1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6389 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act Establishing The Right To Public Information And The Protection Of Individual

Privacy (Bill M209). Mrs. Dailly.

Introduction and first reading –– 6389

An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act,

Chapter 425 (Bill M2 10). Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading –– 6389

An Act To Regulate Smoking In Public Places And Meetings (Bill M21 1). Mrs. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading –– 6389

An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code of British Columbia (Bill M212). Ms.

Brown.

Introduction and first reading –– 6389

Valhalla Park Act (Bill M213). Mr. Nicolson.

Introduction and first reading –– 6390

Oral Questions

Homemaker service rates. Mr. Cocke –– 6390

Government employment of George Lenko, Mr. Lauk –– 6390

Mr. Barber

Mr. Hall

Mr. Macdonald

Management of 21st Century Communications. Mr. Hall 6392

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

On vote 22: minister's office –– 6392

Mr. Barrett

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Barber

Appendix –– 6410

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REE:

Today in the gallery opposite you, Mr. Speaker, is the president of the

Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia. It's most appropriate

that he is here today, since we had the pleasure yesterday of first

reading of Bill 28, the Notaries Act. I ask the House to welcome Mr.

Roy Bishop.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE RIGHT TO

PUBLIC INFORMATION AND THE

PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY

On a motion by Mrs. Dailly,

Bill M209,

An Act Establishing the Right to Public Information and the

Protection of Individual Privacy, introduced and read a first time.

MRS. DAILLY: I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS –– 45

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Mussallem

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Passarell

Ritchie

Brummet

NAYS — 7

Richmond

Ree

Davidson

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the

Journals of the House.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) neither voted for nor against the resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: I heard the member's name read.

MR. BRUMMET: I did vote, Mr. Speaker; the Clerk was correct.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I believe I heard the Clerk mention my name as voting nay; actually I voted yea.

MR. SPEAKER: Has that correction been made? So ordered.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I would very much like to welcome to the assembly this afternoon a very

good friend of the citizens of this province, and certainly of the

members of the Legislature, the former secretary of Government House,

Commander Gar Dixon.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as a result of that division, did you make an order?

MR. SPEAKER:

The result of the voting was clearly read; I did not repeat the

decision. However, I could repeat the decision, if the member so

wishes. The bill is introduced.

MRS. DAILLY: I would like to move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Did we not already entertain that motion? That motion, then, is put before the House.

Motion approved.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to ask leave to introduce a bill which, I'm sure, the government is going to split on too.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VITAL

STATISTICS ACT,

CHAPTER 425

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill

M210,

An Act to Amend the Vital Statistics Act,

Chapter 425,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO REGULATE SMOKING IN

PUBLIC PLACES AND MEETINGS

On a motion by Mrs. Wallace, Bill

M211,

An Act to Regulate Smoking in Public Places and Meetings,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE HUMAN

RIGHTS CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

On a motion by Ms. Brown,

Bill M212,

An Act to Amend the Human Rights Code of British Columbia,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 6390 ]

VALHALLA PARK ACT

a motion by Mr. Nicolson Bill M213, Valhalla Park Act, introduced, read

a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

HOMEMAKER SERVICE RATES

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health.

The Minister of Health and other government members have been served

with a notice from 80 community homemakers' associations across the

province. One of the things that has come to our attention is that last

year and in years before the rates for the homemaker service came out

in April. Last year we discussed the estimates in July, but the rates

came out in April. This year the rates are not out. I ask the minister:

has he decided to announce the rates for homemaker service today?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I haven't made that decision today.

MR. COCKE: I will be asking leave to table a document at the end of question period.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT OF GEORGE LENKO

MR. LAUK:

I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. In November 1979

Mr. George Lenko resigned and admitted responsibility for editing and

producing tapes for the Social Credit Party which implicated Social

Credit caucus staff in the dirty tricks scandal. At the time of his

resignation he indicated that he lied to the Premier about his role in

that scandal. From the time Mr. Lenko resigned to the present, has he

been receiving any payment from government sources by way of either

salary or expenses?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The innuendo

contained within the first member for Vancouver Centre's question is, I

think, clearly out of order. However, the answer to the question as to

whether he has been employed by my ministry — and that is the only

responsibility I have in terms of employment of anyone — is no.

MR. LAUK: The

preamble to my question was correct. It's been admitted; there's no problem.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Oh, no, it has not.

MR. LAUK: Oh, yes, it has.

The question I asked the Minister of Human Resources was this.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: A little upset are we, folks?

asked whether from the time Mr. Lenko resigned to the present he has

been receiving any payment from government sources by way of either

salary or expenses, Is the minister aware that Mr. Lenko has been

receiving any payment from government sources by way of either salary

or expenses?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There seem to be two

questions. The first question is: am I aware of any salary that has

been produced for Mr. Lenko? I am not aware of any salary. As far as

any government expense is concerned, I am aware that Mr. Lenko has a

contract with the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

(Hon. Mr. McGeer). Perhaps the question could be more properly directed

to him.

MR. LAUK: Is the minister aware of any salary

or expense received by Mr. Lenko prior to his appointment by the

Minister of Universities to his new post as announced recently?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

No, I am not aware of that, but I also would like to make the member,

who has been a member of this House for some time, aware of the fact

that when questions regarding personnel are asked, they are usually

asked of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). In answer to his

question, no, I am not aware.

MR. BARBER: I have a

question to the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister of Finance advise

the House whether or not Mr. George Lenko has been in receipt of any

payment for services or any payment for expenses in any ministry of the

government since the time of his resignation as executive assistant to

the Minister of Human Resources to the time of the announcement that he

would be working for the Minister of Universities?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would think the answer to that question is no.

MR. BARBER:

I have a question to the Minister of Human Resources. At the time of

Mr. Lenko's resignation did, he receive any severance pay or payment of

any order in lieu of notice?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would not be aware of that. I think that question should properly be taken as notice. I would not have that information.

MR. BARBER:

To the Provincial Secretary: at the time of the resignation of Mr.

Lenko as the executive assistant to the Minister of Human Resources,

did the minister authorize or approve, or does he have knowledge of,

any payments made to Mr. Lenko by way of severance pay or any other pay

in lieu of notice?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't have that information, but I'll take the question as notice for the information of the member.

MR. BARBER:

Did the Minister of Human Resources authorize or request of any

minister in the government any contract at the time of Mr. Lenko's

resignation or any payment for any purpose to be made to Mr. Lenko?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer to that question is no.

[ Page 6391 ]

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Human Resources a question

regarding the same gentleman? Can the minister confirm that since Mr.

Lenko's resignation he has been working in the minister's office?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer to that question is no.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that Mr. Lenko had access to the

parliament buildings from the time of his resignation up to the time of

his appointment, insomuch as Mr. Lenko had a key to the side door of

the parliament buildings and gained entrance to the parliament

buildings on several occasions?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see that the junior counsel has asserted

himself and found the floor. The answer to those questions would be

appropriately no to the second question, and to the first, I take it

that Mr. Lenko, like all good citizens of the province, has access to

this building at any time.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, can

the minister confirm that Mr. Lenko had given instructions to her

ministerial staff throughout the last several months, including

correspondence and other matters concerning whatever?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that I don't know what is implied by that

question, but if the member would like to make it clear, I'd be pleased

to answer any question he has about Mr. Lenko. Mr. Lenko is known to

myself very well. He is a good citizen, and he's been a good servant of

this province. I receive him in my office quite regularly and I will

continue to do so. If the opposition leader is suggesting that Mr.

Lenko has a key to my office, I can tell you that that is not true; nor

did Mr. Lenko ever have a key to the side door.

MR. MACDONALD:

My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier confirm that in October

1979 Mr. Lenko told him that he did not listen to the dirty tricks

tapes until well into the election campaign, when it was supposedly too

late to rule out the offending parts? Did he make that statement to you?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Could you repeat it? I couldn't hear it, because of the noise.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in order that the question might be heard, let's have order.

MR. MACDONALD - Did Mr. Lenko tell you in October 1979 that he didn't

listen to the offending dirty tricks tapes until it was too late and the election

campaign was well underway?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, this far back, and in a period for dealing with important matters.... I think it was something like that.

MR. MACDONALD: Can the Premier confirm that in November 1979 — a month

later — Mr. Lenko admitted to him that he not only listened to the tapes before

the 1979 election but also actually edited them for the Social Credit president's

election manual?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD:

I ask the Premier directly: is it not true that in that period of time

you came to the conclusion that Mr. Lenko had lied to you between

October and November?

No answer. I ask the Premier: was he

angry with Mr. Lenko at that time, as a result of these two statements

or for any other reason?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is hardly urgent.

MR. BARRETT: We'll decide that.

MR. SPEAKER: No, the Chair decides that.

MR. BARRETT: Are you protecting the government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Why aren't you answering the question?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. I must ask the Leader of the Opposition to please

retract any accusation against the Chair that the Chair would be

protecting anyone in this building.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the member asked the question and the Premier answered in silence; then you made the judgment.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, the only way we can continue with an orderly question

period is if we abide by the standing orders which are provided for

question period, and it is....

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member please be seated.

The

only way we can continue in an orderly question period is to follow the

guidelines that are established for question period. The guidelines

clearly say that it is in the hands of the Chair to determine whether

or not questions are in order — and that, of course, without debate. I

recommend that procedure to all members.

MR. BARRETT:

The admonition from the Chair as to the urgency of the question came

after the minister in question refused to answer. There was a great

pause, and then the Speaker made his ruling. I find that difficult to

interpret in terms of when the decision was made that it wasn't urgent:

after silence from the Premier, or before?

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, there were two questions. One question received no answer.

The second question which was asked had to do with whether one member

was angry with another member or some question like that, and the Chair

found it hardly urgent.

[ Page 6392 ]

MR. MACDONALD:

I have a question for the Premier. It was reported at the time of Mr.

Lenko's resignation that the Premier was very angry because he'd given

a story to the public that turned out to be untrue based upon what Mr.

Lenko had told him. Was the Premier aware that Mr. Lenko was again

getting a contract with this government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker.

MANAGEMENT OF 21ST CENTURY

MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS

MR. HALL: I have a question for

the Minister of Human Resources. Can the minister confirm that Frank

Ogden, the principal owner of 21st Century Media Communications,

presently providing a service to the government, has a partner in that

company by the name of Ed Hawkes?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I believe that's a matter of public record. I think it was in the press of recent date.

Mr. Cocke tabled a document mentioned in question period.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled answers to questions standing under his name on the order paper.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, when the committee adjourned at noon I was dealing with

certain matters which had been raised by the hon. member for Burnaby

Edmonds (Ms. Brown). I would like to continue with the matters she

raised this morning which were of significance to her. There were two

matters with respect to the operation of the family court. On the

subject of maintenance orders, as the member, I'm sure, is aware, we

have a program for the automatic enforcement of maintenance orders

which has been in place in some jurisdictions of the province. It has

been a success, but only a limited success. Therefore the ministry has,

through the family law division, been examining the approaches taken to

this very important problem in other jurisdictions.

I can tell the member that the techniques employed range from, on the one hand,

a concept whereby the government itself — the state — undertakes the payment

of the amount awarded in the maintenance order, and then requires the person

against whom the order is made to make regular payments. In the event that there

is a default, the Crown pursues the person who has that responsibility to make

up the payments due under the order. It ranges from that level to one where

the order is still obtained by the individual, and there is a requirement to

pay to the court; but if payments are not made it still remains the responsibility

of the person who obtained the order to attend to its enforcement. Legal services

are made available to the person holding the order for that purpose.

are examining these two techniques, and we also have a third under

consideration. I expect later this year to be able to announce the

institution of a program in this province which will improve upon our

present automatic enforcement provision, and coupled with that a

program which will require those persons in receipt of social

assistance to obtain maintenance orders. We find that in many cases

there is a drain on social assistance funds, and yet no attempt has

been made to obtain for the offending spouse — in almost every case a

defaulting husband — an order obliging him to pay what he could pay,

and thereby provide additional funds which are very much needed by the

deserted wife and children.

This is not intended to require

anyone to deal with the family court in a way which they may not choose

to; but we think it will provide an opportunity for a more orderly

conduct of the maintenance order program, and thereby assure that the

person who has the ability and the responsibility to pay does meet his

obligations, and that in the case of the wife she is not faced with the

horrendous task of having to pursue a defaulting husband, whether he is

in this province or has moved to some other province. With that, we

will be encouraging those reciprocating provinces to assist us more

effectively than they do today in the pursuit of persons who owe moneys

under maintenance orders and who have moved to other jurisdictions. We

also hope that we will be able to change the type of order which is

obtained so that it will, in effect, be a continuing responsibility in

the way of a continuing garnishment concept. Once the employer is aware

that a person has a responsibility to make payments to the family court

for a spouse, it won't be necessary to go back month after month, and

go through this frustrating process that so often faces women who have

been deserted by husbands, as we do in the courts today. A great deal

can be achieved if we move in that direction. With that and the changes

that are being made respecting the provision of legal assistance for

people who have access to the family court, we'll have two programs

that will work together.

The member raised another matter

which touches upon this question of whether or not persons who need the

assistance of the family court will be able to use the services of

family court counsellors, or whether they will be obliged to seek the

assistance of a lawyer. I appreciate very much what the member said.

Dealing with courts and lawyers is a terrifying situation for some

people. It's very distressing. It's a forum which is unnatural and one

in which people find themselves somewhat at a loss when they are asked

to explain what their particular problem may be, and to make a

presentation of their problem to the court so there can be an

appropriate adjudication. In this respect the family court counsellors

have been and will continue to be a major source of assistance to

people who come before that court.

However, the family court

counsellor's role is essentially one of mediation. We hope to use the

family court counsellors to the fullest extent to resolve the

difficulties between parties and, hopefully, to avoid any contests in

family court. Therefore, if orders are made, they can be made on the

basis of consent — both parties having reached an agreement as to what

their responsibilities might be, and that agreement turned into a court

order. Therefore the person who may be uncomfortable in a court

position is never put into that forum. As far as possible, the

discussion and the resolution of the

[ Page 6393 ]

problem

will be made in a private office, where there can be a free and

comfortable exchange of necessary information, to achieve the desired

result. That is a program which is in place and which will continue.

is not in any way to be diminished by the other program which we are

attempting to put in place in the ministry; that is, to establish in

family law, for the assistance of persons coming to the family court,

full-time, paid lawyers, who will act in family law matters in a way

similar to that of Crown counsel in criminal proceedings. In other

words, staff lawyers will be there, available and trained to assist

people who must go into the family court. The difficulty that we're

having in our present procedures was identified by the member — the

lawyer available arrives five minutes before a court time. Therefore

there is no interview or time made available to search out all the

problems, so that when the case is presented, the impression left

before the court may be something less than the full story.

One

of the problems is that we are using lawyers to do this work under

contract. Quite frankly, there is just too much work for the number of

lawyers we're able to engage on a contract basis. This is not in any

way a criticism of the lawyers who are serving under contract with the

ministry; it's a question of the volume of work. We want to be able to

provide skilled people, available full-time, who will have offices at

or near the family court, so that, in advance of any appearance in

family court, they can meet the "client" who needs the assistance and

make sure that he or she has all of the material, and that the process

is more orderly — not more leisurely. If there is need for additional

time, it isn't a question of the pressure of work, where the lawyer has

to say: "I'm sorry, I can only give you so much time this afternoon."

It will be done on a more efficient and effective basis.

That

program is not in place yet, but it is presently being designed. I

might say to the member that one of the reasons we are moving in this

direction is because the lawyers coming from the private bar are under

contract, and the costs are escalating significantly. We believe that

we can provide qualified legal service within the organization by

hiring lawyers who will do this full-time. Those two phases work

together. The question of maintenance orders will also be keyed in with

this new concept of having a group of family law lawyers available to

provide assistance to whomever may require it. Hopefully, with the use

of family court counsellors in the mediative role there will be less

requirement to go before the court. If court appearances are required,

we want to make sure the lawyers give adequate time to develop the case

so that the full story is before the court.

MS. BROWN: Are you going to monitor that?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Yes. When the program is announced I will send the member the total

program so she will be able to see precisely how it is going to be put

together.

With regard to the last question raised — the

matter of juvenile prostitution and what happens to the found-in — this

is a most vexing problem. The problem with respect to the found-in, who

most often is an adult, is whether or not anything can be done with

that person under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. The difficulty stems

from the fact that over the years that the the Juvenile Delinquents Act

has been in place there have been a series of decisions by judges as to

the application of that statute in these particular cases. The concept

of "apparently under age" arises. The difficulty is that it is

sometimes difficult to establish that the person involved was

"apparently under age." That provides a defence. As a consequence, when

incidents do arise where found-ins could be charged, that defence

always raises itself, and it's a difficult one to overcome. I can

assure the member that instructions have been given to Crown counsel

and the police that in every case where there's a found-in every

attempt will be made to bring charges against that person if the

evidence exists.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

That's

another problem. Sometimes the evidence exists in the juvenile herself,

and that is one of our serious problems in dealing with the question of

solicitation by juveniles. Not only that, but the criminal law in

respect of juveniles and prostitution generally is incredibly weak in

light of some recent decisions in the courts of Canada.

Last

fall, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and I met

with the Minister of Justice and placed the problems, particularly

those of juvenile prostitution, before him. We also provided him with

some proposed amendments to the Criminal Code which we believed would

go a long way, if not completely towards a solution to the problem.

Last fall we were assured by the Minister of Justice that he would move

with amendments to the Criminal Code which would deal significantly

with the juvenile problem. The general problem of solicitation and

prostitution may require further consideration. It is a matter of

regret that the work which has been before the House of Commons this

past year appears to have delayed consideration of these amendments.

We're told the amendments are ready, but the introduction and debate of

them has not yet taken place. I have been in communication with the

Minister of Justice urging him to move speedily in the resolution of

this problem. It is a serious one.

We're also, of course,

looking for the passage of the new Young Offenders Act, which we

believe will also help in a very material way in the control of this

particular problem. It's not going to eradicate it, but we think it

will help bring it under control.

MR. BARRETT: I have

a few comments for the Attorney-General, more by way of opinion rather

than soliciting an answer. I understand that after this discussion is

over the pressure of so many other problems in the A-G's ministry

probably does not make this matter a priority. I'd like to say that as

well intended as the federal legislation is in dealing with juvenile

offenders, and in particular with the problem that expresses itself in

juvenile behaviour in prostitution, it will not, in spite of our best

intentions, go any measure at all in controlling the problem as the

minister says he hopes it will. The minister admits that no law can

eradicate it.

In my opinion we continue to make the same

mistake in dealing with this problem-that somehow it is a legal matter,

In actual fact, the attempts we've made in North America over the last

100 years to deal with this problem legally have only frustrated

lawyers and people in the area of policing and servicing this problem.

We must make an earnest effort to begin to examine the root causes that

lead a young girl or boy into the kind of life that tragically erupts

into death as the ultimate end or despair in family life, and perhaps

into political battles during question period here in this chamber and

in chambers like it throughout the whole North American continent.

[ Page 6394 ]

There

is a tendency to look for easy solutions because the problems are

pressing. The newspapers are part of the problem, in my opinion, in

terms of (

a) the way they handle some stories related to juvenile

offenders, and (

b) their own impressions and expressions of frustration

in editorials. I will never forget an editorial during this

government's administration, when there was a wave of particularly ugly

and distasteful juvenile crime activity, and the lead editorial in the

Vancouver Province stated: "Do something; do anything, but do

something." That's the kind of blind emotional response that is reached

at the end of frustration, when people learn that this problem cannot

be dealt with in isolation or by specific laws or specific programs.

Earlier

in this government's life we had a very emotional argument in this

House. I was part of that emotion around the use of Brannan Lake. Aside

from politics, I warned the then Minister of Health that the

institutionalizing of heroin addicts, particularly young heroin

addicts, in a so-called treatment program would be a mistake. The then

minister, for some reason or other — perhaps, an inexplicable reason;

perhaps it doesn't need to be explained — was entrenched and rigid and

decided to go ahead with the heroin treatment program at Brannan Lake

against the best advice of people — not politicians like myself —

throughout the field who knew better and who said that the experiment

at Brannan Lake would be a failure.

The government as a

whole pressed on and spent well over $10 million on this experiment. As

was predicted, it was a failure. Since that time we've had a succession

of Ministers of Health, and we've had absolute silence on the

government's part because it got its fingers burned on one specific

attempt at a radical new program at Brannan Lake that we predicted

would be a failure. The government has completely withdrawn and in

effect has thrown its hands up in the air. Some people have been

reduced to uttering the simplistic admonition that if we bring back

rigid laws and deal sternly with offenders everything will go away.

Well, I think it's important for politicians to take that position if

they feel it's necessary for their constituents to understand that

they're dealing with crime in a tough manner. Other jurisdictions have

hung people for committing murder; that's certainly a terminal solution

to that particular murder, but it doesn't deter other murders. Other

jurisdictions cut off the hands of thieves; that's certainly a

deterrent to that person, who has lost a hand, but people continue to

steal, murder and be violent with each other. So the simplistic

admonition, as enunciated by some politicians, that if we somehow lock

them all up and treat them sternly then the problem will go away, is

just very silly but necessary politically for some people to say in

their jurisdictions.

The simple solution of dumping people

in an institution and then saying that we have a treatment program,

spending $10 million and then discovering that there was no treatment

program, is again folly. We wasted the $10 million. I must say in this

government's defence that you're not the first to waste the money. The

only argument that I point out is that I would ask members of the House

to recall that we warned you. I specifically warned the government not

to embark on that program at Brannan Lake, because the minister

concerned was not able to lay any evidence in front of this House that

there was a specific treatment program dealing with addicts.

What

is the basic problem that will always lead to failure of this kind of

program? The basic problem is that the law or the treatment program

will fit the needs of the child or the client. The fact is that these

people have behaviour that is not normal, and we have an abnormal

response to abnormal behaviour. We believe that by imposing solutions

by law or by institutions these people will conform to the law or the

institution. We've got everything backwards. We should be flexible

enough to have services to meet the needs of the people, instead of

expecting these troubled people to meet the criteria of our service. I

think that point is fairly well made by the failure of Brannan Lake.

want to warn and predict quietly that we are headed for even more

serious problems in violent juvenile behaviour in British Columbia.

It's not because I have knowledge that is not available to others. It's

because sociologically speaking we are just catching up to the tail end

of the the beginning of the disintegration of urban life in North

American cities. We have been very fortunate in British Columbia. We

are very lucky people in this province. We still have a small

population, we still have a tremendous sense of community and we still

have city police forces — like those in the city of Victoria and the

city of Vancouver — which have a neighbourhood identity in giving the

services. I must say that both chiefs of police and police forces in

our major urban areas have evidenced a sensitive approach to problems —

flexible and still upholding the law. But I'm worried that once the

government had its fingers burned on Brannan Lake.... Once the

government is forced — no matter what government of the day it is — to

respond to the tragic suicide of a youngster or the tragic drowning of

a youngster, there is an attempt, understandably, to take the heat off

either by going to Ottawa — and I understand; I'm not condemning the

minister — and saying that they're working on a solution, or by saying

that, well, this is just an unusual case.

I think it would

be helpful for all of us to begin to admit from the start that we don't

know the answers. I really think it would be worthwhile for the public

to understand that none of us really know absolutes in this field, and

I think the community should be faced with that by all politicians.

Look right into the camera and say: "Look, we just don't know; we're

not sure; we've tried a number of things. This tragic event has

happened, and it will probably happen again. We don't have any answers,

and we've got a lot of problems in society." Okay. Having said that,

let's move on to some other choices.

During our

administration we made a decision, based on the best research

information and experience available to people working in the field, to

close two juvenile institutions. One was Brannan Lake and the other was

Willingdon School for Girls. It was a debate, Mr. Chairman, that I'm

more calm about now than at the time it took place; it was a debate

that was initiated by the government, and that spread right into the

bureaucracy itself. The bureaucracy resisted the closing of Brannan

Lake and Willingdon; the bureaucracy came back to us, as government,

and said: "What are we going to do?" At one point I bluntly said: "You

get paid to think of alternatives; you are the professional people whom

we pay money to, and we expect to get professional advice from you as

to alternatives." To some people in the profession this was

threatening, because the safest thing to take the pressure off a

politician was to advise them to continue warehousing people. It's a

dilemma. The politician cannot be the professional; the politician

cannot be the expert.

During our term of office I tried to completely separate myself, as a professional in the field, from the debate; but I

[ Page 6395 ]

did

get involved in, it and I reached the point of frustration where I laid

down my opinion — my one equal vote to everybody else's equal vote, but

sometimes the Premier's vote is a little more equal than the vote of

others — and a decision was made to close Willingdon and Brannan Lake,

Our first experience was that Willingdon School for Girls wasn't even

missed, except by the people in the field who were then forced to be

innovative and come up with brand new ideas. Some of them responded to

the challenge; others couldn't.

What were the brand-new

ideas? Aggressively seeking out foster homes. Looking toward temporary

placement rather than local jails for juveniles. Putting a small mobile

unit on a hospital grounds, capable of holding two or three adolescents

for a period of assessment and a treatment program, and keeping that

child in the community, looking towards a small mobile unit or mobile

home, so that the needs of laundry, food and a bit of security are

available at the hospital location, where medical staff are also

available — and the pressure on such a unit in a rural area would only

involve two or three youngsters at any given time. In an urban area

there was the question of removing children from the downtown core and

experience with prostitution. We discovered that Brannan Lake had

actually been a school for training prostitutes, just by centralizing

young girls who, incidentally, were charged with promiscuity. Boys

don't get charged with promiscuity in our culture. It's kind of

interesting that only girls are charged with promiscuity. But once we

charged girls with promiscuity, we were warehousing them; and the

experiences they got in warehousing showed them that the promiscuity

that led to them being warehoused was profitable, by going to downtown

Vancouver and learning to be a prostitute.

We've reopened

Willingdon. It was a mistake. The idea was good; the intention by staff

was good; but once you reopen such an institution, the pressures of

population immediately demand that the original idea and concept be

abandoned. Just as the government learned in Brannan Lake, we are

learning now in Willingdon that the pressures are not on treatment or

program evaluation for a child, but on housing all these troubled

children under one roof where you have your hands more than full in

just keeping them there. We have this running battle in the newspapers

about questions being left in the public mind about a tragic drowning

there. We probably will never know the answer. But the focus of the

public on that tragic incident takes away from the opportunity for us

to find alternatives.

I'd like to go back to the prediction

I want to make. It's not a happy prediction, and I hope I'm wrong. But

I think we will see an escalation of violent juvenile crime. I think

we'll begin to see, almost at the same level as the United States

cities of similar sizes are experiencing, violent expression by

alienated youngsters who are under the pressures of cultural

differences, as we have a major mix of urban population from various

cultural backgrounds. There is also going to be a dramatic shift in

violence because of the change demanded by housing in the lower

mainland. You can't help it; it's not your fault. We are moving away

rapidly from single-family dwellings. The experience in major cities,

when they move away from single dwellings and the identity of

neighbourhoods that those dwellings guarantee, is that the family

orientation and support of a neighbourhood becomes lost and we become

more and more the victims of the alienation of mass housing.

People

who live in apartments and attempt to raise families don't know their

neighbours or the people down the street. There is no possibility of

expanding human contact that we have traditionally had in our cities

such as Victoria and Vancouver. What is the response? With the rapid

escalation of family breakdown, the rapid escalation of the destruction

of married life as we view it or have an image of it, more and more

youngsters will be on their own. Even in marriages that are "nominally

succeeding," because of high interest rates, the high cost of housing,

the lack of opportunity of two working parents to buy a single

dwelling, both must go to work as mother and father just to meet

current costs of living. The consequences of that to a child are,

again, more time away from home, in unfamiliar surroundings.

The

government has cut back on day care — terrible mistake, Because now

people shop around to leave youngsters in their own co-ops, or with

people who do babysitting during the day. Those kinds of places are not

supervised and there is no consistent program. A troubled youngster is

not spotted outside of a good day-care program. That troubled youngster

continues to drift. They will show up as young as 6, 7 and 8 with

emotional problems which lead to the abuse of alcohol and drugs and to

prostitution.

I'm making a plea for the minister to consider

all the headaches he has as Attorney-General to have to carry the

burden of juvenile delinquency almost alone in terms of his arguments

with the federal government to get the law changed. What might be a

better method is to establish a working committee, as we attempted to

towards the end of our administration, among the ministries of

Education, Attorney-General, and Health and Human Resources: a small

working committee to come up with a coordinated program to establish

preventive services for young children who are heading for trouble.

You're not going to be able to solve it all, but you can make a start.

It also takes the pressure for those in the back bench or the

opposition to stand up and demand immediately answers of the

Attorney-General or anyone else.

We would welcome your being

able to outline a plan to this House and say: "This is what we're

trying to do; this is what our long-term goal is. This is the

experience of our American neighbours. This is what we see happening,

and this is what we're going to try to avoid." We could use it as a

touchstone so that when the emotional, tragic cases come up, the

government of the day — no matter who it is — can get up and say: "Yes,

this is tragic. Yes, we're aware of the problem, but we also have this

long-term coordinated effort to start bringing in a whole new approach

to meet children's needs." It is not to have children meet the

programs. There are endless programs for children, but we don't have

the self-defined needs of the child met by a flexible approach.

will never forget, by way of an example — if it's not confusing the

point that I'm making.... When I was a young probation officer

finishing my master's degree in St. Louis University, I had a young

black child on probation to me in the juvenile court. The youngster had

stolen some 40 bicycles, and we had a very wise judge who was a former

lawyer, which I hope wasn't a handicap to him. He was an elected judge,

which wasn't a handicap. I came to the juvenile court, and I said:

"Your Honour, he's stolen 40 bikes. What are we going to do? We sent

him to the training school I don't know how many times." The judge

finally said: "You know what we should do as a court? We're going to

buy him a bike." Guess what? We bought the youngster a bike, and he

stopped stealing bikes. I don't advocate the state buying

[ Page 6396 ]

bikes

for kids who are stealing bikes, but sometimes a simple, practical

approach in defining the child's needs early on may be the best answer,

rather than punishment, discipline. strapping, spanking, beating or

anything else.

What I'm saying to the Attorney-General is

that he's still going to have these problems. The press is still going

to demand that he take some action on juvenile crime. Because of this

horrible case, the opposition will still get up and say: "What have you

done?" You're still going to get those pressures, unless you can

demonstrate to this chamber that your government has quietly and

efficiently put together a working committee to deal with this problem

and unless you can go back to the municipalities and say to them: "We

have attempted to begin to work with community preventive programs."

You must integrate a complete availability of day care and a complete

awareness of the staffing of community centres — it must be more than

just between 9 and 5 or between 11 and 11; a complete request from the

religious communities out there — those church and community facilities

held in the name of the churches — to be involved in an integrated

attack on the problems that lead to juvenile delinquency. The shame of

one child who is a juvenile prostitute is the shame of all of us. The

shame of the behaviour of one youngster who has done a violent thing is

the shame of all of us. To simplistically say that we must throw the

book against that child is a rejection of our total responsibility as a

society, regardless of political differences: we have failed that child

and that family in terms of making services available.

would like to suggest that now that the failure of Brannan Lake has

taken place, that institution be turned over to the Ministry of

Education. If I am correct in predicting the pressures that will happen

in the large urban areas and the continuation of the family breakdown,

there will be less and less opportunity for youngsters in the city core

to have a country experience or an experience in a semi-urban setting.

During the Depression some major experiments were conducted that led to

some interesting experiences. Disadvantaged youngsters in the core area

of major American cities went into what was known as the CCC camps of

the Roosevelt administration. They discovered that group activities,

good food and a healthy atmosphere, with no sloganeering about

demanding that they work, but work-producing and healthy activities for

a short period of time, gave the urban-centre youngster new confidence,

new social skills and a new experience, and gave the parents a break

from their kids. Why not try a small experiment at Brannan Lake at a

third of the cost? Set up Brannan Lake as a core education centre to be

used flexibly by youngsters from the urban core areas or from anywhere

in the province, for short-term training programs for adolescents — not

just in summer months but on weekend seminars, in the Christmas

holidays, at Easter break and then in summer programs, with day-care

programs or day summer camp association.

There is very good

research material in this province related to what was known as

pro-rec. In the Premier's office today is a man who has more experience

in this field than anyone else in British Columbia — Lawrie Wallace.

Lawrie Wallace's whole experience in terms of becoming a civil servant

and servicing this community came right out of the ranks of pro-rec and

the experience of delivering community recreational facilities that

gave a whole life experience throughout this province during those

Depression years. Talk to Lawrie. See where the research papers are

buried. Pull them out and, in my opinion, apply them to Brannan Lake.

made a promise to myself that I was not going to make this kind of

speech any more in the Legislature. Maybe this will be the last time

that I do. Who knows? I feel a tremendous sense of frustration at the

fact that we just made a little bit of progress during our

administration. The Attorney-General, the Minister of Health and the

Minister of Education took the bold step of closing Brannon Lake and

Willingdon and began to decentralize the service. They began to take a

look at day care and its role and, most importantly, the Minister of

Education set up the special services education — alternate education —

in the core areas that has been so successful.

Mr.

Attorney-General, there is no difference between your government and

the opposition on the goal; absolutely none. There isn't a member of

this House that wouldn't seriously want to ensure that every youngster

had the maximum opportunity to develop. The difference is in the

method. I think you've learned from Brannan Lake. The evidence of

prison riots at Matsqui and elsewhere are further proof that the old

system doesn't work. I must say, for those who simplistically write

letters and say to bring back the lash, i.e. the old system, it is the

old system and not the new systems that brought us to this point.

There's not been anything new in the penal system in the last 50 years

other than physical surroundings. There's been new paint, new walls, a

new style of jails and a new style of institutions, but there has been

no real basic difference in the delivery of service.

The

last point I want to make, Mr. Attorney-General, is to encourage those

politicians who are willing to point back at the community when the

community points at them and says: "What are you doing about a

problem?" They are able to point back at the community saying: "What

are you doing about the problem? They're your children."

The

religious communities of this province have never been challenged to

come up with alternate programs. Until our Minister of Education

allowed the hours to be changed, the school system had not even opened

their doors to alternate programs on weekends and evenings to use

taxpayers' buildings.

Having said all those things, Mr.

Attorney-General, this has been a nice quiet day in debate. You'll get

your estimates, and you'll have to, by the nature of the job you've

got, go on to other things. But somewhere in the corner of your mind I

ask you to tuck away a little bit of the warning and fear that I have.

Firstly, we're going to have serious explosive problems in the juvenile

field regardless of new laws. Secondly, anticipate those problems by

understanding that what we've done in the past has been a failure.

Thirdly, please consider to establish, not outside the politicians'

orbit, a working committee to integrate the services that we are

already spending a lot of money for. Fourthly, tell the staff: "You are

highly paid, highly trained and highly skilled. We're paying you for

your brains. Go out there. Take 12 hours off, but come up with an

accumulation and distillation of research material. Give me programs

and come back to us with innovations we can try in British Columbia. No

more Willingdons and Brannan Lakes. Try something new." That's the

least that some troubled youngster can ask from any government.

MR. STUPICH:

A lot of what I was going to say has been said by the Leader of the

Opposition, so I won't be long. I simply want to say on behalf of the

people of Nanaimo, please listen to the Leader of the Opposition and do

not use Brannan Lake as any kind of a correctional facility.

[ Page 6397 ]

I've

had more correspondence on this one issue than on any other single

issue since I've been the member for Nanaimo — going on for 16 years

now. The Times reported

encouragingly and optimistically to the people of Nanaimo an interview

with the minister in an issue of the paper dated March 3. On the basis

of that interview the reporter said — this is paraphrasing — the

provincial government had no intention of ramming a Brannan Lake

decision down the throats of Nanaimo. I'll quote the minister: "Any

proposal for the property would be considered by cabinet along with

proposals from the public and other departments of government." Another

quotation from the minister is: "If I go back to cabinet and say there

is no way the mayor and people of Nanaimo are going to accept this

facility" — that's speaking of it as a correctional facility — "they're

going to say: 'You'd better find another site.' " I wouldn't be

speaking on this at this time except that this paper is dated March 3,

but the indications since then....

I'm not going to go

through the editorials in support of this position, or the brief that

was submitted to the minister. The school board minutes are along the

same lines as the decisions of the regional district and city council

and all of them. More recently concern is being expressed in the

community that the minister is now saying that he's going to use it, at

least in part, for some kind of a correctional facility. I believe

there's a quotation in one instance where he's saying that after he's

decided how to use it as a correctional facility he's going to go into

the community, tell the people what he has done and then ask for their

support. It's quite a change in position from that announced in the

press statement of March 3. I liked what the Leader of the Opposition

had to say about it. I have the quotation in a paper dated May 15:

"Williams" — speaking of the Attorney-General — "said: 'The cabinet

will make its decision before December. Once the decision has been made

by cabinet then, as I have indicated publicly, I will be going to the

community, to the mayor, council and others in the community who are

interested in the property. They will be made fully aware of what we

intend to do with it, and hopefully I will get their support.' "

That's

completely at odds with the indication given earlier to the effect that

nothing would be imposed upon the community that the community was not

prepared to accept. Now the position would seem to be that they're

going to do it, and then try to get support. I just hope the minister

will reassure me and the people of Nanaimo that the position announced

on March 3 is his position today and that it will not be done unless

the community is ready to accept it.

Nanaimo has had the

Brannan Lake facility for quite a number of years now. It was a very

unhappy experience when it was outside the city as a youth centre; it

wasn't always called a youth centre. It was not a happy experience, but

at least at that time it was outside the city. Now it's within the city

limits. There is a rapidly growing population in that area. A shopping

centre is being built very near the Brannan Lake facility. It's such an

ideal site for the kind of purposes that were presented by the Leader

of the Opposition: park purposes, recreation and education. There are

so many purposes that it could be used for. They're not opposed to a

correctional facility in the regional district, but there is complete

opposition to any kind of a correctional facility almost in the

population centre of Nanaimo city.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to the member

for Nanaimo and the Leader of the Opposition. First of all, with respect to

Brannan Lake, it seems so difficult to respond to questions from the press from

time to time and to have them translate what one says without apparently raising

apprehensions. I wish therefore today to reiterate my position, which has not

changed since March. In so doing, maybe I could explain to the committee precisely

the process upon which I am embarked.

ministry officials responsible for corrections have identified the need

for significant modernization and improvement, and perhaps relocation,

of some facilities we have which serve the northern part of the Island.

When the Brannan Lake facilities became available I asked for the

opportunity to plan how they might be used for corrections purposes.

That decision was made, but it was only to plan how they might be used

by my ministry for these purposes. We have produced plans. The next

step is to obtain the approval of the government to move forward with

those plans. During that period of time I made the statements which the

member has indicated were reported in a newspaper in March,

have made a partial presentation to the executive council, but it has

not been completed. Other ministries, including Health and Education,

have also been requested to indicate what use they might make of the

property, or some parts of the property. Of course we have before us

from citizens' groups in Nanaimo a number of suggestions for the use of

that property. The cabinet will not made a decision with respect to my

proposed use until they have had the opportunity of examining the

proposed uses which may be advanced by other ministries, or indeed

those which have been sent forward to the government by community

groups in Nanaimo.

My position is that even if the

government indicates that I may proceed beyond the planning stage, I do

not propose to locate a correctional facility in Nanaimo until two

things happen: until I have laid the proposal before the citizens of

Nanaimo — before that community, its local government and anyone else

who is interested — and until I have obtained from that community an

indication that they support the direction in which we propose to go.

This decision is made for two reasons; I suppose it is actually one

reason with two parts. First of all, I think it inappropriate for

government, particularly the Ministry of Attorney-General, to impose a

correctional facility upon a community if that community is opposed to

it. It's not conducive to good relationships between the facility and

the community itself. The other side of that concept is that unless we

have community support we do not believe that the kind of programs to

which the Leader of the Opposition made reference can function if we

have antipathy between the corrections facility, its staff, the

programs they wish to utilize, and the community which must be part of

that program in many respects — then the proposal could not go forward.

Therefore I wish to make it clear, as I have tried to make it clear

since March, that as was reported in the press in March, it is not the

intention of the Attorney-General's ministry to ram a correctional

facility down the throats of the people of Nanaimo. If it fails for

them, it fails for us.

I come back to what the Leader of the

Opposition was saying. It's some considerable time since we've had an

opportunity for this kind of debate in this House, I hope, as the

Leader of the Opposition indicated, that this would not be the last

opportunity for this kind of discussion, because the solution of the

problem to which he referred is surely not one which lies in the hands

of either the government or the opposition at this particular time, or

at any time. Surely the

[ Page 6398 ]

will

of the citizens of British Columbia will be to recognize the nature of

the problem, to examine the options for solution and, having made that

examination, to choose the option or options which will lead us toward

a solution. I'm not sure that we'll ever find a solution in the true

sense, but we can at least move towards that solution.

The

Leader of the Opposition said that the question of juvenile

prostitution was not a legal problem. Well, it's a legal problem in the

sense that it is going on today, but the solution for it is not to be

found in law. Recently I was asked a question by the hon. member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) about a case which is now before the

courts. I'm not going to talk about that case, but it's about a

juvenile girl and juvenile prostitution. I know, and that member knows,

as sure as we are sitting in this chamber, precisely what will happen.

The case will be proved, I'm sure. A penalty will be imposed. It will

become a correctional problem, and I would forecast that in a matter of

weeks, maybe even days, that juvenile will be back on the streets,

probably conducting herself exactly as she did before she was arrested.

Therefore it's not a legal problem. I can solve the legal problems.

That's purely administration. But what do you do to stop this

revolving-door situation that we have in our society today,

particularly with our young people?

When you get the older

people, the ones who have engaged in violent crime, breaking and

entering — the kind of conduct that I referred to yesterday as being

beyond the norm which society is prepared to accept — you can use the

law in stem measures. You can remove them from society for a period of

time. You can attempt to rehabilitate them, and in some cases you may

be successful. To that extent society will be rewarded, or at least,

for a period of time, protected against the conduct exhibited by those

persons.

But when you're talking about the juvenile, it's

not the same. We have a situation in this province as exists elsewhere

in this entire world, where for a variety of reasons, juveniles find

themselves in conflict with the standards of society — standards which

they did not make, and standards which they cannot, in some cases,

attain. One of the reasons they can't attain them is that society

itself raises barriers for those juveniles in attaining the standards

that society would prescribe for them.

A year ago I had the

pleasure of going to one of our Outward Bound camps at Porteau Cove, to

what was called their "graduation" ceremony. That's an opportunity for

juveniles who find themselves in conflict with the law to go for an

intensive period of self-reliance testing. They are put up against

barriers that they have never faced before, including, at the end of

their stay at Porteau Camp, the barriers of themselves. They're sent

out into the wilderness — into the mountains surrounding Porteau Camp —

to spend two or two and a half days alone; there is nobody else. Before

they go they are equipped with the necessary supplies. They've already

been given some survival training. When I talked to some of those young

boys, they indicated to me that the toughest barrier they had to face

was being alone and to recognizing that if a problem developed there

was nobody who could solve it except themselves. We don't have many

repeaters at that camp. It seems to me that society has to realize that

when those young men leave a setting such as Porteau Camp and go back

into urban society, they face barriers; they face a lack of concern on

the part of older people with respect to their problems, and they can't

always turn to themselves for the answers.

It may be true,

as the Leader of the Opposition has said — and there is some evidence

to support this already within our communities — that we are coming to

a period in which we will see increasingly violent juvenile behaviour.

Whether that is to be the case or not, however, the solution to

unacceptable juvenile behaviour nonetheless rests, as indicated by the

Leader of the Opposition, with the community. We have in the Ministry

of Attorney-General a special projects branch engaged in the matter of

community crime prevention, particularly addressed to the juvenile. We

are attempting to encourage communities to assess the nature of the

problems that they are experiencing with young people to determine why

it is that they are facing those problems in their particular

community, and then to set about finding the solutions as a community.

We want to give every assistance we possibly can in the development of

the technique, but we don't want it to become a government program —

that's always the easy way out — because when it becomes a government

program, then the community seems to lose interest. If the community

loses interest in such a program, the program is gone. We attempt to

engage the local government, the school board, the teachers, the

recreation staff, the churches, the service clubs, the police,

professionals in Corrections and family court committees — all those

people who in the community can lend their assistance.

One

of the biggest problems we have in going to the communities is making

them understand that it's a community problem, but we're having some

considerable success. As well as all of the groups I've talked about,

we are also encouraging the active support of the commercial community,

because they're part of the problem too. They see the problem as being

one that affects their revenues, their profits and their property — and

so it does — but the solution to the problems that affect them directly

are still to be found in the community as a whole. While there has been

active participation in this concept in a variety of ways in British

Columbia for a number of years, it is just in its infancy; it needs the

support of everyone, particularly in identifying the problems.

You

know, I come from a community which is seen to be, and is, composed of

upwardly mobile people, many of them very wealthy, with large homes and

expensive properties. It's a rich community, and you would wonder why

in a community such as that we would have a juvenile crime problem. But

we do. It's not just vandalism, breaking and entering and theft; it's

hassling of people at community centres....

Why would this

be in a community where you would think that the young people have

everything they could ask for? Maybe they have everything they could

ask for in the material sense — and probably too much — but other

things are lacking.

Therefore in my community — and this

crime prevention committee concept is just beginning there — they've

got to look very deep to find out why there is a problem. There are

lots of reasons, but they must be identified and the root cause, once

it is identified, cured. It will require the assistance of members in

all the communities throughout this province if we're to make any move

to solve the juvenile behaviour problems that we envisage today and

those which were forecast by the Leader of the Opposition. Government

too must be involved.

The Leader of the Opposition indicated

that close to the end of their term in government they decided that

there had to be a different kind of approach. I would like the House to

[ Page 6399 ]

know

that we have continued along that line. I wish we could claim success.

We have an interministerial committee on children in crisis. It's a

nice name. It is comprised of the Ministries of Health, Education,

Human Resources and Attorney-General. Our deputies sit on that

committee, and they come up with some good ideas. But it's not as easy

to work on the problem through the interministerial committee as it is

to do the normal administrative tasks of each ministry. That's

traditional with government. The Attorney-General does his thing,

Health and Human Resources do their things — their traditional roles.

It seems to be exceedingly difficult to meld together and to focus the

resources — both people and money — on some new ideas. Some success was

enjoyed by the former government, some success by ours.

While

this doesn't have much to do with my estimates, I think it's important

that these things be considered at a time like this. As I said at the

outset, this transcends political boundaries. If any government fails

to recognize the problem and devote its efforts to the solution, then

surely some other government will face the same or a worse problem. The

difficulty is that it is the citizen to whom we are responsible who, in

the final analysis, will be the victim.

MR. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, when I listen to the minister discuss the problems of

juveniles, I have to say I support him in a lot of ways. Something that

we as members and as part of society must realize and keep uppermost in

our minds is that we do have faith in people. Over my 23 years in the

police, I guess I met a lot of people who were involved in crimes of

all types. Juveniles were the vast majority of where you first identify

a person in conflict with the law. When you go over what has happened

over the years, you see that society today swings in a pendulum. It's

important to realize that we should have control over that pendulum.

When something does not appear to be working in one end, we swing the

other way.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) talked about

Brannan Lake. I remember the days when Brannan Lake was in operation.

This was before computers and instant knowledge at your fingertips of

stolen cars. I remember many a time at 2, 3 or 4 in the morning, if you

saw a car driven by a youth and — because in the old days the licences

were issued by cities — if the licence plate was from Nanaimo, you

automatically stopped it. In the vast majority of cases when you found

a juvenile at 2 or 3 in the morning in a Nanaimo car, he was an escapee

from Brannan Lake. Many a time we have phoned owners who have gone to

bed never realizing their car had been stolen, but it had been stolen

by an escapee from Brannan Lake. So I can relate to the problems of

citizens who live in that vicinity and lose their cars and have them

totalled in a car chase or involved in a crime. These were the facts of

what happened.

I want to bring four issues to the minister's

attention. One of them deals with the juvenile problem. The minister

spoke on some of the changes and new programs that are in effect. One

of the great ones is the program involving youth, the Outward Bound

program, where youths are taken out on weekends. They're given an

opportunity to learn survival, hiking, the ways of the outdoors. For a

lot of kids who've grown up in single-parent homes or in homes where

their parents are not involved in the outdoors, this was their first

opportunity to get out and do the things that a lot of our children,

because of different lifestyles, have the opportunity to do as a family

unit. I, like the minister, have talked to many kids who have gone

through the program and completed it. In the local program it was

hiking the West Coast Trail. When you're hiking the West Coast Trail,

it's a great challenge to pack the food you're using for survival and

complete the hike within the five-day period. To many of those kids, it

was the greatest thing in their lives. They brag about it. They would

talk to us about this accomplishment they made with their efforts,

training and knowledge.

This brings up one of the issues

that affects my riding in particular. That is the location of the

juvenile correction camp in the Metchosin district that is the base for

this particular program locally. It's the base where the juveniles and

the probation workers are working with kids on weekends and summer

holidays. On April 22, 1981, I raised a question with the

Attorney-General and the Provincial Secretary concerning negotiations

dealing with the relocation of the Metchosin correctional camp. This

wasn't something that I'd pulled out of the air; it was something that

people in the correctional branch, members of the police and neighbours

to that particular location had come to me to ask what I knew. As the

Attorney-General is quite aware, I do have friends in the various

police forces. I do have friends in the correctional branch, and they

were interested in what was taking place. I would like to raise the

answer I received from the Provincial Secretary. My original question

was if there were any negotiations taking place with that particular

piece of property. The answer recorded in Hansard was from Hon. Mr. Wolfe:

would like to respond to a question which was raised yesterday by the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. He asked a question related to

suggested negotiations on behalf of the Attorney-General's department

with Happy Valley Timber Ltd. for the sale of Crown land in Metchosin

on which a provincial juvenile correction camp is situated. The

question asked whether there were negotiations taking place on behalf

of the Attorney-General's department for this property.

The

answer to the question specifically is that the B.C. Buildings

Corporation is in fact not negotiating for the sale of any Crown land

or, in particular, this property. They have expressed an interest in

the property in question.

It goes on, but the statement was

that there were no negotiations taking place. Because of the answer, my

good friend Mr. Hume wrote an

article saying that I did not have the

facts and the question was out of order, etc. As the Attorney-General

knows, the question period is to find facts. It is to ask questions. In

any investigation, you don't start off with facts; you start off with

rumours, information received and suspicions, and then you start an

investigation. Part of that investigation was from people who had been

consulted. Police officers in the area had been consulted about a

possible new location for the juvenile correction camp. Social workers

had been consulted about the location of a new correctional camp in the

Metchosin–East Sooke area.

A number of pieces of land had

been inspected by people in these departments. One particular piece of

property was — and I would like to read it into the record for the

Attorney-General, and maybe in his answer he could cover the reason —

parcel A,

section 42, except plans 14953 and 26149 in the Metchosin

district. That particular piece of property was located on the East

Sooke Road. This need for a new correctional camp, a camp where

juveniles are going to be working in the program that the minister so

ably described as part of the Outward Bound program.... Knowing the

particular property, it may be an excellent piece of property for this

particular program. I was berated in the press for not having any

facts. At that time, I will confess to the minister, maybe

[ Page 6400 ]

there

were no facts available. But since then a number of pieces of

information have come across my desk. One was a document presented to

the Assessment Appeal Board of British Columbia.

I realize

that the minister is aware of how the Assessment Appeal Board of

British Columbia works. If a person is not happy with his assessment,

he can appeal it to the board. The board takes similar types of

property in that area and compares recent sales for those pieces of

property so they can compare an average per acre or the value of the

property to that of the person who is appealing his assessment. It was

interesting how the assessment board picked certain properties for

comparison. They picked the piece of property I was talking about —

parcel A,

section 42, except plans 14953 and 26149 in the Metchosin

district — for a comparison.

When they made the assessment

of some of the history of that property and when it appeared before the

appeal board, the following information was submitted. I find that it

ties into my original question: was there any property being

negotiated, and was a certain piece of property being considered as the

new location for the juvenile correction camp?

It was

interesting that this particular piece of property had been listed with

Block Bros. for a number of months. It had originally been listed at

the price of $275,000. For the period of time it had been listed, they

had received a number of bids around $225,000. The owner of this

particular property, Hazelmere Estates Ltd., turned them down. On

January 2, 1981, an offer from Mr. L. Mezuka was accepted for the price

of $250,000 with the completion date for the sale of this property to

be March 2, 1981. The deal on this piece of property fell through on

approximately March 12 or 14, 1981. An interesting thing then happened.

On March 20, 1981, an offer of $300,000 was made on this piece of

property by the same Happy Valley Timber Ltd. It was the same piece of

property that police officers and correctional officers had looked at

as a possible site for a correction camp. A bid of $300,000, which was

$50,000 over a bid that had been accepted — because the deal had fallen

through it was $25,000 above the price listed with Block Bros. prior to

the sale of this property.... Part of the offer was that it would be

accepted with a completion date of April 15, 1981. The purchaser, Happy

Valley Timber, put down $100,000 and the vendor carried a mortgage of

$200,000 at 17 percent. A condition of the contract was that the

details of the mortgage were to be agreed upon by the solicitors of the

vendor and the purchaser, because it was important to the purchaser to

have title to this property. It appeared to be common knowledge within

the area that this piece of property was to be a possible location for

a juvenile camp. Again, I am not saying it is wrong to have the

juvenile camp at that location; maybe it would be a better utilization

of that land compared to the present location. The property was

eventually transferred; on April 13, 1981, the property was transferred

from Hazelmere Estates Ltd. to Happy Valley Timber Ltd. for the price

of $300,000.

This is the part about which I thought we had

originally received assurance from the Provincial Secretary that there

were no negotiations taking place. A lot of people in the community and

the police force find it hard to accept the fact that one piece of

property changed hands for the price of $300,000, which, as I say, was

$50,000 more than the price that had been accepted a month before and

$25,000 above the list price. But as we in the House must accept the

word of the Provincial Secretary that there were no negotiations taking

place, a lot of us wonder what was happening in that particular area. I

was prepared to forget it and accept the hon. member's word that there

were no negotiations taking place, but when we were in the Housing

estimates, 200 acres of provincial government property had been sold to

this same Happy Valley Timber Ltd. to make up a parcel of 400 to 600

acres. Again, only because of rumour and suggestion was there an idea

that there was a possible land development in that area.

his estimates the minister stated that the provincial government

property was sold so they could go ahead with land development and the

building of houses. We in the greater Victoria area realize the need

for houses in this area. We realize the need for affordable property. I

support that, but I'm sincerely asking and wondering, as are many other

people in the Metchosin area, whether it is the intention of the

Ministry of Attorney-General to allow a juvenile correction camp,

situated on 105 acres and completely surrounded by 500 or 600 acres of

property presently owned by Happy Valley Timber for housing, in the

centre of that development.

I don't think anyone is trying

to raise a great scandal, but I feel the people of this particular area

have the right to know what is taking place. I believe the contractors

who will be buying and developing land in that particular area should

have some knowledge of where the correctional camp is going to be

located. I feel the police who will be policing that area have a right

to know the potential changes the ministry has in mind for that area. I

feel those who are working in the corrections branch and in the

probation service should have some knowledge of what facilities will be

constructed on that location or what needed facilities may be

constructed on the present site.

Up until the time that I raised the question in the House

on April 22, there had been a freeze on the present Metchosin

correctional camp. No repairs had been made and no upgrading of

facilities was being contemplated. After the flurry of press and radio

statements, they then started doing repair work on the camp. So one of

the things I would ask of the minister for those who, as I have

outlined before, are involved in juvenile correction is that they

should be given some open, straightforward answers. If there is a deal

being made, if this particular piece of property.... The Provincial

Secretary said there is nothing taking place. I hope that is correct.

There's no law to stop a company from paying $50,000 more for a piece

of property than it was a month ago. It's not an offence to pay $25,000

more than the list price. I know the vendor is quite happy; I know the

real estate people who are involved were more than pleased to get the

extra commission. But I think we as taxpayers and citizens — those

involved in that particular issue of juvenile correction — have a right

to, know what programs are going to be put into operation. Is it all

going to be scrapped? Are we then going to take the children from the

local area and incarcerate them all up in Brannan Lake? These are the

issues that we feel are important.

As one who has worked

with juveniles over the years, I know — and I say from actual

experience that the instructors at the camp who are involved in this

are doing a damned good job. They don't have one hundred percent

success, but they do give kids who are involved in crime a different

concept, a different attitude, and they are far more approachable after

they have gone through the course and completed the hike along the West

Coast Trail, which is all part of the program. I would hate to see that

program lost because of some political

[ Page 6401 ]

statement or some misplaced political

interpretation of what is going to happen in that area.

The

second issue I would like to ask the minister about is an issue I am

receiving a number of calls about from different sources. It is the

spin-off effect that is happening because of the long, drawn-out

stalemate in the ICBC strike. I know, Mr. Chairman, before you rule me

out of order that you will say that ICBC does not come under the

Ministry of Attorney-General, but enforcement of laws being violated

because of that strike do, The large number of cars that are on the

road today with damaged headlights and damaged doors are not being

repaired because of the strike. They are on the road today and being

driven. Everyone is turning a blind eye to the broken headlights and

the damaged fenders, but these cars are becoming a hazard on the road.

I think it's important, Mr. Chairman, that the Ministry of

Attorney-General bring a little pressure on the government and on the

corporation for those people who are being denied proper repair work or

the right to drive a car. They have paid insurance, and their cars are

not being repaired.

I have one particular complaint from a

young lady who is a student at university. She had taken her car off

the road when she was going to school and made an application for the

balance of her insurance. Because of the strike, the money was not

returned. Because of a job that she had hoped to get as a result of the

change of the Minister of Labour's (Hon. Mr. Heinrich'

s) new policy,

after graduation she had to bring her car back into operation, she had

to get her licence back and get insurance. This particular person had a

credit at ICBC of two hundred and some odd dollars, which hadn't been

returned when she had taken her car off the road prior to the strike.

When she went to put her car back on the road, that credit that she had

coming to her was denied. The insurance company and the local agent in

the area she lived in said that she would have to take out new

insurance, and she would have to pay $300 to start her insurance from

that date. There was no opportunity that he could see to give her any

credit for the money that she had invested, the money that was sitting

somewhere in the vaults or in the accounts of ICBC. Again, I feel that

it's not fraud or theft or anything like that. But because of the

inaction of the government and the Attorney-General, who has a moral

obligation to see that cars on the road are properly insured and

repaired, this is not taking place. Because of the long, drawn-out

strike that for some unknown reason has not had the attention.... The

government has not used the pressure that I know government and the

cabinet can if they want to get this operation back to the bargaining

table, settle with the workers and get the people of British Columbia

the proper insurance that they have paid for.

The third

issue I would like to bring to the attention of the minister is a

problem that I see taking place. As I said to begin with, the pendulum

swings from left to right and back again. I know that today there is a

large hue and cry that we have to punish those charged with impaired

driving; we must lock up those who, because of their impaired driving,

have added to the carnage on the highways. I don't think anyone in this

House has seen more carnage from impaired drivers than I have. Again,

in many cases those who are involved in impaired driving are not

criminals in the criminal sense of violence. They are criminals because

they are part of our social order and part of the social necessity that

many people feel to drink to enjoy themselves. I have great fear

that....

I know I can't discuss pending legislation, but

legislation will be brought in because they think it's a simple answer

for everyone charged with impaired driving or with a second offence to

be immediately sent to jail or have their licences suspended.

would like to make some comments and observations. In Sweden they send

you to jail for one year for impaired driving. Right now they have a

three-year waiting list to go to jail. In Sweden they have a different

cultural arrangement. A lot of people live in cities that are served by

transit. People can come and go wherever they want. They can get from

point A to point B on public transit. But in my particular riding many

people are living away from the transit system in the rural areas. To

deny them....

Mr. Chairman, if I can get an intervening speaker, I will finish my little story

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I would like to deal very briefly with the question of the facilities

at Metchosin. In my earlier remarks I spoke of the Outward Bound camp

at Porteau Cove on Howe Sound. Of course, as the member has indicated,

at the Metchosin Road property we operate the same style of program. In

addition. as the member knows, we have a program which is known as WELD

— work experience, leadership and learning development. That's a very

exciting program. I wish to assure the member that that program is to

be in no way discontinued.

The member raised questions

concerning the property upon which that program was situated and other

matters touching upon the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary. The

present facilities at Metchosin Road consist of an old house, a barn

and six cabins. They are in poor state of repair; in fact, they have

been condemned. They are a fire hazard. We must replace them, and we

will. The facilities are used approximately 50 weekends each year.

Juveniles arrive on Friday night and return to their homes on Sunday.

About

a year ago the corrections branch of the ministry made a request that

these facilities be replaced. This request was included in this year's

budget, the 1981-82 budget estimates we're now considering, and

Treasury Board has given its approval. We therefore went to the

Buildings Corporation, who provide us with our facilities, and said:

"Here's our problem. We would like them to be replaced." In the course

of examining the facilities and the property they considered other

locations, because we were aware that the regional development plan for

the area will eventually see this particular Metchosin Road property

surrounded by homes, and it makes it less attractive from our point of

view to use it for Outward Bound facilities.

A number of

sites have been presented to the corrections branch for consideration.

One of them happens to be the property to which the member has

referred, apparently presently owned by Happy Valley Timber Ltd. I'm

advised that the Buildings Corporation had independent appraisal of

that property, as they had of others. They found its value to be

somewhat less than what Happy Valley Timber had paid for it, and they

approached Happy Valley to purchase it — not to exchange the property,

but to buy it. The purchase was subject to rezoning from rural to

public institutional use and also to the question of availability and

cost of necessary services. These conditions haven't been met, and in

this regard we are continuing to look for other properties which will

be more removed from residential development, or we will proceed with

the reconstruction and replacement of the existing facilities. What

discussions there may have been

[ Page 6402 ]

between

BCBC and Happy Valley Timber I have no idea. The information I was

given was that there was a proposal to buy the property, not to

exchange it, but that proposal has come to nothing because of the

questions of rezoning and other conditions.

With regard to

the property at Metchosin Road, I am advised that BCBC has indicated

that if the property ever becomes surplus it will be advertised for

sale by public tender. That depends upon two conditions: one, that we

are found some other acceptable location; and secondly, that the

property becomes surplus to government needs.

MR. MITCHELL: I'll get back to the question of when it first came before the House and when the estimates came before the House.

I'd

like to follow along what I was saying on the threat that appears from

discussion within the House and the community — that people are going

to automatically lose their licence because this is the way it happens

in certain countries, and some people may go to jail because of

impaired driving. I think we must take into consideration the different

locations and different types of people who are involved in impaired

driving. I would like to plead a case for a lot of people who work for

a living and live in the rural areas. I know it's a sin to drink and a

criminal offence to drive, and I know that because of parties and

circumstances many people, including maybe members of this Legislature,

have both drunk and driven.

But what is happening? If we

have this automatic suspension of driver's licence because of a person

being involved in impaired driving, what actually happens? Many people

who live in the rural areas have homes, families and mortgages. They

have responsibilities. It's easy for some person interpreting the

regulations back in the parliament buildings to say: "Yes, your licence

will be suspended." But when a person is faced with the knowledge that

for six months he is going to be denied a job, he is not going to be

able to make his mortgage payments or to pay his children's dental

bills, what does he do? Human nature being what it is, the need for

survival comes forth, and people drive while under suspension. It's a

fact of life. From a police point of view, if you're going to bring in

laws to curb something, bring in laws that are enforceable. The member

for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) suggested that people who have a driving

conviction should have an "A" on their licence for being impaired,

indicating that they're a danger to fellow motorists. But again, that's

not really enforceable.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

feel that some consideration should be given for a person to have the

right to drive so that he can continue his employment. We have people

going to jail who get out to go to work and then go back to jail at

night or on weekends. I feel that cars being driven for work should be

easily identifiable when they're on the road. I'm making a suggestion

for the minister's consideration. It's not to point people out, but so

that the fact that a person has the right to drive to work is known by

everyone, and so that it can be enforced by the enforcement officers

patrolling the highways. Some type of large flag, something like these

large whip antennas, can be locked on and sealed to the car burnper. If

he has the right to drive in daytime hours it could be one colour, and

if he's driving at night it would be a different flag, because people

work shifts.

A person would have to pay for additional

insurance, but it would be restricted so that he could commute from his

job to his home during working hours. When the enforcement officers

spot that car around a beer parlour, show or dance hall, they'll know

it's in violation. The mechanism can be sealed, and if there is any

damage to it there should be a fine. But the person has the opportunity

to drive his car to protect his job and maintain his home.

What

happens is that people start off only driving to work and back. They

get away with it, and next week they're driving to get the groceries.

Then sometime they'll stop at a beer parlour, have a couple of beers,

and get involved in an accident. Because they're under suspension, they

flee the scene. Normally, law-abiding citizens wouldn't flee, but

because they're under suspension, self-preservation drives them to

leave the scene. All this builds up because they got away with driving

to work two or three times, being very careful and going on the back

roads. The average policeman does not know all the people convicted of

impaired driving. Someone convicted in Victoria can drive through

Saanich, Oak Bay or Esquimalt and never be seen by an officer involved

in the conviction in Victoria. The car itself should have some way of

being identified, but only for the opportunity to go to work.

With

any regulation that you bring in or any recommendations for changes

that may come out of other departments, the law should be workable and

enforceable for those who are obliged to try to police the streets and

highways. Don't let people get away with driving three or four times,

building up.... It's very human. We all do certain things like that.

have a fourth suggestion I would like to make to the Attorney-General.

Today I read in the paper: "Drop Police Right to Strike." Every so

often when police officers are negotiating a wage increase, all the

power of public opinion comes down on them if they go on strike. A lot

of people have never worked as police officers or in the negotiations

with an employer who has gone through the frustrations that have taken

place over the years. Society feels that it has a right to demand that

a police officer be on duty 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year. This

is a right. We all say that that thin blue line between democracy and

anarchy is manned by a group of police officers who are dedicated

public servants. We have gone though negotiations and arbitration,

conciliation and mediation procedures. As the minister knows, in

arbitration a fair type of labour negotiation was hampered because of

the rules of court. You had to have direct evidence; you couldn't quote

something someone said in Ottawa. You couldn't use that evidence; you

had to fly in a man from Ottawa. All the evidence had to be evidence

that was acceptable in court. The conciliation board always depended on

the third man who was appointed. For all those who ever suffered

through that short period with a mediation board, you know the disaster

that happened.

The minister has the responsibility to

protect the morale of the officers who are working, and to see that

they have an opportunity to share the same benefits as fellow workers

who have the right to strike and the right to increase their share of

the gross national product. I'll make a suggestion to him for study.

For those who remember the old theory — going back into history to the

late 1920s when they were fighting for parity prices for wheat — the

value of wheat was to be decided on a selection of goods in a so-called

basket. The price of butter, sugar, beef, clothing and machinery....

As those costs rose, the price of wheat should rise. I suggest

[ Page 6403 ]

that

if there is any consideration of the idea that people are going to be

denied the right to strike, they should have another built-in

mechanism. Their wages should be tied to those of selected occupations,

like electricians, carpenters, boilermakers, plumbers and social

workers within a community where you can come up with an acceptable

average. In negotiations maybe you would debate the fact that you were

going to replace boilermakers' wages with carpenters' wages, or

something else. There should be some area that we can negotiate, to

come up with suggestions that are not swinging from the left to the

right, as I said before. You don't deny to one group in society a

benefit that their neighbours are getting. There should be some order

in negotiations. I say this to the minister because it's his duty to

keep the morale of the forces in top form at all times. When you have

long, drawn-out, bitter labour strife within the police force, the

taxpayer is not getting the service that he's paying for.

There

was a good example of this when the federal government decided to

increase RCMP wages. Instead of making it retroactive to the beginning

of the year, as is normal, they moved it up to April. Instead of

getting a 12 percent increase, they got an 8.5 percent increase. In the

short period that was being fought over in the media and in Ottawa,

there was a real drop in the morale of many officers. They felt they

had been shafted by the federal government. I would like to see the

provincial government take a new approach and bring in some new ideas

and new suggestions to a very complex program that has gone on for a

number of years. Every so often we have the example of what happens

when complete frustration takes over, as in Moncton and in Halifax

recently.

If the minister could come up with some

suggestions of what kind of leadership his government could give, I

know a lot of the people out there would appreciate it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I just want to respond very quickly to points raised by the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. I understand the concerns that he raises with

respect to the consequences for persons who are employed, when they

lose their right to drive. It affects both professional drivers and the

ability of others to get to and from work. There is one very simple

answer. You can think of all the administrative techniques possible —

licence numbers, flags and so on, so the police can identify whether

the person is under suspension for impaired driving, but there's one

very simple answer. If you're going to drink, don't drive. It's the

beginning. That's where you start. If you going to drink, don't drive.

The experience of this province is such that even though the courts are

imposing increasing fines for first offences and not giving jail

penalties — which they can do on a first offence, but don't — and in

spite of the fact that it is expensive in legal fees, we are having

people who are coming back for second offences, for which they get 14

days in jail. They come back again and their licences get suspended.

With that, we have the problem of the carnage on our highways, about

which we spoke yesterday.

What do you say to a person who

writes the Attorney-General, pointing out that a member of their family

has been killed or badly injured in a motor-vehicle accident and that

the person driving the other car who caused the accident was driving

with his licence under suspension. We have 50,000 people in the

province of British Columbia whose licences are suspended. We would

have more flags on the backs of cars than we would have cars, in many

communities. The laws in this respect have been too lax, and in many

respects the enforcement has been too lax. If you have constituents who

are concerned, the answer to them is: read the Counterattack

literature. The basic message is there. If you want to drink, don't

drive.

If you have a friend at your house who consumes too

much liquor and wants to drive his car home, what do you call that guy?

The answer is you call him a taxi. That becomes your responsibility as

the host. It applies equally to the person who gets himself in a

situation where he loses his licence and can't go to work. What you do

is you get some other member of the family or some neighbour, and say:

"Look, I was a damn fool. I've got a problem, but I've got to get to

work. Would you help me out?" That's better than all the flags and all

the licence numbers, because then it becomes your neighbour, you see.

who has to help you out. Maybe it makes you think the next time you

drink and drive. That's the answer to the problem.

The last

matter is with respect to police officers in this province and their

rights to negotiate with their employers for their wages and working

conditions. The story which appeared in the paper this morning to which

the member made reference, I gather, was initiated by a letter which I

wrote to the mayor of West Vancouver, who had raised with me the

concept of taking away the right to strike of police officers. I

responded to him that collective bargaining is the basis upon which we

adjust our affairs between employers and employees, irrespective of

what their position may be. In the case of those who find themselves

working in an essential service, we also provide additional assistance

to both the employer and the employees to resolve any disputes they may

have. It's worked very successfully. Quite frankly, if you look back in

the records in this province, we have not had those problems with our

police officers. They recognize their responsibilities, both as police

officers and as negotiators when the bargaining time comes around.

When

I was Minister of Labour, I was involved in police negotiations.

Nothing could have been conducted more responsibly. They recognized

that the decision to take the men off the job was a very serious one,

and would only be taken after every avenue had been exhausted. We have

been very fortunate. We had a little problem here in the city of

Victoria, where the police officers showed their disgust at the way the

negotiations were going on, but they stayed on the job. They performed

their responsibilities as police officers. It's my view, from the

police officers with whom I come into contact in my present position,

that their sense of responsibility, their duty as police officers, will

ensure that no matter how difficult the negotiations may be, they will

use every avenue of assistance which we can provide in the resolution

of their affairs,

MR. MITCHELL: I just have a brief

point to make. I have to agree 100 percent that the police have been

responsible. I didn't want to see a swing that was going to deny a

group of people in that particular.... I also wanted to mention that

the minister is still looking for that simplistic answer. It is not

there. People are committing additional offences because they are

driving under suspension because of necessity. They are forcing another

type of criminal act that I think the minister should look at. Don't

think there's a simple answer, because I know that those who are

working with it realize that there isn't a simple one.

[ Page 6404 ]

MR. BARNES:

I don't want to address the issue that the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) was addressing. However, as far as I am

concerned, driving while drunk should be a one-time experience, because

when you're caught you shouldn't be allowed to drive again. I want to

congratulate the Attorney-General on his creativity. Normally I'm not

in favour of name-calling, but I think that, as you say, when a person

has been drinking and you want to call him a name, call him a taxi —

that's a good line. It's apropos to some of the things that I wanted to

ask the Attorney-General.

After almost two years of

attempting to raise the issue of the Canadian Knights of the Ku Klux

Klan in this Legislature, I appreciate the opportunity to inquire with

respect to the Attorney-General's position in using the Criminal Code

of Canada in addressing this problem.

With that brief

introduction, I would like to move right into my concerns. The

Attorney-General will, of course, be familiar with

section 281. In

fact, there are two subsections, 281.1 and 281.2, dealing with hate

propaganda. The first section, 282.1, has to do with the advocacy of

genocide, and

section 281.2 deals with public incitement to hatred. In

reviewing this section, it states: "Everyone who by communicating

statements in a public place incites hatred against any identifiable

group, where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the

peace, is guilty...." I won't go into the offence. At this stage I'm

not concerned about the sentence. Subsection 2 states that everyone

who, by communicating statements other than in private conversation,

wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is also guilty.

However, there are some interesting "ifs" to those two sections that I

would also like the Attorney-General to comment on. They are apparently

exceptions. Notwithstanding either of the two subsections which I read,

if a person establishes that the statements communicated were true, if

in good faith he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an

opinion upon a religious subject, if the statements were relative to

any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the

public benefit and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be

true, or if in good faith he intended to point out for the purpose of

removal matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred

towards an identifiable group in Canada, these would be exceptions if

these can be proved.

I'd like to ask the Attorney-General,

on reflection of some of the examples of literature that the Klan used

in the past two years that have been in various publications ... the

most recent one was in the Vancouver Sun ,

June 1. This was at a cross-burning ceremony at Stave Lake. One of the

members was quoted as saying: "Let us offer a prayer of thanks to God

for creating us in his image, for giving us white skin and superior

intellect." In the Times-Colonist of April 4, 1981, one of the

other leaders suggested that the East Indian community were

bloodsuckers and trash — and that was associated with a more extensive

expression with respect to propagating hate concepts in the community.

Another one in a publication last year suggested that all the blacks in

Canada should be repatriated to their homes, wherever that is — 35,000

non-whites at $35,000 apiece should be forcibly sent back to their

homelands.

My question to the Attorney-General as the chief

law enforcement officer in the province is: although you have stated in

the past that in your view no laws have been broken — in other words,

nothing that the Klan or any such groups have said or done or appear to

be doing is in violation of any provincial or federal statutes.... I

would like to ask the Attorney-General to explain away some of these

remarks, and I'm sure he has on file some much more penetrating remarks

than the ones I have quoted. I don't really feel that I'm an authority

on the extent of grievances that people suffer with respect to verbal

or other remarks that they receive from people who are clearly

intending to offend them.

I would like to ask the

Attorney-General if he would explain his role as the chief law

enforcement officer in this problem with respect to the Criminal Code

of Canada. There is a

section in the Code, 281.2 (6), states that "no

proceeding for an offence under subsection 2 shall be instituted

without the consent of the Attorney-General." Mr. Chairman, I believe

this point has not really been addressed satisfactorily in the past two

years, ever since the re-emergence of the Klan in this province. There

are two aspects to my questions; one is that while the Attorney-General

has made it quite apparent that in his opinion he does not feel any

laws are being violated and has offered his immediate response to

anyone who brings forward information indicating a law has been

broken....

As recently as question period this week he

suggested to the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and,

I believe, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) that if they

had hard evidence that would indicate there was a case to be made

against the Klan, he would appreciate the information.

However, a number of organizations in' the province, one of which is

the Black Solidarity Association of British Columbia, I think lodged a

formal complaint with the Attorney General asking that the Klan be

prosecuted under the appropriate

section of the Canadian Criminal Code.

The Attorney General has not, to my knowledge, proceeded to do as

requested; presumably he has acknowledged the request and has rejected

it.

That subsection (6)

concerns me, because it would appear as though the Attorney-General is

the sole authority with respect to the justice system on this issue. He

being a lawyer and I not having had professional training, I don't

doubt that there are other examples of where the Attorney-General may

also be required to give consent, but I'm suggesting that it seems

rather curious in a matter of racism and hate propagation that the

procedure as laid down in the act requires that the chief law

enforcement officers of the different provinces have to give consent

before a complaint under this

section can be effected. It is on this

that I would like to have the Attorney-General give his comments. It

may well be that Ottawa has successfully manipulated the provinces by

giving them the burden of having to initiate action in clearly

politically sensitive matters. In any event, I think the

Attorney-General should indicate his position.

My view, Mr.

Chairman, has been that if the Attorney-General is not satisfied that

the law is bring broken despite considerable public indignation and

outrage in this matter, one would wonder why he hasn't been inclined to

protest to Ottawa and the Solicitor-General and press the MPs in Ottawa

to amend the Canadian Criminal Code in such a manner as to make it more

accessible to the ordinary public. What I'm asking is why he should

take the heat when he may in fact, in his own view and with the

limitations he has as a single person, have no ability to be able to

know all things and all matters; but still he is sitting between the

people of this province and their access to due process of law. In this

case he's doing it despite very strong public opinion that he do

[ Page 6405 ]

otherwise.

It would seem to me that his desire not to stand in the way could be

shown by simply indicating to the public that while he disagrees he

does not feel they should not have their day in court.

would like to feel — and I hope the Attorney-General would agree — that

groups of individuals, religious organizations, racial groups,

minorities, majorities or whatever — classifications of people by race

or any denomination — would have the same rights in our justice system

as individuals have, and that they would be able to press charges of

defamation of character, libel, slander or any affront they feel has

been committed. However, when it comes to identifiable groups, targets

of racism and hatred, as has been the objective of the Canadian Knights

of the Ku Klux Klan, they have had no recourse, and it seems as though

our statutes indicate that we are aware that there need to be some laws

in place to address issues such as this.

But we have an

anomaly, and I would like the Attorney-General to clarify just how this

happens. I am concerned, because I don't think it is sufficient to

merely sit and say: "The Attorney-General won't take action, so we will

condemn the Attorney-General." The Attorney-General has a right to his

opinion, as has any other free citizen in this province, but as the

chief law enforcement officer he has to provide solutions to difficult

situations as well. I think it is irregular in a free and democratic

society to find ourselves in a situation where large numbers of the

population are asking that the courts test some of the complaints they

have made against an organization they feel is very close to being

seditious with respect to the Canadian mosaic and the integrity the

country has enjoyed for so many years and hopes to continue to enjoy.

There

is a real threat of a different nature than any other form of violence

the Canadian Criminal Code has been addressing in the past. It's a

little bit different than a physical form. It's a slightly different

attitude than that which we have been able to include in our

legislative process, because we're talking about things which are not

always concrete, tangible or measurable, although it's quite obvious

that tempers can get out of hand and people can do things they

ordinarily wouldn't do as a result of provocation. Hate propaganda in

this form and this manner is clearly a very effective device in

creating disturbances in the community, as the Klan has discovered.

Perhaps

the Attorney-General would indicate to the House as well his analysis

of why the Klan regards British Columbia as a haven for the recruitment

of their members. They indicated that of all places in Canada British

Columbia rates number one. That's curious. I'm not certain of the

explanation. I'm suspicious, however, that the atmosphere in the

province, because of silence — not because of indifference, perhaps,

but because of not being more immediately responsive to concerns and

clearly able to articulate our position, values and priorities with

respect to our most important resource, the human beings who live

here.... The cultures, races, classes, the different forms — whatever

we have to make up our population — are not being addressed in such a

manner as to concern the Klan. So they feel it's sort of like a fox

going into a chicken coop — no one is attending the place except the

chickens. Obviously, it's going to be a heyday for the fox — dinner at

will; pluck them off one at a time. In this case, they undermine the

integrity of the community little by little. It's an erosive tactic

that is bound to have a damaging effect for many years to come,

certainly for many generations, unless we're able to come up with

effective priorities within our statutes that clearly articulate where

we are, what we stand for and what we will not tolerate.

guess I'm saying that, just as you remarked earlier about some of our

problems with respect to juvenile crime, this should be less of a

political issue with respect to the different parties and more a matter

of our concern for the integrity of the community that we're all

battling to try and assist in being a fruitful and productive

community. So the Klan has challenged us. They have successfully

challenged us. In fact, they led with their right. right off the bat,

and have given us a very heavy blow to the chin. In some respects.

they've brought us to our knees. They have certainly caused

considerable political embarrassment for the government. Perhaps it may

have been any other government, although I feel that my personal

orientation is such that I don't have too much difficulty recognizing

enemies when I see them. I'm not afraid to identify them and take

action.

I'm hoping that the Attorney-General will stand in

his place and try to address the matter not so much as the

Attorney-General and the chief law enforcement officer in the province

— although I'm sure he's preoccupied with that work on and off the job:

it's a full-time responsibility — but as a person. I realize that all

members are honourable and that we regard them according to their

duties and responsibilities with respect to the constituencies they

serve. I recall knowing this member. Mr. Chairman, when I was first

elected in 1972. We used to travel together on the ferry, and we had

many philosophic debates about our role as public officials. No ill

comment intended, but at the time the Attorney-General was on this side

of the House. I believe he was one of the five Liberal members at the

time, under the leadership of Mr. David Anderson. However, I don't wish

to wave any flags before the minister, so I say that in a friendly tone

at this time.

I do believe that the Attorney-General, as the

Attorney-General and as an individual, has to be able to resolve this

problem. It is a serious one. and one he knows well. It is one I'm sure

he must have had many sleepless nights over, as many of us have. But I

can assure him that there are hundreds of thousands of people affected

by every day that we delay. I happen to know that practically the whole

population, particularly in the East Indian community — just to mention

one — is very concerned. They are amazingly controlled in light of the

circumstances, because they somehow have been specifically identified

as targets for abuses and insults with respect to their right to live

in dignity as citizens in this province. I for one — and, I'm sure, any

other British Columbian. regardless of race. creed or colour — would be

concerned, because we are no stronger than our weakest link. When the

abuses are effected upon my neighbour, it affects me in the same way

that it was intended for that neighbour. We're all together. So it's a

very serious matter, and we are hurting as a result of it. Even if we

take action today, it does not mean that we will reverse what has

already happened; but we can at least indicate our willingness to turn

things around.

I'm going to conclude my remarks by appealing

to the Attorney-General as a person and not necessarily as a political

opponent, because I have to live with what I say as well. I wouldn't

stand here and play games on a matter that involves so many people, and

I don't think the Attorney-General would either. I urge him to think

seriously about what he has been saying in the past little while about

his doubts as to the effectiveness of the Criminal Code as a successful

device in prosecuting the Klan.

[ Page 6406 ]

a lawyer he is perhaps extra cautious, as I probably would be if I was

a lawyer. Being just an ordinary practitioner out in the streets, I

tend to behave like ordinary people. I'm not clouded by all of the

legalese and concerns of a lawyer who has to face the courtroom. But

then I don't think that the Attorney-General would guarantee one of his

prospective clients that success is in the bag, as he took their

retainer. I don't think it is possible for any solicitor or attorney to

guarantee that he will win every case. So I'm saying to this

Attorney-General: give the people of British Columbia the same break

you would an ordinary client. Say: "Look, I'll take the case; we'll do

our best. If we lose, we'll come back and appeal — we'll fight. You can

be sure that you're going to have your day in court." That's really all

that we're asking on behalf of the people. Mr. Attorney-General, I

would appreciate your remarks with respect to that specific problem.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, the second member for Vancouver Centre speaks eloquently

on this vexing problem. His concern and the concern of those on whose

behalf he speaks is my concern. I am disgusted that we would have in

our midst people who would espouse the views, attitudes and conduct,

recently displayed in our press, of the Klan. The government has

indicated, as the member has, that such conduct, standards and

attitudes are unacceptable in this province and in this country.

are without question a multi-racial community. We have welcomed to

Canada and to British Columbia from all corners of this world peoples

who have indicated a desire to live here and to share with all

Canadians their culture, background, skills and personalities, and at

the same time to enjoy with all other Canadians, from wherever they may

have come, including those whose families have been here for decades,

the freedoms which we treasure in this country. For that reason I find

disgusting and reprehensible the espousals of those who would in any

way — through intimidation, terror or threat — attempt to diminish the

rights of a