New Democratic Party to the Columbia River Treaty at the time was the fact that the diversion was taking place in a context that would benefit the Americans and not the Canadians. Indeed, that kind of economic argument was emphasized over and over again, and there was unanimous support by New Democratic Party members for the McNaughton plan. That was uppermost and primary in the minds of New Democratic Party members then.

I think we have to be very, very careful when we include

preambles in such bills; we have to be very careful how we judge the intentions and the nature of the bills that have been put forward by previous generations. It's so easy, with 20-20 hindsight, to condemn generations for what they've done in terms of actions and legislation that they have brought forward.

I think it is worth cautioning not only this government but, I suppose, any government to be very, very careful in judging previous generations -- judging them in such a context that we have to remind ourselves whether we would want a future government to condemn the actions that we take today when we engage in legislation. When we bring forth legislation in this House over and over and over again, how do we know what the consequences will be? How do we know what latent effects that kind of legislation will bring? Is it just that we be condemned for something we did not intend?

In that context, I think it would be extremely wise -- if I can encourage the government -- to rethink the intent of the

preamble.

G. Wilson: How delighted I am to get back into this debate. And what an incredible surprise, as I come back in at this hour in the afternoon, to notice that it took us four hours to get through four sections yesterday, with thorough debate, and only two hours to get through 28 sections this morning, when, of course, our caucus had been advised we were doing the Attorney General estimates. It's somewhat of a surprise to see that we have literally rammed through this bill, in my judgment, without adequate accountability by the government.

But one of the opportunities we have, obviously, is within the

preamble. I, for one, think that the

preamble is a political statement. It's a political statement that has been made because the Columbia River Treaty was, historically, an event that had an enormous impact on a lot of people. In today's generation, I think people often don't know -- especially people who live in the lower mainland and in Vancouver -- what happened to the people of the Kootenays. I don't know if everybody knows that many of the people of the Kootenays went out and returned home to find a policeman banning them from getting close to their houses as they were burned and bulldozed to the ground. This had a very devastating impact on a lot of people.

The member for Richmond-Steveston asks if we should be condemned in the future for actions we take today. My answer is: absolutely. I say that you cannot hold us responsible, necessarily, for the actions of our forefathers, but you can certainly hold us accountable if we don't recognize what they were and correct them. That's what we're trying to do here.

I know that the government is putting this

preamble in as a bit of a political statement because, I think, the people of the Kootenays want to know that we recognize what happened to them out there. A lot of the valley bottoms were flooded. Essentially, we dramatically altered the lifestyle of a lot of people out there, with very little consent. That's a historical fact of record. It's not often that I agree with the minister, but in this instance I happen to agree. A tremendous number of people have been impacted, and it is good that we are now taking some measure to provide input and some kind of revenue into that area so that they can benefit by what took place in the Columbia River.

Was the Columbia River Treaty good for British Columbia? I think you could argue that in the long term it has been. I think you could argue that we might have made a better deal. I would argue that in this last round of negotiations, this government could have negotiated a better deal. Could this legislation provide better opportunities for diversification of the local and regional economy in the Kootenays? I would say that yes, it could. Had we not, with lightning speed, managed to pass 28 sections this morning, I think we might have had a somewhat more thorough debate about it.

But I think where I have the biggest problem with this

preamble -- the difficulty I have in terms of what this

preamble suggests -- is that it suggests that somehow the government is going to include the people of the Columbia Basin in the decisions that affect their lives and determine their future. I'm not sure that's necessarily true. I know that the member for Nelson-Creston, who has been participating in this debate -- I don't see him here at the moment, but I'm sure he will be back in shortly -- would argue that there have been all kinds of public meetings to talk about what could happen and how this government should proceed.

But the fact is that what they've been talking about is a document that was set in front of them, a memorandum of agreement which we have discussed and discussed ad infinitum, I think, in the early stages of this bill. It was a proposal set out by the government that didn't really give the people very many alternatives. In fact, it set out an alternative that the government saw as the way to proceed on three dams -- the Keenleyside, the Brilliant and the Waneta. It set out that proposal because, as the minister has acknowledged, we are already in negotiation with West Kootenay Power and Light and B.C.

Hydro as to what they want to do through those power utilities. So the people of the Kootenays haven't really been consulted. They have been advised of what's been going on and of what direction this government would like to take with respect to the downstream benefits, and they have been invited to public meetings to discuss how they would like to have input into directing what the government has already determined is going to be the expenditure and use of those moneys.

If you look at this strange anomaly we have set up.... We come back to the question of the desire "to include the

[ Page 13533 ]

people of the Columbia Basin in decisions that affect their lives" -- that statement in this

preamble. This strange anomaly we have created -- this corporation that is not an agent of government but, in effect, is acting pretty much as a Crown corporation in every other sense of the term -- has got opportunities for borrowing, opportunities for the expenditure of dollars, opportunities to enter into what is an immediate $500 million set of capital project expenditures on the Keenleyside, Brilliant and Waneta dams. And they have got some locally appointed, elected or in some other way procured members to come forward to sit on this trust.

But we haven't talked about liabilities to any degree. When I raised the matter yesterday, the minister said the liability question is going to have to be dealt with. Certainly, as this

preamble statement says, if we're going to include "the people of the Columbia Basin in decisions that affect their lives and determine their future," that would be important. The minister needs to account for this in this wording.

Clearly, this government has come forward with one proposition, not a series of propositions and not an opportunity to take revenue and ask how we best expend this on behalf of the people of Kootenays -- one proposition. It's a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. They've come to the people and said: "We will allow this trust to effectively administer how those dollars are going to be made." The Kootenay people deserve better than that.

I'd like the minister to explain how -- in this

preamble that says "the government desires to include the people of the Columbia Basin in decisions that affect their lives and determine their future" -- they had an opportunity to discuss whether this was the best way to proceed at this time. Did they really need more dams? Or did they need to have the money -- that needed capital -- to diversify investment into a broader base of investment opportunities in the Kootenays in order to be able to expand the opportunities in more communities rather than those that will be directly impacted by the construction of those dams?

My guess is that if you talk to the people of the Kootenays -- and I know, because we've had members at each of these meetings -- there are many, many people who have many, many questions about how the people of the Kootenays are going to benefit through the diversification of those dollars. The minister needs to come clean on that question.

The second issue is a shorter one, directed to the minister. He also needs to explain how, in terms of the final question on liabilities and the proposition that this new trust may have with respect to diversification.... It says: "...the government intends to work with the people of the Columbia Basin to ensure that benefits derived from the Columbia River Treaty help to create a prosperous economy with a healthy, renewed natural environment." In that proposition, nothing....

Nowhere in this

preamble does it make any comment at all about what the potential is, with respect to this trust and the acquisition of this trust, through final negotiation with the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket Tribal Council. We know that there has been an arbitrary redrawing of the boundaries. We know that in the redrawing of those boundaries those dams are now included inside that territory, where previously they were not.

We know that there is a parallel process in which there has been limited or no input from the people of the Kootenays with respect to how this proposition will occur. There's nothing in this memorandum of understanding save and except a save-harmless clause that says it's without prejudice to that negotiation. There's nothing in this bill that talks about where the ultimate asset will rest -- if it rests with the government. It says it rests with the trust, which is this nebulous creation. There's nothing in here that provides save-harmless to the people of the Kootenays from the liabilities that this trust may incur if, in fact, its management is not 100 percent secure.

So those are three questions I put to the minister that he needs to explain, because they run counter to what he's suggesting in this rather political

preamble.

Hon. G. Clark: That was an artful way for the member to try to revisit a lot of the debate that was missed this morning, by linking very skilfully, I think, all these questions with the

preamble. But I hesitate to revisit all the debate this morning that the member unfortunately couldn't make it to. So let me just deal with some of the questions.

First of all, I want to say again for the record that the discussions and negotiations have been months and years in the making. This Columbia Basin Trust document, as well as the memorandum, the Columbia Basin accord that was signed, were not something the province designed in the back room somewhere and foisted on the people of the region. There has been ample discussion, debate and nuance around that question.

On the question of the generators -- not the dams, but the new generation on those three facilities -- did the province propose that? Yes. But we did not say that that was it to the CRTC. We had enormous discussion. The attraction of generating power, of being part of that business, of having control and looking at water resources in that fashion was one, I think, that this agreement enables them to have some influence over. So I reject the notion that we somehow foisted it on them.

[3:00]

Would some members of the region want cash instead of this? Yes, no question about it. Some members would say: "Just give us some money; mail us a cheque." As a province, we rejected that; that's correct. But so did most of the people of the basin, who said: "No, we don't want just a short-term payoff; we want some real say.

We want to invest in assets that are going to return revenue for generations to come, and those power assets, which are dams built largely for the Americans -- at least certainly in the Keenleyside case -- could be turned into useful assets for the people of the basin." There is divine justice in that. So I reject this notion that somehow we've tricked or forced them or something. That's just not correct, and the people of the Kootenays have spoken on that. I won't repeat what I and other members have said in this House in second reading.

When it comes to the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket Tribal Council, I reject the paranoia from the member that somehow (

a) they shouldn't be involved in this; (

b) they shouldn't have a rightful place at the table and a business relationship; or (

c) we should fetter the land claims discussions and negotiations by this act. We don't. It's without prejudice to that act. The tribal council's boundaries.... A member can make much of how they have extended the boundaries. It means very little to me. What we want to do is involve aboriginal people in this business enterprise, and we're delighted that they chose to

[ Page 13534 ]

participate and have a seat at the table. They are two out of 18 on the board of directors, which hardly gives them control of this exciting vehicle.

On the liabilities question, we went through how the province's interests are protected at great length this morning -- and about the accountability mechanisms that are in place, how the borrowing needs approval of the Ministry of Finance. I don't propose to repeat them, other than what I've said. I believe we've canvassed that at length and have satisfied, most importantly, the people of the region about those very important questions.

G. Wilson: I really only want to visit one of those areas of response, because it was unfortunate that the advice to our caucus was that the Attorney General estimates would be up -- not that we could have altered things too drastically, anyway. The fact is that it's impossible for a small caucus to necessarily be in every debate, but this is a critical one. This is a historic time for British Columbia and, generally, let me say that this notion of a trust is something we support. We have supported it since 1987.

I think they could have got a better deal if the minister hadn't been so bound and determined to help his friends in B.C. Hydro and West Kootenay Power and Light with this generation project.

Having said that, I want to come back to this question about the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket, because the minister has misrepresented -- inadvertently, I'm sure -- what I said. We didn't say that they shouldn't be at the table; in fact, we acknowledged that they should be at the table. We have no problem with the two of them being there. But in terms of the consultation and the work and inclusion, it comes directly to this

preamble, where the people of the Kootenays will be included in the "decisions that affect their lives and determine their future."

Hon. G. Clark: And you're linking it to land claims?

G. Wilson: I am absolutely linking it to land claims, because that comprehensive claim includes everything that this trust is about to administer. Therefore it seems to me, because there is nothing specifically in this, that if the people.... If this is the desire of the government, then this is a very clear statement that as those negotiations proceed through the Treaty Commission process -- a well-established process -- when that process is available to them, members of this board must actively be participants in that.

The people of the Kootenays must actively be participants in that process, must be kept aware at every stage, and the government must save harmless the people of the Kootenays from any liabilities that may occur in a final settlement that might diminish the assets they have or the resources they may have coming to them through this trust, as a result of something negotiated in a parallel process between the provincial and federal governments and first nations in B.C. I'd like the commitment of the government and the minister that this

preamble provides that level of involvement, knowledge and protection.

Hon. G. Clark: I think what the member is trying to do is a stretch, but at least now I understand it. He's saying that there is a potential conflict between this clause and another process, the land claims process. I don't see that conflict. I humbly submit that if the member wishes to raise this question, it would be more appropriately raised under the estimates of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I want to just say for the record that the people in the Kootenays -- the third parties, as they're called -- should be involved in discussions around land claim questions, and we fully anticipate that they will be.

W. Hurd: Just a brief series of questions with respect to the

preamble. One of the difficulties we've had during the course of this debate is the fact that we've been dealing with two simultaneous pieces of what I would term legislative agreements. We have the bill that sets up the trust, and we have the memorandum of understanding, which the minister has assured us is merely a symbolic agreement that apparently will have no force in law even when we pass this bill. Even though the memorandum of understanding is signed both by Her Majesty the Queen in the right of the province of British Columbia and by the Premier, it's a symbolic document that was a precondition of the establishment of the trust.

My question relates to the "whereases" that appear in the Columbia Basin accord. In this particular agreement, there is no mention made of the historical injustice in the region, which appears in the

preamble of the bill and does not appear in the memorandum of understanding. I'd certainly welcome an explanation from the minister as to why we have in the bill the mention of the historical injustice,

whereas the memorandum of understanding between the Premier and the Columbia River Treaty Committee Inc. makes no specific mention of that. Sometime between the signing of this symbolic agreement and the point at which the bill was introduced in the House, the government had a change of heart. We can only speculate as to what their reasons might have been for that change of heart, but they felt that they had to go beyond the memorandum of understanding and insert this rather political clause into the

preamble. I would welcome an explanation from the minister as to why it does not appear in the accord but does appear in the bill.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, can I ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: I'd like to introduce in the gallery today William Roberts and Corrinne Rogers. Mr. Roberts is a former MLA for Edmonton-Centre and opposition Health critic. He's now with the Health Management Resource Group in Vancouver. I'd like to ask the House to welcome both Corrinne Rogers and William Roberts to the gallery today.

The member is trying to make much of the fact that the

preamble is different from the memorandum of understanding, and I think he is making too much of that. The bill is a legal document. We have to be very careful with a

preamble in terms of how it's structured and how it's handled. Legislative counsel looks very, very carefully at these questions. The

preamble changed probably 15 times in the last month or so while we were discussing options in terms of the impact of the

preamble, because it is a piece of legislation. The fact is that the words are different here than in the memorandum of understanding. Frankly, they should bear no resemblance, unless the members think that the people of the Columbia Basin would oppose this first

whereas, and I don't believe they would.

This is a political statement. I don't know why people.... There is always this thing of: my goodness, we can't

[ Page 13535 ]

be political in here. For crying out loud! It's true. This is politics; this is a political statement. We're asking all members of the House to endorse the political sentiment in this

preamble.

W. Hurd: I thank the minister for that explanation, but I have a more logical reason that it wouldn't have appeared in the Columbia Basin accord and does appear in the bill. The reason for that is that the accord is supposedly signed by the people of the region and the government of the province of British Columbia. I would suggest to the minister that if he had tried to introduce that wording into the accord, it wouldn't have flown.

It's obvious from the nature of the agreement -- the Columbia Basin accord -- which specifically acknowledges that the region suffered environmental and socioeconomic impacts as a result of the Columbia River Treaty operations. Nobody has any argument with that. That's a logical statement: there has been an impact on the region. But nowhere in the accord is there any mention of injustice or the fact that the people weren't adequately consulted; that is something the government has sought to introduce into the bill for purely partisan political purposes. I think it's important to put that on the record.

Clearly, if they had tried to introduce the first "whereas" in the

preamble to the Columbia Basin accord, it would not have flown. That's the reason why the opposition sought to introduce its reasoned amendment which would parallel the wording of the Columbia Basin accord with what should appear in the act. Unfortunately, hon. Chair, in your wisdom it was ruled to be out of order, and that goes with the rules of the place.

I think it's rather interesting that during the course of this debate, we have had this memorandum of understanding which is far more detailed, which contains far more information about the rights, roles and responsibilities of the parties, and we have the bill, which is open-ended and contains a partisan political

preamble. I think that this has been a rather troubling debate from that standpoint; we haven't had what I would consider to be adequate opportunity to carefully examine the memorandum of understanding -- the Columbia Basin accord -- which predated the bill we're now dealing with. I will say that the minister has at times been willing to go beyond the clauses of the bill and to allow us to address some of these questions about the accord.

Returning to the

preamble, it's unfortunate that the agreement signed with the people of the Kootenays, and the

preamble that exists in that accord, are not reflected in the

preamble of the bill. That suggests to me that far from being an entry by legal counsel for the government, it in fact reflects a political statement to back the re-election efforts of the six hon. members in the Kootenay-Boundary region.

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Chair, I find this a very puzzling discussion. Listen to the words of the

whereas: "WHEREAS the desires of the people of the Columbia Basin were not adequately considered in the original negotiations of the Columbia River Treaty...." Somehow this is some partisan nasty attempt to defile the history of W.A.C. Bennett, or something. This is a very mild rebuke. In fact, I think it's too mild. But I mean, you know, that we're trying to put language in here saying that they're not adequately considered. How can anybody argue that they were adequately considered during the Columbia River Treaty negotiations? How can anybody stand here and say: "Well, gee, the people of the region wouldn't go for this." Of course, they'd go for this.

I'm not from the Kootenays so I shouldn't be presumptuous, but everything that I know about the Kootenays and the Columbia Basin, all of my discussions with all of my colleagues from the region and here in the House today.... All of them to a person know that they were not adequately considered in the original negotiations of the Columbia River Treaty. If members opposite want to accuse us of playing politics.... My goodness, I've been accused of worse things than that. Members opposite want to suggest that somehow this might help re-elect the NDP government; of course, I hope it does.

But I also hope, in all seriousness, that all members of the House, regardless of partisan affiliation, will support a reasoned

preamble which gives a long-overdue sense of justice to the people of the Columbia Basin.

W. Hurd: I'm trying to imagine the ceremony that accompanied the signing of the Columbia Basin accord, signed by the six MLAs in the region who have no legal authority, one would assume -- other than the fact that they represent the region -- to participate on behalf of the government of the province of British Columbia in the signing of this accord. The minister hasn't answered the question.

If this is such a given, and if this is such an obvious feeling on the part of the Kootenays, why in the world wouldn't the government insert it into the Columbia Basin accord with the ceremony that accompanied the signing of this agreement -- which, we've been told in the course of this debate, has no force in law? It doesn't come into force until such time as the trust is established and the board of directors agrees to adopt it.

Nevertheless, it does not appear anywhere in the accord, and I continually find that to be troubling, because it indicates that the government, for whatever reason, decided that it shouldn't go into the accord; it decided it shouldn't go into the agreement which spells out in far greater detail the rights and responsibilities of the Kootenays under this agreement than does the bill we're dealing with. Yet it does not appear in the

preamble, and despite the minister's explanations, there is still no adequate explanation why this logical statement about the interests of the people in the Kootenays not being adequately addressed 30 years ago does not appear in the memorandum of understanding. It's a logical question that hasn't been adequately answered.

[3:15]

Preamble approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 46

Petter

Sihota

Pement

Priddy

Edwards

Zirnhelt

O'Neill

Garden

Perry

Hagen

Hammell

B. Jones

Lortie

Giesbrecht

Miller

Gabelmann

Clark

Barlee

Pullinger

Janssen

Evans

Beattie

Farnworth

Lord

Simpson

Jackson

Wilson

Chisholm

Stephens

Hurd

Farrell-Collins

Campbell

Reid

Dalton

Jarvis

Anderson

Symons

K. Jones

de Jong

Warnke

Boone

Hartley

Lali

Schreck

Krog

Kasper

[ Page 13536 ]

NAYS -- 2

Fox

Hanson

Title approved.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 7, Columbia Basin Trust Act, reported complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

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

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's my pleasure to present the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General for 1995-96. Ministry representatives who are and will be with us in the House this afternoon are my deputy minister, Maureen Maloney, on my left; and my acting Deputy Attorney General, Ernie Quantz. Behind us are Rick McCandless, ADM for management services, and Barb Kaiway, manager of our resource analysis section.

As members know, the Ministry of Attorney General is responsible for administering the justice system in B.C. As it does so, the ministry is guided by certain principles. All British Columbians deserve to feel safe in their neighbourhoods and communities, every citizen has the right to fair and just treatment under the law, and all British Columbians deserve to have a responsive justice system in which they can place their confidence.

Three years ago, in the spirit of these principles, I announced an important shift in direction for our justice system. I described the government's intention to open the doors of the justice system to all British Columbians. The ministry continues on that course of creating a more responsive justice system. It continues to ensure that the justice system is accessible and accountable, especially to people it had not served well before: women, aboriginal people, victims of crime, persons with disabilities, persons with different cultural backgrounds, and others.

The ministry also continues to emphasize public safety by developing policies that combine strong enforcement measures with enlightened crime prevention for the long-term security of our province. During the past year, British Columbians have taken an increasingly active interest in justice issues. This interest is a positive, healthy sign for our province. The Ministry of Attorney General is welcoming the participation of British Columbia's communities and individuals in developing solutions to justice issues.

Among the changes in the justice system, policing is a good example of the public desire to participate in change. Almost three years ago, in June 1992, we invited British Columbians to join in creating a vision of policing in the province for the twenty-first century. No overall review of policing in British Columbia had taken place since Alec Macdonald was Attorney General in the early 1970s. The public response to this invitation was immediate and overwhelming. During his commission of inquiry into municipal policing, Mr. Justice Wally Oppal heard more than 1,000 submissions from around the province.

People expressed their views on such issues as the use of deadly force, police accountability, and the kind of police presence they wanted in their communities. Now, in cooperation with the police and British Columbia's communities, we are creating a new approach to policing, combining the best practices of traditional policing, such as community policing, with the innovations necessary in our increasingly complex society.

Among the Oppal recommendations we're acting on are the following: we have made it possible for police to replace their ancient service revolvers with semi-automatic handguns for protection of the public and themselves; we are developing a new public complaints process in cooperation with the policing community and others in British Columbia; we are working on the issue of search warrants in cooperation with the provincial judiciary; and we are continuing to support the RCMP and the 12 municipal police departments in B.C. as they introduce innovations in policing.

[3:30]

New approaches to policing in aboriginal communities is an important ongoing area of development. One example is the RCMP's first nations community police service. Under the program, aboriginal members of the RCMP are committed to spending 80 percent of their time in first nations communities. Another example is first nations-administered policing services. Services in the Lillooet area and Kitasoo are now underway. Our goal with these new approaches is ensuring that aboriginal people have confidence in policing.

This is just one aspect of addressing the failure of the justice system to serve aboriginal people adequately, which has been one of my main concerns since I have become involved in public life.

That was why I asked Judge Sarich to inquire into relations between aboriginal people in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and the justice system, and why I appointed now-Judge Marion Buller to see how legal aid services were working for aboriginal people. Judge Sarich released his report in October 1993, and the ministry is acting on his recommendations. Judge Buller's report was released in February 1994, and our ministry and the Legal Services Society are acting on her recommendations as well.

I would like to say a few words about an important justice event for aboriginal people in recent months. As members will recall, the RCMP recently announced its investigation into alleged abuse at federal residential schools that operated in British Columbia. Those schools and the experiences of the children forced to attend them have left a dark cloud hanging over our province. The province is fully supporting the RCMP's investigation.

This investigation will open terrible and painful memories, but I am encouraged by the cooperative beginning that has been made by the aboriginal community and the RCMP, along with provincial and federal government agencies. We join with aboriginal communities and the RCMP in recognizing that the first priority of this investigation must be to support the victims of abuse, their families and their communities.

[ Page 13537 ]

A factor in ensuring the confidence of all British Columbians in their justice system is removing unnecessary delays in the court system. We have acted to reduce the backlog in the courts in cooperation with the judiciary. We had two choices of how we might reduce the backlog: (1) we could have continued in the old way and simply thrown more resources at the problem, which is not a very smart or fiscally responsible solution; or (2) we could find new ways to approach the problems. We chose to try to find new ways. We're expanding diversion programs for adults throughout the province, for one thing.

For another, we have a pilot project underway for a new model for youth diversion under the victim-offender reconciliation program. Just a word on that program: B-and-Es and common assault are the offences eligible for the program. These diversions will be allowed only with the victim's consent. Offenders who don't comply with the terms of diversion will be brought back to court for possible sentencing.

Other new things that we're doing include expansion of the use of disclosure courts, where Crown counsel fully discloses case details to defence counsel early in the court process. This expansion has now gone to eight locations. Between 70 and 80 percent of cases brought to disclosure court are resolved there.

We've added new resources. Ten new Crown counsel have been hired to free senior Crown counsel to review files and move cases faster through the system where possible. We've appointed 15 Provincial Court judges recently, eight of them new positions, to increase judicial capacity to hear cases. An additional 12 new Crown counsel have been hired to service new sittings. And we're exploring alternatives to litigation through alternative dispute resolution, such as the mediation available in our family justice centres.

Alternative dispute resolution -- or ADR, as it's commonly referred to -- is a ministry priority. We're engaged on several ADR fronts. The ministry is working with the Canadian Bar Association, lawyers from commercial arbitration centres, ADR practitioners, community groups and judges to develop an ADR policy for British Columbia. Our legal services branch is exploring options for using ADR across government and is looking at government legislation to see where ADR might be included and how language describing ADR might be made uniform and consistent. We continue to support and improve small claims settlement conferences. The branch is also considering possible pilot projects to test ADR.

ADR is one service available at our family justice centres, as I said a moment ago. The centres are an experiment that we've undertaken as part of our plan over the last three years to improve the relationship between families and the justice system. We want to ease the pain of already suffering families if they come into contact with the justice system. This year will see the completion of an evaluation of the centres. They are pilot projects that are being tested at four locations in the province: Burnaby-New Westminster, Kamloops, Kitimat, and the Nicola Valley, around Merritt.

They offer one-stop community-based services to families who are considering or experiencing separation or divorce. They are unique to each location. Besides alternatives to court, like conciliation services and mediation, their services include counselling; information on getting a lawyer or legal aid, if necessary; information on how to enforce maintenance orders through the family maintenance enforcement program; education on legal processes and the court system, guidance on how to fill out court forms; and so on.

The family maintenance enforcement program continues its success in enforcing maintenance orders. The Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act makes B.C. the only province to charge interest on unpaid child support -- another incentive to pay up. It also introduces court-ordered third-party reporting at default hearings, which opens a new window on the reality of the finances of someone who owes money. We are also working with the federal government and other provinces on guidelines to determine appropriate levels of maintenance and child support.

Last year this House passed legislation to make the pension component of dividing property upon divorce fair. I believe that British Columbia families will place new confidence in a justice system that sees the reality of family life and adapts itself to that reality.

Much public debate concerning confidence in the justice system pivots around what to do with lawbreakers after they have been convicted. As members know, our prisons are overcrowded. The measures we are taking to reduce court case backlogs should ease overcrowding at remand centres. We are taking other measures commensurate with public safety and prudent financial management. Our first priority in this debate must always be public safety. The ministry has taken steps to tighten the security of our corrections systems, policies and procedures.

I was deeply troubled, as I'm sure all members of this House were, by two cases last year: the Gamache and Perrault cases. I ordered investigations into how these cases were handled by the corrections branch. I appointed Madame Justice Prowse of the B.C. Court of Appeal to hold a public inquiry into the Perrault case. Both reports were made public, and the ministry implemented or is following up on all of their recommendations. The corrections branch has improved its processes for information-sharing in youth and adult correctional centres, and has enacted stricter requirements for classifying offenders and stricter standards for supervising sex offenders.

Besides ensuring that our corrections system operates effectively, we must also consider the larger perspective: whether sending more and more people to jail for longer periods will truly make British Columbia safer. For some violent offenders, there is no doubt about that answer. The public must be protected from them; they must be incarcerated for however long is necessary. The devastating pain inflicted on victims and their families must never be forgotten.

That is why the Premier and I have been urging the federal government to toughen certain laws and policies that are beyond provincial jurisdiction. When the Premier and I met earlier this year with families of victims of violent crime to discuss how to prevent the tragedies they experienced, we gave them an update on the provincial government's efforts to persuade the federal government to make changes. We spoke of our campaign to toughen federal laws relating to high-risk violent offenders.

In a letter to Prime Minister Chretien earlier this year, the Premier urged the Prime Minister to stop high-risk violent offenders from finding new victims. British Columbia has pressed the federal government to keep violent offenders in jail beyond the time of statutory release on parole if it is apparent that they are high risks to reoffend. We have also urged the federal government to protect the public from such offenders beyond the end of their sentences if they pose a serious risk. The federal government has promised to convene a national panel of experts to examine this matter.

[ Page 13538 ]

Here in our jurisdiction, British Columbia has taken strong action. British Columbia is already a leader in Canada in applying for dangerous-offender designations for high-risk offenders. As you may know, if a court agrees with Crown counsel that an accused person should be designated a dangerous offender, the offender will be sent to jail indefinitely for the protection of the public. Our province also has a unique dangerous offender and career criminal program that keeps prosecutors and police informed of the background of dangerous offenders.

The Solicitor General of Canada recently announced his intention to establish a flagging system pioneered by B.C. that will allow Crown counsels across the country to obtain the information they need to ensure that all those who should be designated dangerous offenders will be.

British Columbia has also pioneered a notification policy to protect children from known abusers. Developed in consultation with the RCMP, municipal police, parole, federal and provincial corrections staff, and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, the policy has been in place since November 1994 -- the first of its kind in Canada. It provides clear and consistent guidelines on when and how to disclose information to the public. I hope, as well, to introduce legislation to make criminal record checks mandatory for anyone working with children in agencies that receive operational funding from, or are licensed by, the government.

Accompanying British Columbia's actions to protect our citizens from high-risk violent offenders and our advocacy for stronger federal measures has been our support for victims of these offenders. The ministry provided roughly $6 million last year to more than 100 victim assistance programs in B.C. In addition, about $26 million went to criminal injury compensation and public legal education programs. As members know, we have now added criminal harassment and stalking to the list of crimes for which victims may receive compensation under the criminal injury compensation program.

We funded 80 new counselling programs last year, four new sexual assault centres -- bringing the total funded to eight -- and seven new women's assault centres. The ministry now funds more than 30 specialized victim assistance organizations, serving assaulted women and children, as well as new treatment programs for assaultive men. We have also removed time limits on bringing civil action in child sexual abuse cases.

But what about the very low-risk offenders, the non-violent offenders? Is jail the answer for every lawbreaker? If the solution to crime is really to embark on a massive, costly prison construction program, as the United States has done, with the accompanying ruinous effect on education, health and social service budgets, why is the crime rate so high in that country and continuing to climb alarmingly? I am absolutely persuaded that the American approach is wrong.

The incarceration rate there has increased almost fourfold from 1980 to 1993: 140 out of every 100,000 citizens were incarcerated in 1980; that number in 1993 was 519. On any given day, one of every 22 adult men is under the care, custody or control of a correctional agency in the United States. Has that lowered the crime rate? Obviously not.

The debate about the future of corrections is certainly valid and important, but it does need to be informed by accurate information. British Columbia is adding new beds to its corrections system; we are building some new facilities. Yet too often prison teaches how to become a better criminal, and it protects the public only until the end of the offender's term. Consequently, B.C. is a leader in alternatives to jail -- for example, diversion, electronic monitoring and community service -- that encourage offenders to rejoin society, which is a better long-term strategy for public safety. I want to do even more in providing alternatives to incarceration.

Of course, the best strategy, both socially and economically, is preventing crime in the first place. The Ministry of Attorney General is very active in crime prevention. We have been funding models of community policing programs in 16 locations since 1992. These models have been developed jointly by the police and their communities. We've been supporting Block Watch, Crimestoppers, the B.C. Crime Prevention Association, citizens' patrols, auxiliary bicycle patrols, SpeedWatch programs, child street-proofing projects, a provincewide youth gang contact line and a host of other projects.

We're opening crime prevention offices around the province, and several in the last few months in the lower mainland.

[3:45]

Crime prevention must be community-based: local answers to local problems. Every day British Columbia neighbourhoods and communities are showing their commitment to tackling local issues and the ministry is supporting their efforts. A good example is in Vancouver, where after excellent leadership from local neighbourhoods, the provincial government announced funding last year for safe houses and other services for young people involved in the sex trade. It is these kinds of programs, and broader-reaching social programs to support families before they are in trouble, that will define our society in the future.

Before I end my introductory remarks today, I want to say a few words about the province's legal aid system. Recent changes to the system generated much discussion over the last year. Members will recall that to ensure that high-quality, cost-effective legal aid continues to be available in this province, I introduced amendments to the Legal Services Society Act which did two things: they created a new partnership with the community by putting community representatives on the society's board for the first time; and secondly, they improved the Legal Services Society's financial accountability to the public.

The cost of legal aid has been escalating alarmingly. Approximately 10 percent of the ministry's total budget now goes to the Legal Services Society for legal aid.

At a time when the government promised the public it would balance its budget, as we have done, these trends were unsupportable. They jeopardized the entire concept of legal aid, a fundamental part of our government's justice policy. The Legal Services Society has now begun implementing much-needed reforms of the system. As the minister responsible, I support these reforms, which include a greater emphasis on family law and the use of a mixed model of service delivery, balancing lawyers from the private bar with staff lawyers.

All of the studies and experiences of other jurisdictions suggest that a mixed model is the most cost-efficient and highest-quality delivery system. The Canadian Bar Association's national legal aid liaison committee called the mixed model "the best of the possible." I also appreciate the input of the private bar in this process and look forward to their continuing advice and cooperation.

In closing I want to stress again the vital importance of the efforts we have made in the last three years to open up the justice system, to move it closer to the communities it serves, and to invite those communities in to participate in

develop-

[ Page 13539 ]

ing policy. The old reactive model of a justice system waiting for crime to come to it no longer answers to the complexities of our society nor to people's desires to be part of solutions to problems. People rightly feel anger towards a system that, with its arcane language and practices, has tended to make outsiders of the people it should be taking the greatest pains to serve -- the most vulnerable in our society.

Justice is more than police, prosecutors and jails. Justice is reaching into the community and finding the causes of crime, to stop it before it starts. Justice is working with people both inside and outside the legal system towards that goal. The creativity and energy that people can bring to their communities is there for anyone to see. As I've travelled around the province talking with volunteers and local justice system-related organizations, I have been constantly impressed by their dedication and their successes.

Community involvement is alive in British Columbia, and we're making it the essence of British Columbia's justice system. It is the right approach for an effective, compassionate and fiscally responsible justice system.

I want now to give members a brief

summary of the '95-96 budget. The budget has increased by $48 million, which is 6 percent over a 1994-95 restated budget of $797 million, bringing it up to $845.1 million in 1995-96. So over the restated '94-95 budget there is a 6 percent, or $48 million, increase. When you factor in the special warrant that members approved on March 30 this session, then the increase for ministry programs is in fact 2.1 percent. We are increasing our program expenditure by 2.1 percent at a time when the demand is far in excess of 2.1 percent.

Of the total increase in this year's budget, 13 percent, or $6.3 million, will go to Court Services for reducing court case backlogs and for opening new courthouses in Port Coquitlam and in Port Hardy. I would tell members that the new Port Coquitlam courthouse in under construction and it's on schedule; it's scheduled to open in February 1996. The growing Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam, Port Moody and Maple Ridge area will benefit from this excellent new facility. Port Hardy's new courthouse will open in the North Island College mall in the next few months.

Next, 21 percent of the increase, or $10.1 million, goes to the criminal justice branch to reduce the court case backlog, to strengthen our teams of prosecutors, to funding 1994-95 pressures -- which were, of course, included in the special warrant -- and also to Forest Practices Code prosecutions -- and that amounts to $526,000 and 4.5 FTES.

The largest increase -- 65.1 percent, or $31.3 million -- goes to Corrections for such things as adding 370 adult and 90 youth beds, which again were added in the last fiscal year and supported by the special warrant; to hire more probation officers to supervise sex offenders; to continue liaising with aboriginal communities, including opening an aboriginal alternative-to-custody program in Hazelton and other diversion programs; to provide startup and operational costs of the new Prince George Regional Correctional Centre -- that amount is $2.5 million; and to open a provincial residential program for young female offenders, to provide drug and alcohol counselling programs to treat one of the most serious causes of crime.

That's the $31 million in Corrections.

I trust that 1995-96 will see continued progress to a more responsive and accountable justice system, a fiscally responsible justice system and a system that protects the safety and security of British Columbians, as it welcomes their participation in their justice system. I look forward to questions, comments and observations that members may have.

J. Dalton: I thank the Attorney General for his opening remarks and an overview of many topics that I'm sure I and other members from the opposite benches will be raising during these estimates. I welcome your staff, hon. Attorney General. It's nice to see familiar faces again as we go through this exercise once more. In a way, it's almost that the Attorney General anticipated some of the remarks I intended to make in my opening comments.

I'm going to expand on two aspects, once I've made some other observations. The aspects I'll be dealing with are what I call community concerns and community solutions. Properly, it is fair to say that the Attorney General's remarks reflect some of those subject areas. Hopefully, we'll be able to find some common ground as we do indeed search for solutions. Some of the topics that the Attorney General has discussed in his overview certainly are significant and will have to be expanded upon as we go through the estimates.

Clearly, there are three reports, for example, that we'll have to discuss in more detail later. The Oppal report, of course, is very significant -- 317 or 318 recommendations, if I recall. I don't expect that the Attorney General will be ready to implement all of those over the short or even the long run. But I think we certainly would like to get some sense as to the areas that we might expect some activity in, given that Justice Oppal spent a great deal of time and energy in his review of policing and that, if I recall, a $4 million price tag went with it.

The Attorney General has also commented on the Sarich and Buller reports. Even though those are somewhat dated, or least certainly go back beyond the Oppal report, I think we should examine some aspects of the implementation of those two as well.

The Attorney General commented on delays in the court system; specifically, he dealt with the criminal courts. Of course, a backlog in any court system is unacceptable and very much undesirable. I think later we will also have to get into a discussion -- and the Attorney General did touch upon this in part -- of the backlog and the alternatives available in the civil courts, because obviously delay in the justice system, whether it be criminal or civil, is unacceptable. It's very counterproductive.

It discourages people, either litigants in the civil process or people who may be caught by the criminal process, from either having any confidence in the system or turning to that system, if need be. I would say that the Attorney General has remarked appropriately on diversion and other ways to get people out of what we would call the traditional court process, which, of course, can be intimidating, expensive, time-consuming and, again, often counterproductive. When you compound that with a backlog in the system itself, it only makes a difficult situation worse.

Family maintenance enforcement was touched upon, and certainly we want to get into some aspects of that. In connection with that, as the Attorney General pointed out, the pilot projects of the family justice centres.... Because family maintenance is certainly a very important part of the family justice process, in particular, of course, dealing with the important issue of maintenance payments and how we go about, in as fair a manner as possible, seeking settlement and resolution of those issues.

The Attorney General commented on the Gamache and Perrault cases, which of course we did deal with last year at

[ Page 13540 ]

some length. Even though, heaven forbid, we would hate to see a repetition of such incidents, I certainly think we've all learned from the negative implications that both of those cases raised. I might say as an aside that I'm not totally convinced we've learned enough about the corrections system, which in part was evidenced by the Perrault controversy and situation. So perhaps we'll have some opportunity to canvass that in more detail.

The Attorney General went on to deal with the very important topic of violent offenders and the position that his government -- at least in a letter to the Prime Minister -- has taken on this subject. I am going to suggest -- later I think we'll get into this in more detail -- to the Attorney General that perhaps the province itself could take a more aggressive role dealing with dangerous offenders. I say that because a very constant theme the Attorney General shared with this committee today, and rightly so, is public safety.

If the bottom line of public safety is compromised in any way, then the system itself is not serving the public to the fullest extent. So I think that for the extreme offender at least, we do have to take issue with the fact that we should not just be looking to Ottawa for a resolution. Clearly, the federal government has a role with regard to the Criminal Code and other federal statutes which impose penalties, but I think the province as well has to take its share of the responsibility.

I don't, as some people might think, say: well, here we go -- the sort of knee-jerk "slap them all in jail and society will be safe." I certainly do agree with the Attorney General's comment that putting people in jail is not necessarily going to make our streets safer; in fact, in many cases.... Florida comes to mind, for example. It seems that down in that part of the United States, the more people they incarcerate, the higher the crime rate.

Of course, there are other factors that I think we have to consider as well: increasing population, pressures on our society due to immigration, and other factors that we cannot dismiss as we talk about appropriate ways to either incarcerate offenders or in other ways ensure that they are processed in a way that protects the public and also indirectly sends a message to offenders that their behaviour is unacceptable. There's nothing wrong with providing that message, as long as it's done in a productive way.

It comes back to the time-honoured issue: do we build more prisons -- more bricks and mortar -- to address the issues, or do we try to resolve them in a more responsible, societal way?

[4:00]

From the comments the Attorney General has made today, hon. Chair, I think that at least there is probably a common ground; we recognize that the alternative is not necessarily building more prisons. In some cases you have to, obviously, but we have to be more aware of the social issues that lie behind criminal activity, and of ways to effectively deal with offenders which do not necessarily involve prisons or even any deprivation of one's freedom.

I'll just wrap up my opening remarks in this particular regard. The Attorney General also commented about victim assistance and criminal injury compensation. That is certainly a topic that is becoming of some interest, given the recent changes to the Criminal Injury Compensation Act that deal with stalking victims. Of course, as I'm sure the Attorney General is aware, more and more pressure is being brought by the unfortunate family members of murder victims as to whether their requests for compensation and rehabilitation expenses should be honoured. That's an issue I think we should canvass later.

With those comments in mind, I just want to make a few other opening remarks, which, as I said earlier, fit into what I consider to be two themes: (1) community concerns; and (2) community solutions. Of course, the Attorney General did make some observations in that regard.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

I have in my hand a copy of a UBCM survey that was conducted last year. It's titled "Crime Prevention and Community Safety." This document was actually prepared by both the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and the B.C. Coalition for Safer Communities, which is a voluntary organization that is working, as best as it can with rather limited resources, to ensure that community safety is paramount in every part of this province.

The reason I want to make reference to this survey is that I think it truly does reflect the concern in communities, both large and small, in British Columbia. It shows the trend in communities: they want more say in community policing, safety, how we deal with dangerous offenders, how we deal with the relatively minor offences and a whole range of issues. For example, hon. Chair, let me give you some of the background to this survey. The survey was sent to every municipality in British Columbia. They had a response rate of 49 percent.

I rather suspect that if this same survey went out today we'd probably have a much higher response, because the concern about safety in our streets and communities has certainly grown over the last few months; it has definitely not lessened. I would assume, therefore, that municipalities would reflect that same concern in response to a survey such as this. However, it's a good response.

It's a good percentage of respondents, and I think it's an excellent overview of what people in our communities are saying that their concerns are, number one; and number two, what they have in mind and in many cases are actually enacting as solutions.

Let me make brief reference to the concerns that these municipalities.... By the way, the 49 percent response rate represents 89 communities in this province. Break and enter was the top of the list of crimes of most concern. It probably won't surprise members to hear that, because break and enter is truly a local street-home-security-etc. issue. Vandalism was second, and then they go down the list through thefts and general violence. Youth-related offences were fifth, and down the line.

I was surprised to see that drunk driving was not of major concern, although I would prefer that they call it impaired driving; drunk driving has an unfortunate connotation, even though it does describe the activity. In fact, only one respondent out of 89 listed that particular activity. More and more I think that drunk driving is not only a concern we should all be aware of, it's something about which we have to get a little smarter and more stringent in how we deal with people who operate that way.

Those are some of the concerns the municipalities listed as being of interest to them as far as criminal activity goes, and the solutions and activities that were going on.

The aspect I wanted to comment on is how these communities are going about solving their community safety concerns. Neighbourhood Watch rankings: 58 percent of the communities have some form of Neighbourhood Watch; 51

[ Page 13541 ]

percent have Block Watch -- of course, Neighbourhood Watch and Block Watch are quite similar in context -- 62 percent have community policing endeavours of one form or another; 67 percent have victim assistance; 47 percent have special school programs in place -- I presume that would include liaison officers that go to the schools, as many municipalities have done -- and 55 percent have community liaison committees, what we would commonly call justice committees that deal with court watch and overseeing what is happening within their communities, particularly for people who come in contact with the court system.

I wanted to share some of those observations with the committee. As we go through the Attorney General's estimates it is significant to keep them in mind. Even though here in Victoria we perhaps think that we have some more grandiose or greater plan in mind that will solve the issues of community safety, the fact is that in most cases those issues can be addressed and solved right at the street level. And that's where they should be solved. It certainly fits in with our general scheme that we want to give more empowerment to the community and wherever possible get Victoria out of the lives of people.

Too often Victoria doesn't have the answers; Victoria probably sets up more hurdles in some cases than are really warranted.

I want to start with some questions to the Attorney General about the corrections branch of his ministry. I will start with new facilities. There is needed growth for new correctional facilities, given that our population is growing, and unfortunately, with growth in population comes growth in crime rate. I want to be clear that as we discuss this issue of corrections and new facilities.... We're not calling for more bricks and mortar to throw up more prisons, other than in the cases where we have to have some form of incarceration for people it is appropriate to penalize in that way.

In many cases it's people who are being held awaiting trial, so they may not even be in the convicted category; they may only be accused, but they still have to have some facility for incarceration. I've had it drawn to my attention from at least three communities in this province that people are concerned about the policy of the corrections branch as to where new facilities will be located.

I want to make reference to a few comments that the Attorney General himself made in a letter last August. I don't think I need to worry about disclosing to whom the letter went. It's a person I have met with, and I believe that the Attorney General has either met with this gentleman or, certainly, has corresponded with him. It's Mr. Gary Bowell, who is a part-time resident of the Chilliwack valley area. His permanent residence is actually in Vancouver.

Mr. Bowell raised the issue as to whether the replacement of the Mount Thurston correctional facility in the Chilliwack area will go ahead. Of course, he's also questioning whether that correctional facility, as planned, is being placed in the right locality. I recognize that any time you raise an issue such as where a new prison should go, or any other facility that has a negative connotation, the NIMBY effect will naturally take place; that's just a given. I don't think anybody raises the NIMBY effect when a new school or hospital is proposed, but they certainly do so when a new prison or perhaps even a new highway -- if it happens to be running through their back yard -- is proposed.

The Attorney General, in responding to the concerns that Mr. Bowell drew to his attention, comments specifically on the replacement of Mount Thurston. He also goes on to give an overview -- perhaps we can have some comments from the Attorney General in response -- of some of the location factors that go into the locating of new prisons.

I'll just ask this question, and the Attorney General can respond to that, and we can carry on through this. The first issue Mr. Bowell raises is whether the intention of the government is to replace Mount Thurston or whether this will be a supplement to the current facility. At the moment, the facility is a 70-bedroom one, and the proposed Mount Thurston replacement would be 110 bedrooms.

I think that's a legitimate concern, because it is not clear from the correspondence that I've seen whether the corrections branch intends to replace it or whether this may become a supplement to it, which will compound the problem further, because that means that people of this area will have two prisons in their back yard instead of one replacing another.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am well aware of Mr. Bowell's concerns. He's very effective at making his concerns well known. What's happening there, quickly, is that Mount Thurston will be replaced by a new facility located farther away from Chilliwack, meeting, I hope, concerns in that regard. The current facility is 70 beds, as the member stated. It's my understanding that the new facility will be 130, rather than the 110 that the member indicated, although that's the last information I have, and sometimes these numbers can move. At the moment, in any event, we're talking about a new facility farther away from Chilliwack, from the existing one, with greater capacity.

J. Dalton: I appreciate the updating on the number of beds the new facility will have. The letter of last August that the Attorney General wrote did state 110, but I appreciate that these things do change. Although I'm not so sure that the people of the Chilliwack valley will appreciate that this facility is getting bigger, given that there is a fair measure of opposition to the location of it in the first place. In fact, yesterday the member for Chilliwack tabled a petition in this House and forwarded over 3,000 letters, I believe, on this very topic.

I'm sure that later on he may very well want to get into the discussion on this and other facility locations, so I'm not going to dwell any further at this time on that actual location.

I do want to go on and make reference to the second page of the Attorney General's letter, which deals with location factors. I can appreciate that there have to be many things taken into account as to how the corrections branch will determine the appropriate location for a new facility. Population growth is a factor. Having inmates serve their sentences in a facility reasonably close to their home community and family support are other factors that the Attorney General makes reference to, as are the budget implications and the initial cost of the building and the relocation site.

Perhaps there are others, but those are the ones that the Attorney General has outlined in his letter to Mr. Bowell.

I'll just ask the Attorney General if those are the most significant factors. Or are there others that are taken into account as to where new facilities will be located?

[4:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It might be useful for members to know what the site criteria include in a more comprehensive

[ Page 13542 ]

J. Dalton: I appreciate getting a little more specific information than is provided in this. I was aware, for example, of the travel-time aspect. I'll just make a general comment, and then we can move into some other areas -- no pun intended, because there are areas other than Chilliwack -- that have become controversial as well.

I take it from the criteria listed that we would not expect to see new facilities outside the more populated areas in the province, and I can understand that. Of course, it has a downside, and the downside obviously is that as populations expand.... I think the Chilliwack Valley is an excellent example, because even though this new facility is proposed at somewhat of a distance from permanent residents, the fact is that population growth in the Fraser Valley is such that it won't be very long before permanent residents will come in contact with the new facility.

I hear the argument that the facility was there first, and if people choose to move to it.... It's like an airport, I suppose. If you choose to move to the Richmond area, you know there's an airport there, and you shouldn't be complaining. We have to recognize, when we're locating new facilities like this, that the consideration and the respect that should be shown to the local community should perhaps be more paramount sometimes than I think they are. But that's a factor that we're going to have to consider as we look at more and more need for new facilities of this nature.

There is, by the way, another factor built into the Chilliwack location that I think is a bit ironic. The Attorney General commented on this as well in his letter to Mr. Bowell last year. One of the issues that Mr. Bowell raised was the fact that this is becoming more and more of a tourist area. Chilliwack Lake and other facilities are close by, which people would like to take advantage of from a tourist and recreational point of view.

The Attorney General advises Mr. Bowell that local corrections staff remain committed to working with the Chilliwack Valley residents to support community, recreational and tourist activities in the valley. I believe, if I'm correct, that the Attorney General is alluding to the fact that the inmates will work in the area that is outside of the facility on, I presume, paths and other ways to access the area. But I don't know that that is the happiest compromise.

This government seems to be pushing -- in large part, rightly so -- the facilities of tourism and taking advantage of our natural surroundings. Yet here they are going to dump a new correctional facility in an area that should be, as far as possible, protected for tourism and recreational use. So I think there's an inconsistency there. That's simply the point I'm making. If the Attorney General wants to make a response to that after I'm finished, then of course he's welcome to do so.

The second community I want to comment on is Port Coquitlam, because there's another proposal to put a new facility in that community. It's interesting with regard to this one, just to show you how the concern spreads in these communities. I've had two people, quite independent of each other, recently contact me about the new proposal for a facility in Port Coquitlam.

Neither person knows the other, so I very kindly gave the phone number of one to the other, and said: "Well, maybe you people better get together and coordinate your efforts." I point it out because in a community like that there's obviously a lot of concern about the proposal. It's concern that people haven't necessarily cranked up, as some might think, through a conspiracy; it's a concern that many people independent of each other share.

I have a document in my hand here which is titled "Proposed Phase II of the Regional Justice Centre," dealing with the proposal in Port Coquitlam. This will accommodate 250 adult male prisoners. It could be expanded to a maximum of 300 beds. That's quite a large facility.

Site criteria. We are told in this document that the site has excellent access and a reasonable buffer from adjacent property. However, the people of Port Coquitlam who contacted me have advised me that there are several schools within, I believe, a half-mile radius of this proposed facility -- 16 schools within a three-kilometre radius. Three kilometres is 1.8 miles, give or take, so it's not that far away, and that's a significant number of schools.

Perhaps the Attorney General can advise us whether that's a satisfactory buffer from adjacent property, given that there are so many schools and, of course, other public facilities within fairly close proximity to the proposed Port Coquitlam centre.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll just go back to Chilliwack for a moment. The member wondered about the impact on tourism. First of all, this is an open facility. It's not an Oakalla or a B.C. Pen-style building which would detract from the visual quality. I think it's interesting to note that, in fact, it has been inmates in Mount Thurston Camp over the years who have built the tourist facilities such as campsites and other facilities in that area. Our people -- the ones we don't want to have, but we do -- are in there helping the tourist industry in the area, and I expect that they will continue to do so.

As far as Port Coquitlam goes, let me just say in general terms that everybody wants a new courthouse, or they want new schools and bridges, but they don't want jails. A mistake I made in Port Coquitlam was in not saying at the time of the approval of the courthouse that, yes, they could have their courthouse, but with it comes a new jail facility. I would advise any and all of my successors in this job to remember that and always make sure that they link the good with the bad. Once the communities get the courthouse, they'll say: "Well, we've got a courthouse, and now we don't have to take the jail."

There are also some responsibilities on citizens whose children live in these communities to help us with appropriate locations. I don't say that the ministry should come in and find inappropriate locations and force them on a community. We don't do that; we attempt to work with the community. We

[ Page 13543 ]

have done so with Port Coquitlam, in a very exhaustive and exhausting process to locate the best site, and then we worked with the residents to ensure that the site works for the community.

I'm not sure that the proximity of other people and schools or other community activities is as big a concern as we need to make it. For instance, on occasion I talk to the citizen committee that is established at the Surrey Pretrial Services Centre, and they express the view that while they're there and they're concerned about the centre in general terms, they don't have immediate anxiety in the neighbourhood about that location in their neighbourhood. They would prefer not to have it there; but once it was there, it wasn't a problem.

It seems pretty logical to me that if you're escaping from jail, the first thing you want to do is to get as far away from there as possible, so it might be that the school a hundred miles away is a riskier place than the school a hundred yards away. The evidence is such that when these escapes happen, there isn't a problem for neighbouring facilities.

The Port Coquitlam distance is sufficient, I think, if that was the question the member was asking me, but it's not a decision we make alone. We make it in conjunction with the community, and we're continuing to work with Port Coquitlam to make sure that we can in fact locate this facility in the very best location, from their perspective as well as ours, in Port Coquitlam.

J. Dalton: I'll pick up on just two or three things in the response the Attorney General gave, one perhaps a bit facetiously. I don't imagine the Chilliwack Chamber of Commerce will advertise in its tourist information that there's a new correctional facility available, and that the inmates will be there building paths and other facilities for the use of visitors. But again, I can recognize it....

The second thing I'll say is that, in many cases like this, I suppose you're caught between a rock and a hard place. As the Attorney General pointed out, if you go to a community to announce that you're going to put up a new public facility such as a courthouse -- or if it's the Minister of Education, it will be a new school, or the Minister of Health, a new hospital -- we have to recognize that there is sometimes a downside to it. I guess that's what goes with government. From this side, we have to flag the concerns not only that we perceive but, more importantly, the concerns that are relayed to us from the public. We can at least stand here on their behalf and raise these issues.

The Attorney General also commented about the Surrey advisory committee. I happened to meet the woman who is the head of that advisory committee when I was out in Surrey Pretrial last year some time. She's an interesting woman. She is the one who was most actively opposed to the location of the centre, but once she realized it was there and in her neighbourhood -- good for her -- she decided to get active, shall we say, from the inside and not from the outside.

By the way, I do applaud the initiative of having these community advisory committees. I think that's an excellent idea. We have lots of them of course in schools and recreational centres and things, but I think there's nothing unhealthy in the community recognizing that where need be, there will be these facilities located in their back yard or otherwise, and secondly, once they are there, they should recognize the purpose they're serving and wherever possible help out with regard to community relations -- things of that aspect.

[4:30]

By the way, I don't think the people of Port Coquitlam will necessarily be happy to hear that, with these schools within a short radius of their proposed new correctional facility, any escapee is likely to run off to Prince George or Kamloops or somewhere. There's obviously an element of danger if indeed people do escape. I know these facilities are built with the idea that people don't escape, but we have had some unfortunate examples. Danny Perrault comes to mind as perhaps ssomewhat of an extreme one. Obviously we've had examples where people have escaped and in some cases are a real danger to the public.

I also recognize that this particular facility we're speaking of, and most of the others, are not for dangerous offenders; they're either low or medium risk. But there's still that element. And if I recall, last year when we were discussing the situation of Danny Perrault literally walking away from New Haven, which is easy enough to do because there are no fences around New Haven.... When he walked away from that facility, I believe a neighbour who lived across the street rightly raised the concern: why were they not notified that this person had escaped from the facility?

I guess we could say in hindsight that it's true that when he escaped Danny Perrault didn't commit the offence that he unfortunately did in the Burnaby area -- he went elsewhere. But it's only appropriate that if escapes are occurring, the public safety factor has to be taken into account and people should be advised.

There's one other brief comment I'd like to make, and that's about Kelowna, because I've also had people from that community raise a concern about a proposed new facility in the Winfield area. This one, I am advised, is about 30 minutes drive from the Kelowna courthouse, so I guess it qualifies from that standpoint. One thing to share with the Attorney General -- who is probably aware of this -- is that the people of Kelowna suggested alternatives to the corrections people -- for example, the old Brenda minesites.

That seems to me a rather clever use for a site that is no longer productive in an industrial capacity. Would it not be feasible to at least consider, apparently more seriously than was done, whether the Brenda minesite might be suitable in that area? I understand there was some concern about the volume of snow in the winter months, but that's not necessarily insurmountable. Is that a realistic alternative that the people of the community propose? Or are these just people who are saying: "Fine, we need prisons, but, by the way, located somewhere else"?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member cited one of the problems with the Brenda minesite, and that is the difficulty of the winter passage on that road at times from that site. As the member will know from driving down the hill there, it's a pretty difficult bit of road at the best of times, actually. But I think more important -- or as important, from our perspective -- are the cost questions that would play if we were to try to develop that site for a 140-bed facility. Among those cost issues is the environmental cleanup that would be required to prepare the site properly.

So while we appreciate any advice from residents in that community as to better locations, and we appreciate the fact that they were well-meaning with respect to that site, the examination just demonstrated to us that it was not an appropriate site.

J. Dalton: Again, obviously we can appreciate that there are going to be arguments and counterarguments that will flow back and forth when any such facility is proposed. I

[ Page 13544 ]

guess, then, that the only comment I would make to conclude this line of questioning from my perspective is that I'm hoping that the corrections people are listening to the concerns of the local communities. I appreciate that they're going to get all sorts of concerns dumped in their lap, but my perception, at least -- putting aside the maybe limited problem of access in part of the winter months to the Brenda minesite, as an example -- is that that's the sort of healthy community suggestion that should be given more serious consideration than it was.

I think that sort of suggestion demonstrates that the local community naturally has concerns about proposed locations that may be too close to residences and schools, etc. On the other hand, I think they're also responding by saying: "Fine, and now we have an alternative which will meet the other criteria of the corrections branch." There has to be a saw-off here as we look at these things in more detail.

Let me move into one or two other areas dealing with corrections. Then perhaps some of my colleagues will want to jump in here; they're more than welcome to do so. The Attorney General will recall that in question period today we fired a series of questions at him with regard to all sorts of things. One thing, and I think it's appropriate to deal with it right here in the form of a question, is that the case of Surrey Pretrial and Douglas Fetterley came up. The Attorney General will be familiar with that name because he responded earlier today in another context about that.

The Attorney General pointed out that -- from his point of view, at least -- Fetterley was not released from Surrey due to any management problem in the facility, but as a consequence of some other mistake. I understand that the Attorney General did ask for a report as to why Fetterley was released in error. If so, can the Attorney General share with the committee the outcome of that report? I think it does raise a very important issue of public safety as to why somebody such as Douglas Fetterley was released in error, whether it be from Surrey, the Willingdon Youth Detention Centre or any other facility.

The fact is that people should not be walking out on the streets unless there's some very good reason for them to be doing so.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The final report on this issue is not yet ready. I say that to the member, who is distracted for the moment. The report is not yet ready, but it's clear from preliminary analysis of the problem that there was a communications breakdown between various players in the justice system. I said today in question period that it was unfair for the member's colleague to have blamed the corrections branch. In fact, I think the system more generally was.... The system of information between various parts of the justice system was at fault.

Hopefully, if in fact I get the report before the conclusion of these estimates, I will come back to that. We're not very far away, hopefully, from receiving that report. If we are still here grinding away with these estimates when I get it, I'll share it with members.

J. Dalton: We'll of course await the results of that, whether the estimates are still going on or not.

The other thing that I want to deal with, in regard to Corrections specifically, is the report that I raised earlier today in question period. That's the report the Attorney General's ministry initiated, arising out of an alleged sexual assault at the Surrey Pretrial Services Centre. The assault occurred on July 30-31 and August 1, 1994, as a result of double-bunking.

Perhaps, as we go through this, we can also get some comments from the Attorney General about the success or otherwise of double-bunking itself. However, this report does address a very serious issue, and that is the safety of inmates themselves within the facilities. It also addresses the question of management of these facilities. This allegation of a sexual assault was raised last July and August. As a result, an interim investigation was conducted, and this report which I have in my hand was filed on October 12, 1994.

Several things come out of this report that I want to ask the Attorney General about, putting aside the perhaps undesirable aspect of having to double-bunk in the first place. I appreciate that overcrowding has resulted in this so-called solution, but it's not a very happy solution in many cases.

One thing that I think the committee should be advised of was raised in question period today as well. It is pointed out in the introductory part of the report that during the period of April 15, 1994, to September 5, 1994 -- this is a period including when this alleged incident took place -- there were acting district directors, acting directors of programs, an acting director of operations and an acting director of the sentence management unit. Would it not be fair to infer from all the people who were in acting capacities that perhaps this, as much as anything, gave rise to problems such as this report addresses with regard to the misplacement of people in a double-bunking situation?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm a little unsure as to how to proceed with this, given the fact that the member apparently has in his hand a report that is not released and not yet public, for several very good reasons. I wouldn't want the member inadvertently to do something that may cause difficulty in the justice system as a result of having this document in his possession. Nor would I want him to inadvertently violate privacy provisions of the provincial FOI legislation, which, if this document were to escape the member's hands, could well happen.

I would like to say to the member that I'm going to be very, very guarded in what I say about this subject. I encourage the member during this period of time, while some matters are either before or potentially before the courts, to be very careful. I've no problem with the member having a copy; I urge him not to allow it to escape his clutches. And I say to him that we are dealing with the issues that are raised. We are dealing with the management questions that are required to be addressed as a result of the report.

The member makes reference to a variety of acting positions, which is a question I dealt with in question period today. The natural consequence of a senior position coming vacant is that people move up. When people move up they create a vacancy in the job they had, and then someone else moves up; it's a bit of a domino effect. We have had a fair amount of that occur, with a fair number of staff changes, relocations, advancements, promotions, retirements and other events in the corrections branch which have led to that situation. It's fair to say that at this point the positions have stabilized.

There are no longer as many in an acting capacity as are permanently ensconced, so I think we are through that particular period.

That's all I want to say at this stage, unless the member asks a direct question, being very careful about what he has in his hands -