1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd 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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1981

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6377 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 22: minister's office –– 6377

Mr. Macdonald

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Brown

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 22: minister's office, $150,500.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, I think there's a kind of theme to these estimates, and

it's an unfortunate one. It's the old theme of pull down the shades,

button the lips and stop all leaks. The worst thing in this ministry is

the leaks. They let out a little public information that should have

been out anyway, and they're bad. We have to stop them. I want to see

what the Attorney-General will do finally about someone who lives in

Vancouver East.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do you live?

MR. MACDONALD: Point Grey.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do you run?

MR. MACDONALD: Vancouver East. Mr. Chairman, there's some kind of Charlie McCarthy echo down there.

What happened to this man — and I show the Attorney-General his picture — shouldn't happen to a dog. It really shouldn't.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You don't mean that.

MR. MACDONALD: I do. It's absolutely bizarre; it's sort of Kafkaesque.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You haven't read Kafka in 25 years.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I don't have to when I'm practising as an MLA in this place with this government.

This

man John Colenutt, having taken down an annoying basketball post which

was too close to his bedroom window — it was up on the church grounds

of the Church of the Nazarene on East 15th and was a bit of an

annoyance — was approached by a police officer about taking this down,

because that was trespassing and that was nuisance.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: The member for Omineca wants a heavy hand for law enforcement. The Vancouver police officer came and probably did his duty.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, and that's the way it should be handled, Mr. Member.

Mr.

Colenutt admitted everything, and the police officer told him he may

have to go to court about this. Well, sometimes you have to go to court

in one capacity or another. There's nothing much you can do about it.

Some guy is going to run you over and you've got to go and fight back.

So Colenutt thought he may have to go to court. As some of the House

will know, instead of receiving a summons to go to court — he, had a

steady employment; he lived there six years; he had no police record

whatsoever — Mr. Colenutt is suddenly arrested at 5 a.m. in the

morning. Actually there were two police vans because another came for

him at 8 a.m. to arrest him. He is taken to jail, put into handcuffs

and given a psychiatric examination by Dr. Mackenzie. He finally

appears before a judge, and after ten hours of incarceration he is

released.

Now the plot thickens, because it happens that the

senior JP in Vancouver, Kennedy, is an elder of the Nazarene Church

that had put up the basketball post which was going thump, thump, thump

beneath this man's window when he was trying to get to sleep. Kennedy

had been instrumental in terms of the arrest in the sense that he had

sat around with the elders of the Nazarene Church and explained to them

their legal options. When you get a senior JP in a Vancouver matter

intervening to that extent, you've got trouble. But it didn't end

there, because the first question in the case is why a citizen with no

record, living there, working steadily would suddenly be arrested at 5

o'clock in the morning, having confessed everything to the police. Why?

The Attorney-General can't deny that this is the nine thousand nine

hundred ninety-ninth case out of ten thousand where you arrest, when a

summons will do the job perfectly well. You don't do that. So there was

something wrong.

Who occasioned the arrest. the

incarceration for ten hours and the psychiatric examination of this

citizen? Well, Inspector Noel Larkin, who investigated the matter on

behalf of the police, said he found that it was L.G. Kennedy, the

senior justice of the peace, who opted for a warrant of arrest instead

of a summons. The warrant was signed by another junior JP, Doris St.

Germain.

This is apparently the use of the law.... I say

apparently, because all I'm asking is that the facts come out, that it

be open and we raise the shades, unbutton the lips and allow some leaks

to happen out of the justice system that the Attorney-General's got

shut down so tightly. You have here, apparently, a senior justice of

the peace having a personal interest in a case leading to very bizarre

results as far as a citizen is concerned. Now what happens? Complaints

from John Colenutt.... [Laughter.] This is very amusing to anybody who

lives in Point Grey, I know. It's just an ordinary little guy picked up

by the police in the morning. In a sense it's a small case. It's just

one little guy after a very bad experience complaining to the

Attorney-General and the police. Incidentally, the police are totally

innocent in this thing, as far as I can see. They had no choice but to

arrest. It was the JP who issued a warrant to arrest. So you can't say

the police did anything wrong. Why they had two vans rather than one,

to arrest this very dangerous criminal in the morning, I don't know.

They came at different times.

It's just "the little man" in

a situation where there's an obvious appearance of severe injustice. It

appears that one of the officers of the law has allowed private

considerations to influence his public judicial duties. That's a very

serious thing to say. I say "apparently." What I object to on behalf of

the government and the Ministry of Attorney-General is that

[ Page 6378 ]

it's

typical of what's happened everywhere else. Then there's a secret

inquiry or investigation with very good people involved: Judge Darrell

Jones and Chief Judge Larry Goulet. But it's private and secret.

Colenutt is sitting back there, having made his complaint. Ten months

later all he finds out is that there's no merit to it. There's obvious

merit to that. There was no reason in the world why he should be

arrested. There was no reason why a man who is perfectly sane — saner

than the Attorney-General or saner than me, if you prefer that — should

be given a psychiatric examination before he even saw a judge. I think

he's saner than anybody in this House. He'd never had any kind of an

emotional disturbance of any kind. Why would he be given a psychiatric

examination? He wasn't fighting, scratching, kicking or biting, but he

was put in handcuffs, taken across the street and given an examination.

What

I'm demanding here is an open hearing before the Judicial Council or

before a judge, so that this man can be satisfied and hear the

witnesses who are saying that everything that happened to him is okay.

When you've got a closed justice system, it's very difficult to

penetrate the veil of secrecy.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He didn't, eh?

MR. MACDONALD:

It's possible that he could do that but there's a remedy sitting right

beside you on your left hand, Mr. Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations. The Attorney-General can ask the Judicial Council to hold an

open hearing — raise the shades and let justice be done. All there was

was an investigation — no hearing before the Judicial Council. The old

act allows that to happen. I know it's been changed since, and changed

a little bit for the better; I agree with that. But under the old act

it shouldn't have been an investigation in which they didn't even speak

to Colenutt. As far as I can see, they just had his letter. What

Larkin, Justice of the Peace Kennedy, the psychiatrist and the police

were saying is a mystery to Colenutt. Okay, anybody can get over ten

hours of incarceration in a psychiatric examination; but it's typical

of what's going on this province because the justice system is too

closed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's more open than when you were there, my friend.

MR. MACDONALD:

Well, I don't know. If it is, it's a shameful record we have. I don't

know. It ought to be opened up anyway. Let's agree on that — it's a

nice early hour in the morning. But that's not the question under

debate right now. What the record was from 1972 to 1975 we'll debate on

another occasion.

MR. KEMPF: It was terrible; we know.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, we'll debate that on another occasion. It was awful, wasn't it.

Anyway,

I'm very serious about this. There's got to be some remedy. This man is

entitled to have some kind of an open hearing. The machinery is there.

What does the Attorney-General say? Will he finally give him an open

hearing?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In spite of the hour of

the morning and the member's style of speaking, whereby he would seem

to leave the impression that this is a light-hearted matter, I wish the

committee to know that I don't see it in that light. When the member

raised this with me — and I've had correspondence with his constituent

— I thought there was something of very serious concern. I have asked

for additional information with regard to what took place in the

various events that transpired.

I have to say one thing. The

evidence does not indicate that Mr. Colenutt was subjected to a

psychiatric examination. He was visited by a doctor for the purposes

of.... In view of the nature of the evidence that was available

surrounding the offence, Crown counsel took the appropriate step of

ascertaining whether there was any such problem, because these problems

do arise. But Mr. Colenutt refused the examination, and that was the

end of the matter. So there was no psychiatric examination in any sense

of the word.

But I want to say to the member that I am not

satisfied with the answers I have received, and the matter is

proceeding. I urge the member to consider the provisions of the

existing Provincial Court Act, which don't give me the kind of

authority that the new act will. Nonetheless, I am not allowing the

matter to stay there. It is under further consideration. I do not think

that matters of this kind appear to have been appropriately dealt with.

Whether the advice given by Mr. Kennedy to the elders of the church was

an appropriate thing for him to do in his position, and whether there

should have been an arrest as opposed to a summons, are matters which

require clarification. That process is underway, Mr. Member. I hope

that when it's finally concluded Mr. Colenutt will be satisfied that

everything has been explained as best it can. Indeed, it may have been

a mistake in judgment on the part of the justice of the peace who

issued the warrant, or it may have been a mistake on the part of the

police officers in the time that they chose to serve the warrant. All

those matters will come out of the review. Mr. Colenutt will have the

opportunity to be fully aware of what has taken place.

MR. MACDONALD:

I appreciate the non-lighthearted manner; and I wasn't being

lighthearted. I'm drawing attention to a serious case, in a kind of

lighthearted way in a sense, but it is a serious case.

This

is what I'm complaining about: the Attorney-General is going to make

another private investigation. Of what? The present act allows the

chief judge to refer this matter to the Judicial Council. It allows

that hearing to be open, with witnesses called and cross-examined.

Section 13(

f) allows the Attorney-General to ask the council to report

to him on matters he considers necessary. Well, here's one. So the

Attorney-General could ask them for a report on this matter,

officially, and I'll bet they would hold an open hearing. But to do it

as you're suggesting.... It's two years later, and you say your

inquiries are going along; there are good people involved; they're

going to tell the truth. What they'll tell we don't know. I think the

way these things could be handled is not by secret investigation;

that's what it is. I want assurance that there will be some kind of

open inquiry into this to clear the air. That means you could appoint a

judicial inquiry. It doesn't have to be a big, elaborate one. As I say,

this is not the greatest case. It's a little man in a civil liberties

situation. There are bigger ones out there; I know that — KKK and

everything else. But it's important even if it's one man. I say it's

got to be an open hearing with cross-examination. Let Colenutt with his

own ears hear what they're saying about how this happened to him.

Inquiries and "everything will be all right" isn't good enough, Mr.

Attorney-General.

[ Page

6379 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, I don't want the member to be confused. Not only can the

chief judge recommend to the council that there be an inquiry, but if

the member would consider very carefully

section 16 of the existing

Provincial Court Act, he will find that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can also request.... I want the member

to be assured that the review being made of the matter by my office is

in order that I may properly consider the recommendation that I should

make to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I don't easily ignore the

recommendation of the chief judge that there should not be an inquiry.

I think the member will recognize that in order to go farther I must

make some review of my own. I just want to assure the member that it's

being dealt with on that basis. If the results of the queries being

made by office indicate that the chief judge was wrong in reaching his

conclusion, then I'll be happy to recommend to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that the appropriate inquiry be

established.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm a

little encouraged that there may be an open inquiry, but I do point out

to the Attorney-General that Mr. Colenutt's very detailed letter was

dated February 15, 1981. That's five months ago. This is a plaintive cri de coeur after the events of May 1980. So a lot of time has gone by without the kind of inquiry that should be open.

want to say another word about the so-called psychiatric examination. I

think it's very unusual, and I think it's happened before. Before a man

gets his appearance in court, the prosecutor can refer an accused for

psychiatric examination. As I understand it, Mr. Colenutt was in

handcuffs and he was taken to the doctor in the other building. Maybe

it was a very cursory examination — he said ten minutes. But unless

it's a real case of mental illness, shouldn't the man be brought before

the judge who remands in the adjournment court? Then the prosecutor

says to the judge: "I think in this case I'd like this man to be looked

at by Dr. MacKenzie." But I don't think the prosecutor should do that.

They're busy in the morning. In this case there is no justification at

all. So I think that should be looked at as part of what I hope will be

an open examination of this case.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I just want to say that that is also part of the matter under review.

I'll tell the member this. What occurred on this occasion was that

Crown counsel — examining the nature of the evidence as to what Mr.

Colenutt did in the course of this, at that time alleged offence — had

raised in his mind the question as to whether or not it was the action

of someone who was acting normally. Therefore that was his decision. I

agree with you that that is something which should be properly

considered. Maybe the right time for the consideration of an

examination was not considered in this particular case. That's also

part of the matter, so that it isn't just Mr. Kennedy or the justice of

the peace, and it isn't just the police; the Crown counsel is also

involved. If there is to be an inquiry into this matter, I think it

will all come to light and perhaps some new procedures will emerge from

this. It won't help Mr. Colenutt. He's already suffered his indignities

and the penalties of the court for what he did, but hopefully we will

learn something from this.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to discuss with the Attorney-General his

responsibilities in line with law enforcement and the operation of the courts.

I am wondering whether or not he has been so busy with his internal investigations

and his various studies that he has perhaps failed to recognize some of the

things that are happening in the court system. Certainly justice must be even-handed

and it must be dealt out in a fair, prompt and expeditious manner.

would like to present a case history of one of my constituents to point

up the kind of things that are happening in relation to the

dispensation of justice. This particular individual was apprehended in

the driveway of his home, on being reported by a neighbour, and charged

with impaired driving. That was in January of 1979. My constituent

engaged counsel, and the case was remanded. They appeared again and it

was remanded a second time because the police officer was on holidays.

The first time was supposedly to prepare the case. The third remand was

because the lawyer was unable to get to Duncan because there was heavy

snow on the Malahat. It came before the court again and there was a

fourth remand because there was no judge. The fifth remand was because

there appeared to be problems on both sides — neither lawyer was ready

to proceed with the case. It was remanded a sixth time because someone

else was on holidays, and so the case was not able to proceed.

The

charge was laid in January of 1979. Finally, in January of 1981, two

years later, my constituent's lawyer persuaded the Crown to change the

charge from impaired driving to obstructing a police officer. That was

the charge that was finally laid and upheld. My constituent was fined

$400. My constituent is unfortunately an alcoholic. He is married with

a wife and children and was employed. Incidentally, his legal fees on

that particular impaired charge, which finally wound up being a charge

of obstructing a police officer, cost him in excess of $1,000. There is

one income in that family. There is a history of violence within the

home, and during the continuing delay of this particular impaired

charge the wife of my constituent also hired counsel and was attempting

to have the husband removed from the home because of alcoholism,

violence and mental cruelty. They appeared in court and were told that

her husband would have to have 24-hour notice and that somehow was not

given. I don't understand how that happened, unless perhaps the wife's

counsel was not aware of that. Anyway, a week later they came back into

family court in Victoria; the judge heard the case and awarded in

favour of the wife, agreeing that the husband should be banned from the

family home. After the decision was handed down, the husband and his

lawyer arrived — they were late. They hadn't been there. The judge

withdrew his decision, heard the husband's evidence and then decided

that if the wife and family moved out of the home, there would be a

restraining order on the husband going into any other home that she

might establish. Surely, Mr. Chairman, there is a degree of unfairness

in expecting the wife to take the children and move out of the family

home in order to protect herself and her children from violence and

mental cruelty on the part of a husband who has a record of drinking.

The

case goes on. On October 31, 1980, while the impaired charge were still

out there, the husband was apparently still driving his car; he still

had his licence. Another incident took place in the driveway of his

home — this time he molested a young girl. She laid charges, but then

she left town. So there was another legal fee for the husband, with all

these legal fees coming out of the income that was supposed to support

that family. I see smiles on the faces of some members, but it's not a

funny matter to this wife and family — or to the husband, as a matter

of fact — to be involved in

[ Page 6380 ]

these

continuing problems with the law. Because the girl who was allegedly

molested had left the area, the charges were finally dismissed in April

of this year. But that particular case was hanging over the heads of

those constituents, because certainly it involves the wife, who is

faced with having to break up her marriage. Neither of them wants a

divorce, but they agree that there is no way they will be able to live

together because of his alcohol problem and the violence that results,

and the court is doing nothing but frustrate a situation that is

extremely bad.

As the chief law officer of the province, the

person responsible for the administration of justice, I suggest to the

Attorney-General that he has a responsibility to see that the law is

administered in a much more expeditious manner. I would appreciate his

comments on the point that the judge changed his decision when the

husband arrived late for the hearing. Is that a normal procedure?

Certainly we want the husband to be heard, but the time was set and if

he wasn't there, wouldn't that decision stand? Would he not have to

appeal? I don't understand that particular aspect of it. Perhaps that's

a normal procedure, but I would like the comments of the

Attorney-General on that.

I would certainly like him to take

under advisement some method of either revising the laws of the land,

if necessary, or, certainly, revising the ways in which they are

administered, to prevent this kind of thing occurring. This is one

instance, but it's not isolated; everywhere you go you find people with

a court case hanging over their heads, waiting to be heard — remand

after remand. I know of many cases that have gone on for years before

they finally got a hearing and were decided. By that time witnesses'

memories may have been affected — it's long after the event; the whole

case could well be thrown out on technicalities, as has often happened.

It's the kind of problem that makes people mistrust the justice system,

and that's a very unfortunate sign of today's society. The attitude of

society towards the justice system is not respect. I saw a bumper

sticker last night. It was the first one I'd seen; it was on a police

car. It said: "Respect the Law." That's something that we should do.

Respect for the law is being eroded by the way the law is being

enforced, or the lack of enforcement, the unfairness, or the apparent

unfairness, and the delays. Those are the problems that I'm concerned

about and that I'd like to see the Attorney-General address himself to.

MR. COCKE:

I tried with very little effect, I think, to have a discussion with the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) with respect to the town of

Williams Lake and the problem they have with arrests for

alcohol-related problems. I said at the time that there was little or

no assistance in terms of health up there. However, the situation is

one that overlaps into the Attorney-General's area; we're talking about

arrests. As a matter of fact, the Attorney-General received a letter

from the mayor of Williams Lake mailed as recently as June 17. Don't

forget the report of two or three years ago that we were talking about

that indicated that Williams Lake had a SIPP — state of intoxication in

a public place — ratio of about 240 per 1,000. The closest to that

would be Fort St. John with something in the order of 100 per 1,000,

and Vancouver with around 30 per 1,000 arrests — I'm just going from

memory now — in this particular area.

Three years ago this

province got a report on the whole state of affairs in Williams Lake

and other areas. Three years later, zero, zilch, nothing has been done

in terms of looking after this important situation. The mayor of

Williams Lake gets in touch with the Attorney-General and gets a reply.

He says: "We need some help with our policing — more provincial input."

They got in touch with the Minister of Health and said: "We need some

help." Nothing. Unfortunately I didn't get a copy of the

Attorney-General's letter, but obviously I can tell by the tone of the

letter from the mayor to the Attorney-General — I received a copy of it

a couple of days ago — that they're not getting any more help from him.

Let

me read you a couple of excerpts in terms of this whole question up

there. The mayor says: "Within the municipal boundary of Williams Lake,

the total arrests were 1,701 in the last year. Of this total 1,171 were

SIPPs, or 69 percent of the total arrests. This reconfirms the figures

I gave you and are figures that you question." In other words, the

Attorney-General questions the figures.

HON. MR. FRASER: The mayor's got his figures all mixed up. What do you know about Williams Lake?

MR. COCKE:

Isn't that interesting. The member, who is relatively literate at

times, can get a copy of the major provincial report that was done on

the state of policing in this province in the year 1978. What we're

seeing now are figures that are exactly in line with the figures that

came out in 1978. If the member from the area — who's a little bit

embarrassed because he's also obviously done nothing — is in any way

embarrassed, maybe he should look to his own government to pull him out

of the embarrassment, because you're doing nothing. Now can I proceed?

HON. MR. FRASER: That's your opinion, but as usual it's wrong.

MR. COCKE: Then you will get up and tell us what the actual figures are, I'm sure.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

We'll find out where the information came from, and then we'll find out

whether or not the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) would like to

get up and rebut.

The mayor goes on to tell us where he gets

his information: "It follows therefore that as 69 percent of all

municipal crimes are state of intoxication in a public place, you are

in fact recycling alcoholics, and it is an indication of the failure of

the province to deal with a serious health problem by calling it a a

policing problem and charging the municipality."

I won't go

through some other factors. He tries to draw analogies here. Let's get

back to more meat. "My council has a right to be very annoyed when you

ask: 'While you have singled out policing services as a contentious

issue, is it not true that non-residents also have an impact on

municipal services?' The answer, of course, is they do, but five wrongs

don't make a right." He says: "You and I can solve the policing

problem."

Where did he get the information? The mayor got

the information as follows. He said: "Having just visited our local

RCMP detachment office, and having studied the arrests and the SIPPs of

1980 on a local level, the following are the facts." That's where he

got the facts, Mr. Minister of Transportation and Highways. Where else

would you get them? At the RCMP detachment, right off their books.

[ Page 6381 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: Out of his own head.

MR. COCKE:

I want it to go on record that the Minister of Transportation and

Highways indicates that the mayor of Williams Lake got these figures

out of his own head. Let the mayor and the Minister of Transportation

and Highways have the argument. We know that in 1978 a document this

thick on policing in this province indicated that Williams Lake was

virtually three times as high as average.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, what we called for under Health and what we call for

under the Attorney-General is something this government can do. They

can come to grips with this problem up there.

HON. MR. FRASER: There's not supposed to be any politics in this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Once again I ask the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) to come to order.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I need protection from that Minister of Transportation and Highways. He's rough and burly.

would ask that not only the Attorney- General get together.... The

mayor says at the end of his letter: "It would appear to me a meeting

should be held between our municipality, yourself and the Minister of

Municipal Affairs at once, to once more elucidate the positions of each

party, as our impasse can only fester with results that no one needs."

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the date of that?

MR. COCKE: June 17, 1981.

That's

what's asked for, and I hope that's what they get. But I hope that they

include the Minister of Health in this. You see, the original report

dealing with Williams Lake, Fort St. John and a number of other areas

in the province said — this was a policing report — that what was

needed in those areas was some health facilities to take care of this

problem. What you're doing is re-arresting chronic alcoholics. It's a

burden and a cost on the justice system. Why don't we put our money in

the proper area? I believe that the mayor should also call upon the

Minister of Health to be part of this meeting — in other words, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Attorney-General and the Minister of

Health. This problem can no longer be ignored. It was in a major report

three years ago. Here we find, three years later, not a shred of

evidence of anything being done to alleviate that problem up there.

I wait to hear what the minister has to say about that. Meanwhile

I'd like to make a comment or two on some speeches that I heard

yesterday, giving some advice to the, Attorney-General. There was a

speech from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), and there was a speech

from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). The member for

Omineca didn't disappoint me, because I recognize that Genghis Khan

looks like a left-winger compared to him in his attitude towards people.

MR. KEMPF: You want a more lenient society. Is that what you want?

MR. COCKE: The member calls for a more lenient society.

the same topic, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour dealt with the

fact that the courts were terribly lenient. Yet he did complain about

his own situation. He was innocent, you see, Mr. Chairman. That's the

problem that we have in our society. If the member for Omineca was

accused of a crime, he'd be innocent; but other people are not so

innocent. He wants everybody else judged harshly, and we see this so

often. Over the years we have seen....

MR. KEMPF: I never said "accused," I said "convicted," and there's a hell of a difference.

MR. COCKE:

That's the whole story. We see that in all the fanaticism that comes

out of the sort of right-wing attitude — providing it's not me or my

family, who are obviously innocent of any crime ever.... But the rest

of society must be confronted with a system that judges them harshly. I

contend that that is an absolute crock of nonsense. Compared to the

United States and most free societies Canada has a reputation of being

relatively harsh now. What that member wants is something like

totalitarian Russia or some other totalitarian country where people are

really given the works.

MR. KEMPF: Oh, now you're on the wrong side of the floor, my friend.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. I would remind the member for New

Westminster that we are on the estimates of the Attorney-General, not

the member for Omineca.

MR. COCKE: I'm giving advice

to the Attorney-General as well. The extreme left-wing and the extreme

right-wing are so close that they hold hands all the time. You're just

exactly the same. Any totalitarian is a totalitarian.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. members. If we return to vote 22 specifically,

which I'm sure the member for New Westminster is now going to do, and

we keep the interjections to a minimum, we will accomplish the aims of

the committee, which are to debate estimate 22.

MR. COCKE: I'll ignore the member for Omineca and say a word or two about the speech that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour made.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour

was talking about the main complaint his constituents have about the

administration of justice in this province which is that our judicial

system is too permissive. "Not only do we have too many laws but the

laws themselves are too bland and administered even more blandly." Then

he has the temerity to complain about his own particular situation

being handled by the courts unmercifully. I really don't make any kind

of sense out of that. Either we want it one way or we want it another.

suggest that the Attorney-General should look for real justice. In

other words, those that are guilty of offending the law naturally

should be handled in a proper way. This business of suggesting harsh

penalties, in my view, only creates harsh reaction. What we're getting

out of that, and have always got out of that....

[ Page 6382 ]

MR. KEMPF: Absolute garbage.

MR. COCKE: He would bring back the rack, and after having done that he would also like to carry a hand-gun right into this House.

MR. KEMPF: It's not a bad idea.

MR. COCKE: That's right. That's his kind of justice. He's the frontier cowboy. "If I'm offended, bang!"

just hope we don't have to be offended by this kind of suggestion.

Let's hear some positive suggestions about the administration of

justice rather than this balderdash we've been hearing.

would like to hear a word or two about the Williams Lake problem. I

think it's a serious problem, and it's not the only area in the

province that is faced with this particular problem. The Williams Lake

situation is only an indication of what's happening in many other

communities in the province, and we must deal with this whole question

of alcohol. Years ago the former Minister of Health, the member for

Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland), took everybody's eyes off the alcohol

problem in this province by putting up a program for heroin addicts —

who, incidentally, they couldn't find. Anyway, after wasting much money

maybe we can now come to grips with the real problem in society. That's

the problem of alcohol as it relates to the Attorney-General and the

health-care situation in our province.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to respond to matters raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace).

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I would ask the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition

to either come to order or possibly attend to other duties in other

places.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member for

Cowichan-Malahat raised some matters which are important to her in her

constituency, but they are important throughout the province as well.

As to the particular case that you raised, Madam Member, the fact

circumstances are found elsewhere. It has been a matter of concern to

the ministry in excess of two years to work out solutions. I won't talk

about the family-law situation, because without all the circumstances

surrounding that case I would hesitate to involve myself in a decision

there, except to say this. One of the favourable aspects of the

family-law system that functions in this province is that if the

circumstances could justify a judge reconsidering a decision, because

one of the parties couldn't be present at the very moment, rather than

make a decision and put them through the process of an appeal, the

family-law court system functions on a much more informal basis.

Therefore that is not something to be criticized. But whether the

result was correct, I can't say.

On the question of the man

who was charged with impaired driving, and the long period of time it

has taken, it is the standard in the ministry that we attempt to

achieve a goal whereby 90 percent of the cases which come before the

courts are dealt with within 90 days, with a maximum of 180 days.

That's the goal, but we're not achieving it except in very few

instances in the province. As a result, 18 months ago, with the

assistance of the chief judge of the provincial court, the police

services in the province, Crown counsel and the court services and

finance administration divisions of the ministry, we established a

case-management evaluation study. What we are finding is that there are

faults in several parts of the system, which is just seven years old

now. The system began in 1974. It has developed in various ways in

various parts of the province. In some cases the problem is the way in

which the charge was laid in the first place; the accused person is

brought for his remand and granted his first adjournment. In many cases

— and you have one here — the case was set and then had to be adjourned

again because a witness was not available. This is a witness-management

problem, and that's another very important aspect of the matter.

You

indicated that there was an adjournment because defence counsel

couldn't get there; I think the reason was snow. But this is another

problem which has to be addressed by the defence bar. In many cases

trials are being set by defence lawyers, and when they can't make that

trail date because of some conflict with their other business, then

they ask for an adjournment. Every time that happens the court time is

wasted, the witness time is wasted and the accused is delayed in having

his matter adjudicated.

As a result of the studies

undertaken so far — and this case-management evaluation is continuing —

we have already made significant changes with regard to witness

management. That has now been made the sole responsibility of Crown

counsel, who must work with the police forces involved in handling

these charges and with defence counsel to ensure that the date being

fixed is a date on which the police witness will be present. That would

solve one problem as far as the police are concerned — first, that he's

there, and secondly, that he's there at a time when he can testify

without creating serious overtime problems for the police force.

second and, we believe, much more useful tool is being established in

the provincial court system. This is what is known as trial

coordination. We've had a pilot project going on in the province for a

couple of years. We find that with the use of trial coordinators the

judges, in fixing dates for trials, have someone who follows up once

that trial date has been fixed to make sure that Crown counsel and

defence counsel are ready to go ahead, and that the witnesses will be

available. That information will be before the court a week or so in

advance of the trial date, so that if there is any problem the trial

can be rescheduled and the court time not wasted. These steps are being

taken to overcome the kinds of problems the member has enunciated in

her remarks.

The trial coordination project, as I say, has

been going on in two areas of the province on a pilot basis. In the

next few months it will be incorporated in the provincial court system

in the city of Vancouver, and then we will be expanding it throughout

the province.

Before the member for New Westminster leaves, the question of Williams Lake....

MR. COCKE: He's not leaving. Quit rumouring.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I wasn't suggesting you were leaving; I just thought you were heading for the door.

The

situation that exists at Williams Lake is one which is not unique to

that community. It is found elsewhere. It is a problem which is

associated with a set of geographical and population factors. Williams

Lake is a small municipality which serves a much larger community. The

people in that

[ Page 6383 ]

larger

community come to Williams Lake for business purposes. Some people who

work outside the municipality may live in Williams Lake, but the

commercial or industrial enterprise which is their employment is not

within the town, Therefore it contributes little, if anything, to the

revenues. Yet Williams Lake is obliged to provide, being the community

centre, recreation facilities, parks, policing services, and all of the

amenities of urban life which are expected by the people who come from

the surrounding area. With that come the problems. This is not unique

to Williams Lake. We have identified three other areas in the province

which are suffering from the same difficulty. As a consequence, the

statistics with regard to court and police activity would indicate, on

the standards used throughout the province, that Williams Lake needs a

larger municipal police force. Therefore it has to pay for it. Because

of the statistics, we are engaged with the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs in using Williams Lake as a pilot study for determining the

options there may be to ensure that the financial resources are made

available to Williams Lake for discharging its policing responsibility,

which is clearly reflected by the fact that it is only one part of a

larger community.

The mayor and I have some differences of

opinion with regard to the statistical base. He views the figures in

one way and we in another. Let me just say that they do have a very

high state of intoxication in a public place record. It's the highest

of any municipality in British Columbia, so they've got an alcohol

problem. There's no denying that and I'll deal with that in a moment.

The difficulty we have — and that the mayor has — in our view, is that

he is relying upon the number of arrests for SIPP, and we do not take

those into account in determining what the size of the police force

will be. The facts are that there were a total of 1,701 arrests of

persons charged with Criminal Code offences, but there were an

additional 1,684 persons who were charged with Criminal Code offences

who were not taken into custody. We base the police requirements not on

SIPP case burdens, but on Criminal Code offence case burdens. It's also

surprising — and we are hoping to ascertain the reason for this — that

Williams Lake's Criminal Code case burden is nearly twice the average

of 55 British Columbia municipalities. That's not drunkenness matters;

it's Criminal Code case burdens. Based upon that, we concluded that the

size of the municipal detachment in Williams Lake had to be increased

by five members. Those instructions were given in the spring of 1980.

Policing

is a municipal responsibility. It has been a responsibility of

municipalities for decades. That was confirmed in the new Police Act,

which was passed during the time that the member was in government, and

that is the case today. Because of the size of this municipality, they

enjoy a contribution towards their policing costs from the federal

government. That is because those police officers are also available to

discharge the federal responsibility in policing services within their

jurisdiction. So the burden that is cast upon Williams Lake is no

different than the burden that exists on any other municipality. They

do have, as I indicated, a special problem, because they are a small

municipality serving a much larger area. The suggestion in the letter

sent to me on June 17 by Mayor Mason that there should be a meeting

between the mayor, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and myself is one

that I'm prepared to accept. As soon as we have made the review and

have decided which of the options would apply to the Williams Lake

situation, we would like to sit down with the mayor and indicate to him

where relief may be found.

On the question of the

drunkenness problem, we are concerned in the Ministry of the

Attorney-General about the amount of time which has to be taken by

police officers and court personnel in handling cases of extreme

drunkenness. The SIPP situation is one where a person is picked up one

night, spends a few hours in the lockup and is probably dismissed the

next morning. By that time he is sobered up and back on the street;

it's a revolving door. This is a matter which we have raised with the

Alcohol and Drug Commission in this province. There was a suggestion

that there should be a detoxification centre established at Williams

Lake. Based upon the experience with those centres, Williams Lake does

not appear to be a large enough community to justify such an approach.

I have recommended to Mayor Mason that he deal with this matter through

the Alcohol and Drug Commission. Because we have direct interest in the

resolution of that problem, when meeting with the mayor with regard to

the issue of policing costs, it would also be my desire that we have a

meeting with the Minister of Health and the people from the Alcohol and

Drug Commission to see whether or not we cannot assist that

municipality in some local community efforts which will deal with that

problem.

When I met with the mayor a couple of months ago,

he pointed out that the problem seemed to stem from a very few people.

Apparently there is a group in Williams Lake that seems to attract

other persons for whom alcohol is a very serious problem. It may be

that an examination of the matter and a study by the Alcohol and Drug

Commission can indicate some way of breaking that revolving-door

syndrome that they have in Williams Lake and putting an end to this

senseless drain, not only with regard to the police and court services

but the impact on the municipality. So we're not ignoring Mayor Mason's

problem; however, Mayor Mason must also understand what the obligations

of the town of Williams Lake are with respect to policing

responsibility.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this morning

I'd like to talk to the Attorney-General about the whole question of

the relationship between women and the justice system. I realize that

of course I can't deal with the entire topic, so I'm just going to

confine myself to certain specific areas we're having some problems

with at this time. To make the task of answering my questions easier

for the Attorney-General, I'm going to give him a few headings so that

maybe he and his assistants can prepare some responses even as I'm

elaborating on the topic. I want to speak about some problems with the

prisons — the penal system; some problems arising out of the Family

Relations Act; problems about funding for some of the advocacy groups

that work with women, such as Rape Relief and the Vancouver Status of

Women, tie into that the whole question of violence against women, if

possible; some problems with the family court; specifically some things

to do with enforcement of maintenance, childnapping and some of the

other problems with that; and also the whole business of prostitution

as it applies to young girls.

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

want to start out by talking about the prison system, Mr. Chairman, and

really what's happening to women in that particular institution. As the

Attorney-General knows, for a number of years we've been expressing

concern about the total inadequacy of the programs within the prisons,

of the whole physical situation of the prisons themselves and of the

[ Page 6384 ]

kind

of budget that the penal system has to work with as it affects women.

We have this really strange phenomenon that because there are not as

many women criminals as there are male criminals, somehow the attitude

is that there shouldn't be as much money spent on their rehabilitation

in the institutions which they occupy. I visited Oakalla myself and

brought to the attention of the previous Attorney-General the abysmal

situation in terms of inadequate programs and plans for release, with

few attempts at rehabilitation or helping women to re-enter the

community after they've served their terms, and the really depressing

surroundings of the whole physical structure of the place. Even after

the Proudfoot commission went through and verified these kinds of facts

and made some cosmetic recommendations, some of which have been

implemented, but the whole problem with the Proudfoot recommendations

is that essentially they were very superficial. They didn't go far

enough. They weren't really in-depth. Painters have been in, and

they've tried to use some brighter colours. Now they have a few more

sewing machines, and a few more women can go through the beauty shop

and learn hairdressing.

There have been some changes, and I

want to thank the Attorney-General for those changes. However, there is

now some discussion about a new federal-provincial institution dealing

with women which is going to be opened in the province. I know that the

Attorney-General received a brief which was prepared by the Female

Offender Committee of the Association for Women in the Justice System.

I don't know whether he's had the chance to read that brief, because it

was just mailed on June 12. It's quite possible that he may have been

busy and not had an opportunity to read it.

I want to start

out by saying that I certainly would like to give my full support to

the recommendations in the brief and to support some of the fears

expressed that what we're going to end up with is a new building which

houses the same old problems. I need some reassurance from the

Attorney-General that this fear is not going to be realized. Some of

the suggestions made for reintegrating the female offender into the

community are good and are worthy of serious consideration by the

government. The first thing it suggested is that reintegration and

socialization should begin immediately upon admission. That makes

sense. It doesn't make sense to wait until three or six months before

it's time to discharge the female offender and then to hastily try to

put together some counselling and some testing and make some kind of a

life plan which will ensure that she has not become a recidivism

statistic and will be able to rehabilitate herself. It should begin

right at the beginning. The whole experience and the whole time that

she is in prison should be part of the rehabilitation and reintegration

training period for her, so that when she actually does come back into

the community, she comes in with some real skills, a better sense of

herself and her self-esteem, rather than being hurt or destroyed by

this experience. If it's possible to be enriched by being in such an

institution, we should certainly explore it.

The other thing

they suggested is that there should be testing in terms of learning

disabilities. This is an excellent recommendation. I know that the

Attorney-General knows that the former Judge Morrison has done some

research in this area and found that something in the neighbourhood of

over 70 percent of the people who came before her were found to have

learning disability problems — dyslexia or some other problems — which

started in and really could have been dealt with in the school system

if it had been picked up soon enough. Because it wasn't, they went

through the whole process of dropping out of school, getting into

trouble and on and on until they ended up first as juvenile offenders

and then as adult offenders and became part of the community of penal

inmates. I want specifically to express support for the concept of

testing of these women immediately they come on. If there is any

indication that there is any kind of learning disability the

Attorney-General's ministry should then harness the facilities of UBC.

The special education branch at UBC has an excellent program for

dealing with children and adults who have a learning disability. I

can't speak too highly of it. One of my three children has this

dyslexia or reading disability — whatever term we want to use. This was

discovered in grade 1 when he suddenly went from being a very bright

student to not being able to read. He was immediately put on the

program at UBC, and it's been really great. He's not the fastest reader

in the world; to date he's not really a hotshot reader, but he can

read. If it's possible for the Attorney-General's department to use

that facility at UBC, not necessarily on behalf of the women only — I'm

speaking specifically about the women now — but certainly with the

juveniles, please avail yourself of that particular skill. It makes a

difference. Just imagine trying to go through life not being able to

read. What a difference it makes in terms of your options. You have

very few options, even in this world of high technology where we're

using so many visual aids.

The other recommendation I wanted

to support very strongly is recommendation 5 which talks about

switching the kind, of vocational training that would be available to

women in these institutions. It goes on to say, for example: "Training

in the area of hairdressing is outdated and unrealistic." What we're

finding is that we're moving into a society where more and more women

are becoming interested in so-called non-traditional jobs and trades.

They are finding that these trades are opening up to them if they have

the skills. Here again I think the Attorney-General can avail himself

of the Ministry of Labour's apprenticeship and training programs and

try to encourage these women to explore other areas in their work

options. It's not necessary to concentrate on typing, hairdressing and

sewing, which have always been the three areas available to them since

the beginning of time.

In the United States we are finding

that federal institutions are now encouraging women to go into courses

in auto mechanics, plumbing, steam-fitting, painting, air-conditioning,

refrigeration and heavy-duty mechanics — the kinds of skills that we

need if we're going to be opening up the north or getting more active

in the resource fields. There isn't any reason why, during the time

they are in these institutions learning a skill, they can't learn those

kinds of skills and they can't explore the non-traditional fields

which, to begin with, lead to better-paying jobs, and jobs which are

not slated to become obsolete, in the way that so many of the

traditional female-ghetto jobs are becoming obsolete. Every day we hear

more and more about the microchip revolution which is going to wipe out

the whole idea of typing, shorthand and dictaphone as skills. Yet we

still have typewriters in these institutions and we're teaching these

women to be typists. We know that soon we're not going to need typists

anymore. The same thing applies to hairdressing and dressmaking.

Recommendations

5 through 7, which ask that some consideration go towards directing

these women through counselling and making the opportunities available

to them to

[ Page 6385 ]

develop skills in these non-traditional areas are certainly ones I want to support very strongly.

The

third recommendation they make, which I also want to support, is about

the business of planning for their release to ensure that there are

support resources in the community for them, in terms of day-care

facilities, accommodation, funding for halfway houses and those kinds

of things, and assistance in finding employment. It says that in terms

of re-entry into the community they're going to need all the kind of

support services that the rest of us take for granted. They won't even

know where to find them. The institution has to take some

responsibility, not just for releasing them but for sort of monitoring

them for some time once they are out, to see that they have the support

they need; to see that they've found suitable accommodation and a job

in which they can use the skills which they learned in the institution;

and to see that if they need such things as child-care arrangements,

they're assisted in that regard. At the same time, I would like to see

the institution continue helping them upgrade their academic skills. I

don't think it hurts anybody who finds that they're short a couple of

grades — if they left school in grade 9, 10, or whatever — to have the

opportunity to complete high school while they're there. I know that

that is now possible, so I'm saying they should certainly be encouraged

to do that.

The other area that I mentioned was the Family

Relations Act. We are having so many problems with that piece of

legislation, I'm telling you. It's a real can of worms. I don't

understand why the Attorney-General's ministry feels that a pension

which a civil servant earns should not be split 50-50 in exactly the

same way all other assets are, on the dissolution of a marriage. I need

the Attorney-General's guidance. Is this before the courts? Does that

mean I can't discuss it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not proper to discuss legislation in committee.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

On a point of order, the case of Rutherford v. Rutherford is before the

Court of Appeal. I would think it would be inappropriate that there be

any discussion at this time.

MR. COCKE: The Chairman

seems to indicate that it's not proper to discuss legislation for which

the Attorney-General is responsible. If that legislation is on the

books, the statute that is his responsibility.... Of course it's quite

proper, other than, as the Attorney-General points out, if the case

happens to be sub judice, and so therefore, on that basis.... But let's

not establish a principle in here that we can't discuss legislation for

which the Attorney-General is responsible.

MS. BROWN: Did we win that round? [Laughter.]

appreciate the Attorney-General clarifying that, because I wasn't quite

sure whether it had already been dealt with. Maybe the Attorney-General

could make some general statements about when a family asset is not a

family asset and when 50 percent is not 50 percent. There is a lot of

confusion around the whole 50 percent asset thing. The other confusion

is about bank accounts and credit union accounts and these kinds of

things, which spouses are finding are being frozen until some kind of

settlement is reached. I need some clarification on that particular

issue too. Even when the account is only in the name of one spouse or

the other.... I realize that as long as it's designated as an asset, it

has to be split 50-50. But what is the reason for neither one being

able to use the account while the debate is going on? That's the thing.

want to make a speech again which I made last year and will continue to

make as long as the government holds this position. I do not support

the governments position of taking jurisdiction in this area and the

area of divorce away from the federal government. That does not have my

support. Neither does it have the support of the vice-president of the

Victoria family law

section of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar

Association. I don't want to use all the arguments again which I used

last year, even though they still remain the same.

We don't

want to have divorce-shopping. We don't want to see each province

having its own little divorce laws and people rushing from one place to

another trying to find a Nevada or Reno, a place where it's easier to

get a divorce than anywhere else. In the long run, this is detrimental

to us. When I say us, I'm speaking about the female spouse in this

case. We do not believe that lack of uniformity operates in our favour.

We would like to see one law which operates in every single province

right across the country, so that it doesn't matter where one gets

one's divorce — the same rules apply. As long as the provincial

government is prepared to negotiate this away from the federal

government, or the federal government is prepared to sacrifice women in

this way, I guess I'm just going to have to stand up here year after

year and say that the federal constitutional proposal to give

jurisdiction to the provinces in this area does not have my support.

realize that I am not speaking for every woman in Canada when I say

that, nor indeed for every woman in British Columbia, but I am

articulating the views of a great many women. Certainly if the

Attorney-General wants to dig up the briefs which he has received from

the Status of Women council and from other women's groups, he will find

that we do not support this balkanization of the jurisdiction over

divorce. We just do not support it at all. We would like to see it

remain as part of the federal jurisdiction. I have listened to all of

the legal arguments from all of the various and sundry lawyers about

why it would be so much better if each province could do its own thing

in this area. I have no doubt that it will work for the lawyers, but

it's not going to work for the women. We are opposed to it. It is going

to make life a lot more difficult for us.

MR. MACDONALD: Let's have a national law, but let it be administered at a provincial level.

MS. BROWN:

That's fine. I support that concept. But the law has to be the same.

This business of British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta and so

forth each having its own does not have our support. We really fight

for this uniformity. We don't want to lose it; we don't want to see it

go.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The third area I

said I was going to touch on has to do with funding for advocacy groups

working in this area, and specifically Rape Relief and the Vancouver

Status of Women. What's happening to their funding? I know the Status

of Women received $87,000 last year. There is some indication that they

will be receiving a marginal increase, but to date there hasn't been a

cheque going in their direction.

As the minister knows, this group has a history of working very hard on behalf of women. Although they get a very

[ Page 6386 ]

small

amount of their funding from the city of Vancouver, and bits and pieces

of funding from various other ministries for contract work, they really

do rely very heavily on the provincial government. This used to be

under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Secretary, who covered the

kind of interministerial responsibilities which the Status of Women

represented. For some reason or other the government decided to

transfer this to the Attorney-General's justice development fund. First

of all, the justice development vote disappeared. It was moved and is

now under vote 23, administration and support. It doesn't seem to have

quite enough money in it to do all the things that it's going to be

called upon to do.

So I want to express some concern and ask

the minister about the justice development fund. Also, what's happening

to the funding for the Vancouver Status of Women and for Rape Relief?

We need some information on that. The Vancouver Status of Women is

asking for $178,988 this year. We need to know what's going to happen

to that.

As far as the family court is concerned, I'd like

the minister to elaborate on some of the comments he made about

enforcement of maintenance orders. One almost wonders why we bother to

have maintenance orders. The extent that one is able to enforce them is

so minimal that there surely has to be some way of beefing up that

particular service. Everyone's frustrated: family court workers, social

workers who deal with these women and the women. I don't know. Maybe

the minister can tell me. He says he's been looking into this

particular area.

I had a meeting with some family court

workers. The first thing they talked about was this enforcement thing

and how useless it is. "There are no teeth in it" was the way they put

it. Apparently there's a rumour going around that the only people who

will be able to accompany these women into court are going to be people

with a legal background. The old-fashioned probation and family court

worker who used to do the work upon the case and then would accompany

the women into court and relate to the judge on their behalf is not

going to be permitted any more. In fact, the women are now being

assigned lawyers. According to this group I met with, the case will be

called for 9:30, the lawyer will show up at 9:25, meet the woman for

the first time, know absolutely nothing about her, read through her

file very quickly and then go into court and try to speak on her

behalf. First of all, the whole business of trust which has to exist

between a person and someone who is her advocate just can't happen in

five or ten minutes. The second thing is that the kind of work-up that

needs to be done — investigation, looking into the family background,

meeting with these women and talking with them, the kinds of things

that the old family court worker has been doing until now — puts the

family court worker in a much better position to really represent this

person before the judge and makes it easier for the judge in the long

run. When the judge asks a question, there is someone there who is

competent and able to give an answer.

What I would like the

Attorney-General to tell me is that this is only a rumour, and that in

fact there is not going to be any reorganization in this particular

area, that we're not going to find the courts being closed to the

family court workers. The whole point of the unified family court was

to get away from the old adversary process and to make it a more humane

setting for people, so that people were not totally intimidated by the

judicial system. Lawyers intimidate. Even during question period you

get four lawyers asking and answering each other's questions in here.

The rest of us may as well go to lunch, because nobody understands. All

we know is that they keep calling each other honourable, but other than

that we don't understand anything else they're saying to each other.

It's pretty intimidating, so I'm hoping that the Attorney-General will

say it isn't so.

The final issue: I'd like to ask the

Attorney-General to answer the question raised by the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) about the few arrests of found-ins, in

the case of this juvenile prostitution. This is an opportunity for the

Attorney-General to explain to us why that is so, why there have been

so few arrests of found-ins, and what the real problem is, and to make

some comments on the whole childnapping thing, and what kinds of

strengths are being introduced into the system to cut this down or

terminate it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member has posed

a number of matters. I suppose it might be convenient if I start with

the first item, the matter of prisons. The member will be aware from

her experience in these matters that one of the difficulties that faces

us in providing the kinds of programs to which she refers for women who

are imprisoned in this province is that the average stay of a person in

a provincial correctional institution is three months. Therefore by the

time they come into the system and are processed it's almost time for

them to leave. To attempt programs of rehabilitation and training of

that nature that she suggests in non-traditional employment

opportunities is most difficult to achieve. It is made more difficult

by the fact that the direction the corrections branch takes is to make

every effort to ensure that women who are convicted of offences are

classified early so that they don't go into a closed situation. We are

having some success in this regard. The most recent statistic that I

have received with regard, for instance, to the Lynda Williams

Community Correctional Centre, with which the member will be familiar,

is that last fall 25 percent of the women admitted to that community

correctional centre came directly from court; they never went through a

closed institution at all.

The direction we're trying to

achieve is to establish classification either while the person is in

court or as soon as it is possible after conviction, or before sentence

if possible, and to get them moved somewhere other than into a closed

system. This has two advantages: first, it avoids some time in the

closed situation, such as we have at Lakeside; secondly, it gives us an

opportunity to do the kind of assessment necessary with regard to

prospects of immediate rehabilitation and post-sentence assistance. In

the latter matter, the member will be aware of the Elizabeth Fry

program, which we support, to assist women coming out of the correction

system in their re-entry into the community. With the prospect,

however, of an institution being constructed in British Columbia, where

the province will undertake the responsibility for the management of

women who are there for federal offences, which will give them longer

sentences, we are in the course of the design of the institution which

will house those prisoners also taking into account the need for

expanded programs. As we have women in prisons for a longer period of

time than an average of three months, we recognize the responsibility

to get into the program field. Discussions are underway with Douglas

College for the provision of educational programs. We presently have a

basic educational program available. Recognizing the need for

employment-skill instruction, we are looking at the ideas which are set

out in the brief to which the member made reference during the course

of her remarks. We will be working in that direction with the federal

officials who also

[ Page 6387 ]

are concerned about the opportunities that will be available for the prisoners who come into their area of responsibility.

The

Vancouver Status of Women brief in the possession of the ministry is a

valuable one and it is not being ignored. The ministry, the

commissioner of corrections and his staff have invited the Vancouver

Status of Women to sit down with them and discuss the way in which some

of these matters can be accommodated. I was not aware of the University

of B.C. program; it's a valuable suggestion, and the commissioner of

corrections, Mr. Robinson, who is here in the chamber, indicates that

they will examine that. There is no question that if we find learning

disabilities in children which interfere with their development,

obviously you may find those same disabilities in older persons. That

can completely nullify any program which you may want to put on. Early

identification is therefore very important.

I might point

out one matter to the member which she may find of interest. At our

Twin Maples institution we now have a licensed day care so that people

in the community who need day-care services can take their children

there. The inmates at Twin Maples get the opportunity of working with

the children and looking after them, so therefore they serve a

community purpose and it has also a rehabilitative effect. We hope that

in every instance where we can provide this opportunity, this

experience will be valuable.

With regard to the family court

matter, I won't talk about the matter which is presently before the

court, but I must correct the member on one matter. The

Attorney-General is not involved in that case. We have not taken a

position in that matter at all. The superannuation commissioner is

involved because there's an issue which involves the superannuation

act. Since the Attorney-General provides lawyers for all government

agencies, they've got a lawyer, but the Attorney-General is not a

participant or party in those proceedings.

You raised the

question of the Family Relations Act and this matter of freezing

property and bank accounts. This is a difficulty we have perceived, and

we're trying to find a way out of it. You ask: "Why is it done?" Well,

when there's a contest over the family assets, something has to be

done, or else you have a situation where one may run away with the

assets, and a bank account in the name of one spouse is obviously the

most vulnerable one. The problems that can create, say in a joint bank

account situation, are pretty severe. We're trying to determine how

that matter can best be resolved.

With regard to

jurisdiction over divorce, I appreciate the member's position and

recognize the logic of her argument. I hold a different view, but I

think I can say to the member that at the speed which constitutional

change is taking place in this country you'll be making the same speech

for a long time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: She has just made it three years in a row!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, she's got about ten to come.

With

regard to the Status of Women and Rape Relief funding, the Vancouver

Status of Women grant program was placed in the responsibility of the

Attorney-General this year. We have funded that organization at the

figure of $86,700. To date we've paid them $43,350. That funding level

is under review for two reasons: firstly, because it's not as much as

the organization is asking for; and secondly, many of the programs that

the Vancouver Status of Women operates do not meet the criteria of the

Justice Development Fund and the basis upon which we make grants in the

Ministry of Attorney-General. They do serve purposes which relate to

other ministries. I am attempting to be able to meet the Vancouver

Status of Women's requirements with regard to Justice Development Fund

matters, if we can identify those, and to ensure that the balance of

their funding is handled by ministers whose programs more appropriately

relate to that area of endeavour.

With regard to the Rape

Relief centres, as the member knows there is a coalition of centres in

British Columbia, and all the grant funding has been handled through

that umbrella organization. Negotiations continue to be underway with

the coalition in order that a further grant can be made for the current

year. But there are certain rules that must be applied. It is a

condition of each grant made through my ministry that the recipient

account for the expenditure and show that the moneys were used

effectively for the purposes identified in the application. We require

the submission of a budget and justification for the budget request. We

require a form of accounting to ensure that the moneys are in fact

expended on that basis. The coalition and the three ministries which

contribute to their funding were unable to agree during the last fiscal

year on an appropriate means to give effect to this accountability as

it pertained to the grant for that period. In order to avoid similar

difficulties during this year, the ministries and the coalition are

each proposing ways to strengthen this agreement under which the grant

will be given.

If we can reach an early conclusion of these

discussions, I have Treasury Board approval to make a grant from the

Ministry of the Attorney-General in the sum of about $41,006; with the

other three ministries, that will bring their total funding to about

$150,000.

I'd like to deal this afternoon with the other matters raised by the hon. member.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada