2009
Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
COMMITTEE A BLUES
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
(HANSARD)
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.
The committee met at 2:26 p.m.
On Vote 15: ministry operations, $444,099,000.
Hon. M. de Jong: I won't make any lengthy statements except to introduce Jerry McHale, to my immediate left, and Tara Faganello, assistant deputy minister. Behind me, Rod Seginson. I think that's who we have today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Kwan: I want to thank my colleague the critic for the Attorney General for giving me the opportunity to ask some questions following question period today regarding the Frank Paul inquiry. I understand that the minister may have some updated information, perhaps, from his staff, since being in the Legislature. To be clear, in the question period duration we were only able to quickly put the question forward for the minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
By way of background, this is our understanding. The lawyer representing the Frank Paul family and the First Nations Leadership Council was advised yesterday that they would no longer be receiving financial support for legal representation in the government's court challenge of the decision that the two Crown prosecutors should testify in the Frank Paul inquiry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is our view and that of the family and, clearly, the First Nations Leadership Council's point of view that legal representation at this juncture of the Frank Paul inquiry is absolutely essential. If we're to get at the truth of the matter, we need all of the information on the table. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Justice Davies and the Davies Commission had actually stated that. He had in fact ruled, on page 7 of the report, that he had jurisdiction to inquire into the matters otherwise considered an aspect of Crown privilege. An application for judicial review of his ruling was dismissed by the B.C. Supreme Court on July 24, 2008, and the matter is currently before the B.C. Court of Appeal. As we know, the Court of Appeal actually supported the decision for the two Crown prosecutors to proceed and to testify, and the government is appealing that decision. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Legal representation to see this to the end and to ensure that the Crown prosecutors, hopefully, have an opportunity to appear before the Davies Commission so that we can have a final report on the Frank Paul inquiry is essential. So I'm asking the minister: will he reinstate that funding so that legal representation for the Frank Paul family and the First Nations Leadership Council could continue? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for her and her colleagues' interest in this matter. One, it is obviously a very tragic set of circumstances that has given rise to the need for this inquiry; and two, the principle that is being considered judicially now by the highest court in the land is also an important one. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1430]
I can tell the member this, and it partially accounts for the answers I gave a few moments ago in question period. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I am not aware of, nor has there been, any change in the provision for support to the family, Mr. Paul's family, as it relates to the inquiry. I realize that the member's question extends beyond that and, I better understand now, relates specifically to the appeal that has been taken to the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the narrow point of law. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is my understanding that there were discussions between representatives from the ministry and counsel for the family, but no final decision has been made about the measure of support that may or may not be available as it relates to submissions that are being made to the Supreme Court of Canada. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Kwan: It is our understanding that the lawyer received the phone call and was told that financial support has been withdrawn. I want to say very clearly that this is a matter before the Supreme Court of Canada; however, it is very much, in my view, a part of the overall inquiry into the death of Frank Paul. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the Davies Commission, Justice Davies goes on to say that this is an interim report. What has been published to date, Alone and Cold, is an interim report. The "interim report reports on all aspects of the inquiry's mandate, except as it relates to the response of the criminal justice branch. Depending on the outcome of this litigation, I may hear evidence and then publish a final report into the branch's response." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So this is only part of the answer, you see. It is a tragic case. It has been more than ten years. An aboriginal man was dumped in the back alley of the Downtown Eastside by the Vancouver police. I read this report over and over again — I have several copies of it — because every time I think about this case, and I think about the constituents in my riding, I am shocked. I am shocked at the outcome and the situation which some of my constituents face. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These are some of the most marginalized people in our community, people without voice. Finally, we have an interim report that really highlights the need for change. Recommendations have not been enacted, I have to add. I've asked the Solicitor General on numerous occasions — both the previous Solicitor General and the current one — to enact these recommendations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Having said that, there is a critical piece related to the inquiry, and that is to get at the final aspect of the issues related. The two Crown prosecutors testifying would be essential to that. That was stated in the Davies Commission. He had made a ruling on it. It was supported by the courts and is now being challenged by the government to that effect. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the minister, then, confirm…? He said earlier that there had been no decision made in withdrawing the funding for the Frank Paul family and the First Nations Leadership Council for their legal representation at these appealed decisions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the minister state clearly on the record that no decision has been made, and that, in fact, if a decision has been made, as the lawyer advises, that the government will overturn that decision and ensure that legal representation will continue for this family and the First Nations Leadership Council? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I will answer the question as best I can. I must confess that I'm unsure whether or not Mr. Kelleher — who, I think, the member referenced in her earlier question — is counsel for both the family and the leadership council. I believe that's the case, but I can't say with certainty. Let us assume, for the purpose of this discussion, that that is so. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I hope, first of all, that the member appreciates that I am in no way discounting the importance or seriousness of the question that will now be considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. Obviously, we thought it important enough an issue to make application for the appeal, so there's, I hope, no quarrel there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1435]
It is an important point of law, and it touches fairly directly on matters that arose during the course of Mr. Justice Davies's deliberations and gathering of evidence. I can repeat for the member as clearly as I can that with respect to the inquiry itself — the proceedings before Mr. Justice Davies — no changes have been made or are planned with respect to the support that is available to the families as it relates to proceedings before the Supreme Court of Canada. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I am advised — and I can only relay to the member the information that has been provided to me — that Mr. Kelleher was advised that no decision has been made with respect to what manner of support, if any, will be available to assist the families in terms of submissions before the Supreme Court of Canada. No decision has been made. I am mindful of the very strong advocacy that the member brings to this committee, arguing in favour of that support. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Kwan: I do want to point out very clearly that — yes, while the minister says on the one hand, the inquiry and the representation for the inquiry itself — the family continues to receive legal representation funded by the government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But related and very much part and parcel of this inquiry is the appeal that the government has launched with respect to the two Crown prosecutors testifying at the inquiry. We cannot separate these two things because they're intrinsically related, and there's just no way of getting around it. It's very much part and parcel of getting at the final truth and final closure, I believe, for the family in this case. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the government deems it important for the government to bring this to the Supreme Court of Canada for final ruling and for the government to have legal representation there, surely the government will understand how equally important it will be for the family to have legal representation at that level as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I am sure that the Attorney General will see the logic in that, because I have glimpses, moments of reasonableness coming from the Attorney General on issues as such, and I am looking and hoping to see that and wanting to get a confirmation from the government that that will indeed be the case, because that is the cornerstone of justice in our community — to ensure that there is appropriate representation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Without this representation, the family will be at a complete disadvantage for getting at the truth and getting final closure and justice for the loss of Frank Paul. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I hope that the minister will agree with me on that front. Also, I would like to ask the minister: if no decision has in fact been made, when can we expect a decision to be finalized by the government on this? We heard clearly from the lawyer that yesterday they were told that the funding for them in this matter had been withdrawn. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I cannot nor will I try to account for the different versions of the conversation that the member and I have received. I want to assure the member that I take very seriously the submissions that she has made with respect to the importance of ensuring that participants in the various stages of this inquiry have the means available to them to participate in a meaningful way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think the member will appreciate that I'm not in a position nor do I intend to render a decision at this very moment, but I will certainly take into account the strength of the submissions and arguments she has brought on behalf of the family here today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Kwan: When can we expect a final decision then? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: It will need to be soon, insofar as proceedings before the court will follow a timeline. That may be something that I am able to offer the hon. member shortly. I can't say with certainty at this moment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Kwan: Will the minister commit that the moment he has clarity on the matter — the denial that the funding has been withdrawn, which I sincerely hope is the case, and that the lawyer may be mistaken in that understanding — to refute that and to communicate that with me directly the minute he has that information? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1440]
Even if the government decides not to fund the legal representation for the Frank Paul family and the leadership council, will the minister also commit to communicating that to me immediately so that the public knows where their government is at with respect to the Frank Paul family and the leadership council accessing justice and legal representation in this very important case? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I think the decision will need to be made in a matter of a few short weeks, so we will not be waiting a prolonged period of time. The member and her colleagues have raised the matter. A decision one way or another is destined to be in the public domain. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As a matter of courtesy, I think it's appropriate to communicate, firstly, to counsel for the family. Thereafter, I'll endeavour to ensure that the member's office is aware of what the decision is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Kwan: Thank you. I'm going to move on, then, just to ask quickly…. In terms of the Frank Paul inquiry itself and the recommendations that came out of interim report, the government has had some time now to review this report and the recommendations contained. Could the minister advise: when can we see implementation of these recommendations? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I wonder if the member can assist me with respect to the specific recommendations that she seeks updates upon. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Kwan: Well, there are 12 recommendations, and they're contained in the report from the "Summary of recommendations," pages 20 to 23. Perhaps I can start with this first one, and that would be on the issue around "a civilian-based criminal investigation model for investigation of police-related deaths occurring in the municipalities policed by the 11 municipal departments." That's recommendation 4. What's the minister's view on that, and does he support such a model? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I generally am reluctant to do this, although I'm perhaps saved a little bit by virtue of the fact that my colleague the Solicitor General is due to be in this seat as soon as tomorrow. It is something that is engaging the attention of the Solicitor General. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The critic for the Attorney General will recall that we had a little bit of a discussion around this with respect to the new police complaints commission statutory provisions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1445]
He had some specific thoughts and recommendations that he tendered at that time relating to the appropriate means by which that might be advanced, in terms of negotiations with the federal authorities around the RCMP. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess the short answer is that on that specific recommendation it is something that is directly engaging the government via the Solicitor General's ministry. It is less directly engaging the Attorney General's ministry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Kwan: Okay. Well, let me then segue. I'll be happy to ask the Solicitor General that question. Then let me just move on to the next recommendation here, recommendation No. 6: "I recommend that the independent investigation office be accountable to the Ministry of Attorney General." Does the Attorney General support that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I am mindful of the time and am loath to waste it. I'm trying to get my copy of the report. It might help if the member…. I don't know how lengthy the recommendation is. Could she read me the entire recommendation or pass a copy to me? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Kwan: Does the minister mean all 12 recommendations? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: Just the one we're dealing with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Kwan: Just the one. The one actually says: "Recommendation 6. I recommend that the IIO" — independent investigative officer — "be accountable to the Ministry of Attorney General." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I think what the commissioner is suggesting there is that in creating this independent office it would seem logical that it report somewhere other than the division of government responsible for policing. Insofar as I believe the commissioner is trying to create an independent agency separate and apart from policing, it makes a degree of sense. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can't say at this stage to the member that there are legislative provisions in the planning. We don't have the independent office yet that the member is referring to, but I understand the logic behind the recommendation that would say that, if it were to exist, it should report to the Attorney General's ministry as opposed to the Solicitor General's ministry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Kwan: I note that the Attorney General is an experienced elected official and minister, no doubt, and so I appreciate his answers and the trajectory of where all my questions are going to go with respect to the answers that might be forthcoming. So let me just ask this one final question of the minister, then. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1450]
As we know, these recommendations, and there are many…. There are 12 of them. Some of them call for a civilian detox centre, for example, the independent office in terms of the investigative model, and so on. So it crosses ministries, crosses government. Somewhere along the line…. I think it was the Minister of Small Business who said that this government operated as a team, so no doubt the minister and the government and cabinet were engaged in discussions collectively about implementation of these recommendations, some of which will fall into the rubric of the Attorney General. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One recommendation in it, recommendation 3, actually calls for the provincial Ombudsman — if the Ombudsman is agreeable, it says — to "monitor progress of the comprehensive response for a three-year period and, on an annual basis, make a special report to the Legislature and comment publicly on progress made on this initiative." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They're talking about all of the recommendations coming forward to have a third party, an independent body, to review that progress being made. Conceptually, is that something that the Attorney General will support? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I think that, conceptually, the notion that one would measure progress on an ongoing basis is absolutely worth pursuing. Candidly, as I read that some time ago, I wasn't sure the Office of the Ombudsperson would be my first choice. I'm sure there's an argument that says that we have other legislative officers that may have a more regular contact with the policing regime. That's something that one might want to consider. But the notion of having an independent officer measuring progress is one that I think we've tried to embrace in other instances, and it might logically apply here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Kwan: I will make this final comment about the Frank Paul inquiry. We know the tragedy behind it. This report was tabled February 12, 2009. You know, I feel like I'm getting older as we hold on to these reports, and they get heavier and heavier in every sense of the word in the hearts and in the souls of the people in our community who are waiting for action. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To honour the people who have died, who have died tragically, action needs to be taken, and these recommendations need to be acted on. To that end, I would ask the Attorney General to be that advocate on behalf of the family of Frank Paul and people like him, people in my community and other communities who have undergone such traumatic experiences — that justice be done and be seen to be done and that legislators act on what is right, because it is the right thing to do to ensure that there's accountability in our system and that where people are hurt by the system, they are answered to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They cannot sort of hide behind something or another, some bureaucratic system and procedures, so that the truth might never be gotten at. And ten years is too long — far too long — for the family to wait for the truth. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I urge the Attorney General to undertake that and to make that commitment and to pursue it. I hope that within the year we can actually see a commitment from the government to say that they will adopt this report in its entirety and that they will implement the recommendations within. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: To the member: I can assure her that I and the government will be mindful primarily of the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Paul and all that has transpired since then. I can also assure her that I will be mindful of the passionate interest she has shown through the various stages, particularly through the life of the inquiry and offer — not for her, because she knows this, but for others — the observation that the report, with the very poignant title Alone and Cold, is an interim report. The work has not yet been completed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Insofar as there are some interim recommendations, my expectation is that once the important legal issue that we have asked the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on has been determined, there may well be additional recommendations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm appreciative of the member for her and her colleagues' continued interest and the questions and advocacy she has brought to the issue today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1455]
The Chair: We will direct all questions towards the budget estimates of the Attorney General. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I just want the Attorney General to confirm that the original budget estimate when the budget was tabled in February and the change that occurred by September had decreased the projected budget by $8.745 million. Isn't that, in fact, correct? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: That's correct. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I understand also that, in fact, the projection for the '10-11 budget will be a further $7.959 million, and the succeeding year, '11-12, will be $3.454 million as well. Is that correct? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I wonder if the member could restate the figures. There's obviously a direct answer to this. I just want to make sure the numbers are correct. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: My understanding is that next year's budget is expected to be $540.719 million, which will be a drop of $7.959 million. The 2011-2012 budget is projected to be $530.215 million, which is a further cut of $3.454 million, in total. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: Those numbers as they appear in the documents are correct. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General can advise, given that he's responsible for the prosecution of crime in British Columbia, how this information with respect to budget cuts correlates to the crime rate in the province. Is the crime rate decreasing? Is it increasing? Is it stable? Are these numbers essentially going to be sufficient to provide public prosecution? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I wanted to try and communicate this in a way that might be meaningful. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1500]
I'm advised that the prosecution branch distinguishes crime in a variety of ways, one of them on the basis of seriousness — categories 1 through 4. Category 1 is the most serious type of crime — everything from arson, serious assaults, murder, sexual offences, kidnappings, that sort of thing. Category 2 is serious weapons offences; again, assaults; serious firearms offences. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Those two categories. In the case of category 1, an increase of 8 percent. That's actual as opposed to a projection. In category 2, an increase of 13 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Categories 3 and 4. Not to suggest there are crimes that are not serious, but less serious offences are reducing, in the case of category 3, by 8 percent and in the case of category 4 — theft unders, disturbances, mischief — by 24 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: Obviously, the public, hearing that there's an 8 percent increase in serious crime in the first category and 13 percent in serious crime in the second category, is not going to be overly comforted by those statistics. It begs the question: when category 3 is down by 8 percent and category 4 is down by 24 percent, does this in fact reflect not an actual decrease in crime so much as a shifting of police priorities? Or are these numbers given on the basis of charges laid or prosecutions successfully completed? Is there a difference? What do these statistics actually represent? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I have inadvertently misled the member and the committee. For category 3, the actual number is 3 percent. I think I said 8. And category 4 is 20 percent. I think I said 24. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Back to the member's last question. The figures derive from approved prosecutions. I think the theme of the member's question is that even having regard for these statistics, are they influenced by shifting investigative priorities? I think the answer to that is yes. This is a snapshot of cases for which reports to Crown counsel are received and decisions are made to proceed with a prosecution. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: Is the ministry keeping statistics on another basis? In other words, what I'm being told is that these numbers and statistics represent approved prosecutions, but they don't in fact represent the total number of reports to police by aggrieved citizens who've had their house broken into, their lawnmower stolen, their windows smashed or graffiti spread around their businesses. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Is there other statistical evidence kept by the ministry? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1505]
Hon. M. de Jong: That's the nature of the statistical information that the ministry keeps. I think it's fair to say my recollection or my impression is that police departments, for example, will keep a record of complaints received, victims of crime. In some cases those crimes do not lead to charges for a variety of reasons. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There is another set of statistics that I think the member is alluding to, which refers to crimes committed and reported as opposed to crimes prosecuted. I have provided statistical information relating to the latter because that's the information available to the ministry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's answer. From the public's perspective it's all well and good that the government can report on these particular statistics, but I guess the next question is: does the ministry inquire of the police around these statistics annually, and do the responses to those questions about crime statistics have an impact on policy? If so, what is that change in policy when it comes to prosecution? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Out there in the public, notwithstanding the notoriety of the Bacon brothers and the gangs and all those things, the fact is that most British Columbians are probably affected by the B and E, affected by the petty theft. They're impacted, obviously, by drunk drivers who don't seem to be diminishing on our roads. I guess my question is: has there been a deliberate shift in terms of approval of charges to the more serious crimes? If so, was there any statistical information to support that, or is this simply a policy decision? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's a valid and important question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
First of all, I neglected to introduce Mr. Bob Gillen, who I think the member knows and is familiar with. He plays a very important role — in fact, an important statutory role — as the man in charge of the criminal justice branch, or prosecution service as I like to call it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I am reminded and advised that there has been no specific policy shift of the sort that the member inquired around. The prosecution branch continues to receive reports from Crown counsel in the manner that I think the member is familiar with. Decisions around prosecutions continue to be made on the basis of whether a proceeding is in the public interest and whether there is a substantial likelihood of securing a conviction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Having said that, there is no doubt that in exercising that very important function, Crown counsel are mindful of the resources available to them. I wouldn't want to suggest otherwise, but there is no…. I'm trying to think of the case. The example that I'm most familiar with dates from a time when the member sat as a member of the government caucus. Mr. Gabelmann was the AG, and I was still out plying my trade. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It was a specific decision around how to prosecute spousal assaults where a specific directive was given. Upon reflection, I thought it was done…. I understand that it was a thoughtful approach to a problem. But I want to pass on to the member that there has not been anything like a formal policy shift in the charge approval process that would influence the statistical information that I have offered to the member a few moments ago. I hope that's helpful in answering his question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: First, I want to thank the Deputy Attorney General and other members of his staff who took some time to brief me some weeks ago. I certainly would be remiss if I didn't recognize Mr. Gillen, of course. His particular and unique position in the justice system is well respected and regarded. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1510]
To come back to these statistics, however, there certainly hasn't been an 8 percent increase in B.C.'s population. There hasn't been an 8 percent growth in our economy. There certainly hasn't been a 13 percent increase in our population or a 13 percent increase in our economy. These statistics indicate that in the course of a year we've got an 8 percent increase in the most serious crimes, a 13 percent increase in the secondary serious crimes, and yet the Attorney General's position here today is that there's no policy shift in terms of prosecution. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would think that a reasonable person looking at these numbers would say: "Have we just not been recording our statistics appropriately? Has there been some dramatic shift in British Columbia in the last year that would account for this?" In other words, has not the Attorney General made an inquiry to determine why these numbers represent such a dramatic shift, particularly when they're contrasted with a 20 percent reduction in charge approvals in the lowest category of offences? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Those are dramatic shifts. If the government had 20 percent more money this year for the budget, everyone would be dancing around here with party hats on. Yet you've got a 20 percent decrease in crime on one end, on the low end, and an 8 percent increase on the other. It strikes me that there must be some accounting or reason for that, and I want to know what the Attorney General has done in terms of investigating as to why these numbers are the numbers that they are. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to be cautious about trying to interpret statistics and to speak for policing and investigative agencies. I do know that I have read reports that on a national level, including British Columbia, it has shown decreasing trends around low-end property crimes. I don't doubt for a moment that in light of what has been taking place in British Columbia, policing agencies have made a concerted effort to focus on what we laypeople generally refer to as gang-related activities and criminal activities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Am I in a position to offer a definitive assessment of what the statistics reveal or say about criminal behaviour trends? I'm probably not. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But let me say this, lest there be any doubt in the mind of the hon. member. The prosecution branch…. Like the investigative branch of government, investigative branches through the policing agencies are taxed in the fullest way possible to meet the challenges posed by criminal activity taking place in the province and are coordinating with the police around both the prosecution and investigation of offences. But the burden is a heavy one, and is there and revealed in the statistics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's answer, but to some extent I think he's missing my point. If you step back and look at these statistics, it raises a number of questions that I think the government, through the Attorney General Ministry, should be asking. Why is it up 8 percent? Why is it up 13 percent? Why is it down 20 percent? What's changed out there? What are the reasons for it? Has the Attorney General directed anyone to conduct an inquiry into this? I don't mean a formal inquiry. Do a study. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Has ministry staff asked police forces for statistical information that might explain this rather dramatic shift? Because I suspect that, unless Mr. Gillen can assist the Attorney General, these numbers represent a fairly significant shift. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1515]
And if they don't, I guess my question would be: why hasn't the question been asked before as well? An 8 percent shift, a 13 percent shift and minus a drop of 20 is significant. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What has the Attorney General actually done to go behind these statistics and try and determine what these statistics actually reflect in terms of the state of crime in British Columbia and prosecution of crime? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: Well, a couple of bits of information that may be useful or relevant to the discussion we're having. The Vancouver police — we'll take them as an example of the province's major urban centre — released crime stats for the first half of this year indicating overall crime in the city down almost 7 percent, with a 26 percent drop in residential break and enters. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Their explanation for those numbers and those results relate to having an increased number of police officers and a continued focus on chronic offenders and partnerships within the community around crime prevention. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Violent crime in the case of Vancouver, by virtue of how the police measured it, was down 2 percent, although the murder rate increased by 30 percent. They relate that specifically to the increased gang activity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The other point that I think is important, and I'm sure that the member would agree, is that the trend lines need to be measured over a larger period than six months or a year or two years — probably over the course of five years or more. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's an explanation that one major policing agency within the province offers for what they have described and accounted for as an overall reduction in criminal activity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I guess the question, obviously, is: what do those statistics mean? Are they based on reports to police? Are they based on those crimes reported that police actually took the time to investigate? In other words, what do those numbers actually mean? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the Attorney General can't assist in that question, then my next question obviously is: who in this province is responsible to try and put all these various numbers together so that the taxpayers, who are funding this ministry to the tune of $550 million a year, ballpark, are getting what they deserve? In other words, do we have a grip on what's really happening with crime, or is it simply…? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As an example, does the 20 percent drop mean simply that, in terms of approved prosecutions, it's a drop because it's getting better or because a lot of people have simply given up because they know that reporting the theft or the B and E to the police doesn't go anywhere? In other words, does this reflect, like the voting patterns in this province, people having given up on the system? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess those are the questions that I would hope the Attorney General would be asking. I want to know if he's been asking those questions in terms of the statistical information. I think those are important because we are, as I said…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I admit and I understand and acknowledge that the ministry doesn't just prosecute crime. It has various other functions in terms of government and civil law and all of those things. But overall, do we have a real picture? Are we asking those questions, and if so, when? If we're not, why not? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1520]
Hon. M. de Jong: Let me say that in relating the statistics I just did, originating with the Vancouver city police department, I am interpreting them as referring to crimes reported. I will seek to confirm that fact. But those statistics are available and generated by the agencies who receive the complaints, as the member might anticipate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I will take a moment here to relate to the member — and he accurately points out — that the prosecution of criminal activities is but one of the functions of the ministry. Arguably, from the point of view of the public, it is the most important insofar as it is the agency that society relies upon to present to an independent judiciary the evidence that would be required to convict someone of breaking the law in this province, in this country. So one function, but arguably the single most important from the point of view of the public and of keeping a civil society respectful of the law. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The trend lines seem to be pointing — as we've seen in a variety of ways, and none of them perfect — to a decrease in overall criminal activity, but certainly over the course of the last 18 months, 24 months some very, very serious gang-related violent criminal activity. I want to be as forthright as I can with the member. It has been a concern around that activity, as reported to the police and then relayed to the prosecution branch, that has given rise to some reorganization and some focus in resources to work with the police in that area. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Are people giving up? I hope not. I think that most people when they are the victim of crime, whether it be property crime or an assault on their person, report that crime, and that that is reflected in the statistics. The prosecution branch, as the member knows both as a member and as learned counsel, can proceed when the material they have been provided with points to an accused or a suspect against whom charges can be brought, approved and proceeded with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There is undoubtedly a drop-off at times between the report of a crime and the prosecution. But the member — silly thing for me to say — knows that also. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I'm mindful that we're dealing with the Attorney General's estimates. But I guess my question is arising out of what the Attorney General has had to say in response to my previous questions. I'm going to presume and hope that the Solicitor General's ministry keeps some statistics around crime. After all, they're responsible for policing in the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Firstly, is the Attorney General aware that they keep statistics? And has the Attorney General got anyone on staff who works with the Solicitor General's ministry's to look at those statistics, to compare them and to try to get, again, what I come back to, a realistic picture of crime in British Columbia? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Yes, the overall rates are dropping, and that's probably good news, and we're all very happy about that. But does that represent a true drop in crime, or does it represent some of the other, perhaps negative, things that I've suggested around people failing to report? Or does it reflect charge approval? Because police may be overworked and simply can't do the kind of legwork they need to do to engage in a successful prosecution. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In other words, is there somebody in the Attorney General's ministry working with someone in the Solicitor General's ministry to deal with the crime statistics to get, as I say, a realistic picture of where we're at and where it's going? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1525]
Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer is yes, there are. I'll give an example to the member that comes readily to mind. The Criminal Justice Reform Secretariat is directly tasked with liaising with the Solicitor General's ministry to ensure that resources are being allocated in a logical way to address priority areas. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's the kind of work, for example, that led to and is reflected on a daily basis at the community court. I don't know if the member has had an opportunity to visit the community court in Vancouver. If not, I just parenthetically say to the member that the community court is fascinating for a variety of reasons. One of the things that I have found most fascinating is how enamoured people are of the name, without having a lot of knowledge about what actually takes place within a community court. It is worth going to see, and if the member likes, I'd like to arrange a time when he could drop by, because that coordinating function in ways that I never saw as a practising counsel is actually reflected. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, admittedly, these are not the most serious crimes that society is dealing with, but that coordination between the investigative branch, the prosecuting branch and, ironically, the adjudicative branch takes place there in ways that historically have not…. It was that liaison work that ultimately tipped the scales and the balance in favour of allocating the resources necessary to create that venue in the first place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: Can the Attorney General confirm: was the shifting and the increase to prosecution services…? I gather there have been ten additional prosecutors hired as a result. That's my understanding. Are those prosecutors devoted to the major, or the category 1, crimes? And if so, was that a recommendation of the Criminal Justice Reform Secretariat? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I think, in the order that the questions were asked, that yes, they have been hired. Yes, they are dedicated to the more serious crimes, specifically tasked to work with the police around everything from ensuring that informations in support of search warrants are properly sworn and a whole host of evidentiary and procedural matters that, done correctly at the initial stages, assist with the successful prosecution; done incorrectly, can condemn the prosecution to failure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Although there was general discussion, it would be incorrect on my part to suggest that there was a specific recommendation from the secretariat that led to the hiring of the ten prosecutors, although there had certainly been general discussion around the advisability of a dedicated group. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: The $10 million increase to prosecution services, as the Attorney General has confirmed, hired ten new prosecutors to, again, work in that difficult area where the Supreme Court of Canada, in my respectful opinion, has turned logic on its head when it comes to some evidentiary matters, where the average citizen gets the sense that the guys with the high-priced legal counsel get to beat the rap based on technicalities around evidence, when the essence of the crime and all the facts necessary to prove the commission of the crime are, in fact, available. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's certainly a fairly strongly held public view. When I talk to my constituents, that's the sense they're getting — that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while on one hand protecting our rights and freedoms, at the same time has perhaps made it so much more difficult for the Attorney General's ministry to prosecute successfully that, in fact, the guilty and the powerful do indeed go free in our country and in our province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1530]
Having said that, the $10 million increase. So there are ten additional prosecutors. Where is the other money going, since I'm assuming we're not paying them a million dollars a year each? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I hope this is of assistance to the member in terms of the $11 million. About $2.3 million of that relates directly to the ten new prosecutors, the guns-and-gangs initiative. The balance relates to major and special prosecutions. There are at any given time, I'm advised, upwards of eight, nine or ten multiple accused — serious crimes, serious allegations, complex evidentiary circumstances. The personnel and staff required to proceed with those prosecutions is also contained within that $11 million sum. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: With reference to those major and special prosecutions, are those aimed strictly at gang-related activities, or are we also including potential commercial crime schemes? Ponzi schemes have become remarkably common across this country, it seems. So were you focusing on the guys with guns, or were you focusing on the guys with chequebooks and e-mails? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I interpreted the member's question as relating to the possibility of white-collar crimes. At this point there aren't any. It is generally violent guns-and-gangs-related prosecutions that fall into the category. Arguably, Pickton is one that is not properly described as guns and gangs, but it would be a complex major prosecution. To this point, the type of white-collar criminal activity which can involve, as the member pointed out, tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and many victims hasn't been captured by this categorization. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I'm going to assume that it's not just a reaction by the Attorney General's ministry to public outcry around serious gang violence that we've seen this increase in prosecutorial moneys. But I'm going to assume also that there must have been some statistics kept by the ministry around the success of prosecutions of gang violence and serious crimes — in other words, the category 1 crimes that the Attorney General referred to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1535]
I just wanted to know: what's the successful prosecution rate? By that, I mean either guilty pleas to serious category 1 offences or findings of guilt after trial. Were there any statistics kept on the success of the prosecution? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised that what one can do is look at the data around charges that have been laid. By the way, I should say that I took the member's question as relating to a period that extends beyond just this relatively new program — that he was looking for longer-term information. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is possible in that context to look at data that relates to charges laid and convictions that have been secured or guilty pleas that have been secured. I have also been advised that, quite purposely, the branch does not keep what we might call conviction-rate data. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The rationale for that, as the member knows, is that the professional duty of the prosecutor is not to secure a conviction but to see that justice is done. Measuring performance by the rate of conviction might unduly influence people to approach prosecutions on a basis other than that which should guide their conduct. A long-winded way of saying that conviction data of the sort I think the member is interested in doesn't exist. It is possible to create it by looking at existing data around charges laid and convictions obtained. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I appreciate what the Attorney General is hinting at. I mean, after all, we don't elect our prosecutors here or our judges as they do in various jurisdictions — the United States — and God forbid that anyone would ever contemplate it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Certainly, from time to time some of my constituents and some of the people who know I'm the Attorney General critic write to me on that basis, and I always think with horror about the prospect of picking our prosecutors by the electoral process. I mean no discredit to my fellow members of the Legislature, but elections don't always produce the best results, and sometimes the brilliant fail and the stupid succeed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That aside, surely, if we are trying to ensure that crime is successfully prosecuted, we should be keeping statistics to see how we compare to other jurisdictions, how we compare to other provinces, whether or not we're successful, whether there's a trend, an up-and-down trend, year to year. Whether or not the prosecutors themselves know it, I think, is immaterial. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My polite suggestion is the government might wish to know those statistics — in other words, that someone is keeping it. In other words, the political leadership of the province would want to know what's happening. I well understand the concern around the potential encouragement of prosecutors to perhaps overzealously prosecute cases than might otherwise be the case. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1540]
I won't recount it here, but I recall a long story about a Supreme Court judge in the old days when the defence and Crown counsel and judge used to get together and wait out the jury. It was a practice in this province, and one very senior counsel, who went on to become a relatively successful author in this province, was dressed down by the judge for having bragged about his ability to secure convictions, which the judge took a very dim view of. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I understand all the principles behind that, but having said that, from the public's perspective and not speaking as a member of the bar, surely the government wants to know if we're convicting the people who are charged, so that one can then ask the question: if we're not, why not? Is it problems related to the Charter? Is it a lack of good police work? Is it in fact a decrease in the overall crime rate? Is it the fact that charges aren't being approved? In other words, what's the evidence for this? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess my question is: why hasn't the Attorney General asked, in his position as the Attorney General, for these kinds of statistics on an annual basis, and why isn't it part of his budgetary process so that he can determine this when he goes to cabinet and is asking Treasury Board and the government for the money to run his ministry? He's got the numbers to show that the guilty are either getting prosecuted successfully in British Columbia, and "I can take a decrease, and we can give more money to, perhaps, Children and Families," or alternatively: "I need more money because right now the bad guys" — some gals; crimes are mostly committed by men — "are in fact getting away." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I think I have the essence of the member's point. I do want to assure him of this fact. As it relates to an assessment for the general disposition of prosecutions, that takes place on an ongoing basis. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Where an acquittal is registered in the court after a full-length prosecution, there is, particularly in the more serious crimes, an assessment that is done. I'm just advised by the deputy in charge of the criminal justice branch that a process is in the final stages of being implemented around a file-closing survey procedure that would take a detailed accounting of the basis for which a case was disposed of in a particular way, if there was an acquittal. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1545]
I think the important point I want to try and convey to the member is that if there is a situation developing where prosecutions are unsuccessful…. I'm a little hesitant to use that term. Justice is about finding the right, just result, not a successful prosecution. If acquittals are being registered as the result of faulty warrant documentation, witnesses for whom the tendering of evidence that has run into difficulties around continuity and preparation of Crown witnesses…. That will be revealed, is revealed, and that is addressed. But the member has my earlier point that we don't rate each prosecutor on the basis of what percentage of cases they took to court and what percentage of them resulted in convictions or guilty pleas. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: Obviously, a decision was made to increase prosecutorial services by $10 million, and ten prosecutors were added to — I think the Attorney General referred to it as — the guns-and-gangs side of things. Even in Nanaimo, $2.3 million is a lot of money. That's a policy shift, and that's a decision made by the ministry and the minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess my question is: where did that decision come from? Was that simply a response to public outcry over the issue? Was that the recommendation of staff in the ministry? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In other words, as we're decreasing the budget overall, where does that decision come from to reallocate those resources, and why? Is that strictly a political decision? Is that a decision that came out of the Criminal Justice Reform Secretariat? Is that a decision that came as a recommendation of the police chiefs? In other words, where does that come from, given that the Attorney General has told me we don't keep statistics about successful prosecutions of serious category 1 offences which include gang-related violence? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand the member's question. When I think back to the days when the decisions were made to allocate the additional resources, there was clearly a desire within the political branch of government to take steps to respond to a growing concern. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The advice on how to best do that derived from senior staff within both the Solicitor General's ministry and the prosecution service, which gave rise to the allocation, as the member knows, that took place — the belief that dedicated prosecutorial services to work more closely with the police on some of these more serious crimes would facilitate the prosecutions, enhance the prosecutions. No doubt there was an interest and desire on the part of the political branch of government to respond to a growing public concern. The advice for how to best do that and allocate those resources derives from senior officials within both of those ministries. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1550]
L. Krog: I'm mindful of, as we've been batting numbers back and forth — everyone in this room has no doubt heard it — the three kinds of lies that Churchill talked about: lies, damned lies and statistics. But nevertheless, these are the numbers I have to work with when I'm questioning the Attorney General. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We've seen a shift of $2.3 million, and ten new prosecutors hired to deal with the guns-and-gangs issue. That represents, as a percentage of the ministry's budget, about 2 percent. Am I wrong? I think my math is off. No, it's even much, much less than that, actually — significantly less than that. Yet we've seen an 8 percent increase, according to the ministry's own statistics, in the category 1 crimes and a 13 percent increase in the category 2 crimes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess my question is: if we're seeing a drop in the other areas of prosecution — 20 percent in category 4 and a 3 percent drop in category 3 — why isn't the increase more significant? If this is the serious problem that it is — and many British Columbians, particularly the people living in the Lower Mainland, certainly do, and certainly see the evidence in their streets every day, including the slaying of mothers — why isn't the increase higher? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I think, actually, when people think about crime and criminal activity and the police and prosecutors, that's the question they ask. They see the stuff on TV, and they say: "Are there enough resources being dedicated to fighting this?" The short answer to the member's question of what determines this…. Well, I'd be kidding if I didn't say right off the top that finite resources play a role. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's worth my emphasizing, as well, that we have been talking about a program that led to ten additional prosecutors in the gang crime section of the branch. There are 26 prosecutors engaged full-time and others who are brought in with respect to individual prosecutions. I know it was not the member's intention, nor mine, to leave the impression that this is an activity engaged in exclusively by ten prosecutors. There are far more than that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Look, that's the challenge — to stretch finite resources as effectively and as far as possible to deal with what has been some very, very serious and disturbing criminal activity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I guess, relying for the purposes of my questions on the statistics given by the Attorney General, if you've seen a 20 percent drop in category 4, has there in fact been a deliberate decision made to shift some of those who clearly aren't needed to prosecute category 4 cases over to the category 1 and 2 crimes? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1555]
Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, there is an ability, a limited ability albeit, to shift resources around. We try to build some flexibility. The member, of course, understands the big difference between going to court one morning for a prosecutor with two or three impaired-driving files and rushing down to a courtroom and picking up a major conspiracy case. That's not going to happen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of the things that I'll confess to the member I've learned, even in the short time being on this job and the rather longer period of time I have been away from the practice of law, is the evolution in how criminal prosecutions for certain crimes occur in the province now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The member probably recalls a time, for example, when a 234 or 236 impaired-driving charge might commonly be booked in a morning or an afternoon in court. I am told they are now regularly three-day affairs, so that the resources that are consumed…. It's a serious matter, but it is having a dramatic impact on the allocation of resources within the courts and within the prosecution branch. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These are also in an age when we see some of this very, very serious insidious criminal activity taking place. Our capacity to respond to it is impacted by the crime that is occurring, fiscal resources and also the manner in which the prosecution of criminal activities themselves has evolved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Some of that is the Charter. I also hear from constituents who would echo what some of the member's constituents would say about the impact of the Charter. I think a fair comment that can be made is that it has certainly added a new dimension and, at times, a very complicating dimension to the prosecution of offences. That, of course, needs to be offset by the protection it affords to citizens in this country around some basic and fundamental rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: If my numbers are correct, initially the February budget was $109.625 million for prosecution services, and then in the September 1 budget it was increased by the $10 million we've talked about to $119.595 million. For the next budgetary year, '10-11, it's budgeted to increase by about $450,000, and then it is to drop to $114.686 million, budgeted '11-12. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I just want to confirm with you, Attorney General. Are my numbers accurate? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I think they are. I'll repeat and round to the nearest $500,000 — $119.5 million, $120 million, $114.7 million. I think the member had those correct. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[D. Horne in the chair.]
L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's response to my previous questions around shifting resources, and yes, you don't throw someone who is used to prosecuting B and Es into a major conspiracy case. I fully accept that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess that when you see an 8 percent and a 13 percent increase in the category 1 and 2 crimes, surely there must be some process in place to train, educate and shift in accordance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1600]
If you're a farmer and it's drought that's your problem this year, you spend a lot of time putting an irrigation system in. Next year if it's locusts, you don't continue to work on the irrigation system if the water is fine. You shift. You have to shift with changing circumstances. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would suggest again that these numbers are fairly dramatic in terms of shifting circumstances and the response, and that's based on the ministry's own numbers. These aren't statistics from somebody else. These are the ministry's numbers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, I come back to my question. Apart from the $2.3 million for the ten new prosecutors, is there any plan in place to shift a significant portion — and by significant, I mean in the range of 5 or 8 or 10 percent — of prosecutorial services to those category 1 and category 2 offences, which appear to be enjoying a dramatic increase, as opposed to the fairly significant decrease in the category 3 and an even more dramatic decrease in category 4 crimes? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I think the member knows I'm not quarrelling with the line of questioning at all. In fact, I may go further than the member has thus far. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think there is a means and an ability — based on the ongoing training, continuing legal education and continuing legal professional training that takes place within the branch and on the renewal that takes place within the branch in terms of attracting younger prosecutors — to shift talent around. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, it's within certain limitations. Mr. Gillen reminds me that you don't take a three-year call and put them at the head of a major conspiracy trial. You develop the expertise. They can junior, and there is a solid core of experienced counsel that manages your category 1 prosecutions. The member, I know, knows that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When I look out, my larger concern relates to the global resources available for the prosecution branch and where criminal activity is going and the nature of that criminal activity. It's ensuring that within the confines of a finite budget and a finite number of prosecutors, the resources are there to prosecute — in a timely, professional and effective way — criminal activity that is investigated by the police in this community. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think that's probably also the member's concern as he looks at these numbers, and I don't want to suggest that that isn't a reason for ongoing challenge and concern. There are finite resources. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1605]
When the member and members of the committee hear me relate statistics that say the rate of the most serious crime in the province is going up, not down, ensuring that the prosecutorial resources are there to prosecute that criminal activity is going to be one of the biggest challenges, going forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: With respect to the number of prosecutors available to prosecute, can the Attorney General advise what the total number of full- and part-time prosecutors is, the number of positions that in fact exist, whether those positions are all presently filled, and if not, why not? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I am mindful of the time constraints that the committee is under. I think we have that information available. If the member wants to continue, then…. We can either wait, or he can continue and we'll come back to it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: In terms of the overall budget, my reading of it is that there has been a fairly dramatic cut to executive and support services from the February 10, 2009, budget to the present budget. I wonder if the Attorney General can advise and outline exactly who the executive and support services are. What do they do, and how is it that they're going to be able to sustain a cut of that magnitude? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1610]
Hon. M. de Jong: My apologies to the member for the delay. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A couple things to begin this conversation. First of all, the restatement of the budget in September versus February includes an allocation or an assignment of some executive and support services costs that previously had been contained within the Ministry of Attorney General and were reassigned to the Ministry of Solicitor General. That, I am advised, accounts for the largest portion of the reduction, but there were other reductions — the office of the deputy minister, for example. The office of the minister had modest reductions as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The single biggest component of what the member correctly identifies as the decrease, though, relates to the assignment of costs previously contained within the Ministry of Attorney General to the Solicitor General's ministry for shared services undertaken on their behalf. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General could be more specific as to the amount involved, even within a million dollars. I'll settle for an approximation. What particular services are we talking about? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Moreover, in the budget line what do the executive and support services do? Are we talking about secretarial staff? Are we talking about people who look after payroll? In other words, what do these people actually do? Not that I'm suggesting that they don't do anything important, of course, but I simply want to know, for the public record, what it is they do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: Roughly $8 million would be the appropriate figure for executive and support services — including finance support; budgetary support; public accounts reporting obligations; facilities upgrade projects; a human resources function; and my favourite, information technology, IT support, a portion of which is contained within that $8 million. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: One of the items — I'd just like to hear the explanation — is justice transformation. What is included under justice transformation? How is it that, based on the line items in the projection, it has come down modestly — about $300,000 or a little less — from the February to the September 1 budget? It's projected to drop from $9.362 million in this budgetary year to $4.542 million the following year and to $356,000 the year after that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1615]
What is justice transformation? What programs are going to be eliminated or impacted by the fact that you're essentially eliminating that as a budget item? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I suspect we'll do this in a couple of parts. To give the member some understanding of what is contained within that categorization of justice transformation, these would primarily be projects that were provided with three-year funding envelopes on the understanding that they would be evaluated for potential continuation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The community court, for example. The obvious question that flows: well, does that mean that the community court is in jeopardy? No, it's not, but its operation obviously presents a pressure going forward as part of the regular court services model that we are having to deal with — projects around prolific offenders, bail reform and the justice access centres, one of which I know the member is very familiar with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There was a pilot project around mediation involving the small claims court division. The member will have questions about all portions of these. The general answer is that following assessment, where that is required, there are clearly funding pressures. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If I take the justice centres, for example, there's equally a desire and intention to keep those centres open and operating. But I won't kid the member. There are pressures associated with doing that, which we're having to try and manage. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: With respect to the community court, what is the budget this year for the community court specifically? Does that budgeted amount include the cost of the judiciary involved in that court, or is that included under the separate category of judiciary generally? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Does it include the prosecution services that would be necessary and the court services budget? Or is that again separated off and hived off entirely for budgeting purposes so that the Attorney General has a specific idea as to how much that single court essentially is costing? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1620]
Hon. M. de Jong: The cost for '09-10 estimated for the community court this year is $4.26 million, that being the portion that would come from within the Attorney General's ministry. The member knows, I think, and will certainly see when he has an opportunity to visit that there are other branches of government present there, whether they are Housing, Health Ministry. So what I've given the member refers to the cost derived from the AG's budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: When I look at the justice transformation budget and see it dropping from $9.362 million this year to $4.542 million next year….The Attorney General assures me that yes, notwithstanding budgetary pressures, it doesn't mean that we're closing the community court. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Where is the roughly $4.8 million reduction coming from, then? Is it because we're abandoning small claims project? Is it because we're abandoning some other project, and if so, can the Attorney General outline exactly what programs under justice transformation are in fact on the chopping block, based on these budgetary numbers? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I'll emphasize my and the government's desire to see the community court continue to operate. Though the final results of the analysis are not in, the early indications are that it is serving an extremely useful and unique function. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1625]
The member's question, though, goes beyond that: the budget reduces significantly; what about these other services? Well, some of them were pilots and were scheduled to come to an end at the three-year period in terms of the funding that was available for the pilot. Others, the member should know, were created with a view to continuing, assuming they were achieving close to the hoped-for results — things like the justice access centres. The intention is to continue funding them. The funding for that, as the member will know, is not contained within the justice transformation budget. Based on the figures we've just discussed, most of that is taken up with the community court. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have pressures. We are trying to identify funding sources for going forward, but they are serious and significant pressures. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I just wonder if the Attorney General could be more specific in terms of what pilot programs are going to run out so that they won't require, arguably, funding next year, assuming they haven't proved to be successful. Does the $4.542 million for the budget year '10-11 include the continued $4.26 million you need to run the community court? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: The member's first question related to the cost associated with the community court. I can confirm that that derives from the $4.5 million that the member referred to from the service plan, so that takes a big chunk — by far, the majority — of those moneys. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The prolific offenders and bail reform projects and pilot — we have to try and find some additional moneys for those, so there's a risk associated with that project. We think that the mediation pilot within the small claims court — the result of that can be taken and implemented and not require the same amount of cost, so we're looking at being able to continue with that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I mentioned justice access centres. We think that there are ways to continue to deliver that project more efficiently and with partners. Pro Bono Law is an example of an agency that we think we can bring in and work with to enhance the service and reduce the cost. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't want to pretend. As I said earlier, it is going to be a struggle to find the resources to continue or implement some of these projects that have been found to be worthwhile. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: My reading of the budgetary figures for justice transformation, then, is that the government, based on what the Attorney General has said today, is committed to the community court for this budgetary year and for next budgetary year, but it is not, based on the numbers, committed to it in the third year. In other words, is this pilot project running its course in the next budgetary year? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1630]
Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not going to quarrel with what the figures say. I will stop short of agreeing, though, with the member that there is a timeline in place for the disappearance of the community court. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have been very favourably impressed by what I've seen. I know there is a qualitative assessment taking place based on some variables and factors that were identified at the outset. We'll see if they are being met. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I must confess a sincere bias in favour of what I have seen take place there. There's no doubt that the money is in place going forward into next year, and we'll have to assess and find resources, on the assumption that it is to continue beyond there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess my last word on that is that I have become somewhat of a fan, based on what I've seen, and am hopeful that it can continue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: The Attorney General's — how should I say? — respect and admiration for the community courts project was certainly shared by his predecessor, who launched it, who advocated for it. He did so with the full support of the opposition, for that matter. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it's fair to say that most people who do any work in this area have become satisfied that the justice system, as it exists outside of the community courts in terms of dealing with people with mental health and addiction issues, is not a colossal waste of time — I won't use those kinds of perhaps pejorative terms — but it certainly represents an undue cost with precious little result. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The frustrations articulated so eloquently by my former classmate the late Chief Justice of the Provincial Court Hugh Stansfield, when he spoke on behalf of the judiciary in this province and, frankly, on behalf of many of the lawyers who work in the criminal area…. All those things speak for themselves. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I'm really hearing from the Attorney General today is that there's no timeline in the sense that this is a pilot project with an end date, but there is no question that in the 2011-2012 budgetary year, if we're to continue with the community court, the money has to come from someplace else. There's no issue about that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For the record, I see the Attorney General nodding. Conscious of the timing of proceedings today, I don't require anything further from that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Attorney General did mention that there's a qualitative review being undertaken now with respect to the success of the community court. I guess I'm very curious, because I do think this is a very important reform, based not only on what my heart tells me in terms of dealing with people with addictions and mental health issues and all sorts of corresponding problems and low self-esteem and low educational levels and all of those things. My head tells me it's the best news for the taxpayers in the long run. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Although you may not be able to point to it directly in the Attorney General's budget, you will be able to point to it in other budgets. I think the Attorney General can see where I'm going with this question. What I want to know is: what are the criteria being used in this qualitative study? Who's doing it, and is it looking and extrapolating the information available so that we can see the cost savings? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In other words, if we've got career criminal George, who's 45, who's committed 200 B and Es in his time because he has a serious addiction issue that is now being dealt with, and that addiction issue used to ship him in an ambulance ten times a year to VGH and God knows how many times to other facilities operated and paid for by government…. Is that the kind of study that's taking place? Are those numbers being looked at? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Are we going to get something out of this so that the average person will be able to look at the report and review it and say: "Gosh, this really is successful. We're prepared for the government to make budgetary cuts in other areas to get this up and running because we can see a fairly dramatic return on taxpayer investment in this by shifting those resources"? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1635]
Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I'm gratified to be reminded of the member's enthusiasm for the project in the first place, and I'll come back to an aspect of this that I think is important going forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There were a number of objectives heading into this project, and I'm also gratified that the hon. member acknowledged the role of my predecessor in moving forward on this: obviously, timelines associated with the resolution of criminal charges; the earliest possible resolution of cases; fewer appearances by accused people; fewer people on bail remand; problem-solving; coordinating; one-stop shop; addressing not just criminal justice issues but mental health issues, housing issues; and, at the end of the day, reducing the rate of reoffending by individuals. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
An analysis of that…. It's contemplated that SFU will provide a report of that — an external agency, as opposed to someone from within the ministry. What I don't have for the member is a date by which that report might be complete. I understand his interest. Here's why I also think that it is important, and I don't know if the member has found this in his travels. Even in the short time I've been on this watch, I am confronted by people in towns across the province who are anxious to have a community court established in their jurisdiction, in their town. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think that what we want to be able to say somewhat authoritatively is, if we're going to take that step, here's what the model in Vancouver realized in terms of results. Here's where it succeeded very well. Here's where it didn't perhaps meet the objectives. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The second part of that is, I think, that each one of these courts, if we're going to be in a position to expand, is probably going to look a little bit different, depending on where they are. The volumes of people, the availability of services could look different in one part of the province than it does in another part of the province, in one urban centre versus another urban centre. That's why the analysis is important, and I understand the member's enthusiasm to see the results and look at what has actually been realized. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1640]
When I was there, there were a couple of aspects of this that made quite an impression upon me: the imaginativeness of the sanction imposed by the court and the notion that they have a meeting very early in the morning that involves the prosecutors and defence counsel. Alternate measures, I think, is the term they use in terms of sentencing. Well, who is eligible? For whom would this work? And they make a determination based on knowing something about the individual. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Getting someone in a conventional criminal court setting where community service is imposed is one thing. Getting someone who is suffering from mental illness, for whom merely getting home after court might be a challenge, and tailoring a sentence to fit the crime but also fit that person's abilities and capacity can be a bit of a challenge. That seems to be happening in a real way within the setting of the community court. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They have a practice now that the presiding judges have employed that I think is tremendous, where — the day I was there, a number of younger offenders were there — the court is set up, the technology exists, the judge renders sentence and imposes conditions on release, and that order is prepared right there in the court. The individual is sitting there. No waiting in the lobby. No getting lost on the way to the registry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I thought was particularly effective was the presiding judge calling the offender forward and saying: "Now, you sign this in front of me, and you're promising me that you're...." It's a far more personal dispensation of justice. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So I hope the statistics will reveal what the member and I both, apparently, feel — that this is an experiment that is having a positive impact. But we'll know that when SFU has completed their report. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: Can the Attorney General confirm how far along SFU is on the report? Are they, in fact, started? Are they gathering evidence? Is the evidence being...? Are statistics being kept by the court? In other words, where is the process at? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: We are, I'm advised, hoping to receive an initial report by the end of March 2010, though tracking recidivism will likely require a longer time period to assess. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: Just to go back, for a moment, around the issue of prosecution services. That budget is to increase very slightly from this year to next and then is to drop fairly dramatically by about $5½ million from the '10-11 to the '11-12 budget. I'm just wondering: is that based simply on budgetary pressures, or is there some presumption somehow that we don't need the prosecution services? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1645]
Hon. M. de Jong: There's no question that budgetary pressures factor into the overall budget for the ministry. That has been the case this year as well. It will be the case next year and in out-years. Though we are hopeful that we will see some improved circumstances reflect themselves in increased revenues to government, we are obliged to plan on the basis of what is before us and projections as they presently exist. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's going to put pressure on the ministry. The demographic projections as they relate to the ministry mean that we will see the departure of some officials. The intent is to shield, wherever possible, front-line services from the effects of budgetary reductions, whether they are in prosecution services or elsewhere in the ministry. Again, I don't want to suggest in any way, shape or form that the budgetary pressure we are under isn't reflecting itself in the overall budget for the ministry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: What I take from the Attorney General's response is that we're banking on the worst-case scenario, and we're budgeting on the worst-case scenario or a difficult scenario, to put it in perhaps more accurate terms, nevertheless hopeful that by the 2011-2012 budget we're going to get some bump in the economy that will allow us to, in fact, sustain some of these programs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For instance, I note that court services…. I gather the ministry's projections are still that we'll be dealing with something in the order of 295,000 cases or files that, notwithstanding it was budgeted at $145 million plus change in the February budget, is now budgeted at $143 million. It's projected to drop to $143.7 million. It's projected to drop to an even $139 million, roughly speaking, by 2011-2012. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm just wondering, given that the file processes are the same, where does the ministry expect to make those kinds of cuts over those years if the court is expected and anticipates handling the same number of files? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1650]
Hon. M. de Jong: Again, no question that there are budgetary pressures visiting themselves on the court services division of the ministry. How can we try to alleviate some of those pressures? They tend to reflect themselves in fewer people. That, we think, can be dealt with largely through attrition, but fewer people, unless we change the way we're doing things, can relate to the volume of work that is being done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The notion of the electronic courtroom. The ability to prepare orders from a centralized location and feed into the courts can have an impact on the delivery of registry services. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The manner in which we move or don't move prisoners, accused persons, around in certain circumstances to and from court; video conferencing in the courts; the configuration of security services, security personnel, at the courts — these are all things that we are examining to find ways to, as the member has aptly put it, plan for the worst-case scenario, based on the numbers as we know them and the projections as we know them today. So there is undoubtedly going to be an impact on the delivery of services. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I suppose, to take momentarily a glass-half-full approach, it is occasionally in these circumstances that the best innovations arrive, because we are left with little choice but to find ways to innovate in the delivery of services. I'm hopeful and confident that to a certain extent, that will occur here. But again, I'm not diminishing or trying to underplay the fact that there are budgetary pressures that reveal themselves in the court services branch as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: My fear is, of course, that if the projected numbers of cases or files is not expected to diminish — and those are the ministry's own projections — inevitably, if you have less staff available to do the work…. Unless the Attorney General is telling me that we're going to be closing courtrooms…. I assume that court services includes the cost of courtrooms in that aspect of the budget. If we're not closing courtrooms, then clearly, there has to be some delay in terms of the service, if you will, that the general public receives from the system. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In other words, it's going to take more and more time to process whatever the file may be because, again, I'm assuming that the court services budget covers every kind of file that comes through the courthouses. So my one specific question is: is it anticipated to close any more courthouses in British Columbia or courtrooms in British Columbia in existing courthouses, which may continue to operate but with reduced numbers of courtrooms in operation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1655]
Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I think the short answer is no. But I do want to take a moment and take advantage of the member's question to at least initiate a brief conversation around what courtrooms may look like in the future. Whether or not…. I'm particularly thinking about more rural locations where some changes took place some years ago — 2001, 2002. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We now have certain configurations for circuit courts. In some cases we ask litigants to travel to certain centralized locations, but all of those involve costs either for the state or for individuals and in some cases both. Particularly at times like this we tend in government to be preoccupied with the cost to the state. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Are there things that we can do in terms of reconfiguring, retooling courthouses, partnering with other agencies in government? I'm not specifically thinking in all cases about the community court model, because this may be equally applicable on the civil side. But can we equip courtrooms to provide a place where mediation services take place that would lead to resolution and that preclude the necessity of moving on to a trial? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These are the questions and issues we are grappling with now that I suppose, to a certain extent, are precipitated by budgetary pressures but in many ways can be the reflection of other changes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Family Relations Act. I can tell the member we haven't had a chance to talk much about the Family Relations Act today, but he may know there have been, over the last year or so, discussions about altering in a fairly significant way the model that is contained within the Family Relations Act. It's still a largely adversarial instrument. Can we change that? I think we can. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think there are some more discussions to take place, but I'm hopeful that in the months ahead he and I may have the opportunity to debate a piece of legislation that purports to significantly change the means by which matrimonial or family disputes are dealt with by our justice system. So there's a whole basket of potential changes that are captured by this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I return to the front end of the question and answer. No, the objective here and the intent is not to close but perhaps to reconfigure and alter the appearance of some of the courtrooms that are servicing British Columbians today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: Is there any intention to, in fact, construct a new court or court-like facilities in the province anywhere? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: We have the remand expansion facility in Surrey that the member is aware of. There is no huge waiting capital program nor significant funds available for that, but I'm hopeful that that may change. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
What I am interested in advancing between now and then, when perhaps additional resources are available, is a conversation about what that new court facility, justice facility, looks like and what it contains and how it operates and how it integrates with other services. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So there is potentially an opportunity over the next period of months to have that conversation. But we are not, I can assure the member, on the cusp of breaking ground on exciting new courthouse facilities in the immediate future. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1700]
L. Krog: With respect to the budget numbers around the judiciary, there's projected to be a modest increase of about $1.3 million from this budgetary year to next and then basically stable in the 2011-2012 budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm just wondering: do we have the full complement of judges now, or are there vacancies that require appointment? If so, are those appointments going to be, in fact, filled based on this budgetary number, or are the vacancies going to continue? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: The member mentioned the figures and refers to the slight increase. I am advised that that relates almost entirely to contractual obligations relating to judges' salaries. There are vacancies — upwards of nine, I think, across the province. We are in discussions with the court around prioritizing the filling of those vacancies. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I take it from the Attorney General's response that if the existing budget is based on nine vacancies — in other words, nine judges you're not paying — and presumably there will be some consequential staff to that judiciary…. My presumption is that those positions cannot…. Unless the judges are taking a pay cut, my reading of this is that you cannot, in fact, fill those positions based on these budgetary numbers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: Two or three things. Actually, I'm advised and can relay to the member that, with two qualifications, the challenge is not the budget envelope for the judges' salaries. By and large, it can accommodate the appointments. There are two variables. Well, one is a variable. The other is less of a variable but equally a challenge. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The use of what I used to refer to as supernumerary judges — senior judges, the senior judges program — complicates the budgetary exercise somewhat insofar as determining the use that is made of the senior judges. My suspicion and belief is that in the past there has generally been an attempt to leave a little bit of room within the budget to account for the use of senior judges. They track over years, so there's an ability to estimate roughly what that looks like. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I should candidly alert the member to where the other large concern lies, and that is that a judge, and a judge sitting in a courtroom, of course triggers a whole bunch of other costs, from the registry to the sheriffs to every…. That, of course, accrues to a very different part of the budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So it tends, I have discovered, to be less about the pressures relating to meeting the salary obligations to the court, to the independent judiciary. But that triggers all of these other pressures that are reflected elsewhere in the budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: One of the five great goals was to make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent. I'm sure the Attorney General will recall that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1705]
I'm just wondering. Given that, for instance, the Justice Education Society and similar organizations have faced a reduction this year, where does that great goal figure in terms of the ministry's budgeting process? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I think that the justice education institute was extremely disappointed. I can say to the member that while people like me will be quick to differentiate between the funding they received from the Attorney General's ministry versus other ministries within government and might also point out that the previous funding of $300,000 was reduced to $190,000, the fact is that the institute lost, from other ministries, I think close to the entire amount. So it was a major hit for the Justice Education Society. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Driven by some very difficult budget decisions, it is — I want to at least place on the record — in no way intended to be a reflection of the work that the society undertakes, in no way meant to be a reflection of a lack of confidence or regard for the value of the work undertaken by the society. But in a competition for very, very scarce resources this year, some very, very difficult choices had to be made about where those resources were going to be focused and allocated. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't in any way underestimate the difficulties that that has created for the society and other agencies around the province and, of course, I am hopeful that in the future it will be possible to reassess those decisions from a position of greater fiscal strength. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: Continuing on, again, the great goal of making B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent, are there any other cuts to legal education, knowledge or literacy programs that have been funded by the Attorney General's ministry? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: Just running down the list, the People's Law School operating grant — the request was $40,000, and I'm not certain if that's what the grant was previously. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
Hon. M. de Jong: It was $40,000. This year it is $10,000. So that is a significant reduction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1710]
There was also an absolute reduction to the B.C. Law Institute, which tends to do some very valuable work. We discussed the wills and succession legislation. We weren't able to fund them at all. That tends to be less about legal education for the public, but certainly law reform of the sort that engages the attention of the public and is for the public benefit. We weren't in a position to fund the B.C. Law Institute to the tune of the $150,000 that we had hoped. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I wonder, hon. Chair, if we might recess for an important matter for five or ten minutes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: We'll recess for ten minutes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee recessed from 5:11 p.m. to 5:21 p.m.
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
L. Krog: One of the other five great goals was to build the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities, special needs, children at risk and seniors. The budget for legal services has dropped from roughly $96 million in 2001-2002 to about $77 million today. It dropped down below that, and it started to climb back up. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
People who need legal aid are by definition people who are obviously needing support — special needs, arguably. They may be seniors losing their homes in a foreclosure, children at risk, etc. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Given that there is no significant increase in this year's budget for legal services, I'm just wondering what the Attorney General says in response to this being one of the great goals. It seems to me that we're falling short once again on one of the great goals. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Specifically with legal services, as I understand it, the budget in 2007-2008, based on public accounts, was $67.62 million. Then it goes up in this budgetary year to $69.132 million. Next year it drops down to $68.5 million. Are those numbers accurate? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize. Can the member restate the figures he's referring to? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: As I understand it, the budget, based on public accounts, for legal services — government funding for Legal Services Society — in 2007-2008 was $67.62 million. That bumps up modestly to $69.132 million this budgetary year, and the projection is $68.5 million next year, which is a decrease of a little over $600,000. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member may have the numbers reversed, the amount for '09-10 being $68.543 million and for '10-11 being $69.022 million, so still a modest increase. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1725]
I think the member's point goes far beyond $500,000 or even a million dollars and speaks to the pressure that the Legal Services Society is under and, by extension, individuals who are involved in our justice system, whether it is on the criminal side or on the civil side. I share that concern. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I am not at all blind to the fact that whilst I can state accurately that over the last number of years there have been increases, modest increases, in terms of the governmental contribution to the Legal Services Society, they are facing significant pressures as it relates to other funding sources. With interest rates at all-time lows, the Law Foundation and the Notary Foundation simply aren't able to provide the kinds of contributions that the society was once accustomed to receiving, and I am troubled by that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I am greatly troubled by that because it is impacting. We hear it from individuals, advocacy groups. We hear it from the bench, who are confronted increasingly by the phenomenon of the self-represented client. Whilst in some cases people are very capable, in other cases they are not, and in other cases the circumstances are such that virtually anyone would be hard-pressed to be navigating through the complexities of a judicial process. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Exploring ways, at a time when the fiscal pressures are so real, to identify alternate revenue streams to address that phenomenon and that challenge is something that is very much a focus and that I am very much preoccupied with. I don't have the magic answer at this stage. Hopefully, in the weeks ahead we'll try to explore some other avenues that may help to address it. But it's not going to go away overnight. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, I want the member to know that whilst I point to modest increases over the past few years and modest increases going forward, I understand fully that the pressure the Legal Services Society is facing as a result of decreased contributions from other sources is very real. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General when he says that he's greatly troubled. I would suggest to him that there is a solution to the problem surrounding the funding for legal services. The political hit for it was taken back in the '90s when I sat on the back bench of Mike Harcourt's government, and it was the imposition of the tax on legal services, which is paid annually by thousands and thousands of British Columbians. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm sure the Attorney General has the number handy, and he'll be able to advise the committee that that generates far more annually than is required to actually fully fund legal aid, if you consider full funding to be what the budget was back in 2001-2002. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When this government came into power, it cut the Legal Services budget by 40 percent and took the surplus, if you will, of the tax on legal services and stuck it into general revenue to meet, I have no doubt, very important matters. But that tax was designed specifically to ensure that the most vulnerable in society who required legal services, whether it be on the criminal or the civil side, would in fact get the benefit of legal aid. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The government at the same time eliminated the community law offices. Indeed, I had been in the past the president of the Nanaimo Community Assistance Society. They operated the community law office that provided assistance to people with social assistance appeals, EI appeals, residential tenancy issues — genuine poverty law. All of that was gone. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Justice Access Centre, to some extent, was a step forward again in the sense that it restored some of those programs in a very modest way. Now, because of what's happened with the Legal Services budget, that program is essentially on the…. The portion funded by Legal Services in my community is going to be gone once again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1730]
I guess to the Attorney General: if the government isn't prepared to use the funds from the tax on legal services for the purpose for which it was implemented, are they prepared to reduce the tax on legal services? They certainly reduced the taxes on other entities in our province. The corporate capital tax, particularly, is one I'm thinking of, which I, with great respect, don't think created one job in this province but was a substantial financial benefit to institutions which the world now regards as probably the most stable banking system in the world. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess my question to the Attorney General is: where are the priorities here when it comes to looking out for the great goals that were so enunciated by the Premier, when we look at a system that is essentially a constitutional requirement to fund, to provide legal aid to the poorest amongst us? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
How does the Attorney General stand here today and say he's greatly troubled on the one hand, and have the money flowing into the tax and legal services on the other hand — which would more than sufficiently fund this — and say that we have to continue to maintain the budget for legal services from the government yet not be prepared to take up the slack, if you will, that's been caused by the reduction of interest income on the notaries' and the lawyers' trust accounts? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: Well, in reverse order. First of all, I hope he accepts that I understand that there is slack of the sort that he has described relating to the law foundation trust and the notaries' trust. I don't think we have any dispute there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is, admittedly, a convenient argument to point to the PST on legal fees. And by the way, I will for a variety of reasons resist the urge, but the member and I could have, I think, a thoroughly invigorating conversation around the corporate capital tax. But there are other forums that we can pursue that in. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The member refers to the time when the government of the day.... I think it was 1993 or '94 — I can't remember which — when the decision was made. There were various parts of that decision. The decision was made to apply the PST to legal fees, and as one might expect, the bar of practicing lawyers reacted and the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day offered an explanation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is worth remembering, though, that the government of the day also had a choice. If they were serious about going beyond simply saying, "Well, our intention is to utilize these resources," there were mechanisms available at the time to create a dedicated stream of funding. The PST instead was.... The revenues flowed into general revenues, consolidated revenue fund, which continues to be the case today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Really, what we are left with is a decision about a submission from the member that says: "Look, you should increase funding to the Legal Services Society, and a benchmark you can use for that is the funding that is collected from the PST associated with legal fees." I suppose that's one way to do it. But we shouldn't kid ourselves: we will be taking those funds from somewhere else. Some other service that government delivers will be compromised, cut or reduced. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think, quite frankly, the larger challenge, and the one that I am intent on and interested in pursuing, is whether or not we can create an additional revenue stream — and maybe a dedicated one, for which there is a direct link between what is raised in contributions to meet the challenges faced by the Legal Services Society and the constitutional obligations that exist for governments around the providing of legal services in certain circumstances. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1735]
You know, we talk about criminal matters, but it extends beyond that. I'm reminded, for example, that some of the work that years ago — decades ago, perhaps — might have been performed by community law offices or legal services officials through the advent of the family maintenance enforcement program is now…. I think that involves an expenditure of $22 million or $23 million. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's a valuable service. I'll be the first to admit that that is a different service than the one that goes with assisting a single mother navigating her way through a particularly acrimonious separation process, so I don't quarrel with anyone who presents that scenario and that argument. But if we simply say, "Look. Calculate what is being collected from this particular tax and set that as the benchmark," there are consequences for doing that as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I understand the seriousness of the challenge and the problem. I am anxious to try and identify some solutions that don't simply involve taking the money from elsewhere and creating precisely the same kind of pressure there that we are dealing with here for the Legal Services Society and those that rely on services. That will be thin gruel until they actually see something tangible that may assist in alleviating the pressure, and I understand that as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: Perhaps the Attorney General misinterpreted my remarks, but my understanding is that the revenue generated by the tax on legal services is a substantial amount of money, far in excess of what the government is providing to the Legal Services Society in this year's budget. I'm not suggesting in any way that it ever be the benchmark, but certainly, for the millions of dollars that are involved as a result of the reduction…. For instance, I believe the notaries' contribution has gone from, I think, $2.3 million or $2.5 million down to about $125,000. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're not talking a substantial amount of money, and yet there is a fair bit of chaos in the Legal Services Society. We're looking at 44 positions, I think, and another nine in the Professional Employees Association, which would essentially be lawyers. In my own community in Nanaimo the Justice Access Centre will see, I believe, six out of seven positions disappear. The centre will continue to be a centre and will continue to operate, but specifically, my understanding is that some of the positions that are funded by the Attorney General's ministry directly now are indeed not full at the present time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To bring this rant on my part, if the Attorney General will forgive me…. I take this matter seriously because I represent a community with a high degree of poverty and a high need for legal services. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Are those positions in Nanaimo full now? Is there a full complement of all the funded positions through the Ministry of Attorney General? If they aren't, are they going to be filled in the near future, or is it the intention of the ministry to simply allow them to remain vacant? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: While it is, obviously, sometimes challenging when confronted by criticism, in part I celebrate the fact that the member is, by his criticism, indicating his support for the justice centre that was established in his community. I appreciate the fact that the member is enthusiastic about the work that the justice centre has been providing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1740]
I am advised that in addition to the Legal Services Society personnel, there are ten Ministry of Attorney General FTEs slated or provided for, contemplated within the centre. One of those is presently vacant, and there is an intention to work with community partners to try to fill that vacant FTE. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: Apart from simply failing to assist the Legal Services Society by providing the funding that it has lost from the other sources that we've discussed — the Notary Foundation, etc. — has the ministry taken any steps to assist the society in this time when it's being forced to announce and make these changes? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: There's lots of collaborative work that takes place, but I think the member's question relates to substantive fiscal assistance. The only thing that I can offer at this point is that we have communicated to the Legal Services Society that in the case of the Justice Access Centre in Nanaimo, their lease or rental obligations are something that we would want to assume for them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're also hopeful and not precluding the possibility that some means might be found to have LSS maintain some measure of presence, although undoubtedly it will look different post–March 31 of 2010 than it does now. We're hopeful and not ruling out that possibility. We'll work with them, but again, we understand the very difficult choices that they are having to make, confronted by their budgetary situation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: Since the start of this year the Legal Services Society has announced two sets of cuts. Their dramatic cuts announced in January included the closing of the Vancouver Family Law Clinic. In November they would be closing offices in Kelowna, Kamloops, Prince George, Surrey, Victoria — all their regional offices, essentially, except Terrace — effective March 26, 2010. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They've cut the civil law projects, including the community advocate support line, the Law Line — and that was established after the last round of legal aid cuts in order to make up for what devastation resulted from those cuts by the government — and the LSS component at the Justice Access Centre, which we've just discussed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The society is under great pressure. It has legal obligations to fulfil. I'm just wondering if the ministry has worked with them in any way, shape or form to do research to see if this transition from having regional offices with real staff and real people there to the so-called satellite contracted-lawyer offices is, in fact, effective and is the same level of service delivered. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1745]
If there's evident proof of that, why have we been struggling, so to speak, with having all these regional offices if, in fact, they were so grossly inefficient? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: While I understand the basis for the questioning that the member is advancing, I don't want to leave the impression that LSS itself or that the government suggested to LSS that the regional offices were grossly inefficient and that for that reason the model of service delivery needed to be visited. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I will say this. At a time when resources are very, very scarce, we have had and Legal Services Society has had extensive experience with both models of service delivery. One involves the use of contract counsel. That has been the service delivery model in my community now for a period of some years. And a situation where there are regional offices. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The decision was made based, I am told, on a careful analysis that the Legal Services Society undertook. They can better direct very scarce resources to front-line services by moving almost entirely to the contract model for delivery. They will actually be able to provide direct legal advice via legal counsel to more individuals, to the tune of, I think, 25 percent or 27 percent, by removing the overhead costs that are associated with the management of the regional offices. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That undoubtedly has other consequences, and I don't think anyone should pretend otherwise. But at a time when they are presented with scarce resources, reduced resources from other funding partners, they have done what I think we would all expect them to do: identify the single most efficient means and model for the delivery of services that they can. They have done so. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Other communities will now be relying upon a model for the delivery of legal aid services that exists in a whole range of communities — two dozen, I think. My community is one of them. They are moving forward on that basis. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I understand the reason for the decision. I understand what has motivated it, and it is fiscal pressure. I don't pretend otherwise. But I also accept that they have made this decision on the basis of how to best utilize their limited resources and best provide the service that they are mandated to provide. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: The civil law side — community advocate support line, the Law Line. Those were set up to deliver in a cheaper model services that were formerly delivered by community law offices across this province, where people could actually sit down with somebody, relate their troubles, get some advice and assistance, and indeed, have advocates go and attend hearings on occasion with them if necessary. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1750]
That was gone. So we then move to this new model: essentially, phone and get some advice. You know what? I guess that's better than nothing. But the reality is that there's a significant increase in foreclosures, bankruptcies amongst individuals are up. There is enormous financial pressure on vulnerable individuals in British Columbia, and now these programs are being eliminated. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess my question is: does the Attorney General acknowledge that, in fact, the cuts that LSS has been forced to make, as a result of its decreased income, are going to impact amongst the most vulnerable in our society? The person who has lost their job in the forest industry, their home is in foreclosure now, and they're not going to be able to get advice anywhere unless, as the Attorney General suggested earlier in response to a question, we can find some pro bono law program that is going to step in and fill the gap. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The fact is that's not going to fill the gap in any efficient or realistic way after you've eliminated all these other civil law programs which, again, as I say, provided service to the most vulnerable. Is the Attorney General at least prepared to acknowledge today that, in fact, those cuts are going to impact on the poorest and the most vulnerable amongst us in British Columbia? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: Well, if you believe as I do — and, I think, as the member does — that the services provided by the Legal Services Society serve a valuable function, then any decision that body makes or is forced to make to reduce or otherwise alter those services is going to have an impact, and that is a fact. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is true — though I would not suggest an ultimate answer — to say that through the advent of technology, there is a broader range of options available to individuals to access assistance on line, and in some communities to access assistance via the justice access centres, but that won't be an answer for everyone. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The member points out his concern for folks at the lowest-income levels. My concern, and I suspect perhaps his — I shouldn't attempt to speak for him — extends beyond that, relating to the overall costs of legal services for folks, even stretching into what we might term the middle class. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My God, 40 percent of the people that walk down the aisle and get married, walk down a different aisle and get divorced. The cost associated with what is a fairly regular transaction in our society now can be, in and of itself, very debilitating. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So all of that is, I think, very troubling. I think that it should be troubling to the legal profession as well. It's why I have candidly tried to suggest to the member and offer to the member that I think that, with respect to the provision of legal aid services…. By the way — he may be coming to it — we haven't even talked about the challenge that might accrue if another boatload or two of unfortunate individuals arriving on our shores were to occur, and we have a big uptake on refugee claimants. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, people have different views and react to that differently. I can tell the member I know how I react every time that happens. I think: "My God, how lucky am I to live in a country that people will risk their lives to get to?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1755]
Yet there's a cost associated with processing the claims that flow from that activity and flow from that event. All of that adds to the pressure and adds to the difficulty, and it's why I think that we need to be imaginative going forward in some of these instances and recognize that there may be an additional constitutional responsibility on the part of the federal government to contribute to some of those costs beyond what has historically been the case. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're having those discussions as well, but it is undoubtedly a challenge and will remain a challenge, and we're going to have to try and work with the society and work with the bar and work with the people who require the assistance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: Noting the time, I'm going to have to shift to another topic even though I would have preferred to examine the Attorney General a little further on this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Attorney General has probably heard of the report Kids, Crime and Care: Health and Well-Being of Children in Care — Youth Justice Experiences and Outcomes. It was a joint special report of the Representative for Children and Youth and the office of the provincial health officer. In that report, in the executive summary it states that there is no youth crime crisis in B.C., and the footnotes suggest that B.C.'s youth crime rate actually declined by 54 percent from '91 to 2007. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It goes on to state, however: "…a large and very vulnerable group of children and youth, many of whom are aboriginal and in the care of the government, are at a higher risk of ending up in jail than their other peers." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Another report goes on to state that B.C. has the second-lowest crime rate in the country and a strong delivery system of youth justice programs and services. There's my compliment to the government of the day. It goes on to state that there is extensive use of diversion to keep youth out of custody and innovative approaches such as community conferencing and respect for aboriginal traditions and processes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What it does note is that in B.C. it costs up to $20,000 per year for each youth under community supervision and approximately $215,000 per year for each youth in custody. Now, that is a pretty remarkable number, and I'm just wondering: is the Attorney General familiar with that statistic? Does he agree that those costs are probably relatively accurate? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I have seen the number. I think it's a staggering amount. I'm hard pressed to verify it from the perspective of the ministry given that so much of it relates to some of the costs of incarceration that would flow through the Solicitor General's ministry. But as staggered as I am by the amount, I can easily see where those costs would accrue. So for the sake of this discussion, I am content to concede that it is a very, very costly proposition keeping a young person incarcerated. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
L. Krog: Which leads me to the next question, and that is essentially: acknowledging the extensive use of diversion, has the ministry looked at an even greater use of diversion or programs like it that will actually keep youth out of the custodial situation and save these costs, let alone the attendant court costs and all the other prosecutorial costs that go along with it? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1800]
Hon. M. de Jong: It's actually an area I was having some discussions on just a couple of weeks ago and, oddly enough, posed a somewhat similar question about the extent to which we were making use of diversionary tools where appropriate. I do need, for the purpose of the record, to point out that there will be circumstances in which the protection of society requires that that is not an instrument that is appropriate for use. In other cases, though, it is entirely appropriate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can share with the member…. This is an opportunity to maybe even bandy about some ideas. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I asked about this. I thought about a 17-year-old who becomes involved in the criminal justice system and what forms of diversion, what instruments might be used that would leave an impression on that individual. We do community service. We do counselling. We do a host of different things. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I kept coming back to one component or one thing I remember, about a hundred years ago, when I was that age. What does a 17-year-old young man care about most of all? Well, there might be a few things, but near the top of the list is the ability to drive a car. Maybe there's some opportunity to look at diversionary mechanisms that relate to things that really matter to a young person. That is the freedom they derive from getting in behind the wheel of the car and going for a drive. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It hasn't advanced. I want to tell the member that that idea hasn't advanced beyond what he has just heard now, but I do think it is, given the costs associated with some of these other programs…. Stopping behaviour before it gets to a point where there is no choice but to incarcerate requires, I think, some ongoing imagination on the part of the state. I might as well let the member know that that was a question I posed and a thought I had about, perhaps, expanding the toolkit a little bit around things that might have an impact on a young person. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: The summary that I've been quoting from goes on to state: "British Columbia has begun several projects in the area of early intervention and support, but work to date is scattered, not consistent across the province and not accessible to some of the most vulnerable children and youth." It goes on to note that nearly one-third of the youth in the youth justice system are aboriginal, notwithstanding that they are a significantly smaller proportion of the overall makeup of society. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question is: given that it's the Attorney General's ministry that will end up — and I don't use this in an intentionally unkind way — with the failures of our other social safety net, whether it be the Ministry of Children and Family, the public education system or whatever….? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Given that the failures of those systems are going to end up in front of a judge in a courtroom and potentially in a prison system and given the enormous cost — and there's no question that it is costly — is the ministry at the present time doing any work, in conjunction with the Children and Youth Representative or other ministries, to examine how we prevent, firstly and dramatically, one-third of our aboriginal youth getting involved in the youth justice system but to prevent involvement by youth generally in our justice system? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1805]
Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I wouldn't want to attempt to provide a response without pointing out the obvious — that is, the statistics which reflect the reality of overrepresentation of aboriginal young people and aboriginal people in the criminal justice system. It's unacceptable — has been and continues to be. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Addressing that fact…. I think that the member…. I understand the means by which he made his statement. It is a reflection of failure elsewhere. The attempts that have been made of late — through agreements like the transformative change accord, signed in Kelowna to address those socioeconomic gaps around education, around health care, around a whole range of areas — are intended to address some of those historical failings. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Until that gap that the member has alluded to is addressed and disappears, it continues to constitute a failure on all our parts. I apologize for taking time, but I did want to make it clear that that is very much at the forefront of this government's thinking around where the ultimate solution lies. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There is joint work taking place with the Ministry of Children and Families and directly and indirectly with the Children and Youth Representative. Some of that relates to civil-side notions like guardianship and how youth and youth in need of protection can have access to the services they require so that they don't succumb to some of the other temptations that can attract young people. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't think the Children and Youth Representative would mind my saying that she has a particular interest in addressing the needs and the challenges faced by aboriginal young people. We have programming that we are working through around child protection mediation services. That is happening jointly with the Ministry of Children and Families. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So there are efforts being made there, but I'll end where I began. As long as aboriginal people and aboriginal young people are overrepresented to the extent that they continue to be in the criminal justice system, none of us can be satisfied. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: A couple of fairly specific questions. Noting the time, I'm going to have to conclude. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This budget doesn't include full-time-equivalents, in terms of employees. I'm wondering: why doesn't it? Does the ministry have those numbers? Clearly, with the reducing budget, unless some miracle is being performed, equivalent with the loaves and the fishes, over at the Attorney General's ministry, there will be staff cuts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to know: what sort of cuts are we looking at? Are they across the board? Can we assume they come on the basis of the various sections of the ministry? Are they going to be done equally, or are some being looked at more than others? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1810]
Hon. M. de Jong: I understand that time is precious. Look, there is an impact, and in the year that we are dealing with there has been an impact. We have, I think, largely been successful at protecting front-line services. FTEs in a variety of supportive roles have been impacted, though through natural attrition, placing requirements as set out in the collective agreement. We have managed thus far to restrict or limit the number of people for whom placement has not been found to under 20 — now, a thin gruel for those 20. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As I'm reminded, the dust hasn't settled. We're hopeful that there may yet be a means found to accommodate some of those people. But I don't want to leave the impression, again, that the kind of pressure that the government and the ministry are facing doesn't translate into consequences for the people who dedicate themselves to providing service and working hard, and in the case of 20 individuals this year thus far, that has had a very direct and very negative impact. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have more work to do going forward. We will continue to be guided by the desire to reduce to the greatest extent possible the impact to front-line services. I think we should also be mindful that while we are planning based on the budgetary numbers instead of assumptions that experts in the field provide us with through the budgeting process, we are allowed to be hopeful that economic performance will outperform, and in those circumstances we will be confronted by a different set of circumstances. But, yes, there is an impact. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: At this juncture and given the time and the considering of the House schedule I want to thank the Attorney General for his answers and thank the staff who have been able to assist him and apologize to those members of the Attorney General's ministry who have waited here today. I can only offer the comforting words of Milton when he closed his poem On His Blindness: "They also serve who only stand and wait." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Vote 15: ministry operations, $444,099,000 — approved.
Vote 16: judiciary, $69,081,000 — approved.
Vote 17: Crown Proceeding Act, $24,500,000 — approved.
[1815]
Vote 18: British Columbia Utilities Commission, $1,000 — approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the committee report the budget estimates complete, report resolution and seek leave to sit again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:16 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Hansard Services
publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.
TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule
Copyright (c) 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada