1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1976

Night Sitting

[ Page

1251 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates

On vote 10.

Mr. Nicolson — 1251

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1255

Ms. Brown — 1255

Mr. Veitch — 1259

Mr. Barber — 1259

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1260

Ms. Brown — 1261

Mr. Barber — 1263

Mr. Cocke — 1264

Mr. Lea — 1265

Mr. Mussallem — 1267

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1268

Mr. Kerster — 1268

Mr. Barnes — 1268

Ms. Brown — 1273

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1274

Ms. Sanford — 1274

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1274

Appendix — 1275

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1976

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT

OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 10: minister's office, $88,952 — continued.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Before the dinner hour I was giving a bit of a verbal précis

of what might be called the Evans report, a report on the combination

of effects of alcohol and driving accidents arising from it, pertaining

to a very specific study area — the service area of the city of Nelson,

including rural districts.

This study reviewed studies of drinking patterns in Canada,

including a study that was done in Alberta and also a study which was

done of some of the centres in British Columbia. It concluded that

drinking patterns in towns such as Nelson and Prince George were of the

"pioneer" variety, and it noted certain differences between the

drinking habits of separated, married, single, divorced and widowed

persons. Two interesting points in the Nelson study were that

higher-income groups had more heavy drinkers than lower-income groups,

but that the national sampling found little correlation between

drinking drivers and income levels, so there was something different

here. They did, however, find that unemployed people were more apt to

be drinking and driving while impaired. All three studies, however,

concluded that driving after drinking was prevalent among males, among

middle-aged, and among separate and divorced drivers.

When one looks at the time at which people are found to be drinking

and subsequently driving, some very interesting patterns emerge. Part

of their diagnosis of the problem also suggested some of the remedies.

The pattern of drinking in Nelson was occasional evenings of heavy drinking,

rather than a few drinks every day. As I said earlier, the cocktail set of Nelson

isn't too large, but there tend to be heavy weekend bouts of drinking. They

also conclude that the majority of drinking seems to take place on Saturday

evenings and Friday evenings, and that it builds each day through Saturday when

it hits the peak of 32.3 per cent, and gradually tapers off through Sunday and

Monday. Monday's figures include post-midnight Sunday night drinkers and

so are higher than if they represented Monday's figures alone.

One of the interesting things that comes out is the likelihood of a

driver having been drinking more than doubles between the earlier

period — that is, the two hours just preceding midnight — and the hours

between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. time slots. In other words, as we work up to

midnight Saturday night, the chances of people being impaired while

driving just rises alarmingly right after midnight. In other words, at

that time you can probably find most people who are liable to be drunk

and driving. What this means for the sober driver who happens to be out

on the road in the early hours of the weekend morning is that one out

of every three drivers coming towards him has been drinking, and at

least one in 10 is drunk.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the Saturday night figure.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, these are the Saturday midnight figures

between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. Of course, the traffic is light, but of those

people on the road, it's estimated that one out of 10 is drunk.

In the Nelson survey, they figured out that the typical pub patron

in Nelson chooses his pub according to where his friends are likely to

be. He sits at a table with from four to six other people and consumes

six beers on the average. If that pub patron drank those six beers over

a period of two hours and weighed 160 pounds, as the Attorney-General

knows, he would be legally impaired and would have to wait an

additional three hours without drinking any more before his blood

alcohol content would come down to the 0.08 level. If he left the pub

and drove his car before the BAC level had come down, his chances of

being in a fatal accident would be 16 to 20 times higher than those of

a sober driver.

I'm giving a bit of a précis of this, Mr. Attorney-General, and

perhaps you've been alerted to this report yourself, because it does

reach some recommendations which I think are worthwhile. I think that

this is more than just a

summary of other reports. It is called

"Impaired Driving: A Report to the Nelson Justice Council," submitted

by Conrad Evans and Bonnie Evans, February 26, 1976. It is a suggested

paper for the discussion of the Nelson justice council, so I don't say

that you should have read it by now, but I do think it's worthwhile

that we move on this very quickly.

Some really startling things happened in Nelson in terms of the

Nelson RCMP subdivision area. In 1975, 59 per cent of fatally injured

drivers were impaired, with a blood alcohol content of 0.09 or more,

and a very odd thing that came out in the report is that all the

remaining fatalities occurred among drivers who had not been drinking

at all. So in the fatalities there were no persons registered with

blood alcohol levels

[ Page 1252 ]

between 0 and 0.09 of the remaining ones. It seemed

to be an all or nothing type of a proposition which would indicate that

perhaps people who were drinking to moderation were maybe more careful,

that some other factors were in play. But that was a rather interesting

idiosyncrasy of the findings in this report.

The figures from the RCMP go on to state that in those 58 fatal

accidents in 1975, a total of 68 people were killed. Of that, 44 were

killed in accidents involving impaired driving, so that, of the people

killed, that was 64 per cent of the fatalities — even higher than the

number of drivers that were killed driving impaired. In compiling these

statistics we add two more variables to those taken in normal roadside

samplings, which I haven't really mentioned earlier, but a trend has

developed. One is a factor of being arrested; the other is being

involved in an accident. So the people who have been caught in

roadblocks who have been checked — and actually, in doing a survey,

they did a roadside survey of people who were not charged but who were

measured for impairment, sort of voluntarily — they have a profile of

the people who were driving impaired.

But of the people who actually were charged, they find that the

profile of the impaired driver undergoes a significant change. He's

still a man — less than 4 per cent of the arrested drivers or the

fatally injured drivers were women — but, however, there's another

shift in age group. Most of the people who drive impaired are

middle-aged and tend to be single, either through divorce or something,

but here 42 per cent of the arrests and 72 per cent of the fatally

injured drivers were under the age of 30, so they're no longer

middle-aged. Although the average impaired driver is middle-aged, the

average impaired driver involved in a fatal accident is not

middle-aged. So some other factor, other than alcohol alone, was

concluded to be at work with this overwhelming shift toward younger

people.

AN HON. MEMBER: How big is that sample?

MR. NICOLSON: Well, the number of fatally injured people

was.... There were 68 people killed; there were 58 fatal accidents in

1975 in the study area. Mr. Attorney-General, I don't say that this

was.... It was done, of course, with a lot of professional input, but

still I wouldn't say that it was an unassailable piece of research. I'm

certain that maybe some bits of information might not bear up under

some scrutiny, but the findings, I think, are very significant. I think

they relate to Nelson, because the economic background of the area —

it's not a transient area — is one of a long-settled area. There are a

lot of people there with roots, but it is a depressed area

economically. There is high seasonal unemployment and various other

factors, and there is still a frontier style of drinking. In fact, when

I first went to Nelson in the early 1960s they were still serving the

two 10-cent glasses of beer when it had long gone by the wayside in

Vancouver.

I found, when I first went there, that you stood up in a beer

parlour and it was never enforced that people had to be in their seats

in the early 1960s. I don't know what the regulations are now, what

with allowing games and so on. But at the time there was a law against

that. But it wasn't enforced. There was and still is a different

attitude there toward alcohol.

At any rate, the study shows that in the first age group, those

under 20, 70 per cent of the fatalities involve speeding as well as

alcohol. In the age group 20 to 29, the figure rises to 80 per cent

involving a combination of speeding and alcohol. So it would appear

from the figures that the missing variable is not inexperience in

driving, which would be one thing you might expect, but also

aggression. Aggressive driving in combination with a drug that releases

social inhibitions would seem to give us the lethal formula.

There was also a sampling done locally. In a sample drawn from local

arrests for impaired driving, all but 13 per cent occurred between 8:45

p.m. and 3:45 a.m. Less than 2 per cent occurred during normal working

hours; 50 per cent of those arrests were after midnight. I'll get to

the prognosis in perhaps in a minute. But 71 per cent of impaired

fatalities in the survey occurred between the hours of 10 p.m. and 4

a.m. Only 5 per cent occurred during normal working hours. The peak

period as in the other sampling, that is, of impaired driving, was

midnight to 2 a.m. on Saturday night. There was a high correlation with

Alberta and national samplings as to the day of week of these events,

and 71 per cent of the arrests made for impaired driving were weekend

arrests. And a full 50 per cent were made either late Saturday night or

early Sunday morning, 50 per cent.

The report does go on to identify the strange role which I think the

Attorney-General has sometimes alluded to — the government, with this

drug of alcohol, as a dealer or a pusher if we like, and there are good

reasons why we should be. Obviously, anyone who remembers prohibition

would know that there are good reasons why it's preferable for

government to be the dealer or pusher. But it is a drug.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think you can really call it a pusher.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, some people might have said that. They

don't use the term "pusher" in the report, but they do use the word

"dealer." The government is also the enforcer of the regulations and it

is also the doctor in terms of dealing with people. So there are a

great number of contradictions.

[ Page 1253 ]

Dealing with the government as the enforcer, impaired driving is an

offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. I think the most significant

thing that was attempted was the introduction of the breathalyser Act,

and yet it appears to have had no effect on the rate of impaired

driving. Following the introduction, I believe there was something

like.... In the year 1970, there was a 2.1 or a 2.3 per cent decrease

but there was a similar drop that year in the United States where there

was no introduction of similar legislation.

In Great Britain, however, there was a dramatic drop in fatal

accidents after breathalyser legislation was introduced, and it was

sustained three years later. So we have to ask if just the introduction

of that Act.... I recognize the Act is a federal Act, but certainly

enforcement can be guided by actions of the Attorney-General. So why

did similar legislation have such an effect in Great Britain and not in

Canada? It would appear to be an enforcement.

Now it's difficult to have RCMP running around having to take

someone from Salmo down to Trail. An officer might only do two things

all night if he gets tied up in doing this type of thing. But on the

other hand, it has been estimated in this report that an impaired

driver can drive 17,280 miles without being stopped by a police officer

— or one in 1,700 offences are actually arrested, not everyone driving

in excess of one mile when he is impaired.

Of course, there are problems where a policeman is not allowed under

the law to stop anyone without cause. In other words, he has to have

reason to believe that someone is impaired before he stops them. He

can't just harass. So unless a person's behaviour is noticeably

affected by alcohol they consumed, it's illegal for the officer to stop

him. That's a problem.

They recognize in the report other factors, but it's surprising that

in our area the average blood-alcohol content of the arrested driver

was .17, which was more than double. So we have a problem, Mr.

Attorney-General. We have people in the community in the justice

council doing a very fine job and trying to come to grips with this

problem.

Another thing we have is the problem of attitude. The sympathy of

the public is toward the accused, not thinking about what will happen

if the accused is driving impaired. There's an educational problem.

We have a not totally unique situation, but we have the attitude

toward the Nelson city police. The people in Nelson do perceive

political interference by the city council — not that it is necessarily

true, but if it appears to be true, there has to be an education

process there. I think there have been some tremendous improvements in

the Nelson city police force as a result of the police college, but

there is that attitude toward the Nelson city police and what they can

do in the area. The only way, they conclude, to do anything about this

is through public sanction; you have to get the public involved. Also,

of course, you have to get people who are licensed to sell liquor,

particularly in these establishments where overservicing of patrons and

so on can be a problem.

Then we find another problem which is somewhat iniquitous in a rural

area such as Nelson, and that is the enforcement when a person is

caught. He gets fined, but suspension of his licence is the biggest

penalty. He gets something from the judge and then he gets the

automatic extra from the superintendent of motor vehicles over which

the superintendent has no recourse. That is discriminatory towards

people in a rural area. They don't have the option of public transit.

It leads to other social problems, job problems and economic problems.

It can snowball the thing into a welfare situation and perpetual

drunkenness. It can lead to unemployment, and unemployment is one of

the causal factors.

In Nelson, 20 per cent of the families receiving social assistance

do so directly because of alcohol addiction in the family. All 37 calls

in six months to violent crimes — the ones that we do have — involved

alcohol as a use factor. Every one of the violent crimes that we do

have — not as much, fortunately, in proportion to other problems that

we have — in the case of Nelson is alcohol-related. Ninety-five per

cent of all short-term incarcerations are alcohol related.

I'd like to talk just a little bit about the automobile industry.

Aggression would appear to be one of the causal factors. It's the

combination of aggression and alcohol that appears to be the cause.

There are more middle-aged drunks driving in the Nelson area, but it's

young people driving the muscle cars — the symbol of fantasy.... A

Rolls Royce or a Cadillac is a status symbol, and then we have the

muscle cars — the Javelin, the Charger, the Marauder, the Cutlass and

other aggressive names such as Cobra, Stingray and Challenger. The

advertising, I submit, Mr. Attorney-General, is no different than

selling booze or selling cigarettes by using sex or violence to sell

them, if they want to use them. The selling of cars is linked to a sale

of aggression and of power and actually encouraging illegal acts. If we

have a law in this province that restricts the advertising of alcohol,

I think that we should consider the introduction of similar legislation

which restricts the content of advertising for automobiles. Automobiles

should be for transportation; they should not be for working out

fantasies of aggression so that people who might feel inadequate in

other ways might work this out through their automobile.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) interjects. I'm quite serious about this, because it could help solve some of your

[ Page 1254 ]

problems in the hospitals.

There are economic influences, it's hammering our economy, it's

debilitating to the province, to the productivity of the people that

are working, the people that are totally unemployed and on welfare, the

paraplegics, the quadriplegics that result, and so on.

We find that there are problems in enforcement. Each individual

rural detachment has few personnel. They don't have breathalyser

equipment. In our area we have people who work hard and people who work

in mines and logging in the bush and the weekend tends to be a release.

It's rather ironic in that one of the little side things that came

out of this is that in their interviewing, one local man told the group

that he blamed the death of his two best friends on the inability of

the police to catch them and protect them from themselves. Now that's

pathetic but it is also, I think, something that we do have a

responsibility to do.

They do make recommendations. They make a recommendation that I

doubt you would agree with or act upon. The first one is that all

provincial liquor revenues be held within a liquor revenue fund, and

that it be disbursed for hospitalization, police court costs and so on.

Although, I notice in your annual report that you have outlined the

income as well as the expenditures arising from your department in a

graph sort of a way and you show a bit of a surplus budget.

They recommend a warning buzzer which would come on when a person is

travelling at speeds in excess of 55 miles per hour. You know, we have

these warning buzzers that tell us if our seatbelts aren't fastened. It

certainly is not illegal to not fasten seatbelts in this province, but

it is illegal to travel over 55 miles an hour. So I think perhaps

seatbelt legislation should be brought in. This is a very good

consideration, and I don't think it would be difficult to do. It is

already done on rental vehicles — on rental trucks, I believe — U-Hauls

and so on. So the technology is there.

They also suggest that all containers for alcohol be labelled as dangerous to health.

Then their phase 3 suggestion for local programmes: a

driver-education course should be made available to all grade 10 and

older students, regardless of whether they are immediately going to

start driving.

Advertising and countering the message of automobile advertising on

the media — something which I believe they have done in the "Take the

Car out of Carnage" programme in Prince George — visual signs for

fatalities on every road where such accidents occur.... I just recited

how many fatal accidents there were in the Nelson area. That isn't just

my riding; that's only a part of my riding. I was amazed. I know some

of the people; I could name some of the names of those people that were

fatally injured in that last year. But to realize that that many people

were killed — well, injured — the fatalities are something which I

think we have to be reminded about.

It recommends that off-highway neighbourhood pubs be established,

that they be established in places where they will not attract roadside

traffic — where they will not attract highway traffic or casual people

driving by — that neighbourhood pubs should not be on the highway. They

shouldn't be easy to find; you should only be able to find them if you

live in the neighbourhood and know where it is.

Chemical dependency counselling service they recommend. They

recommend a workshop with major unions and employers. Mr.

Attorney-General, there is a unique opportunity to do this in Nelson.

We have Kootenay Forest Products, a major employer in the area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you have two minutes left.

MR. NICOLSON: It's a Crown corporation, they have

worker-directors, they have a very good union and they would be able to

do this type of thing. There's an opportunity there to do that.

We also have to establish what constitutes over-service of liquor,

and it has to be enforced. I think a major recommendation — I'd really

like you to think about this seriously for the specially designated

area in Nelson as an experiment — is weekend roadblocks 52 days in the

year on those special midnight hours at which 50 per cent of the

impaired drivers are on the road — heightening public perception of the

chance of getting caught, a law.... Okay, the law isn't being enforced.

The last thing that they feel should be implemented — last, but they

feel it should be implemented, and I can't help but agree — is

voluntary interdiction with the accompanying onus put on the people who

sell liquor, the liquor stores, the liquor establishments in the area.

If people do their drinking in this area all the time, it would only be

necessary to have this interdict list put in to a certain number of

drinking establishments. If people would voluntarily undertake this,

along with counselling programmes and so on, we would have an

opportunity to see what could be done. I know that it means....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Okay, just one second. It does mean, Mr.

Attorney-General that we need things like portable breathalysers, but I

would urge you to give this very serious consideration. I see that the

member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) doesn't take it

[ Page 1255 ]

seriously, but thank you for your time and interest.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to express my appreciation to the

member for his very thoughtful and well-researched remarks. I am most

impressed with the fact that this report has generated itself from this

local area. I think that other areas in the province could well benefit

from the efforts that have been put into this type of thing in Nelson.

You've certainly hit the high points; I think we'll all agree that

we don't any longer wish to have roadway roulette in B.C. It is not,

unfortunately, common only to this province; it's a North American and,

I suppose, a world-wide syndrome. This is one of the problems that has

beset us as a result of the motor vehicle.

I liked some of your suggestions and recommendations. Specifically,

one impressed me most of all — that was your suggestion that

roadblocks, perhaps, appear apart from over the holiday season. This is

something I will take a very careful look at. It might be very much in

the interests of safe driving and the saving of lives in this province

if spasmodic roadblocks were introduced without notice or warning to

the general public in various areas of the province throughout the

year. I would not suggest that it be a good thing to have on a

permanent basis, but I certainly do think that we could do more than

has been done to this date in B.C.

Another point — and again emphasizing something that I've always

felt very important — deals with education and also deals,

unfortunately, with the element of fear and the element of upset. I

think it wouldn't detract at all from the programmes, the impaired

driving programmes, which I'm informed we have got at the present time

33 of them actively in operation in the province. I'm very happy to see

that number and I hope that there will be...I don't hope it will be

increased; if there is a need to increase it, we will endeavour to

increase it.

But along the attitudes of education and fear, perhaps people who do

become involved with the law as a result of doing something like this —

maybe it wouldn't hurt them to ride shotgun with the police

occasionally, to spend some time in an emergency ward, to spend some

time in a morgue. Those people who are involved in those processes are

fully aware of the consequences. Unfortunately for the general public,

sometimes their only exposure to this is a newspaper

article or seeing

something on television, or knowing of a distant friend. But that's a

very different situation than seeing somebody you know, or somebody you

do not know, either dead or coming in very, very badly injured. I think

that's a great way to get the message across.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Minister, through you,

Mr. Chairman, I rise to take my place in your estimates because as

chief law enforcement officer in this province, and as chief minister

of justice, you are responsible for all of the laws that oppress us as

women in this province. I'm not going to try and deal with all of them

tonight; I'm going to deal with some, and some tomorrow and some next

week and some the week after, because I know it is going to take us two

or three weeks to get through your estimates.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're a pretty big dealer! (Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: But I think, in all seriousness, that we should

look at some of the legislation you are responsible for and see what it

really is doing to us as people.

I want to talk first of all about rape, Mr. Minister, if that's okay with you.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I beg your pardon?

MS. BROWN: Rape. And this is my file on rape.

Now I recognize that, to a large extent, the federal government and

the federal law is what we have to work on to have changed. So the

first thing I'm going to do is try and enlist your assistance in terms

of getting the federal legislation in this area changed, because I

don't think there is any question but that you will agree that it is

iniquitous, it is bad legislation, and that, in effect, it works a

hardship on the victim rather than on the person who is guilty of the

act.

There are a couple of agencies, if I can start at home, here in

British Columbia that are trying to do a job in terms of assisting the

victims of rape. There are in the province, that we know of,

rape-relief centres — three of them. Your department, the Department of

the Attorney-General, gives not one red cent to assist these agencies

in the work they are trying to do. I think part of the reason for that

is that probably you don't know what they're trying to do, so I want to

start out by telling you some of the objectives of the rape-relief

centres.

One of the things that the rape-relief centres do is provide

emotional support to women who are the victims of rape. That means that

wherever a woman is when she is raped, she goes to the nearest

telephone, phones, and someone goes out and meets with her, makes all

the phoning necessary in terms of reaching the police, takes her to the

emergency, stays in emergency with her, and has some kind of follow-up

in terms of emotional support.

The interesting thing, Mr. Minister, is that in Vancouver — and I

suspect in Victoria but I don't know for sure; I'll leave it to the

second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) and the silent member for

Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) to speak on this — the Rape

[ Page 1256 ]

Relief Centre in Vancouver gets most of its phone

calls from the police. It's the police who phone the rape centre and

say: "Would you come down? We have a victim here, and would you be with

us while we do whatever is necessary...?" in terms of getting

information and taking her to emergency and staying with her, in some

instances overnight, or whatever is necessary, until she is in a

position to function on her own again.

I know for a fact that the rape crisis centre in Vancouver has

approached your department and has asked for funding, and I know for a

fact, Mr. Minister, that last year the Justice Development Commission,

under Dr. John Hogarth, found within their budget the sum of $9,000 for

them to do an evaluative research project. But that's not delivery of

service. That project is over. They've done that research. Health is

paying for the Rape Relief Centre. The Department of Health gave them

last year's funding for the three rape relief centres in the province.

Where was your department? Your police are using them. Your lawyers

recognize the importance of the job that they are doing. The Law Reform

Commission — the national one — recognizes the importance of the job

they are doing, yet when they come to the Attorney-General's department

asking for funding to carry on this very valuable service, you say you

have no money. Money is a matter of establishing priorities.

I know that historically rape has never been a priority with

governments. There was a time back in the bad old days where one felt

that there was, first of all, no such thing as rape — that every woman

who was raped had in fact enticed some unsuspecting male into

an act

against his will. Then, as maturity gained on the male sex, the

realization grew that in fact there is such a thing as rape, and as

maturity continued the reality grew that it is a crime of common

assault — common assault! That's what it is. It's a violation of the

most basic principles: the rights of a human being against being

assaulted, of their person being assaulted.

As the chief law enforcement officer in this province, surely it is

part of your responsibility to see to it that crimes of common assault,

even though they are committed against women.... We make up half the

race, hold up half the sky, whether you choose to believe it or not,

Mr. Minister. But we are part of your constituency, too, you know.

For goodness' sake, what is happening? Why is this not a part of

your priority in terms of funding? Why does Health have to take the

full responsibility for this? If that is not bad enough, this year

Health cut the funding back in half. Three centres are expected to

exist on half of what one centre existed on last year. How can they do

a job? The crime is on the increase. Since you became Attorney-General

the crime is still on the increase, and still there is no funding in

your department, not even for evaluative research.

What else do the rape centres do? They provide information to the

rape victims about police, about medical services, about legal

procedures, and about rape in general. Second job.

Third, as I mentioned before, they act as a liaison between the

victim and the police, between the victim and doctors, and between the

victim and prosecutors. In many instances these women are so

distraught, and are in such a terrible state of anxiety after this

attack, after this act of common assault against them, that they are

not in a condition to deal with the police, and to deal with the

hospital and with the doctors, or even to deal with the law.

The other thing that the Rape Relief Centre does is that it makes

referrals. It recognizes that a woman who is a victim of rape doesn't

get over this overnight, doesn't get over it even in two nights or

three nights; that, in fact, it has long-term impact; that, in fact, it

is sometimes necessary for these women to be referred to therapists of

one sort or another; that there are residual psychological problems.

They're doing a good job. They really are. Yet nowhere in your budget

have you been able to find funding for the Victoria centre, for the

Vancouver centre, for the centre in Kamloops and the other centres that

are wanting to start around the rest of the province.

Do you want to know what some of the objectives of rape-crisis

centres are, Mr. Attorney-General? I see the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. McClelland) is sitting in his seat, and you owe him a debt of

gratitude for doing your job for you. He's the one who's been carrying

the financial burden that you should have been responsible for, and

this year he finds he can only pick up half the tab. What's going to

happen to this service? What's going to happen to the rape-relief

centres? Rape is on the increase! How can they cut back on their

service, because there is only half of the funding available for them?

Part of the job of the centre is educational. It is working towards

attitudinal change, and part of that change is directed towards the

people who mete out justice in this land. Part of that change has to do

with the education of the legal people. Part of that change was in

getting the concept of rape changed from that of a sexual crime to a

recognition that it is common assault — that's part of the education

that they're doing. That's part of the job you should be funding. They

re lobbying for legal changes.

Now a lot of the legal changes, Mr. Minister, I accept have to be

done on the federal level, that the legislation which affects us is not

within your jurisdiction. But you can speak for us in the federal

courts of this land. You can speak for us to the federal Minister of

Justice (Hon. Mr. Basford) and, on our behalf, or through these

centres, you can do the

[ Page 1257 ]

job of education and working for the kinds of legal

changes in terms of the treatment of rape victims in the courts and

before the law that is necessary. You can push for the procedural

changes. You can push for the kinds of changes in attitudes in the

police. You've already started that — not you personally, but your

department already started that under the former Attorney-General (Mr.

Macdonald), who is not in his seat — a tremendous job has been done by

your department in terms of educating the police.

I want to take some time off here and digress and congratulate you

on not following the example of your colleagues and dismantling your

department when you came in. You recognized you had a good deputy and

you hung on to him. I want to congratulate you for that. I know that as

I am speaking to you, Mr. Minister, you are hearing because he's

sitting there; and as long as he's sitting there I know you're hearing.

Complicated; existential; but it makes sense.

So I want to start out, first of all, by asking you to do a couple

of things. I want you to be our spokesperson, Mr. Minister, at the

federal level, to the Minister of Justice. Support the recommendations

brought down by the Law Reform Commission of Canada asking for changes

in the laws affecting rape. I know that the federal government is

looking at this legislation — I know that — but you can put in a good

word for us too. You can say, as the dispenser of justice in this great

province of ours, that you will leave no stone unturned until...!

That's what we want you to do for us first of all, because you know

that the old myths about rape are false. You know it has nothing to do

with unsuspecting males being lured into acts against their will. You

know that. You know it has nothing to do with young women in

mini-skirts. You know that in this province a woman over the age of 80

was raped. You know that. You know that it is a crime of common

assault. You know that.

I have given you most of the information that you need on the kind

of job that the rape-relief centres in this province do, and so the

second thing that I'm asking to you, on behalf of the women of this

province, is that you find money — from somewhere — to fund those

centres. Make them one of your priorities. Rape is a crime that is on

the upswing in this province. You are responsible for the protection of

every person in this province against common assault.

Women do make up 50 per cent of this province. You are responsible

for making it possible for us to walk the streets of this province in

some kind of security and dignity, and one of the ways of doing that is

ensuring that groups that grow up out of the community themselves in

response to a need have the kind of funding that is necessary to ensure

that they can do the job that has to be done. You can make this

province safe. You can make this province a good place in which women

can live and you can start out by supporting the kinds of services

already in existence that are trying to do that job.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, address the Chair, Hon. Member.

MS. BROWN: Through you, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. I know that

you know all this information, Mr. Chairman, and that's the reason I

didn't bother to go through you, but I am terribly sorry. There was

absolutely no.... Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I keep promoting him every

time. Sorry. Yes...which is natural, as I said.

Okay, is there anything else on rape that you need to know? Because,

if so, as I said, I would be very happy to bring to your attention once

again, a brief which was presented to you already this year, and which

I know your deputy minister has seen, from the rape-relief collectives,

three of them in the province, asking for funding, through you, Mr.

Chairman. And I don't want to see any more headlines, through you, Mr.

Chairman, that funding has been denied, because that minister has a

responsibility to do the best that he knows how to ensure that this

crime of common assault against women in this province is wiped out. If

he can't completely wipe it out, at least he can try, and that is all

that we ask of him.

Now I wanted to talk about something else, if I can get the

minister's undivided attention for a few more minutes. Mr. Minister,

would you prefer a few minutes to give a response on rape before I move

on to other things? Because if you have an announcement which you would

like to make tonight.... Okay, the amount of money they ask for for the

three centres was $166,000 for the three existing centres. Your general

concern about the province and its total.... Through you, Mr. Chairman,

I know he will see to it that there are additional sums added to that

to ensure that new centres in other parts of the province can be funded

in terms of starting up if that is necessary.

So what I would like to see for a start is maybe a little nest egg

of $200,000, you know, stashed aside, and I really would like to see a

very strong position taken with the federal Minister of Justice in

terms of getting that legislation through the federal House before the

session is over, through you, Mr. Chairman, protecting the victims of

rape, who for all the worst reasons are always women. Okay.

I want to move on to another area and ask you, Mr. Minister, through

you, Mr. Chairman, about this business of funding for legal aid. I am

not quite sure whether you know to what large extent legal aid is used

in the dispensing of justice in family disputes. Do you, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 1258 ]

realize that there are a large number of women in

this province, many of them married to men with very good incomes, but

because the law of the land is as it is, created as it was by men in

their collective wisdom which says that women are not equal partners in

marriage, and when the marriage breaks down she has nothing? There are

many women, as a result of those laws, who have no recourse except

through legal aid in terms of dealing with family disputes.

What's going to happen to that segment of society when you start

cutting back on legal aid? Have you thought about that? Do you really

think, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the legal aid deals only with

debts and non-payment of bills? Did the question of family disputes

ever arise in your decision to cut out this real, needed service?

Because there is one thing that must always be kept in mind. When you

talk about poor people in this country, this very wealthy country of

ours, you are talking about women. Women make up the bulk of the poor

people in this country. Women make up the bulk of the poor people in

this province. Services that are designed to aid the poor are the

services that are available to most of the women in this province,

through you, Mr. Chairman, and when you cut back on those services, for

whatever reason, what you are doing is perpetuating the oppression of

women.

It really is quite straightforward. As the minister of justice, as

the chief law enforcement officer in this province, it is quite

possible that this simple little fact may have escaped you, because I

know, Mr. Minister, that you would not normally oppress women. Some of

your colleagues might, but I know you wouldn't, through you, Mr.

Chairman. I know that when your decision was made to cut back on the

legal aid services you were not cognizant of the fact to what extent

they are used in terms of family disputes, specifically by the wives in

the case of this dispute.

So I am asking you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, to

please take the famous second look that your party has been known to do

in the past. Please take a second look at your decision to cut back on

legal aid services. It really is creating a hardship.

Okay, don't take my word for it. Take a reference. Would you write

something down, Mr. Minister, please? The ombud service of the Status

of Women office on 4th Avenue — would you please contact them, and get

from them the facts, figures and the statistics as to what extent that

service is used in terms of family disputes? They rely on it. That is

their legal service. They can't afford lawyers in terms of these

disputes. Please take a second look before you go through with your

decision to cut back on the legal aid services.

I want to talk now about the family court. And all of these issues

I'm dealing with, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, you will

notice have to do with the family. We have been taught since the

beginning of time that the most important unit in our society is the

family. We have been taught since the beginning of time that the most

cherished unit in our society is the family, that in fact the laws of

the land exist to protect the family as a unit, and that when the

family falls, society falls.

This is not original. It goes back past who? — Aristotle, Socrates,

right back to the beginning of time and all those great lawmakers,

right up to the present, the hon. minister of justice himself.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Family court: why is it that family court always

is the second-class court in the land? Why is it, Mr. Minister? I

really want an answer to that question, because that's not a rhetorical

question. I want to know why it is that the kind of justice meted out

in family court is not first class, that the kind of legal protection

given to people who have to go through family court does not rank with

the calibre of that for those people who go through the criminal courts

and through the other courts in the land. Why is that? Are you going to

do anything to change it?

We need greatly expanded facilities, greatly expanded services. A

lot has to be done to upgrade. I know it is started. I know about the

five-year plan; I know it's started. I want to see it move a little bit

faster and ago a little bit further because, again, guess who's using

family court? It is the wives. They are the ones who end up in family

court. It's the wives. It really shouldn't be called family court at

all. It should be called "wives' court" — that's what it should be

called.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wives and mothers.

MS. BROWN: Wives and mothers — well, that's true; you don't have to be a wife to be a mother. Wives' and mothers court — I amend that.

But I like the name "family court." I respect family court, and I

respect the kind of job they are trying to do in family court, and

they're doing it under the most incredible kinds of hardships.

Now you can change that, through you, Mr. Chairman. The minister of

justice can change that. So that's my third point: more money,

expansion of facilities, great upgrading, great improvement, and faster

— five years is too long.

You know, there was an

article a couple of weeks ago in The Vancouver Sun ,

in the weekend section, that, unfortunately, laid it out: Marriages are

not lasting "until death do us part" any more. More and more people are

opting for dissolution before the end, and that is creating a hardship

on those courts; there is a backlog. There was a time....

[ Page 1259 ]

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I haven't even started! I'm just on No. 3, Mr. Chairman, and I've got 24 sections.

You cannot carry through on your decision to freeze the hiring of

personnel for family court. Did you hear me, Mr. Minister? The

directive which was issued freezing the hiring of staff for the family

court has to be rescinded. It really has to be rescinded. You can't

hurt your weakest link. More than anyone else, the family court needs

additional staff and additional service. So as I sit down before I rise

again, I am begging you, Mr. Minister, to please rescind the freeze on

hiring for the staff of the family court.

Money, expansion, and rescinding the freeze on family courts. Legal

aid: rescind the decision on legal aid. Rape. Those are the five points

which I have raised at this time, Mr. Minister, and I would appreciate

some kind of reassurance from you that you have heard the things that I

have tried to say to you tonight.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): I don't want to sing this old

song that's been sung so many times, but this particular song has been sung

by the previous government they're singing the same tune over and over again

and the previous, previous government, and that has to do with the magnificent

place smack-dab in the centre of my riding and called Oakalla. In the gentlest

of terms, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. Attorney-General, this place

is antiquated. It is a blight on our landscape, to say the least. I realize

there's a tremendous capital cost involved in doing anything with respect

to Oakalla, in moving this institution. However, the constituents who live adjacent

to this institution would be eternally grateful to any government that took

an initiative to see that it was moved to some more proper area within our great

province.

That's really all I have to say, and that's the shortest speech I've ever made in my life.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I, too, will be brief. I intend to speak later at substantial length about the ombudsman.

I'd like, though, tonight if possible to follow the comments of my

colleague from Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) by informing the hon.

Attorney-General something about the work of the Rape Relief Centre in

Victoria, something about the failure of leadership in his department

to deal with the problems raised by that centre, and something about

some of the things that department and that minister might do in order

to exercise leadership and help solve this problem.

I want to point out, if I may, Mr. Chairman, that there is a very

peculiar problem surrounding any discussion of the topic of rape, which

is that most men treat it as a joke and most women treat it as a

terror. Honest men in this Legislature will admit that most men treat

the topic of rape as the subject of locker room humour and not much

better.

I believe that most men will concede that the difference in attitude

between men and women toward the crime of rape is substantial.

The fact is that every rape-relief centre of consequence in this

nation has been started not by men who are concerned, but by women who

are concerned, and by, indeed, women who have been victims. Men as a

sex have shown virtually no leadership whatever — virtually none — in

dealing with the problems of rape. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the

Department of the Attorney-General has also failed to show any

leadership whatsoever. It is a very peculiar, a very paradoxical, and a

very sad observation that one must make. I make it again. Most men do

not view the crime of rape as most women do, and men, I think, have to

be held accountable for our failure — because we do occupy principally

the majority of the positions of power in this province and in this

country — to take leadership and take action and help solve the problem.

I challenge the minister or any member of this Legislature to name

for me one gentleman who has ever started one rape-relief centre

anywhere. I'm absolutely unaware of it. I am aware that in Victoria,

some 10 months ago, a group of very dedicated, very energetic women

decided that they would do what we as their colleagues and citizens in

this society have failed to do — take action.

The Victoria Rape Relief Centre has operated on a public budget of

zero dollars since it began. This centre, the second largest in the

province of British Columbia, the fourth largest in the nation of

Canada, has been operating out of the personal moneys, charity,

donation and contributions of the women who run it and the women whom

it serves.

The women who run the centre in Victoria have convinced me, because

I have spoken with them at great length, that the service they provide

is unique and is essential. I am also persuaded, Mr. Chairman, in

discussing vote 10, which is the principal means of discussing the

leadership or lack of it of the Attorney-General, that that department

has to date failed completely to speak to the issue, to help define the

issue, to help move law and government and programme and money to solve

the problem. That disturbs me very much.

For these many months, this centre in Victoria has been entirely

self-supporting. At the recommendation of the Attorney-General's

colleague's department, that of Health, three centres, as my colleague

from Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) has indicated, combined their forces

— their experiences — and made a proposal. They made a proposal, which

I have seen, which seems to me modest and reasonable and supportable

and which has not been accepted at the

[ Page 1260 ]

level it was proposed — $166,000 — but in fact has been accepted, if

that is the word, at $75,000. I don't know how they're going to do it

unless you expect them to continue to work for the equivalent of $1 an

hour. It is inconceivable that we would ask anyone else to do it. The

fact that we ask them to do it may once again betray the fact that men

don't view the crime the same way women do.

In Victoria the Rape Relief Centre has won the support of the

police, of the social work profession, of the medical profession and of

their colleagues in community programmes throughout this area. It has

won the support of the church, it has won the support of the women who

themselves have been abused and it has won the support of any

enlightened citizen who is concerned about a problem the very name of

which is a joke and an embarrassment to most people.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

The Rape Relief Centre in Victoria has won a body and a quality of

community support quite unique and quite important. It deserves your

recognition, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General. It

deserves your recognition and your support.

One of the very finest things this centre has done is deal with the

problems of women who were raped 10 and 20 and 30 years ago. I know of

a woman, herself now into her 50s, who was raped in 1953. She has yet

to tell her husband; the family knows nothing of it. She came to the

Rape Relief Centre just after Christmas because that happened to be the

time when, those many years ago, she was raped and she was reminded, as

she was every year at that time, what had happened to her. She had an

opportunity for the first time in her life to speak with women who

cared, who themselves, some of them, had personal experience and who

themselves were offering the open arms and the listening heart of

people who were concerned about this.

That woman is getting a bit better because now she has someone to

talk to. That woman is getting a bit better because a group of

volunteers for 10 months in Victoria at no charge to the taxpayer have

been working their hearts out to do something that we in this

Legislature have failed to do in any responsible way at all. It

disturbs me very much that they have to anticipate that a modest and

reasonable request made on behalf of three significant rape-relief

centres in the province of British Columbia for $166,000 has been cut

to $75,000 and they are still expected to do the job.

I would like to ask, through you, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General,

if prior to this evening in his present over-the-bench conversation

with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) he has ever even

discussed the matter with the Minister of Health. I would happily yield

the floor to be told yes or no. Have you discussed it? Have you brought

it up in cabinet? Has it been the topic of any serious concern at all?

Will the Attorney-General answer? Hansard might note what I note. He

stares off into space and does not answer.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You have the floor.

MR. BARBER: I'll yield to you. Tell us what you're going to do and I'll yield to you. Shall I?

AN HON MEMBER: Yes.

MR. BARBER: I yield.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to thank both of the members of the

New Democratic Party for their speeches, the information that they've

given the House tonight dealing with the crime of rape, the crime of

common assault, the crime of assault causing bodily harm, the crime of

dealing with someone without their consent in many cases in a vicious

and a violent manner.

I cannot subscribe to the remarks of the last speaker that the crime

in question is one that is not viewed with a high degree of concern by

men. I don't accept that for one minute. If that's your view, sir,

you're entitled to your view and I am entitled to mine.

Dealing with the dollars and cents, it is my information that the

amount of moneys that were made available last year by your

administration were in total some $75,000, give or take....

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: My information is that $75,000 is the total

amount of money that was provided. I understand that was somewhat

divided between the Department of Health — for which the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was the minister — to the extent of, I think,

around $65,000 and about $9,000 was granted directly from the police

commission.

It is my information from my colleague, the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. McClelland), that this year the same amount of money is being made

available, so there is not a decrease in the dollars that are being

provided, according to what I'm told. But it is true from what you've

informed me — and you're an honourable member; I accept what you told

me — that the request has not been met, but about the same amount of

money is being given to the rape-relief centres as they received last

year, and this is essentially the same policy that is being followed

with other agencies by the government this year.

[ Page 1261 ]

When the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) was talking,

I recalled a very valid point that was made when the delegation from

the Status of Women were over, and that was that perhaps the police

could be better trained in dealing with the victims of rape. I very

much subscribe to that. Whether or not this has happened I couldn't

tell you, but let's hope it will happen very shortly if it hasn't. My

attitude was relayed on to the police college, and it is one that I am

sure we will find heartily supported by them.

You know, we had a long debate earlier on today about alcoholism and

the need for education. I think, really, it's about the same thing. The

word "rape" was a word that was not utilized, as the member for Burrard

mentioned, many years ago. It was: "Oh dear, something happened, " and

that was about it. It was something that was put under the rug, but it

never went under the rug because the psychic trauma was there and it

continued, as the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has indicated in the

specific situation he has referred to.

So I want to say this: what you're talking of is not something that

is forgotten by this administration. I'm just afraid it's impossible to

provide dollars that are not available over and above the amounts that

have already been allocated, which is the same amount as last year. It

does not mean that this is going to be a full stop. It means the

maintenance, I gather, of the programmes that were initiated before.

And, God willing, when we have a turn in the economy, we'll be able to

provide more assistance for this, which I think is a very, very

valuable service that is being performed.

Now vis- à -vis the Criminal Code: as the members are aware, there are

amendments in front of Ottawa at the present time which, fortunately,

are going to provide a great deal of evidentiary assistance to the

victims of rape, and they will find that they're not put through the

tortuous experience they have been in the past in a court of law.

There is no question that it is still a continuing agony for an

individual, girl, woman, who has been raped to have to recount the

experiences in front of a court of law in order to see that the rapist

is brought to the point of a conviction, if guilty. Now I don't really

know how you can eliminate that totally. If there is a way to do it,

fine; but I don't think it can be eliminated totally. But surely to

goodness it can be done in a far more humane and thoughtful manner than

it was ever attended to in the past.

These are the wishes, obviously, of the Canadian people. I think

these are the wishes of the people who have been hard working and

experienced in this field over the past few years — it hasn't been too

long — to see that these types of things are brought about. I think

that's a step in the right direction.

Something neither of you mentioned — and you are well versed in this

field — is the fact that there seems to be a high degree of repeaters.

That, to me, is a very distressing thing. We have to question as to

whether or not we are providing either the proper kind of custody or

the proper kind of treatment or the proper kind of invigilation,

because I think the thing that sickens society most of all is to find

that there has been an absolutely dreadful occasion happening a few

years back and it is repeated again. I think this makes everyone sick

to their stomachs.

MS. BROWN: I think that maybe it would be a good idea to deal

a little bit with the history of our rape-relief centres in this

province, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman — just to get the

funding of it straightened out.

In 1973, the very first group of three women in Vancouver, who by

chance happened to be living in the constituency of Vancouver-Burrard,

came to me with the proposal for setting up a rape-relief centre and

asked how they could go about getting funding for it. I gave, as far as

I could, the kind of information I knew about — how one gets funding

out of the provincial government. At that time they drew up a budget,

and that budget asked for salaries for these three women of $525 a

month for a year. The rental was $150 a month — furniture, and so forth

and so on. That's how it started — the first rape-relief centre.

The total budget was $20,000 that they asked to start with — the

first one was $20,000. They appealed to a lot of areas for their

funding. They got a little bit of money from the Company of Young

Canadians. They got a little bit of money from Marc Lalonde; a little

bit from the Secretary of State (Hon. Mr. Faulkner) ; you know, a

little bit from Human Resources; a dollar or two from the Health

department of the city.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The private sector too.

MS. BROWN: Right. It was from here, there and everywhere. You

know about that because I heard you in the House. They presented the

brief to you, too. You spoke on behalf of it. If I can dig up your

words I will read them back to you next week sometime.

The YWCA put in something they called "root" money. I don't know

what that was, but it was a little bit of something. The Vancouver

Foundation — you know, everyone: Woodward's, Koerner, everybody — threw

a little bit into the pot so that the first rape-relief centre in

Vancouver could get started.

The position of the government of the day was: "We'd never heard of

a rape-relief centre before. We didn't know what they did; we didn't

know how effective they were, and so we wanted to take a good look at

them and see what happened." At the end of

[ Page 1262 ]

the year they presented a report of what they had done that year,

and it was pretty, impressive. It was pretty impressive. They submitted

another budget asking for $75,000 for the Vancouver centre alone — the

Vancouver Rape Relief Centre alone. Not all three; just one.

The sum of $60,000-odd was given by the then Minister of Health (Mr.

Cocke), who recognized that rape had a health component as well as a

legal one; and the Attorney-General's department, through Dr. John

Hogarth of the justice commission, as I said, gave $9,000 to do this

evaluative research, through you, Mr. Chairman. That came to the sum of

$75,000 to finance the funding, Mr. Minister of Health — since the

Attorney-General is gone and you're here — for one, for the Vancouver

centre alone.

But the whole world was watching the Vancouver Rape Relief Centre to

see whether it really worked. Then Kamloops got the idea that they

wanted to start too, and the women from the Vancouver centre went to

Kamloops and helped them to set up their centre. Kamloops went the same

route, asking everybody: a little bit of money here, a little bit of

money there, a dollar here, a raffle here, a cake sale there, a bake

sale there, and it came together. It's a little something thrown in by

the Secretary of State. I don't know what we'd do without the Secretary

of State. You know, a little bit of something from Mr. Lalonde again,

and so forth. All this seed money. Ten months later, Victoria

recognized the need. The women, as the hon. second member for Victoria

(Mr. Barber) stated, the women in Victoria recognized the need for a

centre here. They again started from scratch, with nothing.

You know, when I sit in this House and I ask questions of various

ministers about consultants who are being paid $250 a day — $250 a day!

— when a rape-relief centre, three rape-relief centres in this

province, where the women are asking for $600 a month in salaries to

provide a service that the minister of justice tells us he recognizes

is needed...and then they tell us that there is no money for it, that

there is the same amount of money available for three centres that was

available for one centre last year when there is an increase of rape in

this province.... Are we supposed to sit here and accept this? Am I,

for one, supposed to sit here and accept that — when the member for

Victoria says that men don't take rape seriously, we listened to a

pious diatribe that he is being misquoted and misunderstood — when we

hear of a consultant being paid $24,000 a year to talk about games?

Rape is not a game. Is that the reason why there's no money for it?

Because it's serious business. Terror — that was the word that the

member from Victoria used — and it is terror! If you don't know what it

is to have to feel terror, let me tell you that there are women in this

province who know the terror of having been raped or having suffered an

attempted rape. And do you know what the police tell us? Let me read to

you the recommendations of the police. The police say scream. That's

what we're supposed to do — scream. Do you know what happens when we go

before the courts and the judge says: "What did you do?" and you say:

"Your Honour, I screamed"?

He says: "Why didn't you put up a fight? You didn't struggle;

therefore you are an accomplice to the fact. It's not rape at all —

case dismissed." What happens when you put up a fight? What happened to

that woman found in the underground parking lot at Eaton's? She put up

a fight. You know what happens. It doesn't matter how hard we fight for

equality in this province, there is one thing that men will always have

over us, and that is physical strength. Physical strength is the

reality. When you tell a woman who has been raped to put up a fight,

you are inviting her to commit suicide. Have no doubt about it — that

is precisely what you are doing! Anybody who gives that kind of advice

is guilty of counselling murder.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, could you relate your remarks to the minister?

MS. BROWN: I am dealing specifically, only, entirely, totally

and completely with the minister, and with no one else! He's the chief

law-enforcement officer in this province. I've tried to be gentle, I've

tried to be soft, I've tried to fit myself to all the stereotypes — but

I am irate, and the minister may as well know it.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: There's a member who deals in death who dares to heckle me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member....

MS. BROWN: I withdraw it! I withdraw it! I withdraw it!

The fact remains that it's got to be a priority. The funds have got

to be found; those centres have got to be funded; new centres have got

to be funded. You've got to support the legislation in front of the

Members of Parliament in Ottawa. The amendment to that Act is good, and

they've got to get that thing through that House. It can't sit on the

books there while you do nothing.

Now I'm asking you as nicely, as gently and as softly as I know how:

find money for those centres. I don't care where you find it from, Mr.

Minister. If, in fact, it is true that you are concerned about the

common assault which is visited upon unsuspecting and defenceless

people in this province, do something about it! I'm sorry that I

shouted, through you, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 1263 ]

MR. BARBER: I wish to express my thanks to the

Attorney-General, and to tell him that I'm happy always to yield to

further information and a further commitment of interest. I wish,

though, at the moment, if I may, to continue with my discussion of the

work of the Rape Relief Centre in Victoria, and to continue to press

for a show of leadership from the Attorney-General of the province of

British Columbia.

I would like to remind the Attorney-General that three weeks ago I

first raised the question in this House of the failure of leadership on

the part of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) to support

the recycling depot in greater Victoria that was near dissolution

because of the substantial cut in its budget. After three weeks of

questions, after three weeks of phone calls, three weeks of writing

letters, today we got action. After three weeks of pressure the

Minister of Environment announced a grant of $10,000 where previously

there had been no dollars to the Greater Victoria Recycling Depot. I

congratulated him for doing that — I do it again now.

What I wish to say to the Attorney-General, through you, Mr.

Chairman, is that we intend to make the same kind of pressure felt

toward the Attorney-General himself, and we expect the same results as

we got with the recycling depot.

My colleague for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) is perfectly correct.

I wish to remind the Attorney-General that this year the very same

figure as last year — $75,000 is being offered to three rape relief

centres,

whereas last year it was offered to one. This cannot be

considered an improvement. No one can take seriously the argument that

somehow the situation has gotten better, or even been maintained — one

centre last year, $75,000; three this year, $75,000.

The one that I wish particularly to speak of is, of course, the one

in Victoria, because they are not here to speak for themselves. I would

remind the Attorney-General that I have met with these women. I have, I

believe a fairly sound personal and working knowledge of their work,

and I wish to put to him again the argument and the observation that

this is serious work and it deserves serious support. In the case of

Victoria these women have in the past paid for it out of their own

pockets — and their own sweat. Six hundred dollars a month, indeed, for

salaries — what's that? In a province with an annual budget of $3.6

billion, the Attorney-General tells us there isn't enough to pay for

the women who asked for $600 a month to work 12 and 14 and 16 hours a

day.

I have, if I may put it, eight specific requests that I make of the

Attorney-General. They're all centred around the question and the

problem and the issue of leadership. They're centred around this

opposition's observation that the Attorney-General to date has

exercised no leadership in the field of determining what may be done to

better the situation of those women who have been raped, and the

situation of all of us who are forced to live in a society where this

sickness occurs daily. I have eight very specific requests I would make

through you, Mr. Chairman, of the Attorney-General.

The first is one of documentation: put together a report, commission

an inquiry into the phenomenon of rape in British Columbia, ask of the

police and the RCMP, municipally and provincially, what they know. Ask

them to tell you, Mr. Attorney-General, what the real incidence of rape

is in this province, who commits it, why and how, under what

circumstances it is committed and whether under any of those

circumstances it is preventable. Give us some documentation and

evidence peculiar and especial to the needs of the province of British

Columbia, and give us the results. Give us the report, make it public

and tell us what you are willing to do on it. That is my first request.

Commission an inquiry and assign it immediately to examine a problem

which heretofore has not had any serious examination at all.

My second request is that you join me, Mr. Attorney-General,

tomorrow or the next day or the day after or any time at your

convenience, and we will go to the Rape Relief Centre in Victoria. Let

me introduce you to the women who run it. Let me introduce you to some

of the women who have benefited. Let me show you their files and their

documentation. Take the opportunity yourself, Mr. Attorney-General, to

learn personally what's going on. Take the opportunity to find out how

it works. Take the opportunity to find out for yourself how you can

help. That is my second request, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the

Attorney-General. Join me in a visit anytime, day or night — they are

there anytime, day or night — and find out personally what's going on.

My third request — I join that put to you earlier by the member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) — is that you make an effective,

convincing and powerful representation to the federal government. Tell

the Minister of Justice what I expect you believe in your heart, which

is that the amendments are sound, fair, reasonable and needed. Tell him

powerfully, Mr. Attorney-General, and tell him that when you do so you

speak for a united legislature, because all of us will support you when

you do it. Tell him that you speak with the unanimous consent of 55

Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Tell him that

you want action. Tell him that you support those amendments, and tell

him that you do so in the name of all of us.

My fourth request, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman,

is that through the police commission and through your colleague in the

cabinet, the Minister of Health, you make some

[ Page 1264 ]

changes in the training that is offered to the police of this

province, to the medical profession of this province and to the

teaching and the counselling professions of this province. Take

advantage of the resources and the facilities that exist now and

improve those programmes to provide a level and a quality of training

in the police, in the counselling, in the teaching and in the medical

professions that is simply not available tonight. Tell them once again,

Mr. Attorney-General, when you go to the cabinet and make that request,

that you do so with the unanimous consent of every member of this

Legislature. Tell them that you are going to introduce it, and tell us

when.

My fifth request, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General

is that you exercise leadership and determine what new possibilities

and choices are available in the treatment of rapists. These, in my

opinion, are not men to be despised. They may, perhaps, be men to be

feared — clearly women do — but they are also men who are the

possessors of a significant disease. Find out what the new therapies

and the new treatments are, Mr. Attorney-General. Introduce them in

your prisons, introduce them in your community correction centres,

introduce them in your training programmes and persuade your colleague,

the Minister of Health, to introduce them in your hospitals. Find out

what they are, because I expect that in this province they are not as

comprehensive, not as modern and not as effective as they could be. So

my fifth request is that you exercise some leadership, Mr.

Attorney-General, and find out what new kinds of treatment choices are

available to the men who are guilty of the crime of rape.

My sixth request is that you do what you are doing now, Mr.

Attorney-General, but that you do it in a more serious and concerted

way. Meet with your colleague, the Minister of Health, tell him that

you have undertaken an inquiry into the phenomenon of rape and

determine between you a strategy for dealing with it. Come back to us,

Mr. Attorney-General, with the elements, the nature, the direction and

the timetable of that strategy, and tell us what commitment you have

made yourself and what commitment your cabinet has made to deal with

this phenomenon. Give us, Mr. Attorney-General, a strategy that

involves prevention and treatment, that involves training, that

involves relief centres of the kind of which we have spoken tonight and

that involves determining the nature of and improving the level of the

consciousness of the people of British Columbia in the way that we all

deal with the phenomenon of rape.

My seventh request, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the

Attorney-General, is that you go to your cabinet tomorrow morning and

you tell them that you are going to find within your department the

difference between the $75,000 that the Minister of Health has awarded

and the $166,000, the modest and reasonable amount that is required. Go

to your cabinet tomorrow morning, Mr. Attorney-General, and tell them

that you are persuaded that you will find within your department, in

the more than $100 million you are spending, the extra several thousand

to supply the women of this province — at least in three of our cities

and soon more — with the support, the resources and the facilities they

need.

May I remind you, Mr. Attorney-General, that we are talking about

women who are working 12, 14 and 16 hours a day for $600 a month? How

much do you and I work for, Mr. Attorney-General? These women are

working for $600 a month and you tell us that there isn't enough money

in a $3.6 billion budget.

Finally, my eighth request is the significant and symbolic one, the

one which is, if you will, almost spiritual: that you exercise

leadership, that you stand up in the cabinet and you name the issues

and you argue the issues and you fight the debates and you win the

debates, that you stand up in this Legislature and you tell us you've

won the debates, and tell us what you are going to do.

My eighth request is that you do what as the chief law-enforcement

officer in this province, you are required to do, which is to develop

those themes and ideas called leadership, to move us into doing the

work and providing the care that, as decent-minded and caring citizens,

we should all be providing. That's what I ask you to do, Mr.

Attorney-General.

I respect you. I believe you are a gentleman in this House. I

respect you very much. I ask you to respect and listen to these kinds

of arguments, and tell us what you are prepared to do. The women of

British Columbia expect nothing less.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, my colleague sometimes

gets carried away, with respect. I remember an election fought recently.

However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal just in part, for a

moment or two, with this whole question of rape relief. We were a

province, not long ago, where there was no consideration whatsoever

given to this particularly profoundly underestimated problem. When the

people, including the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), came to

our department some three years ago, it really wasn't thought of too

much across the country.

There were a few burgeoning rape-relief centres in some of the areas

across Canada but they were just at the outset of their programmes. Mr.

Chairman, why is this the case? Well, it's the case because some of the

most educated people, both female and male, in the health-care field,

seem to underestimate this as a problem — for instance, a problem where

a Toronto gynaecologist says something like this. He says: "There is

one type of woman that I have a hard time

[ Page 1265 ]

believing was raped: a women between 16 and 25 on the pill."

You know, that's the kind of irrational outlook that some people

have in our society, Mr. Chairman, and we became educated to this

because of the work of the member for Vancouver-Burrard and some of her

counterparts in the women's movement, and I'm grateful for that.

Now I'd like to go on to say...and I think the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. McClelland) now knows that we have had some problems in this

regard. The rape-relief crisis centres developed in three different

areas, and others, I think, are probably in the process of developing.

Each was going to a different department of government, and on that

basis we had to have some kind of approach that would be uniform, and

so as a government we had a group of ministers that was put together as

what we called the human services committee, and it was through that,

funnelling through there, that this programme was to be financed.

But, Mr. Chairman, since then.... That's A.G., Human Resources,

Health, Education and Housing. So, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure that you

have similar committees, I would suggest to you that you get any kind

of granting through those agencies. But, Mr. Attorney-General, through

you, Mr. Chairman, let's not underestimate this question of rape. It's

far worse, for an example, than I viewed it when I first saw it. I've

become more and more aware of it since.

I find, for instance, Mr. Chairman, that in the 1970s rape has

emerged as a major social issue. I believe that at the present time

there are 20 or 30 crisis centres across the country, and British

Columbia should lead the way because we were one of the first. Mr.

Chairman, we are going to be called upon not only to finance Kamloops,

not only to finance Victoria, not only to finance Vancouver, but to

finance a great deal more.

Mr. Chairman, why are we going to be called upon? Let's view some of

the information we get. Montreal, Mr. Chairman, has an incidence of

reported rapes of 6.4 per 100,000 population — 6.4. Now listen to this

for a variant. The incidence in Edmonton is 22.1 per 100,000. I doubt,

Mr. Chairman, if there is that kind of difference.

We're told that only one case in 10 is reported in the first place.

In other words, 90 per cent of the culprits are out there. Without

rape-relief centres, without a place where a woman can go and bare her

soul and talk to her peers, then I suggest to you that this 90 per cent

incidence of unreported will continue, and that's just a shocking

situation in a society that's supposed to be now in the 20th century, a

society that's supposed to be thinking.

The statistics, again, are: 6.4 cases per 100,000 population are reported in

Montreal,

whereas in Edmonton 22.1 cases per 100,000 are reported.

That's just too much of a variance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who developed those figures?

MR. COCKE: The statistics were developed by a group called

Community Services. The statistics are, I believe, well founded and I

can provide you with the back-up material.

Then I tried to relate that to the fact that we are told that 90 per

cent of the cases go unreported. One of the reasons that we as a

government felt it was absolutely necessary to get into this and

support women in this particular area was because we felt that the main

reason many cases were unreported was because of the shocking way

people are handled by, for instance, that doctor who said he would have

a hard time believing that a woman between 16 and 25 who was on the

pill was raped. And that isn't only peculiar to doctors; both sexes are

biased in this regard, Mr. Chairman. Female staff at hospitals are also

unsympathetic oftentimes.

I suggest that what's needed here is for us to forget about our

biases, to forget about some of the things we've learned in the past,

and go on looking to the future with this one demonstrable effort

towards women's rights.

This government in the past few months has pulled down some of the

structure that was put in place to protect women's rights. I suggest

one way they can show good faith is to get back into this business as

quickly as they can, and I don't mean in a haphazard way. If it should

be tunnelled through the Minister of Health, or if it should be

funnelled through the Attorney-General, or wherever, they all should

know it so there isn't this business of one minister financing in

Kamloops, another minister financing somewhere else. That s haphazard

and it's found, naturally, wanting. I suggest that your committee,

whatever it might be called, that's likely very much structured the way

our human services committee was structured, should be studying this

question, because I think it's an extremely important one.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert) Mr. Chairman, I think it's only fair

to say that the official opposition intends to win this point with the hon.

Attorney-General. I think if we lose, we will go out of here ashamed because

we didn't have the stamina to stand here and win. But if we lose that fight,

the government and government members will lose more because they will have

lost their dignity in this province.

I must admit that this is the first time that I have ever publicly

spoken about the subject of rape. I must admit also that it was

difficult for me to stand up, as a male, and talk about it.

You know, one of the things that women mention

[ Page 1266 ]

when they talk about the subject of rape being mentioned is that men

often giggle. I observed that; I observed at an NDP meeting not that

long ago, at a council meeting where it was raised on the floor of that

meeting. People, males, in that audience, or in that group, started to

giggle. I suspect it isn't for the reason that many women think that

men giggle; it's because males, generally, are embarrassed and ashamed

of the role we have played, up until now, in trying to understand what

it's all about. We feel guilty because the society we have been raised

in has been designed, in that one sick aspect of society, to teach

males that it's all right for males to rape women because, in truth,

they really enjoy it. That is what we are taught. We are taught it in

the locker rooms...

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): I never heard that taught in my life.

MR. LEA: ...we're taught in almost every part of society where we gather as males.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Speak for yourself.

MR. LEA: For males to deny it is not enough.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds) Speak for yourself.

MR. LEA: I believe the time has come for males in our society to stand up and say: "Yes, we have acted like that."

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. LEA: Male society has trained us to perpetuate that kind of sickness, and it is still probably a little part of all of us.

MR. KEMPF: Speak for yourself.

MR. LEA: I am speaking for myself, Mr. Member. I am. But I've

also made some observations, and I also believe that the

Attorney-General should start taking a look at the kind of movies and

the kind of television programmes that are allowed to be aired in this

province because there are some people in that business that will take

advantage of that sickness within our society and try to use those

kinds of media. Those kinds of media, I believe.... Am I for

censorship? I believe society as a whole has the right to decide — no

dictators, but society. Society has the right to censor in that

society; I personally believe that, yes. I believe it is the garbage on

those television screens and in movie houses that perpetuates the myth

that it's all right for males to rape females. Then I say yes, we as a

society have a right to censor that. I make no apologies for that.

But I do believe that all of us as males in this society do feel

embarrassed and we do feel ashamed, and I believe we're only going to

get rid of that embarrassment and that shame and start dealing with

this problem realistically...not only what do we do to people who

commit rape, and not only what do we do for people who have had rape

committed to them, but start looking at society itself, the structure

in our society that says it's all right.

I can recall three times when I was a cabinet minister that there

were recommendations. One I remember was a murderer who had committed

murder and rape. We went back through the old reports that had been

made by court workers and social workers. In the three that I looked at

closely, in every one of those reports it was suggested — in one very

blatantly and the other two more subtly — that really the girl had been

promiscuous at one time before in her life, that she had flirted. As

the hon. member for Burrard pointed out, she may have worn a mini-skirt

and that was enough in the eyes of the social worker — the male social

worker — or the court worker to decide that in his recommendation she

had probably asked for it.

We as males know that that goes on in our society and, as I say, the

only way that we're ever going to get rid of that kind of attitude is

for those of us in the society that are males to stand up publicly,

even though it is difficult, and it's darned difficult, and say: "Yes,

we as males in this society have acted like absolute asses."

MR. KEMPF: Speak for yourself.

MR. LEA: I am speaking for myself. I am.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you relate your remarks to the minister, please?

MR. LEA: I believe that we would be doing not only the women

in this province a disservice to not press and press as hard as we are

able as an opposition for this funding from government — from the

government, not only the Attorney-General. It's not only his

responsibility. It's 55 responsibilities in this House to make sure

that this money is available for those centres and future centres, and,

as the hon. member for Burrard has pointed out, it's a matter of

priority.

I was going to criticize the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

for not having enough money in his budget, and he hasn't, but I'm sure

that the Minister of Highways would give up one small stretch of road

out of that budget to supply funding for these centres. There are other

hardware ministers over there, ministers who represent hardware

departments, Public Works, Highways, Forest Service. There are

[ Page 1267 ]

other areas where money could be found if the priority were only straight in government.

But I think the first step that has to be taken, as everyone has

pointed out who has spoken so far on this side of the House, is that

these centres be maintained and broadened, but, secondly, that what we

have to do as males in our society is to help women in our society to

educate us. And, Mr. Chairman, I understand why the male members from

the other side were yelling at me, because it's for the same reason I

mentioned earlier: one of embarrassment and shame. I know, because I

feel it too. You know, and I have no hard feelings towards for what you

said or what you.... It's just a fact in life.

I believe that if government members, or government backbenchers,

were to stand and also make this plea to the government, we would walk

out of here with that money for those centres. I ask the backbenchers

to stand and take their place in these estimates right now and make

their plea along with the opposition, because this topic crosses

partisan political lines. It does; it affects all of our society, and

it's too serious a matter for us to play political games with it.

I believe that members from that other side will stand. I see the

member for Coquitlam with his microphone up. I believe he will. But we

can do no less than give this money, and then we should start examining

ourselves, first of all as the male legislators in this province,

because we are looked upon as leaders and we should earn that kind of

respect. We should earn it and not just take it for granted, and the

only way we can do it is to act in a responsible manner in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The esteemed member for Dewdney.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what company the

hon. member for Prince Rupert keeps. I have never heard the things he

referred to, ever, in any of the company I was at. But, of course, if

he has been there, I wonder if he stood up and said what he should have

been saying there; I wonder if he thought it was a good joke too.

I do ally myself with the remarks of the hon. first member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown). I believe that the eloquence and

dedication she had, the things she said, came from the heart, and I

believe what she said was right. It's not for any man to say and speak

about the things that she spoke about. She knows, and no man will ever

understand.

I do appeal to the Attorney-General that perhaps he can find some

help for this thing that is being asked for, but I do not think it

should be a totally funded thing by government. That is where

government makes a big mistake. I think government should supply some

funds, but it should also be supplied by the community. There has to be

local effort, or the whole operation is of little use. I think this

thing must be done, and I think the Attorney-General should give some

consideration to giving some help to rape-relief centres, but at the

same time to see to it that the community cooperates and funds it on a

similar level. With that standard I would agree. I compliment the hon.

member for Burrard for her eloquence in what she said. I've never heard

a more eloquent speech delivered in this House until this night.

If you will allow me now, I want to change the subject a little. I

think we've heard quite enough of this thing at the present time.

Mr. Attorney-General, I'd like to ally myself with remarks by the

hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson). When he spoke of the

terrible scourge of liquor and all the attendant disasters of alcohol

he was totally right. I never thought I'd ever stand up in this House

and agree so much with members opposite. But in this case, I must. I

agree with him, and I think that is an area the Attorney-General could

well look at.

What I will mention tonight is a matter that comes close to every

member in this House, and that is the fact of driver suspensions. I do

not think there is a member here who has not been approached by someone

at some time who said: "I will be suspended for two months for

speeding. Can you help?" They always have the same hard luck story:

they are going to lose their job. I appeal to the Attorney-General on

the basis that we should all be equal under law. If the

Attorney-General himself got more than 10 or 11, or 12 points for

speeding and lost his licence it would mean nothing to him, as he could

be driven back and forth to work. I'm talking about a working man, Mr.

Attorney-General.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Vicious attack!

MR. MUSSALLEM: If these men cannot get to their work they'll

lose their jobs. That is not equity before the law. I have a good

suggestion for you. I never make a request without a suggestion. My

suggestion is a very simple one, and I hope you're listening. I would

like you to say that when a working man needs to drive his car to work

he can get permission to drive it during working hours, providing that

he's prepared to buy a licence plate with suitable marks on it — like a

cross, or a black mark or something identifying him as a speeder or a

dangerous driver. If he wishes to drive during the suspension months,

then I think you should give him the privilege, and that would be

equity before the law. That is a suggestion I make sincerely. I do not

think it right to take away the right of a working man to earn a living

for his family, although I do not approve of

[ Page 1268 ]

him speeding. If he's intoxicated, then I agree with suspension.

There's no justification for that. Anyone who'd lose his licence on

that basis should lose it. But for speeding, I think you could well

allow that some mark on the licence plate identify that man during the

period of suspension and then let him drive to work. I hope you permit

me to change the subject, and I hope we've heard enough of the other

matter.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to respond to the remark from

the member for Dewdney. First of all, dealing with the driving

automatic suspension, according to the statistics and the information

that is being produced within the departments of the Attorney-General

and Transport over the years, this has proved to be the best deterrent

of all specifically for drinking-driving — these automatic suspensions.

In many cases, I agree with you, it is very rough justice. It's a point

that, when I was in opposition, I argued about many, many times, and

made speeches along the same lines that you have tonight with, I may

say, a lesser degree of eloquence of my part. It's something I will

look into, but I'm certainly not prepared to give the hon. member any

commitment tonight that we can reverse that trend until such time as we

would be able to be totally convinced that we could come up with

something that would still amount to a very, very strong deterrent.

Dealing with the other topic which has taken a great deal of the

time of the House tonight — justly so, and I know that other speakers

wish to speak on it, and I wish to hear from them, too — I would like

to say this. I'm thoroughly prepared, as is my colleague, the Minister

of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), to take a look at this thing and we

will do so. I will certainly give my undertaking to do that. I have no

intention of ignoring the matter, but nor am I in the position to give

you a commitment. If I give you a commitment, I'm certainly going to

live up to it.

I'm not in a position to give you a commitment tonight, but I will

certainly promise all members of the House...because it is something,

as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) mentioned, that is really

nothing to do with politics. Neither is education anything to do with

politics, or the moneys that are required for hospitals.

You know, it really is tragic, I think, that so much time has been

spent in the 10 years that I've been here putting areas that really do

not require political input into those kinds of areas to demonstrate a

point. I think we could do much more just speaking to the issue and

taking some of the politics out of it. I say this to all sides of the

House. I certainly will look into this situation.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Chairman, the first member for Vancouver-Burrard

(Ms. Brown) and the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) made some very valid

points and, in deference to the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), I

must bring the subject back to the subject of rape just for a moment.

These were very valid points that were raised, and they are very

valid points of concern in my constituency at the Women's Centre, just

as they are in your constituencies and just as they are in the

constituencies of every member on this side of the House as well as

that side of the House. Not only should this have been brought out

during an educational programme over the past number of years — and

we're not saying only the past three years — but with rehabilitation

programmes, programmes of understanding carried much beyond the

individual rehabilitation of the victim of the despicable act — the

viciously attacked female — programmes for the need for rehabilitation

to go into the home and into the family for the acceptance of that

party back into the family as a member of the family unit without a

stigma, and into the community.

I have some questions, though. We've discussed the law court

situation and what we're going to do about it. I'd like to ask

questions of those two members: what was done about it during the past

administration — in the law court area — to remove the stigma from the

victim of rape? What was done in the police training and counselling

area? What was done to ensure that a female police officer would be in

attendance, for example — which is very necessary and a move, I think,

that the hon. Attorney-General is quite prepared to move toward? What

was done in the training and counselling, other than in these

particular centres that you've spoken of? These are not new centres.

These centres have been in other areas of Canada and in other areas of

North America for some time. Was there a shortage of money? Was thought

given to this and other social and people problems when money was being

spent on this building? And I'm telling you, that's something that gets

me very, very deeply. We talk about people problems, we talk about

social problems, and yet we can turn around and spend $300,000 on one

corner of this building for two very lavish ministerial offices.

My question is to those two hon. members who pontificated, who made

some very valid points, and I agree with you; I'm very sympathetic on

those points: what exactly could you have done with that $300,000? How

many rape-relief and rehabilitation training centres could have been

funded for that $300,000? What was the former government's priority

then? Let's get those facts straight, please.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Attorney-General is correct in

[ Page 1269 ]

suggesting that this is not a matter to be bandied about

politically, but it's a fundamental problem — that is, one that goes

across party lines and affects all of us — and all of us perhaps share

equally in the difficulties that we face in trying to ensure justice

and equality for all of the citizens within our free society,

regardless of their gender. But I don't think that we've really come to

grips with the difficulty that we face — that is, some of the

suggestions that we can have programmes, or try and bring the matter to

the public, try and deal with some of the difficulties of victims who

have been subjected to advances by persons coercively. You know, that's

a Band-aid approach but under the circumstances, perhaps it's one which

we should pursue and try and get as many Band-aid approaches as we can

in trying to deal with the individual situations.

I would like to feel that the Attorney-General would take the

leadership to come forward and get to the crux of the matter, because

it's one that is fundamentally to pinpoint the problem within our

system where competitiveness and the pressures of trying to achieve

material advantages have influenced and affected the morality and

values of individuals, without exception, throughout society. That, as

I said earlier, isn't restricted to any particular party. All of us, as

the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) pointed out, can point to

ourselves. We've all lived in this environment and we've all

participated in perpetuating the kinds of traditions and practices that

will eventually lead to injustices upon certain segments of the

population.

I think that the role of women in society has been exploited

legitimately for so long that we've forgotten that it was legitimate

only because of tradition and because of custom; it has nothing to do

with their rights as individuals. We've forgotten that they are

individuals and that they have a right to equality.

It really isn't going to work if we have a few programmes that will

deal with individual cases. It will certainly indicate that we are

aware of a problem, Mr. Attorney-General, but until we begin to face

the grass-roots problems within the institutions, within the common

marketplace.... That's where the problem is.

What do we really know about the rapist, the rapist mentality — the

rapist syndrome, if you want to call if that the kind of attitude, the

kind of mind, the kind of background, the kind of self-image, the

goals, the values of a person who feels it incumbent upon himself to

partake of someone else's stead, regardless of their willingness or

not? That's, to say the least, a rather presumptuous approach to take

in trying to satisfy one's own wishes and desires. But that is

commonplace in our society.

I'm not quite satisfied myself to think that we should say someone

was willing or unwilling to participate in

an act, whatever the act may

be, where someone is advancing into someone else's private domain. I

feel that shouldn't be open for discussion or debate — everyone should

be free.

You know, there are many parallels we can draw to this question of

individuality and freedom, the right of a private domain, the right of

a private space within this free society — concepts that far too little

time is spent on, Mr. Attorney-General. Far too little time is spent on

it in the institutions of learning. Far too much time is spent on

things that obliterate these principles. People should understand that

is their fundamental duty to participate in this society. They have to

understand these things; and they don't understand. I can assure you it

is a sad testimony, a sad commentary on this society when we think that.

Members stand here honestly and say: "Well, I'm part of it, too. I

must admit that I'm guilty too. I can think of many instances where I

have aided and abetted in situations." But, you know, that's not good

enough, because what they're really doing is saying that that's the way

I was raised. You know — it was always all right, but I'm beginning to

grow up and realize that, by God, there's something wrong, something

seriously wrong.

We can't resolve this problem by putting people in jail and coming

on with Band-aid programmes. We're going to have to take a look at the

cause and effect — what's happening to the people in their formative

years, learning and understanding about their role and their duty in

this society. They don't understand that. I m sure they don't. So we

get them so far extended that we put them in a treatment programme and

say we're going to rehabilitate them.

We know the problems we are having with corrections today; we don't

know what we're doing in that field. I was in it for several years

myself, and I must say quite candidly that I was well-intentioned, but,

honestly, I really didn't know what I was trying to help people to

rehabilitate or recover back to. It's sort of like your budget — where

are you going back to; where are you coming from? It's rather an

obscure kind of objective you are trying to pursue. It's an obscure

kind of objective when you don't deal with the system — overhaul the

system, the educational system, and take a look at what's happening

with individuals.

You know, in our school system, even today, we still have various

programmes for the sexes. We still don't recognize individuals. We

still don't recognize the fundamental right of individuals to

participate equally and justly within society. You can say that it's

because of custom. But I think it's more than that; I think we have to

take a look at our economic system, a system which has built itself on

the exploitation of certain factors within this society to the benefit

of others. Until we are prepared to give up

[ Page 1270 ]

some of these advantages we have had, those exploited factors within

the society, we aren't going to solve the problem of rape or anything

else.

We can have all the programmes we want but you can go and turn on

your television set this evening and see all kinds of things that are

titillating, that are urging and tempting to people, that are

encouraging them to try and do something about satisfying themselves

through a bit of connivance or trickery. It is a rather selfish,

disrespectful approach for individuality. We support this. It's a

system. It's a system that has its roots in the educational structure

of our society. It's a system that has allowed the institutions to go

too far in their exploratory programmes to achieve materialistic

advantages. It really is.

I have made remarks, perhaps sardonically, a few times in the past

about automobile salesmen and women sitting on cars. I said that in

good humour. But I really ask you, Mr. Chairman. When you put not just

a woman but a man — anybody — on a car, what are your objectives — to

induce, to seduce, or what? What are you trying to do? Why don't you

just put the car out and let the car stand on its merits? Talk about

the value of the automobile, its mechanical efficiency, et cetera, its

gas mileage or whatever you want. But why do we have to put these

symbols up there?

I suggest that we are all guilty. The system is guilty because on

the one hand we say it is wrong to disrespect the individual rights and

the integrity of...to show no integrity for the individual's freedom

and right to participate in a society on an equal basis. Then we turn

around and misguide or misdirect, try and manipulate for any kind of

gain you can have. This is happening within the school system; this is

happening within our basic educational structure, within our structure.

I would like to know, for instance, just.... You know, we have to

have a little latitude to try and bring the picture home. That's why I

say it runs right across the whole spectrum. We are bringing in a

specialist to deal with sports. We are going to bring him in to deal

with sports and try and overview the problems of how to get more people

probably participating. But I'll bet you dimes to doughnuts it'll be

primarily male-oriented, and I'll bet you it has to do with football

and soccer and all kinds of team sports, and very few women will be

involved. Now I'll just take a look at the facts, the statistics.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Okay. Well, I don't care. I'll challenge you. We'll see what his report looks like when it comes in and we'll see how

many women are involved and we'll take a look at where the moneys will

be spent for these programmes, how much money will be spent for these

programmes, how much money will be spent for programmes that are

co-educational and those that are just for the men. How many of them

are those team sports that raise money and raise the image of the

institution? You know what it's going to be. There are very few things

that women are participating in, even though there are many women like

Debbie Brill and so forth who are doing their individual thing. But

I'll tell you they are rare; they're rare. But that's a serious problem.

This is a serious commentary on our system when you see those

fellows out there trying to take advantage of their fellow citizens who

are females. I think it is more than just a question of trying to

educate that one person, because that person comes from the system. If

you trace it back far enough you will find that that person got the

idea from the system. The system encouraged it. You'll find that the

people who make the most money in the media, who sell the most, are the

ones who sensationalize, who exploit sexism, who exploit all kinds of

ideas that would be to the detriment of somebody. Because in a

competitive system there have to be some losers, unfortunately — there

have to be some losers.

I'm not going to leave it just with the A.G.'s department. I think

that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has a role to play,

the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) has a role to play

and really all of us have a role to play. Because this is a commentary

on the system. It s not something that the A.G. can do with just

legislation. It's going to have to happen within the system. I really

don't think that the system is prepared to do very much about it, quite

frankly.

We had one member, the member for Dewdney, who stood up and said:

"Well, what did you guys do? He doesn't want to deal with the problem

today. He says: "Oh, well, I agree with it."

AN HON. MEMBER: Coquitlam.

MR. BARNES: From Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster). He says: "I agree

that you have got a good point, but what have you guys done?" The point

is that what we have or haven't done is history now. What is happening

out there are numbers of people. You say that you are a people-oriented

government. Let's be progressive. Let's don't look back not even one

second. As you said: "We're going to go on from here as of December 11.

We're going forward — forward, not backwards." Now you're starting to

play politics. The A G. said we don't want to involve politics in this

debate; I agree with him. It's not a question of politics; it's a

question of morality, a question of citizenship, a question of duty.

MR, KERSTER: Priority.

[ Page 1271 ]

MR. BARNES: We all have a duty to respect the rights of each

and every one of them. It works both ways; it works both ways. I think

we are too quick to take liberties with other people, too quick to take

it for granted that we can play games with other people because of our

particular position of life. As the first member for Burrard (Ms.

Brown) pointed out, the male has the physical strength so the female is

at a disadvantage. Well, imagine a male thinking that because he, has

physical strength he should dare use that against a fellow citizen to

satisfy his own personal desires without the consent of that person.

I think that's in no way a tolerable thing in a free society where

people understand — and I think that what we've got to do is give

people an opportunity to begin understanding — this kind of

orientation. I suggest that most people do not understand that. There

are many people who do not understand it, and the main reason they

don't participate more in this kind of activity is out of fear. We

can't build a free, democratic society on fear; we've got to do it on

understanding. If the free, democratic system is worth anything, it's

worth being part of the educational structure, but it's a sham the way

we operate these days. We're cutting back on education.

MR, LOEWEN: No, we're not.

MR. BARNES: Yes, you are. You're not going to meet the

budget; you're going to suggest that the local people pay the dues.

You're trying to slip it back like it was; you're going backwards.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: You'll get a chance to stand up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: You'll get a chance to stand up. We'll see whether you're going to have referendums again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. Please address the Chair.

MR. BARNES: We'll see what's going to happen. You're going to get plenty of opportunity to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. Please address the Chair.

MR. BARNES: This member knows that when it comes to this government's plans, the idea is to balance the budget at all costs.

MR. LOEWEN: One step backward and three forward.

MR. BARNES: I'm glad you raised that, Mr. Member for

Burnaby-Edmonds. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is not in the

House this evening but I was going to ask him just....

MS. BROWN: It's not his estimates.

MR. BARNES: It's not his estimates, but I'm sure they all

agree. They all consult with each other. The Minister of Finance has

made no pronouncements that haven't been with consultation of the

cabinet. The Premier, who came in momentarily and slipped out again,

I'm sure concurs with the idea that balancing the budget is in keeping

with good fiscal practices and can be compared to other practices

throughout the dominion and other certain related countries. I just

haven't been able to find any, because you say you're going to balance

the budget at all costs. We have no money of our own, so the

hospitalization, the B.C. Ferries, personal taxes — all these things

are to be raised so that we can balance the budget, but we're not going

to cut down any of the things that we feel are essential to our

maintaining our power over the people.

I understand something like $600 or $800 a month was required for

these three programmes in Kamloops, Victoria and Vancouver. The

government is saying that we'll have to take a look at it to see

whether it warrants it, or whether we can squeeze it into the budget.

How can you balance a budget when the results of your not funding

programmes such as these are going to cost you more in the future?

Can't you see that? Do you not reconcile that within your concept of

fiscal management? What happens when you cut down all those information

centres, those opportunity programmes, and those resource boards where

people are circulating money? You should take a lesson from the federal

government. Even they're smart enough to know that those programmes

that they put out — LIP projects and so forth — circulate some money.

It generates and generates and generates; it creates activity. You

don't lose anything on that. Besides, we're in a situation of recession

where funds are hard to come by, where people are out of work. You

should be circulating the money; you should be spending it even if you

have to create a deficit position.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: You should be encouraging, Mr. A.G., programmes

such as this. You say that people programmes are not revenue producers.

That's what you're saying, I would believe.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I just interrupt you, Mr. Member? You can only discuss under vote 10 those areas which are under the

[ Page 1272 ]

Attorney-General's responsibility. Although we can refer to other areas by comparison, we shall not debate those.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your

bringing me back to the A.G.'s estimates, but I would suggest that the

A.G. should take a look at the implications of funding in these areas —

what it really means; the amplification of it — because it really does

spread far greater than what I believe the Minister of Finance had

perceived. I don't think that he was really thinking in terms of the

ultimate value. I think that the ultimate value is that you spend the

money now when times are tough, and when things get better you can

accumulate a little bit, but if you don't spend it now times aren't

going to get better. You're going to aid the recession; you're going to

plunge people still further. Those people whom you give the funds to

assist don't put that money in the bank. They don't invest in

condominiums and land and so forth, and speculate — they spend it. You

get it over and over and over again in taxes. All kinds of funds you

get out of it. How can you think that there's anything wrong with that?

Maybe it's just your philosophy that, well, you just feel that

people should be responsible for themselves. Everybody should go for

themselves. This is a jungle.

But I suggest that in our society, Mr. A.G., you know that we have a

duty to assist people who have committed themselves to live within the

confines of a system that restricts them in so many ways. They don't

have the open spaces that they would if they were living out in the

woods someplace. They are limited. You have a duty, Mr. Chairman. We

all have a duty to give the people a basis on which they can function.

We say free enterprise and competitiveness and go for yourself, but

we've got to give them a framework within which they can function.

We've got to give them some means by which they can facilitate their

efforts. We're not the only....

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt, please? The framework under which we have to discuss now is vote 10. Please try to stay within that framework.

MR. BARNES: I would like to ask you, Mr. Attorney-General, what he is

doing about affirmative action? How many females have you working in your department,

Mr. A.G.? I would like to know how many qualified people, you know, lawyers

and assistants in research and so forth, that you are conscientiously making

an effort to hire to make sure that you lead this parliament and that you demonstrate

to the other ministers your awareness of the need to take leadership — not to

say: "Well, when the good ones come along and they're qualified, we'll

give them an application and they'll fill it out." Yes, they'll

be competing against so many people who will find some way to out-manoeuvre

them. Take the leadership.

You know the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) has

been raising that point at almost every session. Affirmative action —

even the United States are getting hip to the idea. You hear it on TV

and radio every day, affirmative action. We're going to have to begin

to change things. We've got to change the theme of the rules, change

them.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: We've got to change them. Mr. A.G., are you

prepared to change any rules? Are you prepared to change any rules?

Let's face it, we've got to change some rules. We can t keep

vacillating and playing games. We've got to change rules. We've got to

take the leadership. We've got to be bold even if we aren't returned to

office, Mr. A.G. Be bold.

I know, as the first member for Victoria says, he respects you and

feels that you are a man of integrity and understanding, and I dare say

that on occasion I even have been inclined to think that. (Laughter.)

Only on occasion, because I've seen you when you've been something

else, Mr. A.G. (Laughter.) I've watched you over the years. But anyway

I do believe that you are a good Canadian citizen and you really

believe that in the end we all must have an opportunity to participate

equally or we all go down equally. In that respect, I feel that you

won't take my comments in jest, although I've said them in good humour.

But I do feel that all of us have a duty and there's no way, even

though it's difficult for you ministers when we put pressure on you,

and particularly the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm), put pressure on you because of your personalities and your own

personal feelings.... But you have a duty to go beyond yourselves, to