1979 Legislative Session: ist 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, JULY 4, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

503 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act Respecting the Commercial Use of Lie Detectors (Bill M203). Mr. Leggatt.

Introduction and first reading –– 503

Rape in British Columbia report.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 503

Oral questions.

Denman Island subdivision. Ms. Sanford –– 503

Salary of Wendy Robertson. Mr. King –– 503

Acute-care hospital finances. Mr. Cocke –– 503

Television coverage of Provincial Games, Mr. Barnes –– 504

Cancelled meeting with agriculture representatives, Mrs. Wallace ––

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates.

On vote 19.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 505

Ms. Brown –– 506

Mr. Hall –– 507

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 508

Mr. Levi –– 508

Mr. King –– 509

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 510

Mr. Levi –– 510

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 511

Ms. Brown –– 511

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 512

Mr. Nicolson –– 513

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 516

Mr. Barnes –– 516

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 518

Mr. Howard –– 519

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 520

Mrs. Dailly –– 522

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 523

Mr. Leggatt –– 523

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 524

Mr. King –– 525

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 525

Mr. Nicolson –– 527

Mr. Mitchell –– 527

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 528

Obsolete Statutes Repeal Act (Bill 20). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 528

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure this afternoon to

introduce our new ombudsman for British Columbia, Dr. Karl Friedmann,

who is present with his family and his mother who recently arrived from

Germany. I'd also ask hon. members to pay special welcome to his

guests, Mr. and Mrs. Ulf Lundik. Mr. Lundik until recently was the

chief ombudsman for Sweden, and he's currently visiting Canada as the

president of the International Ombudsman Institute, which is at the law

faculty at the University of Alberta. We have a third ombudsman

present, Mr. Dave Tickell, the ombudsman for Saskatchewan. I'd like to

pay special welcome to all these people. This is a historic day in

British Columbia. The ombudsman, Mr. Speaker, is aboard.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to lend the congratulations of the

official opposition to Dr. Friedmann and his family upon their taking

up residence and duties in beautiful British Columbia. I would like to

also extend the warmest greetings and support and associate myself with

the Attorney-General's remarks with respect to Dr. Friedmann's guests.

MR. D'ARCY: I would like to welcome to the House, in time for the

Attorney-General's estimates, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk), who has just recovered his best courtroom suit from the dry cleaners

and is joining us today.

MR. NICOLSON:

This is the first opportunity I've had to welcome representatives from

one of the five new village councils that have been added to the riding

of Nelson–Creston. I'd like the members to join me in welcoming Mayor

Erling Johnson, of Nakusp, and Mr. Stroud, his village clerk.

MR. HALL:

I would like the House to welcome a community worker and good friend

from White Rock, Mrs. Betty Leonard, who is in the gallery today.

MR. LEVI:

I would like the House to welcome Mr. Tim Covell, one of the B.C.

junior debating champions, and his coach, Mr. Bruce McBay. I've told

Mr. Covell what he can expect; however, I hope the House doesn't meet

those expectations.

MR. SPEAKER: We have with us

today Dr. Miltmore, who is the director of the experimental farm in

Agassiz. We have with us Mr. Charlie Thomson, world ploughing champion.

And we have with us Mr. Peter De Groot, all from my constituency. Would

the hon. members please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT RESPECTING THE

COMMERCIAL USE OF LIE DETECTORS

On a motion by Mr. Leggatt, Bill M 203,

An Act Respecting the Commercial Use

of Lie Detectors, 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.

Hon. Mr. Gardom filed the report Rape in British Columbia .

Oral questions

DENMAN ISLAND SUBDIVISION

MS. SANFORD:

My question is to the Minister of Transportation, Communications and

Highways. Can the minister advise the House what reasons there were for

approving the Seaview Land Estates subdivision on Denman Island, when

the Regional District of Comox-Strathcona, the Islands Trust and the

senior approving officer of the Highways ministry were opposed to

granting that approval?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

MS. SANFORD:

I have a second question for the minister. I wonder, when he reports

back on the question he's just taken as notice, as well as the question

he took as notice last week on this particular issue, if he could

advise why the government would rule in favour of a developer rather

than the people when there is a dispute on such an issue.

MR. SPEAKER: That's further advice for notice.

SALARY OF WENDY ROBERTSON

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Provincial Secretary. I note that the

employment status of Wendy Robertson has been extended to September 30,

1979. I would advise the minister that last year his predecessor

notified the House that this lady was receiving payment for only a

ten-month period. I would ask the Provincial Secretary if he could

advise the House now as to whether or not Miss Wendy Robertson received

$28,800 for the term of her employment in the calendar year 1978.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I think the hon. member would understand that I would want to take that

question as notice in order that I might have a completely accurate

answer for him. Off the top of my head this afternoon, I am unable to

answer the question satisfactorily.

MR. KING: I am more than pleased to provide that time for an absolutely accurate answer, which is a distinct and refreshing change.

ACUTE-CARE HOSPITALS FINANCES

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Can the

minister confirm that he has received the monthly financial reports

from the acute-care hospitals of this province for the month of April?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

[ Page 504 ]

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, this is a traditional report that has been coming in for

years and years. I just wonder why the minister cannot confirm that he

has received the financial reports from the acute-care hospitals of

this province.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE:

Maybe I can make it a little plainer. Mr. Speaker, what the minister

would obviously like to do is take the question as notice. So I'll give

him something to take as notice. I would ask the minister if he would

provide this House with the aggregate deficits of the acute-care

hospitals in this province for the month of April.

MR. SPEAKER: That has to do with the future action of a minister, and I would have to find that

section of the question not in order.

TELEVISION COVERAGE

OF PROVINCIAL GAMES

MR. BARNES: I have a question for

the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. As the minister knows, many

British Columbians were not privileged to view the television coverage

of this province's first summer and winter games in 1978 — a situation

resulting from a decision by the director of the games, despite protest

by the B.C. programmers' association, to permit only one large private

company to telecast, while excluding the province's 40-odd local

stations and community-service TV channels. This was a serious

disservice and conflicted with the spirit and principle of these

valuable community events. Would the minister give assurance that this

most unfortunate and unfair situation will not be repeated in the

future?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in answering

the member's question, I would not want to leave this House with the

impression that I agree with all the opinions he expressed in the

question. But with respect to the British Columbia Summer and Winter

Games, there is in existence a contractual arrangement with British

Columbia Television which was arranged prior to the portfolio changes

in December 1978.

MR. LAUK: A secret deal.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member interjects, and I think that it's nice to know he's feeling better. It's nice to know he's back.

Mr.

Speaker, at the time of the Winter Games in Kamloops the problem to

which the hon. member refers became apparent, and that is the

contractual arrangement of making it difficult if not impossible for

community cable in Kamloops in that instance to give local coverage to

the games. Frankly I think that's unfortunate, and that can be

corrected.

In discussions with the chairman of the Summer

and Winter Games, I have already indicated the desire that this should

be reviewed, notwithstanding the fact that there is a contractual

arrangement, in order that community cable systems in the host

community can at least carry some coverage. The matter is not yet fully

resolved. I'm hopeful that it will be, and negotiations, I believe, are

underway at this present time.

MR. BARNES: I

appreciate the minister's response. That is certainly an improvement

over the situation that existed in 1978. However, could the minister

indicate to the House the reason why an exclusive contract would have

been given to the detriment of the province's many community outlets,

in an occasion when these events are low-profile, are not professional,

and are not to promote any particular interest other than to engage the

communities in sharing and cooperating with their local athletes? So

I'm just wondering why there would be a difficulty in ensuring the

House that this situation will not be repeated. What kind of

contractual arrangements are that binding, under the circumstances,

that they can't be reversed?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It

might be more appropriate to deal with this when there is not the

pressure of time in question period in my estimates, which will be

coming up in August or September. I'd be happy to assist the member,

but in the meantime the contractual arrangement was made, we assume, in

the interests of providing the broadest possible provincial coverage.

We're very proud of the British Columbia Games — I think that applies

to members on both sides of this House — and inasmuch as they are very

large and involve many hundreds of participants from all parts of

British Columbia, I can only assume, Mr. Speaker — to the member — that

it was felt by my predecessor that there was a desirable arrangement,

an opportunity, in terms of having province-wide coverage in order that

family and friends of participants from all parts of the province would

have an opportunity to see the games and perhaps see their own

youngster or their own neighbour participating in those games. But if

the member wants to pursue it further, I'd be happy to do that in the

estimates if he feels that's appropriate.

MR. BARNES: This is really just one final observation.

MR. SPEAKER: It must be a question, hon. member.

MR. BARNES:

It is in the form of a question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the

minister how he can suggest that the idea was to broadcast the B.C.

Summer and Winter Games on a province-wide basis when, in fact, it was

quite a selective system that was used by this company, obviously

because they are limited in time. The only way you are going to involve

local communities in events of which they themselves have supported the

development is to put emphasis on those athletes in those areas. And

that can only be done where a local community channel or a

community-service channel has the time and the knowledge and the

patience to follow those particular athletes from that particular area.

Certainly you couldn't expect one company to do that in every local

area.

MR. SPEAKER: The member is using question period for debate.

MR. BARNES: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that was a question, and the minister was going to answer it — if you'd permit him.

[ Page 505 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I was simply going to agree with your observation with respect to the comments by the member.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for that support.

CANCELLED MEETING WITH

AGRICULTURE REPRESENTATIVES

MRS. WALLACE: Mr.

Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources and Agriculture. I understand that a meeting was arranged in

March of yourself, Mr. Minister, the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair)

with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. I understand further that that

meeting was cancelled and a meeting was set up for June 26 — last week.

I wonder whether or not the minister can confirm that, in fact, some of

the representatives of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture travelled

from as far away as Vanderhoof and arrived at your office at 9:30 in

the morning, only to be told that that meeting was cancelled.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the member for Cowichan–Malahat is correct that the

meeting was scheduled, I believe, for the 26th — a Thursday or a Friday

morning. It was an error in scheduling. The House was in session and

other committees were being arranged, and as a result it was cancelled.

I apologize to the Federation of Agriculture representatives. I did

meet with them for approximately an hour later on in the day, and we

have rescheduled that meeting for this Friday, I believe, with the

Minister of Environment and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. We will

be getting together at that time.

MRS. WALLACE: Can

you assure the House, Mr. Minister, that those ministers will be

available on July 6 to meet with the federation members when they come

down?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are certainly going to be present.

MRS. WALLACE:

I have a further question, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Record of

Production Committee has been trying to meet with you, Mr. Minister,

last week and again this week. On both instances they have been told

that you were unavailable to meet with them. Can you assure the House

you will make yourself available to meet with this committee, and could

you tell us when you would be available to meet with them?

MR. SPEAKER: A good suggestion, but the question is not in order.

MRS. WALLACE:

Can you confirm, Mr. Minister, that you have found yourself unavailable

to meet with the ROP cattlemen's committee on two different occasions?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, because of the two portfolios I carry, I've had to

reschedule and look after meetings as the time demands. But I can tell

you that my door is always open to the agricultural industry in this

province, and I'll go anywhere to meet with them.

MRS. WALLACE:

Inasmuch as the minister has not found time to meet with this

committee, I wonder whether the minister can assure the House that he

will revise the directions to the district agriculturalists to stop

weighing-in the cattle for a record of production and reinstate that

weighing in program so the ROP program can continue. Will the minister

assure the House that he will undertake this action?

MR. SPEAKER: The question inquires into the future activity of the minister. Does the minister wish to answer?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

When the House rises, I will make every effort to deal with some of the

problems that are happening throughout the province. But I would like

to mention to the member that last weekend I met with grape growers; I

met with BCFGA and I met with cattlemen — on a weekend — to ensure that

there was good communication between my office and the agricultural

industry.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister has mentioned

that he has met with the grape growers. I understand a further meeting

has been set up with his ministry and the grape growers. In view of his

past history of cancellation of these meetings, can he assure us that

that meeting will go forward as planned on July 11?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is not in order.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 19: minister's office, $145,623 — continued.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Referring to the couple of questions to the Attorney-General, Mr.

Chairman. In response to the question about the rape report that was

filed today, I would like to say it is a result of a province-wide

review of rape centres, and an analysis of nearly all available

literature. Among its recommendations are these, and I think the hon.

members would be interested in hearing them: that a child sexual abuse

response unit be set up to establish and monitor procedures for dealing

with sexual assault on children; that victims of sexual assault be

given the choice of being interviewed by a male or female investigator;

that where female officers are not available, the victim be provided

with a victim-advocate to assist in investigation; that police develop

strict guidelines for classifying rape reports as unfounded; that a

standard procedure be adopted by all hospitals for the handling of

suspected rapes and such procedures would include matters such as

standard forms that would make no reference to a particular sex.

Other

recommendations are: the use in large hospitals of salaried physicians

for examination and treatment of suspected sexual assaults; a priority

treatment in all hospitals in cases of suspected sexual assault;

routine venereal disease and pregnancy tests in suspected rape

[ Page 506 ]

cases; and the making of transportation arrangements by the hospital for the victim of the suspected rape, where necessary.

The

report goes on to make a number of other recommendations, including a

larger number of B.C. rape centres, and calling upon the ministries of

Health and Human Resources to join with medical and health associations

to better develop a community approach to reporting and treating rape

cases. There is the further suggestion that Education undertake a

rape-prevention program aimed at high school students. It is suggested

also that in the prosecutorial area the prosecutor should provide more

support to rape victims, both prior to and during trial, that there be

consultation with Crown counsel before pleas and lesser charges, and

that the same counsel, where possible, be allowed to appear at both the

preliminary hearing and the trial.

As a ministry, hon.

members, we are now examining and analysing the report's

recommendations. Copies have been sent to the ministries of Health,

Education and Human Resources for their consideration. We are going to

be able to make an additional statement once we've had an opportunity

to consider the report and receive the views of the other ministries.

It's

never too comforting to talk about statistics in this particular or any

field involving crime, because the best statistic, of course, is a zero

one. But rape as a crime is of paramount concern to this ministry, and

to similar ministries throughout our country. Insofar as B.C. is

concerned, rapes reported last year totalled 403. This was an increase

of about 17 percent over 1977. The Police Commission feels this

increase does not necessarily reflect an increase in the actual number

of rapes so much as that more victims are now reporting attacks to the

police.

If this is true, this certainly could be the result

of excellent work now being carried on by rape relief centres and

similar organizations. It is of some comfort to notice the statistics

for the first four months of 1979. To the end of April, 102 rapes were

reported compared to 134 in the last year, which is about a 24 percent

decrease. The same applies to indecent assaults on females. In the

first four months of this year, 219 were reported, as opposed to 246

the year before. That's an 11 percent decrease.

So if the

first four months are an indicator, which they may not be, it's

indicative that we have a lessening number of these offences, which is,

of course, a great tribute, as again I say, to the people who are

involved in this.

I would like to make available, at a time

suitable to all members of the House, the viewing of two films. One

produced via the B.C. Police Commission is called This Film is About Rape .

It received a great deal of credits and recently won a second prize in

the American Film Festival at New York, according to a dateline here,

June 26, 1979. Secondly I'd like the hon. members to see the film which

is deemed to be controversial, How to Say No to a Rapist and Survive . That is the film that records a lecture by a Mr. Fred Storaska.

have had the benefit of one view of each of these films and the

difference in approach is very dramatic. Both of them, I think, have

some excellent points and make excellent points, and are of

considerable value. I would be quite prepared to say that there are

certain drawbacks in each of them as well, but I'd like all of the

members to have an opportunity to see those particular films. I'll be

making arrangements with the Whips for a suitable time for viewing.

MS. BROWN:

I'd just like to respond to the issue raised by the Attorney-General.

First of all I'd like to thank him very much for tabling this report,

and I certainly intend to go through it in great detail and probably

discuss it with him after.

I would like to suggest, Mr.

Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General, that when those two

films are shown there should be representatives from the Rape Relief

Centres present so that there could be some discussion afterwards,

because they're certainly not films that should be viewed in isolation.

As you say, both of them have drawbacks in them. Certainly on the

second one, How to Say No to a Rapist and Survive ,

the consensus of opinion is that it's a very dangerous film and maybe

we should talk about it. I wouldn't like the members of the Legislature

just to view it and go away thinking that this is the way in which the

issue should be handled. So maybe at the time when the viewing is

planned, representatives from one of the Rape Relief Centres should be

present and there should be a discussion afterwards about it.

I'm

also quite relieved that the statistics on rape are going down. I don't

think there's any question that certainly the Rape Relief Centres,

improved police training and the really very positive action on the

part of the Ministry of the Attorney-General have something to do with

that.

I would like to say that I hope that the funding for

Rape Relief Centres has now been put on a firmer setting and that they

are not going to have to go through the anxiety each year of waiting to

see whether their funding is going to be approved or not. They have

proven that they are meeting a need in the community, and I think the

time has passed when they have to come forward every year with cap in

hand and a plea to justify their existence. Is there any way that the

ministry can seriously look at the business of seeing that there are

Rape Relief Centres in all of the major communities in British

Columbia, and that their funding is secure? Because there isn't any

question whatsoever that they are meeting a very serious need and they

are doing a good job.

The other thing that you touched on

lightly, Mr. Attorney-General, is the sexual abuse clinic for children,

which you mentioned as one of the recommendations in this report. I

would like to share with you a concern which certainly surfaced with

the report done by the United Way, and that is that the emphasis is on

the victim of sexual abuse, but the Attorney-General's ministry is not

paying sufficient attention to the abusers. We recognize that it's

important that the victims have all of these support services and that

they be cared for immediately that the incident occurs, but we would

really like to see more attention paid to the abusers, the people who

are sexually abusing the children in this province.

Last night when I raised this issue, the Attorney-General said that he was not aware of the report prepared by the United Way.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I've issued a press release on one. I think you are speaking about a different one.

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry.

[ Page 507 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you might want to take your place and let the Attorney-General speak on it, but I must insist that the debate continue.

MS. BROWN:

No, I have made a copy of the

section dealing with the

Attorney-General's ministry for the Attorney-General, and I'd be very

happy to pass it on to him. But in fact what the report says is that

the juvenile delinquents Act and the Act dealing with protection of

children does not protect the child sufficiently against sexual abuse.

Again, there's a lot of legislation dealing with the young offender,

and a lot of legislation dealing with young people who break the law,

but the people who are actually abusing the children are not

sufficiently protected. In addition, the definition of a child in need

of protection varies from statute to statute, and according to this

report "generally deals with situations in which a child is in some

physical, emotional or moral danger."

Really, what they are

saying is that this particular

section of the Act needs to spell out

more clearly just what the moral danger is that one has to take into

account: that the abuse of children, using female and male children as

prostitutes, has to be included in the definition of physical as well

as moral and emotional danger. The

section of the Act that deals with

the protection of children in this regard needs to be tightened. The

whole business of sexual exploitation of children is not covered by

this particular piece of legislation. That comes under the province;

that is not a part of the Criminal Code; it is not covered by federal

jurisdiction. That is covered by provincial jurisdiction and that is

something that the Attorney-General's department should certainly look

at with a view to amending it. The sexual exploitation of children is

not covered by this particular piece of legislation. It says that there

needs to be a specific mandate in it for protection and intervention

where needed. It says British Columbia protection legislation fails to

consider the rights of the child.

I'm not discussing the

federal legislation; I recognize that the Criminal Code has to do with

part of it. But, provincially, the province is responsible for the

protection and the rights of the child. It says Ontario and Quebec

already have reform statements dealing specifically with the rights of

the child. This is what we need in British Columbia. This, the

International Year of the Child, would be a very good year for that

piece of legislation to be amended to take into account the rights of

the child. I'm quoting here from the report: "It is felt that the

sexually exploited child needs to be considered a victim to an adult,

and in need of protection, and this protection should be sufficient

justification for intervention." I'm going to make an additional copy

of this report available to the Attorney-General, since he has not yet

seen it. If it's possible or an amendment dealing with this to be

introduced this year, it would certainly be a very meaningful way in

which to deal with the International Year of the Child.

MR. HALL:

I have one question of the Attorney-General on this vote. It is to do

with a situation in Surrey. I have received a number of phone calls and

letters asking me to look into a number of things which are alleged to

have happened. All of us know, as MLAs, that one person's viewpoint in

not necessarily the correct viewpoint, and we can all see incidents and

accidents in a different way, even though we are all watching the same

incident.

The incident I'm talking about refers to the

industrial dispute that has been taking place in Surrey for some time.

I don't wish to comment on the court action — either the verdict of the

judge or the sentence that was placed on the strikers at Adams

Laboratories. That matter is before the courts, Mr. Chairman, and I

don't think it would be correct for me to pass any comments on it. What

I am concerned about is the apparent harsh treatment, or perhaps

unsatisfactory treatment, that ordinary people got — if I can use the

word "ordinary" meaning working people charged with one offence and

found guilty of one offence — at the hands of the public servants who

come under the Attorney-General's control.

I'm referring to

the treatment that was afforded, following sentence, to some people who

had been accused of certain things on the picket line. One person, who

is head of a single-parent family, was not afforded opportunity to make

any arrangements at all to look after her youngster after she was sent

off to jail. Also, the use of handcuffs was undertaken by the peace

officers who were escorting the guilty parties from one place to

another.

I'm not trying to find any differentiation in the

treatment of one criminal from another, if indeed the word "criminal"

is correct. But I do want to question that kind of conduct, and in

questioning it I want to find out if the Attorney-General has indeed

looked into it, because it was reported in the press. I'm sure he must

have received correspondence asking him to look into it. I'd like to

know if he has responded to the organized body of labour that has asked

him for some sort of observation as to what did take place on June 8,

1979, when those people appeared in court charged with the offences

stemming from a legal strike against Adams Laboratories.

While

I am not going to make any observations as to whether those people were

or were not guilty, or whether the sentence was excessive or not —

because that's being appealed, as I understand it — I can make some

comments about the dispute if you want; but the Chairman will probably

rule me out of order. It was a long and arduous dispute; and while

you're getting instructions from your seatmate, perhaps I can tell you

that when I see two young women escorted from one place to another in

handcuffs, and another one not allowed to make proper arrangements for

the safety and protection of a child, I'm beginning to wonder what

we're doing. I know that strikes and lockouts and trouble on the picket

line are unpleasant things, and I think it's time that we made sure we

treat everybody equally and we treat people with some humanity.

would like the Attorney-General to respond, and in particular to

respond to organized labour, who have asked him over three weeks ago to

look into this and as yet have not received any reply. Indeed I think

it's something which gives the kind of ammunition to people who want to

exacerbate the situation on the picket line; it gives ammunition to

those people who want to accuse the authorities of being unthinking; it

gives ammunition to those who want to look with blinkers on at the

conduct of authority in labour-management industrial unrest.

would appeal to the Attorney-General to look into this, and I'll have

more to say about the actual situation itself under the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams). I'd like the response now in terms of the

matters I've raised.

[ Page 508 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Just prior to recognizing the minister I have one small note from Sir

Erskine May. The member for Burnaby–Edmonds (Ms. Brown) was discussing

the matter of legislation, and while it's very interesting, it's not

appropriate under Supply. I'd just like to remind all the members that

the administrative action of the department is open for debate, but the

necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be

discussed in the Committee of Supply. That's just for the information

of the members of the committee, and not meant in any way to admonish

anyone.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman. In response to the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), we

will be looking into the matter and if there has been any excessive

activity, we'll certainly see that doesn't happen again. I cannot

confirm or deny at this point in time whether there is any excess of

action; secondly, the matter you've stated is before the courts, so I'd

rather not get into any degree of depth today.

MR. HALL:

That's fine. Knowing the Attorney-General as long as I've known him,

I'm certainly going to accept the answer that he will look into it.

Again, I was particularly careful, Mr. Chairman, not to deal with the

merits of whether or not those picketers were outside the law. But I do

want you to look at that conduct, and as fast as possible, because in

my view every day that goes past without those kinds of answers being

given.... Knowing the kind of climate in this year, of all years — the

largest contractual year that we have in labour-management affairs — I

think the Attorney-General would be serving this province well indeed

if he answered these things as quickly as possible.

MR. LEVI:

I'd just like to ask the Attorney-General a few questions. Perhaps

while he's making his notes he might tell me how much money the

government has put into Oakalla in the past two years. Since I was out

there recently, I see that there are a large number of extensions going

on out there, which makes me rather curious.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I can't give you that today.

MR. LEVI:

The minister is already bleating and I haven't even asked him anything

yet. There are some extensions going on out in Oakalla, and quite a few

in the years that I've been going out there. They have finally decided

to do something that should have been done 20 years ago. But in view of

the fact that they're possibly moving out of there, what are they doing

all the extensions for? I understand that those extensions will

probably cost $750,000. Now what are you doing building up something

that you say you're going to tear down? I'd like you to make a comment

on that.

But what I want to deal with now is something more

specific in relation to police policy. I'd like the minister to tell us

— not in a long discourse — how policy is made in this province. At the

present time we have the B.C. Police Commission; we have the

Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit; we have the various police

commissions. I'm finding it very difficult to understand where the

Attorney-General's ministry comes in in respect to making particular

policy decisions about how they will approach, for instance, matters

dealing with crime.

We've seen over the past year what

appeared to be some very serious disputes between the mayor of

Vancouver, who is also the chairman of the Police Commission, in

respect to pursuing the prostitutes and also theSun day closing law.

There are two particular pieces of legislation. The mayor in his

capacity as mayor of Vancouver and as chairman of the Police Commission

is saying one thing about how you should go after prostitutes and what

you should do about theSun day closing, and then we have no action

really on either matter from the Attorney-General. But what I'm

interested in is how policy is decided. Is there in this province a

body within the Attorney-General's ministry that makes specific police

policy or is it, as I suspect, somewhat ad hoc in respect to the

various jurisdictions? I'm not now talking about the Police Commission,

because, as I understand it, that is not a policy-making body. It has a

number of inspection and surveillance functions which really don't

relate to policy, but rather to see that certain things are carried

out. I'm interested in the development of policy.

Earlier

this year we had a discussion in this House and in the press on how the

Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit sees the problem of organized crime,

and on their recommendations in respect to some form of crime

commission. We've had the Attorney-General's reaction to this, which I

think I might characterize as being a little cavalier, because he says

that he doesn't think the thing is serious enough at the moment to

merit a type of crime commission. Now I'm not personally in favour of a

crime commission, for instance, of the Quebec type; but I would like to

see this House — if possible, Mr. Chairman, the labour and justice

committee — given the job of looking at what kind of commission we

should have. I do not want to see it inquiring into crime, but into

what is the best vehicle to deal with this problem. I don't think there

is any doubt — and there has been no doubt in my mind in the years that

I have spent in the corrections field and monitoring what goes on —

that.... I do not share the Attorney-General's rather cavalier approach

that somehow things aren't bad enough for us to want to investigate

what is going on.

I'd like to draw the Attorney-General's

attention to two rather interesting statistics which have come out of

the Solicitor-General's reports for 1975-1976 and 1976-1977. They deal

specifically with some of the problems of organized crime, and

particularly of white-collar crime. Now we are dealing here with

figures in Canada. I don't have the breakdown for British Columbia,

although I do have a figure for British Columbia in respect to these

figures. In 1975-1976 in Canada, according to the RCMP commercial crime

branch, there was some $244 million worth of fraud investigated in

Canada. That branch was instrumental in recovering approximately $11

million, along with court fines totalling some $700,000. The following

year the commercial crime branch reported that there was some $359

million worth of fraud investigated; approximately $21 million was

recovered, and a total of $1,055,000 in fines. In 1975 they also

reported some $27 million in stolen securities; in 1976 approximately

$80 million of stolen or missing securities remained outstanding.

Now here are two reports, for 1975-1976 and 1976-1977, which point up a very serious problem in terms of

[ Page 509 ]

organized

crime and white-collar crime across Canada. We do not escape that in

British Columbia. We have some very serious problems in relation to

fraud. In 1976, I am informed, some $56 million was the total taken by

fraud in the province, with some $2 million recovered; and this is in a

variety of activities: mortgage brokers, stock exchange, some real

estate rip-offs, and that kind of thing.

All of this is

going on and is increasing. There has been no decrease in this kind of

activity. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney-General

should have a great deal of concern and even anxiety about dealing with

these particular problems. One of the things that particularly annoys

me is that the provincial government does not take seriously the

Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit, one of the prime functions of which

is to look at the operation of organized crime. It is my feeling that

their function is to deal primarily with the underworld crime — if one

may put it that way — in respect to drugs and related problems, and

some of the upperworld crime, which relates to the stock markets, and

some frauds.

I want to go back to the question regarding

policy that I asked the Attorney-General in the beginning. Which

individuals or which group or committee in the Attorney-General's

ministry make policy about how the law enforcement agencies will do

their work and what particular areas they will pursue? What kind of

mechanism exists for this kind of decision-making? I hope that the

Attorney-General has been able to hear what I have been asking.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, you've got about 14 questions.

MR. LEVI: Well, I've gone back to the first question because I knew you weren't listening to the other 13.

What

I would like the Attorney-General to do is comment on how the

policy-making process takes place in this province in respect to police

matters and the prioritizing of police activity in the whole province

and in the community. And ancillary to that, would he also comment on

what the relationship is, in terms of policy-making, between the RCMP

and the province? I realize we have a contractual arrangement with the

RCMP. But who basically are the RCMP responsible to in terms of

policy-making?

Now there are a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps we would give the minister an opportunity to respond.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll be back to you.

MR. LEVI: He's going to be back to me. If that's the case, then maybe I'll let my colleague have a go at him and I'll get up again.

MR. KING:

I just have a couple of brief areas I would like to discuss with the

Attorney-General. One relates to the Crown prosecutors that are

available in the Interior. I would draw to the Attorney-General's

attention the fact that the Crown prosecutor for the Revelstoke area

visits that city, I understand, once or twice a week. He is located

normally in Salmon Arm.

We've had quite a number of problems

in the community, some with respect to vandalism and general

hooliganism by some repeaters who seem to frequently get into trouble.

It's not a large number of young people. Generally speaking, the young

people there are well occupied and involved in a variety of healthy

pursuits. But over the years we have had a number of problems that seem

to continually recur. I've had complaints from citizens who say that

there never seems to be effective follow-through of the legal process

in terms of dealing with them.

I have discussed it with the

RCMP in that community from time to time, and I find that to some

extent they are somewhat frustrated with laying charges only to find

that the Crown prosecutor comes in at the last moment from Salmon Arm

and is restricted in terms of staff. The prosecutor has to appear in

court first thing in the morning with no opportunity whatsoever to

research the case, with no opportunity to even read the files and thus

be in a position to do an effective job of prosecuting.

Frequently

the result is that the charges are lost, and the RCMP, ultimately

through frustration, comes to the conclusion that there is little value

in prosecuting a case that is not a highly serious one but can

nevertheless be a very disruptive one to the peace and the security of

local citizens. I'm of the view that no one is particularly to blame in

this matter. I think the prosecutors who are obliged to serve a number

of communities are short-staffed. They have an extremely heavy

workload, and I don't think the fault lies with them. It probably lies

with the shortage of staff that is presumably made available through

the Attorney-General's budget.

It's a difficult problem but

the final consequence of it seems to be a kind of despair and malaise

in which individual citizens in the community wonder what is the point

of trying to enforce the law because the system is incapable of

carrying it through effectively. The other sad feature of it is to

possibly deter the RCMP from doing an adequate job of dealing with the

people who, on a repetitive basis, are troublemakers in the community.

would like to hear from the Attorney-General how this problem may be

dealt with, whether it's simply a matter of providing a greater

budgetary allocation for staffing. Perhaps in his view some more senior

Crown prosecutors are required to do the job necessary to carry through

effectively on prosecutions. What might be required to improve the

situation?

I've had quite a number of complaints from people

in the community who I believe are taking a moderate and a responsible

approach. They're not out for vigilante justice, and they do not have a

vendetta against young people. Rather it's in the extreme cases where

they feel that the weight of the law should be felt, and apparently it

is not being carried through.

The other point I would like

to raise with the Attorney-General is just a sidelight. I would like to

ask the Attorney-General whether he had the opportunity to view a film

that was carried on channel 9 from Seattle. "Scared Straight," it was

called. I viewed it on two occasions and was most impressed with the

impact it had on young offenders.

AN. HON. MEMBER: It was pretty rough.

MR. KING:

Yes, it was indeed rough. I was scared myself. I didn't have to go

straight, but in terms of the shock involved in that kind of treatment

I think it was a very interesting kind of exercise. In the final

analysis you can’t knock success. I did see some follow-up shows with

some

[ Page 510 ]

statistical

data on the success rate for young people who had gone through that

experience. It was a truly remarkable success story in terms of

discouraging young people from going the way of the streets and

entering into ever more serious crime. I wonder whether the

Attorney-General, or any of his staff, have made contact with the

founders of this particular program.

This program literally

puts young people who are second-time offenders into jail with

hard-core criminals for a period of a few hours. They are subjected to

the reality of the very harsh and hard-bitten criminal life in the

jails. It lets them know what they are headed for.

understand that at least one other province in Canada, I believe

Saskatchewan, has a limited experiment with a program similar to this

one, and I would be interested in hearing the Attorney-General's

reaction.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. GARDOM:

In response to the last speaker, Mr. Chairman, and the last question re

the film "Scared Straight," yes, I did see that film. It's a very

provocative film. It's a very strong film. It's one we felt our senior

officials should see and consider in light of British Columbia and in

light of the ethic that we have in this province. They are going to see

it and it will be under review by the senior officials of the ministry.

The

first question that you raised dealt with witness management, and I'm

not going to take the time of the House to go through the various

steps. If you just look at last year's Hansard it's all in there, and you are aware of the steps in any event.

But

there is always a responsibility upon us to improve processes, and

recently we've had a witness management survey in one region of the

province — in the North Fraser region. I have the June report of the

regional Crown. It is interesting to see that in this particular

situation of the 129 police witnesses who attended trial, 103 of them

were called. So 80 percent of those police witnesses in this test

sample were called. Twenty-six were not called and about 40 percent of

them were not called because of defence admissions. About 30 percent

were not called by virtue of lack of court time, guilty pleas during

the course of proceedings or the case broke down or what-have-you.

Thirty-one percent of the 26, or about a third — eight — were not

called because they were deemed, at the point of trial, to be

unnecessary. Witness management — greater screening of the witnesses

beforehand — has proved to be very useful.

The figures with

civilians, during this test pattern, are just about the same. There

were 76 civilians who attended the trial. Of those 68 were called —

that's a considerable improvement — which means about 90 percent of

them came into court and took their place on the stand. There were the

same reasons for those who did not take the stand: the case fell apart,

their evidence was not required, guilty pleas or one thing or another

throughout the process.

In response to the member for

Maillardville–Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), which is easier to say than

Shuswap–Revelstoke, I can assure you, by a long shot.... Do you find it

that way, sir?

MR. KING: Not at all. I've become very accustomed to it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I see. You've become accustomed to its place. That's right, sir.

was talking about the formation of police policy in the province of

British Columbia. The ministry, as any ministry in the country, has the

responsibility to see that the rule of law is fully complied with. The

RCMP have internal matters dealt with by their commissioner and the CO

of the E division. In regard to municipal police, the mayor is the

chairman of the police board and the police board deals with the

specifics of the municipal police.

We are in the process of

giving consideration to reshaping a portion of the ministry. We are

considering the idea of an associate deputy minister in charge of

police. We do now have the police committee, which is new, and the

police committee is chaired by the Deputy Attorney-General. The

membership of the police committee is the commanding officer of E

division, the chairman of the Police Commission, the director of CLEU,

and the gentleman responsible for our federal-provincial dealings with

Ottawa for the new contracts. They're already starting in the

negotiating process, and it expires in 1981. The other member of the

police committee is a representative from the B.C. Association of

Chiefs of Police. This is really the first time, to my knowledge,

perhaps since the days of the provincial police in the province of

British Columbia, that this cohesive direction has started. I'm not

prepared as yet to say that it's the kind of product that we wish to

have as a final product, but we have initiated that. What's going to

happen to policing in the country is rather a big question today. Under

the former federal administration it became somewhat apparent that

there was going to be a weaning off of federal responsibility for

police servicing and police costing throughout the country.

have had the benefit, as the members know, of the report of a task

force which was initiated by myself and my colleague, the then Minister

of Municipal Affairs, concerning police costing in British Columbia.

It's a very compendious report. It's not yet been considered in depth

by myself. It's under review right now by both the ministries for

advice to government. There are a number of very wide-ranging

recommendations in there which, if adopted, would certainly be rather a

considerable impost on the provincial taxpayer, as opposed to the

municipal taxpayer, because we have the municipal police in the

province of B.C. who are essentially funded by their own

municipalities, as some of the members know, and we have the

cost-sharing with the RCMP.

Canada is somewhat taking the

same position as British Columbia vis-à-vis the RCMP, because they're

saying: "Well, okay, Ontario has its provincial police, Quebec has its

provincial police and there's not any federal contribution into those

areas." So I'm not going to say it's going to be anybody's guess over

the next 15 years as to what the final route will be. I think there is

a great responsibility upon Canada to maintain a federal force. I'd say

that we're very happy with the RCMP in this province. We'd like them to

continue.

MR. LEVI: From what the minister said, I

gather that up to now there has never really been a body within the

government that has made specific decisions regarding police policy.

I'm not now talking about the matter of cost-sharing with Ottawa. That

has always been an ongoing battle that has needed a lot of attention.

[ Page 511 ]

would like the Attorney-General to comment, for instance, on how one

makes a decision in the ministry as to whether there should be an

emphasis on the apprehension of prostitutes, in terms of the allocation

of manpower, versus the other serious problems. For instance, there's

no doubt that one of the new burgeoning problems in our province, as it

is in many other provinces, is the whole issue of white-collar crime

and fraud, particularly commercial fraud. Now we know that certainly up

to last year the RCMP had about 13 people in the commercial crime squad

in that area. We had a great deal of discussion and we appear to have a

great deal of police time devoted to the apprehension of prostitutes.

Now I'd like the minister to comment on the great emphasis on the

apprehension of prostitutes. I don't want him to stand up and moralize

to me. It's not Sunday morning, so we'll just stay with some of the

realities.

We've seen over the years that whichever way you

go in terms of the apprehension or pursuit of prostitutes, you always

end up with the same results. You catch a few; you go to the supreme

court; you spend a lot of money; you get a lot of judgments; and in the

final analysis, they move down to Hornby and Georgia Streets and

they're still operating and they're still supplying the trade. They're

involved primarily in what is now characterized in the criminology

field as victimless crime. They're providing a service.

What

I want to deal with is how one makes a decision to do that and to spend

a lot of police time on it. The minister has indicated that if they

have trouble with the new federal government wanting to get out of

cost-sharing on the whole issue of police costs, we're going to have

less policemen and therefore we're going to have to do much more

serious allocation of what kind of work they do. If that's the case,

then we should see a de-emphasizing of this whole pursuit of the

victimless crime kind of thing, such as prostitution, and we should be

looking at some of the things that are having a tremendous impact on

our economy. The whole fabric of our economic enterprise in this

province is being viciously attacked by white-collar crime.

would like the minister to comment on this. Is it someone in his

ministry that makes a decision collectively through the police

committee, Mr. Chairman, as to whether this is going to be our approach

in respect to the apprehension of prostitutes? Or do they say: "No,

that is not a major priority. We're going to concentrate on an area

particularly because it relates to the economy, where there is a great

deal of victimization of a large number of people."? People who lose

money in no way can be characterized as victimless crime problems. They

are direct victims, and that's going on every day.

Now I

would ask the Attorney-General how that kind of decision is arrived at.

Because what we have at the moment quite obviously is that it's fair

game in the pursuit of prostitutes, but let's not get too involved in

the apprehension of the whole business of commercial crime.

have to look at the allocation of manpower — 13 people in the RCMP

commercial crime squad and scores of people in the municipal police

forces involved in the apprehension of prostitutes. When are we going

to look at the worthwhile allocation of manpower resources in respect

to how we spend the police dollar? We have to look at what is good for

the citizen. I fail to see that one can make a decision to opt for the

pursuit of prostitutes when people are being ripped off in this

province with hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of commercial

fraud with a very small allocation of manpower to do anything about

that serious problem.

Perhaps the minister would like to comment on that.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

First of all, dealing with the prostitution issue, I've no intention of

moralizing with the hon. member. He's fully aware of the decision in

the Supreme Court of Canada which created the capacity for an influx of

more evident prostitution in our largest city. There were amendments

placed before the House of Commons, as your new colleague will inform

you. They were never passed and hopefully the new government will be

considering amendments or somewhat similar amendments to provide better

mechanisms for control.

Now insofar as the decision within

areas as to what specific activity is going to be addressed by

municipal forces, that's essentially a local decision. They have to

distribute their resources as they are best able to. They're obviously

not able to say: "Look, we're not going to pay any attention whatsoever

to gambling or loan sharking or rape or child abuse. We're going to

concentrate on prostitution or organized crime." They have to priorize

their activities but they've got to spend some portion of their time on

all of them.

Insofar as the activity towards commercial

crime is concerned, I think the hon. member knows full well that a

considerable amount of resources is spent in that area by the RCMP, by

the joint forces in Vancouver and in Victoria, and certainly by the

Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit.

A fairly recent status

report showed that about 800 charges involving commercial crime were

laid throughout the province over the last year. There are a number of

active charges. I'm not going to mention these names to the House here

but there are just a raft of active charges that are under trial right

now or are very close to trial. Also there is a very active list of

matters that are under continuing investigation, and these are

confidential. It would be inappropriate for me to make any reference at

all to those.

I would also like to say. Mr. Chairman, that

the targeting process of the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit is an

ongoing process, and it now has an additional list of names that are

being investigated for connections with organized crime in B.C. The

latest list was prepared as early as May of this year at the regular

meeting of the CLEU policy board.

I would be happy to share

some of this information with the member, more in confidence than with

the general public, for the sole reason I don't want to make it easier

for the people who we're trying to catch here. But I'm very impressed

with the progress that is being made in this area and I want to assure

the hon. member, and all hon. members of the House, that this is a

matter that is receiving the continuing attention of the police forces

in this province, of the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit and certainly

of this ministry.

MS. BROWN: First of all, I would

appreciate it if the Attorney-General would respond to some of the

questions I raised earlier about amendments to the child protection

legislation to deal with sexual abuse of children. I would like to

bring to his attention that this is not an isolated incident. In fact

we are told that up to 300 children were involved in this form of abuse

during the summer months

[ Page 512 ]

alone

in the city of Vancouver alone. So it's a reasonably serious matter and

I would appreciate if he would respond to some of the suggestions made

about ways in which the Act should be amended.

I want to

raise two other issues, and first ask a question about the request for

funding from the Coalition of British Columbia Rape Centres. In

introducing his report to the House he did not mention whether he had

in fact given them the $170,000 which they requested, which constituted

an increase of about $33,000 over last year. Would he let me know

whether that has been dealt with?

HON. MR. GARDOM: We'll let you know. It comes from two other sources.

MS. BROWN:

Okay. I want to deal with two very brief things. One has to do with the

compensation payments being tied to the COLA clause. Would you like to

respond to that, because I've been...?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Sure.

MS. BROWN: Can I raise my other one, because then you will never hear from me again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do wish to hear from this lovely lady again.

MS. BROWN:

Mr Chairman, I appreciate the lovely gentleman making that comment, and

I will try to deal very quickly with the very pretty gentleman, and get

this very serious matter over with so that that darling of a gentleman

over there will not have to worry his pretty head about these issues

again. [Laughter.]

This has to do with a gentleman who was

injured in 1975, and at that time received criminal injuries

compensation. There was no COLA clause attached to it; he has not

received an increase; he's supporting a family; and he's now fallen

below the social assistance rate. I've been corresponding with the

Attorney-General, and I just wondered whether he has considered my

recommendation that compensation payments be tied to the cost of living

so that these victims are not penalized for the fact that they are

victims.

The last issue which I have to raise has to do with

the business of maintenance payments. I've lost all of the letters —

oh, I've found one — from people who have been awarded maintenance

payments in the courts, and have just not been able to collect them.

Every year I raise this issue, Mr. Chairman, with the recommendation

that comes from most of these abandoned wives that it would be quite a

simple matter to garnishee their husbands' wages. In every instance the

Attorney-General explains that this is not the correct way in which to

deal with it. The fact of the matter is that what happens is that these

women then fall on welfare. They become part of the welfare population

simply because the province or the individual involved is unable to

collect these payments. Once again I bring it to the attention of the

Attorney-General. Are you seriously thinking about garnisheeing the

wages of these husbands or wives, as the case may be, who are failing

to meet their maintenance payments?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have a number of responses to the hon. member. First, I thank her for sending over to me the material entitled Laws Related to the Sexual Exploitation of Children .

It refers to federal and provincial laws related to the exploitation of

children: the Code, the Juvenile Delinquents Act and child welfare Acts.

First

of all, I think the criminal law in our country, quite frankly,

requires a major review and I have just recently made that

recommendation to the Minister of Justice. The last time the criminal

law in our country was reviewed was some 25 years ago; we've had

one-quarter of a century of backfill and increase. I wish I had at my

fingertips the specific number of sections, but about 1,300 or 1,400

sections have been added to the Code since it was revised 25 years ago.

There is indeed a requirement, by virtue of a number of different

directions in society since that period of time, to revise the Code

from the viewpoint of additional consideration for the victim,

additional options for penalty and for reformation of the convicted,

and different dealings with specific offences.

Dealing with

specific offences, and dealing with specific groups of people, the

federal government over the past four or five years has been, of

course, agonizing over juvenile offenders legislation. They produced

something that was considered, at least by professionals in the field

in British Columbia, to be almost unworkable. It was somewhat of a

maze; you had to go from step 14 to 73, down to 4 and through a couple

of closed doors before you could get any resolution of anything. I

doubt very much that it would be proceeding in its present form. I'm

not going to say it's lost work, but it certainly hasn't produced a

heck of a lot; but that is still a federal statute, and until such

time.... Maybe there is a requirement for an alteration to the BNA Act;

but you know the difficulty that we've had trying to bring about

constitutional change in Canada. Assuming we're not going to have rapid

constitutional change in the country, we've certainly got to proceed at

the federal level, within its spheres of competence, to delegate

greater roles to the local areas vis-à-vis the provinces, so they can

better deal with some of the problems at their own end.

commend to you the report of the Law Reform Commission of Canada on

sexual offences. They've got some very, very interesting premises in

there. They've made a report and it's not yet really been effectively

distilled by the people who are involved in the criminal justice

process in our country. I think that will be happening quite shortly. I

know it's under consideration and review, and maybe it's an item that

will be coming up even for discussion at the next provincial attorneys'

meeting. So all of these things are starting to either reflect public

opinion or perhaps shape the mores which we're attempting to produce as

an effective way of life for today.

There's a lot of

catch-up. There's a similar degree of catch-up, I would say, in the

area of children's statutes that is local in nature. I think we're

facing, really, the same kind of a challenge and the same kind of

requirement here, and we're going to have to look at them. Pardon me

for being so long-winded.

Rape Relief: I don't have the figures and the funding; I'll get them for you. They come from two other ministries as well.

for the criminal victims' indemnity fund people, this has been a matter

very close to my conscience for a number of years, because I was the

first person to ever introduce a bill in this Legislature dealing with

the point. Yes, I believe there should be some type of increase. It has

been a static

[ Page 513 ]

sum, and a static sum put into place five years ago does not have the same kind of purchasing power today. That is at present in the process of submission preparation for me to proceed to committees and cabinet. Aren't I wonderful?

MS. BROWN: Maintenance.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

The hon. member asked me about the collection of maintenance, and she

mentioned the problems involved with people who have maintenance orders

outstanding, and the fact that they do, in many cases, become a burden

upon the general public, because they have the capacity to pay, and

they are not paying. The net result is the claimants are on welfare.

made an estimate of what the unclaimable amount might be and it came to

around $10 million to $12 million. That is why we instituted the

automatic enforcement of the maintenance orders program. That has

started, and it's working darned effectively in two regions of the

province; but we are collecting an amount that would realize about

$10 million to $12 million a year if it were reflected throughout the

province. It is automatic enforcement of maintenance orders. There have

been a few bugs in the earlier stages of the program, but they are

starting to be ironed out and I hope to report much more favourably

about this in the future.

Here is an example, Madam Member.

For the month of January, under the automatic enforcement of

maintenance orders, in only two regions $278,000 was collected.

February produced $260,000, March $269,000, April $273,000, so from

January we've got a total of $1.5 million in those areas alone. So,

yes, it's working. But it's not yet throughout the province, where we

want it to be.

MR. NICOLSON: Of the two matters I'd

like to bring up, I think one is very serious. It is characteristically

oversimplified as the Doukhobor problem, and therein might be the

source of the problem itself. People tend to look at this as a rather

special situation when, in fact, it is simply a matter of the law of

the land and whether or not the law of the land should apply. Some

almost unbelievable actions have been taken by various agents of the

justice system in the province of late. But first I'd like to say that

the average Doukhobor — and I suppose many of them live in Vancouver,

Victoria, all over the province, in Saskatchewan, other parts of

Canada, and in Los Angeles — is not a simple peasant who lives from the

soil. Quite often they do happen to try to live close to the soil, but

their vocation or profession could be almost anything from a top

director of the B.C. Central Credit Union to a faller or a person in

contract logging. In my riding two very modern sawmills are owned by

Doukhobors. There are several school principals and vice principals,

credit union managers; there are building supply companies and

construction companies owned by such people. So one might say they are,

more or less, typical, average persons. distinguished only by ethnic

origin, religious belief, and second language. One might say that there

are two fairly distinct groups: the USCC, people who belong to the

United Spiritual Communities of Christ; and the Freedomites. Probably

within the Freedomites there is another minority.

Without

really going into one celebrated case which is presently before the

courts — and there is no reason why I couldn't bring it up in the House

— I would like to bring the attention of the House to the frequency

with which certain acts of violence are being committed. It's not a

politically associated thing. One can go back to 1970, when the home of

the USCC honorary chairman, John J. Veregin, was completely destroyed

by fire. Six women were found guilty and all of them were sentenced to

various terms. Then, two years later in May of '72, 16 members of the

Freedomite sect were charged with indecent exposure when they

demonstrated outside of a USCC hall in Grand Forks. They were released

on the agreement that they would return to Agassiz, and at this time a

great number of these people were still living in Agassiz under parole

or because their next-of-kin were imprisoned. In June of '72, 22

members were arrested for staging a camp-in at the home of John J.

Veregin. They spent 20 days there before the authorities decided to

remove them.

This is getting to part of the message I would

like to impart to the Attorney-General. Suppose that there was a sit-in

at the home of some other prominent citizen in British Columbia, and

people were on his lawn for 20 days with a rather threatening attitude.

Would it be normal not to act upon this, to ignore it and treat it in a

very soft way, hoping that the problem would go away? In what other

instance would we look the other way for 20 days?

The next

incident of note was about three years later, in March, when the

Brilliant community centre was burned. Six women were convicted and

sentenced. I dare say that in most of these instances the same people

were the ones who were convicted and sentenced.

During that

time I started to voice my concerns to the Attorney-General of the day.

One person from the department was dispatched to look into some of

these matters and come back with some recommendations. On December 7,

1975, the Sunshine Valley Co-op and USCC office were totally

burned down. Arson was definitely the cause of the fire. No one was

apprehended until December, 1978, and this touches on the matter which

is presently before the courts and I won't go into that too much more.

In 1977 the USCC community was completely burned, and again no one was

apprehended until the present case was brought to court.

January 9, 1978, 29 persons attempted to burn down the Passmore hall.

They were convicted of conspiracy to commit arson and given two years

suspended sentence. Some of these people had already served time, I

believe, and had other convictions. I agreed with the judge at the time

that there might have been a place for showing good faith, and although

most people in the community would disagree with me on that point, I

said it publicly to anyone who would be interested.

Now the

frequency is starting to increase. On September 23, 1978, 12 persons

attempted to burn down the home of Anna Markova, mother of Mr. John J.

Veregin, honorary chairman of USCC. Considerable damage was done, and I

might say that a 70-odd-year-old woman was dragged out of that house

preceding the setting of the fire. A stay of proceedings was entered

against the 12 people who had set the fire because the Crown counsel

believed that, as the accused people told him, Mr. Veregin had directed

the accused to burn down the house. No, this is not part of the case

which is before the courts. It was, in their opinion, not a criminal

offence to burn down your own building. In other words, Crown counsel

assumed that these people had been directed to do so, and so they

entered a stay of proceedings.

[ Page 514 ]

That's only item No. 8, and we're in 1978. Now the items start to get a little more frequent, and there are 17.

Then,

on September 19, the home of Joseph Potavinikoff Jr. was burned. No one

was ever apprehended. On November 30, 1978, a group of persons, most of

whom had been granted a stay of proceedings on the setting of the fire

at the home of Anna Markova, appeared at the home of John J. Veregin

and staged a sit-in. They were alleged to have had gasoline and matches

in their possession, although the RCMP would not deny or confirm this.

There

was another incident which does touch upon the present law proceedings.

On December 27 five women were found guilty of setting fire to the home

of Stefan Sorokin and were sentenced to nine months, and one person to

two years. On December 19 the present charges were brought about, and I

don't intend to bring that up.

Then, on December 21, eight

persons attempted to burn down the home of Mr. Larry Swetlekoff at

Brilliant, B.C. You know, one of the things is that when one says the

name "Larry Swetlekoff," one might sort of conjure up — if you live in

the lower mainland — a picture of some person.... Well, I'd just like

to say that Mr. Larry Swetlekoff strikes me as probably being a small,

independent business person. I don't know if he owns a lumber supply

yard, or maybe works at Can-Cel, or where he might obtain his income,

but I would say that he otherwise looks no different from any person in

any group.

Seven of the eight persons were part of a group

who had attempted to burn down the home of Anna Markova, and were later

released when the stay of proceedings had been granted.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON:

It's just that type of ignorance that causes such concern. I'm sure

that member is perhaps titillated by this thing, but I want to tell

you, Mr. Chairman, that it appears that there is one kind of law for

one kind of people in this country, and there is another kind of law

for others. That's what I am trying to address myself to. This person

might be against law and order but I must say that I take it very

seriously.

On May 4, eight persons were sentenced to one

day's imprisonment plus two years' probation for attempting to burn

down the home of Larry Swetlekoff.

Now when you think about

the past things which have happened with these people, they had been

given a stay of proceedings in the case of the home of Anna Markova,

and then to be given one day's imprisonment and two years' probation!

Then

on May 13, 1979, seven persons, five of them persons that were also at

the home of Anna Markova and Larry Swetlekoff, appeared at the home of

USCC member Joe Potavinikoff and attempted to set fire to it, and a

preliminary hearing is set for some time later on.

Mr.

Chairman, these things are starting to happen with greater and greater

frequency. It is sometimes very disgusting when persons for whom I have

a great deal of respect, if they happen to read it in the paper, will

make a passing remark. Friends of mine in Victoria or Vancouver, or

sometimes even friends right in Nelson or Castlegar who should

certainly know better, seem to treat this as a family quarrel. It isn't

a family quarrel. You have one group of people who are law-abiding

citizens of this province and are entitled to the same type of legal

protection as any one us would have and would expect.

Back

in the earlier days, back in the forties and fifties.... The member for

Shuswap–Revelstoke (Mr. King) well remembers when these aggressions

were against private property of the CPR and against public property of

the government. The member for Shuswap–Revelstoke well remembers in his

days working on the Kettle Valley line when he could expect tracks to

be dynamited and people lost their lives. People remember when a bomb

was left in the Nelson movie house and also in Hudson's Bay Company, I

believe.

But now these attacks have been against people and

they have been directed only against people of the Doukhobor religious

ethnic community. For that reason, we seem to treat it in a different

sort of a way. It seems that the action of the government is looking

for one simple little thing to grab hold of, one linchpin with which

they think they are going to solve this problem once and for all.

submit that it is not a problem which has a linchpin. It is going to

have to be looked upon as a very serious problem. I think that the law

of the land should have to prevail. I know that it is not a simple

matter just to use normal remedies such as imprisonment but things were

down to a pretty small.... Well, things had very much calmed down

between about 1969-72 for the most part even up until 1975.

But

I think the government is going to have to really address this problem

with just a little bit more than ordinary priority, which they are

giving now. They are going to have to give it an absolutely top

priority. There have been repeated requests for a special committee. I

would like the Attorney-General to consider whether a special committee

might not be a good idea. Perhaps he should consider having the Select

Standing Committee on Labour and Justice look into this matter. I think

that it could do a great deal to help re-educate the people of British

Columbia as to what some of the problems are in this situation and it

might, I would hope, lead to a little bit better and more informed

coverage by the press of this very difficult problem, a little bit of a

de- sensationalizing of some of the aspects which have to this time

taken most of the attention of the press.

don't pretend to

have all of the answers to this but I do feel that the line of

information which the Attorney-General is depending upon in this matter

is really directed through very constricted channels. I think that it

is selected information which is coming through, because it's linear.

One person really is responsible at this point. He reports to a person

above him. That person reports to somebody in Victoria, and the whole

approach which is being taken seems to deny some of the facts of the

majority of law-abiding people. The majority of law-abiding Doukhobors

in the area feel that they are being.... They say they are being

persecuted by the government because, Mr. Attorney-General, they are

being ignored. I know that you have met with some of them but it's

always a matter of a short little meeting and then things aren't

followed through with.

I'm saying that you've got to do

something pretty big. Now if we continue to wait until things are

resolved and cooled down before we start doing something, they aren't

going to cool down. Right now, with all the stays of proceedings and

one thing and another that are happening.... It really comes very close

to home when you go knock on a person's door during a provincial

election and

[ Page 515 ]

two

days later you read that there were about seven or eight people at that

person's home that threw gasoline on his walls. It's a very beautiful

home that I'm sure any one of us.... Well, I'd be pleased to trade the

man even for mine, I'll tell you that. They threw gasoline on the walls

and threw matches at it which just, by some fortuitous circumstance,

didn't catch fire.

Just because there is an important case

before the courts right now, it simply does not mean that we must wait

and wait and wait for something that might drag on through appeal

courts and supreme courts, and might end up taking every legal step for

years. We can't afford to wait around in order to do this. I'm

suggesting that we can't afford that luxury and some step should be

taken. Now whether you would sooner trust the labour and justice

committee, or you want to choose a committee of very learned people,

experienced people, I think that there's going to have to be some

facing up to this problem, because it is not getting better, it's

getting worse. If you think that I get up here in this House and say

this lightly.... If it were political considerations, there are no

political points in this for me, believe me. When I step into the

middle of a situation like this I have no more appetite for stepping in

than I would for stepping between two party members of mine that might

happen to be in a neighbourly dispute and taking one side against the

other.

I say that right now we see people who are in

violation of parole and they're not even sent back to jail, according

to some of the information which I've had, because we're treating

things with such tender, loving care.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

So,

Mr. Attorney-General, I have asked that you seriously consider creation

of a special committee. It would be hoped that through the activities

of that committee some of the ignorance and misunderstanding which

exist throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia might be,

in some measure, rectified. I don't know if we ever will rectify this

completely, but as things are going, it is getting more and more

chaotic. Everything that has been handled in the courts has served more

to inflame than it has to solve or to tone down the situations which

are happening.

The other topic that I would like to bring up

today is the matter of the use of BATmobiles, which I said I supported

when they were originally instituted. I am very concerned about

impaired driving. I thought that one of the things that was mentioned

the other day about impaired driving in a particular case.... It did

not seem to be the case that was brought up by the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), I believe; maybe I'm wrong on that. But

it concerned a fatal accident. It seemed to overlook the fact that the

really deadly mixture in traffic fatalities is the combination of

alcohol and aggression, and it does account for the fact that while the

average impaired driver apprehended by the police is a person in his

40s, the average impaired driver involved in a traffic fatality is in

his 20s.

I'd just like to say that the Attorney-General,

when I talked about BATmobiles in the last Legislature, dismissed my

concerns by saying, well, there were a few problems that had been

ironed out. Well, Mr. Attorney-General, not only are the BATmobiles

going to be some problem and are ineffective.... They are effective in

terms of education programs and taking them into schools and taking

them to job sites and creating some awareness about impaired driving.

But I still stand by what I said earlier, that they are not effective

in terms of bringing successful prosecution where somebody goes to the

trouble of getting good legal counsel. Not only is the BATmobile in

some jeopardy, but even the Borkenstein breathalyser.

don't know if the Attorney-General is familiar with decisions which

have occurred recently. There was the case of Regina v. Robertson, and

by some coincidence the judgment....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, in Committee of Supply decisions before the court are not admissible.

MR. NICOLSON: This is not before the court; this is decided.

MR. CHAIRMAN: "...the decision of a judicial court," reading from page 766 of the 17th edition of May....

MR. NICOLSON: I'm not questioning the decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope you're not arguing with the Chair.

shall read the whole thing. It says: "Nor can the actions of those high

public servants whose conduct can only be criticized upon substantive

motions nor the decision of a judicial court, nor action for which a

minister is not responsible...." So we're dealing with the

Attorney-General's estimates; there are times when we get close to

getting involved with a judicial court, and I just ask you to take that

into consideration.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm not about to

criticize these decisions. What I would say is that, while the

Attorney-General said that there were some problems, but they'd all

been overcome, there was the case of Regina v. Robertson in the Court

of Appeal. Since then the reasons for judgment have come about by Mr.

Justice Robertson.

In reading them it becomes apparent that

there are real limitations to the Borkenstein breathalyser, not the

least of which is that it says time and again in decisions like this —

and that of Mr. Justice Washington in another matter — that the

breathalyser must be kept within one degree centigrade of the

atmosphere, that sampling has to be done in certain prescribed manners,

that things have to be pumped so many times, and to administer these

things, as technicians have informed me, in the controlled environment

of a police station is difficult enough, but to administer them in a

breathalyser.... Lawyers have told me that when a person has been

charged, and when a person brings in counsel to fight a case with the

breathalyser, the prosecutor has simply dropped the case.

I'm

suggesting that there is a little bit of a problem down the road, and

that the Attorney-General is going to have to come up with something

else. The BATmobile does not solve the problem, and I would hope that

he would consider some increased enforcement, particularly during the

very sensitive hours, weekend evenings, when the problem of traffic

fatalities is at its greatest.

[ Page 516 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll endeavour to be short because there are a number of members who wish to ask questions, Mr. Chairman.

First

of all, dealing with the matter of the safety of the Doukhobor

community and other Doukhobor problems, I'd like to inform the hon.

member that there has been continuous and ongoing consultation with the

community by senior officials of this ministry. These have all been

chronicled and recorded; it is an ongoing process; regional managers

are in the field, who are available to consider special concerns — and

they're doing that. Right now, as a matter of fact, we have one

gentleman up there and others going, and they will be considering such

matters as organizing exchanges on specific issues of interest to both

Doukhobor groups, justice managers and other people in the community,

recognizing, of course, the need to work on long-term solutions beyond

the justice system. They are going to try to bring together informed

and concerned citizens to explore solutions as proposed in the various

reports that we've received from consultants. Meetings are starting

early in July; and, as I say, it is an ongoing process.

would also like to say that senior officials, regionally and in

Victoria, have been accessible and receptive to orthodox and reformed

Doukhobors. They have met on many occasions to consider possible

remedies to their various problems in the community, which are unique

problems, to encourage them to participate in local justice councils,

and to try to attempt to reach local decisions. It is a local problem,

and it's only a local decision that would bring about a solution for

the Doukhobor community. They have the capacity to produce the

solution, and I am very hopeful that they will fulfil that capacity.

Regional managers of courts and corrections and Crown counsel, together

with justice coordinators and the police, have offered individually and

collectively to help in every possible way to alleviate the internal

tensions and problems in the area.

All calls to police are

responded to promptly. The police have been very diligent in the

discharge of their responsibilities, and they're going to continue to

be. On many occasions, as a matter of fact, special arrangements were

made with the police for the protection of property and maintenance of

the peace, and preventive patrols and so forth have been conducted. All

occurrences have been thoroughly investigated and charges have been

laid where justified. The police force has stationed constables with

knowledge of the Russian language and Doukhobor customs in the area to

better serve the needs of the whole of the community. A request for

special peerage constables for Doukhobor use has been granted;

provision has been made to make access by the community leaders to

senior RCMP personnel a priority, and senior police officers have

mediated in a number of disputes between Doukhobor groups in the hope

of preserving harmony. This, I think, is a brief outline of the matters

that are under consideration and the procedures that are taking place

in the Doukhobor community.

We do develop our own sources of

information. There have been illegal acts, and people have knowledge of

those illegal acts. I would commend the hon. member that if he has any

specific knowledge of any illegal act, he should bring that to the

attention of the authorities as soon as he possibly can. I put that

message similarly to any other people in that community or any other

community in the province. B.C. people are law-abiding people and we're

going to continue to be law-abiding people, and I'm very, very hopeful

that the difficulties in the Doukhobor community will be resolved. I

would say that by determined effort and resolve on the part of them, we

can bring about an effective solution.

Quickly dealing with

the question of BATmobiles, I'd have to inform the hon. member that the

police who operate these vehicles do not agree with his position

whatsoever — and neither do I — but you're certainly entitled to it.

They are an excellent basis for the development of public awareness and

alcohol education programs. This Counterattack program is unique in

Canada; it's already producing very, very significant results, and we

are going to have quite some things to announce for new strategies over

the next coming months.

The BATmobiles, on balance, are used

about 25 percent of the time in community projects, displays at

schools, malls, exhibitions, service club meetings, et cetera. They're

essentially responsible for developing the public awareness at the

outset. Without public awareness you can't develop an attitudinal

change. We have been able to do that. When I say "we," I mean the

ministry and the people in this province. I give credit to the

government and to the ministry for initiating, but I'll give full credit

to everybody in B.C. for making it work. This is certainly not a

political direction under any circumstances at all. It's a program, and

without the support of everybody, and especially the media — the media

have been fantastic in their support of this program — and without the

support of the community groups and the schools and the trade union

movement and the management, we would not be able to have the success

we have.

Now Surrey concentrates on law enforcement with its

vans and it only uses them, not 25 percent, but 3.4 percent of the time

for other than standard police work. They have recorded, according to

the figures I have here, some 23.8 percent decrease in alcohol-related

casualty accidents. Driving-while-impaired charges have decreased from

13,068 in 1977 to 10,030 in 1978; fatalities decreased from 35 to 15;

driving-while-impaired charges decreased by 24.7 percent. So you can

see the deterrent effect that the BATmobile has created in

that particular area alone. Insofar as the number of vehicles they

checked in a year in B.C., this is an amazing statistic. We've got

about 1.5 million cars in the province, and they checked last year

about 240,000. If you want the precise figure, 239,879 vehicles were

checked by the BATmobiles, and that's about one-sixth of the vehicular

population in the province of B.C. So I think the message from this

assembly to the people of the province of B.C. is this: if you wish to

drink, that's your business; if you wish to drive, that's your

business; but if you wish to drink and drive, that's our business and

we're out there to see that you don't.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Just before I recognize the next member, perhaps the members of the

committee would take this opportunity of welcoming a young man who is

here to spend his summer holidays with his father. My son is in the

gallery — age 9 and he's been here for half an hour. I don't know how

he can do it.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, my comments

will be very brief as usual. I would like to give a comparison to Mr.

Attorney-General's suggestion that if you drink, if you

[ Page 517 ]

drive

or whatever you do in an automobile it becomes the government's

business unless you're sober. Well, "if you drink and drive, it's our

business." If you drink and do something else, it's your business —

something to that effect.

I have one query to make of the

Attorney-General: when does it become the government's business to

enforce regulations dealing with maintenance orders that are passed,

for instance, by the court in family court?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I answered that earlier, Em.

MR. BARNES:

You'll get an opportunity to answer it again, and again, and again;

answering it is only part of the problem. We want action. There are a

number of situations that I have had an opportunity to attend and I

think it's an incredibly unfortunate situation at a time when we are

professing to be concerned about youngsters, having associated

ourselves with this as the International Year of the Child, by creating

a number of initiatives, such as the new Family Relations Act, and by

trying to streamline our approaches to services to families. In fact we

already have on the statute books sufficient regulations and enabling

legislation that would assist in carrying out orders of maintenance

where families, unfortunately, have had to part and youngsters are

caught in the middle.

So my question to the Attorney-General

is fundamental. Our laws are supposed to protect the offspring of

families that have had to terminate. Why don't we enforce them

effectively? I'm not suggesting there are not cases in which there are

extenuating circumstances where a father, if he is designated the

payee, or whether it be the contrary in some instances.... Perhaps it

may be a female; whatever the case, surely we can be at least as

enthusiastic about enforcing maintenance orders as we would if it were

robbery, as suggested by the former Attorney-General, the second member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), when he suggested that you wouldn't

hesitate to go after someone who had robbed a bank, who had violated

someone's privacy in terms of their material belongings. But when it

comes to violating the privacy of the youngster or the privacy of a

female, and the rights of a person who is charged with maintaining

another human being, we don't seem to have the capacity, or the

enthusiasm, to ensure that justice isn't only seen to be done but, in

fact, is done.

This is a condemnation of our system — not to

suggest that it hasn't been addressed before, but to suggest that the

situation is one that is not effective. I'm thinking of a family court

in Vancouver where, it is said, 1,500 to 1,800 cases at any one time

have to be processed with a staff of something like three officers who

have anywhere from 400 to 600 cases. Obviously it is a far greater

number than is possible to process by one individual. Further suggested

is that, at the best estimate, they can process only about 80 of these

cases in a month.

Clearly, it is a case of frustration for

staff, and would signify a lack of government concern on behalf of the

authorities who are to finance the proper numbers, and make effective

the complements needed to carry out the regulations we're committed to

enforce.

I am asking the Attorney-General to indicate to the

assembly the government's attitude, its sense of concern and

willingness to commit itself to a principle. I can recall when the 1975

election had just been completed. The new Premier stood

before this House and he exclaimed the virtues of restraint. He talked

about the need to tighten up our belts because they were going to be

cost-efficient, and said we're going to concern ourselves with

judicious expenditures of public funds and responsibility, and so forth.

However,

Mr. Attorney-General, I'm sure you will agree that when you cut back

funding for legal services and for services to people in general, you

crippled programs such as the family court; and the damage, having been

done, is now much more difficult to repair. That, in fact, is the

legacy which you yourself inherited after the May 10, 1979, election.

You created a problem and it's still with us. I would like you to

comment on your justification for talking about this government as

being a bottom-line government. Relax, you'll get an opportunity to

respond in just a moment.

You're concerned with fiscal

responsibility, with good husbandry of all resources and all of those

great platitudinous concepts and principles of responsibility to the

electorate. But don't you think that it is an oversight, Mr. Chairman,

for this government which is concerned about bottom lines and cost

efficiency not to recognize that young people, especially in the Year

of the Child...? Is it not reasonable to assume that young people are

really the bottom line in any society? They are really the most

natural, the most important, the most cherished resource that we have.

I don't think that the actions of this government in any way indicate

that they are really committed to that concept and to that belief.

is much more difficult for me standing here, Mr. Chairman, to try and

speak on behalf of those mothers who are attempting, on their own, with

little experience in the questions of judicial process, to try and

enforce regulations that sufficient complements should be available to

enforce on behalf of the province. There are many cases of women who

have simply given up. They've given up because the staff that they

apply to in the family courts put them off, and the reason they put

them off is because they're overworked. They have insufficient

facilities to cope with the caseloads, and out of this hopeless kind of

overload evolves an attitude of hopelessness, an attitude of perhaps,

with respect, Mr. Chairman, indifference.

It is not an

indifference that they come on the job with, but it's an indifference

that develops when you become frustrated because there simply isn't

anything that you can do. You can't do the impossible. Why else would a

good service — especially a family and children's court, Mr. Chairman —

concern itself with a regulation that says: "Please do not telephone

the court regarding non-receipt of payments."? In other words, what

they are saying is: "Don't call us, we'll call you. We know you've got a

problem; we've got a problem too. We can't do anything about it. All we

can do is take your application and hope for the best."

There

are cases, Mr. Chairman, where mothers have applied for restraints on

husbands to try and locate them, or in some cases have even located

them, which is even more significant. They have located their husbands

and have given the addresses to the courts, and have said: "I know

where my former husband lives. He is working at such and such a place,

has been there for a year or six months or whatever. Would you please

enforce the court order?" And to this day some of those orders have not

been enforced,

[ Page 518 ]

Mr.

Attorney-General. The excuse is that our details that look into these

matters are overloaded and there is at least a two-month wait before we

can get around to giving out an order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Your colleague has gone through this whole thing. I'll be happy to respond to it. You didn't hear the answer.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I appreciate that my colleague may have

gone through it, but would you make a public statement, would you go on

the air tonight, would you go on television and tell those people that

henceforth, as a commitment on behalf of the Attorney-General's

department and the province of British Columbia, we will ensure that

the same respect will be paid to those court orders as is paid to

someone who gets robbed and we send the police after them and hound-dog

them to death until we nail them and make them pay? Or what about the

child? What's happening to the child in the meantime as these payments

are delayed? I'm not suggesting that there are no cases that have a

valid reason, perhaps, for non-payment. There are a number of

extenuating circumstances, as I've said before, but I don't think there

is any excuse for the court not ensuring that that is the case. How are

you going to know whether there is an extenuating circumstance if you

don't inquire, if you don't follow through, if you don't get the person

in a position where they at least will make a commitment or a

submission with respect to their former wives and their child? As you

said yourself, if you drink and drive, that's our business; you can do

a number of other things and it is not. Well, if you are going to have

kids, it should be our concern that those kids be protected, even if

only as a gesture. Mr. Chairman, I think we have that duty and

responsibility.

I would like to suggest a challenge to the

Attorney-General. I think that he has a golden opportunity, one that he

could use, if he is so inclined, for political purposes. I'm sure he

wouldn't do this in the House, undivided as it is. I don't mind if he

gets political kudos from doing a good deed for the public, but he has

an excellent opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to proclaim personally that his

ministry, not only because this is International Year of the Child — as

has already been proclaimed by the government — will scrutinize every

single piece of legislation on the statutes with respect to ensuring

that children are given full protection under the law, and are given

the knowledge that we respect them and appreciate them as our most

valuable resource.

I think that if we start to do that, the

same as we protect our forests, our natural resources and our minerals

in the ground, then we will begin to get the kind of enthusiasm from

the young people and from the families that we need, and the confidence

in our system and the belief that we mean what we say when we say that

this is a free and just society, and justice will be done, come what

may. That is not the case.

I would challenge the

Attorney-General not only to respond to my questions, which he says

have already been answered, but to take the initiative to promote the

concept of justice, to let the youngsters know that we really care

about them. How many youngsters really know that this is the

International Year of the Child? Certainly you can't convince those who

are being battered. You can't convince those mothers who are

struggling, trying to chase down husbands in order to get maintenance,

and being turned down by the staff at the courthouses because obviously

they can't handle the situation.

I think the situation, Mr.

Chairman, borders on a non-deliberate form of criminality. I say

"non-deliberate" because I don't think that any of those staff want to

be derelict in their duties and responsibilities, but the fact is that

we are undermining our youth, we are creating youngsters with a sense

of cynicism, with a sense of disbelief. I think we will find that, for

a bottom-line government, you are going to get back far more than you

reap. I think that in your expediency, your measures of restraint and

cost-efficiency at the cost of good attitudes and developing young

minds and giving the democratic process a chance to work in the sense

of fair play, these things are being seriously neglected.

Would you please, Mr. Attorney-General — through you, Mr. Chairman — respond to those remarks?

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Chairman, I don't usually, and I'm not going to this time, say that

nothing happened before and we were the first people that did it. I

really thank the hon. member for his remarks, but I bring to his

attention that it was we who initiated the automatic enforcement of

maintenance orders. It didn't happen before. It should have happened

before and, quite frankly, I would have been much happier if we had

been able to have got to it a great deal earlier than we did, but, as I

mentioned to your colleague when you weren't in the room, I made the

announcement along the lines of what you discussed today because you

hit the nail on the head. There are people out there who have the

capacity to pay, and they haven't been doing it. They've been shirking

their duty and it has been lodged into your taxes, your friend's taxes,

my taxes and my friend's taxes. It is just improper, because they are

improperly avoiding their responsibilities.

Now that was the

thrust of your remarks, and you said something has got to be done about

it. I agree with you. You said I've got to go on television, I've got

to go on radio, I've got to tell you across the floor of the House....

I'm going to tell you right now that something is being done about it.

It's not yet throughout the whole of the province. It is, in my view,

not the most difficult thing to incorporate, but there have been some

difficulties in the initial stages. Automatic enforcement of

maintenance orders is now in place in Vancouver Island and in the

Interior. These are two out of the six regions in the province, and in

the first four months of this year, out of those regions there was

collected about $1.5 million.

So, hon. member, the figures

that you'd like to have.... We can estimate between $10 million to $12

million will be collected from those people who have the capacity to

pay. Up until now, and during the former administration — perhaps the

former former — no steps were being taken in many cases automatically,

and the step was left entirely to the individual to take those

procedures — and it's usually "she," the lady herself on behalf of her

children. That's the most frequent case. Sometimes it's the other side

of the coin.

What would they do? Well, they could try to

garnishee wages, or moneys that were owing. They could seize goods if

necessary and sell them, in the event of the fellow defaulting and not

honouring the capacity to pay. They

[ Page 519 ]

could

seize land, or an interest in land if he had an interest in land, and

put it up for sale to try to realize upon it. If an order was made and

there was an absolutely flagrant disobedience of the monthly order, the

individual would have to come to court to show cause why he should not

be committed for contempt. Those provisions are in the new Family

Relations Act; they have been even beefed up under the new Family

Relations Act. We have started the program of the automatic enforcement

of the maintenance orders.

Primarily, I want to thank you

for your support. But I sure wish I'd got the support of people like

yourself and other people in the House in this project a few years ago,

because it was needed just as much then as it is today.

MR. HOWARD:

If one ministry is more singularly important than others I think this

would probably be it, because it concerns itself or should concern

itself with a subject matter that has concerned societies ever since

societies existed. Generally speaking, this subject is what society

does to relate to and be of help to those who — and I hesitate to use

these words because they're so imprecise, but they're the ones that are

used and I don't know if any others exist that would better describe it

— deviate from the norm, whatever the norm may be at any given time and

whatever it might mean.

Unless we can come to grips in our

own consciousness about how this subject matter should be approached,

we are faced with a far more serious social difficulty than we've

experienced up until now. We have had a tendency — and perhaps this

thing is cyclical, I don't know — in the last 15 or 20 years to shunt

off the decision-making to the group of professionals loosely

identified as social scientists. Generally speaking society and

governments — the political level — have absolved themselves from

direct involvement. They've left the experimentation, the decisions and

the programs to the psychologists, social workers, psychiatrists and

the group of professional scientific minds in the category which deals

with social matters.

HON. MR. GARDOM: As opposed to the family.

MR. HOWARD:

"As opposed to the family," the Attorney-General says. That's

unnecessarily narrowing it down, I think, because it is not only a

family problem; it's a social matter that we have to look at. Whether

we like it or not, there are children who are born and grow up with no

families. There is no family responsibility there. That's what I mean

by saying we have absolved ourselves, society generally, from

tremendous concern in that area; we've let somebody else do it.

There

are community programs that come before us from time to time. They have

varied experience and varied beneficial effect. The minister and I have

talked about one. He knows about it. It's referred to as Camp Weewanie

in the Douglas Channel, and it's operated by a group called the

Northward Bound Society, which I understand is the only residential

centre to assist younger children who get into the glue or into grief

with the law. It has operated as a summer program three or four months

out of the year. There was an attempt made and there is still the hope

and the desire that that camp will be able to be placed on an operative

basis for a nine-month period. They chose the nine months, excluding

the three winter months because of excessive snowfall in that part of

the country. They thought that they would have insurmountable weather

problems if they tried to run it year round. So they thought in terms

of the nine months. They have sought to get long-term commitments from

the government, from the Attorney-General, from his department, about

funding that program, so they could plan ahead and so they could have

more than just the casual summer type of activity. There was a letter

written in this regard dated May 30 of this year by a Bernard G.

Robinson, who is the commissioner of the corrections branch. I only

quote one part of it because I think, as I've expressed to the minister

also, that there is a misunderstanding about what has occurred there.

Mr. Robinson says: "Moreover, it is the view of the corrections branch

that an evaluation of the program based on more than one summer's

operation is required." And there are other factors that he wants to

examine, such as the location of the camp and so on — fine and dandy

and worth examining.

The implication in the letter is that

that camp has only been in operation for one summer. That is not the

case. There is more than one summer's experience by the group in the

Northward Bound Society who have operated that camp. They have asked

for and in fact at one time had a meeting scheduled with the minister.

This was before the intervention of that provincial election which the

Premier now, I gather, says he wishes he hadn't called. Nonetheless it

did happen. There was a meeting scheduled for April 19, I believe it

was.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You'd still be in Ottawa.

MR. HOWARD:

Whether we like it or not, here I am, and here I hope to stay. And I

hope also, Mr. Chairman, to move to the other side of the House the next

time around. Lest there be any uncertainties about that, I'll belong to

the same party that I belong to now when that happens.

There

was a meeting scheduled with the directors of Camp Weewanie with the

Attorney-General for April 19 because they wanted to talk with him

about the long-term commitment, about the funding, about the necessity

of having the evaluation of that camp and its operations. The meeting

was cancelled, hasn't been resumed. Requests have been made for it, a

request for an evaluation, and nothing so far except two very important

things that have taken place.

One is that there was a boat

available through the corrections branch which the Northward Bound

Society used to travel from Kitimat down the channel to Camp Weewanie

and back, taking workers and people and supplies back and forth. On the

very eve of a meeting that I had scheduled with the minister to talk

with him about this, the board of directors of Camp Weewanie got a

phone call from the corrections branch saying it wanted the keys to the

boat because it was being relocated out on the coast some place — you

couldn't have it any longer.

Now there is some breakdown of

communication between the minister and the corrections branch, if

nothing else, when the minister is prepared to meet one day to talk

about the long-term funding, or the evaluation of it, and his own

people in his own branch are cancelling it and saying they want the

boat, that it's not any longer available.

I raised that with

the minister privately. He did say: "Don't take the boat away for a

while, until we can look at this." But it's now gone or in the way of

being gone. Somebody in the convention branch, I think, has been giving

the minister bad advice — either that, or the minister

[ Page 520 ]

has

been misinterpreting the advice that he's got, because what the

minister says about Camp Weewanie and the intentions and the hopes of

government is not what the corrections branch says.

Apropos

of that I ask the minister if he would make a commitment here to assign

somebody immediately, please, to go up to Kitimat to talk with the

Northward Bound Society board of directors, to start the evaluation

process, to look at the location, to see whether something could be

done to save what is a very valuable facility for young kids in that

area. I notice the minister shakes his head, saying, yes, he'll do it.

But will he make that commitment to do that, so that I can get back to

the people in Kitimat and say: "Look, Mr. Gardom is a good guy."?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Don't go too far!

MR. HOWARD:

Well, they might not believe me, but I'm sure they will, especially if

I tell them that, yes, you'll have somebody on the plane tomorrow

morning to come up there to talk with them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I can't give you any commitment about the plane tomorrow morning, hon. member.

Unfortunately

I don't have the Weewanie material in front of me, but we have

discussed it and we're each aware of the problem. It has proved to be a

useful short-term program. But it is very questionable, because of that

particular locale, with the heavy winters and the snows, that it would

be useful as a long-term program.

The corrections branch was

fully committed to carry on the program this summer, and the offer was

made to Weewanie. Weewanie said: "No, we're not prepared to carry on

with the same type of program that we had last year. We have to have a

longer program or no way." They were given an increase of around 12 or

13 percent — I forget the exact amount of money, but there's more than

adequate money for them to have carried on the same program that they

had last year. Their last year's program complement was not full. I

think they had 10 or 11 youngsters in each camp,

whereas they had a

capacity for 15 — I may be incorrect in those particular figures.

Insofar as giving you a commitment is concerned, sir, to have somebody

go up there and have additional discussions with them, I'm very happy

to do that but I think there's been a lot more discussion between

people first hand at Weewanie than you and I know about — I think

they've been almost talking their ears off up there — but if it will

serve any purpose I'm delighted to say, yes, I'll see that somebody will

re-approach them. It's getting to be a little late in the summer,

probably too late for them to even have an August program now. But it

was Weewanie who turned it down.

I know you are doing a good

job for your constituents there, and I congratulate you on that. But I

have to mention that, insofar as saying we're prepared to go ahead and

commit the necessary dollars to have it run on a year-round or

nine-month basis, sir, on the advice that we have received to date it

does not appear to be practical.

MR. HOWARD: Camp

Weewanie directors, or the Northward Bound Society directors, have been

in touch with the minister. They did have a meeting set up for this

spring — in April, as I said — which was cancelled. Perhaps if the

minister had kept that commitment and kept that meeting, things

wouldn't have got to the stage that they are at now. When he says that

the board of directors of the Northward Bound Society decided that they

could not proceed with the program this summer, they advised him why,

and the reason is a very simple one: that they could not get workers

who are basically volunteer workers to go there and participate in a

program if it was only going to be for three or four months of the year

— that was their difficulty. They should have got some commitment from

government earlier in the spring — to do an evaluation, to have a look

at it. But if the minister — who is not here with us now; he politely

said he had to step out for a minute, and that's understandable — had

taken the trouble, Mr. Chairman, to have examined this last winter when

the directors of the Northward Bound Society were trying to get a

meeting with him and a commitment from him, and if he hadn't goofed off

and said, "I can't do anything until the budget comes down" — which is

really not so — he could have met with the people, he could have talked

about it, he could have had this evaluation made.

I must

come back to the fact that I think, regardless of what the minister

says about his support for the program, et cetera, somebody is making a

mistake. It's either that the minister is getting the wrong information

tunnelled through to him from the corrections branch, or he is not

interpreting it properly, or he is playing politics with it, dating

back to last winter. The sad part of it is that a lot of kids who might

have been helped by this particular program — and proof of the past is

that they have been helped by it — will not now be helped.

think all that happens, all this reflects is seen in the government's

response to the Kitimat Justice Council, an organization operating in

Kitimat at a different level than the Northward Bound Society and Camp

Weewanie. It's an organization that operates within the community,

working with youngsters who have difficulties in school or difficulties

at home or difficulties with their contemporaries, emotional or

associative problems and so on, a corps of mental health workers of

tremendous value and help to youngsters in society. We can't even get a

letter in reply from the Attorney-General about setting up a meeting

with that council. I've written to him and I spoke with him about that.

We don't even get a response that says: "Yes, let's sit down and have a

meeting with the people from the Kitimat Justice Council." I just think

it's a sluff-off of responsibility.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we're

dealing in an area mentioned earlier that's an extremely sensitive one,

something that, I'm sure, each person is concerned about, probably has

a different approach one from the other. I'd mentioned earlier that

part of the problem we are facing stems from the fact that governments

in society have abandoned their responsibility and their concern to a

group of professionals, and have hoped for the best. There has been a

lot of experimentation that's gone on and I don