1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page 323 ]

CONTENTS

Point of order

Recording of divisions. Mr. Richter — 323

Mr. Speaker — 323

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Corrections Act (Bill 24). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 323

Mr. Smith — 325

Mr. Gardom — 325

Mr. Wallace — 326

Ms. Brown — 328

Mr. Williams — 329

Mr. Curtis — 331

Mr. Rolston — 331

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 333

Ms. Sanford — 335

Mr. Dent — 336

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 338

Mr. Barnes — 338

Mrs. Webster — 340

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 341

The Drug Addiction Rehabilitation Act (Bill 33). Mr. Wallace

Introduction and

first reading — 344

An Act to Amend the Assessment Equalization Act (Bill

34). Mr. Wallace

Introduction and first reading — 344

An Act to Amend the Hospital Insurance Act (Bill 35). Mr. Wallace

Introduction

and first reading — 345

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act (Bill 36). Mr.

Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 345

Public Officials' Disclosure Act (Bill 37). Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading — 345

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act (Bill 38). Mr.

Curtis.

Introduction and first reading — 345

APPENDIX

Minority report (Social Welfare and Education Committee) Mr. McClelland — 346

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker,

yesterday we were dealing with Motion 1 and, pursuant to the

debate that took place, a division was called. After the

division it was asked to be recorded, and only one Member stood

in his place at that time. We called your attention to it. We

notice today that it is recorded. Under

section 3 of standing

order 16 it requires more than one person standing in their

place.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no consideration in the standing

orders for how much time is consumed, so far as I can see,

before you get on to the next matter of business. Now there are

people who like to cut it fine and there are people who like to

take advantage of the situation one way or the other in the

House.

If you think that it is improper for the Speaker to permit

three Members to stand in the House before moving on to the

next business, then I would certainly take that as a reprimand.

But I do feel, regardless of the sides in this House, that if

any Members of this House, three in number, signify before we

go on to the next item of business that they want a vote

recorded, I think it's in the interest of the House that it be

recorded.

Now maybe I'm incorrect, and the House can certainly correct

me if I'm wrong. If you feel that it's a matter you wish to put

on the order paper, specifying how much time must pass before

three people get to their feet, be sure to do so. I would

certainly take that as being your correction for the direction

of the House.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I have no

objection, in speaking to this point of order, to the amount of

time that you consume in dealing with the particular matter

that was before the House. But I respectfully suggest, Sir,

that we didn't see any other than one person on his feet at the

time of the request for recording, or at any other time prior

to the time that we moved to the next order of business. Now I

may be mistaken in that respect but I didn't see more than one

person at any time.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I must have sharper eyes because I

clearly saw two Ministers stand, following the fact that it was

drawn to the attention of the House that only one had stood.

Two others stood then to make the three that are necessary.

I want to point out to the Hon. Members that this sort of thing is a double-edged

sword. In other words, some day someone on this side of the House might just

as well complain on the same ground. It is my view that I will take the same

position, regardless of where you sit in the House, in fairness to the whole

House.

Introduction of Bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move that we

proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 24, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE CORRECTIONS ACT

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): I'll let the lawyers

look at the other one for awhile. They love that kind of thing.

(Laughter.) Give them a look at it; give them some time.

Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill 24 I want to

say a few things on the subject of corrections, because it is a

very important responsibility of my department and, of course,

of the whole government — and, of course, of this

Legislature.

The Act provides for a reorganization of the corrections

department into a branch of the Attorney General's department.

We emphasize the importance which we believe this Legislature

should give to the subject of corrections by providing in the

bill that there shall be a Deputy Minister of Corrections

responsible to the Attorney General.

I might say that this Deputy Minister will be reporting

through my senior Deputy Minister. Nevertheless, he will be

classified and is so classified in the bill as a Deputy

Minister, because this is a very important branch of

government, for reasons which I will give in a few minutes, and which I think are already well known to the House.

The task force, which brought in many excellent

recommendations which we are in the process of implementing,

pointed out a very serious situation in terms of crime in the

Province of British Columbia. It pointed out, for example, that

between the eight years 1962-1970, while the population of this

great province was going up by 34 per cent, our crime

statistics were doubling. The problem is particularly of crime

becoming more a feature in the ranks of juveniles. It is

something which must give us very particular concern.

The predictions for the future as set out by the task force

should give us equal concern because that prediction was, as I

recall it, that the number of

[ Page 324 ]

criminal code offences, based on these past predictions,

would double again by the year 1980 — in roughly the next eight

years.

So this is a problem that calls for the most imaginative

thinking on our part, leadership from the government and the

cooperation of the whole community with a wide range of

responses to this problem. The responses will range, of course,

from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) to the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) to job employment

possibilities to things like nutrition and shelter, which are

all part of the problem. They certainly focus in upon reform in

the legal system itself, and the subject matter of the present

bill — the field of corrections — becomes, of course, one of

the focal points as well.

I do not believe that a return to 19th century methods of

clapping people into jail would be a solution to this kind of a

social problem that we face. When you sever the relationship

between an offender and society, you must bear in mind that the

crime or offence took place because of a breakdown, in the

first place, of that relationship between an individual and the

society in which he lived.

If you sever that relationship by having an elaborate legal

process, and then clapping the offender in jail beyond what is

necessary for the protection of society — and I stress that…the protection of society is the cardinal thing that must be

observed. But if we go beyond what is necessary for the

protection of society and simply clap people into jail

unnecessarily, we're helping to make worse the separation

between him and any sense of social responsibility.

How much better it is to have somebody on probation — perhaps working under a probation order whereby he would be

making restitution, as he could from his work, to the victim of

his offence. How much better that is in terms of not only the

rehabilitation of the individual, but some relief to the victim

and a great saving of cost to society.

Speaking of the matter of costs at the present time to keep an offender in

custody it requires between $8,000 and $12,000 per year in the Province of British

Columbia. I remember the time, and it seems only a short while ago, when we

used to make speeches in this House saying that it was costing an average of

$7.50 per day to keep somebody in the "Iron Bar Hotel" out at Oakalla, but those

figures are long past.

We do have in our correction institutions a ratio of one-for-two,

one custodial officer for every two inmates. So you can understand that the

kind of figures that I am giving, in terms of cost, are staggering and understandably

staggering. And yet, when that offender is in the community, our staff relationship

is in the order of one for every 200 people on probation — one probation officer

for every two hundred, instead of one-for-two in a custodial institution.

We have a very good record in the Province of British

Columbia in that, at the present time, we have an offender

population, if I can call it that, of about 12,000 people. Of

these 12,000, roughly speaking 2,000 are behind bars of one

kind or another; 10,000 are on probation in one form or

another. Now that's a very good record. But the support

services in respect to the 10,000 that are within the community

in one form or another under probation orders, are grossly

inadequate and must be improved.

I have said before and I say it again that I am very much

concerned, too, with the problem of a great many individuals

being in our jails because they lack the means to pay a fine.

They are imprisoned for their poverty because the judge — and

this has been the traditional thing — has given them a sentence

of $100 or 10 days, or $200 or 10 days. Perhaps this is more

pronounced a problem among the native people of British

Columbia, which gives me more concern when I think about it,

but that is a problem which I think can be tackled, not only in

terms of improving the quality of the decision of the

provincial bench, but I think it can be tackled in time and

should, before another year has gone by, be tackled in terms of

legislation which should be brought before this House.

I can think, for example, that there may be if it can be

worked constitutionally — and you must bear in mind the federal

government's role — it may be worked that we can have a method

whereby the judge can convert these fines into civil judgments

which can be collected as and when the individual is able to

work in the same way as any other civil judgment. We may then

be able to relieve our jails of a lot of people who should not

be there, mostly short-time offenders.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And, as my friend says, part of it can

be a restitution order too, which is so much better if that

person can go back to work and make that restitution. So much

better for him, so much better for society and so much better

for the victim.

Our programme, therefore, will be concentrating on community

programmes. We want to get away from the single-caseworker

approach, focused entirely on one offender, where overworked

probation officers try to keep tab on a large number of

individuals with widely different problems, and who at the

present time sometimes can be lucky if they can just simply

find out who is in town and who is not in town.

We intend to develop new facilities, such as attendance

centres, hostels and community service work programmes. We are

drawing the community

[ Page 325 ]

into the process of correction. We are paying special

attention, through a special director in the branch, to the

business of mobilizing the volunteer forces of society to help

us with this problem — and I may say that the volunteers who

have turned out to meetings, and are participating at the

present time, is something that we should all be thankful for

in this House. I hope the number of those volunteers will

continue to grow, organizations and individuals from Big

Brothers to church groups to Elizabeth Fry and many other

organizations. Every possible encouragement should be given to

those groups and every congratulation should be offered to

them.

We want to disperse, as far as we can, those custodial

institutions which we must have for the protection of society

back into the communities. We do not believe in large

institutional jails — running up to 1,200 or 1,500 people as we

have out at Oakalla — which become schools for crime, which are

too large, too cold, too impersonal, too unmanageable, which

lead to the kind of ratio I spoke about a moment ago of one

prison officer for every two inmates. We want to take the

custodial function back to the local community so the offender

will still be in this community, in reach of his friends and

relatives, in reach of advice, more accessible to work to

pre-release programmes, and to rehabilitation.

Within the department there will, as I say, be a Deputy

Minister. We have appointed a new Executive Director of

Institutional Correction. There is a Director of Community

Corrections and a Director of Specialized Programmes. The last

will be responsible for injecting top professional, technical

or specialized skills into this very important work.

We want to restore to our prison officer and personnel the

ordinary rights of employees that apply, under the auspices of

the Provincial Secretary, and the legislation which he will no

doubt be shortly producing, throughout the rest of our civil

service. And so, some of the disciplinary powers that are in

the Corrections Act , which to some extent made the correction

service sort of a para-military organization of employees and

officers doing very important social work for the community,

will disappear.

We will also have, because we recognize the worth of every human being in the

province, whether or not he is an offender, an inmate, or a citizen, a director

of standards who will serve as an ombudsman, through whom any inmate, or any

staff person, can have his complaint investigated. I think I have said enough,

except that I would be hopeful that other Members in this House will give their

view on this important matter in a constructive way, because the problem is

immense. The challenge is there, and if we as a government fail in this important

thing, it is an area where we cannot forgive ourselves. We must have balance

between the protection of society and the rights and rehabilitation of individuals.

We can't allow crime predictions to go unchallenged, and if we can meet that

challenge, we certainly intend to do it, this government with, hopefully, the

support of the Legislature. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you Mr. Speaker.

We accept the principle of this bill. We think it can best be

discussed at the committee stage. We feel that it could be

moved to that stage where we could discuss it at the next

sitting of the House.

It's fairly obvious to us that all the important legislation

that we were told we were to meet to discuss is not before this

House, that it's a sham, that we have been called on an excuse

and we're sitting here spinning out the debate on legislation,

which could well be moved along, because of the fact that the

other legislation is obviously not ready to go before this

House. We should have had it in here today.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I wonder if the Hon. Members

would confine themselves to the principle of this bill.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, there

has been a lot of good stuff in the remarks of the Hon.

Attorney General this morning. I don't think that anyone in the

House would question for a second that in the long run society

is certainly far best served by rehabilitation; I think that is

an accepted fact.

I also think that we have got to consider that in many

instances, and certainly in the more serious situations,

custodial treatment to the full term of a sentence is in the

best interests of society, and that concept should not be

lightly disregarded. Judicial consultation concerning parole,

certainly again in most serious cases, should not be abandoned,

as has been apparently the recent practice here.

Custodial treatment, we all agree, never has been a

hand-holding kind of programme. It should never become that,

which is not its concept. I say rehabilitation is fine, but let

rehabilitation be demonstrably evidenced before final release,

keeping in mind the economic suffering and perhaps indeed the

anguish and the pain of the victims of crime, for it's not the

victims of crime who have fully-paid and free medical and

dental plans, food, clothing and shelter, educational and

recreational programmes. The lot of the victim of crime should

not be lightly disregarded.

Restitution is a very good word, and I enjoyed the remarks

of the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) this morning on

that point. It's also an exceptionally fine concept. I think

that it should

[ Page 326 ]

certainly be encouraged when and however possible. The new

structure in this bill has a great deal of appeal. I think

improvements in this area are all welcome and I'm sure will

receive the support of all of the House.

But you know what I would have welcomed, as a more needful

priority than that we heard come from the Attorney General this

morning, is a statement and a programme from him that he was

going to conduct an all-out war against the narcotic

trafficking or "industry," as it now perhaps is

unfortunately called in the Province of B.C. A couple of years

ago, Mr. Speaker, it was estimated that the narcotic

trafficking industry had a larger growth than the B.C.

Telephone Company, $160 million or so per year. And with normal — and that's a horrible word to have to use in this

illustration — but with normal increases we could perhaps say

today that the narcotic industry in the Province of British

Columbia is a $200 million-a-year gross industry, which is an

absolutely shocking figure. As the Attorney General has stated,

crime has doubled. There's no indication of its lessening, but

every indication of its growing, and there is no indication

from the Attorney General that he's baring his fangs to come to

grips with that particular problem. I'd like to find out from

him, when he closes the debate today, if he favours increased

penalties for pushers and traffickers. Does he have more men in

the field? Are there more investigative and preventative

personnel? Are steps being taken to catch the big boys? Will

the government be prepared to boycott the goods into British

Columbia of any country which, under its laws, permits the

production or processing of what we consider in B.C. to be

illicit or illegal narcotics?

I would think that, rather than some kind of horizontal

departmental shifting, I would have much preferred to hear

something and so would the people of this province, coming from

the government side about this disgraceful industry.

Fine, this is a remedial measure. I don't subscribe totally

to the remarks of the first speaker for the opposition; I do

concur that the government doesn't appear to have its

legislation down the pike the way it should be. But this is a

useful measure. I am glad that it is coming in today and I'm

certainly going to support it.

But we need strong action, we need strong words to stamp out

the drug traffic in the Province of B.C. which is dramatically

on the way up, and not going down.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, this has to be one

of the major problems in our modern society, our enlightened

attitude to the handling of offenders.

While this party will certainly support the bill, one omission from the Attorney

General's statement really surprises me. The former speaker has touched on it,

and that is the recent lack of any definitive statement, either publicly by

the AG or a reference to it in this bill, on the fantastic amount of association

between crime and drugs. As I recall, the Attorney General stated publicly some

time ago that approximately 50 per cent of all the offenders in jail — and we're

talking about 2,000, I gather, from this Minister's statement — presumably about

1,000 are there because of crime associated with drug abuse.

The Minister set up a task force, and he may correct me if

I'm wrong, but I don't remember that task force yet reporting

publicly.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I stand corrected.

I went before that drug task force, in association with a

group of parents who were desperately seeking measures and

forms of assistance to which they can turn when they find that

their sons and daughters are wrapped up in the drug scene. It

was my impression that the task force members were most

impressed and most sympathetic.

It is rather strange perhaps that a Conservative Member of

the House who so frequently — not myself perhaps but the party — is so frequently looked upon as being rightwing, should

suggest that we are taking the wrong direction in putting drug

addicts in jail. So often I meet the comment that if a person

chooses to become a drug addict, he should pay the penalty. All

I'm saying is, the kind of penalty that society is trying to

impose on the drug addict neither appropriately penalizes the

addict, nor does it in any way prevent repetition of the

original habit and the associated crime.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: And, of course, as the second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) mentions, let it not be said

that I in any way, personally or as a speaker for the

Conservative Party, in any way suggest a soft approach to the

trafficker. The problem is primarily two-fold. There is the

person who is not actually taking drugs but who is making a

fantastic financial profit behind the scenes. I don't care how

long society locks him or her up. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker,

that if we have to bring in an enlightened approach to

corrections, you have to try and be frank with yourself as to

what you are trying to correct. In the case of 50 per cent of

the offenders in jail, who are there because they have

committed crimes in an effort to finance their drug habit, you

are dealing with a person who is mentally and physically

sick.

I will be introducing a bill into this House later which

will outline in my view what would be a very

[ Page 327 ]

reasonable and sensible approach. It would take the drug

offender off the street and into a medical setting, while

providing the power to compulsorily retain that drug addict in

the medical setting until such time as rehabilitation, which

appears to have some real value, can be carried out.

The Attorney General has quoted in his speech the crime

statistics which are soaring at a disturbing rate, particularly

in the juvenile sector of the community. This is where the

point is well taken that many departments will have to be

involved in a preventative way through the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Cocke) in every attempt to prevent juveniles from becoming

involved in the drug scene and hence less likely to become

involved in crime. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this kind of

attitude, which the Minister implies in his comments regarding

the bill — that we should minimize custodial care and that we

should provide preventive measures in schools, and

rehabilitation and follow-up measures once the offender has

left jail — I think is certainly the right direction for any

programme of penal reform.

I noticed the other day in the newspaper, Mr. Speaker, in

that vein of rehabilitation and gradually re-introducing the

offender into society, the Attorney General was in some hot

water because he was permitting the employment of offenders in

the last three months of their sentence. The problem again

arose because they were being paid less than union wages.

I don't have the newspaper clipping in front of me but I

think that, in this instance, the Attorney General took the

correct stand. He wasn't prepared to enter into a debate about

union wages, but he was stressing the point that these men

spend the last three months in a transitional phase where they

are not completely in jail and they're not completely free in

society; so that when they finally do complete their sentence,

it isn't an abrupt episode where suddenly they're back in

society and free. This kind of rehabilitation, if this is what

is implied also in the comments the Attorney General has made,

will certainly have the support of this party.

I was a little distressed — not distressed — but I would

just question the Attorney General's comment that people should

not be in jail because they can't pay the fine. I agree that

poverty should not be the factor. But on the other hand, there

is a real feeling in society that citizens are progressively

tending to have less respect for the law. Here again, a

Conservative who speaks like this and mentions law and order

can so quickly be branded a John Bircher.

I'd hate to create the impression in the House today that I am in any way preaching

a strong, punitive right-wing approach to penal reform. But I must say, Mr.

Speaker, that the AG's comment should be re-emphasized; the protection of society

is the first requirement of the penal system. While minor offenders should not,

perhaps, be in jail because they cannot pay the fine, I think the kind of offence

for which you get fined $100 for what must be a reasonably minor offence must

in no way be confused with the violent type of offence which, I think, more

and more people in our society are becoming concerned about. I hope to goodness

that we never do reach the serious point to which civilization, or the lack

of it in the United States seems to have made it impossible to walk safely on

the streets after dark.

Nevertheless, when one talks about cutting down or reducing

the number of people in jail because they can't pay fines, let

us be very clear that we are talking about minor offenders. I

presume the Attorney General is talking about minor offenders.

This should not result in any diminution of custodial care

where it is required to protect society.

The prevention and follow-up aspects perhaps are not as

relevant to this bill because we are dealing mainly with the

setting up of a new branch of the department, but I don't think

this should be overlooked when we talk about crime in

general.

The whole involvement of drugs in the crime situation was

not really mentioned by the Attorney General. Perhaps when he

winds up this debate he would care to comment a little more

than he did in his earlier statement to his basic attitude in

relation to the task force recommendations. Would he tell the

House that he accepts the utter futility of locking up drug

addicts in jail? If he does, I would be interested to hear if

we are to embark upon some more enlightened system, as I say,

where a real effort is made, using the people he mentioned, the

John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society, the Salvation

Army, and all the different arms of the community that have

shown interest in many a year gone by, not just to penalize a

person for mistakes he or she has made, but to rehabilitate him

into society, and, if possible, to help him find a job.

The final point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that

the personnel in the prisons must also have not only their

rights to employment or collective bargaining recognized but

they must also be given all the protection they require in

carrying out their day-to-day jobs in a more violent society.

While we have been fortunate, I think, compared again to the

United States, in that we have had minimal riots or

disturbances within the jail scene, I think from comments I

have been told privately and from certain events reported in

the press, we must not, in trying to simplify the custodial

system, at any time reduce safety requirements or other

reduction of personnel to a point where the danger of the

guards being taken hostage is increased.

This seems to be an age where, unfortunately, violence is on

the increase and, while all these

[ Page 328 ]

positive, constructive measures which the Minister has

mentioned will receive the support of this party, I would only

end by repeating that the primary aim of a penal system is to

protect society.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Thanks very much, Mr.

Speaker. Before I speak in support of this bill, I would like

the House to join me in welcoming the first female born to a

Member of the socialist hordes in this House, young Ms.

Skelly.

Thanks very much.

I welcome this bill, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the setting up

of this new department as an indication of a new direction that

we are going into, as an indication of the new thrust and a new

way of dealing with the whole issue of penal reform and of

treatment and care and the way we behave towards offenders in

our society.

We could go on for hours, listing all the things that were

wrong with the old system. Speaking specifically of the old

system as it applies to the women's

section of Oakalla prison,

I would just like to talk about one or two things which, I

hope, will come to an end when this new department is set

up.

Presently in the women's

section of Oakalla prison, the

morale is so low, not just on the part of the women who are

there as prisoners, but on the part of the staff themselves,

that the turnover is very high. Consequently, they are

continually understaffed. The Attorney General just told us

that we now have a ratio of one staff person to two prisoners.

In the women's

section of Oakalla prison, it would be very,

very difficult indeed to justify or even to prove that such a

thing presently exists. In point of fact, none of the staff

stay there very long because they are so demoralized

themselves. There is a lot of friction between the prison

authorities and the inmates themselves as well as between the

staff members.

In the women's

section of Oakalla prison, as I am sure it is

also true in the male section, there is a very high degree of

drug trafficking. Nobody seems to care because, quite frankly,

the staff feels that there is very little they can do about it

at this time.

There is a shortage of doctors, there is a shortage of

psychologists, there is a shortage of social workers, there is

a shortage of any kind of service people whatsoever, not just

because the working conditions are bad but because the whole

atmosphere is so demoralizing. The feeling is that the past

government and society as a whole had very little concern for

these women once they were thrown in prison. The door was

locked and the key was thrown away.

It is my very fervent hope that this new department that is being set up under

this bill will certainly move as quickly as possible into changing these things.

A simple thing like medical supplies, Mr. Speaker, a simple thing like a medical

budget — something as small as this is not even adequate in the women's

section

of Oakalla prison.

I have been in contact with women who used to work at

Oakalla prison and a number of women who used to be in Oakalla

themselves. Some of the stories they tell about the ways in

which the authorities used to jeopardize any good sort of

things that would even spontaneously grow up in somewhere as

arid as Oakalla prison I think should be mentioned here.

The first thing is that there is no continuing programme for

inmates after they are released from Oakalla. There needs to be

some kind of rehabilitation planning. There are no half-way

houses that presently operate on behalf of the women — and I am

speaking specifically of the women involved in Oakalla because

I really don't know that much about the men.

The only volunteers who go into the women's

section of this

prison are the Elizabeth Fry workers, and they, on their own,

cannot hope to right so many of the wrongs that are there.

Quite often it is really difficult for them to understand some

of the concerns of some of these women in Oakalla because there

is a kind of a class difference between the two; the Elizabeth

Fry workers coming from the middle-classes and the upper

middle-class and the women in Oakalla not belonging to this

class.

One of the women who worked at Oakalla for two years had a

nervous breakdown, Mr. Speaker, and had to sign a resignation

form before being admitted to Riverview Hospital. When she was

released from Riverview, she tried to get her job again at

Oakalla and it took her two years of real fighting to be

reinstated. For some reason or other, to be mentally ill seems

to lessen your chances of being able to work in an institution

of this nature, even though as a community we deny that there

is any stigma attached to mental illness. The penal service

practises this kind of discrimination.

One of the things reported to me by one of the women was

that the intercom in the women's prison was often misused by

the staff. They sometimes used it to monitor the group-therapy

sessions. Little things like this, which are so important to

the prisoners there and maybe not so important to the staff,

really help to breed the air of distrust which is presently

existing in Oakalla.

One of the women told me about a programme which was set up

by the Burnaby mental health hospital to work as counselors

with some of the women in the mental health unit. It meant that

they would have to leave and go to the Burnaby mental health

unit for counselling.

This was terminated because a directive came down from

above, and no one was quite able to trace where above was, but

this directive came down which prohibited any treatment outside

of the prison. If we're talking about rehabilitation and

helping people

[ Page 329 ]

to be re-involved in the community, surely this would be a

first step and this should not be discouraged.

Another complaint which I received was about the school

which is supposed to be in existence in Oakalla. This is

described as a luxury which only comes into being from time to

time, when there is full staff; as soon as the staff ratio goes

down, the first thing that is cut is the school. It is not on a

continuing basis.

There used to be a programme in which women could partake to

get a diploma to work in a nursing home when they left the

prison. This programme was dropped, again for lack of staff, or

lack of money, or lack of interest on the part of the people

who run the prison. There's no occupational therapy programme

to prepare these women for jobs when they leave the prison. Now

they spend most of their time doing the laundry or

cleaning.

Even something as personal as discrimination on the basis of

religious belief exists in this prison. Women are required to

go to Catholic or Protestant services on Sunday, and it is not

recognized that they could be either agnostics, Jews, or

belonging to any of the eastern religions.

They are locked into their rooms, apparently, and deprived

of listening to a radio. This kind of really senseless way in

which we are treating adults — it's not even childish; it

doesn't make sense to say that that is the way we treat

children because quite frankly, we don't even treat children

that way any more.

And this is one of the reasons why I really welcome this

bill because I have great hopes for this new department. I

think it just has to get down to the business of changing some

of these things.

The use of medication in treating inmates who are not

cooperating: you know, really excessive doses, this is

ridiculous; this is not 1984, and this sort of thing cannot

continue. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that there are some times

when rehabilitation, if misused, really can be more punitive

than punishment itself. So this is one of the things that I

would certainly like this department to look at.

I believe that inmates, if they're going to work, should

work for a decent wage. They should be paid a just wage for

their labour. I think that they should be made to pay taxes out

of this wage. I don't support the idea of undercutting the

labour market, by any means. And I feel that any kind of

rehabilitation that is being designed has to take into account

the integration of all the services that are brought to bear.

No more of this fragmentation — the whole thing has to come

together. The inmates themselves, who are adults, have to be

involved in the decisions that affect their lives, have to be

involved in the kinds of programmes which are planned for

them.

So, Mr. Speaker, I support this bill as a first step and as a beginning. I

have very high expectations for this new department, and, as you know, if this

department does not live up to its expectations, I will be one of the first

people to stand on this floor and say so. Thank you very much.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I share the

hopes of the second Member for Vancouver-Burrard with respect

to this legislation. We're starting from a long way back, Mr.

Speaker.

I can understand the reluctance of the official opposition

to engage in this debate. When I think of the tragic neglect

the Corrections Service in this province suffered over the

years that they were in power and the attempts to cure the

problem by repression, and the failure of those attempts, no

wonder they aren't standing in this debate.

I remember when the Premier was sitting in opposition, stood

up and proposed for the most minor offences, the possibility of

weekend-leave passes — nothing happened. Just a simple little

device for someone who happened to be in jail for 10 days

because of some minor infraction — someone who wasn't a

criminal, who wasn't guilty of violent antisocial behaviour.

Now we're trying to pick that up. As I say, I share the hopes

expressed by the second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

I was a little disturbed to hear what the Attorney General

said in some of his remarks about how he was going to carry

this out. I thought his general outline was very imaginative,

but it lacked those specifics that would substantiate what he

said was the primary thrust, and that was to protect society

against the criminals in our midst…said that had to be the

primary responsibility of the Corrections Branch. Yet he spoke

about bringing the institutions into the community, using

volunteer services — volunteers whom the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) has already said he's not going to

use in the fulfilment of his responsibility. The strange

dissimilarity between the approach which we take toward people

who have run afoul of the law and been convicted of an offence,

deal with them through the use of volunteer people. But before

that ever happens, when they're in need of correction in the

community and social adjustment, volunteers aren't good enough

for that particular programme — so says the Minister of Human

Resources.

If I have any concern, Mr. Speaker, it's because I think

that the programme, as outlined by the Attorney General, is not

broad enough. It deals with the situation after the individual

has been convicted and sentenced.

We have this strange problem developing: We have courts of

this province, most of which fall within the responsibility of

the Attorney General. They may have a person come before them

charged with a crime; the evidence is produced; the judge makes

a finding of guilt, and then applies punishment. And so,

[ Page 330 ]

apparently, ends the work of the courts. The punishment is

designed to fit the crime; that's the general guideline, as the

Attorney General well knows. However, once that happens, and we

are to get into the matter of corrections, the punishment that

has been applied by a judge is suddenly going to be changed in

some way so that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, but

rather fits the criminal. Now, you see what you're doing, Mr.

Attorney General, through you Mr. Speaker? You're creating a

division between the Corrections Branch and the courts. Yes you

are, because the courts apply one set of rules; they have the

criminal passed before them and they say, "You're guilty,

you're going to go to jail for X number of days or months or

years." Then the Corrections Branch gets hold of them and says,

"Oh, we know what the judge has said, but actually we looked

into your particular problem and you're not really a bad guy,

and we think you should be handled in a different way."

We have a situation possibly developing, if we're to carry

this out — and if I'm in error, I trust that the Hon. Attorney

General will be at length to correct me, because I would like

to be assured this is not going to happen. But we're having a

situation develop such as we had under the unfortunate regime

of M. Goyer — and we know what went wrong between the courts

and the parole organization, and the care and custody of

criminal offenders when M. Goyer was Solicitor-General of

Canada. In this province we've had some very tragic results

from the breakdown of the kind of correction measures that the

federal government attempted to employ in some of its

institutions.

So I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney General with

this new Corrections Branch should be saying to us that it is

going to work hand in hand with the courts right from the

beginning. So when the offender comes before the courts, we

don't have him treated as a criminal — potential criminal — found guilty and punished, then some different treatment

applied. So the Corrections Branch can work with the courts to

ensure that from the very first moment that guilt is proven and

punishment is applied, the rehabilitative process, if it is

possible, commences then. And we won't be hearing from

provincial court judges, as we've heard in the past, that

they're not consulted with respect to the rehabilitative work

carried on by the people whom they have committed to

prison.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it also goes back even further

than that, because before you get to the courts, you've got a

law enforcement problem — a community problem. We all recognize

this. It seems to me that the Attorney General has a very

serious responsibility to carry out in that respect as well

because it affects this new Corrections Branch which we are

establishing in this legislation.

Two or three of the Members in making their comments this

morning on the principle of this bill have referred to drugs,

and I'm not going to refer to it again except that we know that

in our communities the drug problem is so serious that the law

enforcement officers are scarcely able to contain it, and that

is easily visible.

I think it is a tragedy when we find that in the beer

parlours in the City of Vancouver the drug traffic is so

prominent, so deep-rooted, that the police officers are unable

to control it in those public establishments.

Mr. Speaker, who has the responsibility to control and

regulate those establishments? The Hon. Attorney General (Hon.

Mr. Macdonald). We've got to start back at the community level

and the Attorney General has got to start back at the community

level, recognizing the problems that his Corrections Branch has

and making sure that we aren't producing the offenders that the

courts will deal with and the Corrections Branch will

eventually have to rehabilitate.

So I suggest that when approving this Corrections Branch we

must remind ourselves that the thrust is at least threefold.

There are three areas of responsibility, all of which come

together with the Department of the Attorney General, which

need careful consideration, the implementation of programmes

and the expenditure, I am certain, Mr. Speaker, of vast sums of

money. We are talking about doing away with some of our

institutions….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I like to hear you say that. There's the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett).

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I thought, Mr. Minister, that he might

be listening very carefully. I noticed that there was very

gentle applause. He didn't quite pick up his pen, Mr. Attorney

General, but….

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, pardon me. Yes. Mr. Attorney General, I

would remind you that the distinguished Deputy Minister of

Finance (Mr. Bryson) is also listening to this debate and I

hope that perhaps he may be moved in whatever way is required

to ensure that this can be carried out.

But as I was saying, we are talking about doing away with

Oakalla and these places. I think it is great, but what do we

provide instead? What kind of atmosphere, what kind of

community development, what kind of facility are we going to

provide to overcome the tragic results of a place like

Oakalla?

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you and every Member of this

House read with shock and dismay in the press of two days ago

that in one of the federal

[ Page 331 ]

institutions — not in this province but it certainly applies

here, I'm sure — it appears that the director of institutions

admitted that you had to beat prisoners — not as a beating, but

somehow or other to try and control those people.

I don't understand when a beating is not a beating. A broken

nose is a broken nose. It doesn't matter whether you get it

when you are being controlled or whether you get it as a result

of the unfortunate actions of an individual who is paranoiac,

or whatever the case may be, and doesn't know how to handle his

job — who knows that violence is the only way in which he can

respond to a particular situation.

Anyway, I would like to know what kind of facilities we are

going to provide in our community. They are needed, yes. They

are going to cost a lot of money. I would hope that the

Attorney General might indicate to what extent — now that he is

having this new branch created with a new Deputy Minister — they have already moved towards the answers to these

problems.

Surely we aren't at this stage just beginning with the

Corrections Branch Deputy Minister and then going to start

looking at the solutions. I think it would make me feel much

better and the community feel much better if we realized the

direction in which the Corrections Branch and the new Deputy

Minister are going to take us.

In a three-pronged attack let us spend the money, let's

solve the problem and let's get on with the job because if the

Attorney General indicates that the number of criminals is

going to double inside the next decade again, the longer we

wait the more expensive it becomes, and the whole system of the

administration of criminal justice in this province will break

down.

On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to support the

bill.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to participate very briefly in this debate because

up to this point, I think, almost without exception it has been

a discussion between purely professional persons. As a layman I

have at least one comment I would like to leave with the

House.

The Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, I think has outlined his

intentions pretty clearly this morning and we will learn more

as we get into the committee stage of debate on this bill. I

wish him well in what he is attempting to do. There are others,

perhaps, far more qualified than I who could speak on one

particular aspect of the whole question of dealing with the

offender. I look particularly, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Premier

on the basis of his many years experience in the social work

field.

But it seems to me that there are, in virtually every community of British

Columbia, individuals whom the community police department can identify as those

likely to commit a major crime at some time in the future, short- or long-term.

They know of the individuals. They are powerless to act, other than to observe.

They know the general type of crime that is going to be committed by the individual

on the basis of past contact with the individual.

I don't for a moment suggest that that person should be

locked up with the key tossed away. Of course not. But our

police forces are, as I understand it, pretty well powerless to

deal with the individual in a constructive and preventive

manner. Surely the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, would look to

other Ministers, Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) and Health

(Hon. Mr. Cocke), in an attempt to really tackle this problem

to prevent a lot of our crime before it happens.

There was an event in the greater Victoria area not too many

weeks ago where any police official could have told you that

the crime would happen; sooner or later the crime would take

place, yet nothing could be done.

A means of rendering assistance — medical, psychiatric,

whatever it may be — to those individuals before it is

necessary to lock them up surely must be one of the main

aspects of this new department and this new approach.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, just following on

from the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), I

think the House should know of examples where community groups

are attempting, with the police, to try to do exactly what the

Member hopes for.

Let's be specific. The RCMP detachment at Colwood under Sgt.

Ted Foster, with his 24-man staff, is trying to work with

psychologists, psychiatrists, school counselors, probation

officers and a citizens' group. I think we should recognize

this and give encouragement to Sgt. Foster and others.

In Vancouver, more specifically, the Attorney General has

been working with Superintendent Oliver in trying to build up

some kind of a community support group so that when two or

three uniformed Vancouver or Colwood officers walk the street

on a Friday or a Saturday or Sunday night, they know that they

have the support of the community group of people who, over

many, many discussions and meetings, are beginning to develop

some kind of a community responsibility.

Even though we have 3,300 RCMP personnel in British

Columbia, there is no possible way that these people on their

own can really do the policing and the detecting that the

Member for Saanich hopes for.

So it is certainly my hope, as we deal with corrections,

that we try to do some more preventive policing, more

preventive detection. I would hope the House could give support

to people like Sgt. Foster

[ Page 332 ]

and Supt. Oliver. Surely it is possible to still look to the

potential in people, especially at an early age, trying to hope

for the best out of people, trying to go into a situation where

you don't expect trouble and, you know, in a positive way

trying to prevent crime.

I think we all know that on a Friday night…last Friday

night at midnight I went down to the main street of Mission

where there have been anxieties. The mayor phoned us last

Wednesday very concerned about crime and people standing on

cars and breaking off meters and so forth. We had a meeting

last Saturday with the Public Safety Committee in Mission.

What I am appealing to this House for is that you don't look

for trouble. I think that there has to be an attitude, a public

stance, that is positive and rehabilitative.

We are told that we have the largest number of people in

institutions, in jails, per capita than any western nation, and

I think this is kind of an alarming indictment of our

country.

Mr. Speaker, I should just remind the House that of any

riding in this House I probably have more jails, certainly

provincial jails, than any other Member on this floor, and it

is kind of a strange situation. I look here at the physical

inventory of provincial institutions under the Attorney General

and there are at least 800 people, often very young people, who

are in institutions in Maple Ridge; and specifically at Haney

Correctional Institute. But I hope the House recognizes the

more positive and smaller forestry camps at Boulder Bay, Stave

Lake, Pine Ridge and Blue Mountain.

Incidentally these were started, I believe, under Warden Epp

who is now going to be the new Deputy Minister in charge of

corrections, a person who, of all people in my experience — and

I am fairly new into this — certainly gives feelings of

confidence among the staff people in Maple Ridge. I am

personally very happy about his choice. You know, it's like

asking for a fellow to be a university president. I don't think

it's the most exciting prospect and yet it's an instance of a

person whom we are able to get back from eastern Canada to do a

very big job and yet a job I know he is up to.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He won't last long.

[Mr. Gardom in the chair.]

MR. ROLSTON: Well, no.

Mr. Speaker, I think it should be reminded, there are four volumes of this

B.C. corrections study. I just look at the volume on facilities and it is pretty

depressing to read the comments on the facilities. I don't want to take too

much time here during the debate, but just to describe the impersonal kind of

feeling that these people must have in the various institutions. Even though

Haney Correctional was a $5 million institution built in the late '50s, the

description of this institution is very discouraging: the permanency of the

institution, the fact that you really feel you are just going into a concrete

jungle, a maze, a very stifling experience. I just can't believe that there

could be anything personal and humanizing come out of that kind of atmosphere.

Even with the best of staff, I just don't know how it could be possible.

I think the House knows that a federal institution is going

to be built in Mission. I am appealing, and I have written lots

of letters hoping, that this would not be just another concrete

jungle at great expense to the taxpayers. What we need is a

more liberating, a more humanizing, surely a more natural kind

of environment for people to go through this kind of process,

in many cases of just simply growing up, in many cases learning

how to relate back to people. It's pretty hard to relate to

long cement corridors. It's very hard to relate to the noise.

The sheer noise, the echoing in these mazes I find very, very

disappointing.

One thing I guess I do hope is that with this new

administrative procedure, with the fact now that the staff

people, at least 1,200 people in direct provincial staff

relations, have immediate access to a Deputy Minister now, a

person whom they can trust. I think that is significant.

I do not know why, but there seems to be a real lack of

confidence among the staff people I have met. I have struggled

with that, I've gone to the union meetings; I've tried to

listen. I was just barraged last September and October. These

people felt it was a semi-military kind of operation which just

can't bring out positive results in people. I certainly hope

that the support services for the staff will be more human,

less para-military, and that personalizing things could

happen.

I guess everybody wants to have neat solutions, but one of

the things that I think has been happening, and should be some

kind of a handle, are the community projects that these people

are involved in. I think the House knows that for 16 years — I

could be corrected, but I believe 16 years — there has been in

operation a kind of outward camp of Haney Correctional on Stave

Lake, with a puny budget of $40,000, apart from the regular

budget of Haney Correctional, to do logging and clearing of

debris on Stave Lake. There was a large descriptive

article in

the Vancouver Province last March on this project which I think

is worthy of the consideration of this House. We fortunately

now have a budget of $100,000 above the regular Haney

Correctional operating budget for this Stave Lake project

itself.

We are all impressed with what Bond Brothers and other people are doing in

the lakes up in the northern part of B.C. I am hoping, and I have made a lot

of phone calls hoping that more of this kind of outward,

[ Page

333 ]

physical involvement with these young people can be seen.

Personally I would like to see these people simply work a

normal 8-hr. day like anybody else does, from 8 until 4:30 and

then go back to the prison at night. And, as the Members seem

to be saying, with the normal pay. Pay room and board out of

this, pay income tax out of this, and be part of some kind of a

work experience. We all know how impossible it is once these

people leave, once they have finished their sentence or are

paroled out. Often they have very little money with them, they

have very, very few contacts and probably no likely contacts

for work. Unless they are fortunate to have Big Brothers or

somebody to help them, it's just going to go back down the tube

again.

So my hope is that, first of all, there is greater morale; I

think this is possible with the new leadership we are getting.

I hope that there are more staff services, more support

services, especially in the community — not just on Stave Lake

projects — helping people with their gardening, their driving. I

don't know if it's actually happened but there is some hope in

Maple Ridge that we can have one of their people driving for

Meals on Wheels, that there could be a lot of just simple

carpentry and other projects.

Incidentally, to my knowledge nobody has ever escaped from

the Stave Lake logging project, which has been going on for 16

years. So community projects and community involvement I think

are very, very important. Let's face it, none of us should be

surprised if this is a high-risk business. We are all very

upset with what happened when Anderson escaped — the Member from

Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) isn't here — but we were

disappointed with the fact that Anderson escaped from the

Matsqui Institution.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He escaped from Parliament in Ottawa.

(Laughter.)

MR. ROLSTON: He escaped from Parliament in Ottawa.

We were upset with that instance; it was embarrassing and

maybe there should have been greater control but, as Walter

Petkau from the Abbotsford Community Services said, "It is a

high-risk business." You are not taking risks keeping the guy

incarcerated. It is a high-risk business involving these people

in the community, but I would like to think that there is some

of kind of hope for something to happen for these people.

I don't know if you realize it, but there is an active United Church minister,

ordained three years ago, who probably spent longer on death row than anybody

in the recent history of corrections in this province. He is now actively serving

our Lord and the people of this province. He was a person who, with very little

help from the Corrections Service, was given rehabilitation and we are very

pleased. There are not many, but I think there are a few instances where people

certainly have been able to swim upstream against the stifling kind of 19th

century punitive programmes of corrections. I know that this is a new atmosphere;

this is a new day. Again, I hope for preventative community involvement and

strongly support this legislation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, may I

congratulate you on taking the Chair.

As the closer for this party in this debate, I would like to

make a few comments on this bill, which we will certainly be

supporting.

First, I think the Attorney General might well have given us

a little more information upon the crime statistics, for

British Columbia in particular. It is true, of course, that

crime is increasing substantially, but B.C. is first on the

national scale for murder, first for wounding and assault,

first for rape, and first for suicide; only when you get to

violent robbery do we come second, and I believe we come second

to the Province of Quebec.

The statistics are really quite startling. In terms of

murder, we had in B.C. in '62, 3.9 per 100,000; 1974, 4.1 per

100,000. Quebec for the same years had 1.4, 1.9 by example. In

other words, more than double in British Columbia.

Part of this probably, and I will give them full credit, is

the effectiveness of the RCMP in this province. But certainly

there is no question that violent crime is a great deal greater

in British Columbia than elsewhere, and I wonder whether, in

closing the debate, the Attorney General will comment upon

this, whether he will give us some indication as to whether

that task force that he has set up almost a year ago has

reported to him on this, and whether perhaps he can make this

information available.

I may certainly be at fault myself, Mr. Speaker, in not

knowing of a report of the three-man commission that he

appointed back in December of last year. I may be at fault for

not knowing whether they sent a report to my office, but I have

not found one yet. I've been searching my shelves in a somewhat

desultory fashion earlier this morning, unable to find one,

and my Hon. friend from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) also was unable

to discover whether he had received one. I wonder whether the

Attorney General would assist us by making this type of

information available. It may well be the report has been

presented; I am no way suggesting it hasn't been presented. I'm

just saying a year ago you set up a three-man commission when

you said that the existing facilities were "bombed out" by drug

offenders and that they were going to discuss such things as

correction matters being moved to the Department of

Rehabilitation or a separate

[ Page 334 ]

department, such as in Ontario.

This report was expected before or during the next session

of the Legislature on January 25, 1973. It may well have been

put forward then, I don't know, but perhaps comment on this by

the Minister — if it's late, why — would be helpful to us in

this debate.

No question, though, that there is a serious problem in

British Columbia. Perhaps the Minister might like to comment,

if he has information from that commission, on why the problem

is so much worse here.

There are questions, or course, specifically with respect to

Oakalla raised by the Hon. lady from Vancouver-Burrard (Ms.

Brown). I have referred to an

article in the newspaper by Simma

Holt where it states flatly that if fire occurred in Oakalla,

particularly at night, most of the inmates would probably

die.

She is quoting a matron from the prison, and I will repeat

the quote here because I think it is important for the Attorney

General to be reminded of this article: "If anything happened

to the matron in the front office and there was no way to get

at the lock keys for the outside door we would all die."

This was said by one matron who had done night duty for

several years. I know it is being phased out; I know changes

are being made. I just wonder, however, whether we might have a

word or two on that from the Minister when he closes the

debate.

Mr. Speaker, the emphasis in this debate has been on parole,

and I think that is excellent. It has been said, and I believe

it, that there is no way, really, to reform a prisoner and

there is no incentive to reform unless parole exists. In

systems which are tightened up, where sentences are passed down

and there is no parole, there is no incentive for a prisoner to

reform and that's it. You are going to have a man returned to

the streets at the end of his sentence without any improvement

in his character or mental make-up which will make him less

likely to repeat the crime. So parole, obviously, is

critical.

However, if it is critical we are going to have to do a

great deal better in the future than has been done in the past

in selling this concept to the public. The rash of articles and

criticisms of the federal parole system which came out a year

ago, two years ago, led to a tremendous amount of distrust in

the overall concept of parole. This must be combated properly

and parole must be explained properly if the system is to work

at all.

For example, Judge Bewley wrote an

article for the Weekend

Magazine about a year ago. He talked about 62 parole failures

in B.C. and they were pretty horrifying. Yet, at the same time,

he failed to talk of the 1,500 paroles granted in that same

period of time. Not all of those 1,500 were successful, but he

was talking about 62 out of a relatively large number.

This brings up perhaps the most critical point. We are often told, as politicians,

"Well, we don't mind parole — just make sure you don't make any mistakes." There

is no way to prevent mistakes in parole. There is a way to cut it down, but

there is no way to prevent it. For us to mislead the public into suggesting

that we are going to create a parole system which is perfect and in which only

those who are sure-fire, clean-cut citizens are going to be released is a very,

very important thing. We are going to have to tell them there are risks involved

in the whole system of parole.

Now in British Columbia there are 10,000 on parole. In the

federal system, I believe, there are 42,000 on parole across

the country, of whom a substantial portion will be in British

Columbia. We, after all, have the largest number of violent

criminals.

So, we have a large number of people paroled in this

province, either federally or provincially, who are walking the

streets — 70 per cent of them, I believe, have jobs — and who

are trying to reform in most cases. But there are a number of

those who in absolute numbers, and it may come up to quite a

substantial number, will not succeed or will be returned for

parole violation or will repeat crimes. That is the price

society is going to have to learn to pay. It sounds somewhat

tough, perhaps, to put it in that way, but unless you give a

man the opportunity to work, you are not going to get him

reformed. Unless you give the prisoner the opportunity to get

paroled, you are not going to reform him. In essence, what I am

saying is that the parole system is critical to cutting down on

the number of crimes by criminals repeating their previous

offences.

It does result in a certain number of mistakes. Efforts, we

hope, will be made to reduce these to the minimum but some will

occur and the public is going to have to learn that the number

that do occur are, in total number, far less than would occur

otherwise without a parole system. I don't think that the public

understands it now. When the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) was speaking, it occurred to me that perhaps the

former judge, the Progressive Conservative candidate in New

Westminster, Judge Maurice Mulligan, would have found his

remarks rather difficult to take. I was very pleased with the

remarks from the Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: I believe it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yea-a-a!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am sure he will repeat those remarks

when I say it was somewhat different from the tune sung in the

Okanagan in the last by-election. Now, of course, the Member

for Oak Bay is, as he says, the leader. I am very pleased

because I think he is adopting a very liberal approach.

Mr. Speaker, that's one point I leave with the

[ Page 335 ]

Attorney General right now.

Now, we turn to the bill itself. We talked at some length

about parole. We talked at some length about crime and drugs in

this debate. But the bill itself, according to the explanatory

note, is a fairly pedestrian and innocuous document. The

purpose of this bill is to replace the Corrections Service with

the Corrections Branch — in other words, it's a name change — which will be directly under the control of the Attorney

General and the Deputy Minister of Corrections.

In other words, this bill, in terms of principle, in terms

of what it does, doesn't really deal with many of the subjects

we talked on. It doesn't deal with drugs, it doesn't deal with

parole per se, and in this respect I think the bill can be — I

won't say criticized — I think it could be questioned.

First, the Minister has told us that we're going to

establish a new Deputy Minister who is going to report to

another Deputy Minister. Administratively, I think that is a

bad way to handle it, in my personal view. If you are going to

have one Deputy Minister for your department, Mr. Attorney

General, fine. If, however, you want to establish another

Ministry and you want another Deputy Minister, fine, but I

don't like this idea of you establishing a new Deputy Minister,

reporting to a second Deputy Minister — or I should say a first

Deputy Minister — when you have already just established an

Associate Deputy Minister whose purpose has apparently yet to

be defined. You are going to have at least three Deputy

Ministers or former Deputy Ministers running around knocking

heads together trying to get your ear, and I think that with

your own personal problems in your own department this is a

curious way of going about it.

Essentially, all this does is upgrade a Corrections Branch

and you are going to call it a Ministry, or at least you set it

up under a Deputy Minister. I wonder: what is the

administrative need for this? You haven't defined it yourself.

It doesn't, in itself, give any more weight or importance to

what this Branch should be doing or could be doing, just by

changing the names of certain people, changing the

establishment. I haven't yet heard a decent explanation.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It brings the control to you and strikes out in previous

Acts where control was either separated or where it was joined. It is now in

your own hands, Mr. Minister. True. Again, could that not have been achieved

without establishing what essentially might turn out to be a new Ministry? I

don't know. I just wonder at the administrative propriety of having this type

of situation. I can't see that that, in itself, will solve any of the problems

that we have talked about. That's the point that I am trying to make. I think

it is a valid one. I think it is fairly important.

In the past, the job was done by a director and you haven't

really explained why an upgrading in name is going to make the

job done all that much better. So I would trust, Mr. Speaker,

through you to the Minister, that in closing the debate, as

well as more general comments I have asked for, the Minister

will refer more specifically to this Act which is basically,

apparently, a name-changing exercise, as well as a slight

administrative alteration, and will indicate how this type of

relatively modest step in the administrative field is really

going to help us in solving some of the other problems that

have been talked about by many Members from all parties.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we will be supporting this

legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before calling upon the Hon. Member for

Comox (Ms. Sanford), I would like to draw to the attention of

the Hon. Members that it is the responsibility of the office of

Speaker to maintain both decorum and propriety within the

House. (Laughter.) It has always been considered appropriate

that Members leaving the House or Members entering the House

acknowledge the Chair — not necessarily the person in the chair

but the office of the Chair — and I would hope that all of the

older Members of the House would follow the good example of the

new Members and do just that in the future. (Laughter.)

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak

just very briefly about one aspect of this whole problem. That

is the area of the stigma which is attached to people who have

served a term in prison, particularly as it relates to job

opportunities.

The Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) this

morning outlined for us the depressing conditions under which

the prisoners, at least in the women's section, live at Oakalla

and how demoralized they felt. I think that people who have

served their term, have completely been rehabilitated, have

gone through all the processes that are involved and have

received retraining must also feel very demoralized and

depressed because of the stigma attached to the fact that they

have served a term in prison. No matter what their behaviour is

once they get out, they find it difficult to obtain employment

because of the attitude of society towards them.

Now, I would like this new Corrections Branch, if possible,

to take a look at this whole aspect of the problem of

corrections. Perhaps they could embark upon some kind of an

educational programme to enlighten society about the fact that

these people have paid their penalties; they are now

rehabilitated; let us accept them as people in our society.

I would like to point out this business of stigma, this

whole aspect of it, by relating one particular case,

[ Page 336 ]

which has been brought to my attention. This involved a man

who served eight years in prison for armed robbery, which he

committed with a toy gun. There was no violence involved.

He served his time in prison and was rehabilitated. This man

is now 60 years old, it is 30 years since he was released from

prison and he has quite a story to relate, about trying to fit

back into society, trying to obtain a job like everyone else in

society.

Even though this man was the first person with a prison

record to be accepted into the Masonic order in 1964, even

though he was one who could now be accepted by the Shriners as

well, and was accepted by that group in 1967, and even though

he served as a warden at a church for some time in Toronto, he

was unable to find the usual kinds of jobs most others in

society can. He was unable to work for the government and he

found that he was unable to find employment with any large

business.

In 1952, for instance, he took an extension course at the

University of Toronto. This was a national safety course and he

became a certified safety director. But because of his record

he was unable to use the training that he had received and

could not get that job.

He's been able to do such things as work as a driving

instructor for the YMCA and for St. John's Ambulance. Those

people would accept him, but he was not accepted by government

because of his record and he was not accepted by the general

business community because of his record.

Now this man, although he married, decided not to have any

children because of the stigma which society had attached to

him because of his serving eight years in prison for armed

robbery with a toy gun. Now I would like this new branch to

have a look at this problem to see if we can't correct it.

Thank you.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): This bill will, I hope, and I'm sure

all of us hope, establish a whole new direction in corrections

in British Columbia. Like the Hon. Member for Dewdney (Mr.

Rolston), I served in the ministry. Of course in that capacity

we had many occasions to deal with offenders and to be called

into situations where there were very serious problems that

either had led already or could lead to infractions of the law

and we would often go to court with young people. So we

developed a very good understanding of the personal problems

involved in the whole process, and they are considerable.

All I can say at the beginning of my comments is that the

first thing we should establish, if we are going to do

something, let us do it properly, otherwise it's not worth

doing.

For example, there was a drug offender who was arrested for armed robbery because

he needed some money to get some drugs for his habit. He was sent finally to

Matsqui federal institution, and I thought this was very good; maybe after a

certain period of time, two or three years or so, he may be successfully rehabilitated

and will then be able to take his place in society. The facts were otherwise.

He certainly did spend some time there, a couple of years, but he was only out

a short time when he was convicted of a further crime and was again incarcerated.

I discovered that they had not properly funded the thing;

there were not adequate staff. They'd not actually instituted

the programme that was originally recommended for this

multi-million-dollar institution. So you know, it was really a

waste of the taxpayer's money. They might as well have created

something a little cheaper and simply locked him up and thrown

the key away. It would have been a greater service to him,

probably, and also to society.

So my first plea is, whatever we do, let's fund it

adequately, let's do it right. Let's not have half-baked

programmes. All we've had in the whole system so far are

half-baked programmes. Every programme I've run into is a

half-baked programme. Every kind of situation seems to be half

baked.

The probation services are not adequately staffed. The

so-called extra additional institutions are not adequately

staffed. The only exception seems to be the one that he

referred to in the Maple Ridge area, and there are some others

under the provincial services that seem to be adequately done.

But the first plea is let's do the thing right. Let's put the

money out that needs to be put out and try to do a proper job.

And let's make sure we get the very best of personnel to run

them.

The second point I want to make is that we have to be

concerned both with the protection of the public and with

rehabilitation. It seems to be the weakness of almost every

previous system that they always go either one way or the

other. We seem to be incapable of doing anything rationally in

terms of doing both of these things at once. There is not

adequate protection to the public and the government is accused

of being easy on criminals. The courts are accused of being

easy on criminals, which is often the case. Or else we do the

opposite; we have a very good system of protection in a sense,

but we don't do anything for the person who is incarcerated, or

make any serious attempt to rehabilitate him.

I think that the rational thing is that we must be concerned

about and address ourselves to both of these things at once.

There are many innocent people around the province, and I've

seen many instances of this, as I'm sure we all have, of people

who have been preyed upon by people who are ruthless and who

are engaging in criminal activities, and yet seem to be able to

get away with it time and time again; many of them don't even

get caught.

I remember a professor of sociology of mine at UBC, Dr.

Topping, who had specialized in

[ Page 337 ]

criminology. He said that only one person in 10 who commits

a crime actually gets caught and put in jail. So that certainly

we need a study system of detection and ferreting out and

finding people who are preying upon others in any form, whether

it be the very sophisticated kind of kiting cheques, or whether

it be the rackets and that sort of thing. Every kind of crime

must be rooted out and ferreted out.

On the other hand, we also must make sure that there's the

very best of rehabilitation provided so that, if there's any

possibility that the person can return to a normal life, that

he will in fact return and make a contribution to the good and

well-being of society.

A third point. I think that the new approach in corrections

should — and I would assume and I'm sure that it will, but I

just want to mention these points — take into account the

different kinds of people who are involved in crime and make

the necessary provisions for each kind. For example, one thing

that I noted and this is, I think, a fact, and that is that

probably nine out of 10 criminals incarcerated or involved in

the courts in B.C. are males, and maybe about one-tenth are

women.

Now women could stand up and say: We're more righteous and

virtuous and so on. I think the sexual difference in the makeup

of people biologically has to be taken into account; there has

to be a provision made to ensure that there is adequate service

to compensate for the different makeup of males to females

involved in crime. After all, if there are so many more men in

jail than there are women, there must be a difference between

them in their make-up, the reasons that they get involved in

crime. And if there's a difference….

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order?

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): The point of order is

simply this, that the principle of this bill is the simple

restructuring of the department to provide for two separate

divisions where there was previously one. We've gone on for two

hours on a wide-ranging debate on everything under the sun

except the principle of this bill. I suggest you keep the

speakers a little closer to the principle of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Well I must say that this debate certainly has

been getting down to specifics, but it is true also that this

does refer to both men and women as persons. I suppose that

would allow a certain delineation of the subject between the

two sexes, as long as you treat them equally. Would the Hon.

Member proceed.

MR. DENT: Yes, I speak to the principle of the bill, which is the new

direction in corrections in British Columbia. I think that this is the whole

principle of the bill and that's what I am addressing myself to.

Now, as I said, I would hope — and this has been simply an

observation of fact — that the attitude of many people in

society is well, if the young motorcyclist or somebody who's a

rough, tough character commits a crime, you just chuck him in a

cement cell and forget him because he's a rough, tough

character and that's the way you treat rough, tough

characters.

But actually underneath that is a very sensitive

personality, who is often very insecure and who often requires

far more help than a woman who's often very quiet and peaceful

and just kites cheques or embezzles. We need to adjust our

thinking to fit the kinds of personalities and the kinds of

special problems that each one has.

Also, the second kind of criminal is organized crime. I

think organized crime, obviously, is going to require a very

sophisticated kind of system, and I certainly hope we do not go

easy or think that we can always rehabilitate people who are

involved in organized crime. They have to be treated very

differently than people who are obviously able to be

rehabilitated in a different sense.

The same with transient criminals; the people who simply

wander into the province and wander out again and commit

crimes. They're very difficult to control as compared with ones

who are brought up and raised in the province and who have

roots here. So again, there needs to be special consideration

given for the transient criminal. There seems to be quite a

number of that type right now. There seems to be a lot that

have moved into the province recently or come in; they're

involved in crime, and suddenly they're in B.C. for a couple of

years in the penitentiary or in the jail. Maybe their problem

is, again, a specialized one.

Similarly with young offenders, I think the only solution is

really probation — but very good probation services. Many young

offenders would never commit a crime again if they had proper

probationary services. But when they're locked up even for

short periods, they meet other offenders and they emulate their

heroic qualities. They're influenced by the fact that they're

courageous and they've got guts, and so on, and they wind up

committing more crimes.

Whereas if they had very good and

extensive probation services, this wouldn't happen. I've seen

this on many occasions.

The fourth major point is that if we're going to take our

new system of corrections into the communities of the province

and involve people there, I think this is very good, I think

this is very realistic. I think the community must accept the

responsibility for its own offenders to a greater

[ Page 338 ]

degree. But if they're going to do this, they're going to

need a lot of assistance from the department; they're going to

need some resources and guidance.

Again, I think the move that we've made in interdepartmental

cooperation between Health and Human Resources and the other

departments that may be involved is a good step in the right

direction. But it has to be carried through aggressively

because otherwise we're going to wind up with a shambles. If

the communities are assisted in this process and participate, I

think it can be the greatest thing that's ever happened in

terms of correction, and I welcome that move very much. But

again, it must be done well; otherwise it will simply

disintegrate into shambles.

The final point: one of the things I think we fail to

recognize in the whole system of justice is the fact that

penalties and sanctions have been a traditional method of

measuring the moral values of the community or of a group.

For example, if you get a parking ticket in the City of

Vancouver, it looks something like a Safeway shopping list it's got a list of all the offences that you can commit — traffic infractions and so on — and what the penalty is for

each one. At least, that's what it was when I got my traffic

ticket; I haven't had one for a few years. As I said, it just

looked like a shopping list.

But one thing you saw when you looked through it instantly

was the fact that they attached a different importance or value

to each offence. So if you merely over parked, it was $4 at

that time. I guess it has increased since then. If you went

through a red light, that was $25. So obviously, even a fool

could see that going through a red light was a much more

serious offence than over parking. Our common sense would tell

us without looking at that ticket that that's the case.

But that's not so much the case with other things. There are

some things where the value is only really brought home to

somebody by the penalty or the sanction that's attached to that

particular offence. Then they understand the value of it to the

community.

For example, where rape to somebody might seem like an

unimportant thing, or infanticide might seem to somebody only

one step away from abortion and therefore not really important,

the fact is that the penalties prescribed for these offences

indicate the degree of importance that is attached to it by the

community.

Therefore, I would hope that in any system where we change our direction in

corrections, we ensure that young people especially understand the importance

of things to the community. If we can achieve it in some other way other than

locking them up for eight years for robbing a bank with a toy gun, then it should

be done. But there should be every effort made to get across to young people

the importance the community ascribes to particular acts.

In one community you can do something and nothing will

happen to you; the community doesn't care a fig for it. In

another community, they care a great deal and they would bring

down the full weight of the law on you. But that's where so

many young people get into trouble. If there is some very clear

way that young people, perhaps through probation services and

other services, can be brought to understand the fact that

communities ascribe different values to different actions in

each community in each situation, they may conduct themselves

accordingly and show a respect for the community values.

Thank you very much.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I support

this bill. I've listened to quite a debate on the penalties and corrections

that go on, but I'm one who believes that an ounce of prevention is worth a

pound of cure. I don't think we do enough in the early stages of our young people.

Schooling, I think, could do a lot more in their curriculum in teaching a child

their rights and their wrongs and respect for the police.

Some of this, of course, stems from the family and a lot can

be done in the home; but more counselling could be done in the

schools. I've noticed that the attitudes of young people to the

police is such that they build up an animosity. If a policeman

stops them and corrects them on something, they get pretty

snotty with them and away they go. The first thing you know, a

simple little thing ends up in something big, and probably a

fight with the police. I feel that not enough counselling is

done in the schools to educate these young people in the real

respect for the law and that the police have got a job to do.

We won't have to go to the correction and to the courts with a

lot of these cases if we did this.

MR. SPEAKER: The Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): First Member, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. In this House, if you are sitting in

the front, you are usually the second Member; if you're sitting

in the back, you're the first. I can't figure it out.

MR. BARNES: It only logically follows that if you're in the

cabinet, you should be the first Member, I suppose. (Laughter.)

Now, that's an aside.

I would like to enter the debate in support of the motion,

Mr. Speaker, in this particular instance, primarily because I

am a long, long time professional

[ Page 339 ]

in this field. As soon as I graduated from the school of

social work I worked at the young offenders unit at Oakalla,

and then, following our now Premier, out at Haney Correctional

institution, and then working with the Narcotic Addiction

Foundation for four years. So I'll probably have the shortest

speech.

I would just like to suggest to the Members that the idea of

a sentence should not carry with it an idea of public

retribution. We have these institutions, and quite often we

don't look at them for the intended purpose. That is, the

fundamental principle behind an institution should be to

provide a service. But I think that when it becomes a place of

retribution, to get even, so to speak, where you have people

locked up because we don't know what to do with them or we're

going to punish them, then the institution no longer serves the

purpose for which it was intended.

The idea of corrections, to me, is simply that: we think

there is a problem we can correct. If we don't then something's

wrong in the overall objective. When we talk about a sentence,

it should be related to a goal — six months, or a year or two

years — and should be related to a plan, an objective. I don't

think a person should be thrown a sentence with no objective,

no plan, no goal.

Keeping this in mind, I'm wondering if the public is being

kept up-to-date on the ideas of what a correctional institution

is set up for. I think that the Corrections Branch, or

corrections department, should have as part of its objectives a

parallel programme that assists the public in understanding

what it is attempting to do.

I would hazard a guess that most people who think of

criminals think of someone who is all wrong and deserves to pay

for something. But criminals, or whatever we want to call them,

are people like you and I, Members of this Assembly, who have

not been able to perform according to some standards that have

been laid down.

We should keep these standards in mind. We should keep in

mind the rules of our social structure, of the society that we

are living in today. These need to be changed from time to

time. We need to consider the difficulty within which a person

has to function. These rules sometimes become very

unsatisfactory for the types of problems that we are all faced

with from day to day. You know, some of the things on the

books, some of the rules that we live under, are really old

hat, and it is like enforcing laws that are no longer

enforceable. Young kids smoking cigarettes is just one example:

if you are under 16 you are not supposed to be able to smoke,

but all the kids do.

But when you have a society that is not prepared to change and itself keep

up the regulations that it expects the members to follow, and you put people

in jail or punish them for it, then I think that that makes it impossible for

those who are doing rehabilitation to be honest and really be an example for

the people they are working with.

I worked out at Haney, about 10 or 15 years ago now, and I

recall when I was in the social training department….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nine years.

MR. BARNES: It was only nine? It seems longer. Well, maybe…. It was in 1969, I think. Yes, 1959 — 13 years,

14 years.

But we had double fences around the institution — those

cyclone fences or whatever — they are about 10 or 15 feet high,

and we had towers. This was at the time that that institution

was supposed to be a medium security institution that was going

to be a forward look; only the first offender-type people would

be involved. All the modern techniques would be used — opportunities for people to get a pre-release experience at a

place called Gold Creek Camp, and so forth.

But at the same time, while I was really doing a con job, a

selling job, a propaganda job, I was really being quite

dishonest and insincere because I feel now, when I look back on

it, that I was a front man for an insincere system because what

was happening was….

Now, to show you the structure of this thing — I don't think

it has changed that much — you may put one warden in there, but

he's got two attitudes, one for custody and one for social

rehabilitation, and it is impossible to do both at the same

time. I think this is what one of the other Members was

suggesting.

So, the Deputy Warden of custody was responsible for seeing

that the towers were manned; the Deputy Warden of social

training was telling me to go out and convince him that those

towers didn't mean anything. So here I am, I'm going to take a

group of kids out to the field and we're going to play some

ball and talk about working together as a team and trusting

each other, getting passes to go out into the community, and so

forth. And they couldn't get anywhere near that fence without

the guard getting uptight, coming out and getting his

binoculars on them to make sure no one tried to get over it.

This was a very tense situation. Now this was happening in the

last 12 years. I don't know if it is still going on now — I

haven't been back to the place since I left, but I don't think

it has changed too much.

But how is it that we can allow ourselves in this day and

age of technological advances to lag so far behind technically

in the field of sociology, I mean, to not understand human

behaviour? We talk about understanding the indicators of how

people behave as they develop — the age, the stage — the things

that tell us something about their experiences as related to

their behaviour…and for us to expect people to behave

better on the outside than they were on the inside under those

conditions. I believe we should not

[ Page 340 ]

feel that people should be proven guilty until they are

innocent. That is, if they are in jail, why can't we trust

them? And if they fail then we say, "Fine, okay, we'll have to

have a more secure situation."

What I am thinking of is the idea of a work programme which

another Member suggest — I think it was the Member for Dewdney

(Mr. Rolston). Why not give them a full experience if they have

to be in an institution? Why be concerned about people

escaping? I would suggest that about 1 per cent or less would

ever even try to escape; and if they try to escape then we'll

put that 1 per cent in an institution where they can't get out — some kind of more secure setting. But I will bet you that 99

per cent of the people, especially the young ones, who are put

in jail for one problem or another, given a full experience,

would not try to escape. I believe that. I don't believe that

they would.

I think that these people are alienated and they have

personal problems, and they need somebody to talk to. I know I

still get calls from people who I worked with those many years

ago: they tell me to come to their marriages; some of them have

gone into business; they are all over the place. I see them and

they still want a talking contact. They've had all kinds of

problems growing up themselves.

I'm suggesting that to really make the system work we will

have to get the public involved, as was pointed out by the

Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent). We have to take people back, not

just because they are from a particular community that they go

back to that community, but that the community is responsible

for all of the problems and all of its institutions. It

endorses these institutions; it supports these institutions, so

it should be responsible for the planning of what happens on

both ends of the institution.

I really don't feel we can continue to think that by locking

people up and putting guards with uniforms in there, giving

them a big stick and telling them that they have the authority,

that we are going to be able to rehabilitate anyone. I think

that this is an incongruous approach, an incongruous approach

to what we are saying has to happen in a society. Really, when

you are democratic and you are talking about responsible

citizenship and all these things, we've got to demonstrate that

we believe in this system. This is one of the problems. We say

it on the one hand, but we don't have faith in it

ourselves.

I believe that if we had shown this faith, if we got the Public

involved…and I don't mean that we are going to turn people loose who

have personality disorders that are obviously queer, or people who are

escaping or who are becoming violent. But most of the people in jail

are not violent; I think they become violent; they become angry, and

they are angry quite often because of the unfair laws in the first

place. And we are not prepared to give one inch in assisting these

people.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to suggest that we

employ people in institutions who understand something about

personalities, something about human growth and development,

something about the social dynamics of the complex society in

which we live. Let's not put people in and say, "Okay, you're

now protected. You're in the civil service and you don't have

to worry. Here's a uniform; here are the regulations. Show no

diversity, show no flexibility; don't do any thinking yourself

because this is the way it is." We can't operate like that in

the long run.

I think that we are going to have to have more faith in the

nature of the human organism as such. It is diverse and it

always will be, I hope. We don't need to unify our thinking so

that everybody does everything the same way. Let's give the

prisoner a chance, too. Let's not have him going from one

prison to one jail-keeper, to the next guard, the next

authority person and get the same story all the time: "I'm

sorry, I can't do anything. My hands are tied." He's a human

being who we are dealing with, unless we are prepared to keep

him in jail forever. Thank you.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I will try

to be brief. I would like to say that I am delighted that the

Attorney General has brought in a piece of legislation which I

hope will be so enlightened that we will reduce the number of

people in our penal institutions, the way it has been done in

other countries. Every time I read in the paper of the large

percentage per capita of offenders that are being kept for a

long time in penal institutions in relation to what is

happening in other countries, it distresses me.

It distresses me because a great number of these are people

who, as was mentioned earlier, cannot afford to pay a fine and

so instead they are given the alternative of so many days, or

so many months in jail. One of the great inadequacies of our

penal institutions, even the ones that are a little bit more of

the open type, is that while they give the detainees courses,

very often these courses that are given in prison are so long

that they are longer than the actual sentence that the trainee

is in for.

This means that they don't complete the course and they go

back into society still inadequately trained. It's more

confusing to them than ever if they have to return to society

and not be prepared for anything. It means that they are back

on the street and still probably unemployable. Now that is one

point.

The other point I would like to make, Sir, is that we have

to find some way, as the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick)

mentioned, prevention beforehand. We live in a very violent age

and violence

[ Page 341 ]

is perpetrated very often because of two things. One,

because of the increased density of our urban society, and

secondly, because of the permissiveness. I believe that one of

these permissive elements in our society is the ease with which

young people or anyone can buy a gun, or a knife.

In spite of the fact that when the Solicitor-General of

Canada was here in Vancouver, he said that knives were not in

evidence, he hadn't seen any, yet every week we hear about

people being knifed or being stabbed to death. It's terribly

frightening to society in general.

Secondly, they are able to get a gun very easily on a permit

without having to have any tests taken. They can make a

collection of guns. These guns don't have to have the pins

removed and the collector can perpetrate all sorts of violence

in this society.

During the Canada Games a young man was walking down the

streets in the east-end of Vancouver and he was shot by a

sniper. A young nurse walked with her friend to a bus station

at midnight, and on the way home she was shot to death. They

found that she had four bullets in her body. These are the sort

of things that are happening continually and it's because we

haven't got gun laws, laws that are strict enough to prevent

the average citizen from obtaining guns. I think it's about time

that we started to put more restrictions in these laws. I think

it's about time we took toy guns off the market as toys for

children, too.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I had mixed feelings about

whether or not I was going to participate in the debate, but

then those feelings disappeared very quickly. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, you're right. I couldn't after that.

I have waited so long in this House to see this type of

legislation appear, and I have also stayed out of the

corrections field in other than general discussions in cabinet

around changes in the Attorney General's department. I suppose

that if there is any other job I would give my eye-teeth for — other than being Premier — it would be Mr. Epp's job for a

couple of years. Not longer than that, but certainly a couple

of years.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can have mine. I can trade with him.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay! Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment

first of all on a number of things that were said in what I

consider to be a very excellent debate and certainly long

overdue in this House.

It is interesting that it's up to the Socreds to say nothing, or say something.

In any event it's interesting that they are not really getting involved in a

very….

AN HON. MEMBER: I've got something to say.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay, well I am looking forward to hearing

your contribution, because I think everybody should give us

some idea of a reflection of their own feelings, because in

this field it is really a feeling area and when people talk it

sort of gives their own philosophy, and the philosophy of the

people they represent, to a certain degree.

I thank the First Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes)

who shared a work experience at the Haney Correctional

institution with me, although he came after I had already been

paroled (Laughter) and it is a parole, Mr. Speaker.

I don't say that lightly. Staff in prison, you must

understand, are not paroled. They are in prison for all their

working life, if they choose that as a career. The inmates get

to go out on occasion. So they must have some sympathy and

understanding for the staff.

If any staff deserves a kind of sabbatical that university

professors get, it's staff that work in mental institutions or

in prison.

After seven years at university, I understand that you get a

year off. Well I think, Mr. Provincial Secretary, through you,

Mr. Speaker, it might be worth considering the same kind of

thing for those people who work in prisons and in mental

hospitals, because they, more so than the inmates, are

prisoners of the building.

My good friend the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes)

talked about that double fence. I think the House should know a

little bit more about that double fence. When we first arrived

there in 1957, money was not allocated for the double fence,

and we opened the prison without the fence and we put up some

posts and some lumber and said, "that's the fence, don't go

past that fence."

Then Treasury Board of that day finally allocated the money,

not only for the fence, but for the guardhouse. We argued

against it, and I don't think the government wanted to spend

the money, Mr. Speaker, but it got so bungled up in the

machinery that once it was unleashed as an expenditure it had

to be expended.

We went for 19 months without a fence, and as soon as the

fence was up, and as soon as the guardhouse was up, we had our

first escape. The reason being that when you test human beings

on the basis of that kind of challenge, they have got to check

it out. When we asked people for the first year-and-a-half not

to go past the imaginary line, there was no real challenge to

it. They had to assume some responsibility in the setting for

their own behaviour. But as soon as the fence was up and

the

[ Page 342 ]

game, really, of playing guards versus prisoners started

with the binoculars, with the rifles, that's when the system

had to be tested; and we had our first escapes.

The escapes were successful, because it's a test of

ingenuity, and many people who we're dealing with in prisons,

are usually very ingenious in terms of coping with the rules of

society. They found out when you have a guard who comes on

shift, when the shifts are, what the changes are, what the

routine is, and in a prison once you have set a routine it

never changes, never.

They just sit around. They've got all the time, 24

hours-a-day to figure out what the routine is, and they find

the loopholes in it.

The question about drugs, and the experience with drugs. In

my experience, many of the people I worked with had their first

experience in using drugs in jail. Now I must qualify that by

saying my experience was limited in the drug scene before the

soft drug explosion took place. When I first worked in Oakalla

in 1953 at the Young Offenders' Unit, the drugs were

essentially related to a hard-core criminal group, and it was

heroin. They started by sniffing and then by spooning and a

needle. Very young kids were mainlining heroin, but it was a

very small group.

The soft drug explosion is something that I don't

understand. At 43 I find that I am a generation removed from

understanding of that particular problem and that's why, when I

saw young social workers with very long hair, coming to work

without ties, and their shirtsleeves rolled up, I was first

staggered because this was not professional decorum. But it

sure as heck was effective, and a whole scene changed in a

generation about behaviour and what was acceptable, and what

wasn't acceptable.

But the jails never changed. The scene changed but the jails

didn't change. The only good thing, if I may say that in a very

bad sense, that came out of that soft drug explosion was that

for the first time middle-class youngsters were showing up in

jail, and we had a public outcry and a public alarm about the

jail system that was just as rotten before, that the community

didn't care about. But we had a public outcry and a public

alarm because middle-class kids were showing up in jail. Before

that time it was exclusively the poor.

At UBC a research group did a very interesting study on

Oakalla showing that many of the young people that came in

there came from families whose incomes were below the median of

the poverty level. But as soon as the middleclass kids start

showing up in jail, then whole new concerns start showing up — in the United States, too, not just here. Okay, we've got a

new awareness about jails. But the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) is absolutely correct to

emphasize the jail; you are always starting when it is almost

too late.

But then you come to the problem raised by that Member and

the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis). There is

no doubt in the community that teachers, the police, community

workers and parents can look down the street and say: "Look, if

somebody doesn't do something with Johnny, that kid is going to

be in trouble." And they do. They accurately predict the kind

of criminal behaviour, the kind of criminal act that is

eventually placed by that individual.

And yet, we have a society that demands the protection of an

individual's civil rights.

Here is the complex situation. You might find a youngster

whom you know because of his behaviour is going to commit a

crime; but what legal jurisdiction do you have to go in and

intercede before the crime is committed? It is a violation of

that individual's civil liberty. You are making a judgment of

behaviour before the act is committed, and yet you know odds

are that that criminal act is going to be perpetrated. It's a

dilemma. Maybe the lawyers can help us out of that dilemma. But

how do you stop infringing on civil liberty and still get the

same thing? I don't know.

Surely, we've got to look at protection of the community.

The whole purpose of any kind of protection, in terms of parole

or jailing or punishment, must be the protection of the

community. And on that basis, when you look at what happens in

our federal penitentiaries, some of our sickest people are the

people who act out in the area of sexual crimes.

We don't discuss human sexuality in the school system. We

are starting now, but when I went to school the question of

actual sexual relationships between boys and girls was just

never even thought of as part of the curriculum. Like most

others, I suppose, the kind of education we had in sexual

relationships was either some gentle attempt by parents to give

us some understanding or whatever you picked up on the

streets.

And that hasn't changed very much. Some of the most severely

disturbed people we have are the ones who act out in

sexually-motivated crimes. What do we do with those? If there

is a child molester and there is a series of molestations to

the point that he is picked up and actually convicted, we put

him in jail for three years or five years. And, as the Member

for Victoria points out, then the parole system comes into

play.

Well, here's a parole board that has to look at this sexual offender. He's

got five years in jail. He has done three of it and they know at the end of

five years he is going to be released. No longer is the parole board responsible

if he commits an offence. He commits the offence after he has served his sentence,

so it is safe not to give him a parole. But if you don't give him a parole,

what control have you got over him in the community after his sentence is finished?

[ Page

343 ]

That's the dilemma.

So you have to take risks on parolees. If you are interested

in protecting the community you have to say to yourself that,

two years before he goes out, we'll have a two-year hold on him

so we will give him intensive parole service and hope like heck

he doesn't commit a crime. But, if you want to play it safe

with the parole board, you say: Don't give any of these people

paroles. The statistics on parole will look great but there is

no protection for the community.

Now the lawyers in Ottawa and the parliamentarians in Ottawa

have to start taking a serious look at the Criminal Code. They

have to start taking a look X period of time after your

sentence is over that you must be under mandatory X period of

time after your sentence is over, you must be under mandatory

supervision in the community. Then the community must be faced

with providing the services that these people need.

Sexual problems within prisons are severe. Terribly severe.

In the penitentiary system in North America, when a boy comes

into a major penal institution, if he is coming in at the age

of 17 or 18 or 19, into a major penitentiary, whether it's in a

state or province, there is actually a system of drawing lots

as to who gets the young boy. Now these are real human problems

and they go on every single day. We are legislators and we have

got to come up with some system to protect people in this kind

of a situation.

In the west wing of Oakalla, we are still holding young

offenders awaiting trial. I know, Mr. Attorney General, that

one of the recommendations of the inquiry of Mr. Epp is to

build a holding unit in downtown Vancouver. And I'll tell you,

when you come with the plans, the money will be there on behalf

of the people of British Columbia. They must be separate.

The women's jail. The Member for Victoria is absolutely

correct in that we have made some moves but not rapidly enough

in that women's jail.

We closed the Willingdon School for Girls. Now that is an

interesting study in itself. In all the months that it has been

closed, we have only had one or two complaints about the loss

of that institution. Doesn't that say something about it?

Doesn't that tell us something, that perhaps for all these

years, when we ran that institution, that it wasn't really

necessary.

The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) had a

meeting of social workers after the institution was closed and

my own professional group attacked the Minister for closing

it.

They said to him, "What are we going to do as an

alternative?"

And he said to them: "You are the professionals. Go find out!"

They went out into the community and found places for these girls. They spent

money to purchase foster home care and group home care — and it has been a success.

Now maybe there are a lot of people in jail who shouldn't be

there, and maybe there are a lot of people outside who should

be there. I believe there are a lot of people outside who

should be removed from the community because they are a menace

to the community. We can't violate their civil rights, but yet

we must find some method of pulling them out — maybe just for a

weekend or a month or something — just to pull them out, so that

we know that we are at least preventing a crime for a short

while.

We've witnessed another phenomenon in our society that is

absolutely frightening. Just two days ago we read in the

newspaper and heard on the radio about a woman who attempted to

commit suicide in Florida and the crowd stood around the tower

urging her on. Now what causes this kind of breakdown in

feelings and attitudes? And when the police went to rescue the

woman, as the report reads, the crowd started stoning the

police.

What is this that is breaking society down on this basis?

Why is it that our children still have a fear of the police?

Why is it that no one wants to squeal on somebody? The police

are something apart in our society and perhaps we had better

look at how we should integrate the police back into this

system rather than being adversaries of what is going on in the

community.

The Attorney General is suggesting that they go out to

volunteers. I have mixed feelings about that. I wish them well,

but the difficulty is in finding a volunteer who has, first of

all, the time to spend with a parolee or probationer. Unless

that time is truly available, then there is no use in going to

a volunteer. The second thing is quality of that time. It has

to be with some understanding and some appreciation.

The Act itself offers the opportunity to correct many things

that are within our jurisdiction as a provincial government in

terms of dealing with people. I have great faith and admiration

in Mr. Epp and also in the staff we have in our whole

correction system. I hope that we are able to improve the lives

of these unfortunate people who come into our institutions. But

for anybody who says that this government may be taking a

sob-sister approach or too soft approach, I say to them — that

unless we are human and humane with people who offend against

society, then we will create a condition that will allow for

more offences in society.

We must protect innocent people. And that protection for

innocent people, especially children, is to ensure that we have

done the best that is humanly possible to prevent

an act taking

place by violence or by the criminal activity of an adult.

So I have great hope. You are not going to correct all human

behaviour, but this debate and this bill is long overdue. And,

Mr. Attorney General, we are very

[ Page 344 ]

lucky. There is money in the till. You will need money and

the money will be made available.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General closes the

debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we always enjoy hearing the

Premier of British Columbia speak in this House, but

particularly in this area of human concern. I am sure that he

will do so again. And I hope that this kind of debate does

repeat itself from time to time because, when you're in this

kind of a field, you cannot succeed without enlightened public

understanding and cooperation, and that process has to start

here.

I'm just going to say a few words at this stage. The Hon.

Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) and the

Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) brought up the question

of drugs. It's true, we have not said anything particularly

about it in this bill. Really, in the case of the addict, this

government believes that that is basically a health problem. I

think perhaps at some other time the Hon. Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Cocke) will be outlining some of his ideas in this

field.

I agree with the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) on

the utter futility of simply locking up an addict. I think

there are a variety of resources that are available and which

will see shape in the form of legislation oriented in a health

direction, I would think, by the spring session of this

Legislature.

The feasibility studies are now actively underway which will

see that these young people — they're mostly young people — are

either able safely to remain in the community or, in some

cases, perhaps, be in their own remote treatment centres where

they can build their own community. That's a matter which is

receiving very close attention of the government.

Just one thing in regard to what was said by the Hon. Member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) about the

dichotomy between the judges and the correction thing — between

criminal justice and sort of a welfare-of-the-individual

approach at the other stage. We're lessening that kind of an

inconsistency. I think it has existed in the past. I think

Gilbert & Sullivan were right that the rule in the courts

was "let the punishment fit the crime," not let the case

be disposed of according to the real needs