1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 11, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 13, Number 25

[ Page 9845 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

The Speaker: Before proceeding with introductions, I have the pleasure of making a long-awaited announcement. It is that closed captioning of the televised proceedings of the House will commence with this afternoon's sitting. The hearing-impaired should consult with local cable TV operators on how to access the closed-captioned text of debate. I think, hon. members, that we should give credit to the former Speaker for starting this initiative some time ago.

T. Perry: I note that another former Speaker, the former Hon. Stephen Rogers -- who is still Stephen Rogers -- made the first exemption to have a sign language translator in the House, on the motion by the member for Burnaby North and others. I ask members to acknowledge that as well.

I have the pleasure of introducing some people who are not often found in these parts: from our sister province of Quebec, Rejean Dulac, Sonia Harve, Danny Roy and Cathy Voyer, a qui on souhait une bienvenue tres chaleureuse de la part de tous les deputes.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like the House to help me welcome Chief Cassidy Sill from the Ulkatcho band in the West Chilcotin; along with him, Michael Holte and Cameron Beck; also Hans Lutters, the local elected member of the Cariboo Regional District for the West Chilcotin; and representatives of Carrier Lumber, Bill Kordyban Sr., Bill Kordyban Jr. and Terry Kuzma. Please make them welcome.

J. Tyabji: I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Bob McCoubrey of the Regional District of Central Okanagan, and Mr. John Madsen of Hiram Walker.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd like members to join me in welcoming the 35 students here today from Port Hardy Secondary School, who are down for two or three days to visit the capital city.

Ministerial Statement

SEIZE-AND-SUE POLICY OF FORD CREDIT CANADA

Hon. J. Smallwood: I rise today to report to British Columbians that the financial double jeopardy that they have been subject to by Ford Credit Canada has ended. I'm delighted to say that legal action taken against Ford Credit Canada for its alleged violations of B.C.'s consumer legislation has been successfully settled in favour of consumers.

On April 5, 1994, the province received a signed assurance of voluntary compliance under the Trade Practice Act by which Ford Credit Canada will stop any further seize-and-sue actions against consumers. In the past, Ford Credit has collected, or tried to collect, deficiency balances from consumers who had defaulted on vehicle leases that included an option to purchase the vehicle. These deficiency balances arose when Ford Credit repossessed vehicles from consumers who were unable to make the lease payments. Ford Credit then sold the vehicles, but continued to pursue consumers for the difference between the amount owing and the amount of the sale. This is contrary to B.C.'s seize-or-sue laws.

Ford Credit has voluntarily agreed to stop this practice; therefore the court action has been dropped. Ford Credit has agreed to refund all money consumers paid to them after their leased vehicles had been repossessed or surrendered. In addition, consumers will receive 6 percent interest on the funds being reimbursed and an additional $100 for their inconvenience.

To ensure all eligible consumers are aware of their entitlement, Ford Credit will advertise these refund provisions twice a month for three months in major print media in B.C. I urge all consumers who have been subject to these actions to contact the director of trade practices for full details. As well, any members of the House who have had constituents affected by this practice may wish to contact my office.

J. Dalton: I'm pleased to give marginal congratulations to the government. It will probably be the last happy word for this government today. The seize-and-sue provisions the minister referred to have been in place since 1974 in this province. Unfortunately, they have seldom been acted upon.... I'm pleased that this government and the Ford Credit company have reacted on a voluntary basis to deal with a problem that has recently been well documented in the media. If the minister was a party to that, we in the opposition are happy that she has acted accordingly.

I'm just hoping that the government will be ever-vigilant in the area of consumer protection and will not just act when it happens to hit the Province or the Vancouver Sun.

Oral Questions

COMMONWEALTH GAMES CONTRACTS

K. Jones: Recently the Commonwealth Games Society passed over competitive B.C. bids and awarded a contract to a Los Angeles-based tent manufacturer. This contract left the Games Society holding the bag for $20,000 in duty and GST, which they agreed to pay on behalf of the Americans. My question to the minister responsible for the Games is: why is the society using taxpayers' money to steal contracts away from local firms?

[2:15]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. R. Blencoe: If the member had done his research properly, he would have determined that there has been a total value of $81 million in contracts for the Commonwealth Games, of which $78 million has gone to Canadian and British Columbia companies. Only 4 percent of the contracts have gone out of this province or country. If he looks at the total number of contracts handed out, only 16 out of 398 have gone outside. If the Liberal Party wishes to meddle in the tendering process, through the back door, there is a process. British Columbians have benefited from the Commonwealth Games -- overwhelmingly.

K. Jones: The minister's answer is totally incomplete and didn't answer the question at all. He's addressing something else.

A supplementary. Is the minister also aware that the contract for bottled drinking water has gone to the French firm of Evian, shutting out British Columbia competition altogether? Can the minister tell the people of B.C. why our water is not good enough for him?

[ Page 9846 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: I know the member has to stay to the script, but I've just told him that only 4 percent of the contracts have gone outside British Columbia or Canada -- overwhelming support for British Columbia businesses, hon. member.

LOTTERY CORPORATION EXPENDITURES

G. Farrell-Collins: If the water is good enough for the rest of us in this House, I don't know why it isn't good for the Commonwealth Games.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. The Liberal opposition has learned that the B.C. Lottery Corporation leased luxury suite 355 at GM Place stadium. In addition to the nearly $1 million contract are the extra costs of a wet bar, a stereo and other upgrades, for an additional bill of $45,000 to $85,000. Can the minister responsible tell the hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who can't afford to go to hockey games why the executives of B.C. Lottery Corporation are spending a million dollars of taxpayers' money to lease an executive suite in GM Place?

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I'll take that question on notice.

The Speaker: The minister has taken the question on notice. Does the member have a new question?

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, hon. Speaker. This minister is a former Minister of Health, and she knows full well that there are ads going on right now in this province which show that lottery funds are going to New Directions in Health Care. Will the Minister of Finance cancel that $1 million contract and buy the CAT scanner that Campbell River has been looking for for the last two years?

The Speaker: The hon. member is asking the question in a different way; it's the same question. Does the hon. member have a final question?

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I understand the minister has taken that question on notice. At the same time, can the minister confirm that other government agencies, other government Crown corporations, have committed exactly the same million-dollar faux pas in spending taxpayers' money?

REPORT ON PERRAULT CASE

D. Mitchell: I have a question today to the Attorney General. It's regarding the Danny Perrault case, which his deputy minister issued a statement on last week. The reason, to date, for not releasing the report of the investigation into the Perrault case and into his escape is that it may violate this violent criminal's privacy. However, many believe that the real reason for the reluctance to release the report is that it may in fact demonstrate a serious state of corruption within the corrections branch. Will the Attorney General today commit to at least release portions of the report that will not directly affect the privacy of this violent criminal?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I thank the member for his question. I very much want to have this report released publicly. The lawyer acting on behalf of Danny Perrault has drawn to our attention, whether the member likes it or not, that Mr. Perrault has certain rights under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and those rights have to be protected in that case as well.

As soon as we are possibly able to release the report, or enough of it so that it makes some sense, we will do so.

The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: I'm sure the Attorney General has been very well briefed on this case, due to the high profile of it. Can he confirm today that Perrault's computer files had items erased from them and that his security risk assessment was altered prior to his transfer to the minimum-security New Haven Correctional Centre from which he escaped? These aren't simple clerical errors. How does the Attorney General explain them?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The suggestion that the member makes by way of a question is absolutely incorrect.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: I'll table the documents after question period.

My final supplementary to the Attorney General. Can he tell us why senior corrections supervisors apparently overruled staff under them and insisted that this violent criminal, who had already escaped once, be placed in a minimum-security institution? Why has no one in the corrections branch of his ministry been reprimanded or disciplined for such a serious breach, where the safety of the general public was put at risk and at least one victim paid very dearly? Why was the Attorney General, of all people, a willing party to such a cover-up?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is no cover-up. I can assure members of that. I have said inside and outside this chamber that I would like this report released as quickly as possible. Legal reasons have prevented us from doing that. Mistakes were made in a very tragic situation, one that had consequences that bothered all of us beyond words. The ministry has dealt with the issue by establishing procedures to ensure that that kind of mistake never happens again.

LOTTERY CORPORATION EXPENDITURES

W. Hurd: A question to the minister in charge of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. How can the Minister of Finance justify the Lottery Corporation spending $13,000 at Mr. Jax Fashions and $14,000 at Jay-Ray Men's Wear, and how can the minister defend the Lottery Corporation spending over $21,000 at the Mixer Shack?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm sure the members opposite will understand when I say that I want to check their facts. I will take that question on notice as well.

W. Hurd: When British Columbians say yes to the Extra, this isn't the extra they have in mind.

The government has no control over what is happening in their Crown corporations. The Lottery Corporation has many questionable expenditures which litter their financial statements, and I quote a few: everything from a $12,000 bill from the Vancouver Canadians Baseball Club to a contract to NDP Viewpoints Research and a bill for $10,000 from the Patricia Hotel. Is the minister

satisfied that the B.C. Lottery Corporation is spending money in the most efficient manner possible in this province?

[ Page 9847 ]

SCHOOL CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDING

C. Serwa: My question is to the Minister of Education. A week ago you stated that the former Social Credit government had spent an average of $70 million per year over the previous five years for school capital project funding in British Columbia. It's in Hansard, hon. minister. For your information, the correct average figure for the previous five years is $298.7 million, more than four times the figure you have created. As a result of NDP underfunding, we now have 138 portables in School District 23. Four major projects are on hold.

The Speaker: Would the hon. member please state his question.

C. Serwa: Yes, hon. Speaker. There is serious crowding throughout British Columbia. Once again, when will the minister let the districts know where they stand?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The capital funding program should be available in two to three weeks.

The Speaker: The hon. member has a supplementary?

C. Serwa: It's now some four months past the time normally scheduled for the release of this information. The supplementary is to the same minister. Can the minister confirm that the real reason for the delay is the backroom deal made with the government's preferred unions -- part of the B.C. 21 payoff to their pet unions?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I can assure the member opposite that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

GOVERNMENT OFFICE FURNITURE

R. Chisholm: The Vancouver-New Westminster land titles office recently spent $2,500 per person for new chairs and desks. The total cost to the taxpayer for one office came to $450,000. The explanation given was that they were unable to do their job with old furniture. My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Is it your standard policy to reward skyrocketing absenteeism with new furniture? What does the government give an employee for embezzlement? A cabinet post?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll take the question on notice.

The Speaker: The question is taken on notice, hon. member. Does the member have a new question?

R. Chisholm: Yes, hon. Speaker. Equally interesting is what happened to the old furniture. In order to get rid of them, the old desks and chairs were classified -- get this, Mr. Speaker -- as a health hazard. Amazingly, this furniture was then transferred to the public trustee's office of the Vancouver district's court services branch, where it is now in use. To the Minister of Health: is it common to have office furniture classified as a health hazard? Secondly, what steps have been taken to safeguard the health of the courtworkers who are now using this condemned furniture?

SHIPBUILDING JOBS IN B.C.

D. Schreck: My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment.

Interjections.

D. Schreck: There may be heckling from the opposition benches, but the constituents in my riding take it pretty seriously when the Liberal Minister of National Revenue writes off the shipyard industry in British Columbia. My question for the minister is that the federal Minister of National Revenue writes off the British Columbia shipbuilding industry at the same time that successive federal governments...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

D. Schreck: ...have poured money into the shipyard industries in Quebec and the Maritimes.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

D. Schreck: What is your government doing to protect British Columbia shipyard workers?

Hon. G. Clark: I too was shocked to read in the paper on the weekend...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Order, please.

Hon. G. Clark: ...that the Liberal Minister of National Revenue would say that no federal money or contracts would be forthcoming to B.C.'s shipbuilding industry. Between 1985 and the year 2000, there will be a total of $11 billion in shipbuilding projects in Canada, and not a penny to British Columbia's shipyard workers -- not a penny, zero.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm having trouble....

The Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, would you please come to order. Perhaps the minister could please answer the question.

Hon. G. Clark: Zero might be good enough for the Liberal National Revenue minister, but it's not good enough for the government. Fortunately....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Would the hon. minister please take his seat.

Hon. members, it is very difficult to characterize the behaviour that is being displayed this afternoon, but I think all members....

Interjections.

[ Page 9848 ]

The Speaker: Order, hon. members! Notwithstanding your points of view, I think there should be a lot more respect for any member who has his place, regardless of your views with respect to what that member may or may not be saying. I would ask all hon. members to keep in mind that it is very difficult to maintain order without cooperation, or to enforce your standing orders without your cooperation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Therefore would you please allow the hon. minister to conclude his remarks. Please conclude your remarks, hon. minister.

[2:30]

Hon. G. Clark: The members opposite say it's an abuse of the House, but it's not abuse of the House to talk about jobs for the shipbuilding industry here in British Columbia. We have just completed the second superferry for the B.C. Ferry Corporation. We now have at Vancouver Shipyards, in refit, the new Royal Victorian, which will be running between Victoria and Seattle. In the coming weeks we will be announcing a capital plan for the Ferry Corporation to create jobs here in British Columbia for our shipbuilding industry.

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

On a point of order, the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands.

C. Tanner: This Legislature enjoys the shortest question period in the country. We have members on the government side asking questions. The only opportunity that we have to put the question....

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. Will the hon. member please take his seat. That is not a valid point of order, and the hon. member knows that.

J. Dalton: I understand that I was named by the Speaker to be permitted to ask a question. I ask leave that I be allowed to do so.

The Speaker: No, hon. member, that is not true; you're probably mistaken.

Interjection.

The Speaker: As a matter of fact, I said that the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale would be following the member for Chilliwack. If I did not, hon. member, I apologize; it was an error.

The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi rises on a point of order.

D. Mitchell: I wish to raise a point of order concerning the unparliamentary behaviour exhibited in the House during the last question period prior to today's. After reviewing Hansard for last Thursday, it is clear that an unprecedented attack upon an officer of this House was made by the official opposition. The information and privacy commissioner was impugned during that question period. I refer specifically to the comments made by members of the official opposition, both in this House and afterwards outside this assembly. All members should be aware that it is unparliamentary in the extreme to attack an officer of this House who cannot speak or....

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. Will you please take your seat. The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove rises on a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: If the member has a concern, it's obviously a matter of privilege that he's bringing before this House and not a point of order. I'd ask him to follow the appropriate rules.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair should remind all hon. members that the behaviour of members, with the exception of that which is outlined in the standing orders, is not the responsibility of the Speaker. However, the hon. member raises a matter which the House should hear, and we can decide whether or not it is in order. Please proceed.

D. Mitchell: All members should be aware that it is unparliamentary in the extreme to attack an officer of this assembly, who cannot speak for or defend himself in this chamber. I refer hon. members to MacMinn, second edition, which deals with standing order 40 on pages 54-55; and to Beauchesne, fifth edition, paragraph 321, page 114. Furthermore, officers of this assembly are, by their very nature, independent and impartial. They are appointed by and serve all members of this assembly. Indeed, the information and privacy commissioner was appointed by an all-party committee of this Legislature, on which there was representation by members of the official opposition.

The Legislative Assembly Privilege Act,

section 5, states that our assembly has the power and rights to inquire into and punish "assaults on or interference with officers of the Assembly in the execution of their duty."

However, Mr. Speaker, I choose not to raise this matter as a question of privilege but as a point of order. I trust you will agree that this is a most serious issue, and I would hope that members of the official opposition would take thisopportunity to withdraw their comments, which represent an unwarranted and unworthy attack on an officer of this assembly.

The Speaker: Before recognizing the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, I do not believe the matter is a point of order. As I stated earlier, the reason the member was allowed to continue is that I believe the matter may very well be one of privilege. With that in mind, I would invite comments from others on the same subject.

G. Farrell-Collins: The duty of the official opposition at any time in this House -- as all members know, including the member who once held this seat -- is to raise questions with regard to the operations of the government and to protect the citizens of this province, and particularly to protect individual citizens from the unwarranted release of confidential information. That is exactly what the official opposition did both last Wednesday and Thursday. We will continue to do that.

If this member has these concerns, he knows full well this is a matter of privilege that he should bring before the House. He's done so in another way in order to try to get his comments out before having them ruled upon. So, hon. Speaker, I think the abuse of this House is taking place opposite and not by the official opposition.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston on the same matter.

[ Page 9849 ]

A. Warnke: On a point of privilege, hon. Speaker?

The Speaker: On a point of privilege, hon. member.

A. Warnke: Thank you, hon. Speaker; I appreciate being able to rise on a point of privilege. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi stated just moments ago that members of the official opposition had castigated a particular officer of the assembly. I for one have never made any negative comment with regard to the information and privacy commissioner, either inside or outside this chamber. I have made the best of comments about the commissioner, because his integrity is 100 percent. I would like to see the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi withdraw his remarks, which impugn the motives of members.

T. Perry: I think the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi was simply making the very polite request that members throughout the House respect the very high standards of conduct that have previously been observed in this chamber.

The Speaker: Then this concludes the matter, hon. members. I thank you for your comments.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Hon. R. Blencoe: I rise to answer a question I took on notice on April 7 from the member for Prince George-Omineca. He was raising questions with regard to the directory of records. Today, the beginning of Information Rights Week, I am pleased to present the directory of records, which is now available. It's another part of our open and fair FOI legislation. The directory assists British Columbians in assessing and requesting information by providing valuable information regarding the types of files kept by ministries.

I'm confident that the directory will facilitate an even more effective process for dealing with requests. Last week the directory was sent out to every library in the province, and it's also available through Crown Publications.

Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave to table the distribution of major federal shipbuilding projects between 1985 and the year 2000.

Leave not granted.

D. Mitchell: I ask leave to table the computer printout of the classification record of violent criminal Daniel Perrault.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee of Selection. I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark tabled the 1993 annual report of the job protection commissioner.

Hon. P. Priddy: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. P. Priddy: With us in the gallery today are 50 grade 10 students from Princess Margaret Secondary School in Surrey, along with their teachers Chris McKeon and Randy Jaggernathsingh. Princess Margaret high school is well-known for its performing arts and athletics program and as the site of a unique peer mediation program in this province, as well as the recent recipient of an anti-racism award for its work in combatting racism in Surrey. I am delighted to be the MLA who represents the school.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply, both Sections A and B. In

Section A, I call Small Business, Tourism and Culture; in

Section B, I call the Attorney General's ministry.

[2:45]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

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

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As we get ourselves organized for the first estimates of this fiscal year, I want to make some opening comments. They are probably longer than they should be, but I want to cover as much territory as possible before we get into the back-and-forth discussions. Before I do that, I would like to make four introductions. On my immediate left is the deputy minister, Maureen Maloney; on her left, Deputy Attorney General Brian Neal; and behind me are Rick McCandless, assistant deputy minister of management services, and Barb Kaiway, manager of the resource analysis

section of the ministry.

In the estimates last year I spoke of the changing directions of the justice system in British Columbia, and I said that what we want is not a legal system for legal professionals, but a justice system for every British Columbian. I think it's fair to say that all of us can cite instances where it can be safely asserted that some people in our province don't receive the same kind of justice as others do, and that we have not yet developed the kind of justice system that I think we all strive to achieve. We have taken some major steps toward these goals in this last year, and I just want to talk about a few of them.

We have tried to make the system fairer for historically disadvantaged members of society. We've tried to make reforms with respect to family justice and protection for women from violence. The ministry has planned reforms of family law and is now putting them into action. The family justice reform pilot projects are starting in four locations. They will include a variety of family law services -- now offered by the Ministry of Social Services and the Attorney General's ministry -- under one roof. They will provide counselling, arbitration, mediation and education.

Recent improvements to the family maintenance enforcement program include a direct payment policy, a

[ Page 9850 ]

direct deposit system, advising creditors of court hearings, an interactive voice response system available free of charge throughout the province, and creditor enforcement

summary reports. We are in the middle of some significant transformations in the legal aid system, and I would be very happy to talk about those during these estimates as well.

With respect to criminal law, we are developing policies regarding prevention of violence against women, particularly in relationships. The previous government introduced a policy in the late 1980s which was revised and strengthened last year. We are saying that violence is a crime wherever it occurs, and if it occurs in a bar, on the street or in someone's home, it is a crime of no less importance. The location doesn't matter, nor does the nature of the relationship between the individuals. It remains a crime.

We are training justice system staff to ensure that the policy is applied firmly and evenly around the province. We've had help from the Ministry of Women's Equality in this respect through its Stopping the Violence initiative. We are also working with the judiciary to accelerate family law cases through the courts so that they can be dealt with promptly. We think that our ministry is a leader in Canada in victim support services. That's not to say that much more can't be done, but we are making good progress, in my view.

Last year we gave approximately $6 million to more than 100 victim assistance programs in British Columbia, in addition to the approximately $26 million that the criminal injury compensation program expended this past year.

We are also involved in helping to fund public legal education programs. Eighty new counselling programs have been funded. Four new sexual assault centres have been funded; that makes eight in the province that the Ministry of Attorney General now funds. There are seven new women assault centres. The Ministry of Attorney General funds more than 30 specialized victim assistance organizations serving assaulted women and children, along with new treatment programs for assaultive men. They are developing improved policies on wife assault, child abuse, sexual assault and elder abuse. The ministry introduced new guardianship legislation last year to protect dependent adults, as all members know.

With respect to policing, the Oppal commission that was established more than a year ago heard submissions on issues of concern to women, people of different cultural backgrounds and aboriginal people. I'm hopeful that the report of Mr. Justice Wallace Oppal will be on my desk within six weeks or so -- by the end of May.

We in our ministry are involved in the governmentwide initiatives with respect to pay equity. We are committed to full participation of women in the Ministry of Attorney General, in administrative tribunals and in the judiciary. Just to show that we are attempting to make some progress with respect to women's equality, six of the 11 members of our ministry's management committee are women. Eight of the 15 appointments to the Provincial Court have been women. Five of the nine-member Judicial Council are women.

We don't appoint all the members to the Judicial Council, obviously, but I think that through our leadership in other areas other organizations also see the need to respond to this very important issue. We've also endorsed flexible work and parental leave arrangements within the ministry. We have a gender equality special adviser position to be appointed very shortly. That person will help to develop a comprehensive strategy to achieve fairness and equality for women in the ministry.

I want to talk a little about this year and what we are hoping to work on. We've identified a number of key directions for fiscal 1994-95. A top priority -- it's very difficult for us to say the top priority, because in this ministry there are so many issues which are top priorities.... But among the very top of our priorities is the question of crime prevention. Communities and individuals in our communities suffer the effects of crime in very dramatic ways. We need community-based solutions.

We are allocating an additional $3 million this year, out of money that we are extracting from other programs, to deal with solutions in respect of crime prevention. This will be a comprehensive new initiative to establish a framework for coordinating community involvement and developing partnership with crime prevention organizations, municipalities and police. We're building on what is already in place; there are already some very good community initiatives in various communities, but much more can and needs to be done.

The commitment is that this will be community-based and that we will attempt as much as possible to empower people in their own communities to help provide solutions. We'll support the creativity and innovation in communities. In other words, we are not developing programs here at the centre and saying to communities: "Here's a program.

Buy into it." We're saying: "You develop programs that are particularly useful for you in your communities, and we will help you to make those programs more effective for you and your community." We're going to involve communities in this development by consultation and cooperation, all the while looking toward long-term solutions. I hope later this year to make some announcements with respect to the details of this particular initiative.

At this point we are still working out many of those details, and we are still involved in discussions so that we don't end up announcing something that is rhetorical and leaving an impression that it is a puff-piece. I'm really determined that it be real, meaningful and relevant to local communities.

Some of the proposed ministry program changes for 1994-95 include the just-introduced Family Relations Act amendment to allow for the deduction of pensions at source. That bill was introduced last week. We will do a review of the Law Reform Commission's report on property rights on marriage breakdown. We're involved with other jurisdictions in the country in working on child support guidelines, as advice to the courts.

We're making further changes to the Limitation Act. Members will remember that in 1992 we made a change to allow victims of childhood sexual abuse to take action as adults. In 1994 we intend, with the Legislature's agreement, to remove the time limit so that someone who experienced sexual abuse anytime in her or his life can take legal action. In other words, the Statute of Limitations would not apply. That would deal with the memory syndrome that often occurs in sexual abuse and sexual assault cases.

We're working with the federal government to implement law reform on a number of fronts, including the crime prevention initiatives that the new federal government is also interested in pursuing. We are working with them and other provinces to look at amendments that the federal government may wish to bring in to the Young Offenders Act. We have put presentations forward to them about the amendments that we feel are necessary. I expect that the federal minister will be introducing amendments to that legislation in the House sometime before this federal parliament spring session is over.

We are heavily involved, again with the federal government and our colleagues across the country, in a review of the role, if any, of preliminary inquiries in our justice system. If members are interested in talking about

[ Page 9851 ]

that, we can have further discussions during these estimates. We're also discussing the further hybridization of some offences with my colleagues across the country.

Another key direction for 1994-95 is a more responsive justice system for aboriginal people. We had a very inexpensive review, done by a woman named Marion Buller, of aboriginal legal aid, which will help to guide us in providing appropriate legal aid services in British Columbia to our native community. As members know, we also had the report of Judge Anthony Sarich on issues in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, and his reforms are also being looked at with a view to implementation, but in consultation and together with the native community in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Many of his recommendations also inform us quite significantly and quite well in respect of aboriginal justice issues around the province.

I want to talk for a moment about fiscal responsibility. One of the rationales -- and it's not the only one -- for increasing the involvement of communities in their own security in terms of crime and security-related issues is that these issues are community issues; they're not just government issues. We want to foster the creativity and energy of local people for locally conceived and locally tailored solutions. It's the right approach for a fiscally responsible and effective justice system.

If I can just part from my notes for a moment, in every community I go to in meeting with local civic officials or other community groups, the question of crime and personal and property security in the community is always very near the top of the list of concerns people have about justice-related issues. Often the quick response is that we need more police and justice officials in the system, and we need to throw more money at the issue. I'm convinced -- and I think all members of this House are -- that there isn't any more money to throw at the problem.

In particular, we can't solve crime in this province by hiring a police officer for every corner. Obviously that just isn't possible, and in the final analysis it would be unlikely to work in any event. We have to encourage public involvement by working on a number of fronts to reduce crime in ways other than simply throwing more money at it.

Just a brief

summary of the estimates the members have in front of them. The budget increase is $26.7 million, 3.5 percent over the restated estimates of last year, which were $766.7 million. We're adding 3.5 percent to that. We're adding $9.6 million, which is 1.2 percent of the overall budget increase. About a third of the budget increase is going to provide funding for the corrections branch, for over-crowding in both adult and youth facilities.

This money will provide additional staff capacity, including, I understand, about 123 full-time-equivalent positions to deal with serious overcrowding in the prison system in the province. We're also providing an additional 26 full-time-equivalents on the probation side of the equation, the non-custodial side.

[J. Beattie in the chair.]

There's an additional $5.8 million provided for building occupancy cost increases for new courthouses that will open in Kelowna and Delta and at 222 Main. There is $3.9 million accounted for by cost-of-living allowance increases to the many staff who work in our ministry. Five million dollars will fund ministry priorities, including the family maintenance enforcement program volumes which are increasing at a rate far greater than population or cost-of-living increases. So we have to increase those additional volumes, and there is $1.3 million for that.

We are providing another $1.3 million for first nations community police, the aboriginal tribal police services. We're also providing about $1.4 million for the second year of the adult guardianship initiative which, as members know, began last year. We're also providing about $1 million for the funding of victims' programs.

We're taking some initiatives to try and save money and spend less. I will give you some examples of that. We're saving about $800,000 in building maintenance practices, court services and corrections. We're working with BCBC to achieve these savings.

We are using electronic monitoring increasingly to replace custody, wherever appropriate. We need to do much more with respect to electronic monitoring than we've done to date. We are moving toward enhanced automation in courts and in the Crown prosecutors' offices.

[3:00]

We are discussing with the federal government the possibility of assuming responsibility for prosecution of federal cases to eliminate duplication and overlap. This is one of those areas where the public, quite rightly, complains that there is duplication of spending between federal and provincial authorities. If we can take over the responsibility for federal prosecutions in B.C., as I think has been done in New Brunswick, it could be an immense saving to the taxpayers of this country.

It would reduce those costs to the federal government in exchange for an appropriate payment from them for carrying out that obligation. That hasn't happened yet. We're still in discussion with the federal government about it.

We're also trying to use diversion for minor cases in a greater way than we have in the past. We're trying to get them out of the court system and provide an appropriate response to individuals who may have been involved in minor criminal activity. We want to make more use of mediation and arbitration. I referred earlier to mediation with respect to family justice issues, but the whole notion of mediation and arbitration with respect to a wide variety of issues now argued in court is very appealing to me. ADR -- alternative dispute resolution -- is very appropriate in many cases, but not always.

There will always be a role for the courts, but there's clearly a need to resolve matters in a non-adversarial way -- which can often turn out to be much cheaper than the use of the existing structure.

I hope that at the end of this fiscal year I'll be able to say that '94-95 has seen continued progress toward that goal that I talked about at the beginning of estimates last year and mentioned again at the beginning of these comments, which is that we see a more open and responsive justice system with a strong community focus.

I'll leave it at that, hon. Chair, and ask members to have at me in any way they see fit. We'll try to have an informative discussion. It's always my attitude to make everything available. I know it often doesn't seem that way, but that really is an ethic that I try to practise in every way I can. Everything that I can possibly share with all members at any time, I will. I'll certainly try to take advantage of doing that in these estimates. As members know, I have a series of areas of responsibility.

It may not be possible in a multiparty House, but if members are able to focus on one area at a time, then I would be able to bring the assistant deputy minister responsible for that particular program area into the House at that time. I can't bring everybody in. It would be a bit crowded and inappropriate, but I would like to bring in the appropriate people if we're discussing a particular area. If we were to discuss corrections at one time, criminal justice at another, and police at yet another time, etc., I would encourage that.

But I need to say that any question at any time on any subject is obviously fair game, and I'm not going

[ Page 9852 ]

to refuse to talk about it because some member may have missed it earlier. I'll just do it again, because I understand all members can't be here at all times.

J. Dalton: I appreciate the concluding remarks that the Attorney General has made because I can understand, particularly in this session of parliament, that we may be all over the map -- although I can assure the Attorney General that the official opposition will try and confine its questioning to prescribed areas. In fact, perhaps I can flag for the Attorney General -- I may not get to it today -- that the Legal Services Society will be number one on our list. Not necessarily in order of priority, if the Attorney General is wondering, but at least we'll lead off with that.

And we will certainly be dealing with corrections and the family maintenance enforcement program. No doubt members will have questions out of their own areas. For example, the Attorney General mentioned new courthouses for Kelowna, Delta and 222 Main Street; I didn't hear Prince George on that list. The minister recently wrote to me about their concerns, with copies to the mayor of Prince George. I am going there on Friday, and I will be raising it in that community. I am hoping we will get some good news out of that.

The Attorney General is also aware of the concern in my riding of West Vancouver-Capilano about the possible moving of the courthouse from West to North Vancouver, so we may touch upon that later.

However, I don't want to wander too much. I want to welcome the ministerial officials to the committee today, and before I get to specifics I want to thank the Attorney General for the cooperation that he and his officials have given me as the relatively new critic to this area. I was named to this role last November, and it's been a big learning curve for me. Even though I do have a law degree and some legal background, I haven't practised law for many years. So I have some catching up to do, and I appreciate your assistance.

The minister made some comments on a few things that I will remark upon now, and we will come back to them in more detail as we go through the estimates. The Attorney General made a comment about justice for all, which is fair. But I'm going to say -- and many people in the street feel this -- that victims come in many sizes and shapes and ranges. I believe the victims of this country have been forgotten in the process, and I'm going to have some comments, criticisms and questions on that. I don't say this just because I'm the critic for the opposition; I say this because of my observations over many years.

I don't think the Charter of Rights has done this country any good service since 1982, other than some increased work for defence counsel -- and if the defence bar is listening, so be it. I don't mind standing up and being counted on things that I feel strongly about. So that's where I come from.

The minister mentioned the family maintenance enforcement program. I have indicated we'll have questions on that. We must canvass the Legal Services Society in detail. The bar is certainly unsettled about some things, and we have to know the direction that program is taking. We have to know where the budget in that program is going, because right now it's a disaster. I don't want to hear that it's going to get worse. I don't think the Attorney General will tell us it's going to get worse, but I want some assurance that things will be kept under control as best they can.

I'll make reference to some other things from my notes and from what I heard from the Attorney General. We're looking forward to Mr. Justice Wally Oppal's very important report, which he tells me he expects to hand down by May 31 at the latest. Knowing Mr. Justice Oppal as I do, he will be true to his word and he'll meet that deadline. I don't know whether any other MLAs made presentations to Justice Oppal, but I am happy to say that I was the first to do so in West Vancouver last year -- not that I'm up here to pound my own drum, but I hope other members took advantage of the opportunity to do so.

If the Attorney General is interested, my comments had to do with high-speed police chases. We had one recently in West Vancouver. West Vancouver actually has a pretty good track record of not getting involved in high-speed chases. But there was a chase through the streets of Dundarave not too long ago, which I was a bit surprised to see happening; maybe it was justified. But my comments on that are on record with the Oppal commission. If we have an opportunity, maybe we might get into that.

Crime prevention was mentioned by the Attorney General. There are a few good things I want to mention -- I didn't hear them specifically from the Attorney General. In my own community of North Vancouver we have an excellent Block Watch program. It really doesn't cost anything other than the need for a police officer and a few citizen officials to oversee the program. I'm happy to say that fairly recently in my own block a Block Watch was started, and it's working because neighbours are finally starting to break down barriers and talk to each other.

In our urbanized society people tend to not talk to each other; they tend to close ranks and ignore each other. Block Watch not only has a good policing purpose, it also has a real social function involved in it.

That reminds me: the Attorney General might be amused by a little incident that happened to my family recently. About a month ago we had a phone call at 12:30 one evening from the North Vancouver RCMP -- I live in North Vancouver. They said there was an emergency call from our house. We were all asleep. My son had answered the phone and he was half asleep, so he hung up thinking that it was a joke. They called back to say: "Would you please go to your door, there are two police officers there who want to talk to you." I'm thinking: what is going on here? I put my clothes on and went down to the door.

It turned out that it wasn't a 9-1-1 call. Apparently somebody had called into their switchboard, and they got the number on the call display mixed up. They thought it was our house. I presume it was an accident. I thanked the officers as the Attorney General critic. I identified myself accordingly and said: "Well, I'm happy that you were here, because I would have been disappointed if you hadn't come." They went away reasonably happy, I guess.

Coming back to Block Watch, it's working. Business Watch is another community program in North Vancouver and other parts of the province that's working very well. As I'm sure the Attorney General is well aware, there are new policing centres opening up in this province. I was in Prince George not too long ago. They have a new downtown office. There is a new policing centre in lower Lonsdale in North Vancouver. There's one in Williams Lake. I was in Williams Lake about three weeks ago; unfortunately, the office was not open when I went by.

But I am well aware of where it is, and I'm going back there next month, so I will get a chance to visit that office. I point out these things out because they are important community-based policing. They are important because they get the community involved and cost relatively little. Those are the sorts of things we have to be well aware of in order to put them into place and make sure they work.

I was happy to hear of some possible legislation coming down the pipeline from the Attorney General. There is one

[ Page 9853 ]

question I will ask, and he can flag it for an answer. Is there any indication of changes to the Occupiers Liability Act? I wrote to the minister on February 8, I believe, and I haven't had a response to that yet. There are people in the ski industry, in particular, who are quite anxious as to what may be happening. As I'm sure the Attorney General is aware, there's a very extensive Law Reform Commission position paper on occupiers' liability and recreational injuries. That industry is very anxious to know what, if anything, may be happening.

The issue of preliminary inquiries caught my eye this morning. There's an

article in the Globe and Mail on that subject -- whether or not it should be eliminated. I just glanced at the headline, but I believe the

article indicated that they should be maintained because they ascertain the truth and merits of a case that may or may not go to court. I have not formed any particular thoughts on the preliminary inquiry, but I can tell you one thing: if we could eliminate some of the costs in court, maybe it should be done in. If that's the bottom line, then I would advocate it.

The minister referred to some aboriginal policing issues. I've met with some of the people in the Squamish band. They are quite anxious to get tribal policing going. I've talked briefly with Wally Oppal on this subject, but he wasn't prepared to share with me any particular game plan that may be in place for that. I don't think that the native people of British Columbia want it imposed on them, but they should have the opportunity for aboriginal policing where they wish it. Many of them want that and would be in a position to have it. Those who don't want it, so be it. Our RCMP forces can more than adequately serve the aboriginal community.

[3:15]

The Attorney General also mentioned the Sarich report, which I read in some detail. It's interesting that a week before, he was at the Toosey band to give that report to the public. I was in that neighbourhood because my in-laws are ranchers just down the street. Unfortunately, I missed the Attorney General by a week. Otherwise I would have walked in in my cowboy boots and blue jeans and said: "Hey, what's going on here?" That might have surprised him.

Interjection.

J. Dalton: I heard the Attorney General say that he may not have recognized me. Depending on the environment I happen to be in, sometimes I don't recognize myself, either.

Those are just a few introductory reactions to the Attorney General's comments. I did ask a specific question or two, and perhaps he might like to respond to those. I'll tell the minister right now that my first line of questioning is going to deal with some special prosecutors that have been appointed, and I want to know the status of those cases.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It was clear from the member's comments that he intends to canvass most of the areas that he raised in more detail, but let me comment very briefly on several. The courthouses I mentioned were the ones that have completed construction. There are obviously other proposed courthouses that are yet to be announced. I hope we'll be able to make some significant headway on that in the very near future. I don't think it's a secret that I'm going to Prince George and to Coquitlam on Monday, a week today. Members might draw their own conclusions.

With respect to the West Vancouver courthouse, one of the obvious ways the Ministry of Attorney General can save taxpayers' money in considerable volume is by rationalizing the existing courthouse structure in this province. Names and locations have been put to me of 18 courthouses that could be done away with, if I can use those words. A number of courthouses have been traditional. I realize the role that courthouses play in a community. They are often very central and important buildings, if nothing else, that are of significance to a community. Some status is attached to having a courthouse.

I wouldn't be doing my job properly if I didn't have my officials examine whether there is a continuing need for some courthouses. I can tell members today that no decisions have been made about any of them, but that is not to say that at some point, as the cost pressures get even tougher and more difficult to manage, we won't want to look very seriously at rationalizing the courthouses. They're very expensive buildings to operate. In many communities they often don't operate full-time. I think people are not working as efficiently and as effectively as they could be if they were in a courthouse that in many cases may be only 30 minutes away. We need to look at that.

On the downside is a point that I'm sure the member for West Vancouver-Capilano would make, and that is that there are also costs involved in having courthouses further away. One of them is police overtime. We're very aware of those issues, and we're examining those questions now. As I said, no decisions have been made, nor are any decisions imminent. I'm not going to make an announcement the day after estimates are over; I can assure members of that.

I agree with the member's comments about victims. One of the things I feel really strongly about is that the system pays a lot of heed to everybody who in one way or another connects with the justice system, except that victims are often the last to be remembered. Of course, in many ways they perhaps should be at the front of our list and not at the back in terms of how we design a system. So I'm really bothered.

At the present time we have three separate victim assistance programs in the ministry, and we have the criminal injury compensation program. I've asked ministry officials to look at what we're now delivering, and to look at what we could deliver if we enhanced those services or rationalized them in some way. There is work being done at the present time to see whether we can do better for victims.

Having said that, I will add that individual victim assistance workers out there working on behalf of victims are doing just a phenomenal job. I get letters all the time from victims or families of victims, with very effusive praise of the work done by various victim assistance workers. I think they deserve a strong word of praise and support from me for the work they do.

Occupiers Liability Act. There is further consultation going on with the Law Reform Commission and people in the province who are interested in the topic. I should tell the member that I've talked to ski hill operators in particular on this issue for what seems like a couple of years. I had at least one formal meeting with that group in respect of this issue. It's on my agenda. I'm a skier, so I'm in touch with the issue in a way that might be closer than a lot of other people. But it's not just a ski hill issue. It's broader than that, and the legal implications of legislation of that kind would obviously be much broader. So consultation continues.

In respect of preliminary inquiries, I'm very much attached to the notion as long as disclosure is properly provided for. I think all members would agree that the Stinchcombe decision of the Supreme Court does ensure that disclosure is at least provided for. We may well now be able to look very seriously at eliminating the whole notion of preliminary inquiries. It's an expensive process and, given

[ Page 9854 ]

the disclosure rules, one that may no longer be necessary. It's been in the Criminal Code for 101 years. When it was introduced in 1893 it was no doubt necessary, and it may well have been necessary for the following 90 or so years, but I think it has outlived its usefulness now.

The member said he would next go to special prosecutors, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say about that.

J. Dalton: I thank the Attorney General for his answers to some of the questions that I raised, either specifically or otherwise, because he certainly addressed some of them. I'm sure the people of Prince George are looking forward to his visit next Monday. I'm hoping they're looking forward as well to the visit over the weekend of the Liberal Party provincial council. I thought I'd get a little advertising in here.

I would like to start with some questions about the appointment of special prosecutors on particularly sensitive cases -- as I guess we can describe them. The first involves the appointment of Ace Henderson to the Commonwealth Society inquiry. Mr. Henderson asked for an extension, I believe, in December. In fact, I believe it was just before Christmas, because I just happened to spot a little item on page A59 of the Vancouver Sun. I did flag it, and so I'm on my feet to ask: where are we at? What is Mr. Henderson doing? How much is he being paid? If the minister cares to tell us anything else, it would be helpful to us.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In terms of any detailed questions in respect to special prosecutors, I think it would be very useful for the member -- or any member, for that matter -- to talk directly to the criminal justice branch. I know no more about any of these matters than anyone who reads the newspapers assiduously. That's the extent of my knowledge of what may or may not be occurring in respect of any special prosecutor.

J. Dalton: I can appreciate that the Attorney General cannot be seen as, shall we say, interfering in an independent process. However, the Attorney General is the boss, and it is public money that's being exhausted. Quite frankly, I am not terribly impressed by a response saying to go and ask someone else. We're here now to ask the Attorney General. So unless I get some good legal or other reason why I shouldn't ask about the spending of public money.... These are the estimates. This isn't some academic exercise to talk about law and order, and courthouses in Prince George.

I think it's fair game to ask: what is the extension period of Mr. Henderson? How much longer can we expect...? The public is asking. I would add that this is a politically sensitive case, because the New Democratic Party is involved in it. If I'm getting stonewalled because of political interference, then let's hear that as well.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Firstly, I will tell members everything about any particular prosecution that I'm able, by law, to tell them. Secondly, in respect of any matter that has been referred outside the criminal justice branch to a special prosecutor, there is a reason that has happened. It's governed by the Crown Counsel Act, as the member well knows. If a matter has been referred to a special prosecutor, then no discussion about that matter takes place with me. I may be the boss, but the criminal justice branch is independent in respect to prosecutions. I'm speaking now on a broader aspect of this issue.

If I were in any way to direct the criminal justice branch, I am required to have that direction gazetted so that it's in public view. In my term of office I haven't directed the branch in respect of any prosecution.

Going back to special prosecutors, there flowed from the Owen inquiry, following events in this province in the mid- to late-eighties, recommendations to amend the Crown Counsel Act. The former government took those recommendations in order to ensure that there would always be a clear understanding on the part of the public that the Attorney General, who wears both a political and a legal hat, is not and can not be involved in any way in the conduct of a particular determination as to whether to prosecute and then in any particular prosecution.

So that the member doesn't think I'm stonewalling or whatever, all I know about the matter the member raises -- that Mr. Ace Henderson has been appointed as special prosecutor -- is the news that I've read in the Vancouver Sun. I can assure members of that; I know of nothing else. I know that the RCMP investigation continues, but all members know that because it has been reported publicly.

J. Dalton: Fair enough. I'm not going to flog a dead horse. The public will wait as the Attorney General will wait; eventually we'll see some progress and some reporting in from Mr. Henderson. I don't think it is a very happy thing for the public, if they're tuned in today -- and I hope there's at least three of them who are -- to hear that public funds on the investigation of this matter are being spent to indicate whether prosecution is or is not warranted. Prosecution is an expensive exercise.

The bottom line is that our money is being spent and nobody seems to want to account for how it's being spent or where it's going. I have to speak on behalf of the taxpayer, and I happen to be a taxpayer as well. I'm not going to pursue that.

Maybe we can get into a case which is not the appointment of a special prosecutor, but the ad hoc appointment of prosecutor or lawyer to investigate a case that is causing a lot of consternation in the news these days. It's a very unfortunate case. So that we are not playing around here in what we're talking about, I'm referring to Dr. John Gossage. As I'm sure the Attorney General is aware, Dr. Gossage is a New Westminster practitioner who, from my examination, quite frankly, has a horrendous track record of alleged abuse, going back perhaps 30 years and including incidents in Ontario. If the minister can detect anger in my voice, it's because I'm speaking on behalf of many angry people.

On the weekend, I happened to meet with the parents of a young child who allegedly was abused by this doctor. I've talked to the deputy registrar of the college this morning. Naturally, she didn't tell me much on the phone, but she was not terribly happy -- I think that's fair comment -- about how this case has developed. I'm sure the Attorney General is also aware that Dr.

Gossage is under a current six-month suspension and was fined approximately $35,000 and costs by the college, not for any abuse of children -- and, by the way, the specialty of his practice is dealing with children -- but for an assault by kissing the mother of this particular child. The mother visited my office on Saturday.

[3:30]

I have to maintain a professional approach to this so I'll put my personal anger aside, but it sure burns me up. We were talking earlier about victims. This is a classic case of victims. It's also a classic case of stonewalling, which the minister referred to earlier. There are many people in our society who are stonewalling cases like that of Dr. Gossage.

Let me come back to what I wanted to ask. There was an ad hoc appointment of Peter Leask last year; I don't know the date. I'm hoping to get some information from the Attorney General on this one, so the first thing I'll ask is: when was

[ Page 9855 ]

Peter Leask appointed as ad hoc counsel to examine the complaints?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are a few things I should respond to. First of all, the member showed some exasperation in not being able to know about the accounting, if not the accountability, of special prosecutors. It's fair that following the completion of a particular case the public know what it has cost. I'd certainly be very happy to provide that kind of information to members -- following a case, obviously not during it. That would apply to any expenditure of public money. It's the public's money, and the public has a right to know how it's spent.

Members are going to have to accept that I'm not going to talk about the matter raised or the individual named by the member. There are matters before the court at this very time, and it's completely inappropriate for me to make any comment at all about matters that are in front of the court. In respect of Peter Leask's appointment as an ad hoc, it was about a year ago. I hope I can be more precise. The note I have does not include a date, but I think I'm fairly safe in saying it would have been in the period approximately 11 to 14 months ago.

J. Dalton: I wasn't trying to set the AG up; that was the furthest thing from my mind. But I happen to have in the file the actual correspondence from William Stewart, the former Assistant Deputy Attorney General, when Mr. Leask was in fact appointed. Again, I can appreciate the sensitivity of things that are before the courts, but this issue is before the public. I'm standing here on behalf of the public, and I'm not going to be shut down because of some legal niceties. So I'm going to put a few things to the Attorney General. He can either respond or not respond, and we'll deal with it accordingly.

Mr. Leask was appointed February 17 by William Stewart. The letter of that date is to Chief Constable Jack Fordham of the New Westminster police department regarding allegations of criminal conduct by Dr. John Gossage. On the same date, Mr. Leask received a three-page letter from Mr. Stewart advising of the appointment. I'll be more than happy to make copies for the Attorney General if that will assist; however, he has those in his file just as I do.

What else do I have here? I've got quite a bit of material. Here's a letter of the same date -- February 17, 1993. This comes back to meetings that I had last weekend, including the grandparents of this young girl who was allegedly abused by Dr. Gossage. Bill Stewart wrote to Mr. and Mrs. Steed on that same date, referring back to conversations of four dates earlier in February of that year.

I can tell this committee and the public, that is hopefully listening -- and of course, Hansard is keeping track of this -- that Doug Steed, the grandfather of this child, and the parents, whom I also met in my office on Saturday last, are, number one, extremely upset with the way this file has been handled. They are not alone; there are many, many complainants out there. Doug Steed and his daughter and son-in-law first reported this incident, the alleged abuse of their granddaughter and daughter, to the Coquitlam RCMP in September 1992, because they are residents of Coquitlam. Dr. Gossage practises in New Westminster, so the file was of course transferred to the New Westminster police.

I have in my possession various letters on this matter, some of which are signed by the Attorney General. Maybe we'll get to those later; maybe we don't need to. I don't wish to stand here forever and pound away on this subject. The problems are going to be well documented, and the Attorney General has made some concessions. There are a lot of victims out there. I think there's far too much evidence, quite frankly, and I'll stand here and be counted on this. There are some pretty serious allegations, at least, that somebody or some ones, including groups, are sitting on this stuff and not acting in an expeditious manner.

The public is ticked off; the public has had it. I, as the Attorney General critic and as the father of three children.... As an aside, I might tell you that my first daughter went to a dentist of whom sexual misconduct was also alleged. Happily, my daughter was not a victim, but I know of other families in North and West Vancouver whose children allegedly were, so I speak personally as well as professionally and politically. We went through a rather phony question period today. It's ironic that this is Freedom of Information and Privacy Week. That's a joke. There's no damned freedom of information in this House that I can detect.

I'll get back to my concerns on behalf of the families, the victims and the many people who are unsettled by this. I'll probably be all over the map here. I should probably sit down and let some of my colleagues take over, because I'm really getting steamed. I also met with the lawyer of the family of this young girl who was allegedly victimized, who told me that in the aftermath of this matter becoming more public.... You will remember, hon. Attorney General, that a gag order was imposed on this case by Chief Justice Esson, and it was just lifted on February 21 of this year.

It's very surprising, by the way, that a gag order was imposed for almost a year, and nobody complained about it. But remember when the gag order came down on the Friedland case? Everybody squawked. Why is it that we get a gag order on a very sensitive issue such as the abuse of children by professional medical people, yet when a gag order was put in place for some stock promoter everybody squawked blue murder about it. I think our priorities are way out of whack in this society.

Back to the complaints. The lawyer on record, Paul Jaffe, told me on Saturday -- and I have no reason to disbelieve him -- that in the aftermath of the gag order being lifted, in one week he had 30 or more phone calls from people expressing concerns about their children who may have been abused or giving reports of incidents in Ontario, where Dr. Gossage used to practise, from as far back as the 1970s. What's going on in this community, in this province and in this country? Dr. Gossages could be running around in all jurisdictions of this country practising God knows what, and nobody is doing a thing about it.

Let's come back to what Mr. Leask is doing, or not doing, as the case may be -- if we're allowed to ask about that. On April 7 of this year the hon. Attorney General received a letter from the Citizens' Research Institute. Kari Simpson is the author of this letter. I also met with her on the weekend. She wrote about the Leask investigation. I have the letter in front of me; I was copied it, along with many other people. In fact, I see that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is a recipient of a copy of this letter.

Writing on behalf of the Citizens' Research Institute, Kari Simpson asked some specific questions, and I wonder if we might get answers to some of them. What are the parameters of Mr. Leask's investigation? In other words, what is his task? I would add -- and let's deal with them together: why has it taken him over a year to deal with this? We are really no further along, as far as I can see, than the day he was appointed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's fair to say that as a result of some publicity that occurred around this case, a number

[ Page 9856 ]

of other allegations have come forward. The member made reference, parenthetically, to that fact in his comments. Those allegations are now being investigated by the police, as is the appropriate course of action. Mr. Leask is the prosecutor of record in the matter. It seems to me entirely appropriate that those allegations be investigated to determine whether or not criminal charges should be laid. If the member is suggesting that we should not have the police investigate allegations of criminal wrongdoing, then he and I are in different countries on this issue.

I think it's entirely appropriate that the police conduct these investigations. That's what they're doing, and they will continue to do that until they have evidence they can take to Mr. Leask, and then Mr. Leask can make his determinations based on that evidence.

J. Dalton: Well, let's go back in time, then, hon. Attorney General, because this is not a current case. As I already indicated, the allegation was first reported to the RCMP in Coquitlam in September 1992. The file was transferred to New Westminster, and apparently a search warrant was issued. I understand it was issued on my birthday in that month -- for what that's worth -- and that it wasn't executed until January 1993.

So what were the New Westminster police doing? Apparently there was specific evidence: bodily fluid that may have been on the garments of the young girl. There is perhaps evidence, photographs taken by the doctor -- I don't know. I'm only stating things that people who are directly involved in this and who certainly have far more direct information than I do....

I will tell you point-blank right now, hon. Attorney General, that the people involved, the families, have repeatedly tried to contact Mr. Leask with regard to progress in this case. Their phone calls have not been returned, and their letters have not been answered. They are prepared to document these things. They have told me so. I don't have that yet, but I'll certainly obtain it if need be.

Since February 17, 1993, when Bill Stewart appointed Mr. Leask as ad hoc counsel in this case, we've had glacial progress -- if I can put it that way. And where are we today? We've got some extremely concerned parents, grandparents and other people in New Westminster and other communities. These things, as the minister can appreciate, have a domino effect. How many people are going to feel safe taking their children for medical attention if there's even a suggestion, innuendo or rumour in a community of malpractice or abuse that may or may not be happening?

We should not, of course, condemn those who have not yet been condemned. But in the case of Dr. Gossage, I referred earlier to a gag order that was imposed, and my question was as to why that was so. I certainly had some questions, but I'm not going to get answers to those here. Why was that gag order not lifted until February 21, 1994? What's going on in the meantime? What happened to the right of the public to know? What happened to open, judicial court process?

I think, when you consider cases like Friedland and the unfortunate Teale case in Ontario -- one that got so ridiculous that they're trying to enforce bans out of the province of Ontario.... I never got any legal opinion on the authenticity of such a ban in this province, but I certainly have doubts as to whether the province of British Columbia could enforce the ban imposed in a court in Ontario. That may be a question for another day and another environment.

[3:45]

Coming back to Gossage, I don't wish to condemn those who have not yet been condemned, but there is certainly a lot of evidence out there -- or at least allegations. There are certainly inferences raised by the people directly involved that this case has not been well-handled -- certainly not in an expeditious manner, and I'm prepared to say so.

It is not in any way an assurance to the public of British Columbia, when we want to talk about law and order and go through the platitudes of community policing and safety, and then we start opening up a case like Gossage. I think we are being hypocritical if we're talking about community policing and safety, and this, that and the other nonsense on one hand, and then we allow a case like this to gather dust for so many years. As I said, it's going back to the 1970s and perhaps earlier, to allegations by people from Ontario, where Dr. Gossage used to practise.

I have some newspaper articles here of recent date, where there is a lot of concern expressed about who this mysterious doctor was. Doug Steed, a grandfather -- God bless him -- was outside the doctor's office when the ban was on, saying: "At least I have the right to walk around in front of somebody's office and indicate that there may be a problem inside, and you can draw your own conclusion as to who it may be." Now we know publicly who that doctor is.

As I say, I've talked to the deputy registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons about this case. She cannot disclose very much; I didn't ask her to. She was on CBC Radio this morning concerning another allegation. As the hon. Attorney General knows, there are, unfortunately, potentially thousands of these cases, and we have to speak on behalf of concerned people.

This is not necessarily something that may make the Attorney General happier, but I respect him as a person. He has always been cooperative with me, and I think he's an honourable man. But there is something far more important than whether or not the Attorney General is a nice guy or whether or not the process is being served. The people of this province deserve something better than appointing somebody on February 17, 1993, and over a year later we're still spinning our wheels.

There are more and more complaints being generated. Other things have been drawn to my attention. For example, there was evidence that should have been examined, such as articles of clothing. Judging from the way it was described to me, there was a tug-of-war between the Coquitlam and New Westminster RCMP detachments over who was going to even bother to analyze this stuff. The lawyer of record for the family recently received a visit at 8 o'clock in the morning from the Coquitlam RCMP. Why were they visiting the lawyer of record at 8 o'clock one morning?

They wanted him to disclose other people who had contacted him with complaints. Maybe that's fair game, but it seemed a little surprising to me that the RCMP would show up unannounced, while somebody was still trying to enjoy his morning coffee, to ask questions of that nature. I said to the lawyer that if that were my doorstep -- unlike the 12:30 visit I referred to earlier -- I would have sent them packing, because I don't want my breakfast hour to be disturbed by people who arrive unannounced. That's not fair game.

There are things out there, hon. Attorney General, that you and I may not even know about, but perhaps we should be asking questions. I would like to think that your ministry will be asking and getting some answers to the same questions that I am asking. I haven't heard them yet, and I guess I'm not going to get them today.

What are some other things that I could comment on? I also have various correspondence in my file between the Attorney General and Doug Steed. Mr. Steed, naturally, is not a happy camper. And why should he be? In a way, he's

[ Page 9857 ]

probably going through as much hell as his daughter and son-in-law are. Maybe for a moment we should even give a thought to the young girl who was allegedly victimized. We tend to forget the young and get all excited about how adults may react to these things. I'm hoping that nothing happened, but there are too many smoking guns out there to say that nothing happened. I think there is far more to it than that. I could go on and on with that, but my blood pressure is rising by the moment, and it's probably not good for me.

For the information of the Attorney General, I have in my file the curriculum vitae of John Gossage, which indicates that he did indeed practise in Ontario at one time. I said that Paul Jaffe has received complaints and calls of concern from residents of Ontario going back to the 1970s at least -- maybe earlier. I see, for example, that Dr. Gossage was a senior pediatrician at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto in 1966 and 1967. So who knows how far back this goes? Maybe there is nothing to it. Sure. And maybe the Easter Bunny is alive and well. So there you are.

Perhaps I could ask other things, but I don't think I'm going to, because it's personally causing me more concern than I thought it would when I got to my feet.

I don't buy these sorts of responses: it's before the courts; there's a special prosecutor; this is not a case of a special prosecutor; this is an ad hoc prosecutor.

By the way, that reminds me. There was an announcement in the newspaper that a second ad hoc prosecutor was allegedly appointed to this case. I say allegedly because it turns out it wasn't a second ad hoc prosecutor; it was somebody working in the New Westminster regional counsel's office -- somebody who was an employee. Quite frankly, there was a misleading inference in that newspaper article, to indicate a second ad hoc prosecutor had been appointed, when it turned out to be a woman lawyer working in that area anyway.

Here it is in the Vancouver Sun, Tuesday, March 22, 1993, under the headline: "Second Prosecutor to Review Child Abuse Case." "The Attorney General's ministry says a second Crown prosecutor will help review a decision not to charge a New Westminster child abuse expert with sexual assault."

It goes on and on. We have ascertained -- not me personally, but the people who advised me -- that it was not a special or ad hoc second prosecutor. That's misleading. I don't know whether that information came out of the Attorney General's office, but that sort of thing is just trying to pour some oil on troubled waters. That one didn't work.

What else can I say about this case? I'll sit down, and maybe I'll get some other reaction.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: One of the frustrations of this job is often being unable to comment on matters that I would very much like to comment on. I'm in a position that prevents that. I think members would vilify me, quite properly, were I to make comments that led to an appropriate response by the justice system in dealing with cases. I have tried from the beginning of my appointment to be very careful about what I say so as not to prejudice in any way an ongoing investigation or any matter that may be before the courts. I intend to continue that, although the member may not be very happy about it.

That's life, and I'm not going to vary from that. I will make no comment about the subject matter that the member is discussing, because there is an ongoing police investigation. I do not comment on matters when there is an ongoing investigation.

A prosecutor from the criminal justice branch was assigned to assist the ad hoc prosecutor in this case. The decisions will be made by Mr. Leask, however, and not by people employed in the criminal justice branch.

During the comments of the member, he referred to a gag order and the lifting of it in February, forgetting somehow in the weaving of this presentation to make the point that that was a civil matter entirely outside of our jurisdiction in the criminal justice branch. The court imposed a gag, and the court lifted it. That has nothing whatsoever to do with me. That's all that I'm going to be able to say on this subject at this point.

J. Dalton: I appreciate the sensitivity of cases like this. I appreciate that the Attorney General cannot be perceived as interceding or making comments about ongoing matters, either in this House or elsewhere. I also appreciate that the gag order involved a potential civil proceeding, but it doesn't make the public any happier to know that the judiciary is imposing gags of this sort. I'm not suggesting the Attorney General can intercede and tell the judiciary what to do; heaven forbid that we get into that sorry state.

But somebody has to suggest to judges who are prepared to close the public courtrooms that they might want to think twice about it, and I'm more than happy to tell them so. I suppose the Attorney General is probably thinking: "If you ever get to be Attorney General, what are you going to do?" Who knows? We'll have to see what happens in the field of politics.

But I am not in that state. I am in the state of opposition. I am in the state of a person who has personal concerns about things that could directly affect my family. When I see the true emotion of people such as the parents of this young victim, and I talk to the grandparents of this young victim, read the newspaper accounts and letters, and hear the phone calls and people out in the streets who are wondering what's happened to the system of which the Attorney General is boss.... Let's forget about Gossage for a moment. What has happened to this system?

We seem to have got off the rails about how the 99 percent of us who obey the rules can feel assured that those rules are being adhered to. As I have already indicated, I don't see a lot of evidence that that is happening enough in our society. It is of no consolation whatsoever to Mr. and Mrs. Steed and the parents of this alleged victim, as well as the many others and the many other Gossages.

I don't need to stand here and even give a hint of how many abuse cases there are involving the clergy, the professionals and politicians. Let's be fair; I suppose we're not any better off than anyone else. That is a fact, hon. Attorney General. I realize this is getting us nowhere as far as estimates are concerned, because this isn't a budgetary matter. This is an emotional and personal matter, but I'm going to speak on it. We are going to have to watchdog cases like Gossage carefully, and I can assure you that the opposition will.

We're going to carefully watchdog the cases where special prosecutors are appointed and seem to be spinning their wheels forever and spending our money in the process, all in the pursuit of justice. Justice is a precious commodity, but it's also an expensive one. It's like education, health care, social services, and all the other things that governments provide on our behalf.

[4:00]

Some members may have read the second front

section of the Vancouver Sun today. I made some comments about the $100,000 party this government threw on behalf of SkyTrain the other day in Surrey. I don't have it in front of me, but basically I said that these clowns don't get it. They are prepared to throw away a hundred thousand bucks of our money on parties and brochures that contain the pictures of

[ Page 9858 ]

three NDP MLAs in Surrey and not the two Liberal MLAs that represent the same area. That sort of thing is a joke. It has nothing to do with this ministry, but it has a lot to do with this government. The Attorney General is a senior cabinet minister in this government, and I hope that he is unsettled by some of the conduct of this government and by their priorities.

Coming back to Gossage and other cases, I'm not going to beat those to death, but it's burning me up. I'm not going to give up on it. Maybe the next thing I'll have to say on that will be in a private member's statement or to the press. Maybe something the Attorney General is not aware of is that a Vancouver lawyer -- he's a personal friend of mine as well, but that's irrelevant -- was in court today asking for an adjournment. I don't know all the things he had to say in court, but I know he probably surprised a lot of people.

Perhaps some of the ministry's officials know what I'm speaking about; maybe they don't. It should be in the news tonight. He had some very damning comments to make about the justice system and things that he and many of his clients have personally encountered.

I can also tell you that Dr. Gossage -- and this may be the last thing I'll say at the moment about him -- who used to be a "star witness," so to speak, for this lawyer, is no longer a star witness -- for good reason. Dr. Gossage has been discredited as a witness, and I guess as a professional. The hon. Attorney General is no doubt aware that Dr. Gossage -- and I believe I said this earlier -- has been suspended for six months by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. and fined approximately $35,000 in costs, so his track record is anything but perfect. There will be more on this, I'm sure -- maybe not in these estimates, but certainly in the life of this government.

I'm just here now on my feet to flag the very fact that things are not perfect out there. The minister agreed with that; I agreed in my opening comments. Things ain't perfect, but I can tell you, things can get a lot better. The bottom line is that somebody has to mind the store -- and that somebody, in the case of the Attorney General's estimates, is the Attorney General.

I'm hoping that maybe we'll have a happier exchange about some of the other items that we'll touch upon; maybe not. I don't know whether the minister and his officials are surprised at the tone of the opening gambit in these estimates. Quite frankly, I didn't know exactly where I might take this and how emotional I might get. I don't plan to get emotional. I'm not an emotional person, but I sure get burned up when there's something to be burned up about.

What else was I going to say? That's enough for now. Perhaps some other members would like to get to their feet. I want to go into the Legal Services Society sooner or later, and if we can do that today, so be it. But I'll sit down for now and keep my mouth shut.

D. Symons: I have just a few questions of the Attorney General. There's one thing I'm curious about. Since the government reorganized cabinet roles, does provincial emergency preparedness still come under his ministry?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.

D. Symons: Fine. Thank you. I'm concerned about how much money was spent last year on earthquake studies or earthquake preparedness.

The Chair: Will the hon. member take his seat so the hon. Attorney General can respond?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Why don't you ask a series of questions?

D. Symons: The other

part I would ask is: what are you spending on each of those things this year? What was spent last year on either earthquake studies or earthquake preparedness? What's being budgeted for this year for those two parts?

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In order to be precise with my answer, I'd like some time, and I'll get back within the context of these estimates. But the member should know that while there are earthquake preparedness manoeuvres and exercises that occur from time to time -- we had one last fall, and there's another one coming this spring -- emergency preparedness is generally for any and all emergencies. Much of the work that's done to prepare for one is applicable to the other, and therefore there isn't a separation based on particular emergencies. But I will try to get back to the member with some precise numbers once I can get hold of them.

D. Symons: I thank the minister. I have been a victim in one of these preparedness simulations...

J. Dalton: Did you survive?

D. Symons: ...and I survived, thank you, hon. member. I can see what you say, because I believe one year we had a chemical spill that put a cloud over the community, and the other time it was an earthquake. So if there are some figures that do relate to the earthquake aspect of it, I think that it's on the minds of the people of this province. In the last few years there have been two serious earthquakes in California. I live in Richmond, which has a sort of unstable base to it. There are a good number of people who want to feel that Richmond will stay there if there is an earthquake. I have a particular interest in that topic.

Last year during the estimates, I asked some questions regarding drinking-driving. The Motor Vehicle Act now comes under the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Does the enforcement of the law relating to drinking-driving remain with the Attorney General? Can I ask questions relating to that?

I am concerned with the fact that there quite often seems to be a time lag in our court system between the time that the offence takes place and the time of the court action, not only in drinking-driving but in other criminal offences. I think it must be awfully difficult for the prosecution to call a witness to an event that took place eight or 18 months ago. It must be hard for a witness to an accident or a criminal event to remember the colour of the person's eyes who held that gun on them, or to remember the actions of the driver of a car who was in an automobile accident involving drinking-driving.

What has the Attorney General's department done since my questions last year in order to speed up the movement of court cases? It would be a little fairer to both sides if we didn't have this terrible time lag, which makes it more difficult for the prosecution and the defence to bring forth credible witnesses.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is no question that in an ideal world matters should proceed more quickly than they often do. In most of the urban centres of B.C., we now have delays of about six months for a variety of infractions. In my view

[ Page 9859 ]

that's too long. It's still within the limits established by the Supreme Court in the Askov decision and the subsequent modifications of the Askov decision, which allow more leeway than six months. Nonetheless, it doesn't make me happy to report those kinds of delays. The points the member makes about the memories of witnesses and others are valid. We have a court system that is under a lot of pressure at the present time, and we have taxpayers who are under a lot of pressure. We're trying to find a way of balancing those two facts of life.

D. Symons: Recently there has been some public concern regarding drivers who have lost their licences -- through various acts over a period of time they have built up a lot of demerit points and lose their licences -- and continue to drive. I know it's illegal, the Minister knows it's illegal, but apparently they can do it because there is not a great deal of follow-up to ensure that when they lose their licences they are not still driving a car. Has the minister's department taken some steps so that there can be some follow-up to make sure that when a person is suspended from driving they are no longer driving?

If they continue to drive when their licence is suspended, will there be something more than a wrist-slapping?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member is asking me whether, following a court decision which strips the driver's licence away from an individual, there are directions to the police to camp outside that person's house and wait for him to come out driving, no there are not. That's not something that's been addressed in that way. Police have time to do a certain number of things every day, and they don't do all of the things that everybody would like all the time, simply because there aren't enough police officers and there are a variety of priorities. That's not to say this is not an important issue.

The police are able to catch a fair number of people, and it is an offence if people get caught. If the member is suggesting this needs to be a higher priority in policing, that's a fair comment, and it's something that I'll give some thought to.

D. Symons: Thank you. If somebody has lost their licence through driving infractions and, more likely, through criminal infractions, I wonder if the minister might consider that their names be publicized. We might put a snitch line in the paper so that the neighbours or other people in the communities see that this person has lost their licence. Otherwise, often when that happens it's not known in the community and the person can still be driving around. People don't know that the person is no longer eligible to drive, and that, in a sense, creates a threat to the community.

If we perhaps used a bit of publicity, we could end up without having the police stop at the door. We could have the community watching the person. Has the minister considered something of that sort?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have to say I'm not a great fan of snitch lines. I don't think that in the long term they're an appropriate response to justice issues.

However, the member has raised the point about the serious concern with respect to people who have lost their licence because of some violation and are then continuing to drive. I think that's a serious offence, and it's treated as such when these people are apprehended. The member is suggesting that perhaps more attention should be paid in various ways to making sure that these people are apprehended. I'll take the member's comments and, as I said earlier, give some thought to them.

D. Symons: Along the same vein, I asked some questions last year, and you seemed interested in the suggestions I made. I'm wondering if something might have come of them. Again, that was to do with people who had lost their licence or been suspended because of drinking and driving, and that we might consider impounding or even confiscating the car of the person involved. Quite often what will happen if a person is suspended from driving is that they can end up driving a parent's or a wife's car or the car of somebody else in the family.

That person, often with full knowledge, is loaning it to a person they know doesn't have a driver's licence. So I'm wondering if we might make the owner of the car somewhat responsible also, particularly in these cases where they have knowledge of what's going on.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It was in fact May 12 that the member raised those questions with me last year, and on September 15 or thereabouts the responsibility for that particular suggestion and possible action was transferred to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. So during those estimates, perhaps the member could recanvass those questions with the new minister responsible.

D. Symons: That's what I was asking earlier -- about where these responsibilities lie -- so I'm glad to know that. I'm also glad you gave me the date. I wasn't sure of what date I had asked you the questions last year. I can look up and see that I've covered everything I want to, so I hope that's an accurate date.

Can you give me a little bit of history, and maybe where things stand now with the family justice reform project that took place approximately a year ago. I believe the report has come in, and I'm wondering how the reforms are progressing and if there's any.... This might be leading into some pending legislation which you may care to refer to but not speak on.

[4:15]

Also, I have some great concerns with the family maintenance enforcement program. I get calls to my office, and I'm of the sincere belief that that program is not working on behalf of the people it should be working for. It seems that the people who are trying to have the maintenance program collect maintenance for them have to supply most of the information and do most of the detective work themselves. I've had one constituent who has called the enforcement officer and told them where the defaulting partner was living.

The department seemed to know nothing about it when I called in, but they were given this information by the claimant months previous to that. He says that this is typical of what was happening. He would continually have to give information, and nothing ever followed from it. He was just dismayed. I'm not sure if this was because this happened to be a male going after enforcement from the female partner. The enforcement program is aimed more the other way around, because the majority of cases seem to be defaulting fathers. This was a defaulting mother in this case.

But cases seem to come forward where the program just does not seem to be working. There seems to be a backlog of cases that goes on for an awful long time. Maybe the minister could make some comments as to how they're planning on tightening up that program so it will be effective for those involved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, with respect to the family justice initiatives, members of the opposition and myself have a meeting scheduled for 8:30 a.m. this Friday. As

[ Page 9860 ]

it turns out, we are to do a briefing of the four pilot project initiatives that are in place in four communities around the province. They take a different approach to family justice matters, hopefully moving away from the adversarial court system into one in which mediation, where appropriate, plays a greater role. I'm prepared to talk about that a bit more during the estimates if members like. But it's my intention to brief all interested members on the subject prior to any public announcements about the particular programs, which will be ready to start rolling very soon.

In terms of FMEP, there is an intention to bring some amendments to the act to assist with enforcement powers that exist. As an MLA for all the years since FMEP was established, I and other MLAs have had a lot of concern about the program, given the calls we get at our offices. I'm told by a lot of MLAs now that the volume of calls has decreased in the last six- to eight-month period. I see some members nodding their heads. It's certainly true in the case of my constituency office. Calls have reduced quite dramatically.

When you look at the statistics produced by the family maintenance enforcement people, we are getting far greater percentages of recoveries now than existed before. Some of the bugs that were in the system are being eliminated. I hope by way of legislative change to further enhance the improvement that is going on at the FMEP office.

D. Symons: I don't know if this is the forum in which to educate me on the family maintenance enforcement program. Is it coordinated among all the provinces in Canada, along with the federal government, so that it is not possible for a person to simply absolve themselves of responsibilities by moving to another jurisdiction? Do we have some way of coordinating these across Canada? We can trace people much easier if we have the federal government involved as well. Is that all interrelated and on computer now so we can share information quickly and accurately with each other?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member may recall -- I think it was some time last fall -- that this issue was on the table at the first ministers' conference. There was a commitment then on behalf of every jurisdiction to work toward an integration of information and agreements about exchange of information between various jurisdictions. The work that has been done since that time deals with privacy implications that have to be addressed. It's my understanding that every jurisdiction in the country is cooperating on getting this done as quickly as possible in order to have this cross-provincial boundary problem addressed in an effective way.

I can't give you any indication when that might all come into place, but it's being aggressively pursued.

D. Symons: I thank you very much for the answer, because I think that's terribly important. I am not after firm date lines, but the fact that it's being worked on and seems to be progressing is going to help a lot of people who are in financial need. Yet the responsible people who are supposed to be paying for this -- irresponsible, I guess -- seem to be getting off the hook. So the sooner that's in place, the better for them.

I have one last question regarding legal aid and the Legal Services Society. Have government contributions toward legal aid been going up in this last few years? I'm wondering if the minister might be able to give me some figures on that and some explanation as to why, when we seem to be doing quite well in B.C., relative to the rest of the country -- at least to hear the government speak -- we have these excessive cost overruns in legal aid.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am going to look up the volume increase numbers. From 1986-87 through until 1992-93 there was a cumulative increase of more than 183 percent in cost per case.

The other figure that may be more relevant is that from 1986-87 through to 1992-93 -- and this may be a more relevant answer -- the number of cases per thousand population increased by 44 percent. During that same period we had a population increase of some 16.5 percent. During the summer of 1991 the former government doubled the tariff. The way the tariff works in legal aid is that the bills generally come due much later. The case may be assigned at a certain rate in the fall of 1991, but the bill for that case may not occur until the 1992-93 fiscal year. So that delay is built into the system.

In terms of the global numbers, on March 31, 1994, the budget allocation to the Legal Services Society was $85 million. They had additional revenues of $3 million or $4 million from the Law Foundation and other minor sources, but the government portion was budgeted at $85 million. During the short debate on the special warrant members may remember that there was an item of $6.8 million for the Legal Services Society overrun that was predicted at the time the special warrant was prepared. We still don't know what the final expenditures were in the fiscal year that has just concluded. Hopefully we'll find that out in the next few weeks.

This year's budget includes $85 million in total dollars, $82 million of which is designed to meet operational and client-related costs. Three million dollars has been allocated to assist in the transition the Legal Services Society board has decided to effect. This transition will lead from a predominantly tariff model to a more evenly mixed tariff-and-staff model, which all indications lead us to believe will help us reduce the cost pressures in legal aid. The Legal Services Society is making a number of other changes. They are certainly looking at the tariff itself to see whether or not it is applicable.

They are looking at the role of duty counsel and at copayment for legal assistance at certain income levels. They are looking at a variety of initiatives.

I'm looking at some initiatives as well in terms of legislative activity, which we may see later this session, to try to do a number of things: to get hold of the spiralling costs in the delivery of legal aid, to find a way of involving the community more in the programs than has existed to date, and generally to deal with the increasing demand out there that the old system would not have been able to fund. I very much want to ensure that family legal aid as well as criminal and immigration legal aid are all properly serviced in this province. Under the old system the costs would have made delivery of that service impossible.

The Legal Services Society is an independent operation from the government. We are trying to work in our independent area of responsibility toward making what we believe, and what I think the LSS board believes, are appropriate changes in the way in which we deliver the service, dealing with both the cost and service issues.

D. Symons: I think I said it was my last question on legal aid, but I thought of another as you were speaking. I appreciate your answer.

You mentioned earlier that you might be speaking Friday in the Ned DeBeck Lounge. I think one of the important things here is that we're trying to find ways of avoiding these

[ Page 9861 ]

cases going to trial by getting the people together to discuss it outside of the trial. One of the things that might help is to get our laws into plain language. I remember last year you brought in a bill where the language in the bill to introduce plain language was quite legalistic. How is the government's plain language initiative coming? How much legislation have you put into plain language, and how is that progressing?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As bills are introduced into the House, the plain language test is applied. All bills are drafted -- as best the drafters can, given legal constraints about how words might be interpreted later on -- from a perspective of attempting to draft them in plain language. There is also a review of all statutes underway in respect of plain language. One member's definition of plain language may be different from another's -- and I remember having fun with the bill the member referred to.

But sometimes in order to prevent problems later on, you need to write these statutes very carefully, so that they can't be subject to misinterpretation or being thrown out by the courts for failure to say what the bill was intended to say.

D. Symons: Just on that same line -- because you mentioned reviewing laws -- we have an awful lot of laws on our books that I suspect are somewhat archaic and out of date. As you are reviewing these, are you also removing laws that are no longer relevant to today's society? You have the laws you're preparing for today. At what rate are you able to deal with the backlog of laws that either need to be put into plain language or need to be removed from the books entirely?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it would be fair to say, as the member for West Vancouver-Capilano said in another context, that we are moving glacially. Remember that all ministers are responsible for legislation within their particular portfolio. What happens, I think, is that given the legislative agenda, the desire to clean up old statutes, to amalgamate some or to eliminate others gets lost in the need to pare down a legislative list. Otherwise, August would be an early adjournment indeed. Some of these things get lost in that kind of shuffle.

[4:30]

G. Wilson: I welcome this opportunity to enter into this estimates debate. If things are changing glacially, as the member for West Vancouver-Capilano suggested, let me suggest that glaciers tend to change as a result of the application of heat. So let us apply some heat.

Just by way of an aside, with respect to family law and changing language, the general public would be amazed at some of the language used in the application of family law. Nevertheless, let me come back, if I may, because this has been a somewhat broad-ranging discussion so far, and it has touched on a number of different aspects of the ministry. I have questions that relate very specifically to a number of different aspects of the ministry. I take notice of the minister's comments with respect to the need to bring in appropriate personnel for each of the particular areas.

Given that the Deputy Attorney General is with us, I would like to commence my questions this afternoon with respect to the organizational structure of the ministry.

Having carefully read the 1992-93 annual report, I compared it to the annual reports of previous years, with particular reference to 1990-91, to see how we have evolved. Last year there was, I think it's fair to say, a fairly significant restructuring within the Ministry of Attorney General.

It would appear that the intention of that restructuring was to seek to take advantage of an internal audit that was going to provide a much more fiscally responsible way of dealing with the administration of justice in British Columbia, yet we note that the actual administrative and support services have increased by some $2 million this year. Most of that, it seems, is in the grants and contributions category, where there is roughly $1.4 million in increased expenditures.

I wonder if we could start by talking about this new organizational chart. In particular, I'm interested in the division there seems to be in the matters with respect to legal services and criminal justice -- and I don't know if I can look at those two separately -- as opposed to court and management services within the ministry.

I wonder if the minister might tell us why there was a move to shift those -- and it seems to be broken down in the new structure, unless I've misread this chart -- between management services and justice support programs, to divide that into more specific lines that are to report to two different assistant deputy ministers. The minister might want to tell us, first of all, why that is so and to what extent he believes that this restructuring has met his financial goals.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This isn't to delay anything, but I'm afraid we may be at cross-purposes. I think the member is referring to the most recently published annual report, the 1992-93 report, with an organizational chart in it that is not the current model. I think that needs to be understood first of all. Secondly, the fundamental issue of structural changes had to do with trying to focus the ministry on the community side in a clear and objective way.

If the member is looking for what I think is the most important change, it's the establishment of the community justice branch. They are responsible for a wide variety of initiatives, including legal aid, victim assistance and other community-related initiatives.

We made a number of other changes, including the creation of a double-deputy system, which suits this ministry particularly well. We have a Deputy Attorney General who's responsible for what you might describe as the legal side and another responsible for the justice side. I make that arbitrary distinction, if I can, but it suits my way of thinking.

The member talked about an extra couple of million dollars in costs. These are not costs that I would associate with restructuring but with increased courthouse space, increased needs in correctional institutions and the like. If any increases have occurred, it's because of those pressures on the system.

I may not be answering the member's questions directly enough, so I'll sit down and see if he wants to redirect.

G. Wilson: I'm aware that there have been changes. In fact, I'd like to talk about some of them, particularly with respect to the executive director of public gaming and the movement of public gaming out of the ministry. I'd like to know why that took place. Maybe we can talk a bit about that in a few minutes.

Incidentally, I don't notice that mentioned anywhere here. That's some $80 million? I see the Minister saying $85

[ Page 9862 ]

million. I don't see where that fits into this pie. One could argue that that's a separate system, but it doesn't seem to be working. We're still hearing that because of structural complexity, people have a difficult time gaining access to the resources they require to adequately prepare themselves in matters of litigation -- or even to understand whether their rights are within the legal system or not.

More importantly, I'd like to direct some questions for the next few minutes with respect to matters of family law and where people's rights are vis-a-vis current distinctions between the family law

section and the federal jurisdiction that applies equally to divorce. I recognize that there is a federal statute, and they are two separate things, but some very real confusion exists in this area.

Would the minister tell us how the structure of the system has changed from what I'm looking at here? What has been put in place that is different from what we are seeing here? How have those three primary areas of the ministry been addressed? That might help us to be more specific with the questions.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the decision to transfer gaming from the Attorney General to Government Services is a question that might be addressed more properly during the Premier's estimates. When the Premier restructured the government last fall, it was his decision. I can't comment on it further than that. The $85 million for legal aid is contained within the community justice branch budget, which the member will see as a separate line item of approximately $108 million; $85 million of that is money that is transferred to the Legal Services Society and administered entirely independently by them.

We do not have the American notion of a public defender system, so people who are in front of the courts and whose defence is being supported by public funds do not have the government involved with their defence in any way, other than the fact that we provide the money to this independent society to make the decisions.

The member raises questions about possible confusion. Let me just say that the legal services branch of the ministry provides legal advice to government -- a role as in-house lawyers to government. It doesn't provide legal advice to the public. I sign dozens and dozens of letters to people, saying: "No, I'm sorry, we can't give you legal advice. You need to retain independent counsel for that." The member knows that, but many in the public think that this might be a source of free advice. We do not provide advice to the public with respect to legal services.

The legal services branch is clearly there to deal with legal support to government. The criminal justice branch is unchanged. It deals with criminal justice issues -- again, as the member knows, family law initiatives that may be embarked upon outside the criminal justice system are the responsibility of the community justice branch of the ministry.

Any initiatives that move us away from a court system into mediation or some alternate dispute resolution will come out of the legal side of government -- not necessarily all the time, because the courts can be and are sometimes involved in some forms of mediation; but generally speaking, that's a community justice responsibility.

G. Wilson: I take it that the emphasis within the ministry has been directed to the provision of two primary services. If I understand the Attorney General correctly, one would be additional community services, and the second, within this particular line of the ministry, would be the educational function. I'm not suggesting that ministry-wide, but only in terms of those functions. From the correspondence that comes into our offices, it certainly seems that this isn't working.

When something is not functioning within the Legal Services Society, I don't know if it's a functional problem that exists there, or a problem associated with legal aid or with which individuals do and don't qualify for legal aid.

I am fully aware that the Society Act falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance, but let me say that it is one of the least effective acts in this province today. It is one of the least effectively administered and least often reviewed acts, and one under which there are frequent violations that simply go unchallenged. Clearly, the Society Act is something that needs to be reviewed. I understand that it's outside the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. I offer this comment for two reasons: one, I think it's useful for the Attorney General to be aware of it; and secondly, the Minister of Finance happens to be in the chamber right now and can also benefit from that comment.

[4:45]

On the question of accessing legal assistance and legal aid, there are many people in British Columbia who do not have the facility to have proper legal counsel. First of al