[ Page 5185 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling reports

Annual report, British Columbia Cellulose Corp. Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 5185

Routine proceedings

Mineral Act (Bill 73) .

Report and third reading –– 5185

Corrections Amendment Act (Bill 55) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 5185

Mr. Macdonald –– 5188

Mr. Gibson –– 5192

Mr. Wallace –– 5198

Mr. Levi –– 5201

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 5203

Division on second reading –– 5206

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Act (Bill 87) Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. Macdonald –– 5207

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 5207

Mr. Gibson –– 5207

On section 4.

Mr. Macdonald –– 5208

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 5208

Division on third reading –– 5209

Tabling reports

B.C. Financial and Economic Review, 37th edition. Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 5209

Royal assent to bills –– 5209

Appendix

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. C. Barber (Victoria): We have a special guest in the House this morning. Her name is Mrs. Ilse Hunnisett and she has come to the capital city of British Columbia from Poole, England, She's accompanied by her daughter Rowena. I ask the House to make both of them welcome.

Orders of the day.

Hon. Mr. Bennett tables the annual report of the British Columbia Cellulose Corporation.

Hon. G.B. Gardom (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, report on Bill 73.

MINERAL ACT

Bill 73, Mineral Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 55.

CORRECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Before I begin, hon. members, His Honour is planning to be here at 12:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, this Act and its three-tier programme – and particularly its provisions to reintroduce youth containment centres – has been a topic of consideration since the introduction of the bill into this House some months ago. I think that this is hardly surprising, but it's welcomed, because debates surrounding the issue of how to best deal with young persons contravening the criminal law have long existed.

The first Act, Mr. Speaker, which gave judges the right to place or institutionalize individuals, was passed in 1908 by the federal parliament. It was the Juvenile, Delinquents Act. Well prior to that, back in 1880, this province had already given that specific power to a superintendent of reformatories. But the pressure to deal with the problems of juveniles who are in serious conflict with the law began years before those two enactments. I think it clearly illustrates the fact that we have been long addressing and trying to solve and improve this particular problem.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that society's methods of handling any person who has been adjudicated to have committed a criminal offence have provided an arena for discussion and controversy pretty well from the beginnings of the time of man. Also, the handling of young people who are in conflict with the law has attracted a great and varied response from the entire spectrum of our population.

This young offender, Mr. Speaker, often straddles a social labyrinth. On the one hand, criminal law is designed primarily to protect the majority from the wrongdoings of a relatively small but dangerous or deceitful segment of society and its application is intended primarily for the adult offender. However, Mr. Speaker, it must also be very clearly appreciated that young persons in conflict with the law can well be in formidable stages of development. They certainly should be allowed the maximum opportunity to re-establish his or her acceptable behaviour patterns so that they might realize the satisfaction, the rewards and the enjoyments of positive social contributions.

In our discussions, Mr. Speaker – and there have been many – it's been stated that prevention is the long-term solution to incarceration of any kind. I would say, without question, in general application, this is a sound philosophy. In dealing with young offenders, it is vitally important as an attitude for these youngers, who are creatures of example. They require assistance and guidance. I think keeping these elements of prevention and example in mind, we have proposed with this legislation measures that will give the commissioner of corrections in this province the authority to create and maintain tiers of youth programmes that may bridge the scope of alternatives. These alternatives are in place and they will be continuing and improving throughout the years. We have restitution and compensation programmes that will give the young offender the opportunity to make a positive contribution to society that will be off great gain to himself and, I think will certainly enhance the general direction and weal of society as a whole. We have community service programmes that will provide a strong reinforcement of active community involvement. There are attendance programmes and probation supervision that will provide continued guidance resources to a young offender. Last of all, Mr. Speaker, is the establishment of youth containment centres.

As we all know, Mr. Speaker, the administration of justice is a supplementary resource to a vast number of other social support systems, although the justice process has throughout its existence usually found itself dealing at the back end and also with juveniles and certain children whose families, friends or service systems have been unable to assist. Yet, Mr. Speaker, there are other children who commit offences who have been served well by diversionary measures, served well within health, child welfare and education systems and, as I said, a variety of diversionary exercises. Yet, in many cases, these same children still very closely approached the point of possible entry into the juvenile justice process.

[ Page 5186 ]

There are further instances of juveniles whose problems have not become known or who have not become properly assessed or treated. This would encompass those juveniles who become subject to an intervention for the first time only when they come to the attention of law enforcement authorities by virtue of an escalation of problem behaviour, sometimes resulting in contraventions of the law. This is very serious both to the individual involved and certainly to the community as a whole.

It's recognized, Mr. Speaker, and I really wish to stress this point, that both the community and the vast majority of juvenile offenders appear to be best served through active involvement in community based on non-institutionalized programmes. And it was this recognition that preceded and motivated the repeal in 1969 of the Training Schools Act which had, until then, provided the courts with the option of placing a youth in the containment environment of a training school. Following that repeal, Mr. Speaker, this province witnessed a dramatic increase in community service programmes such as group homes, restitution processes and the other matters that I mentioned earlier this morning, and all of those are very good things indeed.

But, Mr. Speaker, new problems definitely began to emerge. It became increasingly apparent that the total need was not being met. One section of the juvenile delinquent population who were identified by accelerating and repeating criminal behaviour, by refusal to participate in assigned programmes, by running away and by committing further juvenile delinquencies, demonstrated that they were unresponsive or, indeed, antagonistic to community programming and manifestly illustrated that other resources such as we are proposing in this legislation were obviously required.

In the absence of appropriate alternatives, the only resource that was available heretofore, Mr. Speaker, consisted of raising the juvenile to adult court upon conviction and incarcerating that juvenile in an adult correctional facility. This was really a last resort and so indeed it should be, in my view. But in order to provide options that are far more suitable and desirable than transfer to adult court, it is for this reason that we are proposing the three-tiered programme.

We're not saying, Mr. Speaker, that this is a final solution. But I'd say that in the absence of a perfect alternative which is so far undiscovered and in order to manage those few youths for whom other avenues have proved to be unsuitable, varying degrees of the restriction of their liberty for certain periods of time becomes an undesirable necessity for both the protection and benefit of this proportionately small group of offenders, and certainly for the protection of the general public. In assisting young people to resolve their conflict with the law by fostering – this is what we're trying to do – a developed sense of responsibility and accountability, it is hoped that in the main both of these intentions may be realized. Hence the fundamental principle, Mr. Speaker, on which the now legislation is based is that it seeks to provide a consequence for delinquent behaviour that will cultivate a heightened perception of responsibility, accountability, purpose and awareness of the parameters of consequence in individual juvenile offenders.

Now I'd like to afford the House a few statistics. In any given day in this province there are approximately 2,400 young people on court orders of probation. Each of these juveniles is, to a greater or lesser extent, supervised by members of the probation staff, the degree of supervision depending upon the needs of the youngster and the seriousness of the events that led to the finding of delinquency. In addition, Mr. Speaker, on any day there will be about 600 young people who will be wards of the superintendent of child welfare under the provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.

Now of this number, Mr. Speaker, by far the majority are responding and benefiting from the programmes and, indeed, are manageable, but a few so-called "hard-core" are not. It is for this group that this legislation is designed.

The programme will provide places for 120 young people in conflict with the law: 37 of these could be housed in community centres; 60 would be in camp programmes; 23 could face some period in a youth containment centre. There's a great deal of flexibility built into the statute to be able to have these youngsters move from one programme to another as they meet the necessary requirements and show the required degree of improvement.

There's going to be adequate staffing for the procedure. The staff that will be involved will be in the various settings and, over and above that, there is also going to be a nucleus, Mr. Speaker, of a network of other people who will be involved in ensuring the programme will meet its specific objectives in teaching life skills, allowing educational opportunities and providing for health needs.

The school boards in Victoria, Burnaby, Campbell River and Chilliwack have all agreed to provide skilled and dedicated teachers who will be responsible to those boards to meet the needs and design an individual educational programme to serve these young offenders and ensure that when they are released they will be able to relocate into our public school system. The resources of the individual school boards and the Ministry of Education will ensure that where special needs are to be met, they will be met. These teachers, although they are not a part of this ministry and are totally independent from it, will be an integral part of the programme. The use of resources from other ministries, from within the

[ Page 5187 ]

school system, and from within the community, will enable us to keep a staff-to-student ratio that will ensure quality education.

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, recreational needs of the programme will be met. As an example, the gymnasium pool now used in Willingdon and the staff, with the help of volunteers, will form a model which we will strive to maintain. It is a programme requirement that volunteer resources within surrounding communities be solicited for these recreational purposes.

So we are not only anticipating and expecting the community to help us meet the needs of the programme, but also expecting the participants in the programme to help as well the needs of the communities. As an example – and this is just one example – in Jordan River people within this justice system have been helping to maintain streams. In Chilliwack, in the Harrison area, during the heat wave, programmes patrolled campsites to ensure waste material was properly stored and collected so it would not pose a fire hazard.

I think I could say this, Mr. Speaker: while community service is not essential to a successful programme, it certainly is helpful, and we hope that the service may be augmented when this new youth programme gets underway again to help develop in these youngsters a sense of usefulness, of purpose, of belonging to, and being with rather than against.

We are aware of the figures – I'm referring now to the past – that only a small percentage of the youths who were in Brannan Lake under the former plan were there for violent offences. We are aware, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that it has been the history of most, perhaps – if not all – correctional programmes that they have often become utilized for numbers for which they were not designed, and that creates considerable difficulty. I make no mistake of illustrating and emphasizing that point. I want to say that we are aware of that point and that we've done our level best within this bill to address ourselves to that particular point.

We are also aware of the fact that we must be very vigilant to ensure that proper pre-trial and pre-screening occurs, and -that the situation of the youth is properly and adequately placed before the judge before he renders his determination. We are aware of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the taking of liberty from a young person certainly has to be coupled with full accountability and responsibility. We have designed the bill with these ingredients in mind, and this amendment Act embodies our concern. We have to have a system of checks and balances and weights and counter-weights incorporated within the boundaries of legislative guidelines, which we've done, plus suitable procedures which we have provided in the bill for administrative flexibilities and equities.

We have provided for the creation and development of a youth programme committee, which may draw across the entire spectrum of government, private-agency and service-organization resources. This youth programme committee will stand as advisers to government regarding the policy and the administration of youth programmes on a continuing and contemporary basis, and by providing forums and mechanisms within the legislation for the input of interested people into the juvenile justice process. We feel that this will enhance the opportunities for success in our juvenile defender programming.

Provisions in the statute have been established to limit the number of juveniles who may be admitted to a youth containment centre, as well as to limit the period for which an individual may be held. The legislation further proposes that the case of every youth who is in the containment facility will be reviewed by the commissioner of corrections at three-month intervals or shorter periods as directed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The object of that review will be to determine whether to continue to maintain the youth in that facility, to move him or her to a different setting – an Outward Bound, or a ranch wilderness type of programme, or a community centre – or to grant him or her a conditional release.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): There is no numerical limit in the bill, Garde?

Hon. Mr. Gardom: No, but that is to be limited according to the size of the establishment and the determination of the person who is in charge of the establishment. There always could be cases where one could, I suppose, have an overcrowding, but the total thrust of the legislation, Mr. Member, is against that. Even though a youth may be directed to a part of the programme, it's still open to those people who are running the programme outside the direction of the court. They'll say; "We're sorry, we just can't handle this. We're full." And that's that.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Well, I think the legislation has been received well by court, Mr. Member. I could respond to that.

I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, that every youth who has completed three-quarters of the time period identified on the original judicial order will be released to community supervision automatically. We feel that in this way a youth, under the continued supervision of a probation officer, can experience gradual re-entry into the community.

Now the last part of the Act provides the director of inspection and standards with broad powers to ensure that this ministry is made aware of any

[ Page 5188 ]

injustice or mistreatment, or any other abuses which may occur in the total system. This is not only relevant to the juvenile system but also to the whole correctional system. This puts into law things which other governments have proposed administratively. It will permit independent people to move into the system to make full investigations and to report back. It puts into law that members of the staff of this ministry, those of the prison population, and parents or guardians of juveniles, will be able to lodge complaints. It legally establishes the importance that we attach to ensuring that all of our provincial institutions are run openly, fairly and without abuse.

We're not saying that the solutions we're suggesting are perfect or that they can ever be perfect. Any long term results will continue to have to depend upon the co-operation and efforts of all elements in the community. Well, it's pretty difficult to find perfection in man, Mr. Member, I'm afraid. But no one, Mr. Speaker, should be misled into believing that the police, the courts or the correctional system can produce solutions by themselves. If their families fail, if schools fail, churches or the community organizations fail, it's a pretty tough order to suggest that the justice system can bring about completely effective results.

We are, however, fully prepared and committed to come to grips with the problem that has resulted. We believe that our juvenile system has to be designed in such a way that young people in conflict with the law know that they shall be held accountable for their behaviour to the extent of their maturity. We also have a responsibility to see that society receives its proper degree of protection. We feel from all accounts the proposed juvenile offender programme and the provisions for greater institutional accountability are extremely positive steps in the right direction.

Our job is to consider the balance between the strong public need for security and safety and the strong individual need to ensure that no one is contained unless all other avenues have failed. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it is these principles that the legislation has addressed, and it is these principles that we propose to embody in the law. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I would move second reading.

Mr. A.B. Macdonald (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be a little bit informal in what I've got to say about this bill, but it's a very important bill in the history of British Columbia. The Attorney-General has said that there will be some good features of these four juvenile containment centres in terms of having a youth committee working on the outside and teachers coming in, and things of that kind. They are still going to be juvenile jails. We're going back to the repeal of the Training Schools Act in 1969.

The essential question before the province, and the Legislature, revolves around the Attorney-General's words, which are perfectly proper words. He said: "Will society receive the proper degree of protection?" It should.

But the assumption that juvenile jails, unless they're the right kind of custody, promote the safety of society is something that you have to question very carefully. I suppose everybody in the House, Mr. Speaker, remembers Gary Gilmore. He was the one who implored the court to see that he was electrocuted. He had a suicidal tendency. He had a criminal record like that, and before he was finally, at his own wish, executed, he had gone out and wantonly killed two people in a gas station. I don't think it was even robbery. But before that, he had killed other people.

I think the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) will find this through all of the cases of young people that become criminal. You look at his history and you find that he was in a reform school from the age of 10, and that half of his life till, I think, he was about 36, when he was executed, was, in the words the Attorney-General used, institutionalized. He became a very dangerous person to society, obviously, and society paid a very, very heavy price for failing to handle that case properly in the first place.

I've practised a bit of criminal law – not too much – and I've had the odd murder case, I've also been around in the field. Almost all of the cases that come up in the assizes for murder or violent rape and things of that kind have had a juvenile history where the child as he then was grew increasingly alienated until finally he lashed out against society like an animal. We could have checked the process with this bill of the Attorney-General's. You could have locked him up for up to two years, I think it is.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: No.

Mr. Macdonald: Well, okay. If he stays in and he doesn't escape in that period, society is safe for the two years. But what about the 42 or the 52 other years where he may come out of that institution more dangerous than he went in? That's what we are talking about, What the Attorney-General is proposing in this bill runs contrary to the recommendations of the commission on family law of Mr. Justice Thomas Berger.

I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I'm not saying that there shouldn't be custody for young people. I think it should be swift, short and certain, and I think it has to be in the local community.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Macdonald: I'm not minimizing the

[ Page 5189 ]

problem. Well, I had better explain that. I was going to come back to it. But I think that where somebody begins to get into fairly minor trouble when they're young, the court should be able to deal with that case quickly – a two-day sentence in a house or in a room in the hospital in the local community; two days and then probation. If you do it again, well, the penalty is very short. It's humane, but it's certain. You come back another two days; it may be another two days.

Those kinds of facilities developed in the local communities throughout British Columbia are things that we don't have. We were going to produce them and we produced some. We were using the camps and so forth in the NDP days, but we had the team set up to implement the Berger recommendations headed by Judge Harold Keenleyside, and a funny thing happened to us on the way to polls.

So the spread-out, which would make this bill unnecessary, of small community ... call them lockups, temporary close-custody units for young offenders, has not gone ahead in this province. Instead of that, we have the proposal now for establishing what will be four juvenile jails. Centre Creek – up to 30 beds at first; Lakeview – 30 beds; that's the present plan as I understand it; the Victoria juvenile detention home – 15 ;and Willingdon, which was to be, as we understood, simply a remand centre and assessment treatment centre for young people on remand, is going to have 15 beds. But that's the beginning, Mr. Speaker. The thing snowballs. The Attorney-General says: "We don't want overcrowding." You're going to get overcrowding..

Thirty beds in Lakeview Camp, which is really a jail.... Don't let's try and pretend it's just a nice, idyllic forest experience; it's a lockup. It's going to bring back into this province a school for crime for young people. We're not going to be safer for it. We're ignoring the alternatives that could make society a lot safer.

Now I don't intend to minimize the extent of the problem. We had a projection that I'm quoting from the justice planning section of September, 1975, that in British Columbia "during the period 1970 to 1980, the number of juveniles being charged by police will be increasing at a rate of 470 per year, while the number of juveniles being found delinquent will be decreasing at a rate of 486 per year." I don't know whether those figures are right or not. I do know that a great many young people in the last 10 or 15 years have rebelled and become alienated from society. They've had no respect for the rights of others because they haven't seen that kind of value attached to the society in which they live.

The kind of society in which we live promotes juvenile delinquency; make no mistake about that. It's the business of every man for himself, self-interest is the driving rod; greed is the driving rod; you go for broke in society without regard for the other fellow.

You see it all through our society today, and that's teaching people a message.

Interjection.

Mr. Macdonald: Yes, it's a respected capitalistic virtue – you go for broke. You become a millionaire and when you become a millionaire, greed makes you greedier. That's supposed to be a virtue in our society, but young people are watching the kind of society which they're being brought up into and they don't think too much of those values. They are very far from co-operative values of helping a neighbour as much as you help yourself. That used to be the kind of rule in society.

So young people are becoming increasingly alienated and resorting to crime, not as an abnormality or because they're psychologically shook up, but as a normal activity.

The story in the United States of America is so frightening, when you think of the big cities and the underclass of the big cities like New York and Detroit, that you say to yourself: "It can't happen here." But it can happen here. In the United States....quoting from a very good article in Time magazine: "More than half of all serious crimes in the U.S. are committed by youths aged 10 to 17. Since 1960, juvenile crime has risen twice as fast as that of adults."

The problem is there, but when you look at the problem in the big American cities, you see it stems from broken homes; from poverty; from the inability to get a job or find any satisfaction in your life; from kids dropping out of school because they can't quite make it. Then they try something else to develop a bit of self-esteem and feel that they're a real person. Finally, the only thing they can do is to be a real tough guy and start down the road of delinquency.

We failed them. We failed these young people. Don't say that there isn't poor housing, a lack of job opportunities and a lack of a proper educational opportunity in British Columbia. Don't say that the family breakdown, which stems from' this kind of society of greed that I've been talking about – this dog-eat-dog society – isn't widespread throughout British Columbia. Don't say that what's happening in the United States can't happen here; it can.

We may be just a little bit down the road unless we correct that kind of society we live in and provide a society of equal opportunity for all. Make sure, above all else, that a young person coming out of school can find a job. Unemployment is about 18 per cent among young people today. If you're not the bright one, if you haven't got quite the mental drive of a lot of ambition and spark, your unemployment chances are even far higher than that. Those are the ones who gradually lapse into a little bit of vandalism in the school, a little bit of this and a little bit of that, and

[ Page 5190 ]

finally they become the Andy Bruces, who, in the course of their lives, cost society untold hundreds of thousands of dollars.

What is it to incarcerate an Andy Bruce for the rest of his life, who didn't get the proper opportunity when he was young? I'm a bleeding heart for saying that, eh? Look at the history. Well, it costs about $30,000 a year – at least $100 a day – to keep a person like. that. Then there are the costs of the crime that is committed.

We're not going to solve this kind of a problem in the context of the society in which we're living. I'm a social democrat and I make no bones about that. I don't think we should or can go on with the kind of society we have; I'm quite sure we won't.

Interjection.

Mr. Macdonald: Well, I don't care whether you say that or not. No, Kitsilano.

Mr. Speaker, the objectives of a criminal policy are the following as I see them. First, deterrent: Deterring others from crime is important. Secondly, expressing and satisfying public ideas of justice; individuals can't take revenge or go out and take the law into their own hands, so they expect to have a justice system where society will act on their behalf and see that there's some fairness brought back into the world. Thirdly, providing for adequate protection of society: that's basically what I've been talking about.

There's a fourth one, as I see it, and that is to check, at the right stage, a young person – in his or her own interest – before it's too late and they go down into the path of increasing their little offences from vandalism to something far more serious in the future. Prompt, swift, certain and, if necessary, strict attention to the petty problems of minor offences when people are young – that can very well check that individual from costing society that kind of money I've been talking about.

The bill that is being proposed here, Mr. Chairman, setting up, as it does, sort of four jails where before we had Brannan Lake, requires that we look a little bit at the experience we left behind in 1969.

I hope I'm not interrupting you guys.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: No. That's fine.

Mr. Macdonald: I want to say one or two words about Brannan Lake, and the history we have, very shortly. Brannan Lake became a lockup for juveniles, and it began with a very low population in 1956. The admissions in that year were 157. By 1969, when it was closed in its then form – 630 admissions. So that's what you're looking at, Mr. Attorney-General, when you set up this kind of a system; you're looking at it being overcrowded.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: No.

Mr. Macdonald: Because what happened in Brannan Lake.... Oh, you're going to try and avoid that, but that's what you're looking at. In Brannan Lake, they had to turf people out to make room for the newcomers, because the judges were sentencing them and the system was catching them up. And the funny thing about those people who went to Brannan Lake is that very few of them were violent offenders. But a heck of a lot of young people were unnecessarily jailed in Brannan Lake. A lot them were unnecessarily brutalized, unnecessarily bred into better criminals than when they went into that institution. Now let's not go back down that path. That's what I'm saying. I'm afraid that there are real dangers in the Attorney-General disregarding the advice of Justice Berger after that long study – it's his fifth report – and disregarding the advice of the B.C. Association of Social Workers, which says ... and this is a considered brief, Mr. Speaker. Don't tell me that social workers don't believe that some short, sharp correction isn't necessary, and in some cases, long correction. They're not against all close custody in the case of young people, because they don't think it's necessarily in the interests of the- young person themselves always. But they say that "the facilities be small and located in all major population regions of the province." That's the point. What you're doing in this bill, Mr. Speaker, contains very serious dangers. I want to just say what they are.

In the first place, you do breed – a more sophisticated young criminal in a jail setting. You take a young person, say a young girl down from Cranbrook – and I understand your centres would be co-educational which has problems. You take that young person, a boy or girl, from Cranbrook. Instead of having a couple of closed rooms, say, in the Cranbrook Hospital, where they could receive their custody, if this was absolutely necessary, when it has to be so, instead of that, you send them down, say, to Lakeview Camp. And you know what that girl is going to find out in Lakeview Camp. She's going to find out right away how to sell her body in Gastown. She's going to find out about homosexuality or lesbianism. She's going to find out how to shoot drugs very quickly. Boy or girl, they're going to find those things out.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Destroy it before it starts. Good stuff.

Mr. Macdonald: No! I'm saying, and I'm pleading with the Attorney-General....

Hon. Mr. Gardom: That's right.

Mr. Macdonald: Well, I'm pleading with the

[ Page 5191 ]

Attorney-General to develop the kind of facilities....

Hon. Mr. Gardom: That's right; destroy it before it starts.

Mr. Macdonald: No, I'm not destroying it. I'm telling you what's going to happen to some people if you have the jail system rather than small facilities in local communities. We're dealing with the protection of society here. Don't make any mistake. When you've taken a young boy from Cranbrook and brought him down into the big time, he meets the really sophisticated guys. He's going to learn how to embezzle; he's going to learn about drugs; he's going to learn about the whole scene. He's going to come out and he's going to go back into his community, and he's going back as a hero. He's met some of the real tough guys in British Columbia. He's been with them for almost two years. He knows how to wire a car; huh, that's simple. He knows a lot more. He's got some darn good contacts. He knows who the fences are. He comes back a hero.

But if you locked him up in Cranbrook in, maybe, two custody cells or rooms – use a house, use the hospital, use anything; close custody, to be sure – he wouldn't be a hero there. He wouldn't be brought into contact with sophisticated city crime and all the contacts. He would have kind of a shameful experience for him, and one that he wants to leave behind. But there are real dangers in bringing them down and mixing up some of the people with other people who are really hard-core and sophisticated. That's the danger we're facing in this bill; that's one of them.

There are other dangers, but I guess those are perhaps the main ones I wanted to stress. I wanted to say what was recommended by Mr. Justice Berger. I don't know how much time I've taken; I don't see the Whip. I don't want to be too long on it.

We had a Berger commission, Mr. Speaker, in this province. John Macdonald was a member of that; he's a professor at UBC. He summarized in his report as follows: and I think it's a fair summary of the Berger recommendations:

"In general, its proposals were strongly supportive of the major thrust of juvenile justice policy in the province since 1969. It also words the realistic and rational approach to the minority of juveniles causing serious concern in the community."

I should think that that's true. That's what we're discussing this morning. Quoting from the Berger report:

"Let us make it plain that we believe that the provincial government's policy" – that is the NDP government – "emphasizing that juveniles in trouble with the law should be returned to their families and to their community rather than being sent to juvenile prisons is altogether sound. If the activities of a relatively small number of juveniles in this province ultimately encourage the enactment of repressive legislation applicable to all juveniles, such a result will only impede the development of sane delinquency policies and is quite unlikely to provide the necessary answers to the complex problems of children in conflict with the law."

The commission recognized there was a relatively small number of offenders possessing a marked tendency to violence and deep-seated alienation for whom confinement was justified. That was a unanimous report that included John MacDonald and Mish Vidash from the social services side of society and the justice side. It is a unanimous report, and it does say that for some containment is justified.

The report went on to recommend:

"Where necessary, provision of secure accommodation for such children for purposes of remand and assessment, and, where indicated, for post-disposition confinement and treatment, should be in secure and open settings in the community."

Not in four juvenile jails in the province of British Columbia:

"Every effort should be made to avoid the creation of a large, closed institution, which could exacerbate rather than alleviate the problems of the juveniles confined and the problem of society when they come out."

I say the Attorney-General, in the thrust of this bill, has gone against the recommendations of the Berger report in the kind of close confinement that he is talking about in this bill.

I say that it is a very expensive option that he has chosen, Mr. Speaker. It will be $ 100 a day to have a juvenile at Centre Creek.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: $100 a day per juvenile?

Mr. Macdonald: You think that I am wrong.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: You are wrong.

Mr. Macdonald. Just think of the services that you are talking about. You have got teachers coming in.... It would be close to $100 a day, but you can give me the costs if you like. I would expect it would be that – more than a suite in a Vancouver hotel or the Empress where we were keeping those juveniles.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: You're not calling Levi and Hall juveniles, are you?

Mr. Macdonald: What you are doing, Mr.

[ Page 5192 ]

Attorney-General, is spending money unnecessarily in this kind of institution. It is more costly to have that kind of institution than to keep the boy or girl in Cranbrook in a small lockup situation when it is necessary – when there is violence and a need to incarcerate.

There are all kinds of opportunity here for community – close custody where necessary – situations in this province. You can have an isolated ranch out from Kamloops, somewhere up the hills.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: That's part of the programme. You didn't hear me.

Mr. Macdonald: No, you are talking about four institutions here. I'm talking about local institutions. Oh, the programme is set, Mr. Attorney-General; I described it. Ninety beds to be provided right now in four institutions. I say that in a ranch home with good foster parents in an isolated setting – isolated so there is no running away – you could look after two or three youngsters.

You should look at the experiment in Washington state. At Secret Harbour on Anacortes Island they take care of young people in an open setting, not a jail centre. At the moment they have about 30 so-called hard-core youngsters there at Secret Harbour serving an average time of about 18 months, which is a pretty long sentence. They serve it without bars and without the criminal subculture that bars promote. They work on a farm, they attend classes and the counselling is good. The experience is such that I think we have sent some of our young people from British Columbia down to Secret Harbour.

We could have a good ship Rehabilitation – you know, six months before the mast. What is wrong with that as an experience for a young person? We talked about it and we were planning it in a very.... You know, it would be good with a tough boatswain and the singing of the wind and the sea and the salt and hard work. The Outward Bound camps are working well and if somebody is going to run from them, okay – give them a little time on the good ship Rehabilitation. They can't run from a boatswain when the only way to run is to jump into the sea. That is not a jail and it doesn't have the criminal subculture that would otherwise develop.

Another problem you are going to have, Mr. Attorney-General, with your four institutions is that it is impossible to avoid sex and drugs in institutions of that size. The first thing an ingenious young guy who is so-called hard-core is going to look for when he gets into an institution of that kind is sex, and you have the boys and the girls in different parts of the camp. Well, the first challenge is to find a way to get around that barrier.

The second challenge is how to get drugs in. If you have a small, local close-custody situation in Cranbrook or Kamloops or some place like that, you don't have that problem. But you do have that problem and you will find it very difficult over a period of time to keep the staff out of playing games within that institution – very difficult. It's hard to get people to go to them at all, and then you find the staff can become kind of brutalized and then participate a little bit in helping this or that person. It's a very dangerous situation, even if it's only an institution of 30 beds. I think it's going to get bigger,

I think, Mr. Speaker, that I've said what I want to. I want to make it plain that the problem is very, very serious, but to take the wrong step is to threaten the safety of society in the future and to spoil the lives of individuals who otherwise might be useful, productive members of society, and to spoil them for all time if we're not very careful. I think the proposals were well laid out in the reports that the Attorney-General had. To some extent it's a matter of emphasis, because we all agree that some close custody is necessary. But what kind? That emphasis is terribly important and I urge, as the brief does, that you go to small, local, close custody where necessary, in the local communities, in a wide variety of programmes. I agree the running away is a problem, but- if you go to the jail thing, you're going to have recidivism, you're going to have all of these things I've talked about, and it's just the wrong direction. It's on that basis really – the direction – that I propose to vote against the bill.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the experience of doing research on this bill and preparing my position has been more discouraging than for any other bill this session. I think that the debate that we've heard so far on Bill 55 illustrates why that is. Here we have two Attorneys-General – a former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) and the present Attorney-General, both of them, to my knowledge, well-motivated people, experienced, guided by experts – coming up with diametrically opposed conclusions on this bill that is in front of us.

Mr. G.V. Lauk (Vancouver Centre): How can you fall between them now?

Mr. Gibson: No, I'm going to come down on one side or the other, Mr. Member.

What's depressing about it is that we're dealing here with an area of the administration of society where we've failed. We're saying, as far as this bill is concerned, that we're dealing with cases where it's too late for anything but containment. If it was a medical example, which the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) might use with more felicity, the patient would be very sick and in the operating room at that stage.

I want to declare my bias at the outset. I don't believe that the good Lord made good kids and bad

[ Page 5193 ]

kids. I think maybe he made lucky or unlucky kids, some who are smart and some who are not so smart, some who are fat or thin, some who are rich or poor, but I don't think he made good kids and bad kids. I think we did that, to the extent it's been done. Somewhere along the line, there has been a lack of what the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) called the swift, certain attention, whether of their family, or of their community, or of the justice system, if it comes to that. I don't mean by that to deny individual responsibility. You can't, because one of the persons most to suffer when people get into this kind of trouble is the delinquent child himself. In some cases the victim suffers more, but individual responsibility is very much there. It can't be avoided. It's one of the few hopes we have in the long run for doing something about it.

We have to understand that this bill comes into play only after the parents have failed, the schools have failed, the community has failed, the social workers, the probation officers, the Human Resources ministry, after all these things have failed. That's when this bill comes into action.

Ms. R. Brown (Vancouver-Burrard): It would be nice if that were true, but it isn't.

Mr. Gibson: Why isn't it true?

Ms. Brown: Because they do send kids there long before even trying those other resources,

Mr. Gibson: Well, that's the way it should be in theory, in any event,

Ms. Brown: Yes, but that's not how it works.

Mr. Gibson: It's the place of last resort, and because of that reason it's difficult, and because of that reason it gives every cause for strengthening the resources that are applied to the preventive medicine that's required long before these containment Centres are needed. The kind of money that the government is spending is not being directed in that way. I have here a press release by the B.C. Association of Social Workers on June 20,1977, quoting Jocelyn Gifford, chairperson of the family law committee: "Three hundred more staff have been assigned to juvenile and adult jails in corrections branch, but there are no increases in family court staff and no signs of expansion in the unified family court to the rest of the province."

Hon. Mr. Gardom: That's not correct.

Mr. Gibson: That's what the press release says.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: I know, but it's wrong.

Mr. Gibson: Well, Mr. Attorney-General, you should have put out your own press release in answer to it then.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: I'd be kept pretty busy if I did that.

Mr. Gibson: The point I'm making is that there's a concentration on the bottom end of the scale, on the corrections end, after other things have failed. I'm suggesting there should be more of a concentration at earlier stages. It's a cost to the community; it's a cost to the individual. This cost-effective government should be putting its dollars into preventive medicine.

Why do we see this bill in front of us? It's a response to political pressure, I think, among other things, which certainly doesn't make it wrong, and it doesn't make it right, either. It perhaps makes it inevitable.

There's a tremendous number of citizens concerned around this province about the safety of their own personal property. Very often these are senior citizens who live in areas where there are juvenile gangs, and where the problems may be ranged from being jostled on the sidewalk to being worried about your quarters being broken into, or broken windows, or whatever it may be. There has been considerable pressure from the press in this particular area. There has been, I think it is fair to say, a lot of pressure from a frustrated constabulary and a frustrated court system that says: "We have a certain number of kids around here who know that there are no ways of dealing with them, and who are thumbing their noses at the justice system." They say, "You can hit me in court with a $25 fine, and that's about it, " until that day when the boom is lowered and they are transferred and raised to adult court. Then it becomes the wrong solution that is too rough and there's been nothing in between. There has been, unquestionably, an insufficient range of response.

Here's a description from an excellent article by David Bains in The Vancouver Sun. There's that $25 fine. That's the maximum fine at the moment. The judge can transfer to adult court, and that's generally not good. Offenders can be transferred, to the child welfare branch of Human Resources with a variety of foster homes, but if the child refuses to co-operate, runs away or commits a criminal offence, the worst that can happen, short of being raised to adult court, is being returned to a similar setting.

I'm quoting from the article now:

" 'The kids know this. It's a licence to create crime and they don't have a thing to worry about, ' said one official. Again and again the child can break the law until he comes of adult age, or in rare cases he is transferred to adult

[ Page 5194 ]

court, Then suddenly he gets 'hammered, ' as one judge put it. By that time the child is so entrenched in a life of crime that it's also too late to rehabilitate him."

The courts and the beat cops feel this kind of frustration, because they are the front-line troops, if you like, in trying to deal with people who are having difficulty in society. They feel that they've got an inadequate response.

I appreciate that this bill is one way of trying to provide another tool in the armoury of the justice system. I'm quoting now from the background paper that the Attorney-General's ministry put out.

"One group within the delinquent juvenile population identified by their accelerating criminal behaviour refused to participate in assigned programmes by running away and by committing further delinquencies. They demonstrated they were not responsive to community programming, and other resources clearly were required. In the absence of appropriate alternatives, the only recourse consisted of elevation to adult court, an option that cannot be considered desirable other than in exceptional circumstances."

So that points out a gap.

It may be, and I would certainly accept it if any member wished to say it, that the initial, more flexible response is worth being applied with a sufficient degree of available manpower or wisdom, or whatever it might be. It could have been that the child should never have gotten to that stage, but once the child is there, then there's a gap in the system. The suggestion of this bill is that it will fill that gap, and it does a number of things.

It establishes a youth programme, which is a good idea, because there should be a youth programme, as distinct from an adult programme. There's no question about that.

It establishes a youth programme committee. This, to me, is one of the most consequential pieces of the bill, because this committee is to have powers of review and advice on this whole difficult area of youths in trouble with the law. What bothers me is that it's not obligatory upon the Attorney-General to appoint such a committee. If that is appointed, it's not obligatory. It should contain a broad representation of people. Every spectrum should be involved as part of that committee, I would have liked to have heard from the Attorney-General with a little more particularity about the organizations and societies from whom he will be accepting nominations to serve on this youth programme committee, because to me it is absolutely key to the success of this bill, if it is to have any success.

It gives the commissioner of corrections power to establish programmes, and then it mentions five programmes, four of which are community oriented: restitution community service; attendance programmes; probation supervision; and one which is containment. Then the rest of the bill is completely above the containment programme. So we can see what the thrust and the thinking of the government are today. That again bothers me, because, as I say, preventive measures are the ones that the efforts of the government should truly be focused on. This legislation we have before us today should be seen as a stopgap, but not as the answer, because it is not going to be the answer.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: I didn't say it was, did I?

Mr. Gibson: Well, I'm saying it isn't.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Well, you're agreeing with me. Thank you.

Mr. Gibson: So the main thrust of this bill is containment. I want to mention the three summary problems that I think are going to arise out of it.

The first is going to be a tendency by the public to believe that it solves a problem rather than only being a brief holding exercise. After all, in the maximum of two years, and in most cases a great deal less, the youth will be out of this containment facility. They may be in and out several times but they'll always be out again. This is nothing but a holding pattern and it should not be seen by the public as anything else.

The second very grave concern I have is that these containment centres could easily become a kind of dumping ground for the justice system. There could be a tendency to use them and overuse them simply because they're there and they happen to be the quick and available solution. I appreciate that the courts will not have the power to directly order a youth to a containment centre as it is an administrative decision as to whether or not a youth goes to a containment centre. The people who make that administrative decision are going to be people with problems, and short of the necessary staff – be they probation officers or whatever – for a community, open-type way of dealing with youth.... Therefore there's going to be a strong tendency to say: "Well, the limit we have on this particular camp may be 30, but with the number of kids we've got coming through the system we've got to raise it to 35 temporarily." Then it will be up to 40, then 50. That's the danger.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair. ]

The Attorney-General says these programmes are limited in number – he gave us a figure of 120 total – but they're limited in an administrative sense and they can be changed in an administrative sense. I'm expressing the fear that the pressures on the system

[ Page 5195 ]

will inevitably do that, just as it did at Brannan Lake, as was illustrated by the first member for Vancouver East.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: There might be a requirement for other small ones, but not an increase in the size of existing ones. That's the point.

Mr. Gibson: Then I want to put this on record, because that's what I wanted to hear. The Attorney-General said across the floor that there might be a requirement for other small ones, but that these ones will not be increased beyond that size. I think that is terribly important, and it's on the record.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: With flexibility.

Mr. Gibson: Then the other summary danger I'm concerned about is the problem of contagion. I'm quoting here from a summary done by Dr. Sue Stephanson in 1974. A number of youths who were in trouble with the law were interviewed and asked to tell the interviewer what, in their opinion, was their reason for getting into trouble. By far the highest single percentage, 44 per cent, was association with friends. I'm quoting from that study: "In terms of modelling behaviour, it's noted that 44 per cent of the youths gave association with friends as a significant cause of their delinquent behaviour. One spoke very explicitly of learning to hot-wire in a treatment centre." It goes on. I won't quote any further from there, but there's the danger of contagion in these treatment centres. Thirty is a large enough number for that to be a real danger. I'd like the Attorney-General to deal with that danger in closing second reading.

To illustrate that danger, here are just a few quotes from someone who's described in the newspaper as a one-time delinquent and who gave some advice to Attorney-General Garde Gardom to scrap the juvenile containment programme, "You lock a kid up and you're just breeding a better criminal class, " he said, "You've got to get him down on a one-to-one basis with someone he can really trust."

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Don't quote the name.

Mr. Gibson: It's in the newspaper, Mr. Attorney-General.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: I know, but it's up to you if you want to do it.

Mr. Gibson: I'm just reading from a public newspaper. That's all I'm quoting out of that particular one, anyway. These are just a few selected quotes from people who are saying that there are difficulties

I'll make my next quote from John Noble, of the Ministry of Human Resources. Here's Mr. Noble writing in Process in 1975. He has some real words of wisdom, I think, for the Attorney-General and his department in implementing this. He's saying: "If such facilities are to be advocated we must not delude the public that they will provide magical solutions. So far they have, in fact, produced little but criticism." Later on he says: "Jails have a tendency to be inherently self-defeating. By in-depth definition and by necessary scarcity, detention facilities will be used for those whom other services have failed to rehabilitate." There's that overuse danger coming in there.

He says that the general failure of secure facilities so far can be attributed to many factors such as overutilization, and the double-bind expectation that such facilities should be escape-proof, while at the same time providing a homelike atmosphere. He points out the pressure on such facilities to deteriorate into a cheap, easy and safe alternative to intensive, repeated and risky intervention by staff inadequate in quality and numbers. "They encourage an out-of-sight, out-of-mind attitude." All of these are the observations of a man who was director of the Brannan Lake School for many years.

He gives us this advice; "The following are some of the conditions I feel would be mandatory for such a programme: (a) close proximity to a range of diagnostic treatment and research services; (b) " – and this is important and the government and the public have to understand this – "acceptance of a very high cost in order that such a programme could be the best, rather than the worst in the province; (c) close monitoring and control; (d) sufficient legal safeguards; (e) restriction on the amount of such programmes, " and lastly, but perhaps most important of all, he says, "a considerable investment in research and public information." That's the end of the quotes of John Noble.

Let's look for a minute at that question of research and public information. As I said, there's a danger that the public will view this legislation as an end of the young offender problem in our province. Public information is important because it is not that end. The need for research is obvious. We are embarking, at the behest of the government, on a new programme. It's a programme that I hope will work, and I'm sure that every member of this House hopes will work, but it must be monitored closely over the next few months and years through longitudinal studies that will look at young offenders going into these programmes and out of them – and, perhaps in some cases, back in – but, in any event, following them in their future lives to discover how well these

[ Page 5196 ]

patterns of, hopefully, rehabilitation are working. Without this kind of control, monitoring and feedback mechanism, there's every danger that the universal history of the past in British Columbia will be repeated.

I'll give another quote, and all of these are warning you of the dangers. This quote is from Mr. Sheridan of the minister's own department. This is from December 23,1976: "The evidence is clear that once you lock a child up, the probability of rehabilitating him is reduced."

The past experience in this province is one that I think was reasonably well covered by both the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) . I won't read from this report but I will commend to interested British Columbians the very interesting paper on this done by Professor John MacDonald at the University of British Columbia. Much the same results are summarized in the brief to the Attorney-General on youth containment centres by the B.C. Association of Social Workers. Out of these studies, one can draw the conclusion that facilities should be small, and the Attorney-General has given us his promise on that-, should have a very high ratio of professional staff, be it in counselling, or education, or recreation, or medical as well; and that there should be the earliest possible community involvement and, hopefully, family involvement.

I want to discuss some problems with the bill itself, as I see it. It's rather too general for us to be able to know in the legislation exactly how it's going to work. How it is to be administered is the important thing and, therefore, the committee stage of the discussion is going to be important. I want to second the proposal that has been made – I'm not sure whether it was made by the coalition task force, or by the social workers, or by both – that this is one of those bills that come up every session that would be very appropriately referred to a standing committee of the Legislature rather than Committee of the Whole House in order that members could hear from professionals their detailed comments, which so far we only have on paper, and just as importantly, in order that we could hear from officials as to the proposed administrative procedures which, as I say, are really what is going to determine how well this bill works, not the words on the paper here.

I'd ask the Attorney-General, in closing debate on second reading, whether or not he will be agreeable to following that policy of referring to a legislative committee. I'd ask him further if....

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Refer what? I'm sorry. I missed your point.

Mr. Gibson: Refer the bill in committee stage to a standing committee rather than Committee of the

Whole House. I'm disappointed in that. The Attorney-General is shaking his head.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: We need to get it passed. The programme is underway.

Mr. Gibson: Of course we need to get it passed. I agree with that, Mr. Speaker, but to get a programme off to a proper start another month on something that has been many years in the making is not going to cause any great difficulty, and might do some good. Why should programmes of this kind be extensively studied at every phase up until they get to the Legislature and then pushed through without any proper hearings?

Are we going to see the draft regulations before committee stage? Those at least will tell us a bit more than this bill tells us. Are we going to have detailed numbers on the qualifications of containment centre staff and their numbers? Exactly who will be there in terms of medical, recreational, educational and counselling personnel at each of those centres? That's what you want in committee stage. Are we going to have that kind of thing if it's in a Committee of the Whole House rather than in a standing committee of the House where we can call witnesses, including the administrative officers?

There have been some very serious concerns expressed about this programme in the Legislature by the former Attorney-General and expressed in some excellent briefs to the minister by the Coalition Task Force and the B.C. social workers' association. These are people who are concerned and are professionals in the area, and who have some good advice and some dire warnings on this too.

He's talking about the coalition paper. First of all, they recommend the committee. Then they deplore the omission of a requirement for legal representatives. I want the Attorney-General to comment on that when he closes the debate. On the one hand, I can see the wishes of keeping the proceedings of young offenders as informal as possible. But on the other hand, When you are going to take away anyone's liberty for up to a couple of years, I think the right to legal counsel has to be there. Perhaps this is a case where some kind of public defender system should be considered somebody who is on an ongoing basis a legal professional in this area.

The representation of a strong need for a full pre-sentence report – will the Attorney-General respond to that? It seems to me such an obviously logical thing, In closing second reading, can we hear about that?

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's in the federal law. It's their requirement.

[ Page 5197 ]

Mr. Gibson: I have read the new federal law, and we can talk about that in committee stage.

This is one of the most important proposals of the coalition. I am quoting again from their brief: "Discharge planning must begin at the time the juvenile enters the youth programme." I have got this underlined on this piece of paper, and I don't think it can be underlined too strongly.

The thrust of this programme is not what happens when the child is in there; it's what happens after they are out. It's a black box, in a sense. You hope that what goes in one end is going to be changed for the better when it comes out the other end. That has to be looked at as part of a stream. The important part of the stream is when the child re-emerges into the community. Are they accepted? Do they go back to their old friends?

There are a few necessary questions and some advice I want to ask of the Attorney-General. I want to ask him about the possible constitutional problems of a bill that could purport to change sentencing dispositions under a federal Act. I understand that there could be some constitutional challenge to this. If there is, it would be awkward. Does the Attorney-General know of any such problem? I want to ask him about the estimated costs of the staffing of the programme. I want to impress upon him the need for strengthening the inspection section. I have some amendments on the order paper with which I will deal at committee stage.

In particular, I believe there is a necessity for certain of the inspection division reports to be tabled before the Legislature – more than is currently provided for. I think that we deserve, in closing debate on second reading, guarantees on the membership, duties and powers of the advisory board committee. That, to me, is one of the key regulatory mechanisms here and one of the key guarantees that it has a good chance of succeeding. I want to make again the case for standing committee hearings on this bill.

Here are just some concluding thoughts on this. The integrated family court community approach of Mr. Justice Berger is one that, I believe, works, and one that, I believe, needs staff to make it work. We see probation officers in this province with caseloads of 50 and 60. Cutting down those caseloads, in many cases, will be the best way in dealing with a young offender in an open setting – not in a closed setting, not in a contained setting as this bill proposes. They both have a better way of dealing with the problem and a lower-cost way of dealing with the problem.

I think that the caseload of probation officers is one of the very first things the Attorney-General should look at and ought to reduce. The next point I want to make is the essential involvement of the community. Every citizen has a role in this process. You can't just leave it to the police and the courts.

There is a quote here from what a social worker in the Vancouver Resources Board had to say: "The problem is such that people upset about juveniles making a noise outside their house will call police rather than go out and talk to them themselves." In a lot of ways you can understand that, but it's symptomatic. Oftentimes people would rather not be involved. Sometimes they have a real physical fear, but often they would rather not be involved.

"Even if the kids are only 10 years old, they will call the police rather than go and explain they don't want them there. We're losing something by backing down in these kinds of situations."

That's true.

"It's a problem for the whole community and a problem the whole community has to come to grips with. The community should be involved in programmes with juveniles and it shouldn't be left to the frustration of the police or other groups."

It's a job for us all. I'm not saying that I would expect any British Columbian to put themselves in physical danger or take an undue amount of abuse in dealing with juvenile problems. No, by the time it gets there, it perhaps is a problem for the police. But we all have a responsibility in out daily lives as to the behaviour of young people, and we should accept that responsibility.

As a society, I think we have a duty to our young people to teach them that actions have consequences in this world. That, Mr. Speaker, is a law of nature; that's not a law of society. Our justice system and our social system does no one a favour if it hides the consequences, particularly if it hides and obscures the consequences from young people. The justice system for young people should be humane and compassionate and fair. It must be swift in its application; it must be certain in its application; it must be predictable in its results; and it must be equipped with a sufficient range of resources and tools for disposition.

With these kinds of tools and with this kind of philosophy of swiftness and certainty, then there's every chance that youth problems and juvenile delinquency will be reduced, just as the Attorney-General has found in terms of drinking driving. It's not penalties that are important; it's enforcement that's important. The same thing is even more true of young people, because they are at that stage of their life when they are learning.

The justice system tries for all of these desirable things, I know. Very often it fails, and very often the problem is lack of funding for a field that is unpopular, apparently unproductive, very often low-status, but terribly, terribly, important work. I want to tell the Attorney-General that that is one place where he should not stint on money, or this

[ Page 5198 ]

new initiative will fail as others have in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I have puzzled a great deal as to whether or not to support the bill, because it has all of these dangers I've outlined. I have decided finally that I will, perhaps in a burst of hope or faith that this new initiative might do something where old ones have not. I hope I will not be disappointed; I hope that I'm not being a naive optimist. But funding has to go into it in considerable quantity. The Attorney-General has to pay the closest attention to all of the concerned professionals and laymen in this area. Community, community, community must always be the watchword. These institutions must be kept small, and I think even 30 is too large. With all of these things and with many misgivings, but realizing that it's better than raising kids into adult court because there are no other alternatives, I will support this bill on second reading.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, the intention of this bill is described as being the protection and benefit of children and the protection of the public by assisting us to resolve their conflict with the law. Since we are short of time and we've given a commitment that the debate will be wrapped up by 12:30, 1 will have to very considerably cut short my remarks. I hope the general nature of my remarks will therefore be excused, and I will try to cover the issues more particularly in committee stage. But the thing that I find disturbing about the bill and the debate that I have heard so far is that the Attorney-General, in, a very excellent fashion, in the brochure which he published, has described just the very kind of attitudes that I personally hold towards this – problem of young people in conflict with the law.

In particular, could I just quickly quote, for example, page 15:

"In the absence of ideal alternatives to manage those youths for whom other programmes are proven unsuitable and whose behaviour of the court deems to be dangerous to the public safety, juvenile containment becomes an undesirable necessity."

Right on. In the third paragraph on the same page:

"Implicit in the legislation is the belief that custody isolated from the community ought to be used only as a temporary expedient of last resort."

Right on again. Finally at the bottom of that page, it says:

" These and other ingredients of the legislation affirm the principle that young people should be released from containment as soon as it is indicated that they can be better dealt with in a community programme."

In my view, these three particular paragraphs or sentences sum up exactly what our attitudes should be, but I find to my disappointment that the bill does not follow through in providing either enough detail or enough assurance to me that in fact those three basic principles which the minister outlines in the brochure are about to be followed in the legislation. Unfortunately, as I say, Mr. Speaker, I haven't got time to document all the reasons why I cannot have confidence in the bill to adhere to these two or three very basic points which are made in the Attorney-General's very excellent brochure, entitled "Corrections Amendment Act – Highlights, Background and Information." I think that document is absolutely excellent, because in clear language, which anyone can understand, it gives a very balanced appraisal of what the problem is, what the principles should be that would underline the handling of the problem, and a whole lot of other very solid, basic information and opinion. Unfortunately, I just can't believe that this bill will come close to putting into practice or making feasible so many of the excellent and fundamentally sound concepts that are outlined in the brochure.

For example, again just to quote quickly from the brochure, it states: "Children should not be removed from communities." Page 15, as I quoted earlier, says: "Containment is an undesirable necessity." Later on, another quote on that same page says: "Containment is a temporary expedient of last resort." I couldn't agree more with that. One of the other quotes from that same page in the brochure is: "Release as soon as it is indicated that those juveniles can be dealt with in a community programme."

I just want to refer very quickly, as others have done, to the excellent fourth report of the royal commission by Mr. Justice Berger. I think it's important enough to read some of the specific statements by Justice Berger on this matter. On page 68 of the fourth report, he says:

"Juveniles in trouble with the law should be returned to their families and their communities rather than being sent to juvenile prisons. This was a government policy begun in 1969, and followed by two administrations since then."

He goes on to say: "We have to acknowledge there are a limited number of juveniles who must be confined, in some cases over the short term, in other cases over the long term, to protect themselves and the public. We know there are some juveniles whose alienation is so deep-seated and whose tendency to violence is so marked that we cannot rely upon ordinary measures.

"If the activities of a relatively small number of juveniles in this province ultimately encourage the enactment of repressive legislation applicable to all juveniles, such a result will only impede the development of sane delinquency policies and it's quite unlikely to

[ Page 5199 ]

provide the necessary answers to the complex problems of children in conflict with the law."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair. ]

He goes on to talk about secure accommodation for remand purposes. I think it can't be stressed too strongly from the Berger report that when Justice Berger talked about locking up juveniles, it was essentially for remand assessment purposes. Mr. Justice Berger, being the very forthright and honest individual that he is, finished up this section by stating on page 85 – and I won't take time to read the whole section – essentially:

"Even with special staff and secure, short-term assessment, which will be able to settle some youngsters to the extent that they will, after 30 or 60 days, be manageable in a presently existing type of programme or facility, there will remain a number of juveniles who will need term treatment."

This paragraph, Mr. Speaker, is very important, I believe. He went on to say:

"We are not prepared to say what kind of treatment or what kind of facility would be appropriate for this purpose. There will have to be further study of this matter."

This is the conclusion of a man of Mr. Berger's perception and sensitivity, after a very detailed and lengthy royal commission into family law. He says, regarding the containment of the juvenile who cannot be helped adequately on a short-term basis to return to the community, and I think it must be repeated:

"We are not prepared to say what kind of treatment or what kind of facility would be appropriate for this purpose." – that's the long term purpose – "There will have to be further study on the matter. All we would say at this stage is that such treatment will likely have to utilize the skills of a multitude of disciplines and that every effort should be made to avoid the creation of a large, closed institution, which may perpetuate rather than treat juvenile problems.

"Any facility that may be developed should be subjected to ongoing evaluation, comparing the results with those obtained by forest camps, where similarly difficult juveniles have been placed."

Mr. Speaker, I well recognize the very good intentions of this Attorney-General in putting this bill before the House, and the fact that we all have to face up to the problem of this very small minority of juveniles for whom no government as yet – and no group in society by any means – has all the answers. Mr. Berger mentions the many disciplines that will have to be involved in trying to at least come as close as humanly possible to find the best answer.

I would certainly like to support the comments that have been made by the spokesmen for the NDP and the Liberal Party, to the effect that we are all agreed that the minute you put any individual in jail, you're started down a path that probably has more negative influences than positive ones. I won't go back over all the points that the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) made about exposing the individual to knowledge of criminality and other human behaviour which perhaps he was not aware of initially. So all the dangers and disadvantages of locking up children or adults have been well documented in this debate. Therefore I feel that, particularly again, as I don't have time to quote all the sources ... but very briefly, let me say that because of the brief from the coalition task force and the very excellent brief from the B.C. Association of Social Workers, I do not believe that the very solid, last paragraph recommendations of Mr. Justice Berger have been followed to the degree that enough study by all interested parties has been carried out.

That is why I would also support the suggestion that some form of public hearing or some form of public dialogue, whether it be through the vehicle of a standing committee of the House or through some other special vehicle, is necessary in order to bring about a much more deeply considered and much safer overall programme to deal with the problem of containment.

I would say, for example, it's very obvious that the youth programme committee is an extremely important ingredient in this bill. Yet it is not by any means mandatory that such a committee be set up. It says that the Lieutenant-Governor "may" establish a youth programme committee. Now if we're going to have confidence in this bill, where the ramifications could be so far-reaching for good or evil ... I just don't have that confidence when I find that ingredients in the programme as important as the youth programme committee are not clearly spelled out as far as being an absolute and reliable and mandatory part of the legislation.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: That's a good point.

Mr. Wallace: Now there are many other. . . . I am really trying to pick out some very important highlights as I see them as to why I can't support this bill.

I just don't believe that you should be able to isolate children for 72 hours because the director of corrections thinks it's a good idea to isolate a kid – a child. We talk all through this bill ... the words are not all through the bill, but in many places the word "children" is used. Does anybody in his right mind think that it's a good idea to put a child in isolation for 72 hours? Don't be ridiculous!

If a child is having many of the problems, there's

[ Page 5200 ]

no guarantee in this bill that there will be proper psychiatric assessment before you lock them up for 72 hours. Don't tell me, "Oh, everything will be fine!" You ask me about what happened in Courtenay, where a teenager was accused of slashing tires. She was no danger to the public and no danger to human life. So she gets locked up and commits suicide.

Now how can I have confidence in this bill when we've got sections that allow individuals in the system to put young children in isolation without necessarily any legal counsel, without any medical assessment? There's no guarantee of all that, and this is what the Association of Social Workers is asking for: that there be some public discussion and dialogue.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: There's nothing in the bill about 72 hours. What are you talking about? Where is it?

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General interjects that there's nothing about isolation. I understand from the brief presented by the coalition task force that they've had access to the manual that applies in the Department of Corrections. Within that manual, it's stated that on the approval ... and again because I'm rushing along here and getting all my material mixed up because of the rush, I just can't ...

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Well, you're way off base.

Mr. Wallace: ... find the precise document from which this quotation is made. But it is certainly included in the brief. There is also no doubt that in that brief, Mr. Speaker, the source of that statement is documented. But as I say, the constraints of time in trying to cover this very important second reading in a much shorter period of time than I would prefer makes it difficult to cover all these points adequately and quote the sources from which the information is derived.

I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for not being able to nail that right down, but I know that somewhere in my readings last night – early this morning would be a more appropriate thing to say – I clearly read that an officer can isolate the individual for four hours and the director of the institution has the authority under the manual to isolate the child up to 72 hours.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Wrong.

Mr. Wallace: Anyway, it's one more element in the programme, and if the minister says it's not in the bill, we all know that there are regulations and other very important parts of any legislation which we don't have access to when we're debating the bill....

Hon. Mr. Gardom: We'll be able to. You're missing the whole point.

Mr. Wallace: Let's put it another way. I'm much more prepared to make up my mind on what has happened in the past. Don't talk to me about all the magnificent things that appear to be included in the new legislation. I am more interested and impressed and convinced by some of the very unsatisfactory elements of our system that have happened in the past, I don't want to take up a lot of time recalling the kinds of situations which, as I say, have led to young people being locked up for the kinds of offences or even on suspicion of offences that would not merit containment under this bill. The Attorney-General quite rightly has pointed out that containment will only apply where an adult committing the same offence would be subject to a prison sentence of two years or more. I think that's one of the safeguards in the bill that I like,

The kind of case that's given me a lot of concern is the young person who is arrested on suspicion of a certain crime, locked up and – in the case I am talking about – in spite of her clearly documented medical and mental history she was locked up with the consequence that I have already mentioned.

There is no doubt that society has to be protected against a small minority of juveniles who, for whatever reason, are very much in conflict with the law and often in recurring conflict with the law. But just because we all acknowledge that this has to be done, it's like saying that you have to give the patient a dose of medicine. If you give them the wrong medicine or the wrong dose of the right medicine, you're really not that much further forward if you kill the patient.

My attitude to this bill is that there's a lot in it and, again, I just say that the Attorney-General's brochure is excellent. I just wish that the bill was in much greater detail and gave me the kind of confidence that the bill, in fact, does put into writing and into fact exactly all the thinking and suggestions that are in the brochure. But I just don't find that to be the case. With respect to our restraints on time, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I haven't had more time to really go into more detail on this and give some of the documentation as to why I am concerned about this bill.

It certainly moves in the right direction in many respects. As I say, some of the positive aspects of the bill are the fact that children cannot be contained unless they are being accused of an offence for which an adult under similar circumstances would serve a two-year prison sentence. At least it minimizes the risk of juveniles who commit nuisance offences being locked up in facilities that would do them no good and probably do society a lot of harm by the time they get out of them.

[ Page 5201 ]

So there are positive aspects to it. Nevertheless, we're trying, in my view – admittedly with good intentions – to hasten the production of a solution without having, as Mr. Justice Berger suggested, taken the fullest possible access to all the various disciplines of professional community people and others who could perhaps have come up with a more comprehensive and, in the total effect, more suitable solution in meeting this double responsibility of protecting the public and, at the same time, protecting the offending juvenile and trying to get him rehabilitated.

I still have the horrible feeling when I read this bill and when I read the briefs from the Association of Social Workers and the coalition task force that there is just not enough involvement of the community of these many disciplines both in trying to prevent the need to lock up the juvenile in the first place and to ensure supervision, from the day that child is admitted, to try and provide training, rehabilitation and ongoing contact with the community so that when the child is released from the facility, there will be much more hope that he or she will be reintegrated into the community and not become an offender in the future,

It's an enormous subject, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can get into some of these points in committee. The bill means well and is trying to solve a problem. I'm like the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) – I gave this bill a great deal of thought. I wish I could have supported it but I regret very much that I will not be able to do so.

Mr. N. Levi (Vancouver-Burrard): Because we do have some time constraints and we can really deal with a lot of the issues in committee, I want to raise just a couple of items.

It seems to me that in this province, given the experience that the previous government had, the basic overwhelming annoyance by the community, in terms of juvenile delinquency, seem to have been resolved on December 11. Because after that, there was a complete toning down of any of the horrendous noise that was being made. Nevertheless, the problem is there.

Now I just want to quote the report for the interest of the minister. It was a report on facilities at BISCO. That used to be the boys' industrial school way back in 1953. This was a citizens' committee through the United Way people or what used to be the Community Chest in those days and subsequently led to a further report by Mr. Shau on the two institutions that existed – BISCO and the old girls' industrial school on Cassiar Street. Then they based their recommendations on a number of facts, and these are the facts: (1) overcrowding; (2) lack of facilities for vocational training and recreation; (3) fire hazards; (4) no opportunity for segregation; (5) problems of escape; (6) undesirable location; (7) difficulties of screening and committals; (8) problems of supervision; (9) recommendations of the commission report of 1950. Now all of those particular facts that we've referred to have been mentioned today.

This report subsequently led to the new structures known as the Brannan Lake School and the Willingdon girls' school. Brannan Lake School was built to hold 120 young people. On the day they moved the people in from BISCO in 1954,156 people were admitted to that institution, There were no additions made to it, and in the late '60s the population there on a daily basis was as high as 208 As the first member for Vancouver East (MT. Macdonald) said, they were pushing people out of the back door in order to get people in the front door. The programme had been reduced to almost 90 days.

Now with respect to what the minister is doing with the bill.... He comes m' and tells us that there are five actual thrusts in the programme. Well, there is nothing new about four of them. The only thing that is new is the containment programme. All of the other things have been happening at a greater rate over the past two years. But the problem we had in the province when we changed the law in 1969 – and I'm sure that the Attorney-General was in the House and remembers it – was that there were great expectations that by changing the focus. ... The change of focus was one from the criminal justice system to the social service system. That was the change of focus. They were moving it out of the area of police and prisons and putting it into the social service area.

But what unfortunately happened over the next three years, due to a change in government, was that no more money was made available. The basic idea was good. You treat these children out of the court system and you deal with them in a variety of services, But Children's Aid Society in Vancouver, and the Catholic Children's Aid and the Children's Aid Society over here got no extra money to do all of those services that were required. Consequently, when the new government came in in 1972, that was what its attempt was – to broaden all of those services.

The main thrust in terms of shutting down Willingdon, because it was an underused, discredited resource, was to point out to the public that there had to be a change. The theme very much in the minister's booklet is the theme that we propounded in the early days in saying to the community: "These are community problems. You must deal with these problems in your community and only remove children as a last desperate resort."

The great danger with centralized services like this.... I'm not going to go into, at the moment, all of the internal dangers inside of the institutional

[ Page 5202 ]

settings, but they claim to be dumping grounds where kids are brought from all over the province. I can remember the discussions we had with Mr. Justice Berger and his commission saying: "What is going to happen if they're centralized and you have a backup of kids?" That's the danger. Once you have a backup of kids, then you have an administrative decision that you're going to have 25 instead of 20, and 50 instead of 40, and they're all locked in there.

What you really have here is that classical example of the edifice complex. The edifice complex is where you build a building and say: "This is for resolving the problems of children." Then you point, if you have any criticisms, to the community and say: "That's where we solve this problem." That was the basis on which Haney was built. Haney was built to demonstrate – it was the last institution to be built ---m and prove that you didn't need any institutions. We've had a plea here today for information about what is going to go on in institutions, who's going to monitor it and this kind of thing.

In all the years that I was in the corrections field, I never saw one reasonable study evaluation of the Haney Correctional Institute. In all the years that it ever happened, there were no observations whatsoever. And as for the Liberal leader's (Mr. Gibson's) plea for studies, there are studies that would reach the ceiling of this Legislature – available, up-to-date studies. Most of them are done in the United States because that's where most of the money's made available for these kinds of studies.

The general feeling is that if you create an institution, regardless of how small, you've created a subculture. In that subculture you expect some kind of rehabilitation to take place. It's very difficult for us to argue on the one hand that we must protect society – of course we must – and on the other hand adopt a policy and a programme which has been discredited not only in the United States and in Canada, but recently in Canada in terms of our penitentiary system. It's a 100-year-old system which has got all of the problems that any juvenile institution will have the use of drugs, gang rapes, abuses, black marketing. All of the kinds of stuff that goes on in prisons goes on in juvenile institutions. The whole argument was, in terms of not going ahead with that....

You know, this debate that's going on today reminds me of the debate we had 15 years ago when we said to the federal government: "Don't go in for Matsqui as a place to rehabilitate drug addicts, because you can't do that kind of thing, It doesn't work." It took them four years to realize it didn't work, so they turned it into an ordinary prison.

What is the philosophy – that you're going to lock up 30 or 40 children? If you've got a place for 30 or 40 children, you're going to get demands from the community for 300 or 400 children. Take a look at what goes on in Ontario, where 1,500 young kids are locked up. That is what we're embarking on here, because it's a response to a political solution. There's political criticism out there, so what you're doing is going for the edifice complex. We haven't learned from experience about the undesirability of institutions. We're going right back into it. Why? Because that's the desirable political solution. That's the great tragedy. After all of these years and the examples that we've had, they're going to do it again.

The basic thrust has got to be in the community. You've got to spend more money, not save money. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is underspent by some $3 million; he actually estimated $3 million more for special services to children programmes. The minister talked about problem families. You deal with problem families by supplying support. Support is staff and people from the community who can assist. That's the kind of programme that you have if you want to deal with problems with families. You don't sit back at the end and watch the problems take place, and then decide to spend $100 a day keeping some people in jail.

The Attorney-General should tell us: is it going to cost $100 a day? If you're going to have trained staff that you talk about, if you're going to have the advice on the professional basis with the psychiatrists and the psychologists and the therapists, of course it's going to cost you $ 100 a day. You're not going to get away with any less. And the construction – what's that going to cost? Anywhere from $90,000 up to $120,000. You've had all of the plans from all of these architects who want to get in on that kind of thing. It's money. The original proposal by that minister was to spend $4 million on constructing 40 beds and $2.5 million on operating. Well, he's cut back a little. I guess he's had trouble with the treasury. That was the original announcement made last fall, which amounted to an almost $6.5 million programme to look after some 40 children without any reference at all to what could be put into the community.

The great difficulty here is that they have not learned anything about the experiences in this province over the last 20 years. We wanted a piece of reasonable legislation in 1969 to move the emphasis from the criminal justice system into a social service system where you would separate them. This bill today represents the end of the struggle that's been going on since 1969. You've had the police and the courts and the probation officers arguing that this is what we should be doing, and those people over there shouldn't be doing that. I'm talking about the people in the social services,

The irony is: what are we talking about with all of these people when we talk about policemen and social workers and lawyers? They're all from the community; they're all parents; they have similar

[ Page 5203 ]

backgrounds; they happen to have different jobs. Not one of them is tougher or better than the other one. It's not a question of toughness. They all have similar experiences. It's a question of an argument around a philosophy, and this bill culminates that struggle. We have gone back into the criminal justice system with children, when in 1969 there was an attempt to move away from that with a basic community focus which.... Of course, no money was provided. It had to be provided some time in 1972,1973,1974 and 1975. There's less now because the focus is back into the institutional system. It's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, because what we have, as I said, is a political solution which really doesn't concern itself with the basic lives of these children.

One of the things that I find missing from this whole consideration of the bill, in terms of the booklet that the minister has given us, is that there is only one reference to the role or the function or the responsibility of the parents. The only reference in here relates to the superintendent of child welfare. The time has come for us to deal with parents of kids who get into trouble in the same way that we deal with kids. They've got to be part of the process. I'm not talking about dragging people in and charging them, and that kind of thing. I'm talking about an involvement. The more programmes we create in services to people.... There is a danger that people will abrogate their responsibility, and that's dangerous. We've got to finger the parents; they've got to be fingered.

There was a report done in 1974 in Surrey. The report was attempting to set out and show that certain classes of people with certain circumstances have children who get into trouble. When the report was finished, nobody wanted to release it. Why? Because when the report was finally leaked, it showed that 14 per cent of the kids that got into trouble came from families on welfare – single-parent families – and 52 per cent of the kids that got into trouble were from two-parent families who were working. We're not dealing with specific kinds of economic circumstances in every case, We are dealing with families in crisis. That's true, but the important thing is that that's where the services have to come. There's no reference to this at all. There is no emphasis, in fact, in terms of the government. They've de-emphasized that special services to children programme which dealt with families.

After all the years since the original reports in 1950 and 1953 on the issue of juvenile services and juvenile institutions, and all of the problems that have been raised by the various members – all the issues on location of institutions – of course there is concern about a centralized situation, because that's where you get a dumping ground. There has been the whole question of the segregation aspect: are we all going to go in together, the 16- and 17-year-old hardrock and the 14-year-old soft-rock who is going to be made into a hard-rock? All of the situations that were pointed out as the negative parts of previous institutions are built into this kind of an institution. That is the big sadness, that after all these years we have completely failed to learn from the basis of experience, simply because what they've been looking for is a political solution, and this is their answer.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: I would like to thank all of the members for their observations concerning the bill and their attitudes, and specifically to thank those people who have spent a great deal of time in considering this bill not only recently, but as part of their life work in this system. I respect their opinions. I do not necessarily agree with them, but I thank them deeply for the contribution.

I shall start off by referring to some of the questions that were raised, I think, by the first speaker for the NDP. I would draw to his attention that in 1973, the task force and correctional services and facilities recommended that security treatment residences can be developed to deal with these types of children. We're addressing ourselves to this legislation.

In 1975 – I think the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) better stated the summation of the Berger commission that the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) mentioned – the Berger commission was essentially focusing upon assessment in remand, which this particular legislation is not addressing itself to. It stated in the fourth report that there was a need for containment and long-term treatment, They were not prepared to say what kind of treatment facility would be appropriate but they encouraged a multi-disciplinary approach, ongoing evaluation and avoidance of large, closed institutions. That is exactly what this bill is doing, and particularly the ongoing evaluation process which, I'm afraid with all respect, the member for Oak Bay has to a considerable extent missed in his reading of the legislation.

Mr. Wallace: Every three months.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Then in February, 1976, the community services division of the corrections branch of the province of British Columbia recommended the development of the youth containment programme. It was clearly recognized that the large majority of juveniles had been dealt with most appropriately through probation and other community programmes, but there is, and there was, and there still is, a need for the secure containment of some juveniles who do not respond to this kind of programming. That's exactly what this bill is talking about.

Then the member for Vancouver East – who, I

[ Page 5204 ]

must say, was the only speaker who embellished both his comments and sentiments in opposition to the bill by indicating the foulest of all worlds that would develop from it – neglected to take into account that there is not containment per se in the Lakeview situation of 30, which is a camp programme, nor in the Centre Creek programme for a component, again, of 30 people. There's containment there through activity. This isn't a bar situation at all.

He asked for specifics. Victoria was contemplated for three and Willingdon for 20 and community centres for 37. So when he's starting to build a bars-or-else attitude and trying to establish that as the thrust of the bill in his opposition to it, he's not doing justice to himself, nor to the legislation, the community and the youngsters involved,

We do have a psychiatric resource well built in by the forensic psychiatric services. There are educational opportunities; there are job opportunities. A lot of questions were raised by the members about the costs involved. The building cost figures that we are utilizing for 1977-1978 are $750,000. The equipment costs for the same period are $350,000, for a total of $1.1 million. The salary and operational costs are coming in at approximately $16,500 or $16,600-odd per delinquent juvenile per year. We're finding the close custody will encompass – in numbers of 23 – about $368,000; in the camps $960,000; and in the third level, the community centres, $592,000. So you can see the thrust of the legislation is clearly indicated both by the bill, by the remarks that I made today, and certainly within this brochure which the member for Oak Bay had glowing sentiments and reports about. I would thank him for that. The thrust is clearly not into the containment area but outside of the containment area. The containment area is certainly the "last resort" attitude.

I wish that the hon. members, when they are talking again – perhaps referring to the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) – about the bill and youth containment centres would please read the legislation and see the built-in protections that are available there. First of all, to give effect to the programme, the Lieutenant-Governor may designate all or part of the facility as a centre provided that he is satisfied that youths would receive protection and benefit by admission to it and that there would be proper control, supervision and training given to them. A designation can limit the number of youths who may be admitted to a particular youth containment centre.

This used to be done, and I'm now directing my remarks to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) who missed this point altogether. This used to be done administratively and now it is built firmly into the legislation. I would say to the hon. member that he misread the legislation when he reached his conclusion that it did not support the brochure, because it does, indeed, and even more so. We have legislatively enacted these things and I would commend the hon. member to take a second look at the bill.

Also, Mr. Speaker, under another section, no person in authority at a containment centre shall admit a youth unless he is satisfied of certain specific conditions. A judge might sentence an individual to a containment centre but still it is optional to the person who is in authority there as to whether or not it is an appropriate and fitting admission.

First of all, he has got to be satisfied that the child is adjudged by the court to be a delinquent as the result of an offence for which an adult would be confined for more than two years. We are talking about serious offences here, and we are talking about children who are in serious conflict with the law. We are talking about, unfortunately, minors who have committed rapes and muggings and broken people's backs and arms. We are talking about these kinds of people who may well be a danger to the community, Mr. Speaker, and who, at the present time, society cannot adequately or properly deal with. I think that we have a responsibility to society and a responsibility to those youngsters to try to help them as well.

Furthermore, the age has got to be 14 years. The contemplated federal legislation is 12 years. Under this bill, Mr. Speaker, the maximum time that a person can be within the programme.... That means the tiers of the programme. That doesn't mean an individual will necessarily be in for two years, which is cut down by 25 per cent, so we are only looking at a maximum of a year and a half. It doesn't mean the individual will be that full time in a youth containment centre. No way; that's not contemplated at all. As they graduate they move and perhaps they will not initially go to that. Certainly they wouldn't except in the most serious situations, Mr. Speaker.

The problem is very serious, as the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) said. Then he talked about having a lockup in Cranbrook. He said: "Let's have a lockup in Cranbrook where the dangerous juveniles can be placed. Some have to be contained." He admits that. He admits that, yet he still votes against the bill, and I find that very difficult to understand.

I similarly find it hard to understand the attitude of the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) on this particular point. We are not talking about building huge jails for these people. We have a population today that is about 2.5 million. We are talking about – out of our total population – maybe a maximum of 120 youngsters. Of those 120 hard-core youngsters we are only talking about a maximum of 20-plus who might find themselves spending some time in the containment facility. It may well be in their absolute

[ Page 5205 ]

interest and in the absolute interest of society that they are there.

If new facilities are required, we are not going to take the position: "Okay, we are going to start housing 600 people." The Brannan Lake thing didn't work and I said that at the beginning. There is not a person in this room who would agree that was the correct approach and that is not what we are contemplating by our bill at the present time.

The question was raised about sex and drugs. According to officials, experience has shown this has never been a problem of consequence.

Then he talked about destroying lives. What we are trying to do with this legislation is save lives, my friend, not destroy lives. Save the lives of the offenders and protect the general public at the same time.

The Liberal leader, the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , talked a great deal about preventive medicine and he made very excellent points. I don't differ with those. That's the concept of the legislation. It's the thrust of the department; it's the attitude and the principles that are expressed in here. We believe very firmly in that. At some point in time when preventive medicine has not done the job and nothing else has done the job and you're surrounded by a problem on your doorstep, that does not mean that you can throw your hands up and run away from it.

I can assure you, Mr. Member, members of the opposition and the government members, that we have no intention of running away from the problem just because there happens to be one. We are trying to do something about it. I think that we have a good bill here; I think that it will do the job. I'm not saying it is perfect but it is certainly subject to ongoing scrutiny throughout the total process.

"Who's going to be on the youth containment committee?", somebody asked me. We would find professionals on it such as Elizabeth Fry representatives, the John Howard Society, the coalition task force on children and so on, interested individuals.

I believe the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) made a lot of the point. He said: "You're providing for a youth programme committee, and why don't you build it into the statute and have it in a mandatory fashion?" It's a good suggestion and I will be preparing an amendment; or, if you've got one on the order paper, I'll accept it to that effect.

Now the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) felt that the public will feel this is an absolute cure. Well, I say to the general public, it is not an absolute cure. If any of the general public are misguided into thinking that, which I don't think they will be, because they have great collective wisdom, they would be incorrect indeed.

The dumping ground argument: I've responded to that two or three times already. I initiated my remarks by talking about it. It's contained in the material and if you wish to build up a spectre to vote against the bill and say it's going to be a dumping ground, that's your prerogative. It is not going to be a dumping ground at any time.

There is going to be accessibility to diagnostic services. There is going to be a monitoring of control. There are going to be legal safeguards. There will be research – this was raised by the Liberal leader. There will be independent research. At the present time, we have three proposals being considered by the ministry in that regard. A couple were prepared at the University of Victoria and one was prepared at the University of British Columbia.

The thrust is to early community and early family involvement. The staff is going to be little more than one-to-one on a three-shift basis, plus the outside support – education, psychiatric and Human Resources. The legal representative: a question was raised about the public defender system. We do have Legal Aid, although I must say, somewhat as an aside, a public defender pilot project is being initiated in New Westminster. It will supply a public defender, or legal aid or the resources of the families or guardians of the youngsters themselves, or their own resources. Some of these youngsters, you know, some have adequate resources. On balance, they don't have them all, but the odd one does. So that is available insofar as legal representation is concerned.

One member talked about pre-sentence report. Well, at the present time, under federal legislation, the law requires that a probation officer speak in the interests of the youth.

Constitutional problems: we don't envision the constitutional problem. If there was one, it would be tested in the court. But according to the best advice that we've been able to receive, there will not be a constitutional problem.

I think the Liberal leader closed by saying that we should see that actions have consequences and enforcement is important. I subscribe to those words, indeed. Then the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) , with glowing praise – and I again thank him for that – referred to the principles of the programme and specifically to the three points that he articulated on page 15 of the brief: that juveniles for whom other programmes have proven unsuitable and whose behaviour the court deems to be dangerous to the public safety, juvenile containment becomes an undesirable necessity. That's the thrust of the bill; that's the thrust of the material; that's the policy of the department. I don't know what more we can do to satisfy you on that.

You also said that custody is a matter of last resort. Agreed. We don't differ on that. That's what the bill says; this is the policy; that's what the material says. Then they should be released as soon

[ Page 5206 ]

as possible and dealt with in a community programme. Again, the tiered system is available, so that can happen. That is the specific desire – that it will happen. We have continuing flexibility; we have powers of ongoing evaluation. Now this is the one point that I'm afraid both the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) missed. There is a power of continuing flexibility.

Mr. Wallace: You can lock them up for three months without review.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Pardon?

Mr. Wallace: That's our point.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: There is a power of continuing flexibility. There are powers of ongoing evaluation, and these have been statutorily built in. Also, even apart from that, none of the speakers today in their wisdom and logic referred to the fact that the ombudsman also has an avenue of access. Without doubt, hon. members, this is the most accountable piece of legislation of its kind in this country.

Then somebody talked about 72 hours custody. That is an incorrect statement. The member has checked with staff, as I have. I mentioned to the member for Oak Bay when he was speaking that that is a first draft of some regulations. It was not 72 hours. It is a maximum of 16 hours, if behaviour is uncontrollable. That is not to be deemed out as a sentence or a punishment. It deals with uncontrollable behaviour.

Mr. Wallace: Sixteen, did he say?

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Finally, the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi): he went back to 1953, Well, in 1977 we are not proceeding or intending to proceed according to any kind of parameters that were existent in 1953. But the object is to prepare people within these three-tiered programmes for rehabilitation into the community. We've done that.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to again make an observation to the member for Vancouver-Burrard, that most of the experts agree that the social service system has done a fine and dandy job, but it has failed insofar as this small, hard group is concerned. Mr. Speaker, they have to be accountable for their acts to the extent of their maturity, as I said when I opened this debate, and we are encouraging diversion for all but those few.

Now before sitting down, notwithstanding the ultimate desire of my colleagues to wind up – they're keeping both their eyes on the clock and on their stomachs – I would like to-refer to a short editorial which was printed in The Parksville-Qualicum Beach Progress. It says: "Sad But Necessary." This is exceptionally well written; it really is. It says:

"The recent provincial government decision to establish containment centres for juvenile lawbreakers is, unfortunately, a good one. We say 'unfortunately' because no one can seriously relish the thought of incarcerating young offenders for what many regard as a simple excess of youthful exuberance. But over the last few years, we have seen juvenile crime change in nature from minor misdemeanours to full-blown armed robbery, assault, and even murder."

Can you hear me over the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) satisfactorily? I was just wondering if they could hear me over you, Mr. Minister. (Laughter.)

"This apparent trend towards violence in juvenile crime has placed our law courts in the untenable position of having to slap young offenders on the wrist and send them on their way. There were simply no facilities available to confine miscreants, no matter how serious their crimes.

"Now a total of four detention facilities will be opened in B.C. to keep delinquents safely out of society's way until they mend their ways. We can rest assured that periods of confinement, which will never exceed two years, will be handed out only when all attempts at rehabilitation have failed.

"The provincial government has built extensive safeguards into the exacting legislation, Bill 55, and there is little doubt the Most ardent civil libertarian would support the concept. The machinery is now in place to deal effectively with juvenile offenders. The task of society" – I agree with t he sentiments of everyone who earlier expressed this today -"now is to identify the causes of such delinquency and work towards eliminating them, "

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS – 25

[ Page 5207 ]

NAYS – 14

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 55, Corrections Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Committee on Bill 87, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RESOURCES

INVESTMENT CORPORATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 87, Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

Mr. Macdonald: I ask the Premier if this company will have the power to sell these assets which it acquires from the government, such as B.C. Cellulose. Can they sell them off if they see a good chance to sell the company to somebody else?

Hon. W.R. Bennett (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I doubt that they would do that. But yes, they would have the power to acquire assets or dispose of assets in the best interests of the company. But I'd like to comment further, because I'd hate to leave the implication that it would be a funnel-through. These assets will be appraised today by an independent appraiser. I don't feel that a company formed making these a part of their assets would consider disposing of them at all, Mr. Member.

Mr. Macdonald: On the one hand, the Premier says the government will have no control, in terms of electing directors or anything, over this new corporation. On the other band, individuals can own up to I per cent of the shares and control it. Now why won't, say, our B.C. Cellulose Company be sold off to a multinational? It can happen. You say this is built-in protection for residents. They can sell it; they can dispose of it. If they get a good offer, they do. If they're dominated by a few wealthy people in the province who are already in the lumber industry, they'll sell off the asset. Why shouldn't they?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: You're wrong in that assumption. The directors, I would say, are going to be British Columbians concerned about their province.

Mr. Macdonald: That's a profit-making venture-

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member for Vancouver East is only saying judgmentally that he is a better British Columbian than these directors. Having seen him when he was government, I have more confidence, even though they're not named yet.

Mr. Macdonald: This is a private, profit-making corporation that will make business decisions based on profitability for its shareholders. Of course, if they get a good offer, they'll sell off an asset. You may be selling out these jewels of B.C. to an international company. You won't be able to stop it. That's all I'm saying.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Nonsense!

Mr. Gibson: The interim directors of this company will be very important because they'll set the original bylaws and regulations and thrust of the company for some time. I wonder if the Premier could tell us – I'm sure he's given some thought to this – the names of some of those he proposes to recommend as interim directors.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, I can't, Mr. Chairman, I didn't try and second-guess the Legislature in passing this bill, knowing that the Legislature would always certainly have to consider and pass the legislation. But if the Legislature passes it in committee, as they did yesterday in second reading, I certainly will attend to the very serious consideration of possible directors immediately.

Mr. Gibson: Something the Premier must have given some thought to is the sort of people he would want on this board. I would like him to guarantee to the Legislature that there'll be some women on the board. Can he guarantee that?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, I can't guarantee that there will be any men on the board, just as I can't guarantee there will be any women on the board-

Mr. Wallace: One or the other!

Hon. Mr. Bennett: But whether there will be tokenism, as the Liberal leader asked for.... What I say is the criterion for selecting the directors will be a standard of excellence, and will be those, I believe, in the best interests of the shareholders of that company

[ Page 5208 ]

and the potential shareholders of that company who will be thousands of British Columbians, perhaps even tens of thousands of British Columbians.

I want to see, as that member would want to see, directors who have the competency and the ability and the best interests of those shareholders at heart and, at the same time, who have the interest of British Columbia at heart, recognizing the great opportunity they have to direct this vehicle to help build this province, recognizing the many areas that were identified yesterday and earlier as to where this corporation, unique and a first of its kind, is going to be able to harness the capital of British Columbians who have been waiting for this opportunity. Those will be the criteria. This will be the basis on which directors are selected. The interim board of directors and then the shareholders, after they have been identified, can of course.... The new board of directors will be elected at the first annual meeting of the company.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, the Premier says that the directors will be people of competence and ability and I would expect that. I hope the Premier is not saying that he isn't going to be able to find a woman of competence and ability to sit on this board. I think it's a very important thing and I made the suggestion not because of tokenism but because too often, on appointing these boards of Crown corporations, half the human race is overlooked. I asked that it not be done in this particular instance.

Section 2 approved.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

Mr. Macdonald: Would the Premier give an estimate under the I per cent thing where no group or individual can acquire more than I per cent of the shares of the company? How much would that be, roughly, in dollars?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Well, as the member knows, the evaluation of the assets of the subscription are not done yet. That is the task that will be carried out by the interim board of directors in consultation with the financial managers and for preparation before the securities commission. I have no idea and it would be improper to speculate at this time what that figure might be.

Mr. Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, our estimate is that no individual can buy more than $1.4 million worth of shares. Now five individuals will control the company quite easily at that rate, and control all these assets with the other shareholders scattered. It's ridiculous.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That's nonsense. I would ask anybody not to speculate because, as the member must know, Mr. Chairman, there is the opportunity for both shares and debt and assets and, as such, he's presuming that all of the government assets may be transferred for shares in trying to establish a value. The second reason for which I would ask the public not to listen to that speculation is that the member has often been wrong before.

I do say that the evaluation will be carried out by independent appraisal. Not just the government, but independent appraisal would set the value of those assets being transferred. The method of payment for those assets would be either shares or notes or a combination of both. From that the subscription will be developed, and the number of shares that can be sold to the citizens of British Columbia. It's very, very, possible that the citizens seizing with enthusiasm the great opportunity they have at this time – the unique opportunity that this corporation offers them – will subscribe in very great amounts.

We have before us only one example, and that is the Alberta Energy Corporation. When it went public, they thought they could sell a few shares in Alberta and the rest would probably be sold in the rest of Canada. The total subscription was picked up in Alberta, and I believe that subscription was some $70 million. Now I know British Columbia is more confident, and the people of this province are more confident and look forward to a better future than even oil-rich Alberta. I'm sure they'll probably show more confidence than the people of Alberta.

Now that is all we have to go on. We will have to wait till the appraisals are made. I say it would be folly to try and guess what the figure might be now. The 1 per cent that Alberta.... Alberta had a 1 per cent limit, and they had tens of thousands of individuals buying very small units. There was no threat of any group trying to buy control.

I point out to the member, though, that there is an opportunity here beyond individuals and/or corporations who are limited to 1 per cent – that is mostly individuals – and that is benefit plans for groups of individuals. That would be unions, pension plans or health plans. They are given the opportunity of buying up to 3 per cent. So it is presumable that the unions of the very companies that are being transferred could control the corporation. Then you would have the workers of the province who work on these projects controlling the company. You would have B.C. citizens and workers, then, controlling the corporation. I don't consider that a threat. I consider that a very great plus and opportunity, and I hope they do.

Mr. Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, very few

[ Page 5209 ]

pension funds are controlled by the workers, and I just make that point. Unions are not going to invest but pension funds may – I hope they do.

I'll just finish off by saying the I per cent means that with shares scattered, even if they're widely sold, very few individuals owning large blocks – and up to I per cent is a very large block – can control that corporation. The others are scattered. Everybody knows that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I was a little disturbed when the member for Vancouver East said that pension funds weren't controlled by the workers. I understood that they had control of their own pension plans and I'm sure they would prefer an investment in this corporation in British Columbia rather than investments such as the teamsters have bought in Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas. Let's harness those pension funds in British Columbia.

Sections 4 to 25 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 87, British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS – 27

NAYS – 11

Mr. Speaker: His. Honour the Lieutenant-Governor will be with us shortly. I will just declare a brief recess and await his arrival. Before I declare a recess, I believe there's a report by the hon. Minister of Finance.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe. Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 37th edition of the British Columbia Financial and Economic Review.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy files answers. (See appendix.)

The House recessed at 12-58 p.m.

The House resumed at 1:05 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Clerk-Assistant:

Copper Smelting and Refining Incentive Act Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1977

Statistics Act

Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Amendment Act, 1977

Motor Dealers Licensing Act

Municipal Amendment Act, 1977 Pesticide Control Act

British Columbia Railway Company Grant Act, 1977

Klondike National Historic Park Act

Crown Corporation Reporting Act

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1977

Revenue Sharing Act

Ombudsman Act

Mineral Act

Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2)

Metric Conversion Act, 1977

Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1977

Residential Tenancy Act

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Act

Clerk Of The House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:07 p.m.

[ Page 5210 ]

APPENDIX

12 Mrs. Dailly asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary the following questions:

With reference to the 1976 Budget Speech –

1. How many with the "conclusion" on pages 34 and 35 were printed and what was the cost per copy?

2. How many of the copies in No. 1 were actually distributed?

3. How many with an expurgated "conclusion" printed only on page 35 were printed and what was the cost per copy?

4. How many of the copies in No. 3 were actually distributed?

5. What was the total cost for printing of the editions mentioned in Nos. 1 and 3?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy replied as follows:

"1. 22,000 copies at 45.4 cents per copy.

"2. 8,500 copies to date.

"3. 3,000 copies at 45.4 cents per copy-

"4. 1,600 to date.

"5. $11,341.42."

97 Mr. Levi asked the Hon. the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs the following questions -

With reference to Liquor Control Board employees-

1. What was the number of permanent employees, the total cost of (a) their salaries and (b) their fringe benefits as of April 1,1975; April 1,1976; and April 1,1977?

2. What was the number of temporary or auxiliary employees, the total cost of (a) their salaries and (b) their fringe benefits as of April 1,1975; April 1,1976; and April 1,1977?

3. How many temporary or auxiliary employees have been employed for longer than (a) three months; (b) .six months; (c) one year; (d) three years; and (e) five years?

The Hon. K. R. Mair replied as follows:

"1. The first and second parts of Question 97 are answered in Schedule One. It should be noted that the figures are as at March 31 of each of the three fiscal years (1974/75,1975/76,1976/77) , and, as the budgets of Liquor Control and Licensing and Liquor Distribution were not split until April 1,1977, the figures include both. Branches.

"2. On April 1,1977, after the budget split, the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch showed a complement of 43 permanent employees and two auxiliary employees.

"3. The answer to the third part of the question is contained in Schedule Two. In regard to auxiliary employees, I would like to make the following comments:

(a) Because a good many auxiliary positions are part-time and (or) seasonal, the number of auxiliaries employed is not a significant measurement in the Liquor Distribution Branch. Of more value would be either man-hours worked or man-hours paid or some conversion of one or both of these figures to man-weeks, or man-months.

(b) The Liquor Distribution Branch employee ratio is approximately 70 per cent full-time to 30 per cent auxiliary. Compared to other large retail organizations, this is a low ratio of auxiliaries. For example, Woodward Stores operate on a ratio of 40 per cent regular to 60 per cent auxiliaries, along with most of the supermarkets in the Province."

[ Page 5211 ]

SCHEDULE ONE

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION BRANCH AND LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING BRANCH

Salary and Benefit Information for the Past Three Fiscal Years

NOTES

"Health and Welfare" costs of $2 per working-day have been paid as salaries but have been reclassified to fringe benefits (auxiliaries and limited) .

Effective October 1,1975, due to a change in Superannuation Plan Regulations, 101 regular staff were transferred from the auxiliary payroll to the regular payroll.

¹ Includes vacation and statutory holiday pay, sick pay, and all absentee time payable under contract.

² This figure includes 13 limited and 24 daily-paid employees on staff as at March 31,1977.

SCHEDULE TWO

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION BRANCH

Number of temporary/auxiliary employees as of June 30,1977, that have been employed longer than

LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING BRANCH

Number of auxiliary employees as of June 30,1977, that have been employed longer than

¹ Six auxiliaries won competitions for regular positions in June.

98 Mrs. Dailly asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry the following questions:

With reference to the "smile" campaign, announced by the Minister-

1. What is the estimated cost of this program?

2. What is the name, the amount paid, and the service rendered by each company or individual receiving payment under this program?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy replied as follows:

"l. The Honourable Member will appreciate that the 'smile' campaign is in full operation now and should continue through to the month of October which is, as you know, a very busy tourist month for us in British Columbia. Therefore, all costs relating to this campaign are not in, but as of now they are in the range of $44,000.

"2. As to the Honourable Member's question regarding individual sources that have been paid, they are, to date, Ronalds-Reynolds and Company Ltd., Vancouver, and the Victoria Chamber of Commerce."