1982 Legislative Session: 4th 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 )

TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8347 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 10: minister's office (continued) –– 8347

Ms. Brown

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Stupich

TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 10: minister's office, $149,981.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

At the adjournment yesterday at 6 p.m., I was in the process of

responding to some matters raised by the hon. member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who referred to the problems associated

with the conduct of family law in courts that she has observed. She

raised the matter of applicants who appear without counsel and find the

respondents accompanied by counsel; the applicants in those

circumstances find themselves under some difficulty, with the result

that the judges assist in the proceedings. This is not unusual. In

circumstances such as those described, where one of the parties is

without counsel, it is entirely appropriate for the judge to ensure

that all the information he may require in order to adjudicate upon the

matter is brought out before him. This applies even in instances where

both parties are represented.

If, during the course of the

examination of witnesses and the presentation of evidence, there are

matters which a judge believes have been overlooked, then judges

appropriately address themselves to those matters and call upon the

parties to supply them with the additional information. Historically,

this has been a practice in our courts. However, when both sides are

represented by lawyers, it has become usual for them to feel entirely

secure in those circumstances. But if, under the present restrictions

that apply with respect to counsel for family law, one of the parties

should be without counsel, then it is quite proper for the proceedings

to be conducted in the way to which I referred. This has been the case

in juvenile courts for years. Unfortunately, some of our judges today

haven't had that kind of experience in the conduct of litigation before

them, and they find it unusual when they don't have counsel on both

sides. I have discussed this with the chief justice of the provincial

court and he indicates that it will perhaps be necessary for the judges

to recognize that they have a responsibility to discharge in those

circumstances where counsel is not available on both sides.

this matter of family law, as I have indicated in earlier debates in

this House, we have imposed some very stringent guidelines on the

extent to which the ministry will make counsel available in all cases.

We will also impose significant restrictions on counsel in regard to

the amounts they may charge for their services. If we don't do this,

the system runs open-ended, and the cost burden of conducting family

law can grow so great — and it is growing at a great rate — that it

could result in the collapse of the entire system.

The guidelines to which the member has referred on several occasions are guidelines

at that moment. As I indicated earlier, they are subject to analysis and change.

As a matter of fact, at the ministry's invitation we have now received a

brief from the Legal Services Society indicating the manner in which they believe

they can make their services available not only to the respondents but also

to the applicants. Thereby, they will be able to provide legal counsel in appropriate

cases as the situation arises. That circumstance is under examination by, the

ministry.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, it's really very noisy in here. It's very difficult to hear.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The point of order is well taken. All members of the committee are

advised that it is most unparliamentary and discourteous to interrupt a

member who is speaking. It is also discourteous to the member who is

obviously trying to listen. If we could maintain silence, the committee

would be well served.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Within the

adjustment of these matters and their appropriate order and regulation,

the guidelines set out in the memoranda the member has received will be

subject to modification and change. It is the intention of this

ministry and the family law division to ensure that counsel is

available in every necessary case.

The member has referred

to some circumstances based on the memorandum, where she presumes that

young persons are not going to be represented. As I indicated earlier,

that's not to be the instance. We have examined a number of alleged

circumstances when this has been the case, and we find that the

concerns are not substantiated.

The member also raised the

question of emotionally disturbed children and the facilities we have

in this province to deal with those children who find themselves in the

criminal justice system when perhaps they should not be there at all.

Their conduct may attract the attention of the criminal justice system

as they are juvenile offenders. They find themselves in that process,

but they're in that system because of emotional disturbance. which may

come from family background or a variety of reasons.

The

Ministry of Health has been examining this particular problem for a

number of years, and the Interministerial Children's Committee is

examining this particular matter at this time with respect to children

in crisis. At the request of the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr.

Leggatt), I met with Dr. Gossage, who has been practising in this field

and has been of major assistance to the courts in dealing with juvenile

matters, particularly those involving emotionally disturbed children.

He is putting forward what I think is a very exciting concept to deal

with this matter. It will require some particular study and his

recommendations in this regard have been referred by me, through the

Deputy Attorney-General, to the Interministerial Children's Committee

on children in crisis.

It is sometimes easy to look to the

facilities in other jurisdictions that deal with children who are faced

with these problems. We know that Alberta has a facility which is

looked to as being very superior in this regard, but even Dr. Gossage

raises some questions on whether that kind of facility should be

repeated in this province. He believes that there are some other

approaches that can be taken. I hope that out of the representations he

has made and the proposals that are being considered by the ministries

at the moment with respect to this particular problem we will get some

initiatives for the development of institutional facilities and programs

[ Page 8348 ]

which will better assist children who find themselves in this particular position.

are unfortunately today in the situation where if a child is not

identified as suffering from mental disease, then access to the

facilities is severely restricted. We have difficulty in the

corrections service, because we find we have children who don't fit

into that category but who do need a level of care. We are working with

the Ministry of Health in the use of their facilities to bridge this

gap between those who in the narrow sense qualify for the use of the

facilities and those who are identified as simply being emotionally

disturbed.

MS. BROWN: The Attorney-General forgot the first two questions I asked of him, so maybe I should place them again.

First,

I asked for a definite statement on the future of the Oakalla lands.

That was an oversight, I'm sure. It's going to be pursued by my

colleague the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) ; maybe at

that time we'll get a full answer from the Attorney-General.

The

second issue I raised had to do with the funding for rape crisis

centres. Pursuing the line raised by my colleague from Maillardville, I

pointed out that instances of rape not only are on the increase but are

in fact taking on a more violent and bizarre form. If ever we needed

the psychological support which women get from a rape crisis centre, we

certainly need those services now.

On January 30 the

minister served notice that as of February 26 he was going to terminate

funding to the Coalition of B.C. Rape Centres. That is exactly three

days less than four months ago. Using the statistics from his own

ministry, last year there were 22,000 reported cases of rape in the

12-month period. We can conclude that in that four months something in

the neighbourhood of 8,000 reported cases of rape could have and would

have been dealt with by rape crisis centres if they had existed around

the province. What we should be finding is an extension of that

service, not curtailment.

I quoted from a newspaper

article

in which the minister stated on February 19 that there would be a

break, a temporary interruption in service until a new agency was found

to be funded. At that time he said it would be about a month. I also

quoted from another statement of May 27 in which the minister said that

in about a week there would be a lot more money available for the

funding of rape crisis centres than the $151,000 which was set aside in

the budget. Now it is almost a month later — June 22, just three days

short of exactly four months since the last rape crisis centre was

funded.

During that time the minister has, in response to a

number of questions raised by me, indicated that there had been

applications for funding and that his ministry has been looking

seriously at these applications. I understand from speaking to one of

those groups that they have been told that they have to come back with

some statement of support from the police as well as support from

feminist organizations. This is absolutely ludicrous. If there is a

service that needs to be delivered, it doesn't matter who supports that

service. The only persons that the rape crisis centres have

accountability to are the rape victims. That's their function. Their

function isn't to make policemen happy or to make feminists happy.

Their function is to meet the needs of the rape victims — the

psychological needs, the emotional needs, the advocacy needs — and to

see to it that they get the kind of services they need. That's their

function. For the minister to keep rape crisis centres waiting for four

months while they continue to try to meet these phony criteria being

designed by the ministry is doing a disservice to the rape victims.

It's not hurting the police and it's not hurting the feminists. It's

not hurting the rape crisis centres either. The only people who are

suffering as a result of the behaviour of the minister and his ministry

on this issue are the victims.

I don't know what else to do

to get this message across to the Attorney-General. I don't think it

would have made any difference, incidentally, if the funding had

remained with the Ministry of Health, which is where it started in the

first place in 1974. It was then shifted to the Attorney-General,

because presumably one saw this as something that should be dealt with

by the justice system. In the meantime, we have in this province one

crisis centre in the Duncan area, which is receiving something in the

neighbourhood of $5,000 — that's all — so that they can give a limited

service to the women in that particular catchment area. The rest of the

province gets no funding whatsoever, not because there isn't a need —

that need has been demonstrated by the statistics coming out of he

Attorney-General's ministry itself. The ministry reported hat there

were 22,000 reported rapes; the ministry reported hat only 10 percent

of rapes ever get reported. Those statistics came from the ministry,

yet for four months of this year not one cent has been given to fund

any rape crisis centre anywhere in this province, to deliver a service

which the ministry itself identifies as existing — aside from the

Duncan area.

I told the Attorney-General yesterday, and I'll

repeat it: it makes no difference if two or three months from now a

billion dollars is placed into crisis centres. That's not going to help

he victims of the last four months, or the victims between now and

whenever that money becomes available. While the studies are being

done, while the phony criteria are being drafted, there should be

funding. Centres should have received their funding; they should have

been allowed to continue the service which they were delivering while

all of this phony criteria stuff about support from the police and

support from feminists was being demanded by the ministry. I'm asking

the Attorney-General once again: how much longer?

colleague from Maillardville had a long discussion with the

Attorney-General yesterday about the dangerous changes in sexual

assault, and the sexual crimes that are taking place. There are more

victims than ever, because more bizarre, violent and cruel kinds of

sexual assault are taking place. All of this is happening while the

ministry is telling these groups, "Go away and bring a letter from the

police saying they love you," or "Go away and bring a letter from

feminists saying that they adore you." That is nonsense. I would like a

statement from the Attorney-General as to when he crisis centres in

this province can start getting some funding from this government, so

that they can deliver the service to the victims of rape.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman. The issue that he member

raises is very important and is not being ignored by the ministry.

However, in her vehemence in debate she fails to apply her mind to the

problem. First of all, she speaks of 22,000 reported cases of sexual

assault or rape. That's not a ministry statistic at all. The statistics

are in fact 2,200 reported cases, not 22,000. Now some statistician, on

the slimmest of criteria, has applied a multiplier of ten, but that is

not supportable. You can only deal with the cases that are reported.

[ Page

8349 ]

Frankly, one of the problems with the agency which was funded over so many

years by this government was that they counselled against the reporting of cases.

It was in that respect that many victims of sexual assault found unsatisfactory

the service previously offered. As a consequence, that led to questions requiring

them to account for the way in which they discharged their responsibility.

They

raised the phony issue of confidentiality. Confidentiality was never a

problem with this ministry, as the member well knows because she was

involved directly with the people who had to make the decisions in this

matter. That was a completely phony red herring by the coalition.

Confidentiality was never the issue. We never wished to inquire into

the identity of persons who sought the assistance of the rape centres.

But very serious questions were raised as to the way the service was

being delivered.

You say that we have been stalling. We have

gone out into the community, in the past four months, seeking the

services of people who believed they were qualified to deliver those

services in the community. We are not establishing phony criteria. We

recognize that for a sexual-assault service to be effective in a

community, it must be broadly based. It must be recognized by the

people in that community as being a worthwhile service and must be

supported by them. Therefore the agencies which have come forward — and

they are to be given great credit for coming forward — have been

careful at the outset to ensure that they had the level of credibility,

and would enjoy the support of the communities in which they were

preparing to carry on their responsibilities. During that period of

time the ministry has not been dragging its feet.

The

funding for this kind of service has heretofore been split between

three ministries: Health, Human Resources and the Attorney-General. The

decision has been made that the program will come entirely under the

Attorney-General's ministry; and the funding formerly drawn from the

other two ministries has now been transferred to the Ministry of the

Attorney-General. In addition, while the funding for this service in

the past fiscal year was at a level of $151,000, approval has been

given to increase that by 50 percent; so on an annualized basis,

$231,000 will be available to support these services throughout the

province. With this additional money, we are now in the position to go

out and complete our arrangements with those community-based services

which have come forward and offered to supply the need.

As a

consequence, we will be in a position in the next few days to announce

the settlement of an agreement with the Cowichan rape relief centre;

which has been operating throughout. It will be funded additionally,

more than ever before. We will also be able to announce the settlement

of agreements for the operation of services in Kamloops, Fort St. John,

Terrace, Victoria and Vancouver. The difficulty with the two major

metropolitan areas is that competing organizations wish to supply the

service. We are working out which of those agencies will undertake the

responsibility and discharge the job in the best manner possible.

Yes, it is the victim who is looking for and is entitled to the service, but

that service is best delivered by an organization that has credibility and the

respect and support of the community in which it functions. I don't care

about their feminist organizations; I don't care about their feminist politics.

The people who run these centres will deliver a service to the victims, they

will work with the law enforcement agencies, and they will in turn ensure that

the law enforcement agencies discharge their responsibility. If there are inadequacies

in the law enforcement agencies in dealing with these matters, we want these

centres to identify them to us so that we can make the necessary changes within

the criminal justice system to ensure that the victims of sexual assault and

rape are not put through some of the embarrassing, emotionally stressful circumstances

which have occurred in the past. We can only do this if we get the assistance

of these rape centres and the victims who make it clear to us exactly what kind

of training programs we need in order to develop the specialized police techniques

to deal with people who are in these sensitive positions.

For

some victims it’s easy. For other victims it is extremely difficult, as

the member well knows. Therefore it takes carefully trained people at

the police and Crown counsel level. It's part of the program we are

embarking on, called CARE — Criminal Activities Response Effort —

whereby the victim is the one given the major consideration. The

criminal justice system has for too long involved itself with the

perpetrator of crime. All the attention has focused on the perpetrator

of crime, not on the victim. That is changing, but we can only

successfully change it if we have in these areas organizations prepared

to understand their responsibility, and to work with the authorities to

ensure that both of them discharge their responsibility to the person

who has been victimized by crime. I wish there was more money

available. I wish more organizations would come forward more quickly to

assume this responsibility.

On the question of feminist

politics, I have to recognize that some organizations are timid about

coming forward and involving themselves in some of the politics

reported to take place in this area. That's something over which I have

no control.

However, we are doing our very best to ensure

that this kind of service can be rendered without the philosophical

debates that so often accompany service of this kind. The delay is

longer than I would have wished, but it's understandable. When you

suddenly decide to offer the opportunity in, now, six areas throughout

the province, a network we've never had before, we have to be careful

that we have developed in those centres, in those communities,

organizations that can respond to the need of the victims for whom

their service is designed.

As for Oakalla....

MS. BROWN: Can I respond to that before you go on?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, you can't respond. I have the floor.

MS. BROWN: I thought we were having give and take.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: All right, then when I sit down, you can stand up.

MS. BROWN: Okay. Are you going to sit down?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to reserve my remarks on Oakalla. I know how interested the member is in

[ Page 8350 ]

this

particular issue, but I know that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon

(Mr. Lorimer) is also interested in the matter. I would like to hear

his contribution on the subject and I'll respond to the issue raised by

both of you at the same time.

MS. BROWN: Mr.

Chairman, I just want to point out to the minister first of all that

the statistician who used those figures was from his own ministry.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I know that.

MS. BROWN: Oh, you recognize that the statistician was using your own statistics.

The

problem started when the Ministry of Attorney-General decided that it

was going to decide what kind of rape crisis centre was going to be

best for the community and for the victim. John Hogarth and the former

Attorney-General first recognized that rape crisis centres came out of

the women's movement. Women decided that they needed this, women

approached the government and asked for funding and police training for

the kinds of services they needed. They did build and they now have a

broad community base.

When the Attorney-General decided to

get himself involved in the crossfire that was going on in the feminist

movement about the correct or incorrect way to deal with the rape

victim, then the ministries went out and started looking for agencies

and organizations which they thought would give better service. That's

where the problem came in, and that's why it's taken four months. As

long as the communities themselves were allowed to come together and

say that they needed a rape crisis centre and were prepared to deliver

that service and asked for funding, there was no problem. It didn't

take that long. It was when the Ministry of Attorney-General decided to

develop its guidelines and its criteria and tried to impose that on

existing agencies like the YWCA and crisis lines — agencies that has no

experience or training in dealing with rape victims — that the whole

problem started. That's why it took four months.

I'm

relieved to hear that Cowichan is going to get an increase from that

measly $5,000 they had last year. There is also going to be an

extension into Fort St. John, Terrace and other places like that. As

long as the ministry insists that it establish the guidelines, control

the kind of service that is given and that it knows what's best, it's

always going to run into trouble, because it doesn't. It's that kind of

paternalism that created the whole battle in the feminist movement in

the first place — the refusal to accept that kind of paternalism from

the government.

I'm pleased about the $231,000, and I

certainly hope that it is going to be coming down this week, as the

minister indicated, and that we are going to have the service

reinstated so that victims around the province will have the kind of

service they need. I just want to suggest to the minister that as long

as his ministry insists on dictating the way the service is delivered

and the guidelines and the controls for it, he is going to run into

trouble, because he cannot make those kinds of decisions.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up a little bit on the debate over

victims' rights; I'd like to expand on it a bit in terms of victims of

crime generally. In a broad statement of policy, the Attorney-General

said in answer to the member for Burnaby: "All the attention is now on

the perpetrator and not on the victim, and we are changing that." I'd

like the Attorney-General to tell us how he's changing that. What are

the services that the Attorney-General now provides to the victims of

crime generally? I want to deal with a couple of specific problems in

that area and I want to know how the Attorney-General is addressing

those problems.

I have witnessed, for example, assaults on

children where the alleged assailant — the alleged criminal — has been

placed in a waiting room with the victim prior to the giving of

evidence. That's a common occurrence in this province.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Where?

MR. LEGGATT:

In courtrooms everywhere. When you have given the alleged perpetrator

bail, they simply wait to testify at the preliminary hearing or

whatever type of hearing is going to be held. That is a matter that

should be changed. I'd like to know what the Attorney-General's

reaction is to that in terms of protecting the victim as witness.

There

has been a tradition of insensitivity in dealing with victims as

witnesses. I see very desirable changes occurring in terms of rape

victims. I think that there has been real progress. I think that

sorting out the counselling centres is long overdue, and the

Attorney-General has full responsibility for failure to put a system in

place. It should be properly funded, and he should not use his

bureaucratic interference to slow down what is essentially a sound

service. It's a very needed service in the community.

initial remarks intend to deal with the actual services that the

Attorney-General's department is now providing to victims of crime.

We're aware of the rape side of things. I'd like to look at, for

example, the old couple whose home has been broken into. Is there any

service to provide security for their home? Is there any service that

would provide locks on their doors? Is there any service that provides

followup counselling to victims of crime who have obvious fears — and

in some areas justified fears — that the crime will be repeated? How

sensitive is the justice system now to the victims of crime?

the United States there has been a broad movement toward

victim's-rights legislation, inspired, I might say, by the failure of

the United States to provide adequate backup services, particularly in

the medical area. This was the inspiration that brought forward

victim's-rights legislation and compensation legislation. We do not

have anything in place in the law. Initially, I'd like the

Attorney-General to respond as to what his department is doing for the

victims of crime in the areas of counselling the victims of crime,

providing security — in terms of locks, particularly in breaking and

entering — and, perhaps the most important area of all, counselling

victims who can become seriously disturbed and fearful as a result of a

crime taking place.

With those initial remarks, I ask the Attorney-General if he'd like to respond.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The member for Coquitlam-Moody raises what I think is a most important

emerging problem in the field of criminal justice. For some years in

this province we have had criminal victims' injury-compensation

legislation, which provides a measure of compensation in some

particular cases. However, the wide range of assistance for victims of

crime, to which he refers, which is developing in the United States has

not yet moved into Canada, but it is under active consideration. The

federal government, under the auspices of the Solicitor-General of

Canada, has raised

[ Page

8351 ]

this

matter for consideration with the Attorneys-General. It is contemplated

in legislation at the federal level, and this province is taking a

major role in the discussions on this subject. There has been a major

conference sponsored by this ministry. Dr. Thorvaldson, who has been

one of the principal researchers in this area, is dealing with the

question of reparation and assistance to the victims of crime. We're

just beginning. There is no program whereby people's locks on their

doors will be replaced or reinforced, whatever the circumstances may be.

one region of the Ministry of the Attorney-General we already have in

place the program that I mentioned to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

Under the auspices of the Attorney-General, with a unified Ministry of

Justice approach, we are drawing together all of the elements — police,

Crown counsel, courts and Corrections — and focusing their attention on

the need to concern themselves with the victim and the witnesses to an

extent that has never before been the case in this province.

are constructing new court facilities to ensure that there will be

proper separation of people who don't wish to face the perpetrator of

the crime of which they've been the victim or in respect of which

they're called as a witness.

I don't apologize for the fact

that we are only now taking the first firm steps in this regard. It is

a new and emerging field in Canada which has to be approached

cautiously but nonetheless consistently to ensure that we begin to

remove from the criminal justice system some of those elements which

have been oppressive to the victim and to the witnesses on behalf of

the Crown, who are there to ensure that the perpetrator of the crime

receives his proper and just consideration before the courts.

has been said of the system that it is uncaring. I think that's a

proper criticism, but in the moves that the Attorney-General's ministry

is now making we are taking out the "un" and turning it into a caring

system. That's why we have adopted CARE as the name of the program

being instituted in the Fraser Valley region.

MR. LEGGATT:

I suppose it's progress to know that the Attorney-General is talking

about it. I suppose it's progress to know that they're holding meetings

about it. But I didn't hear a specific proposal. I haven't heard from

the Attorney-General about specific action in relation to the victims

of crime.

I want to give some more examples to the minister.

One of the real problems, from every point of view, to those of us who

work a little bit in the criminal justice system is what I would call

lack of sensitivity to the witnesses and to the victims before the

trial process itself. In other words, the servicing of witnesses in a

civil case, for example, is far better.... That is, the contact between

the people conducting the trial and the witnesses is far better in a

civil case than in a criminal case. Surely the reverse should be true.

A couple of police departments in Canada.... Edmonton has started a program

which looks like the leading program in the country, from what I can see. The

deputy minister is here, and he may know of others. But I must say that, of

the ones I looked at, I was impressed with the Edmonton system. The system is

to provide a victims' service unit in major police forces in urban centres.

The victims' service unit has a specific responsibility: to refer the victims

to the appropriate agencies — criminal injury compensation boards, social

assistance, sexual assault centres, hospitals, to assist in the return of stolen

property to the victim, also to keep in touch with both the witnesses and the

victims, notifying them of the trial date well in advance and making it convenient

for them, in terms of available dates. This is only the first step in changing

the nature of the justice system to make it a caring and compassionate system.

don't necessarily agree with the Attorney-General that all the emphasis

has been on the criminal. You're always going to have some difficulty,

because the person charged has certain rights in a civilized justice

system. Those rights have to be protected; if you take those rights

away you take away the rights of everyone in the community. It's an

oversimplification when the Attorney-General says that all the

attention has been on the perpetrator and not on the victim; he's

certainly half right. The system has not been compassionate or caring

about the members of our community who have to participate in the

justice system.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

think the most horrendous example is the way we mistreat jurors in

terms of their pay and conditions. How would you like to take a year

out of your life and sit on a jury? That just about happened in the

case that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) raised

yesterday — this very long drug conspiracy case. I'm not sure that I

agree with him that the penalty is Something you're faced with no

matter what happens. You've got a judge and jury who have to look at

all the circumstance. I won’t comment on the penalty imposed in that

case, but imagine the sacrifice of the jury in that case — an

incredible sacrifice to their community. They always get a routine

"thank you" from those who participate in the trial, which is good.

Maybe it's time they got adequately compensated for their time, which

is not the case at the present time, Mr. Chairman. The Attorney-General

knows it's not the case. How much do we expect a person to give in

terms of community service in sitting on a jury? I think the whole

structure of jury pay should be revised, and it should work on a much

higher level. I forget the present day rate, but the Attorney-General

will know how much it is a day. It's less than a bottle of Pouilly

Fuisse, as somebody said.

So we're asking people to

participate in the criminal justice system, but the criminal justice

system does not respond to them. The criminal justice system abuses the

victim. The criminal justice system asks witnesses to come in at a

moment's notice. The criminal justice system does not contact witnesses

properly and give them adequate notice. It sometimes treats them very

cursorily and very unfairly, as if they are cogs in a wheel rather than

human beings. All that is a part of the insensitivity and the lack of

compassion that has come up in our system.

Changes in the

way we treat victims will be the beginning of the way we treat

everybody in the criminal justice system. It's got to stop being this

arrogant kind of system where we provide justice from on high, which

has been the tradition. The amount of compensation to jurors is

hopelessly inadequate. The compensation to witnesses in a case is

inadequate — I think it's still $7 per day under the tariff, as I

recall. It's absolutely minuscule and ridiculous. We've never revised

those rates for witnesses. Is $30 or $40 the average wage?

MS. BROWN: Even the minimum wage works out to more.

[ Page

8352 ]

MR. LEGGATT: We don't even pay witnesses the the minimum wage

for sitting around waiting to testify. Compassion to the public from

the criminal justice system is a two way street. You can't expect the

public to respect the system, to contribute to the system, to

participate in the system if we lawyers sit around telling them they

get $7 a day for giving up pay sometimes for weeks at a time, waiting

to testify. A whole review should be made of the witness pay structure

and the jury pay structure. It's right out of the Dark Ages, Mr.

Chairman.

Having talked about victims, I want to talk about

a case that's very famous, which is the Kocurek case. A headline in the

Tuesday, June 15, 1982, edition of the Vancouver Sun read:

"Williams urges more protection from sex animals." I don't like the use

of the words "sex animals," but I suppose the Attorney-General is free

to use it if he wishes. The Kocurek case is an interesting case because

Kocurek had been given a two-year sentence. The Attorney-General will

recall that this is the case of the young lady who was jogging in

Duncan and was a victim of this man Kocurek. This is what Judge Stewart

said previously. When he was sentenced to two years he said: "It seems

extremely doubtful to me that a further period of probation would be in

the interest of this unfortunate man who has a serious sexual problem

which the material indicates, and his history shows, he has no

immediate hope of controlling — none whatsoever." That was the decision

of Judge Stewart previously, before the murder took place, when this

young man was given a two-year probationary sentence.

Yesterday

the Attorney-General was concerned about the sentence that was given by

a judge and jury in the heroin conspiracy case. Remember that judges

are limited. It's the Attorney-General who proceeds under the dangerous

sexual offence section. Under

section 6.88 and 6.89, the

Attorney-General can proceed to put indefinite sentences on people like

this. That didn't happen in this case. Kocurek could have faced a

dangerous sexual offence application previously, but he didn't have

that to face. The responsibility for that isn't with the judge or jury;

it's with the Attorney-General's department for not proceeding under

the dangerous sexual offence section. You can't always blame other

people for your problems. You can't say that the judge was too weak,

that the jury didn't look at it right or that something else in the

system happened. The buck stops with the Attorney-General. It's time

that the Attorney-General's ministry started reading lower court

judgments around sexual offenders. The Attorney-General knows, I know,

and other people who practise law know that there are five or six other

little Olsons running around in this province. We are going to have a

lot of potential trouble.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know that at all. Do you know that?

MR. LEGGATT: I certainly do know their potential. I will give you the names.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Do you want to say it outside the House?

MR. LEGGATT:

I will be very happy to say outside the House that there are potential

Olsons presently in the system who are not being properly dealt with.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Are you going to name them?

MR. LEGGATT:

I'm not going to name them, of course. The Attorney-General knows very

well that there is a certain degree of discretion, which he failed to

exercise when he called Kocurek an animal. There is a certain degree of

discretion which you exercise in terms of those who are presently in

the system who the criminal justice system is desperately trying to

deal with. We, as the Attorney-General knows, do not have those

facilities to deal with them. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms.

Brown) has raised the question of how you handle the uncontrollable,

young psychopath. What facilities do we have? As far as I know, we now

have no facilities in the province of British Columbia to deal with the

seriously and dangerously disturbed young man. We have judges all over

the province trying to get young, dangerous people committed to Roper

Hall in Calgary, but there's nothing for them in British Columbia. I

think it's The Maples.

MS. BROWN: It's not even open.

MR. LEGGATT:

I understand that they've closed the wing in The Maples that was

specifically designed for this purpose. I don't know whether Eric

Martin is treating any of these people; I doubt whether they are. It

leaves us with one institution outside of the province to deal with

what is essentially the Olson problem.

An ounce of

prevention is always worth a pound of cure. You can hang the Olsons,

cut them up, or draw and quarter them, but you can't stop it without

prevention, because penalty means nothing to people like a dangerous

sexual psychopath. Penalty is very unlikely to deter criminals of that

kind. We must spend the money, take the time and use the resources

first of all to identify within the system these people who have

potential for this kind of crime. They are in the system now. The

Attorney-General said: "Name them." I will provide him, confidentially,

with names that I have from judges who are deeply concerned about

dangerous young offenders and who, for example, have had to receive

protection for themselves from the sheriff's office when they've

sentenced these young people. I'd be very happy to provide the

Attorney-General with those names in confidence to see what can be done

in terms of treatment.

This is not, as I think the

Attorney-General was trying to suggest, a scare tactic. This happens in

other jurisdictions as well. It's an extremely difficult problem to

handle a potential young psychopathic killer. But we aren't doing very

much about it. We aren't identifying them within the school system and

I don't think we're even identifying them within the criminal justice

system. I think they're possibly falling between the stools. How

carefully are we reading the judgments of local judges? How carefully

did we read Stewart's judgment on Kocurek when he said: "I can't do

anything for this man. This man is uncontrollable." I think the

Attorney-General has a very strong duty to begin, first of all,

identification; secondly, the provision of rich, meaningful treatment

for dangerous young offenders. Quite frankly, local judges are

unanimously throwing up their hands and saying: "What can we do with

these people?"

At times I begin to think Les Bewley is the

Attorney-General and the Attorney-General is carrying his messages to

the chamber, but that may be a little unkind.

[ Page

8353 ]

I want to ask the Attorney-General about plea bargaining. I'm not

sure the Attorney-General is clear on what plea bargaining is and I

want to be sure that he understands specifically. I'd like to know

particularly where he draws the line on this question.

Obviously I've left my notes somewhere. I'm going to sit down and get up later when I find the rest of them.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Plea bargaining comes under either P for plea or B for bargaining,

whichever indexing system you use. When you find your notes of what

plea bargaining is I'd be happy to....

MR. LEGGATT: I'll tell you what it is. You don't know what it is.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

At least I don't have to go into my index file and find my notes before

I can discuss it. I can assure you of that. At any rate, I may deal

briefly with this question of victims of crime and witnesses, briefly

in response to the comments made by the member.

With regard

to witnesses and victims who will be witnesses, we have in this

province adopted a number of programs which we find of major assistance

to people in that category. Crown counsel is now communicating on a

regular basis with witnesses before preliminary hearings to advise them

of the dates when they will likely appear, and of adjournments, for the

purpose of ensuring they are not unnecessarily inconvenienced in

discharging their responsibility following preliminary hearings when

the same continues. With respect to those witnesses who may have to

come some distance, we have put in a witness transportation and

accommodation program. As a matter of fact, we recently concluded

arrangements with Pacific Western Airlines whereby they will provide a

package service to transport witnesses and victims by air and provide

them with accommodation while they are away from their homes for the

purposes of discharging their responsibility in the particular case.

have also started this year the trial coordination program in the

provincial court. Eight trial coordinators have been appointed and it

is their specific responsibility to ensure, to the extent possible,

that trials go ahead on the days scheduled. It is the responsibility of

the coordinator working directly out of the office, under the auspices

of the chief judge of the provincial court, to be in touch with both

Crown counsel and defence counsel with respect to the operation of

trials. The trial coordinator or Crown counsel has responsibility for

witness management to ensure that the witness is similarly not

inconvenienced.

We also involve the victim at the other end

of the system. The British Columbia Parole Board is presently

considering whether, in the course of deciding parole matters, they

will be interviewing the victim of the crime as well as the sentencing

judge, so that in matters of parole concern will be had for the victim

and the views of the sentencing judge taken into account. Under the

B.C. Parole Board system we have persons appointed who reside in

various regions throughout the province. This is to ensure that, when

the parole board makes a decision with respect to an applicant for

parole who is going to be returned to his or her home community,

someone from that community who can measure the impact of parole on

both the inmate and on the community will have the opportunity of

participating in that decision.

With respect to witnesses

and what they are paid, under many collective agreements there is

provision to cover off the matter of attending as a witness in court or

as a juror. Statistically we find that in respect of juries about 70

percent of our jurors are persons who are employed under circumstances

in which they receive their full regular pay while performing that

duty. I don't disagree that it would be desirable to increase the fees

payable to witnesses and to jurors, but there comes a limit as to what

the Crown alone must do. One has to take into account the duties of the

citizen in respect of being a witness and in respect of being a juror.

If our system is to function, it cannot function entirely based upon

economic matters; there still remains the citizen's responsibility to

take his or her proper place in the justice system. It seems

inappropriate to me that we would rely entirely upon the ability of the

system to compensate a person for whatever the loss might be. If you

take the variety of people who are involved as witnesses and jurors,

then the concept of no loss and of adequate compensation becomes almost

impossible to implement.

MR. LEGGATT: I take it,

though, from the Attorney-General's response that he has some concern

about the present level. I'm sure that we're not going to have a system

that's perfect. But imagine a small businessman with two employees and

one of them has to sit on a jury for four months, and he has to hire

another employee to replace that man under his collective agreement.

This I not impossible, and it's this kind of thing for which some

compassion should be shown by the Ministry of Attorney-General. I'm

glad to see I have the agreement of the Attorney-General — but not of

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). There is

good reason to change the structure of jury pay and certainly the

amounts that are paid to witnesses. I'll leave the question of the

legal tariff alone, since there is obviously a conflict of duty and

interest. Quite frankly, that's far too low as well but that's the

amount that one can tax after a trial.

I want to ask the

Attorney-General some questions about this question of plea-bargaining.

Plea-bargaining was the headline — I don't know whether it's an

accurate reflection, but this is what the Attorney-General was quoted

as saying — in the Times-Colonist of June 18. "Any Crown

counsel who plea-bargains 'will lose his job,' Attorney-General Allan

Williams said Wednesday." Since I didn't have my notes so that I could

specifically identify what plea-bargaining is, I'm wondering if the

Attorney-General would like to rise and assist me, and tell me what

kind of conduct on the part of a Crown counsel would be so scurrilous

that he would lose his job. What are we talking about in terms of plea

bargaining?

Let me give you some examples of something that

does a service to the judicial system and a service to the criminal

justice system. For example, if one is to contact a Crown counsel and

disclose one's defence, and that defence is very persuasive in terms of

seeing that a lesser charge is laid, surely that comes within the

definition of plea-bargaining, and if that is a plea-bargain then the

Crown counsel is going to lose his job.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. LEGGATT:

I see the Attorney-General shaking his head, and I would very much

appreciate it if he would tell me the nature of plea-bargaining. For

example, an informant decides to turn witness against his fellow

criminals, but in

[ Page 8354 ]

return

for his providing the police with key information, let's say in a drug

conspiracy, the police say to the informant: "You will not have to face

a charge, even though you participated in the conspiracy." Isn't that a

plea-bargain? I can't think of a better definition of a plea-bargain

than that. Is the Crown counsel going to lose his job when he drops the

charge against the state witness? Surely that's not what we're talking

about. It would be a marvelously idealistic way to approach the

criminal justice system. How do you get people to turn Crown evidence

if you don't give them some assurance that they won't face the same

charge, as co-perpetrators of the crime?

I can see I've got the Attorney-General thinking about that one. I'm glad to see that.

colleague from Surrey has asked me if the Olson case was

plea-bargaining; I don't think that was plea-bargaining, because they

established the number one charge and he got a maximum sentence. But

the process still has a certain odour to it.

For the

guidance of counsel who have to practise in the courts of this

province, it's time the Attorney-General rose in his place and told us

what, specifically, is not appropriate in terms of plea-bargaining. Can

I not go to the Crown prosecutor and lay out my case and say: "This is

the defence you are facing. You have about a 10 percent chance of

making your charge stick, but to avoid that 10 percent risk we'll

accept the lesser charge." Is that inappropriate to the justice system?

Is that wrong in the justice system? I don't think it is. I think

you'll double the number of trials you are going to have. It means that

every charge will be a number one charge; yes, and even more important,

it will mean that the police will make a determination of all charges.

If there can be no plea bargaining, the police will make the ultimate

decision as to the nature of the charge laid, without consideration for

the court process itself, which surely is the function of the Crown

prosecutor and not the police.

In view of my own incapacity

to properly define plea bargaining, would the Attorney-General now rise

in his place and advise the lawyers of the province, advise the House,

specifically what plea-bargaining is, and what conduct will result in

the dismissal of a Crown prosecutor?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There is no mystery about the question of

plea-bargaining, and I have spoken about it on a number of occasions,

most recently last Thursday evening to regional Crown counsel. The

circumstances identified by the hon. member are not plea-bargaining.

When the police, on the advice of Crown counsel, have laid every

appropriate charge, based upon the investigation conducted by the

police, and competent defence counsel approaches the Crown counsel and

lays out his case, saying, "Based upon the witnesses I will call you

will not be successful in achieving a conviction on that particular

charge or count," Crown counsel then has the obligation, because he is

perceived to be equally competent, of re-examining the evidence

available to him, discussing the matter with the police who have done

the investigation, perhaps re-interviewing witnesses, and reaching a

determination, based upon his skill and experience, as to whether he

can achieve a conviction on the count identified by defence counsel,

and on that basis to advise defence counsel he doesn't propose to

proceed with that count. But to do so in exchange for a guilty plea is

where you run close to the problem. It is not acceptable to suggest

that if you accept a plea of guilty on this particular count, then you

won't call the 14 witnesses and will save the court the time, and in

order to expedite the process of criminal justice, to save money or

whatever the case may be, you will drop charge number one and proceed

on charge number two.

In the hands of

unskilled persons, such a device could be abused. The guidelines set

down for Crown counsel make this quite clear. I'm happy to say that we

have developed a Crown counsel system in this province whereby, with

the availability of senior district and regional Crown counsel, matters

of this kind can be discussed and decisions made with respect to such

approaches as are appropriate in the proper case — not for the purpose

of ensuring that someone escapes responsibility for the sake of

efficiency, time or the saving of cost, but only to ensure that the

Crown is not placing before the court a case that they know in advance

they aren't going to make, because they've been advised by competent

defence counsel. That's the system in its simplest form.

The

question raised by the member with regard to the laying or staying of

charges against witnesses who may decide to turn Crown evidence is

always a very difficult case to examine. Each one has to be examined on

its own circumstances. In recent years we have not used the unindicted

coconspirator concept. It is an approach which I personally deprecate.

I think the consequences of using that approach are damaging to the

criminal justice system, and the number of instances in which it has

been successfully employed is so limited as to make it of questionable

value. The criminal justice system, under the Assistant Deputy

Attorney-General, are aware of this and share this point of view. The

concept is extremely dangerous. It is confusing to the system. It is

confusing to the people involved in the trial. It diminishes the system

in such a manner that we doubt whether it should be employed, except in

the most unusual circumstances.

The Department of Justice

approaches narcotics offences differently. It's understandable because

of the nature of the persons with whom they are involved and the wide

scope in many narcotics conspiracy cases.

The question of

staying charges against persons prepared to give Crown testimony

likewise is dealt with on an individual basis. We use the stay process

sparingly. It is almost invariably used in circumstances where the

person charged is such a minor participant in the criminal conduct that

it is justifiable, in order to achieve a conviction of the major

perpetrators of the crime. It is a part of the system. It is used

sparingly and only in very special circumstances.

MR. LEGGATT:

I appreciate the Attorney-General's remarks, because he's now defined

plea-bargaining in a very narrow sense. I appreciate that he has,

because I think there are a good number of people who make an

assumption that the words plea-bargaining are self-explanatory. Of

course there will always be changes in plea when all the evidence is

examined, particularly if the Crown counsel has the opportunity to

examine the potential defence.

I'm still left a little

puzzled by one remark the Attorney-General made. It's the question that

there should be no bargaining around the plea. Let me give you an

example. A dangerous driving charge has a very substantial defence

presented and the option is given of pleading to a motor vehicle

offence in place of it. Remember that a dangerous driving charge does

not have a motor-vehicle offence as an included offence; it's an

all-or-nothing situation on dangerous driving. If the

Attorney-General's position is that there

[ Page 8355 ]

should

be no bargain made on plea but only on the level of the charge, and if

after examination defence counsel feels it's in his client's interest

to present what is the potential defence and after examination another

charge is laid, it is the Crown counsel who wants to be assured of a

guilty plea. He doesn't want to face a defence of the lesser charge;

it's just simply, impractical for him to bargain in that sense.

What

I'm surprised at, Mr. Chairman, is that it would not be appropriate for

the Crown counsel to insist on a guilty plea after the withdrawal of

the more serious charge. If he's not given the option of asking for a

guilty plea, it will mean, first of all, that we'll have a doubling of

the number of trials clogging the criminal courts. You'd also put Crown

counsel at a disadvantage in that the defence that's been raised to the

more serious charge may also be acceptable to the lesser charge, and

yet justice may not be done in those circumstances. It may be that a

reasonable outcome would be that there be some sanction provided to the

offender. I'm concerned about this last aspect of the question of the

plea itself not being a bargainable question.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Well, I'm sorry if I'm not being clear. The decision made by Crown

counsel is not to be predicated upon what the plea will be; the

decision is to be based upon an examination of the circumstances, the

application of the appropriate law and a skilled judgment by qualified

Crown counsel. They must feel that in these particular circumstances

they are not going to be able to make that conviction.

May I

just say something before I go into this aspect. It is the same

decision that the Crown counsel had to make in the first instance

before the charge got laid. The authorities had t to come and say:

"This is the case we've got. What does it I provide?" Crown counsel

will say: "Okay, criminal negligence and an offence of dangerous

driving." That's based upon what the Crown counsel understands he has

by way of a case. Then along comes the defence counsel to convince him

that he's not going to make it. As I say, based upon competent,

experienced examination of the circumstances, including perhaps the

re-examination of the witness by the police, he says: "Well, okay,

fellow, you're not going to make this one." By the same token,

competent defence counsel, having been successful in that and having

the interests of his client at heart, will also recognize that if the

Crown says, "Fine, we're going to proceed against your client under the

motor vehicle legislation," he would have to say to his client: "The

Crown is going to charge you with this motor vehicle offence and,

frankly, you've got no defence. It's my recommendation to you that you

plead guilty." It may not be. All I'm saying is that in those

circumstances what the person charged may do is based upon the advice

he gets from his counsel, but it is not appropriate to use as the

bargain the dropping of one in order for the guilty plea on the other.

MR. LEGGATT:

I urge the Attorney-General not to move too quickly on the standards

that he's laid out, because there are a number of Crown counsel in the

province who aren't up to date on this latest wrinkle on the question

of the plea itself. I understand the reasoning behind the

Attorney-General's position, but there is a misunderstanding, I think,

around the question of the plea. A good number of defence counsel still

believe that it's appropriate to deal with Crown counsel on the plea

and not just the nature of the charge or the evidence. The

Attorney-General is now firm; he's telling us that that is

inappropriate, and I accept that. Crown counsel will have to accept

that.

It's not necessarily going to be an easy row for Crown

counsel to hoe, because they're going to have a lot more trials on

their hands. Obviously if you've got a defence for one charge you'll

probably use it for a second and a third. Therefore you're not going to

gauge the success or failure of the trial as carefully, perhaps because

the Crown is going to be faced with the same defence to the more

serious or the lesser charge. The witnesses are the same, they're going

to say the same things. and so on. In effect, this new position, I

think, is going to increase the number of trials in the criminal

justice system. I hope the Attorney-General is prepared for the number

of judges and courts that it will take, because I think there will be

some increase in that. However, we've canvassed that in some detail and

I appreciate the minister's candour.

I want to deal with

another question which concerns me a bit, and that is the minister's

obviously jaded view of the Charter of Rights, which he suggested was

going to create all kinds of problems in the criminal justice system.

I'm sure he must have been referring to

section 7, dealing with legal

rights under the charter, and particularly to

section 10, which says:

"Everyone has the right on arrest or detention (

a) to be informed

promptly of the reasons therefore; (

b) to retain and instruct counsel

without delay and to be informed of that right; and (

c) to have the

validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be

released if the detention is not lawful." What I think the

Attorney-General was concerned about must have been (

a) and (b) — to be

informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence, and

particularly to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be

informed of that right. I suppose that he's thinking of the Moribito

case in the United States, which caused some concern about what many

felt was a technical problem of failing to be advised of the right to

counsel at the appropriate time.

But you know, Mr. Chairman, as matters of principle....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Northeast coal and Noranda.

MR. LEGGATT: Would you go back to intergovernmental affairs there, Mr.

Minister. I mean, you should be in Ottawa with the Minister of Industry and

Small Business development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) helping the Japanese auto industry, for gosh sakes.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's Miranda in the States and Moribito in Canada.

MR. LEGGATT: It's Miranda, you're right. I gave you he wrong

case citation, didn't I? It's the Miranda decision. Anyway, the two

subsections are (

a) and (b) — to be informed promptly of the reasons therefore

and to retain and instruct counsel without delay. It seems to me, first of all,

that those are very straightforward rights that I think most people in a civilized

society would accept as being only fair and just. t's very confusing to anyone

suddenly brought into the criminal justice system and charged with an offence

to understand what his or her rights are. Unless you know what your rights

are, you don't have any rights; they can be so easily used.

I'm sure what the Attorney-General must be referring to the problem of police

constantly having to provide these

[ Page 8356 ]

warnings.

I suppose some of them are now carrying cards and doing that; but they

do it anyway. They provide the standard warning before taking any

statement, and the number of statements excluded from the courts in the

last five years you can almost count on your fingers. Very few

statements made by the accused are any longer excluded from evidence,

because the police have understood how to obtain a statement and how to

meet the standards of voluntariness that the courts have set out.

seems to me that it's not that difficult for those charged with the

enforcement of the law to comply with these three sections of the

charter. For the Attorney-General to suggest that somehow the whole

criminal justice system is going to be in chaos because these three

sections were passed — and I can't imagine that he's really referring

to any of the others; that's sections 10(a), (b), and (c), and 11 (

a) and (b)....

I'm interested in the Attorney-General's

response to those sections — why he disagrees with a person having the

fundamental right to be advised and to be represented by an adviser.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Very briefly, yes, I had in mind the two particular provisions of the

charter to which the member refers, but there are also a number of

others in the charter. I don't have my copy with me, unfortunately, but

if the member refers to them he will see that the charter has a number

of aspects which influence the conduct of trials and therefore impose

themselves upon the criminal justice system.

My remarks on

the occasions to which the member refers were provoked by recent

statements made by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United

States. He has concluded that after 200 or more years of experience

with their constitution and Bill of Rights, the direction that the

courts have gone in the implementation of decisions based upon their

constitution has reached the stage whereby he wonders and questions

whether or not the purpose of criminal justice, which is to protect the

citizen on the street, is not being converted into a system which

protects the criminal on the street. My remarks were to the effect that

after that kind of experience in the United States of America it seemed

strange to me that we were embarking upon a similar direction in Canada.

will find, as more and more decisions are reached in our courts under

the

interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that we're

going in the same direction. Frankly, I have to view this as a

retrogressive step. As the member points out, the police do these

things anyway. They know how to take statements. They are able to

accommodate this, and therefore the citizen who finds himself

attracting the attention of the police hasn't been badly dealt with.

There is no evidence of compelling need to change our system, but we're

facing the prospect of that taking place.

Mr. Chairman, I

would like to address myself to this particular subject in the light of

what has been said earlier here today about how terrible it is that we

have these sexual offenders running around in our society. The member

is going to identify some of them confidentially to me. We want to do

something with them. We want to take away their rights, such as they

may be, without charging them with any offence, and give them treatment

or whatever the case may be. Our laws don't accommodate that. I have

some difficulty in seeing where it is that the member stands on these

matters. In particular kinds of offences he wants the law to come down

as heavily as possible on that person, maybe for the rest of their

lives. Yet with respect to, I suppose, the ordinary criminal, he wants

to ensure that they get some fairer treatment, as if the authorities

are going to impose themselves property upon that citizen. How you

identify the distinction between the two, or how the police officer

does, is very difficult for one to imagine.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, the minister asked me where I stand on these things. I

don't see any reason why he needs to be confused about that. First of

all, police do not do these things unless they are in the law or in a

charter of rights. That is why it is inappropriate to attack the

charter of rights in that he won't have those protections provided to

both innocent and guilty parties. You don't make an assumption that

everyone charged is guilty. There is a presumption of innocence. That's

the position that I still take, Mr. Chairman. I still take it as a

given that in the British system of justice there is a presumption of

innocence until proved otherwise. That's the way our system has always

worked and the way it must continue to work.

On the question

of victims, and on the question of sexual offenders, we have always

placed our remarks in terms of treatment and identification. We realize

that you can't convict someone before they commit an offence. It's

always been the terrible conundrum of the justice system: how do we

identify and stop something happening before it does? Prevention is

still worthwhile. While it does not mean that they are charged with

something that they haven't done, it means that they are provided with

adequate treatment facilities, which they do not have in this province,

Mr. Chairman, and the minister knows they don't. We haven't got a

single maximum-security system available to us in this province in

terms of seriously disturbed treatable children. Those are not my

remarks; those are the remarks of people who are involved in the

system, who are doing the sentencing process. We have a most inadequate

system in terms of dealing with the seriously disturbed, potentially

psychopathic killer. It's the only area where we're going to make any

progress. You can do all you like about mandatory 25-year sentences or

hanging, but it's not going to save the next victim. The area of early

identification and treatment, the justice system identifying those

individuals in the system who clearly have already conducted themselves

in a manner that shows they're going to be a serious problem to the

community for the rest of their lives.... It's not that hard to

identify. Kocurek could have been identified, but he wasn't identified.

He was identified by the judge, but he wasn't identified by the

Attorney-General's ministry. No dangerous sexual offence charge was

laid in the Kocurek case. It ill behooves the Attorney-General of this

province to stand up and call Kocurek an animal and complain about

judges. In the dangerous sexual offence

section some responsibility

lies at his door.

That's my position. It's not a confused

position. It's a consistent position. It's a civilized position. Under

the British system of justice we presume their innocence, but we

certainly will provide treatment and rehabilitation if at all possible;

if it isn't possible, then indeterminate sentences are appropriate in

those cases. Under the Criminal Code indeterminate sentences can only

be granted when the Crown makes application for them; the

Attorney-General knows that. That's where the problem lies. We don't

request enough indeterminate sentences for dangerous sexual offenders,

and there are too many in cases of indictable offences of a property

nature.

[ Page 8357 ]

participated in a study of all the maximum-security prisons in Canada.

We had a chance to interview a number of these people. There are people

who are serving habitual criminal sentences in our maximum-security

prisons who passed bad cheques all their lives because they got drunk.

People who got drunk and had eight, nine or ten break-and enter charges

against them face habitual-criminal sentences. We have instances where

some of these people never see the light of day for a long time, but in

cases of dangerous sexual offences, charges are not laid. Charges are

not laid against people in cases where the evidence is very clear that

that kind of conduct — which in the Kocurek case Judge Stewart called

"uncontrollable" — has not been seriously dealt with at the

Attorney-General level. That is where the buck has to stop from time to

time.

You can't always take the Les Bewley position on the

system of justice. You can't always let Les Bewley provide you with

your one-liners, in terms of press releases calling criminals animals.

That's no service to the system. How is that going to contribute to the

criminal justice system. Of course we all know the man's a dangerous

sexual psychopath, but that's picking up cheap Brownie points from that

particular case.

I want to look at solutions to these

problems. The solution is not that simplistic right-wing view that all

you have to do is increase punishment, lock people up forever, and you

get rid of crime. It doesn't work that way. You must bring prevention

into the system. You must identify and treat the problems. Therein lies

the reduction of crime.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Crime

is really the measure of the civilization of the state. How civilized a

state are we? The crime rate tells you a lot about this civilization. I

can tell you that the crime rates are often highest in the regimes that

are allegedly the most free. We have to ask ourselves why that occurs.

It's a combination of lack of respect for the law and the feeling that

"I'm totally free and can do anything I want." We have to respect

people who wait at the stop-light out here in front of these buildings

until it says "Walk," and don't go across on the red. That seems like

such an insignificant thing, but it is the beginning of the acceptance

of law and order, of rules in our society. That philosophy is what we

as legislators and lawyers must all be about: respecting the rules that

society provides to make itself civilized and to protect itself. It

includes not cheating on your income tax; it includes all kinds of

things that are within respect for the law.

I get upset when

the Attorney-General says he doesn't know what my position is. My

position is very clear on this subject. It's clear because of the

principles that he and I were both taught at the University of British

Columbia law school. The presumption of innocence must still prevail in

the criminal justice system. Sometimes I worry that the

Attorney-General has forgotten that old principle when I read some of

the things I see here; when I see the kind of scare headlines about

animals and plea bargaining. I'm satisfied that the plea bargaining

question is one that can be resolved in the narrow context that the

Attorney-General has laid out.

I want to ask one or two

other questions. One deals with the Olson case. I'm not going to go

into the background of the case. Frankly, in the bit I know about it, I

think the police did have a most difficult and challenging job. I think

it's easy to use hindsight on these things. I think the

Attorney-General would have been better served, however, had he had a

full coroner's inquiry into the matter. That's been raised. The other

area is the question of compensation for the victims of the crime.

There is a point when the community, together, can be very wise. I

believe in this case if you ask the community at large what they felt

would be appropriate, they would say some compensation should be made

in this unprecedented case. The amount of compensation would be a

matter for the Attorney-General's ministry to determine.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On what basis?

MR. LEGGATT:

The basis is that this is an unprecedented case in which, for perhaps

the first time I know of in the history of Canadian jurisprudence, an

amount was paid to the murderer — or to his designate, who was his

wife. Out of a common sense of decency and fairness, I think the

community at large would be perfectly ready to accept a special bill in

this Legislature which would not necessarily be precedent-setting.

Since there are no avenues of law that I'm aware of, a special bill

compensating the victims of a reasonable amount.... The community at

large is feeling that somewhere down the system it's easy to lay blame

and that the system has failed them somewhere. I'm not saying that it's

the police department. It could be somewhere farther down the line.

Maybe

it's appropriate in these circumstances that some compensation be paid.

If those young people had been hit by a motor vehicle on a highway

there would be some compensation paid. I realize it's not a large

amount for children under the present law, but there would have been

some compensation paid. Instead, these horrible crimes go with that

feeling of a sense of injustice: that there's something wrong,

something empty and something that surely we, as people who represent

our community, should together, in community, agree to. I think it's

worth serious consideration that there be a special piece of

legislation providing compensation to the parents of the victims of

that horrible crime.

I know the Attorney-General will be

concerned that that is precedent-setting and that every time a murder

occurs there will be claims. The amount of money in any terms is

insignificant in any terms of funding. The criminal injury compensation

fund, for example, is still very modest in the amounts they pay, based

as it is on the Workers' Compensation system. We could use increases,

but in the Olson case it seems to me very worthwhile that consideration

be given to special legislation. I think the Attorney-General would

receive the unanimous support of this House if he would give

consideration to exercise that special degree of compassion that is

appropriate in these circumstances. I know the Attorney-General is no

doubt concerned that this is a case of somebody saying they did

something wrong and that there's some blame attached. I don't think

it's a question of casting blame at all. I think the public are

entitled to know what occurred. They're still concerned about the

circumstances — thereby some form of open inquiry.... Secondly, I think

compensation for the victims is an appropriate question.

have two more matters I want to deal with. One is the question of

impaired driving. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr.

Hyndman) is embarking on a change which will promote the consumption of

alcohol by allowing increased advertising of alcohol in the media — and

this at a time when the number one concern of the public is drunk

driving. In terms of driving offences, it's the number one

[ Page 8358 ]

problem

that we want to direct our attention to, and yet we have a government

that feels it's all right to promote its sale and thereby increase

consumption. That's a conflict. I'm sure you'll have the support of

this side of the House on changes in penalties. You have had support in

terms of changes under the Motor Vehicle Act, and you'll have support

if you want to go further in terms of penalties on the drunk-driving

sections. But it's inconsistent for this government to do one thing

with the right hand and another with the left. It neutralizes the

action. Increasing the advertising of alcohol increases its

consumption; otherwise, why do they advertise? What's the purpose of

promoting the stuff if it doesn't increase the sales?

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT:

On, they say: "Brand names." That means maybe Labatt's will wind up

being the only company. I suppose that's the long-run effect. That's

also bad socially, my friend; it's also bad that we want to concentrate

it into one manufacturer or supplier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair reminds the hon. member that

we're reflecting on past legislation and regulations, and also on a

totally different ministry. Perhaps we could relate our comments to the

actions of the Attorney-General.

MR. LEGGATT: It's

obvious that the Attorney-General either wasn't persuasive with his

colleague, or supports the position of alcohol advertising.

There

is another way in which the Attorney-General could, I think, have some

impact on this one that has not been tried, and that's to enforce the

provisions of the liquor act concerning the serving of alcohol to any

person who happens to be under the influence of alcohol within a

drinking establishment. I know the hotels' association and the

bartenders' union and so on are very concerned that we try to stiffen

our enforcement. One of the ways we could have some impact under the

existing law would be to strictly enforce the rules against the serving

of alcohol to anyone in an inebriated condition. I don't have the

section in front of me; I think it just says under the influence of

alcohol or impaired by the consumption of alcohol. The word "drunk" is

very rarely used. It seems to me that that

section is rarely enforced.

Could it be that the hotel industry has the ear of the

Attorney-General? Could it be that the hotel industry has decided it

doesn't want to be interfered with? I have rarely seen a charge laid

against a hotel for serving a drunk. But under the law that's an

offence. You know what they do: they fill him up with alcohol and then

they kick him out into his car, they hand him his keys, and they push

him out onto the road. Then he gets arrested for drunk driving.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT:

Yes, he hires a lawyer after that; thank God for that. And then the

good guys catch him. That's right. My colleague from Esquimalt saves

the day.

I submit that you are doing very little in

enforcing the provisions of the liquor act against the hotel industry,

and it's time it was done. We can increase the penalties, we can agree

with that; we can increase suspension time, we can agree with that. But

we've got to fight drunk driving at every level, and this is a very

important level to fight it at. Charges must be laid against the hotels

that serve drunk drivers, and it can be done. My gosh, if you can spend

$10 million on the last heroin conspiracy, we can spend a little money

on undercover in beer parlours, lounges, etc., to stop people over

consuming and then getting into their motor vehicles and killing

people. There are a number of other things we can do within a hotel.

There's no reason why we can't provide more breathalyser facilities in

public drinking places too, so that tests can be done. A serious

attempt must be made.

The last issue I wanted to raise with

the Attorney-General deals with Mr. Justice Berger's present position

in terms of the Judicial Council. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I don't

think the Judicial Council of Canada had the jurisdiction to do what

they did. They are in danger of an application being made to the court

and being accepted in one of the courts of British Columbia that the

Judicial Council of Canada acted without jurisdiction in the Berger

case. They are in danger of that.

The reason I raise it is

that I know that Mr. Justice Berger had the support of the chief

justice of the province, his fellow judges and the bar of the province

of British Columbia. What I want to know is: has he got the support of

the Attorney-General of British Columbia? Is what Mr. Justice Berger

did inappropriate or wrong? I don't think so.

I thought one

of the reasons we gave judges tenure was that in these special

circumstances they had a duty and an obligation to speak out on matters

of deep principle. That's one of the reasons I think the independence

of the judiciary is necessary and appropriate; because they are not

faced with political election, and therefore they have a sense of

independence. This was not an intrusion into politics in any sense, in

the way anyone would define politics. This was a matter of deep

principle.

I won't go into detail. The case is

overwhelmingly in favour of Mr. Justice Berger. Imagine the complaints

suggesting that what Mr. Justice Berger did in trying to protect native

rights in Canada could be classed on the same scale as sleeping with

prostitutes or over-consuming liquor. That was the nature of the letter

sent in to complain of Mr. Justice Berger's conduct. That is

disgraceful, Mr. Chairman. I would have liked to have seen the

Attorney-General get on his feet and say so, because he is the chief

law-enforcement officer of the province. He's the administrator of

justice in this province, and it is appropriate that he call a spade a

spade every once in a while, and say this is appropriate conduct on the

part of Mr. Justice Berger, and point out that there are some very real

questions about the jurisdiction of the Judicial Council. It's time to

stand up and be a British Columbian about this subject and protect one

of the finest judicial figures we've ever had in the province.

MR. STUPICH:

For the past year or so, the citizens of Nanaimo, especially in the

north and east Wellington area, have had the Attorney-General's sword

hanging over their necks awaiting his decision. Ever since this

government's ill-advised, ill-fated and extremely expensive attempt to

prove that everything known about drug rehabilitation was wrong was

abandoned at Brannan Lake, the Attorney-General has made it quite clear

to the citizens of Nanaimo that he would like to establish a

corrections centre at the Brannan Lake facility.

He did say

sometime last year that this would not be done if the citizens of

Nanaimo convinced him that they really didn't want it. The

Attorney-General attended a meeting in Nanaimo on February 8, 1982, at

the invitation of the city

[ Page 8359 ]

council.

The meeting was held in a hall and there were quite a large number of

people in attendance. The Attorney-General tried to tell everyone what

he wanted to do with Brannan Lake and why it would be good for the

community and province at large. The people at the meeting tried to

tell the Attorney-General why they didn't want a correction centre at

Brannan Lake. I don't think either side was listening to the other. I'm

wondering whether the Attorney-General got the message at that meeting

— that the people of Nanaimo really didn't want it.

There

was a bit more information that he brought to the meeting that I'm

still puzzled about it. He said it would cost the government some $35

million to establish the kind of centre he wanted elsewhere — to

provide accommodation for 100 people who didn't need to be locked up.

That's an average of $350,000 each to accommodate people who really

didn't need any particular care and attention, as I understood it at

the meeting. That kind of money would provide accommodation for 700

families. He kept reassuring everyone at the meeting that the people

who would be there — the tenants if you like, as you could hardly call

them inmates — wouldn't require any particular care or attention. It

was just that they had to be removed from society for a time for

education, accommodation or simply to keep them as some kind of

punishment. It seems to me that the cost figures are way out of line.

main concern at this moment is whether the Attorney-General is ready at

this point to tell the people of Nanaimo that he did hear them on

February 8, 1982, when, at the conclusion of the meeting, the city

council — and they were all present — voted unanimously against the

establishment of a correction centre at Brannan Lake.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) raised

questions that I wish to deal with. First of all, we had a discussion

earlier this morning about the matter of victims of crime, but he

raised one particular aspect that I think bears some consideration. I

would hope that the member, who I know is concerned about this

particular matter, could offer some better suggestions as to what

should take place when we are concerned with circumstances wherein the

principal victim is a young person. The criminal victims injury

compensation legislation in this province does make provision for

limited compensation in those circumstances, but since the legislation

is based upon the Workers' Compensation model — and Workers'

Compensation doesn't involve itself with very young persons who are

unemployed — there has not been brought into this legislation any

adequate measurement upon which the board could base an application for

compensation. While it is brought forcefully to our attention by reason

of the Olson incident, it is an area which is of concern to me, because

there are many other young persons who find themselves victims of

crime; they may not be murdered but may suffer a serious physical

disability as a result of criminal acts. It seems to me that we need

some assistance in developing this kind of legislation.

I'm

not in favour of bringing in special legislation which may assist 10 or

11 people; I'm looking for legislative change which we can apply in

these circumstances generally. That's currently under review by my

ministry. We are looking at one aspect: that is, the Family

Compensation Act model. The tests that are applied are difficult tests,

but they do provide one method of measurement with respect to this

almost impossible attempt to value a young person's life. It seems to

me that the criminal-victims injury legislation is lacking in this

respect, and I would be most pleased to hear any specific ideas from

the member that he might have during the course of this debate: or if

he wants to write me about any studies that he has made into the

matter, or any assistance that can be given.... While it looms large

before us with respect to the consequences of the Olson murders, it

applies across the whole range of our society. Mrs. Clausen must feel

as damaged as anybody else. Whether it's one, five or ten doesn t make

any difference; the loss is still there, and the legislation is

inadequate in this respect.

We're looking at what has been

done in other jurisdictions in this regard. My Deputy Attorney-General

reminds me that in the Sutcliffe case in England, this was approached

by the courts there, and we are trying to develop a program which could

be introduced in this province.

Impaired driving. I agree

with the member that we must attack this problem of drinking and

driving at every level. My difficulty at the moment is that the

resources available to the Ministry of Attorney-General are fully

utilized in attacking the drinking-driving situation on the road. To

suggest that we should involve ourselves in going into the hotels, bars

and lounges and identifying the person in there who may go out and get

into a car.... We don't know that, and then we get into a situation of

waiting in the parking lots. We've got enough to do on the streets. We

wait until they get on the streets, and then we can find out if they're

in care and control of a motor vehicle.

I agree that it must

be attacked at every level. I have been discussing with my colleague

the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), this

matter of hotels and lounges, and their seeming unwillingness to

discharge their responsibility in this field. We may have to take some

stern measures to ensure that they discharge that level of

responsibility. We're asking the citizens to discharge their

responsibility as to the identification of people who are drinking and

driving. We're asking the Insurance Corporation, safety groups and

schools to involve themselves in what is the community's responsibility

with respect to drinking and driving. It seems that the people who make

their livelihood from selling the booze should also be expected to

discharge their responsibilities — just limited to those imposed upon

them by the laws; forget the general community responsibility. I think

some stringent action is clearly indicated in that respect.

the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) with respect to the use of the

facilities at Brannan Lake, yes, I recall the expression of opinion at

the city council meeting I attended. The member will also be aware that

subsequent to that meeting the government invited four groups who had

ideas as to how the facilities at Brannan Lake might be more

appropriately used than for the purposes of the Ministry of

Attorney-General.... I hope that matter will be resolved very shortly;

I'd like to make an announcement. I believe it is still appropriate to

use the very limited acreage that is required for a correctional

facility for that purpose, leaving by far the larger amount of property

for community use and development. I hope a decision will be made

shortly.

The member raised the question of the cost. It is a

matter of regret to me that correctional institutions — even the kind

that would be used at Nanaimo, which is similar to the Alouette River

unit — are expensive to acquire the necessary land and provide the

buildings to house 100 or 120 persons

[ Page 8360 ]

and

the staff who will be there for a period of time. But the figures that

we have from the British Columbia Buildings Corporation for providing

us with the facility we would like to see at Brannan Lake — including

land — run in the $30 million to $35 million range.

MR. STUPICH:

I'm wondering what kind of facility is being provided if it is going to

cost $350,000 dollars per resident. The figure just seems very high,

and it seems to me that the facilities must be much more than would be

needed for people who are simply being held because there is nothing

else to do with them. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead)

isn't here right now. I have to wonder again about the empty community

of Ocean Falls in his riding. I wonder why it couldn't be used for

something. I don't know whether this would be....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH:

Maybe, but to the best of my knowledge there's nobody living there

right now. Maybe it would be cruel and unusual punishment, as the

minister suggests, but it would be cruel to put another correction

centre at Brannan Lake.

I come back to my original question.

The Attorney-General earlier said that this kind of facility would not

be imposed upon the people in that area unless they agreed to it. All

the evidence....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't say "if they agreed to it."

MR. STUPICH:

That was certainly my understanding of the newspaper reports of his

speech, that unless he was satisfied — perhaps it was simply a negative

thing — that there wasn't opposition in the area, then this facility

would not be imposed upon the residents of Brannan Lake. I'll dig that

up and perhaps show it to the Attorney-General later on.

gather from his reaction to my attempt to remember what he said that he

is not going to say that today. Will he stand up today and say that if

the citizens convince him that they don't want it, then it will not be

imposed on them? That's my question. How does he feel today? Does he

feel that for the facility to be successful — and he did say this at

the February 8 meeting — the people in the area must accept that kind

of a correction facility in their residential area? Now I would like

him to say whether he still feels that way. I think the meeting was

unanimous. There might have been one lawyer who went partway with the

Attorney-General. Apart from that, the meeting was unanimous in

opposition — the city council was unanimous, the school board had been

unanimous and the regional district had been unanimous. I suppose one

more question follows from that: what else would it take to convince

him beyond this that the people of the area don't want a correction

facility at Brannan Lake?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think

what I said, if I recollect, was that we wouldn't ram it down the

throats of the people of Nanaimo, and I certainly did indicate that the

successful operation of such a facility would depend upon the

acceptance of it by the community. But that's something different than

saying that we've got to get their acceptance in advance.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Well, the member laughs; but the fact of the matter is that if the

member would like to read what was written by the reporter who went and

visited the Alouette River unit, if the member would like to go and

talk to the mayor and members of the council of Maple Ridge in whose

community a similar operation functions and has functioned for years,

he would find that it is accepted in the community, and they do

recognize that it has a value. As a matter of fact, the city of Maple

Ridge, which was at one time identified as one of the most unkempt

communities — it was so identified by some news agency — decided to get

together and do something about it, and the principal supporters of the

campaign, who cleaned up the streets, were the inmates of the Alouette

River unit, who volunteered to come. They do that kind of work in the

community, and the community of Maple Ridge recognizes this and accepts

it. So there is a lot of difference between going to a community,

saying we're going to put a correctional facility in, and asking them

to accept it in advance and the recognition that the function of that

facility in the community is a direct benefit to the community and

becomes acceptable in the course of operation.

The Alouette

River unit, like other similar facilities we have in the province,

makes a major contribution to the community in which it is located.

They build their parks, and they assist in the development and the

maintenance of senior citizens' facilities. The inmates, who in many

cases are there no longer than four weeks, work within the facility in

order to assist in community betterment by building park benches and

things of that kind. They're kept busy doing those kinds of activities,

and the community benefits. That's what's being offered to Nanaimo in

this particular case. Instead of being excluded from the land as they

presently are, they're being offered a major community park, which the

inmates in this facility will build. There has to be some realistic

evaluation of the need for this kind of facility by the people in

Nanaimo, as well as of the implications of having it in the Brannan

Lake location. The member asks why we don't send it to Ocean Falls. We

don't need it in Ocean Falls; we need the facility in Nanaimo, because

it's from Nanaimo and North Island that the inmates come. We're

presently transporting to Victoria the people who breach the law in

Nanaimo and North Island. There happen to be a few lawbreakers in

Nanaimo and North Island, and we need that facility to service that

part of the island. We have people in this facility who are serving

their sentences on weekends, and who will work in the community. We

don't want to transport them to correctional facilities outside of

their communities. Since the average stay at those facilities is three

to four weeks, we think it appropriate that they be kept in and near

the communities from which they come. We're not planning to transport

inmates to Nanaimo. We want to facilitate the people who already live

in that community and who find themselves in correctional centres.

MR. STUPICH:

It might have been easier to persuade the citizens of Nanaimo if this

were the first attempt. You will recall that it was originally

established as a school for boys; it wasn't a school in any sense of

the word until the school board entered in and actually did the

educational part of the work at Brannan Lake. For a while that program

seemed to be

[ Page

8361 ]

working. However, it was closed down. Then the drug

rehabilitation was set up and that proved to be even more unsuccessful.

So this is not the first time that the government has tried to impose

something on that area that the citizens fought in advance. And they

proved to be right in the end, because the government changed its mind

on both positions.

Once again the people are being asked to

accept something and told that in time they will like it. Mr. Chairman,

in view of the record, I doubt very much that the citizens ever will

like it. It looks as though the Attorney-General has made up his mind

that they're going to get it, like it or not. I am going to look for

that quotation from the newspapers about what he said earlier. It is a

shame that such a park-like setting, with excellent facilities that

could be used for educational purposes, is going to be used for the

kind of people that the Attorney-General has just described: people who

need to be taken away from their homes for a while as some sort of

punishment, and the punishment is that they're put into a facility that

he said would cost $350,000 per inmate to duplicate somewhere else. I

still question that figure. But I wonder at the sense of values in a

government that is taking perhaps the best location on Vancouver

Island, which could be used for so many purposes that would benefit

society, and using it simply to lock up people for a few days, a week

perhaps, a few weeks at the most — just taken away from home for a few

days at a time to remind them that they've done something they

shouldn't do.

I believe at that meeting in Nanaimo, while

the Attorney-General didn't identify anyone, he described a judge who

had been caught drinking and driving twice, and that was the kind of

person who would be locked up in that centre. Mr. Chairman, the

citizens of Nanaimo believe that that facility is too good for that

kind of purpose, and I certainly go along with them.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, on Thursday last, after introduction and first reading of

Bill 53, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1982, the hon.

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) rose on a point of order, namely that

insofar as Bill 53 contained amendments to a number of statutes, "the

bill ought to be divided."

Sir Erskine May's twelfth edition states at page 254 as follows:

"The

ancient rule that when a complicated question is proposed to the House,

the House may order such question to be divided, is observed in the

following manner. When two or more separate propositions are embodied

in a motion or in an amendment, the Speaker calls the attention of the

House to the circumstance, and if objection be taken, he puts the

question on such propositions separately, restricting debate to each

proposition in its turn, though this course is rarely adopted...."

This

reference to a complicated question refers to motions generally, and

does empower the Chair under proper circumstances to divide a motion

and to then put separate questions to the House on each proposition

contained in the original motion. However, this power of the Chair to

so intervene is not extended to a bill before the House, such as the

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. If it is the will of the House to

divide a bill, the appropriate course is for the committee on the bill

to be so instructed by the House. It is not for the Chair to intervene

on a point of order as raised by the hon. member for Skeena. Please

refer to Sir Erskine May's seventeenth edition, at page 539.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved,

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada