1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 26, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2611 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates On vote

21., Mr. Smith — 2611

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2611

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2612

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2612

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2613

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2613

Mr. Wallace — 2613

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2615

Mr. Wallace — 2616

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2617

Mr. Phillips — 2617

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2618

Mr. Rolston — 2618

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2620

Mr. Bennett — 2620

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2621

Mr. Bennett — 2621

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2621

Mr. Gibson — 2621

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2622

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2622

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2623

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2623

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2624

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2624

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2624

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2625

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2625

Mr. McClelland — 2625

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2625

Mr. McClelland — 2625

Mr. Smith — 2626

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2626

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2626

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2626

Mr. Bennett — 2626

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2626

On vote 23. Mr. Smith — 2627

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2627

Mr. Smith — 2627

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2628

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2628

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2628

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2629

MONDAY, MAY 26, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT

OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 21; correction services, $27,501,093 — continued .

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I thought that the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), who has complained so

vociferously about not having an opportunity to discuss his

estimates, would be up on his feet making an opening remark or

two, seeing that we have had to pass a number of other votes

without debate, and perhaps give us an explanation of all the

great things his department has been doing. We are now on

correction services, vote 21. Perhaps we could have just 10

seconds of silence for about the other $15 million worth of

votes that passed without debate before we proceed to vote 21.

I'd like to I'd like to question the Attorney-General briefly on his

plans for the phasing out of correctional institutes in British

Columbia and replacing them with other forms of detention. If

we follow the press clippings correctly and the

Attorney-General's suggestions, he's certainly going to phase

out Haney Correctional Institute and a number of others. The

Attorney-General has talked about a number of forestry camps or

this type of correctional institution that will replace Haney

and other facilities at the present time.

I am particularly interested in the purchase by the

Department of Public Works, on behalf of the Attorney-General,

of a former motel-hotel complex in northwestern British

Columbia in the town of Terrace, the Blue Gables Hotel. It was

previously known as that. I'd like to ask the Attorney-General

what plans he has for that particular facility which was

purchased for his department at a cost of $195,000. Is it to be

turned into a minimum correctional institution or something of

that nature?

I would like to know if the Attorney General before making this decision, met

with the members of the chamber of commerce and the council in the town of Terrace

to solicit their advice and recommendations with respect to the proximity of

this particular institution to the downtown area. What type of security will

be enforced in such an institution? Will it be an advantage to the people in

that town to have that type of an institution almost within the business precinct,

close to many of the major stores and business complexes, particularly if the

type of person to be incarcerated or at least held in this institution has a

past history of theft, vandalism or whatever?

I would like to ask the Attorney-General what means he used

to determine the advisability or otherwise of placing such an

institution in such a location. I've had a number of

conversations with people who live in that particular

community, and while they don't disagree on the idea of some

sort of an institution in that location or at least in the

general location...

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Do you want me to

answer now?

MR. SMITH: In a minute.

...they certainly are concerned about the fact that this

particular facility or former hotel that you purchased is very

close not only to the residential but to the business

section

of the town. Perhaps you are placing temptation in the path of

the people who would be held in such an institution for

whatever reason. In so doing, you would foist upon the people

of that community an additional hazard that they don't now have

to contend with.

I would hope that the Attorney-General would give us some

indication of the direction in which he proposes to proceed in

this whole matter of correctional institutions. If he is to get

up an institution with very minimum security and control, is it

really a good thing to put those institutions immediately

adjacent to the areas where people who are inclined to public

mischief would have far greater opportunity to indulge in it

than otherwise?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Member is right. The

purchase at Terrace of the Blue Gables was for the purpose of a

community correctional centre. There was quite a bit of

discussion. We have justice councils to advise, headed in this

case by Dave Smith, whose main area is Prince Rupert, but

that's part of his wider jurisdiction. So we do have people

with whom we can consult. We have to be a little careful in

terms of protecting the taxpayer's dollar. We must not

advertise too much in advance that we are looking to purchase a

particular property. We got a good price on this property.

The people are minimum security, that's true, because they

will continue to do educational release work, continuing their

education. They will be doing work release — you know, going

ahead with normal productive work. We do have people

incarcerated who have been traditionally in the corrections

system and who respond to this kind of a programme. It should

be centred in a community, it should be near to work, it should

be near to the educational opportunities and it should be there

for the people of that area so they are not carted off to

Prince George.

[ Page 2612 ]

This is a satellite of the Prince George Regional

Correctional Centre. But we don't want to cart people off to

Prince George and increase the expense of our correctional

system very substantially when we have heavy incarceration for

those who can be readapted to a peaceful life in the community.

They will be minimum-security people. We have had no incidents,

but we will, you know. I don't think we have had any bad

incidents with respect to our CCC programmes at the present

time. They are working well.

MR. SMITH: What programmes, did you say?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: CCC — community correctional centres.

They have been going well and, you know, we have to watch and

monitor it. I am hopeful that we will be able to proceed with

the one in Terrace and that it will be as successful as the

others.

MR. SMITH: Then there'll be a segregation of the type of

people you hold in a community institution such as the one at

Terrace, as compared to a forestry camp or somewhere which is

quite far removed from the temptations you find in a city or a

smaller community.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Right.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I would like to

ask the Minister a quick word about the Elizabeth Fry and John

Howard societies and the amount of support they will be getting

under this particular vote if, indeed, it is this vote and not

the next one. I understand that the Elizabeth Fry Society in

particular had a halfway house planned for Vancouver and that

these plans have had to be shelved and there is a total of only

22-bed accommodation for halfway purposes in the whole City of

Vancouver. The Minister knows better than I do that the ratio

of female prisoners to male has shot up from 25 males to one

female. It is now something like eight male prisoners to every

one female. The ratio may simply be a reflection of the coming

equality of the sexes; I am not sure. But it does mean that in

this particular area of care and detention of females and the

subsequent attempts to bring them back into society through

halfway houses and other facilities, the previous facilities

and the previous institutions are simply not able to handle

this enormous increase in the workload.

I wonder whether the Minister could indicate what steps will be taken, whether

it will be possible to have that halfway house in Vancouver reinstituted. It

was planned and it had to be cancelled. So I wonder if he could assure us that

this particular aspect of correctional service — namely, the increasing number

of females who are in our prison system — is being dealt

with in some more imaginative way.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The approved figures do come out of this

vote for the Elizabeth Fry Society, which was formerly under

the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall). He was very kind

enough to give me this granting function out of my budget, and

I want to express my thanks to the Provincial Secretary. There

is no question that they are doing very good work. In Vancouver

we have granted $12,000; in Kamloops, $19,000; in Kelowna,

$19,000. I was very glad also to see that the Elizabeth Fry

Society received a large grant from the Donner Foundation to

carry on research work.

You mentioned women who do require some confinement —

custody, I should say. We have worked out with the federal

government transfer arrangements where we have been able to

take some of the women of British Columbia, who would otherwise

go to Kingston — even though they are federal, over-two-year

sentence cases — and take them into our provincial system. In

turn, the feds look after some of the people we have. So those

transfer arrangements, while they only amount to 30 or 40

people, are going ahead.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Just to follow from that, it does seem

that $12,000 for the whole City of Vancouver, which I

understand was the figure given to me, seems a pittance. After

all, Vancouver is half the province, and probably more than

half the province in terms of crime. When you realize the

important work that is being done in that period immediately

following the time in jail, when they are trying to

re-establish themselves in the community, the services of the

Elizabeth Fry are tremendously important. I understand, of

course, that there are other services but I do feel that the

Attorney-General's statement is inadequate. We cannot rely on

the Donner Foundation — which is, I believe, mostly American in

funding originally; it is the Donner Foundation of Canada, but

the money, I believe, originally came from the States — to

handle a social problem in British Columbia. Were the Premier

in the room I'm sure he would be terribly upset, knowing his

attitude toward voluntary organizations doing the work that

should perhaps be assisted at least by the government.

I appreciate the fact that you have just taken this over

from the Provincial Secretary. I welcome that. I think that is

a good step and that this should be in this area under this

particular vote. But I must remain quite unconvinced that

$12,000 to assist a very worthwhile organization in Vancouver

is adequate.

I see that the Attorney-General is nodding his head.

[ Page 2613 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I have just given what I know of that

has been granted to date. We have this vote but I have no doubt

that there are other applications within the department. I

can't say now what they will be granted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thank the Attorney-General for that and

I thank him for his obvious concern and feeling that $12,000 is

quite inadequate. He obviously has indicated this to us. I

trust he will find out in other votes how much money there is

and make sure that more is granted. Nineteen thousand dollars

for Kamloops and $12,000 for Vancouver are figures which seem a

little disproportionate.

A final point, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to endorse

the Attorney-General's efforts to merge the federal and

provincial systems. The distinction between federal and

provincial correctional institutions seems quite absurd. I wish

him well in the work that he is doing along that line; I think

that is a positive step. I fully endorse what I have heard him

say in public.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't want to hold my estimates but I

might just add that we also purchase beds through the Elizabeth

Fry. I think it is $12.50 a day. So there is further money

going in.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): It is very interesting that out

of the money spent by the Attorney-General's department, 32.5

per cent is spent on corrections — pretty close to one-third.

And 83 per cent of the income brought in from his department is

derived from the sale of liquor. I wonder if we can consider

how these two items are related one to the other. We certainly

know that the abuse of liquor has a great deal to do with

people ending up within the justice system.

I wonder if the Attorney-General would care to make any

estimate as to how that 32.5 per cent is likely to increase, or

hopefully decrease, I suppose, when we have a unified

correctional system in conjunction with the federal

authorities.

I wonder if the Minister could perhaps give us a little more

information than appeared in the news media over the weekend

about the meeting with the federal Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr.

Allmand). I understand that there is a confrontation situation

where this province suggests that we should be paying less for

RCMP policing and Mr. Warren Allmand suggests that we should be

paying more.

From that question of financial disagreement, I suppose one

can quite rightly ask to what degree the Attorney-General feels

we should be acquiring the 1,700 police, the figure that was

stated some weeks ago as the number that is really required to

efficiently implement law and order in this province.

It seems to me that there are few aspects of this Minister's

responsibilities that cause more concern these days than law

and order, as it is so frequently described — or perhaps the

lack of law and order. The corrections system is surely the

point at which this Minister is responsible at least for trying

to rehabilitate the people who have come within the criminal

justice system.

As the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) stated, it

is rather unfortunate that certain of the Minister's votes have

already passed. It is very difficult to relate to some of the

topics that I would like to discuss which have already been

passed and which would have been more appropriately discussed

under the Minister's salary vote.

Nevertheless, this whole area of law and order, and

particularly the problems of trying to cope with the juvenile,

are subjects that are brought to our attention in the mail

every week, it seems, from people writing to their MLAs

expressing serious concern about the problems with juveniles. I

wonder if the Minister could tell us whether that was discussed

in any detail with Mr. Warren Allmand. I understand he has

committed himself to a new juvenile delinquency Act — a federal

Act — and I suppose it would be presumptuous that we should be

told what the basic thrust of the new Act will be.

I can tell the Minister, if it's of any interest to him,

what the thrust of a lot of the people in this province would

be. It would be to get the parents back in the picture and make

them responsible for the correction of their daughters'

transgressions. It's been a very clear theme that's come

through in a great deal of the reporting of incidents,

particularly from the lower mainland, that frequently when a

juvenile is picked up, the police go to the home and find

neither parent anywhere in sight. The concern is expressed that

even when the juvenile comes within the criminal system there

seems to be minimal parental involvement, and certainly a sad

lack of responsibility placed on the shoulders of the parents

once the young juvenile is in trouble.

As I say, we can't presume to know what Mr. Warren Allmand

has prepared for his new juvenile Act, but if the function of

this opposition in this House has any value, let me say that

our party certainly feels that there's a sad deterioration, not

only in the behaviour of a small segment of the juvenile

population but there's a serious lack of responsibility on the

part of the parents. We feel that either financial penalties or

some other kind of penalty which very clearly involves the

parents should be used as a very basic approach in trying to

deal with what is admittedly a small percentage of the total

juvenile population.

But then, as far as that goes, the problems in the adult

population are always caused by a small percentage as well.

This is rather too easy an out for

[ Page 2614 ]

many people to say: "Well, it's only a small number of

juveniles who cause the problems." Well, that's the same too.

After all, if you want to extend that argument far enough, it's

really only a few people who get murdered every year. But that

creates 100 murderers, or it did last year, with an increase in

the murder rate last year of 32.5 per cent over the previous

year. We had 100 murders in B.C. last year.

So if the people try to soften the approach to the juvenile

delinquency problem by giving us this very superficial

argument, "Well, it's only a few kids that are involved," I think that that's just really avoiding the basic

issue. You can extend that argument to the ridiculous in this

whole matter of saying that a small proportion of the total

population is involved. I don't know whether the Minister's in

a position to give us some encouraging information or comment

about the whole problem of juvenile delinquency and the whole

question of the new Act, which I presume was discussed at the

meeting last Friday.

One of the areas on which I want to commend the Minister is

that he has pursued his promise to close down Wilkinson Road

jail, which we've talked about for several years from this side

of the House. Anybody who has taken the trouble to go through

Wilkinson Road jail will know that the closure was long

overdue. The whole direction of the Minister's policy in

corrections is to provide a variety of different types of

institutional care, with emphasis on rehabilitation. I would

like to talk just for a moment on that, although the other

interesting think, which unfortunately we can't discuss because

of the way ~estimates have been debated this year, is the

annual report.

I was fascinated to read that this is the first annual

report of the Department of the Attorney-General. I think the

Deputy Attorney-General's little introduction early in the

report, with the black edging — I don't know quite what the

significance was of the black edge round the long paragraph,

whether this had any significance or whether it was just to

make it stand out — was very interesting. There never has been

any annual report, although

section 5 of the Attorney-General's

Act first appeared in 1899. I suppose it's like closing down

Wilkinson Road jail; it's better late than never. We've been

waiting since 1899 for an annual report and we've finally got

one, and it's an excellent one.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Thank you.

MR. WALLACE: I want to say that I hope it continues to

appear in subsequent years.

It's also very significant in that report that it's pointed out that the Attorney-General

never used to be a member of the cabinet. The role of Attorney-General was so

important in its independent aspect that the Attorney-General had to be completely

neutral and remember that he was representing justice as much as representing

the government of which he is a part. The Attorney-General is nodding his head

in agreement.

I'm sure that in particular he read page 9 of the report,

pointing out that the role of the Attorney-General is so

distinct from that of any other member of the cabinet. I'm sure

that the Attorney-General would like to realize his unique

position beside his cabinet brethren.

It says that he's not only the head of a department and

obliged to advance the interests of the department among his

cabinet colleagues in caucus and in the Legislature, but he

must also be able to advise government and provide legal

opinions irrespective of the political implications and

independent of the political consequences that might flow there

from, either to his department or to the government generally.

I think that's one very exciting paragraph in the whole report,

Mr. Chairman. I'm very grateful that you've allowed me to

indulge in that little comment.

We'll get back to corrections now. I did just want to say a

little bit about rehabilitation. I'm really impressed by the

fact that if we're going anywhere at all in the whole field of

corrections, if we're not emphasizing rehabilitation, we might

as well all quit.

Time and time again, one comes across examples of individual

people caught up in the system. Some of them, admittedly, are

repeaters, but we must never give up on the concept that

because so many people finish up in jail for the second or

third time, they are a lost cause. That's a feeling I find all

too prevalent among the general population.

The specific kind of situation I'd like to refer to is the

programme which is being carried on through the William Head

jail under the title Con-arts. It is a cooperative concept

whereby inmates in the institution become involved in producing

goods — manufacturing, carpentry work, painting, needlework —

whatever it might be. They have a small store in downtown

Victoria to sell these goods.

The creative aspect of what they're doing while they're in

William Head is itself, I think, the kind of positive, creative

and intelligent way to involve inmates if you've any hope of

keeping their basic creative spirit alive and with some kind of

interest in the outside world. As so often is the case, this

particular concept is just about to founder and probably go

right out of business for lack of money. I've spent I don't

know how many hours during the last week trying to find out

just what on earth is going on in relation to that particular

concept.

I have' no wish to be unfair to the Attorney-General because

basically this comes under the Canadian Penitentiary Service of

the federal government. But the fact of the matter is that this

concept is being encouraged at the federal level, and

[ Page

2615 ]

the provincial government has already put up substantial

financing for the only other such project in the whole of

Canada — that is in Agassiz. The concept of Agassiz is

specifically designed to try and help the native Indian inmate

at Agassiz. At the moment, I understand, this

Attorney-General's department has put up $12,000, and $8,000

has been made available from the First Citizen's Fund, and

$4,000 from the Department of Indian Affairs. That's the only

other such cooperative rehabilitative programme in Canada, and

they're very eager to see these programmes survive and

flourish.

But the situation at the William Head programme is very

different because it was initiated under very unsatisfactory

financial circumstances, namely this familiar LIP grant route —

for lack of a better word. The more I hear about LIP, OFY, LEAP

and, goodness knows, so many other titles for programmes, the

more I feel that the whole situation needs a complete

review.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: As the Member behind me says, it's all federal.

But the other thing is, for the information of this House and

for everybody else, there's not a nickel left in any of these

federal programmes, as of today. There is absolutely no

cohesion or co-ordination of that kind of funding. So what

happens is that a programme such as Con-arts, with so much

potential for positive results, gets going and then there's no

more money available. In this particular instance, they never

did get the money from the LIP grant that was suggested in the

first place.

Now we're scrounging around for what is a relatively small

sum of money through these various sections of the divisions of

Canada Manpower. On Friday I finally was able to get at least a

very clear statement from Ottawa that there's just no money

under any of these subdivisions of Canada Manpower funding, so

this rehabilitation programme from the William Head jail, which

has the store on Yates Street in Victoria, is unable to

survive. As it happens, on the understanding that federal money

was to be available, the inmates borrowed $5,000. So not only

is the programme in bad shape, but also there is. the question

of a $5,000 loan involved, and the note comes due on June

Now it seems to me, as I said at the start, that if we don't really emphasize

rehabilitation.... The hope when someone leaves jail is that it is the last

time they'll leave jail, and that whenever you do for them from there on will

give them potential to have a job, sustain an income and stay away from crime,

but you can't just do that the day they walk out the door of the jail. You need

to be working, making all the efforts possible while the person is in there.

This is why this particular programme serves that essential purpose, and as

far as I can tell to this point in time, it has been successful. I understand

the Agassiz example is also proving very encouraging.

I would wonder if the Minister is in any position to look at

this Con-art situation on an urgent basis in the hope that

perhaps we can get some provincial funding, such as has been

made available at Agassiz.

The last point I wanted to raise was related more

specifically under this vote to one or two of the items of

expense, Mr. Chairman. I notice, for example, that despite the

fact that we have inflation and rising costs, I'm very puzzled

to know how medical services could diminish in any budget these

days. It was $210,000 last year and it's expected to be

$200,000 this year, and medical supplies are reduced from

$57,000 to $50,000. I just find that very puzzling. Under

psychiatric services, which I would assume is one of the most

important types of medical service which should be available in

our jails, the item shows no expenditure for the coming year. I

presume this must be included for psychiatric services last

year and there's nothing at all this year.

Talking again, just quickly, about the concept of

rehabilitation, I notice that last year farm operations was

scheduled to spend $300,000; in the coming year the figure

listed is $200,000. Once again, I would hope that this in no

way signifies any reduction in the effort being made to

rehabilitate through farm operations or work camps, or forest

camps, all the kinds of concepts which the Minister has talked

about many times — getting the prisoners out from within four

walls and getting them involved in productive work, either on

the farm, in the forests, or somewhere that seems to offer a

more likely chance of final rehabilitation, I wonder if the

Minister can say why the $300,000 figure is reduced to

$200,000.

Perhaps last, but by no means least, is the very last item

in this vote — under 047, special projects — $1.9 million,

whereas last year the figure was $50,000. So I have to assume

there's something exciting going on there. I would wonder if

the Minister would discuss that. Perhaps out of that $1.9

million, does he think maybe that Con-arts could get just a

teeny-weeny little bit of that $1.9 million? We're not talking

in terms of large sums of money for the rehabilitation

programme and the cooperative at William Head, so out of

$1.925 million, I wonder if the Minister could find a few

thousand, perhaps, for the programme that I think has proved

itself and is really just getting off the ground. It would be a

real tragedy if it fell apart right now for lack of

funding.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, that's another example of

the fact that the federal government goes into projects like

that with LIP grants, then they pull out and then we have to

consider it. Even though it's a federal penitentiary

[ Page 2616 ]

and it isn't directly in our bailiwick, we do meet with the

feds on a joint regional committee. We are increasing a kind of

cooperation, so the kind of thing that you've raised can be

discussed there. We have our own programme for prison arts,

sometimes through outside bodies, for our provincial system.

But I don't think there's anything I can do directly about the

William Head thing itself because that is a federal

institution.

MR. WALLACE: So is Agassiz, and you are giving them

money.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. Well, I think there is joint

expenditure of money for that.

You mentioned the Native cooperative Association. They produce

special furniture. We contributed $12,000. I think there was a federal

contribution there, too. They span the range of both federal and

provincial institutions.

The medical estimate is down because psychiatric services

are under the medical plan, and our jail population is down

from 2,000 to 1,800, even though, as everybody knows, the crime

rate has been up. We have sorted out those who are not

dangerous to society. They are on minimum security or they are

in the community. It is kind of pleasing to me that, in the

case of Oakalla, I think the population today is around 600 or

700 people. When I came into office in what was maybe an easier

age two years ago, it was around 1,000 or 1,100 — really

bursting. Wilkinson, of course, is down to just some remand

cases.

On the other subjects brought up by the Hon. Member, I have

to wear two hats. That is rather difficult in my department.

You are right; in terms of the administration of my duties as

Attorney-General, I have to be impartial, non-political, listen

carefully...

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Impossible!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...but I've also got another hat that I

can wear as a politician. I have to be careful not to confuse

the two and wear them at different times.

MR. WALLACE: Which one are you wearing today?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I've got a little bit of both on there

because it is so early in the morning, and I could get going

very easily.

In the conversations with Warren Allmand, in terms of the new juvenile delinquency

Act, I don't want to make a major speech on what is happening to society today

and what is particularly happening in the field of juveniles. I think I have

to go somewhere on Wednesday and give a speech. I haven't got any other topic

in my mind, so this might very well be it. I am very concerned about the kind

of disrespect — let's not say for laws, but disrespect for the rights of the

other person in society — which you see in the schoolrooms, which might just

be sassing the teacher or worse conduct. Of course it is what our age is coping

with, no question about it. We see it in all kinds of groups in society who

do not accept the law when it applies to them but get very indignant when laws

are being broken by other people for their purposes. What has to apply to one

has to apply to all. I am very concerned about this and in terms of the new

Act and parental responsibility, if it can be done by law.... It is very hard

to change the social habits and control and discipline of family by law; law

can only do so much. But in the new juvenile delinquents Act we have to look

at those possibilities too, including parental responsibility and accountability

in some cases.

In the case of liquor, that is where an awful lot of our

crime comes from. Maybe the murderers came mostly from the drug

scene, but a lot of the population of our institutions is as a

result of alcoholism. That is why we have under separate

programmes...although we cooperate with the Alcohol and Drug

Commission, particularly in developing the impaired drivers

retraining programmes, and we have about 17 or 19 of those

going in the province at the present time. I think they are

successful. Instead of just being sentenced to a fine or

imprisonment for impaired driving, you have got to take a

course and see the consequences of your action. I think those

are successful.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, no. That is not well-established.

There is the one at Salmon Arm, eh? When we came into office

two years ago, I think that is the only one that was really

.... There may have been some other cases around the province,

but we have had under Ian Waddell a real go at developing these

things in an orderly way so the judges, in sentencing, have an

alternative kind of a sentence in addition to the ordinary

sanctions. I want to continue the development of those

courses.

MR. WALLACE: Just a quick point that I had forgotten to ask.

In the meeting with Warren Allmand, could the Minister say

whether the consequences of amendments to the bill or format

were discussed, the whole question of the fact that with good

intentions it was thought that people should not be in jail

because they couldn't raise bail, but on the other hand the

consequences of amendments which resulted in people not

appearing in court and disrupting the court

schedule and

[ Page 2617 ]

causing a tremendous amount of difficulty? Was this

discussed with the Solicitor-General?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, no, that comes under the

Minister of Justice, the Hon. Otto Lang. But we are doing two

things at the present time in my department. We have our

bail-supervision programme, which is new. I think I described

it earlier — something between you are incarcerated or you are

not. There's a middle area now, and we think it's working well.

We are the first in Canada with bail supervision.

The other thing we are doing is a very careful tracking and

research project of those who are released on bail — what has

been the success of their release pending trial, what has been

the failure, and what kind of people don't show. Really, we

have to look person by person to know what we are talking

about, and we will have that kind of research information

available even though it is a federal Act, so we are making our

contribution.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Attorney-General said that he wasn't going

to make a major speech with regard to correction institutions,

what is happening and where we are going.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Would you like it now? I'd be glad to....

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, yes, because I would like to know....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: At 10 o'clock in the morning?

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to know exactly where we are

going because I think it is very important. In my travels

throughout the province, this seems to be one of the areas of

grave concern to the citizens of British Columbia, and we would

like to know where we are going. After all, the

Attorney-General or the government — I don't know whether it

was the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) or the

Attorney-General — did take an about-swing when they took over

the government and took a softer approach, which I am not

condemning. I am not condemning it; maybe this was the right

way to go. But it is proven that it hasn't been the right way

to go because now we are taking a second look.

I recall, not too long ago, that the Premier, who is an ex-social worker, and

the Minister of Human Resources said that we were not going to have these institutions

where we put people and where we put juveniles and keep them there. They were

going to do away with them. Now Justice Berger comes out and says: "Well, there

are a few whom we have got to keep in there to protect them for themselves."

I have correspondence and calls where a juvenile will break

into a place of business, then the next day he is out in the

hands of the probation officer, and lo and behold, the next

night he goes right back and does the same thing. If you have a

business that is getting broken into....

For instance, I have letters here from the public library

commission where thousands of dollars of damage was done and

the young fellow was back out on parole again. I'm afraid, Mr.

Chairman, that we are getting into the position where the law

is going to be far easier on you if you shoot your neighbour

than if you shoot your neighbour's dog.

A case in point: I was interested to note an

article in the

Vancouver Province , March 14, where three men, who

harassed two coyotes with snowmobiles while participating in a

course that included humane trapping methods, have been fined a

total of $1,000 in provincial court.

Now I just have to wonder, if these had been juvenile

delinquents who had broken in and done thousands of dollars

worth of damage to one of their neighbours, what would they

have been fined. What would have been the result in today's

society? So, as I say, where are we heading? These three

gentlemen were harassing coyotes, and the three of them were

fined a total of $ 1,000.

I think the law was very stern on these particular people in

relation — now I am not saying stern as an isolated case — but

in relation to the other attitude we seem to have towards

offenders. So, in heaven's name, don't go out and harass any

wild animals because you are going to be nailed, and you are

going to be nailed but good. But you can go ahead and break and

enter, steal, do malicious damage, and if you are a juvenile

you seem to get off scot-free to the point, Mr. Chairman, where

the mayor of Duncan was wanting to lay criminal charges against

Human Resources Minister Norman Levi after an incident in which

juveniles from Nanaimo's Island Youth Centre terrorized Duncan

Saturday night.

I think this is very, very timely and I would hate to see us

skip over it. I would like to know where we are going. It is of

great concern. As the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) pointed

out, our crime rate is going up. I think the Attorney-General

has taken a hard stand against drug pushers and abusers — not

necessarily users — but certainly those people who have been

pushing drugs in British Columbia. I think the prosecutions

have been fairly stern the last few years.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We're trying.

MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate that fact, but there is this

other area, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 2618 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I know.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like the Attorney-General to tell us

where he is at, where he thinks we are going. Are you going to

reverse your soft stand advocated by the Minister of Human

Resources, and indeed, the Premier, because the experiment

hasn't worked?

It's like Dr. Spock. Dr. Spock came out and he said: "If

your kid wants self-expression, let him write on the wall."

Then some mother found out that this just didn't work because

they didn't only write on the wall, they sometimes carved on

the wall.

It's an experiment — has it worked? Has it not worked? Just

where are we going? When society gets to the point where, as I

say, the law is harsher on you if you shoot your neighbour's

dog than if you actually shoot your neighbour, then I think we

should take a real good look and find out where we're going.

Although the Attorney-General maybe doesn't want to make a

lengthy speech on it, I think the people of British Columbia

would like to know, and I would appreciate knowing just exactly

where we are going.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Member has raised a very

important subject, and whether it is under this vote or not, I

don't mind giving a reply. My predecessor in office, the Hon.

Leslie Peterson, through the Family Relations Act — and I think

we all generally applauded in the Legislature — provided for

that sentence where the juvenile would be made a ward of the

Children's Aid Society. In most cases that has worked well, but

not completely.

As I say, we are in rather a more difficult age, and it's

amazing how quickly these times change. The result is that we

commissioned the Berger commission, and if the Hon. Member will

look at the fourth report which has been accepted by the

government, he will see the kind of concern that commission had

for this particular problem. They didn't want to go wholly

punitive and they didn't want to go wholly permissive. The

wholly punitive thing has its built-in dangers, too,

particularly in the field of kind of manufacturing children

into criminals who might not otherwise be criminals at all.

In addition to proceeding with those recommendations, the government has already,

of course, quite a few young people in the corrections branch, under the votes

we are discussing now. They go there in two ways: sometimes the judge raises

those who are under age to adult court, and that's not a very satisfactory way

but sometimes it has to happen: the other way is that, increasingly, there are

some youngsters who, as a condition of probation, are made to go to one of our

camps. At the present time, in Senta Creek there are 12 young people, either

juveniles or young adults. At Porteau Camp on Howe Sound, we have quite a few

juveniles there, some of them over age and some of them under — that's a weekend

programme except in the summer when it goes full-time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are these sort of outreach programmes?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. And Boulder Bay — that's a tough,

outdoor wilderness experience where people are almost free to

leave if they want to. But when they go without

ticket-of-leave, they have about 15 miles of very rough

mountain terrain to pass to make their way to the Haney area.

We figure that mostly those who can accomplish that kind of an

adventurous outdoor experience are probably cured at that

point. (Laughter.) Maybe that's the answer — if they fight their

way back, they're all right, because that's not easy.

There are quite a few young people now in the forestry camps

of the corrections branch. But we still have the major problem,

and as Mr. Justice Berger says in his report, there should be

assessment centres in local communities so that the police

don't have to take a young person and throw him into the adult

lockup. This happens now or the police say that they can't put

him in the adult lockout and he goes free — one or the other.

These centres would be a sort of a place for assessment and

cooling off for a youngster who's been acting up so that when

he appears in court 10 days or two weeks later — not a long

period — he's settled down and he's had a chance to think

through his own situation. So we should, in a very informal

way, develop some of those community assessment centres as

recommended in the report.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, I will never learn

how to pronounce the name of the Russian novelist, Dostoevsky,

but he did tell us many, many decades ago that what's really

happening in prisons really is a reflection of the community.

As I understand it, and my experience in corrections is that if

we really mean business, if we really mean to do some

correcting and some therapy, that degree of concern, or

seriousness, will surely reflect how serious we are about the

outside straight society.

For instance, the 80 young fellows who are still in Haney

Correctional — if we really want them to be corrected and

really live as confident and firm people, we will be determined

to spend money, but also see that it is well spent and

meaningfully spent in our corrections system.

I really compliment the Attorney-General, who is three years

ahead of his five-year plan when he announced that by the end

of July the Haney Correctional, which I suppose is one of the

larger employers in Maple Ridge, will be phased down and phased

right out.

As I understand it, when you made that

[ Page 2619 ]

announcement there were about 146 men in that institution;

now I gather somewhere around 78 or something like that. It

would be instructive, Mr. Attorney-General, just to tell us how

that relates to the camps. Is the unused capacity in the camps

now pretty well used as you start to move some of those people

into Boulder Bay, Pine Ridge, Stave Lake? I don't know about

Porteau Bay and some of these other places. What kind of unused

capacity is there still there? Will there be another wilderness

camp? I hear very good feedback on the wilderness camp. You

just spoke briefly about Boulder Bay.

It might interest the people in the House: I understand that

a couple of fellows tried to leave Boulder Bay. After about 10

miles through incredibly rocky terrain, you probably enter on

what we call the Stave Lake road, the road along the west side

of Stave Lake. It's pretty easy to apprehend a person coming

out of that area, and, of course, they were. It must have been

frustrating after 10 miles of terribly difficult terrain. These

fellows got out several years ago and were picked up walking

along that road.

It would be interesting to know in ballpark figures what the

cost of the Boulder Bay operation per person is compared to

staying in the big concrete building, the Haney Correctional

Centre, which we'll be phasing out by the end of July. That

would be somewhat instructive.

It also would be helpful, Mr. Chairman, just to hear, for

instance, what the count is. The count on February 3 was 1,784

people sentenced and unsentenced in the province. What is the

count right now? Where is the main...? You mentioned, for

instance, that you don't think Oakalla is more than about 700.

Where is the concentration?

It would be, I think, helpful, too, as we talk about this

money, which is not going just to jails, as I understand....

The $27.5 million is also going to the probation service and to

the community corrections programme. It would be helpful just

to know how many people are in the actual staffing of jails,

which I understood was 1,200 people in the old days. I gather

that staffing is going down as, presumably, the count is going

down. How many are going into the probation service?

The Hon. Attorney-General will probably continue to hear me

cry for the need for more probation workers. There are 250

doing the work of looking after at least 10,000, if not 12,000,

people on probation. That complement has got to increase. I

really appreciate the fact that he says that the probation

service is now being run by case management by private

agencies. I think that's helpful. But that still is a cost to

us. You could probably tell us how many actual bodies, whether

they're private or whether they're people working directly for

the public, are doing the probation service.

Also, it would still be useful, as politicians talking about

your estimates, to know just what, is the cost. The cost used

to be $400 for probation. What does it now cost in this

particular estimate or fiscal year for a year's cost of

probation for a person? That would be very instructive, I

think, to this particular House.

Mr. Chairman, talking about juveniles, Mr. Berger told us a

whole bunch of things about juveniles, which, again, I assume

is under this vote — the custody of juveniles, the custody of

children. It was very instructive for me to realize just the

number of reasons that might be causing juvenile delinquency:

family problems, a lack of limits, a lack of real direction by

parents — gee, I think we just have to hammer on that one — the

lack of proper models for juveniles to follow, the tremendous

mobility of families.

I think the House realizes that, I guess, at least one in

four are moving every year. We've been told that even more than

a single family that's one of the most damaging things on a

child — the mobility, the movement of people. Of course, the

poverty, overcrowding in housing, unemployment, cultural

adjustment, the pressure of other kids on these children, the

fact that....

I think that when I was with the Attorney-General in Haney

about a month ago, we heard still some pretty frightening

stories of the number of foster parents. We heard the

incredible story of a child in Maple Ridge who had 18 foster

parents, Imagine the pressure! Imagine what that could mean as

part of the cause for juvenile delinquency. Of course,

emotional problems, alcohol and drug problems, probably some

physical disabilities, sometimes end out in some kind of

deviant behaviour and going against the law.

Again, I think the Attorney-General, the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Cocke), the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly)

and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) are trying

to detect physical and other emotional disabilities very early

in their life, which will prevent these people from ever going

to a place like Haney Correctional, or Boulder Bay or whatever.

Of course, a low IQ and also learning disabilities.... These

are a whole bunch of reasons that often end out in some kind of

delinquent behaviour.

I make that emphasis, Mr. Chairman, because what I want to

ask about right now is the whole business of regional remands

for juveniles. Quite frankly, I don't care if it is under the

Attorney-General or under the Minister of Human Resources; even

though if it is under this Attorney-General it might not mean

much sharing from Ottawa on transfer payments.

Having just mentioned some of the causal factors of juvenile

delinquency which could lead to crime, my point in bringing

this up is the need, as Mr. Berger said, for some kind of

assessment facility. By George, this is complicated stuff and

I'm sure not competent,

[ Page 2620 ]

even with some professional training, to really see some of

the causal factors in these young people. So I ask the

questions: How long do you see the juveniles in some kind of

facility? What are some of the criteria for being admitted to a

short-term juvenile facility? What are some of the processes

for referral for admission to this facility? Can you give the

House an idea of what some of the diagnostic setups might look

like, especially with regard to their relationship with other

private agencies?

I think the people in the communities, especially the people

on justice development councils in Maple Ridge and Mission,

want to know what the kind of discharge process is. Once they

are there for 30, 40, 50 or maybe 60 days, how are they going

to be discharged, to whom, and what kind of relationship will

there be with the other services such as Human Resources,

possibly corrections — though we hope that won't be true —

mental health, police, school boards, the whole works?

When we are talking about the estimates for this current

fiscal year, where presumably there will be expenditures on

regional remanding — you've said that Victoria and Vancouver

will be the first places but probably the Fraser Valley and

others are upcoming — there is the whole question of staffing.

Mr. Attorney-General, it seems that corrections, by the very

nature of the job, is at times a very anxiety-prone business,

even neurotic at times. It is a very difficult job to be in

where you are constantly supervising kids who are really

creating tensions both in the jail and in the community.

That brings up, Mr. Chairman, the need for staff training.

By George, you just can't go on.... When you are winding down

Haney Correctional and kids are going to other places — we are

talking about community facilities in Chilliwack and Marpole

and wherever — surely that means there has to be more money

spent. I would like to know just how much money in what vote is

going to be spent in upgrading staff. It seems that you just

can't use the same people without a lot of money and a lot of

time spent.

It might interest you that some of the professional people

at the federal Matsqui institution work a 37-hour week and

spend a great deal of that in just upgrading themselves in

training. I think we need to hear that because you just won't

move from one pretty static system under the previous

administration to now quite a fluid community-based system

without a tremendous amount of staff upgrading.

A final comment with that is that I believe the whole

business of staff complaints is much better. I gather that John

Ecksted did some work originally on staff relations which, when

I became an MLA, were gosh-awful. There seemed to be a lot of

anxiety. It is partly the type of job but also the whole

business of upgrading staff relations and training.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we do take staff training

very seriously. It is under code 031 in vote 15 which the

House very graciously passed some days ago, thereby making it

impossible for me to make a speech on vote 15.

In terms of the criteria for admission to possible

assessment centres, the Berger report discusses this in some

depth. We are talking about pre-trial, very short term,

strictly under the supervision of the judge. Nobody goes into

an assessment centre unless the judge, after receiving the

reports from the counsellors, the prosecutor and so forth,

decides that that would be worthwhile. We also have a provision

that has been recommended to us that the advocates immediately

are notified for that region of any youngster who has been

confined, and they arrange to see that young person

immediately.

Our camp population is bulging a little bit in the lower

mainland. For example, Boulder Bay is now 55 people. Up north

it isn't so bad. Of the total number in the system — as I said,

1,826 is the exact figure as of a short time ago — I guess this

isn't broken down in terms of who are in the camps because the

camps vary, but 427 of the 1,826 are awaiting trial, 186 are on

temporary absence in one form or another, and of our camps down

in the lower mainland we have a pretty full complement, as I

said.

So we are looking to expand the Stave Lake camp and we may

reopen Lakeview, which is at the middle of Vancouver Island,

not too far from Campbell River.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Yes, Mr.

Chairman, just a few more questions on the assessment centres

because the Attorney-General has been discussing it. He

announced the other day that he would be naming a director. I'd

like to question whether that director has yet been appointed

or whether he can make an announcement.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I can't announce it.

MR. BENNETT: Although you mention that some facilities may

be put into Victoria or Vancouver right away, when you place

these assessment centres in other communities, will you be

discussing with the local communities the location and the type

of centre? Will the facilities be related to local problems? I

think the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) mentioned staffing,

but will there be security or will there be some form of

rehabilitation offered within those assessment centres? Will

they be more than just holding facilities?

The programme so far hasn't been defined that we can

understand, yet a lot of the communities that write us are

concerned about this growing juvenile delinquency problem and

vandalism. Of course, we

[ Page 2621 ]

know that in the last few years juvenile court judges have

had no opportunity but to put their juveniles out on probation

or into homes, and have no way to take them off the

streets.

I watched a programme while I was out of the House last week

for various reasons. On television I saw a mother on "Front

Page Challenge" concerned about an incident that involved a

juvenile. While it involved gun control, I think the real

problem was juvenile delinquency.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Was it Mrs. Burtinshaw?

MR. BENNETT: Yes.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, she was on there?

MR. BENNETT: Yes. But the main problem was juvenile

delinquency.

If they are to have these assessment centres or holding

centres, the communities would like more definition and they

want to know whether they'll be involved in full discussion on

how the facilities will operate, and particularly as to what

will be the definition of a hard-core offender, and what type

of security. Will there be different types of security within

The centres for various juveniles? They want to know about

local rehabilitation within these centres.

Perhaps you could just elaborate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, they are very short-term kind of

facilities under the supervision of the court. Primarily the

young person is in there for two reasons. First, he's dangerous

to be running around, and you don't put anybody in unless

that's the first criterion. Secondly, he's there for assessment

for a very short period of time until pre-trial. So beyond

saying that it's for assessment purposes, I don't think we

would think of further programmes in what are essentially very

small, informal holding units pre-trial.

In the terms of consulting with the communities, the answer is yes. We have

the machinery through our justice councils, and I would expect that the justice

councils would increasingly, as we have this kind of a programme, consider swinging

their efforts into an examination of the most suitable facilities, the most

informal facilities, one acceptable to the community, one that will not entail

a large expense of public money. Possibly from the justice councils we'll be

able to get some of the leadership material to actively work in this programme.

So we do have the justice councils not only as eyes and ears out in the various

communities to consult but I would hope that they will increasingly move into

a more executive role as we have new challenges such as the one you have been

discussing. We have some very good people who are in those justice councils.

Was there something I missed?

MR. BENNETT: Rehabilitation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, really, not in an assessment

centre. That might be for two days. I don't think we would put

in educational and other programmes into an assessment centre

which is basically a cooling-off place. Basically, the young

person can be assessed so that when the judge conducts the

trial he will know what kind of facility, if a facility is

needed, that young person needs, or whether the youngster

should be sent back to his parents or possibly even a

wilderness camp or a group home or something. Most of the

facilities will still be under the Department of Human

Resources. I would think that for the vast bulk of the young

people who get into trouble there's no need for locks or keys,

but for some there is.

MR. BENNETT: Well, then, these centres or these facilities

won't be expanded for use primarily other than holding before

they go to court. What about the problem of no facilities after

juveniles have been convicted? They couldn't be an extension

for those...?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I wouldn't think that the assessment

centre would be. I think then we'd go on to, as I say, the

whole range of services offered by the Department of Human

Resources and, to a very limited extent, the services we offer

in wilderness camps and that kind of thing. Community

correctional centres.

MR. BENNETT: You're not going to expand that?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I think we have to expand our

forestry camp centres. I mentioned, I think, that we're now

planning expansion of Stave Lake, and I think we will perhaps

have to increase that. Certainly that's a far better setting

than putting somebody into jail as such, particularly a young

person.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman,

one of the measures the government introduced last year to try

and keep people out of correction institutions was the measure

whereby people would not be put in jail for the non-payment of

fines. I would ask the Attorney-General just very briefly if he

would comment on the disturbing report in this morning's

newspaper that, in fact, this system is somewhat breaking down

and that its enforcement is proving difficult, We may, in the

long run, be led to the position where we're going to have to

use the correction institutions again to enforce this kind

[ Page 2622 ]

feeling.

Other news reports, I understand, would say that the value

of unpaid fines is in fact much higher than the $150,000

suggested by Alderman Boyce.

HON. MR. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Well, I appreciate

short questions, but that one was so short it caught me aback.

But that's right; you got right to the heart of something that

we're now monitoring, of course. We're gathering statistics.

You have to bear in mind that when you put the person in jail

who can't pay, you don't get the fine either. We estimated that

this was costing the taxpayers throughout the province about $3

million a year — that is, the cost of keeping those who are in

jail simply because they couldn't pay a fine.

You must also bear in mind that the judge still has full

discretion. He can still at the time of that offence fine or

incarcerate. He can't do both together. If he then says that

he's sentencing you to a fine and that fine is not paid, there

can't be an automatic default; but then the person concerned

can be brought back into court. Now we've established an — I

think we call it an enforcement officer, don't we? I think it's

called an enforcement officer. We've had to establish, as this

programme proceeds, one officer who's responsible for going

after the fines that should be paid — where the person is

deliberately evading or can't pay, and won't. That programme

has been underway in the last month and a half, after we've

been gathering the relevant statistics.

So the programme is experimental in the sense that we still

have to monitor it, gather statistics. I don't think the fine

loss is nearly as great as was anticipated because, as I say,

if you put that person into jail, you don't get the fine

anyway. So those figures have to be looked at with great

care.

MR. GIBSON: Well, how much a day is it to keep a person in

jail?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, it depends. It's now at Haney

Correctional, because the population is down and the staff

ratio is away up...but the last year or so we figure it's

about $40 a day. In a forestry camp it's about half that. In

probation, of course, the costs just disappear. They are so

miniscule compared with incarceration. What are they — 5 per

cent of the costs of incarceration if somebody's out on

probation. So it varies from very high to very low, You might

say that an average is $25 a day. I think we took that to work

out our figures of who was in jail because they couldn't pay

the fine — for that reason only. We figured the whole province

was losing about $3 million a year.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I trust

I don't misunderstand the Attorney-General in his recent remarks. If we're saving

all this money by not putting people in jail, then I suppose what we could do

is to shut up the jails altogether, and we'd save all this money that we're

talking about. I'm sure that's not his intention.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Is that the proposal of your party?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I just asked if that was your

intention. That's what you were suggesting, that somehow or

other the change you made last year was saving a lot of money.

If money is what we're to save, then we can do it quite easily.

I'm sure you don't mean that.

HON. MR, MACDONALD: No.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the

Attorney-General would advise the committee whether or not he's in a

position to give any assessment of the direction that correction

services are now taking in British Columbia. If it's too soon, then I'm

sure the Attorney-General will say. What concerns me is that we're

dealing at this moment with a vote of $27.5 million for correction

services, and the extent to which the Attorney-General believes that

the expenditure of this money is producing the desirable results. I

assume that the intention is to rehabilitate people who are capable of

rehabilitation and make some assessment of those who are not, and to

make some appropriate actions to ensure that those who cannot be

rehabilitated and brought back as useful members of the community are

somehow or other categorized and treated a different way. I'd like to

know whether the community is going to face this problem on a

continuing basis, or do you see the direction that correction services

are taking as one which is going to result in a diminishing demand upon

society?

In all the moneys that we are making available to the

Attorney-General, a fantastic amount is expended because of the

criminal activities of people in our society. It is growing

every year, in all the votes. We have got $12.6 million for

courts, the majority of which are involved with criminal

prosecutions; $4.6 million for prosecution services; $8.2

million for sheriffs' services; $20 million for police; and now

$27 million for corrections. I wonder if the Attorney-General

is able to indicate to us whether or not what he is doing is

going to be a continuing part of our responsibility at

increasing costs. If it is, then it seems to me that

corrections services should be given some greater priority than

is presently the case.

As I say, the votes we are dealing with, or have dealt with

in the past, provide $20 million for police, but that is only a

very small part of the total policing costs we have in this

province. The chairman of the

[ Page 2623 ]

police commission advised me that the policing costs in the

province are currently about $120 million a year. Over the next

three years it is forecast to increase to $180 million, and

that is without any capital expenditure for buildings or

equipment involved in that aspect of society's

responsibility.

With this growing feeling in our communities about what our

juveniles are doing, people are more and more disturbed about

criminal activities, yet we are spending more and more money

for police, more and more money for courts. Now we are

increasing the budget for the corrections services by $8

million this year. I would like to know whether or not there is

any monitoring going on. Is what we are doing effective or are

we just creating another facility or group of facilities in the

community whereby we are taking people and treating them in a

way which may be more humane?

It is all very well to say, Mr. Attorney-General, that it is

better to take some of these people and put them in a camp or

some other facility than to lock them up. It is certainly

better for them, but after all, is it better for the community?

Is it the obligation of the community, somehow or other, to

keep a criminal in some better kind of facility? If you want,

you might as well put him in the Empress or the Hyatt Regency

or something. I am sure that would be very acceptable to the

criminal — better than even a forestry camp — unless you can

satisfy us that putting him in these other institutions is

going to have some other benefit than merely keeping him in a

facility which is convenient and attractive to him.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, part of the problem with

the budget, of course, is better working conditions for staff.

We have a union agreement in the correctional services which is

added, I think, in 19 hours per year per man to each of the

people in there, and which we have to pay for — better breaks in

terms of holidays, coffee breaks — things which they deserve,

things of that kind which you might call fringes. There you

have the wage increase to bring their salaries up to comparable

levels in the private community. So a lot of our increase of $8

million in the vote is related to staff. Some of it is related

to the increasing costs of supplies.

Then, of course, we have made the big new venture into grant

funding. We go to something like the Prince George Activators

Society and ask them to run a project — people who participate

in that project will not be in the jail system as such. We like

to contract these things out where we can — to the Sally Ann or

societies that are reliable. So even though our population went

down, as I say, in a difficult period — down to 1,826 as of May

5 — our costs have gone up. We need staff because we are

expanding the community correctional centres and other

things.

It depends upon the age and what is going to happen in terms of respect for

rules of conduct, but I would hope to be optimistic on that question. I think

the pendulum has gone as far as it can go, surely, in terms of disrespect for

the other fellow. I don't think it is going to go any further. I think there

is going to be a swing back to where people will say that if I continually,

and for my own interest, take selfish advantage of my rights or break the law,

sooner or later I am going to be living in a society which won't be very happy

for me and my family, and what I do to the other fellow will ultimately catch

up with me. I think that a new kind of respect for the other fellow has got

to apply through the whole range of society.

It is not just kids with mindless vandalism. Sure, it is

large corporations, and it is trade unions who think that

possibly to go on an illegal walkout, an illegal strike or an

illegal slowdown is a legitimate bargaining tool, but they're

just signaling a message to other people in society: "If they

can do that, why can't IT' Road blockades and things like that

seem to flow from this general disrespect for rules.

Now, if that continues, if the pendulum in terms of

disrespect for your neighbour continues in our society the way

it has been swinging in the last few years, then we're going to

have a much larger budget in the correctional services,

regardless of the efforts of these people. But if the pendulum

swings back to some sense of social responsibility, people will

ask themselves, "Who is my neighbour after all, and how is he

going to be affected by what is happening here?" — they begin

to get that kind of respect for rules back in their head and

understand that rules are necessary n a civilized society or

there is a quick descent into barbarism and anarchy.

You know, that quick descent can be a lot quicker than you

think. You can reach a certain point of no return. This has

happened in some of the great cities in the world, where having

gone that far it is almost impossible to recall that kind of

mutual respect and cooperation with which citizens should live

in society.

So the pendulum goes on swinging. This is going to be a big

vote, whoever the Minister is. But I think it is time it will

swing back in the other direction, and that people will

recognize that "hurting my neighbour is fine, hurting the

public is fine, except that I'm also the public, my family is

the public, sooner or later that kind of thing is going to

catch up to me."

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I compliment the Attorney-General on a

fine statement of philosophy. But the question I asked him was:

is his department monitoring what we are doing in correction

services, and can he advise the committee whether the direction

in which he is moving is accomplishing anything in the line of

what he has just said? It is all very well to say that we have

to have more respect for

[ Page 2624 ]

our neighbour.

It is all very well to say that he thinks that the pendulum

has gone as far as it is going to go. The Attorney-General well

knows that in other jurisdictions in North America and Canada

the pendulum has gone a lot farther than it has so far in our

community, where people don't go out at night, where

governments have been obliged to take the strongest possible

action to stop the use of weapons, including some actions that

no one in this House would like to see taken. I'm talking about

searches of persons and places without warrants, and all those

extreme moves that have to be taken by a government which

finally faces up to the fact that they are not going to allow

the criminal element to take control of society.

Now we're perhaps in a middle stage, maybe at a midway

house. I would like to know whether spending the kind of money

that we are doing here and providing more staff and better

facilities for the staff and better wages and working

conditions for the staff...that the correction service

direction upon which we are embarked is showing signs of being

the right way. If this correction service is the wrong way, it

seems to me that we are only encouraging a person who is not

prepared to take a responsible role in society to continue that

irresponsibility, and we will have to perhaps look for more

stringent measures in order to control those people and to

ensure that they don't act in a way which will bring them into

the clutches of the law and offend against their fellow

citizens.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I think I didn't answer

that when I spoke earlier. I got kind of carried away on

something else.

We've established a planning and research section. We're

monitoring very closely what is happening. That's why we have

been able to reduce the population in the larger

brick-and-mortar institutions because person by person we've

gone through them and asked ourselves the question: "Is this

person so dangerous to his fellows or dangerous at all to his

fellows so that he requires that kind of massive custody?" And

that's the real test, isn't it?

There are all kinds of alternatives to incarceration that

should be used, provided that person is not going to commit

another offence when he is out there, or hurt society or his

community. Then the sanctions, just the publicity, just the

community alternative, just the fine, just the attendance at a

community correctional centre — all of these things work

against repetition of the conduct. But if he is dangerous, then

we have to know about it.

So we are monitoring very closely, and doing it almost on a person-by-person

basis, as we did with all those out on bail, to find out who has been denied

bail, who should be on bail and hasn't had it, who should not be out on bail

and has. We're doing it almost individual by individual, and for the first time,

I think, under Dr. Hank Matheson and Pauline Morrison, and the other people

in our research and planning, we are beginning to find out whether our directions

are sound or not.

When we find that they are not sound, we will change, but at

the moment we are quite satisfied that the five-year plan on

which we are embarked is something that should be carried on

with. But if research shows us otherwise we will change our

mind, and make no apologies about it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: For a moment on that research aspect. The

Minister mentioned a five-year plan on research. Can he give us

some more detail on what interim reports he's had and things of

that nature?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, let me see if I can sum up the

kinds of work that are now actively under investigation. It all

began when I became Attorney-General and Dr. Matheson with Mr.

Schultz. Who was the third one?

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack Macdonald.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Jack Macdonald. They brought in the

examination of the prison system, which went to many pages but

was very valuable. But since that time we are concentrated on

specifics. For example, they are partly under CLEU and they are

partly under the research and planning units and the personnel

kind of overlap.

At the present time we are doing the bail thing person by

person, and we are also doing the trail tracking which is very

important. If someone is charged with, say, drug trafficking in

hard stuff, and their trail is delayed either by the lawyer or

by the court or the congestion of the system for months and

months and they are incarcerated in the meantime, then,

obviously, that trail has to be brought up and given priority.

So trial tracking and delay is something of very great concern

to us. I guess we are just monitoring the community

correctional centres and other things of that kind. I haven't

the list of the particular research projects at the present

time in front of me. Those are the ones that stand out.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thank the Attorney-General. I was interested

in Dr. Matheson. We have had discussion in this House before on his role and

what he has been doing. It's many, many months ago, maybe years ago now. I wonder

if the Attorney-General could give some general commitment to the House, though,

to keep us generally informed of this five-year programme of examination of

the effectiveness....

[ Page 2625 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The five-year plan is really

institutional phase-out and change. It has nothing to do with research as such.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I quite agree with him that the

last thing we would want is to apply measures which are

inappropriately harsh or counter-productive, as I believe many

of these harsher measures are. I believe that we should indeed

continue with the policy that he has outlined and we should

continue to use a little compassion in the application of the

law and also in an attempt to have correction rather than

simply punishment. But I do believe it is important, as perhaps

the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

has indicated, for the public to know the success or relative

success or lack of success of the course of action we are

presently on. It's too simple to ask simply for harsh measures.

Harsh measures are generally found to be, simply, counter

productive and destructive of not just the individuals

concerned but also the safety of society.

I feel, however, that the programme which the

Attorney-General has put forward, which I am sure all Members

of this House could appreciate, is not being adequately made

public and we are not adequately informed of the success or

otherwise of these programmes and the comparison with other

jurisdictions. I believe it is quite tragic that we have in

British Columbia very simplistic debates in this Legislature as

well as, of course, in the press and elsewhere on the

treat-'em-tough versus let-'em-go points of view, both of which

are probably dead wrong. It is an area where many measures will

have to be considered and where a variety of approaches will

have to be examined. We are faced with trends which are of

major social importance. We have seen the development of even

vigilante groups in British Columbia in the last year — or at

least talk of them — which I think is a tragic situation.

I believe the Attorney-General's department could and should

be criticized for not, in fact, informing the public adequately

and informing the Members of this House adequately on the

success or relative success of the course of action we are

following here as compared with other jurisdictions.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...that kind of suggestion because when

you have the kind of problems we have, I think we should be as

open as possible.

We are now studying, for example, the rate of recidivism, which is a big word

meaning that never before have we really known how often these people repeat

after what experience. How can we tell if our community correctional centres

are working unless we know whether the same thing has repeated itself. I don't

think that's my information when it comes in; I think it belongs to the public.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Briefly, just to follow up on

a question that was asked earlier by the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Bennett) regarding the role that the local

communities play in the establishment of these community

correctional centres and other aspects of justice in the

community. The Attorney-General replied that the justice

councils would be making sure that the community was involved.

But I think the question really was whether or not the

governing authorities in the community were being involved —

local councils, local school boards. My experience to date has

been that those people, the elected representatives in the

community, are often not even aware that a justice council is

being set up in the community; the school boards aren't aware

that a justice council is being set up in the community.

While it's admirable, I guess, that the province takes over

all of the court facilities and all of the ancillary facilities

to deal with the courts. It's not so admirable that the local

community by way of its elected representatives gets cut out of

the process — I'm just afraid that that seems to be happening. I

wonder whether or not the Attorney-General can assure us that

not only will that small group of people involved with the

justice councils be aware of what's happening, but also the

elected officials will know what's going on in their community

and be part of what's going on in their communities.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, and so they should. Maybe in terms

of expanding a programme we've got a little ahead of ourselves

at times. But, for example, when I was in Prince Rupert, there

we had the joint meetings with justice council, our prosecutors

and so forth — and the judges insofar as the matter was

non-political. So we certainly have to consult the local

representatives.

When you're looking for any kind of public facility — I

might as well be frank — there are problems. Communities are

apt to reject just about anything: a home for retarded

children, a psychiatric forensic clinic. People are a little

bit afraid of these things. So when we make an approach to a

community, we don't necessarily look for newspaper headlines

immediately. That could affect the value of the property. But

where possible, we should consult and we should improve what

we've done to date in that field.

MR. McCLELLAND: If the local elected officials on both the

school board and the council were in at the beginning, even

when that justice council was

[ Page 2626 ]

being formed, I think some of the problems you're running

into may not be as much of a problem. They may want to accept

them much more readily if they know what's happening.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of questions to the

Attorney-General concerning specific votes under 21. On page

44, vote 032, provision last year for $2,000 for psychiatric

services is now discontinued and there's no allocation of funds

for that. Also, 035, training academy, for which there are

apparently no funds available. The $56,000 of 044....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're going pretty quickly.

MR. SMITH: Pardon me?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're going pretty quickly.

MR. SMITH: Yes, okay. The first vote was 032 — $2,000 for

psychiatric services. It would seem to me that unless provision

is made somewhere else....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's under B.C. Medical Plan — they

still visit.

MR. SMITH: Right. Okay, let's get down then to the next vote — 035, training academy. Why was that phased out?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's under, I think, vote 15 on

manpower development and training.

MR. SMITH: It's just a transfer from one spot to the other?

Does that same apply to vote 045 — the licence plate shop which

now does not appear any more under this vote?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's 044 — licence plate....

MR. SMITH: Yes, but there was $56,000 approved last year as

estimates for this vote and this year nothing. Has it been

transferred to another vote?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I've been rated on that one; it's gone

to the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) — the

expenditure for the licence plates. We're still doing the work

but that Minister's paying the amount. I can't lose them

all.

MR. SMITH: Some of the people who were involved in producing

the licence plates are still wards of your department but the

actual vote is transferred somewhere else.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Maybe a final question to the Minister.

It deals with the very last line of the vote. Grants for

special projects have gone from $50,000 to virtually $2

million. Undoubtedly there's some good reason; I wonder whether

the Attorney-General will quickly indicate what it might

be.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is our move to decentralize. For

example, community residential centres that we're developing

come out of this vote and a lot of their costs — $271,000. We

have $144,000 in fee-for-service, contracts with the Salvation

Army and other people to run projects. We have in the adult

programmes $144,000; juvenile programmes, $402,000. What it is

really doing is pulling under this vote many things that were

directly done in the corrections service before — putting them

on contract.

MR. BENNETT: We turned earlier to a question brought up by

the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) about the

unpaid fines. I didn't understand whether the Attorney-General

said there was no provision, or that he wasn't considering a

provision as one of the alternatives that a sentence in lieu of

unpaid fines wasn't one of the possibilities. In fact, it

didn't have to be used all the time or any time but it was

there as a deterrent for those who would abuse and not pay

their fines.

I appreciate that the Attorney-General suggested that they

are looking at alternatives and that you can't earn money to

pay fines when you're in jail. But will this be part of one of

the penalties or one of the alternatives?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It remains a sanction that if you don't

pay the fine, you can be brought back before the judge. That's

why we have an enforcement officer. You can still go to jail in

British Columbia for not paying a fine.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But only after another hearing before

the judge, not automatically because you haven't got it in your

pocket. Then after that judge is satisfied that this person can

pay but is deliberately not working, is deliberately evading,

has been giving false answers about his assets, then that

person goes to jail for non-payment of a fine. That is the

office of the enforcement officer, and part of the programme,

to look at the fines that should be paid but are not being

paid, and to bring that person back into court.

[ Page 2627 ]

MR. BENNETT: Further than that — has this happened? Has this

alternative that the Attorney-General suggested happened? Have

people been brought back for not paying fines?

HON. MR. MACDONALD I would think so. I don't want to mention cases

— I'm just going in terms of recollection. It seems to me that the enforcement

officer was named about two or three months ago, and operational May 1. His

name is Newson — Lorne Newson.

MR. BENNETT: Has he instigated any proceedings of this

nature yet?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I can't answer that.

Vote 21 approved.

Vote 22: British Columbia parole board, $111,240 — approved.

On vote 23: corporate and financial services division,

$3,050,840.

MR. SMITH: I can see that the Hon. Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is very confused this morning. He

wants to conduct business from a place in the House other than

where he should be recognized, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Do you want my job?

MR. SMITH: I think, Mr. Attorney-General, that he is after

your job from the looks of things.

Under this vote there are a couple of items I would like to

raise. Perhaps the Attorney-General would comment on them, if I

can find them here.

The first thing that I would like to ask the

Attorney-General about is the matter of the licensing of

stockbrokers in the Province of British Columbia, and whether

the Attorney-General intends any type of training programme for

those people who apply for licensing as stockbrokers in the

province. It has been suggested to me by some of the members of

the stockbrokers' association and profession that they would be

most interested in seeing a programme of instruction and

training similar, for instance, to the type of examination

programme that must be completed by people in the real estate

business prior to the time they are licensed by the Province of

British Columbia. They feel that it would be helpful....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I have your attention for just a minute, Mr. Member?

I wonder if I can ask the other Members to keep their meetings down so that

we don't have too many meetings interfering one with the other.

MR. SMITH: There is a school of thought in the brokerage

firms, one held by many people, where they would like to see a

programme similar to that presently enforced for the licensing

of real estate agents, whereby someone who wished to enter into

that business would have to write a programme. They would be

interested in cooperating with the Attorney-General in respect

to bringing such a programme for the province.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I will take the suggestion

under advisement. At the moment it is private training. You

have the Investment Dealers Association which conducts courses.

We do not make that kind of course mandatory in terms of

licensing brokers. I guess we have inherited the brokers

historically, pretty well; there they are.

We will consider it. If they want some retraining maybe we

will.... Well, we are closing Haney Correctional — maybe turn

it into a university. Perhaps they could go there. No, they

wouldn't like that. But some other form of training, this is

what you are suggesting.

MR. SMITH: Right.

One other point I would like to bring before the Minister at this

time is the matter of the licensing of people who represent life

insurance companies in the Province of British Columbia. At the present

time a person is licensed as a life underwriter through the auspices of

one specific company. They are only allowed to represent that one

particular insurer in the Province of — British Columbia. In other

jurisdictions governments have seen fit to allow multiple

representation by one insurance agent simply by applying. They have to

go through a specific set of circumstances, but they can apply to

represent more than one life insurance company, particularly in

specific instances.

I would think that we should investigate this particular

situation because of the fact that many people who are career

underwriters in the insurance business find that when handling

a specific case or a specific insurance requirement, a better

proposition for the insured can be obtained from a company

other than the one that they are licensed for.

Now, the ordinary process today is that you have to go

through a very long procedure of getting a letter from your

company to act on the basis of a broker and broker the case

through another company. It seems to me that there should be

consideration given, particularly today, when the licensing of

an insurance agent is held fairly close. They have to have a

certain amount of training and they have to maintain a pretty

strict code of ethics within their business in order to retain

their licence. It wouldn't be time now

[ Page 2628 ]

to expand the provisions as other provinces have

done. It is a minor amendment, really, to the Insurance Act, which

would allow an agent to represent more than one company.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: At the insistence of the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), we have been looking into that

particular problem, because the Minister of Health before he

become a politician was in the life insurance business, and he

tells me it is wrong that you should only have to represent one

company. So there may be changes in that.

MR. SMITH: Particularly when you are bargaining for a client

for different types of coverage.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. I want to look at this business of

term, and whole life, and when you can't convert from one to

the other without infringing the life insurance Act, so I am

glad you have made these suggestions. They are very much in my

mind.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, our time is getting on. I

will ask just one brief question, or at least register one

brief complaint, and that is previously it was possible for

Members of the Legislature and others to go to the registrar of

companies and obtain information regarding not only the

directors of the company, but also the shareholders.

I would like to point out to the Attorney-General first that

you can find few people in this province more helpful and

efficient and friendly and useful as the civil servants who

work it. They have been enormously helpful to every MLA who has

ever asked their assistance, and I'm sure to every member of

the public as well.

Let me congratulate them, and say it is in no way a

reflection on them that as a result of this government's change

in the law in some weird effort to apparently streamline or

change the procedure, it is now extremely difficult to get the

lists of shareholders. Shareholders' lists are no longer held

by the registrar of companies. They are held at the head office

of the company concerned, and while there are legal

requirements that these offices remain open, I believe, two

hours a day, nevertheless in any case of dispute or difficulty,

which obviously occurs with the vast numbers of companies that

we have in B.C., these offices are often closed.

So take, for example, the case of getting a list of

directors. We go to the civil servants, and they are most

helpful. Previously we could go there and look at the

shareholders' list, make notes, and it would be most

helpful.

Now let me give you the example of the Casa Loma development. To get a list

of shareholders you have to go to the head office of the company concerned,

which in that specific instance turned out to be the office of a lawyer, and

it turned out that the office had been closed down and the telephone cut off.

Now, what can you do? What can your officials do? It's a

great problem. I will refer to not only legislators, but in

that particular instance I got phone calls from a journalist in

Vancouver who said: "What do you know about the shareholders? I

can't find out anything because the office is locked." And I

said I didn't know anything either. So we went down to see the

civil servants. They tried to be most helpful but they were

unable to be helpful because they didn't have that

information.

So it seems to me we are in an area here that when a company

gets into difficulty, when you want to get information on

shareholders, whether it be myself, whether it be your own

officials, whether it be a member of the press or anything

else, when a company gets into difficulty it is too simple to

lock the door and there is no information public about the

shareholders. Sure it is a violation of the law, but then you

have all the lengthy and troublesome procedures.

If the Attorney-General wants to answer this in the next two

minutes I will yield to him.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we are watching this. The

objective is better information and better access by the public

to the information, but we have to watch it.

Now under the old system this company would be a year and a

half behind in filing their returns with the registrar. We had

30,000 companies that were behind time — infractions. We could

go after those companies one by one with a little army of

people. Instead of that we have provided that your records

office must be in the province and must be accessible, and it

must be open at certain times.

In the vast majority of cases the reports are all good.

People can go into the records, whether it is in the two hours

or not, and it is fine. Now if you tell me that a company is

not making its records available to search, and by that I mean

up-to-date records — not the kinds of things that used to be

filed at least a year late, maybe a year and a half late, even

legally with the registrar — then I want to take action. I

would be very glad to, because I consider that to be a breach

of the law on the part of any company.

The other problem with the lists is simply personnel, as I

say, to chase down those who don't file their returns on time

and get into default. The other problem is storage. You know

MacMillan Bloedel's shareholders must be very voluminous — almost as many as Can-Cel. (Laughter.) If we have to store,

you know, if we have to baby-sit that information which comes

over once a year, it's quite

[ Page 2629 ]

a big job for government to look after that. Provided the

Act is working and that the interested member of the public can

go right into the office and see the up-to-date information of

those particular companies, which they are entitled to do under

the Act....

So in the meantime we are looking at it. We have to monitor

these things, but at the moment I think we're getting more

up-to-date, accurate information by the interested member being

able to see the actual records as they're compiled from day to

day in the records office. But where some company is inhibiting

access to these records, I want to hear about it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Minister, I can certainly agree with your

objective. We all want to see this objective of efficiency and to make sure

that the information is readily available. But let me tell you that in some

of the cases, of course, which are of most interest — because they have to be

companies in difficulty of one sort or another — the information is not being

made available. Therefore, on the strength of your clear, unequivocal statement

that you'll go after them right away with your people and make sure that the

information does become available, I guess we'll let the matter rest.

Mr. Chairman, I hear someone yelling: "Time!" I move that the committee rise,

report progress....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think any motion is required. We're

all functioning under an order of the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll make the motion anyway.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports

resolution.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada