[ Page 2057 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of the Attorney-General estimates.

On vote 16.

Mr. Barrett –– 2057

Mr. Barrett –– 2064

Ms. Brown –– 2064

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2060

Mr. Barrett –– 2061

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2063

Mr. Barrett –– 2063

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2064

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2069

Ms. Brown –– 2070

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2073

Mr. Levi –– 2074

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2078

Presenting reports.

Report on "The Scope and Objectives of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture."

Mr. Bawtree –– 2079

Appendix –– 2080

Erratum –– 2080

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I wish to report the fact that Mr. Ben Bracewell, former Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and inspector of municipalities, who served British Columbia from the late 1930s to 1954, died on Sunday, June 4, at the age of 88.

Mr. Bracewell was known, I think, through that period as Mr. Local Government. He certainly caused a great deal of attention and brought people to attention when he moved into a municipality to carry out the activities of inspector. He was regarded very highly by those in local government and by all who knew him. He'd been retired for a number of years, obviously, but I trust, Mr. Speaker, that you would send the condolences of this House to Mr. Bracewell's family.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd be happy to take that undertaking.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote [6: minister's office, $139,990 -

continued.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I just have a few questions of the Attorney-General, since this is the only opportunity that the Legislature gets to discuss directly with the chief law officer of this province the administration of the various departments that he is responsible for.

Mr. Chairman, I was impressed this afternoon by the various questions asked by opposition members about a number of subjects. But I want to confine myself to just one area that is a responsibility of the Attorney-General, and that, of course, is the corrections field. The Attorney-General will know as a former member of this House in the nether regions, before he reached the high esteemed office that he has now, that there were many opinions shared about penal institutions in British Columbia. I must say that some of those debates did have an impact on the various governments of the day and it must go down as a matter of record that British Columbia's penal system, aside from one or two common faults that are shared with corrections branches throughout North America, are among the best.

There has been a more enlightened and more understanding approach to corrections in this province than perhaps in other jurisdictions. We have now reached the point where w are giving very quietly and very sensibly extended leaves from corrections institutions, alternate sentencing methods, and a number of approaches that even 20 years ago would be completely unthought of.

But Mr. Chairman, there is one problem that still lingers and is extremely difficult in the administration of a prison. That's the subject of contraband. There are rules in any institution that require periodic inspections by the correctional staff and the security staff around material that comes into the institution that is against the rules of the institution to have there. Some of it is somewhat questionable in terms of nature. For example, in the women's prison you cannot sneak in a man, and in a man's prison you cannot sneak in a woman. Now that is the general area of contraband. Classified under those limitations are rather particular things.

For instance, it is against the prison rules to bring in alcohol. It is against the prison rules to bring in tobacco. It's against the rules to bring in drugs. But you know, in every prison all over the world, as much as these are against the rules, it is a notorious fact of life that inmates are among the highest percentage of rule-breakers that society has.

As a consequence, once the prison sets up the rules, the inmates set about to break those rules. What do you do with an inmate who breaks a rule in jail? You don't release him as punishment, although that might be an option to consider. For many people, psychologically jail is a home. What they have achieved in jail is a higher level of achievement than they had on the outside. To explain this paradox, for example, in jail you are given three meals a day, a bed to sleep in, and someone to complain to; and you always know who to complain to because the state dresses that person up in a uniform. So when you I ve come to jail, and you are psychologically inadequate, you have actually had some of your problems solved just by being in jail. Some psychologists call such institutions surrogate loving mothers: the warm arms of a jail, giving you three meals a day, a bed to sleep in and someone to complain to.

If you live in an avaricious, capitalistic society that guarantees unemployment at around

[ Page 2058 ]

10 per cent, and if you can't compete in that kind of capitalistic society and have the option of going on welfare under a certain cruel minister, it's far better to go to jail because you get better treatment in jail than you do on welfare under a certain cruel minister. If those are the options you are faced with, Mr. Chairman, you find that the number of offences rises and the option of jail becomes more attractive. After all, if it's tulip bulbs or three meals a day, where are you going to go? You are going to go to the three meals a day.

In this setting you have rules around contraband. Contraband, as I said earlier, is dealing in goods that are unfortunately not allowed in jail. As I explained earlier, prisoners not being exactly the model of law-abiders, break all the rules.

I had a very close friend, who I talk to frequently, who spent five years working in jails. My friend told me that on occasion inmates stole things like drugs from the dispensary or they stole raisins from the kitchen and they actually made brews in jail. As a matter of fact, in one particular institution where my friend worked, there were six units at Oakalla known as the young offenders unit and there was an annual contest as to the best brew in the young offenders unit.

The brews were located everywhere and anywhere. They were in galvanized garbage cans. One of the most ingenious methods of creating a brew in a prison, I understand, was in the overhead toilets, where the water closet worked on the gravity principle. Frequently my friend discovered that three of the six units had their water closets plugged. We couldn't figure out what was happening. Lo and behold, we found that they were brewing - I didn't find that out; my friend found that out - this mash in these water closets. Well, of course, Mr. Chairman, it was against the rules. Because they broke the rules the only thing we could threaten them with was release. I mean that is a real punishment. "We'll show you. You came in jail and you've broken the rules and because you've misbehaved we are going to send you out in the cruel world to fend for yourself." That's the model of certain governments. "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps. If you can't make it in jail we're kicking you out and you're really going to suffer -especially when there is high unemployment."

If there is a certain amount of cynicism or irony or even sardonic humour in what I say, it has only been brought about by an overwhelming wave of a desire to punish people by enforcing rules.

Let us be specific. Amongst the things that were smuggled into prisons were booze in bottles, tobacco in cans, heroin, pot, hash and any other drug you wanted to buy. As a matter of fact, the prison commissary could never compete with the variety of goods that could be brought in to any prison, under the highest amount of surveillance by the most skilled prison staff that my friend experienced. As a consequence, on some occasions people who had never used alcohol before they got in prison had their first taste of alcohol in prison. That's very unlikely, because in our permissive society alcohol is more readily available outside of prison. On some occasions people learn to smoke in jail.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that surprises us is that some people actually had their first experience with drugs - as a matter of fact, hard drugs - in jail. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, in the east wing of Oakalla Prison Farm there were some young people of the ages of 18 and 19 awaiting trial - and I know this government and a certain minister of this government are chagrined about young people of the ages of 18 and 19 being brought close to the evils of the overwhelming dope fiends who exist on almost every street corner of British Columbia.

So to save those young people from those dope fiends they put them in jail and, shockingly, those young people had their first experience with drugs in Oakalla prison farm -not just sniffing drugs; not just smoking a nice little piece of hash or a joint that was passed around but actually main-lining in jail.

As a consequence of this horrible discovery that people were main-lining in jail, it was necessary to hire more guards, buy more uniforms and check the people more closely. Of course, that heightened the game. One of the greatest games of being in jail is learning how to break the rules. How in the world can you supervise people 24 hours a day when guards only work an eight-hour shift? If one guard is getting wise, he is going to be off by the time the eight hours is up, and the new guard comes on shift and you can play games with him. So in a shift of three different guards, if you are running a little toke-up situation in the jail, you can always beat the system by hiding the stash, or main-lining, or learning how to use drugs in jail.

I don't blame this Attorney-General. As a matter of fact, when he was a backbencher, he used to make speeches about the dangers of young people learning to use drugs in a jail setting. I remember that. We have a situation that there is a jurisdiction in North America where a certain cabinet minister claims that

[ Page 2059 ]

he now has the method of stopping all drugs from getting into an institution that he is going to build. I think this is important, wonderful news for everybody in North America to learn about.

MR. COCKE: He's magic.

MR. BARRETT: Lo and behold, you would think that that certain minister is in another jurisdiction and is an American who, like the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) , says: "Americans are smarter than we are." Is it an American who discovered how to keep dope out of jail? Nope. Is it a Saskatchewanite? It must be, because they are the smartest people in Canada; they've had a socialist government longer than anyone else. Nope, it's not Saskatchewan. Why, it's right here in British Columbia! Sitting behind this Attorney-General is a minister who knows how to keep dope out of jail.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would like to remind the member that we are discussing the estimates of the Attorney-General. On the subject of relevance, what may or may not be happening in the Ministry of Health is not relevant at this time, and I would caution the member that there is a bill on the order paper. I know that the member will be very careful and not violate the standing orders of this House by mentioning matters which are before the House.

MR. BARRETT: I have two things to say about that, Mr. Chairman. Firstly, never have I been known to stray from the vote at hand; secondly, if you don't accept that, I didn't mention the bill; you did.

How is it, Mr. Chairman, that you would connect something that I haven't connected even remotely? Do you know something that I don't know? I'm talking about Oakalla prison farm and the problem of keeping dope out of Oakalla prison farm. It is a chronic problem ever since Oakalla prison farm was opened. We have the best of security staff; we have the best of guards; we have roaming guards with guns to keep the dope out. It still gets in and I think it is a responsibility of the Attorney-General. If he knows of someone who knows how to keep dope out of the jail, that person should be brought to British Columbia and the Attorney-General should learn how to keep dope out of the jail.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: They fired me out of jail. I want to tell you, 11r. Member, I'm the only politician who left jail and came into politics, instead of the other way around.

Now my years of experience in working in a prison led me to be chagrined and upset by simplistic solutions of how to control contraband in jail. On occasion we had someone come into the jail and say: "Don't bring dope into the jail, because it's naughty." That didn't work. So they brought somebody in who said: '!Don't bring dope into the jail because it is against the law." That didn't work. So now we're going to say to the inmates: "Don't bring dope into the jail because the minister will get mad at you."

I think it is absolutely essential.... I am being very, very serious when I say this because how could anyone be facetious about someone having knowledge on how to keep dope out of jail and not sharing it with someone else? If there is a minister of the Crown in this province who knows how to keep dope out of jail, then that minister of the Crown has a duty to tell the Attorney-General and this House how to keep dope out of jail. I think that's logical. I think that's only fair. It's his duty to inform the Attorney--General, who still is responsible as the minister of the Grown dealing with that problem of chronic access of addictive drugs in a penal institution.

I've even heard that someone is suggesting to spend taxpayers' money to build another institution to put people in to keep them away from drugs. Now I don't know where that insane idea comes from, considering our experience at Oakalla and the federal experience at Matsqui, but if that person who is offering that insane idea that we can lock people up and keep drugs away from them has any proof at all of how you keep the drugs away from them, that person has a public duty to inform the citizens of this province how you do it.

If I'm alluding to any proposed legislation in this House, it is only in the mind of the Chairman, not in my mind. No siree Bob, I'm dealing with what exists. We have one of the best security staffs in North America and one of the best methods of screening what comes into jail, and with all of that talent, all of that skill, dope still gets in Oakalla.

Some people, Mr. Chairman - and I tell you this from my own experience - their first experience with hard drugs was when they were placed in a setting where hard drugs were available. They were available free and they shared the use of those drugs. Those young people became addicts because of their first experience in a collectivization of people with the same problem of drug addiction.

[ Page 2060 ]

A psychiatrist once wrote about it and said it was called the "epidemiology of drug addiction." Now, of course, in dealing with the problem of housing people with an epidemiological problem, the first thing to ignore is scientific evidence. When scientific evidence does not meet what you have as a bias or a prejudice, then stamp it out, attack it and become emotional. When one stamps out scientific evidence and attacks it and throws it away, one can easily become emotional, slip into rhetoric and then play politics.

Now the best way to play politics with the drug problem is to announce: "I've got a cure. We will lock up all the addicts and tell everybody in the world not to bring any drugs in, and if they do bring drugs in we'll tell them 'naughty, naughty'." Any police officer on the beat will tell you that system doesn't work. Any correctional officer who has spent three months locking up in Oakalla will tell you that won't work. Any qualified psychiatrist or psychologist or social worker who has ever worked in any kind of confinement setting where there are addicts will tell you that

I want the Attorney-General to tell us tonight, and I ask the Attorney-General to share this with us tonight. Has he, as the Attorney-General, solved the problem of drugs getting into Oakalla? I want the Attorney-General to get up tonight and tell us that he knows how to stop drugs from getting into Oakalla.

Well, Mr. Attorney-General, if you're not able to tell us that, the next question I'm going to have to ask you is: have you shared your lack of knowledge with your colleague who is going to spend $14 million of the taxpayers' money in a bill that I won't mention to do exactly the thing that you say you don't know how to do? He claims he does know how to do it. We're spending tens of millions of dollars in your department creating young new addicts coming out of the east wing of Oakalla, and you don't know how to stop drugs from getting in there.

If I'm presenting a paradox, let that be the case. But in my 18 years in this Legislature on occasion I have demanded that I expect logic from a cabinet minister. Is it logical for the minister to allow a colleague to believe that he can lock up drug addicts and keep drugs away from them in one institution when there is not a single institution in all of North America that has successfully kept drugs out of that institution with the best of staff and the best of intentions?

Now I would also like the Attorney-General to share with this House the work of the former doctor, Dr. Guy Richmond, at Oakalla. prison farm. lie was prison doctor for 25 years at Oakalla prison farm - a fine man, retired, one of the leading prison experts in all of Canada. Dr. Guy Richmond should be called to this House and should be asked: Dr. Guy, in all your years at Oakalla, how many young people did you meet who had their first experience using drugs because of coming into contact with drug addicts in a prison setting? I don't want to put words in his mouth, but if we were brave enough to call the House committee together, Dr. Guy would tell you that a significant number of young people first learned to use drugs by contact in that institution.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your indulgence. I have strayed a bit and I have been a bit facetious. But the hypocrisy of the government's position has led me to this strain - the hypocrisy of an argument that somehow a cabinet minister knows how to keep drugs out of a jail when no such evidence, empirical or emotional, can prove that that indeed is the case. It's a little bit absurd.

I have not heard the chief law officer of this province give his opinion about housing drug addicts in an institution such as Oakalla. But I'd ' like to ask the Attorney-General: since he's been Attorney-General, does he know of any method that his staff has discovered of stopping drugs from coming into Oakalla prison farm? If the Attorney-General knows that, I'd like to hear him tonight. Tell us and assure us that no drugs are now getting into Oakalla prison farm and that he's discovered a method of control that will be absolutely necessary before any feasible institutionalization of addicts on a treatment programme will be successful. Is there any experience in the Attorney-General's wide variety of experience in education that leads him to believe that drug addicts in the east wing can be treated in that milieu when drugs, alcohol and every other contraband comes into the jail?

I would appreciate just a few words from the Attorney-General to reassure me that he's stopping all drugs from coming into the prisons of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the Attorney-General, I might remind members that we must not say things by one method which we are prohibited from saying by another method. I'm looking for the quotation and I know that all members will ensure that we don't violate that rule.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That was a very interesting

[ Page 2061 ]

discourse on the part of the hon. member who has had a long, somewhat varied experience in this particular field. I would say to him that he was dealing with an issue that is collateral, one that is certainly going to be very fully debated and considered in this House.

I do feel, though - and I don't think anyone will disagree with the fact - that it's not possible to legislate morality. But I think there's a great desire and, indeed, a mandate for people in elected office, be they in government or be they in opposition, to seek improvement, to try for reform and to attempt to develop attitudinal change. In order to do that, Mr. Member, I think it's sometimes necessary to try courses that perhaps have not been charted before. They may be totally successful, they may be fairly successful, or they could well be unsuccessful. But I think there's a complete responsibility upon society not to necessarily take its position that its hands and feet are shackled and its mind is in concrete and it can't go ahead and attempt to innovate.

Dealing specifically and only very shortly with a couple of items that you did mention, hon. member.... Just for your own interest, because I know you'll be interested in this, and not in any way reflecting upon your remarks or saying that this is a catch-all, end-all, be-all, insofar as the correction system in British Columbia is concerned, at the present time we have an excellent staff. As you said, many innovative measures have been taken in this province. I think we're looked upon by the rest of the country as innovators. I'd say that it is great credit to both this administration and the former administration. I say that unequivocally and I think that we've been able to make several strides. Many measures have been taken which have been criticized; some felt they would not work, but in fact, they are working. I would just give you an illustration of some. I think you'll be very interested in this, because you started off your remarks talking about some of the alternative programmes.

The temporary absence programme had a success rate in 1977 of 99.7 per cent. There were a total of 9,641 people who entered the temporary absence programme and the success rate, as I say, was that high, which is just a remarkable figure. There were 2,498 people employed, 35,000 person-days worked, and a total amount of nearly $1 million earned -$990,000. They paid fines of $19,004; they paid room and board of $74,000; and - a very interesting figure - they paid maintenance to their wives and to their children of $242,000. They paid income tax of some $200,000. So I would say that that programme's been highly successful.

Insofar as escapes and walk-aways were concerned, there was a 25 per cent decrease.

The sawmill operation was very successful. Lumber processed was $194,000, which represents a 70 per cent increase over 1976. In other forest camp operations, 280 man-hours were utilized in such things as nursery pallet construction, tree planting, tree spacing, lake cleanup, nursery work, access roads, fire suppression and so forth.

The community service order programmes total 2,900-odd juveniles and 2,500 adults. So on balance, I would say, Mr. Member, that these alternative programmes are working highly successfully.

I'd also say that the corrections branch is committed to these six philosophical directions in B.C.: to the dissolution of large, ineffective and outdated correctional centres, and we can't do that overnight. My friend from Vancouver East was chiding me this afternoon about the phase-out of Oakalla, saying it's not done. Well, steps have been taken towards that by the creation of the remand centres in Vancouver; by virtue of the remand centre which is also to be created in the lower mainland and the phase-out of Wilkinson Road; by virtue of proposals for new correctional facilities on the more northerly part of Vancouver Island. By that I mean the Nanaimo area upwards - in that general area.

AN HON. MEMBER: At Brannan Lake?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, it won't be at Brannan Lake.

There is a wide base of community programmes, as I've mentioned. We have a commitment to the smaller, more fully secure facilities for dangerous offenders; we're continuing on with prevention programmes and diversion programmes for juveniles and adults; and we're certainly going to stress the responsibility of offenders to their communities; and indeed, once again, we will request the community to be responsive. This is a job that can never, ever be done by law enforcement alone; it can never, ever be done by the police alone; it can never, ever by done by corrections alone. Without the community behind it, it won't work; with the community behind it, it can work.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Attorney-General for some of his statements. The temporary absence programme in this province was designed directly from the old Huber law in Wisconsin. Since the galleries

[ Page 2062 ]

are not too full tonight and neither is the chamber, I will take full credit for bringing in a private member's bill some 12 years ago advocating the Huber principle of self responsibility. 1 will give full marks to some experiments under the previous Social Credit administration and then the flowering of those programmes under the former Attorney-General and a continuation under the present Attorney-General.

I have not spoken on corrections matters for some time in this House, because the measures that you have stated have made tremendous progress, and it is a fact that I have been out of the field for some 15 years. However, I have maintained a passing interest in the field, and while these progressive steps have been gained in British Columbia, they did not come easy, Mr. Attorney-General. It was a major struggle on occasion to get across to governments of the day that alternative forms of dealing with human behaviour other than punishment is perhaps a method of dealing with the long-term problem.

The Attorney-General announces to this House that he has actually collected room and board for people in jail. I remember when I first proposed that idea; it was laughed at. It, should never have been laughed at. The idea that people should be directly personally responsible for their own behaviour in a free society is the best philosophy that one could possibly deal with in hoping for maturation. If you wanted any empirical evidence of that particular philosophy, just weigh exactly what the Attorney-General has told this House. Every single one of the programmes that he lauds - and 1 approve his laudatory remarks -has inherently in it a factor of personal, individual responsibility and a mature relationship between authority and the offender.

People do not run away from themselves when they've been confronted with their responsibility. The temporary absence record is better than even attendance in this House, Mr. Chairman. I suppose if one would remove the Whips, that might even improve the attendance here. If you diminish the direct authoritarian control and face the individual responsible with his own decision-making process, there is a higher level of response psychologically.

I want to tell the Attorney-4, -general: thank you, Mr. Attorney-General, for those wonderful figures. Thank you, for the day has long gone since we have had backbenchers of any side of this House standing up and yelling: "Lock them up, shut them away, punish them." You've won that fight, Mr. Attorney--Genera:l; I've won that fight; my colleague won that fight. And it's all been won for the people of British Columbia. We've now reached the point in our corrections programme of dealing with people on a far more mature basis. But lo and behold, there are voices that still clamour for the bad old times where people believed that by punishing someone you could exorcise the devil that made them do it out of their body. That's right. We even have an unnamed cabinet minister who's going to exorcise the drug devil out of the body of the drug offender. Lord knows, I want to thank that minister if he knows a way of exorcising that bad old devil, but it has never worked and it will not work.

I do not, Mr. Chairman, in response to the Attorney-General, when he is out of order talking about new programmes, say that I'm against new programmes. Not at all, Mr. Attorney-General, but I'm sure as heck against any idea that's already been tried 10 times and is a failure and I'm told to try it one more time with no evidence to give me a reason why I should try it again.

MR. KEMPF: Where do you stand on capital punishment?

MR. BARRETT: Well, in your case I'd consider my position as flexible.

MR. KEMPF: Give us an answer.

MR. BARRETT: I certainly will. You keep on talking and you'll convince me that you're right.

MR. MACDONALD: In your case we will make it retroactive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I must ask all members that if they're going to comment from their seats without being in their proper place, they must be at least in their proper place in this House before commenting.

I would caution the member once again. I know the Attorney-General swayed and they got a little off the track, and I know you're getting a little off the track. We're all going to have a great discussion on this a little later on.

MR. BARRETT: I won't sway and I won't be dissuaded by the interruptions. Those arguments will hang themselves.

Mr. Chairman, what I am going to say is this. I asked the Attorney-General in a very lengthy statement a simple question and he gave me a very lengthy reply avoiding a very

[ Page 2063 ]

simple question. So I won't embellish it; I won't give any argument. Can the Attorney-General tell me to his knowledge, is there any effective method of stopping drugs from getting into maximum security areas of Oakalla prison farm?

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to that question, hon. member, I mention to you that one can regulate until one is blue in the face and one can enforce until one is blue in the face, but one hasn't always a great measure of success. I'm informed that certainly over the last while, the drug "problem!' as it exists in the institutions in our province is nothing like it was.

Far be it from me to get into the field of conjecture, but perhaps one of the reasons, apart from having good staff and having people who are doing their jobs 24 hours of the day, is the fact of the price of the particular article at the present time. It is to a considerable extent marketing itself out of the correctional institutions, and that indeed is a very good thing.

I was mentioning to you - and I forgot to say this when I was last on my feet - that the correctional regulations have been under a great deal of scrutiny and review apparently over about the last four years. These are the ones that emanated in 1961 - which I suppose was during the days when you were in the field - and they have certainly outworn their time. As a result of a considerable amount of input from just about every type of interested organization, professional and lay, that you can think of, a new set of regulations has been promulgated. I hope to have those before my colleagues in cabinet for an order-in-council within the next two weeks.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I won't beat this to death. Let me say that the Attorney--General does not know of any method of keeping drugs out of any prison. If I am putting incorrect words in the Attorney-General's mouth, I would ask him then to get up and say that my statement is wrong and that he knows of a foolproof method of keeping drugs out of those prisons. There is no such foolproof method. Drugs do get into any prison setting. There is no knowledge that I know of up until the present moment in studying all current literature that leads me to believe that anyone has any information of a method of keeping drugs out of a prison or a hospital setting where drug addicts are.

Mr. Attorney-General, you said that the price of drugs goes up. That is correct. That means, however, that the price has to be met.

If the drug addict must meet the price in jail, we must talk frankly here in this chamber about what those prices include.

I think it should be understood - and I want to say this without the least amount of emotion in my voice or without any sensationalism - that the real life of a prison institution does not whirl around bartering of money alone. When I mention to the Attorney-General that young people's first experience with drugs is in penal institutions, there are other prices that are paid for services in a penal institution. Among those prices, the first experience is homosexuality. It is a recorded fact that in an unnatural setting such as a penal institution in a confined area where limited recreational opportunities exist and where limited extensive staff services exist such as awaiting-trial areas in the west wing of Oakalla, the first experience one has with the whole unseemly side of life that is rarely discussed in this institution is there, and it is used for barter. It is a fact that anybody - police, corrections officers or anyone else - knows. Where money is not used as exchange, human favours are. It is a fact that if an addict craves the use of drugs and you have no money to pay, then other services are used in exchange for payment.

Access to money and access to bargaining goods vary on the outside of the institution and trades take place outside for favours as well. It is not uncommon for favours to be done outside the institution for goods or services to be delivered inside the institution. Even though the price of drugs are driven up, it does not mean to say that the supply diminishes; it means that the ante goes higher in the jail where money does not change hands in the first place.

Mr. Attorney-General, I am sharing with you a very serious concern. Every bit of evidence that we have gathered in this field in North America indicates that in an unnatural gathering of young drug users and young people who are not drug users, the infestation is very, very high by the drug users. In unnatural gatherings of frequent drug users with sometime drug users, the incidence of increased drug use rises dramatically with the newly established milieu of a heavier number of users influencing that particular area.

I warn the Attorney-General of this province very quietly and finally: he does not know of any method of stopping drugs from getting into the Oakalla prison farm. I warn him that the continuation exists, by the placing of young addicts in with older addicts of expanding habits in that institution.

I advise him that it is a matter of record

[ Page 2064 ]

that more young people have started using drugs in the west wing and the east wing of prison on a per capita-population ratio after their experience in jail than on the streets. I want to admonish him, with the understanding that he has no way of telling this House that he has any knowledge of keeping drugs out of that jail. Of course I am setting the ground for a later debate, but what greater opportunity than to refer to what already exists: drugs get into jails. You build jails, you put in drug addicts and drugs get in no matter what the price.

Mr. Attorney-General, you have no information to dispose of my argument, you have no experience to dispose of my argument and you have no facts to indicate that you have a method or experience or theory that can be shared with any other department of government that would keep drugs away from any kind of confined setting where addicts are. I can't say it any more sincerely than I say now. This Attorney-General has to show that he is perhaps one of the more reasonable people in this government, considering that his philosophy, at least, was Liberal at one occasion before he joined that group.

But I want an explanation from the Attorney-General of this province. If he can't tell us tonight that he can keep drugs out of Oakalla, why would he allow a colleague to consider building another prison that drugs can't be kept out of either?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just a couple of words, Mr. Chairman. I must confess, the Leader of the Official Opposition is continuing to stray from the vote. What he is indicating is that he is searching for a perfect society, and I'm afraid this is something we're going to find very difficult to locate on this particular globe.

He talks about foolproof methods. I don't suppose there is any foolproof method of people not driving on the wrong side of the road, or drinking too much, or eating too much, or committing crime. There is no foolproof method that people will live up to their responsibilities, but there is certainly the capacity and desire of society to seek improvement and to see that we can attempt to do things to have people do things in a more accomplished and better fashion. That is precisely what we are doing. We are committed to development in the correctional system, Mr. Member, of smaller, more manageable facilities. We have spoken to that point. They are capable of a greater degree of control, and certainly an opportunity for the greater reformation of the individual who happens to be doing his time.

MR. BARRETT: The Attorney-General continues to prompt me to make further remarks because his arguments bear stronger weight on logic than what I have been able to present up to this point.

The Attorney-General gets up and almost chronically states again the very philosophy that has been successful in his corrections branch. That is decentralization, individual responsibility, options of programme. Each one ultimately leads to reformation or readjustment in society based on an individual voluntarily, given those options, accepting them or rejecting them, and, in the case where mature options are given, the record of achievement of readjustment is significant. Why then, with the knowledge that you can't keep drugs out of an institution, with the knowledge that the most successful programmes run are those that are on an individual flexible basis - voluntarily arrived at: between the defender and the state - must we be forced to go 10 steps back into rhetoric and Emotion to satisfy another minister's dream that has no foundation in fact, based by the very words of this minister?

I won't say any more. I think 1 have made the point that you can't stop drugs from getting into a jail. The only successful way you treat the offender is on an individual voluntary programme and anything else.... All of them have been tried, and they are all failures.

MS. BROWN: I'd like to talk to the minister about the Proudfoot report.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, as a result of some allegations made by some of the inmates in the women's prison at Oakalla, the women's correctional institute, the Attorney-General had an RCMP investigation. As a result of that investigation, he established the royal commission headed by Madame Justice Proudfoot to look into these allegations. The commission was supposed to deal with the incarceration of female offenders. Throughout the entire session of hearings there were reports in the press, and then in May the report was tabled in this House. The Attorney-General made a couple of perfunctory statements and then there was silence.

I think that's really interesting, the silence that followed the tabling of the Proudfoot report - silence not just from the Attorney-General's department, silence not just from the press but silence from all the women's groups in British Columbia as well. That is particularly interesting because, if

[ Page 2065 ]

you will remember, Mr. Chairman, and if you will put your mind back to the royal commission report on the status of women which was tabled in the federal House, the kinds of activities that followed that and the kinds of efforts put out by women's groups right across Canada to see to it that the recommendations brought down by that royal commission were implemented, then you have to ask yourself why there has been such deafening silence as a result of the tabling of the Proudfoot commission report in the House.

I think, if you do an analysis of it, you will find that the Proudfoot commission, to a large extent, deals with the administrative things that have to do with the women's correctional institute at Oakalla and very little with the whole area of the destructive way in which the prison system deals with women who find themselves to be victims of it. So I want to break that silence tonight by talking about a couple of the things that are covered by the Proudfoot commission report.

I want to start out with the good things first - that is to say, that the royal commission report deals with the establishment of a direct line of authority from the Women's Correctional Institute at Oakalla to the Attorney-General's ministry. I think that's very positive and, quite frankly, I think it is the only positive recommendation of any serious nature that I can find in the report to talk about.

The other things that the report deals with, of course, are programmes. What we find is that a number of the programmes which are recommended are programmes which used to exist at that correctional institute and were allowed to atrophy or to disappear. I'm speaking to the Chairman; I may be looking at you, Mr. Attorney-General, but I'm speaking to the Chairman.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm pointing at the atrophier. He's just leaving the House.

MS. BROWN: The judge placed the blame on one person, you're placing it on another. I'm not really interested in where the blame lies. I'm really interested at this point in what we're going to do about changing it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Fair enough.

MS. BROWN: Fair enough, as you say. But a number of the programmes which are recommended really need to be reinstated. They're not new. There's no initiative or any radical kind of change recommended in it. Certainly I hope that the silence on the part of the Attorney-General's ministry means that those programmes are going to be reinstated and that, once again, we'll have some kind of decent programme for the women who find themselves victims of the correctional system.

The report, however, brings in three particular recommendations that I find really quite appalling. I want to deal with them in some detail this evening. I want to start out with the statements made about the native Indian women. I'm going to quote from the report which I know the minister has on his desk, page 142. It says: "In summary, this commission does not see any special problems presently surrounding the incarceration of native women and accordingly makes no specific recommendations in this area." That is the most appalling statement I have ever heard made about the plight of native women in the prison system. I have myself visited Oakalla and I have myself visited with the native women who are in Oakalla. I did this on their express wish to talk to me about the kinds of problems that they're having in the system -also as a result of a request from the Indian Centre Society which has its headquarters in the Vancouver Burrard constituency.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, the native women have very special problems in that institution: problem dealing with cultural isolation and problems dealing with their perception, anyway, of discrimination. They're the very last to be dealt with in any kind of issue and they feel that they're not dealt with in a serious manner in any kind of issues and certainly are not dealt with fairly.

Two groups made presentations to the Proudfoot commission, dealing specifically with the plight of native Indian women. One of these groups was headed by Blanche McDonald, herself a native Indian woman, and by Flora Hogarth. I think they refer to themselves in the commission report as a community group dealing with native women. They didn't give them elves an official title as such. They presented a very detailed brief about the plight of native women at the Prince George institution as well as at the Oakalla Correctional Institute.

They talked about the alienation of the native women. They talked about the isolation. They talked about the fact that a number of the "crimes" that they were supposed to be in there for were cultural kinds of crime - the fact that they were often picked up for vagrancy and, because they had no known address, were thrown into Oakalla; the fact that they were sometimes picked up for alcoholism or for drug-related crimes or for prostitution; the fact that no plans were ever made in terms of their rehabilitation; the fact

[ Page 2066 ]

that any attempts that they made to escape were dealt with in the most harsh methods possible; and their general feeling that although life is never very pleasant for any of the women in these institutions, certainly it was made doubly unpleasant for them.

They dealt with the fact that when statistics were being recorded on the number of native women in prison, they were based on a visual count. If you looked Indian you were marked off as being Indian; if you didn't look Indian, regardless of whether you were or not, you didn't come under that statistic. In fact, when the Proudfoot commission used the statistics, these were the faulty statistics which they used. Blanche Macdonald and the native Indian court worker, when they made their recommendations to the Proudfoot commission, were forced to use a Saskatchewan statistic because in fact Saskatchewan makes some attempt to deal with the reality of native women in the prison system, whereas certainly we do not.

In dealing with this group, the judge said: "The commission is not convinced that there is a problem of great magnitude regarding native women in the prison system." Yet at any time, Mr. Chairman, that one chooses to visit the Oakalla Correctional Institute and do a head count of the number of women in prison, there is a disproportionate number of native Indian women to the number of native Indian women in the female population in British Columbia.

This is the reality of the situation - that in fact a lot of their crimes that they are in prison for have to do with poverty and discrimination and these other kinds of things. We find a royal commission established to look at the whole area of women in prison bringing down a recommendation that says that there is no perception of any special problem dealing with native women surrounding the incarceration of native women, therefore making not even one specific recommendation in this area, and then going on to give a misrepresentation to the effect that the Prince George institution was designed to deal with the problems of native Indian women in the north. The feeling was that, in fact, it wasn't being utilized properly, that it was proving to be too expensive, and that one should seriously look at the whole business of its continued existence.

I'm hoping, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney-General's ministry is not going to take this recommendation seriously, because it is not a serious recommendation and there is no doubt whatsoever that the commissioner, Judge Proudfoot, has not done a good job of investigating the plight of the native Indian woman and the impact of our penal institutions and our correctional system on these women.

The whole impact of the justice system on native Indians of both sexes is one that's always been a disgrace in this country. For a royal commission to say there is no recommendation because there is no perception of any special problem is immediately to throw some suspicion on the validity and the relevance of any kind of recommendations brought down by that royal commission. So I'm asking the Attorney-General to ignore that recommendation and to look at the whole issue of native Indian women in the institution.

In that regard, I would suggest that he contact Judge Proudfoot. I don't know whether she has tabled the brief submitted to her with this report or not. But if she hasn't....

HON. MR. GARDOM: No.

MS. BROWN: She hasn't? Okay, then I would like to suggest that the minister avail himself of the submission made by the Ad Hoc Citizens Advisory Group headed by Dr. Pauline Hewett, Mrs. Flora Hogarth, Mrs. Sanderson and Mrs. Blanche Macdonald, because they did indeed take up almost a whole day of the hearings. The other group, of course, is the group represented by the president of the Haida nation, Mrs. Lightbown, Mrs. Klyne and Mr. Campbell, in liaison with some of the native courtworkers. Those two briefs, I think, need to be read by the Attorney-General and need the Attorney-General to deal with his own recommendations in that area.

The report has been a grave disappointment indeed to the women in the community because, as I said before, it has dealt specifically with administration and has not addressed itself to the more serious idea of the way in which women are treated under the penal system. It's ludicrous, really, when you read some of the statements by the member for Coquitlam himself, who says that Oakalla women's Section 1s almost subhuman. He's not a royal commissioner, yet on his visit to the centre he could see. He said on a tour of the institution earlier this year that the conditions in the women's section of Oakalla are almost subhuman. In physical terms, the place is not only depressing, but it is almost subhuman. Again, as I talk about my own experience with visiting Oakalla, I would certainly like to associate myself with the remarks made by the member for Coquitlam in terms of the lack of privacy for the women prisoners and the generally very poor and inadequate situation under which the women in that institution were forced to live. The

[ Page 2067 ]

Proudfoot commission did not address itself in any meaningful way to the reality of that situation.

The second point that I want to talk about is her recommendation, Mr. Chairman, dealing with the Lynda William Home. I want to tell you a little bit about the Lynda Williams Home before I tell you about her submission. The Lynda Williams Home is a halfway house which is located again in the constituency of Vancouver-Burrard. It's a home in which women who are released from Oakalla, before they are released into the community in general, spend some time. It's on West 15th, if you are looking for the address.

But anyway, I'm sure the minister knows about the Lynda Williams Home. It's located on West 15th near Ontario. It's a residence where the women released from Oakalla, before being fully released - I guess it's referred to as a pre-release home - to go into the community at large, spend some time.

The Lynda Williams Home is very strictly run. For one thing, no one who has had any drug-related offences is permitted to live there. This is one of the stipulations made by the municipality of Vancouver in terms of allowing the home to be located right in a residential area of the city. They said definitely they did not want any women with drug-related offences to be located in the Lynda Williams Home. However, women with other offences were permitted to be there, whether it is homicide, prostitution, robbery, breaking and entering, whatever it is.

It was a halfway house. The women lived in the House and they were able to have jobs and they would return to the house at the end of each day. There was 24-hour supervision. It's an expensive commodity, there isn't any question about it. But once they found jobs, they were charged. They had to pay $40 a week, or $6 a day. That would work out at $42 a week for their room and board while they lived in the house. They went to work each day.

As I said, it was a work release programme. They were allowed to take courses. The y were allowed to visit with relatives and friends. They were allowed to have their children visiting them because, of course, there are a number of women in the system who are mothers, and a number of them who are single parents. There were women with problems with alcoholism and, as I said before, prostitution and whatever. It was a transition period where they learned how to re-establish themselves in the community at large. It was expensive. There isn't any question about it, this kind of programme costs money.

I received a letter on May 16, after the recommendation by the royal commission came down.

First, I want to read the recommendation, which was that the Lynda Williams Home was to be closed. The commission said: "The province simply cannot afford a luxury such as the Lynda Williams Home." A luxury, Mr. Chairman. I want to read you the letter which I received Ray 16 from a woman who has asked that her name not be used. She is presently in the Lynda Williams Rome and she is working. It says:

"Rosemary Brown,

"Legislative Buildings, "Victoria, B.C.

"Dear Rosemary:

"Firstly 1 would like to introduce myself. I am presently a resident of the Lynda Williams community house. I am on an educational and work release programme, and will be eligible for parole in August.

"As my situation is now, I will, in all likelihood., be on supervised home leave in the immediate future. So the closing of this house will probably not have too great a personal effect on me. However, I do not feel that this closure is either necessary or right. At this time, I ask that you look at this distressing situation.

"Along with a few of my reasons for objecting to this closure I am enclosing a petition with over 100 signatures protesting this move. We obtained a 93 per cent vote from a poll in the immediate neighbourhood protesting the closure of this centre."

I want to digress here to say that the neighbours were against the Lynda Williams Home being located there. A number of us, including the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) and 1, had to write support letters to the city of Vancouver and the community at large asking that the Lynda Williams Home be allowed to be located in the community. These same neighbours who didn't want the home located there, 100 of them - 93 per cent of the people living around the Lynda Williams home -have signed a petition, which I am going to place with the minister for his information, asking that the home be kept open. She goes on to say:

"This centre is the only halfway type of house on the British Columbia mainland which is available to women - it is the only one. There are a variety of residences for men in Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby and New Westminster, to name just a few in the surrounding area. The suggestion of the Panabode reopening at Oakalla

[ Page 2068 ]

is not the solution to many of our problems."

One of the things that Judge Proudfoot suggested was that the Panabode, which is adjoining the Oakalla building, should be reopened for this purpose, totally ignoring the fact that the Panabode is not located in the community. The whole point of the Lynda Williams home is that it is in the community. They can go through the gates, down the street and catch a bus and go to work. That's the whole point of the Lynda Williams Home. When you are in a Panabode at Oakalla, it's just not the same.

"As federal prisoners we are not permitted to serve our sentence at a provincial centre like Oakalla. With the closure of the women's unit at Prince George, federal inmates of the feminine sex will be forced to serve their sentences either at Twin Maples or Kingston, Ontario. As you are aware, Kingston is a long way from where most of our families and friends live, and at Twin Maples an educational work programme is not feasible due to the great distance from both the job market and from schools and colleges.

"While an inmate at Oakalla, I heard of the programme that had been offered at the Panabode previously. This was from some of the inmates who found the programme so helpful that they completed it several times and were presently back in Oakalla doing time for the same or similar offences as before. How can this be called a successful programme? It was obviously not working for them, and I foresee no reason for it to be any more successful at this point in time.

"Over the past year, out of 63 residents who have used the Lynda Williams home, 42 have been successfully discharged, an average that is more than comparable with most penal institutions. It. is something like 5/8ths of the people. Lynda Williams does not have a full count...."

This is one of the things that Judge Proudfoot pointed out, that the house wasn't full. She is complaining that there aren't enough prisoners to fill the house. You know, I may be crazy, but it seem to me that if there are not enough prisoners to fill the house, you should feel good about it. She feels terrible that there are not enough prisoners to fill the house.

However, this woman goes on to say:

"This happens mainly because Oakalla and Twin Maples appear to dislike classifying people here, and we feel that it has been a misguided sense of trying to keep their own count up to justify their existence at our expense. Lynda Williams Home works positively towards rehabilitation, getting residents re-educated if necessary, and back into the working force and the community as positive citizens."

"A resident receives a small sum each day while attending school or looking for work. After being employed for about 10 days, each resident is asked to contribute $6 a day for their room and board."

That's even less than the long-term care.

"If circumstances warrant, a resident may be asked to pay back part of any tuition paid out on their behalf. All employed residents also contribute to society in the form of income tax and other payroll deductions. Exact figures on this are not available to me at this time, but I do know that this programme has been very successful for a number of us who have used the home.

"The Lynda Williams' house has been operating for over one year directly across the street from a community centre. The very positive position that we have with many of the members of that organization speaks for itself. We have here a clean, respectable, well-run home for many different women: the older as well as the first-time offenders, many of whom do not understand English, the teenage mother who is able to have her baby visit her on weekends, or the in-between square John who does not fit into the prison squalor.

"We and many others need this community correction centre to get our lives back into place. How can they close it down and justify returning us to Oakalla, especially after all the allegations that have been made about that place?"

"I speak for all the residents here at the Lynda William ' centre. Please see what you can do regarding this totter. I work full-time but may be reached between 3:30 and midnight" - she gives her telephone number - "and I will be willing, as I said before, to share this information with the Attorney-General. My employer is not aware of my circumstances so I would ask you to keep my identity quiet."

Mr. Chairman, I really would like to say a number of other things about the Lynda Williams' home. As you have pointed out to me, my time is almost up. I'm just wondering whether any of my colleagues would intercede on my behalf - why not? - so that I may get up again, because I want to say some more.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Perhaps I could save you some time and make you happy if you sat down.

[ Page 2069 ]

MS. BROWN: No, I'm not happy about sitting down because I have a number of more things to say about the Proudfoot report and about the whole business of women and the justice system. So I will be up again, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Would you like some response to some of the items you have, raised?

MS. BROWN: Yes, I would.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It is a very lengthy re port; it covers 57 points, Madam Member, as you know, by far the bulk of which have already been attended to and addressed.

First of all, I would certainly like to say that we continue to be concerned with the needs of any specific group of offenders, and it certainly is the intention of the ministry and the corrections group to see that native and other women from the north who don't require secure accommodation will have access to community placements in the north. The corrections side of the ministry is going to continue, as they have in the past and as recommended by Madam Justice Proudfoot, to use volunteers and community groups to assist them in dealing with the particular problems of this cultural group.

Now dealing with the report itself, as I've said, there were 57 recommendations; I do believe something like 54, if memory serves, have already been attended to. Without going through that list, I will just maybe highlight some of the ones for you.

The director of the Oakalla women's centre is now reporting directly to the regional director of corrections and the centre is functioning as an independent unit.

Before the report was received, I had the great pleasure of attending the unit out there and having discussions with Mrs. Peacock and a tour in company with the deputy. It was very informative. I certainly was extremely impressed with the dedication and the skill of the staff. I think we are very fortunate in having those people in corrections in this province.

Funds have been made available to respond to staff training and programme needs. Staff roles have been reallocated in the women's centre to provide specialist functions.

The Human Rights Commission guidelines have been followed with respect to male working staff working in women's correctional centres.

The correctional centres regulations, which, as I've indicated to the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , are now in the very final stages of completion, and hopefully will be a fait accompli within the next two weeks.

Before I get to the Lynda Williams Home, I would say that a number of the functions which have previously been rotated among the staff at the women's correctional centre in Oakalla will be assigned to particular staff people. Included in that will be housekeeping, laundry, grounds maintenance, kitchen, beauty parlour and volunteer co-ordination functions. A full-time recreational director will be appointed. Personnel which has previously been handled by the men's division is now being transferred to the women's centre. Additional functions such as the handling of inmate accounts will be transferred as soon as staffing arrangements are taken care of. The training resources are being directed on a priority basis towards meeting the needs of the staff at the women's centre. The school and the sewing programme are going to be upgraded. An orientation programme for inmates is in operation and staff are being trained to enable them to provide some of the leadership in a night-school programme. Volunteers are certainly going to be continued to be recruited in order to provide this kind of leadership. I'm very happy to say that community agencies such as Elizabeth Fry have indeed indicated their willingness to contribute to these kinds of expanded programmes.

Insofar as the Lynda Williams centre is concerned, we now know that the Vancouver board of variance has taken action to allow an increase in the capacity of the residents from 10 to 13 and in the type of offenders who could be considered for placement in the house. The Lynda Williams house is therefore going to be maintained in operation for the present. Instructions have been given that specific initiatives should be taken to increase utilization and to reduce costs. This decision of the Vancouver board of variance will allow an increase in utilization to occur and the current levels of staffing are going to be examined to determine whether they are required.

I think you will agree with me that that is an efficient step to take. We certainly don't wish to be overstaffing something at the expense of another area where we are going to have to do a job and get ourselves into a catchup situation. The future of the Lynda Williams Community Correctional Centre is on the basis that it is going to continue for six months to allow for an assessment of whether its rate of utilization can be increased and its cost of operation decreased to the point where the programme can be both beneficial and cost-effective. If it is beneficial and cost-effective, it will continue. If it is not beneficial and cost-effective, we will have to

[ Page 2070 ]

take another look.

MS. BROWN: I'm really very pleased to hear about the decision affecting the Lynda Williams Home. I was not aware that you had decided to extend its life for an additional six months. Certainly I think that the criteria of "beneficial and cost-effective" is a good one. I would like to suggest that maybe the priorities should be beneficial first. Sometimes one has to sacrifice cost in the short term for a programme which is beneficial. Sometimes the long-term costs far outweigh the short-term costs. I think my main complaint with the Proudfoot report was that she placed so much emphasis on short-term costs and didn't take into account either social costs or the long-term costs of terminating some of these programmes.

I am very pleased to hear about the decision to extend the life of the Lynda Williams Home for six months. I will certainly continue to monitor the home myself in terms of its usefulness. You didn't mention whether women with drug-related crimes were now going to be allowed to.... Did the board relax its ruling in that particular area?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm going to have to get some more information.

MS. BROWN: I see. I know that was certainly one of the areas that we were concerned about.

The other report's recommendation with which I take issue has to do with the, whole business of solitary confinement. Again the Proudfoot commission recommendation was that she did not find this kind of incarceration to be inhuman or destructive in any way. I certainly want to disagree with her in the utmost. All the reports that we have on the way in which isolation is used by the Oakalla correctional centre say it is indeed destructive, and that the facilities are worse than subhuman. Indeed a number of the briefs presented to the Proudfoot commission recommended the abolition of solitary confinement altogether.

If I can read from one of the briefs - this is the one which, I think, was submitted by the B.C. Federation of Women - it said that solitary confinement is an inhuman and barbaric method of punishment and that it is being used indiscriminately by the Oakalla women's correctional centre. The recommendation was that it should be abolished. I'm wondering whether the Attorney-General is going to support the recommendation made by Mrs. Justice Proudfoot, or whether he would ask again for the brief presented to the royal commission by the B.C. Federation of Women, as well as the prisoners' rights group, on this particular issue. Then there is my own brief which I presented to that royal commission in which I spoke specifically against the use of isolation.

All psychological studies - everything that has been done - show that this kind of emotional and sensory deprivation does nothing but harm, that it really is indeed a barbaric and inhuman method of punishment, and one which we shouldn't have to resort to in this day and age. Also it is abused. You know, I had stories related to me when I was at Oakalla of women being thrown into solitary just for the most petty of crimes, because they happened to get on the nerves of whoever the wardens were at the time or whatever. So I certainly want to support the recommendation about the abolishment of solitary confinement.

The other recommendation made by the commission which I want to take issue with and disagree with very strenuously is the whole business of male guards in the women's section, if the Attorney-General is listening. Maybe in the future there may be a day - who knows? - when it will be possible for these two groups to live in a weird sort of situation like a penal institution and relate to each other without one being oppressed by the other, but it isn't happening at this point. The women in the prisons are saying themselves that they are not secure, that they have no privacy and that they feel intimidated and oppressed by the presence of male guards in their side of the institution. A number of the briefs which they presented to the commission, a number of the briefs presented by women's groups on their behalf, by prisoners' rights groups on their behalf.... Certainly in speaking to people who have visited the prisons, they have said they do not want male guards on their side of the institution.

Now the Proudfoot commission dismissed this and thought that it was not the correct way to go. She felt that it would be possible to have male guards in the women's section of the prison as long as they were confined to certain areas, as long as they did not violate the privacy of the women prisoners. Women prisoners are totally at the mercy of guards. They have no security, they have no power, they have no independence and they have no privacy, and they have requested on more than one occasion that the male guards be removed.

Now one of the statements made by the judge was that she thought that the presence of male guards would cut down on the incidence of homosexuality. She may be quite right; I don't know. But I do know that there are some thing in life that worry us more than homosexuality;

[ Page 2071 ]

that is not the worst of all possible things that happen to women in prisons. Certainly the women in the prisons are saying that that is not their major fear, that in fact the lack of privacy which they have to tolerate as a result of the male guards being present in their Section 1s much more oppressive to them and much more difficult to tolerate than any kind of fear of their being seduced into homosexuality. I want to take very strong issue with the judge's recommendation in this area. Again I ask the Attorney-General whether he is indeed going to implement this recommendation on her part or whether he is going to adhere to the requests of a number of the women prisoners, which is that these guards, for the time being anyway, be removed from their section of the prison.

The other thing has to do with facilities, and I noted the minister has said there are going to be more sewing machines and more hairdressing facilities and one thing and another. One of the major concerns, certainly, that the women expressed to me when I visited Oakalla was that the only options open to them were hairdressing, sewing and cooking or baking - or whatever the other was - and that in fact they did not have access to decent educational facilities, they did not have access to explore other skills and other trades. They were really locked into the stereotype of coming out fully skilled hairdressers or fully skilled seamstresses or knowing how to bake or to cook. The whole idea is that the woman's place is in the home when, of course, most of these women are not going to return to their home. They are going to have to go out of prison and into the labour market to work to support themselves. They are coming out of the system which is supposed to rehabilitate them with no skills whatsoever.

Their other concern was that they would take these courses, complete them and would have no diploma or piece of paper or whatever indicating that they had completed a course of training. So if they were to apply for a job, they would say, "Well, I did complete a course of training, " but they would have nothing to prove this. They would have no certificate of diploma or anything which would say that Miss X or Mrs. Y, as the case may be, has successfully completed a course in heavy duty mechanics or in plumbing or bricklaying or whatever, and is now ready and able to hold a job in this particular trade with these particular skills.

So I am asking the Attorney-General first of all about expanding the options open to women in the prison system. Not all women who are prisoners want to be hairdressers. Not all women want to be seamstresses. Some of them do and some of them are very good at it, but not every woman who is in Oakalla wants to do that. I'm not sure of the third option they mentioned, but I think it has to do with being in the kitchen somewhere, either cooking or baking or whatever.

It's ludicrous, Mr. Chairman, to equip these women with skills which will make them homemakers when they're not going to come out of the system to be homemakers. In fact they're coming out of the system to go onto the labour market. What they need are some good, solid skills and trades that they can go out and find jobs in. You would be much better off to have a heavy-duty mechanic's course, or to have plumbing or bricklaying or electrical work or bus driving or something, that kind of option open to the women in the system, rather than hairdressing or sewing. There's a glut of hairdressers on the market, Mr. Chairman. I know you don't use a hairdresser yourself, so you may not realize this, but there is a glut of hairdressers on the market. We don't need any more hairdressers.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know he doesn't use a hairdresser?

MS. BROWN: Well, maybe he does use a hairdresser, but we don't need any more hairdressers on the market. We don't need any more seamstresses. Really what the system should be doing is working in co-operation with the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Labour, finding out what the job situation is, what kinds of skills are needed, and ensuring that these options are open to the women who we are supposed to be "rehabilitating . " The whole system makes a mockery of the concept of rehabilitation. They are not rehabilitated. They come out of the system, they have no money.

One of the things that one of the women in the brief pointed out was that they didn't even have decent clothes when they came out of the system. They were thrown onto the labour market with no skills. Even the ones who took the course and completed it had no certificate or anything to serve as proof that they had, indeed, completed a course.

There are a number of other areas, of course, Mr. Chairman. I agree with the minister that there are 57 recommendations and some of them are not bad. They're okay. They're superficial; they don't really deal with the guts of the problem. But anyway, they're not bad. I'm not going to deal with them all in detail.

I want to quote from Dr. Marie Bertrand, who

[ Page 2072 ]

said that women's prisons are no worse than women's lives. She says: "Women inside are not only up against their oppression as prisoners, but they must as well face their oppression as women in a male-dominated society." They are approximately 8 per cent of the total prison population and for that reason have had to live with the well-worn excuse for neglecting them that there just aren't enough of them around to warrant spending enough of the government's money to give them the kind of facilities that they need. We're saying we're tired of that now. It's time to clean up your act not just within Prince George and the women's correctional centre at Oakalla, but also the kinds of options open to women in the halfway houses too, in improved counseling services, job training, and options open to them and the whole business of improved recreational facilities.

When I was at Oakalla, 1 found that they had one pool table and I congratulated them and said: "Well, at least the government bought you a pool table." They said: "No, one of the ex-inmates had bought a pool table and given it to the system because she remembered when she was in there that there were no facilities." That is how chintzy the situation is and how limited.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's what makes it work better, when people have that interest.

MS. BROWN: It does not make it work better, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General. I will not accept that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, we've different points of view.

MS. BROWN: There should be facilities in there. We're supposed to be rehabilitating these people. If we're not going to rehabilitate them, let's not stand up and make fine speeches about rehabilitation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Don't destroy people's initiative, though, to do something themselves.

MS. BROWN: Oh, initiatives are great. When you put people behind bars and you talk about rehabilitating them, they're going to deliver the goods. It's not being done in the women's section at Oakalla. The recreational facilities are an insult and a disgrace to us as a nation. We're not a poor country, Mr. Chairman; we're not an emerging nation. We can afford decent facilities and the least we should do is ensure that they exist. It has absolutely nothing to do with initiative. It has to do with deprivation and it has to do with discrimination and it has to do with exploitation and it has to do with oppression and we should do something about it. I certainly hope that the Attorney-General is not going to sit there and say that for the prisoners, when they get out, to turn around and buy stuff for the prison is a sign of any kind of initiative.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Don't embellish.

MS. BROWN: I'm being very moderate in my statements tonight. I read my horoscope and it said I should be moderate, so I'm being very moderate in my statements tonight. You're getting me at my best.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Let me see your horoscope for tomorrow.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I want the Attorney-General to tell me about the advisory council to monitor what's going on in the women's prisons because this is one of the recommendations which the Proudfoot commission brought down which I certainly support. It's one of the recommendations included in my own submission to the Proudfoot commission, and in the submission of a number of the other women's groups in and around the Vancouver area. The minister has not said whether he's going to establish that advisory committee or not. So 1 would certainly like to hear a comment on that and also how he is going to go about establishing the committee - who is going to be on it, and what their terms of reference will be.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one thing that doesn't have to do with the report, and that concerns the Legal Services Commission. There are two gaps - or is it one gap - left on the Legal Services Commission. I think it is one gap. There are no women. I know that names have been recommended to the minister, and I know that certainly the province numbers among its female population a number of outstanding women who would be willing to serve on the Legal Services Commission.

In view of the fact that the Legal Services Commission addresses itself to males as well as females in the province, I'm wondering whether the minister has taken a serious look at some of the names recommended to him, and whether he has made any decision about that final appointment which has to be made to the commission, in terms of it being either a layperson.... I'm not sure if it's a layperson who's missing or if it's one of the professio-

[ Page 2073 ]

nals on the commission, but I know that we would be very disappointed indeed if the appointment was made and it turned out to be yet another male.

I wonder if the minister would like to respond to a couple of those questions.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. member covered a number of points here, Mr. Chairman.

First, insofar as the facilities are concerned, I made some comments at the outset, and I think that rather than take the time of the committee, there is really no requirement for me to reiterate those.

The hon. member talked about the question of segregation. There are new regulations, as I say, that are in their final stages, and I'm sure that you will be very happy with those regulations. I'm going to say that they will continue to permit the use of segregation, but they will be very closely monitored. At the present time in our institutions there are very few control options available. And segregation is an item that is required on a limited basis in the interests of the inmate in many situations, and in the interests of the peace, good order and security of operation of the institution. Any abuses of the use of segregation will now be something that can be fully and properly examined by virtue of the new regulations. 1 think you will probably find these the most modern of their kind in the country.

Insofar as the educational programme is concerned, we are continuing to explore ways of expanding the educational programme and developing new life skills by using staff and volunteers. As we've mentioned, accreditation is definitely being explored with the educational institutions. I agree with you, it is sort of pointless to teach basketweaving. I'm being a little cynical when I say that; basketweaving is not going to be of assistance or use to people. But I think the primary thing is to try to give people an interest to relieve boredom and to help improve themselves and develop their personalities.

I must say that in one sense we are recycling the wheel here, because we used to have some pretty good programmes in institutions and they disappeared. I chink there is a requirement for them to come back. There have always been two competing philosophies there, and I may see one across the floor. But I still feel that it is a question of balance. You can't go all one way or all the other. I think the principal thing we do not wish to do is house within four walls those people who should not be housed within four walls. But if it is possible to motivate those people who are in there, we've certainly got to make a good attempt.

Finally, dealing with the male guards in women's sections, the human rights regulations are being observed at the present time. I'm informed that about three men are being maintained, but they're being maintained in posts like carpentry and records and they're not in the living units. We're completely following the recommendation of Madame Justice Proudfoot insofar as the desire for privacy and all of the requirements for human decency are concerned.

I think I've answered your questions.

MS. BROWN: The minister forgot to respond to my question about the appointment to the Legal Services Commission.

HON. MR. GARDOM: There is an opening at the present time for one of the posts on the Legal Services Commission. I may say that there is consideration being given, which is not finalized yet - this is not cast in stone in any sense of the word - for some degree of amalgamation or greater degree of coordination between legal aid and between the Legal Services Commission. Perhaps the filling of the board my await the outcome of that decision, which I don't think will be too long.

MS. BROWN: Are you looking at any women?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I like to look at women, yes.

MS. BROWN: I'm sure you do, Mr. Minister. I was thinking in terms of appointments. I know you do like to look at women, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm having difficulty with my colleague from Cranbrook. You've been upsetting him. He must have read your horoscope too.

MS. BROWN: Appointments, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes.

MS. BROWN: Would the minister very briefly tell me when we can anticipate the family law Act?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry, I'm trying to do three things at once.

MS. BROWN: The amendment to the family law legislation. When can we anticipate it? This year? Next year? Sometime? Never?

[ Page 2074 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm very hopeful that bill will be before the House within the next few days.

MS. BROWN: Thank you.

HON. MR GARDOM: I'm sure I'll have your ultimate support for it, too.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I'll be very happy to share my thoughts with you, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Good. That will be the first time.

MR. LEVI: I might tell the Attorney-General that he could let his commissioner of corrections go and have a smoke or something, because I don't intend to talk about corrections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Could he have something stronger?

MR. LEVI: He can have stronger than that if he wants, down at room 122.

1 want to cover four areas. I want to talk about child kidnapping, organized crime and freedom of information, and I want to make some observations and get some answers, perhaps, from the minister on the Penthouse case, but I don't want to talk about the judgment. I want to talk about just what happened that cost us so much money and it didn't seem to go anywhere.

I might just start off, without getting involved in a bill before the House, by asking the minister if it is the practice of the government to consult with the federal government when they are drawing up legislation which affects an area which the federal government already occupies. Is it the policy of the government to check with the federal government when it's planning to do legislation, particularly in an area which the federal government already occupies? That is in relation to the bill that is before the House that we can't talk about. But perhaps the minister could comment on that, because we are not asking you about the contents of the bill, but simply the procedures that they use when they're drawing up such legislation. Was there consultation, and did they concern themselves with the possibility of constitutional problems?

Now in respect to the child kidnapping, the minister should tell the House in very specific terms just what the policy of his department is in respect to either parent being involved in the kidnapping of a child. We recently had a case - the Dulong case - which was before the courts in April and the individual was acquitted. I recall the Dulong case because in January of 19771 was approached by the family, who were very concerned because they were informed then by the Attorney-General's ministry that they were going to withdraw the charge of abduction against the father, who at that time was still in France. I was in touch with the Attorney-General's ministry, with the Deputy Attorney-General of the day, and asked him very specifically why this was happening, why they were withdrawing the charge and what protection the mother would have that the father would not come back again to British Columbia and re-kidnap the child, which had happened previously. Then, of course, the mother went over to France and kidnapped the child back and came here.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.)

I was told by Deputy Attorney-General David Vickers that it was not the policy of that government at that time to charge fathers or parents with abducting their own children. Ironically enough, within a week of that statement being made, they in fact did charge somebody. There was a father who took a child from British Columbia to New Brunswick. The father was brought back from New Brunswick to British Columbia, and it took nine days to get the child back.

I'd like to hear from the minister just what the policy of his department is. Because of the change in policy - in relation to the Dulong case - when the father arrived in Canada the family went to a great deal of legal expense in order to protect the interests of the mother and the child. I think it is worthwhile for the minister to spell out to the House and to many of the people in the province just what the attitude of the govern-ment is in respect to the kidnapping of children and what the government will do when such cases come up. I'm sure the minister is aware - maybe he's not - of the enormity of this problem, particularly in North America. Children's rights organizations in the United States have estimated that there are 100,000 kidnappings a year. In Canada there are in excess of 10,000 such kidnappings.

Benno Friesen, who is the member for Surrey, has introduced a bill into the House of Commons for the second time in which he is trying to get some legislation drawn up. I was recently at a conference where the Minister of Justice, Ron Basford, announced that they were looking at such legislation.

In order for the minister to get some idea

[ Page 2075 ]

of just what takes place, there was an exceptionally poignant article on the kidnapping of children in Maclean's Magazine of September 5,1977, written by Elaine Dewar. I just want to read the first paragraph of the article:

"Terry Giles answered a knock at the door of his Toronto apartment. His sister-in-law swooped in, scooped up his younger daughter Shona and ran out. His estranged wife grabbed his daughter Michelle. Giles grabbed her back. There was a tug-of-war. His shirt was ripped to shreds. His wife let go and dashed down the hall. Giles charged to the balcony only just in time to see her car peeling from the curb. Shona was screaming 'I want my daddy' at the top of her lungs.

"He called the police. 'A family fight, ' they said. They could do nothing. The provincial court were given interim custody of the children, but by the time he got to his wife, Shona had disappeared. The police refused to trace them; private investigators couldn't find them; and Giles hasn't seen Shona since she was snatched last September. Money is tight, and legal and investigative fees total $2,000. He is hiding out in a new home, he has an unlisted phone number and he is afraid that his wife will try again to snatch the child."

This kind of situation happens in Canada at an incredible rate. When I was the Minister of Human Resources, a case was brought to my attention as a result of a family difficulty in which the husband, on coming across his estranged wife and two children in a car parked in a shopping centre lot, took a sledgehammer to the windshield. The wife got out and ran and left the two children in the car. When she came back the children were gone, and two days later they were in Italy.

We spent a great deal of time in the ministry trying to make contact through the embassy in Rome and the External Affairs Department -to no avail. Finally we recommended to the mother that she would have to go to Italy and make some effort to try and get back her children. The ministry paid her fair to Italy and guaranteed that if she was successful, we would bring her and the children back. This is four years later and the mother is still in Italy. She has one child back and one is still with the father.

These cases are going on all the time, and I realize it is not easy to legislate against this kind of situation because we even have difficulties in getting arrangements between one province and the other; trying to get arrangements between countries is extremely difficult.

So I would like the minister to enlighten us as to what exactly the ministerial policy is. I see we have the other bloke here now. He'll know; Mr. McDiarmid will know, and he will be able to tell us.

What I want to do now is move along to discussion with the minister on a question that I raised with the minister last year, which he took as notice and never came back with the answer. That was in relation to a report that was done by the Quebec Crime Commission called "Organized Crime in the World of Business."

At that time, when I raised the question with him, he had written to Justice minister Bertrand in Quebec in order to obtain a copy of the report. Presumably, he now has a copy because I want to ask him some questions. I raised the question at the time because in January, 1977, we had had some problem in respect to the Bank of Montreal in New Westminster and a number of loans that were made. A number of problems flowed from that, via an announcement from the bank that it would probably cost them between $500,000 and $1 million. The RGHP at that time made a statement and said that force was not sure that a crime had been committed but the investigation would probably continue for about a month. The bank, on its own, had taken some action. We're dealing now with something that took place in 1974 which came to light in January of 1977. Part of the information that came out as a result of these dealings with the bank was that there were incredible kickbacks paid by the people who were seeking the loans. It is my information that the loan manager was discharged and the manager of the bank was transferred.

I asked the minister last year if his ministry or the commercial crime squad of the RCMP were looking into these matters. I want to refer the minister to the crime commission report entitled "Organized Crime in the World of Business, " page 267. They made a recommendation at that time. They said:

"We recommend that banks and other banking institutions draw up regulations designed to prevent their managers and employees from dispensing credit or other favours as a result of bribery, and that they publicize these regulations and, above all, enforce them." This is from the crime commission report, "Organized Crime in the World of Business". I believe you have a copy of this.

I realize that the banking legislation is a federal matter. But we're dealing now with items which can be dealt with through the banking institute in order that these kinds of

[ Page 2076 ]

things don't take place. There's a second recommendation.

"We recommend that the existing federal and provincial legislation governing bank managements be amended to make possible frequent auditing by government agents so that the general public may be given the highest possible degrees of assurance that activities such as those that the commission uncovered in the credit field and in the relations between the public and the bankers will not reoccur."

Those two recommendations have some relevance to the things that took place in the much publicized Bank of Montreal situation of 1977. The actual occurrences were in 1974. 1 also now want to talk to the minister more specifically and move on to the role that the banks play, albeit innocently or disinterestedly, in the issue of money that is made as a result of organized crime. We have a number of ministers of the governments who are fond of telling us that the fifth largest industry of British Columbia is the drug industry. it generates some $250 million of cost to the taxpayer.

The commission dealt with another recommendation. On page 268 it said: "We recommend that the Quebec Department of Revenue set up a special investigation service to examine the incomes, declared or not declared, of people known to law enforcement authorities to be members of the underworld." Now one of the questions that constantly comes up - not necessarily in this House, because we haven't heard the minister talk too much about organized crime - is that surely the minister has to have some concern, as does the rest of the government, as does the Minister of Finance, as to exactly what takes place in respect to the money that is made from the drug trade and from all of the either white-collar crimes or other crimes in which people are netting large amounts of money. What can the minister tell us about how this money is laundered, how it is legitimized and where it is kept? We know, for instance, that at a recent break-in of a safety deposit operation in Vancouver, there will probably be pretty close to a million plus of money that will never be claimed. Presumably one of the reasons for that is that people don't want to get into trouble with the income tax authorities. Some of the people may be people who are involved in organized crime and are not prepared to go and pick up the money for the same reasons. Now with all of the efforts that are being made by CLEU and by the law enforcement agencies, when one looks generally at the problem of organized crime, the newest approach appears to be, certainly in the U.S., via the internal revenue operations. I want to ask the minister if it is happening in Canada that there is some attempt being made by the authorities to address themselves in part to the recommendation that I just read out. I'll read it again: "We recommend that the Quebec Department of Revenue set up a special investigation service to examine the incomes, declared or not declared, of people known to law enforcement authorities to be members of the underworld."

Now we know that CLEU has a great deal of information about the people who are involved in organized crime. They are able to identify people, and to make some estimate of the money that is being made by these people. We know that it's extremely difficult to implicate the so-called kingpins. The issues and the difficulties of making conspiracy charges are very, very difficult.

But I'm not just dealing with the drug trade now, I'm dealing with the general problem of major crime. One of the last things the late Senator Hubert Humphrey did in his role as a senator was have his staff do a fairly detailed work-up on the enormity of organized crime and white-collar crime costs in the United States. His staff estimated that the cost in the United States was something in the order of $50 billion, and it increases perhaps 10 or 15 per cent a year. Now in order to get an idea of the impact of the enormity of this, the United States budget this year, for the first time, was characterized as being a half -trillion-dollar budget - $500 billion. When one thinks of Humphrey's estimate that organized crime was involved at a cost to the taxpayer of some $50 billion, you really begin to wonder just how much on top we are in terms of this whole situation.

Now if we use the old formula, which we are fond of using in Canada, that we're somewhat 10 per cent of the United States, we could be looking at a possibility in Canada of an organized crime and other major crime cost in Canada of something on the order of $5 billion. I was told that in 1976 some $52 million was illicitly taken out of the stock market, and $2 million was brought back in the year 1976. So we wouldn't have too much trouble, if we look at the enormity of white-collar crime in Canada, to approach that 10 per cent of the volume that Exists in the United States.

The question is: how are we approaching this? We have had no indication at all from the Attorney-General in over two and a half years, other than newspaper stories, exactly what is happening in terms of CLEU. We have had no reports from CLEU since November, 1975.

[ Page 2077 ]

If the minister is as serious as he says he is about dealing with the problems of organized crime and attempting to look at some of the solutions, then he's going to have to take the public with him. If he doesn't take the public with him, then they're not going to take it very seriously and you won't have much of a mandate.

There was a mandate in 1973,1974 and 1975 as a result of the implementation of the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit and of the publishing of reports, and that's crucial. But what we have to rely on now are only the statements that appear in the press either from the spokesperson of CLEU or from some reporter who has obtained some information. The minister has got to be more specific and tell us exactly what he has in mind in terms of dealing with the problems of organized crime.

I'll tell the minister that over Christmas and New Year's I spent 12 days in Phoenix, Arizona. I've been down there on a couple of other occasions and made some contacts with some of the legislators down there. I met one member of the Legislature, Mr. Ratliff, who was the head of what's called the Government Oversight Committee.

The minister may know that in June, 1976, there was a brutal murder of a newspaper reporter. As a result of that, there was a great outcry in the state and in the Legislature. There was an attempt to move towards a crime commission. There was an agreement -they have a bicameral house between the Senate and the House of Representatives - that it would be done jointly. They set up the guidelines, but the project itself was vetoed by the Governor of the state.

Representative Ratliff decided to move on his own because he was the chairman of the oversight committee. He reasoned that he could look at particular areas on a piece by piece basis and obtain as much information as he would probably get out of a crime commission. What he did was to start hearings on the real estate industry, on the conflict of interest situation, on the corporations office. He looked into the penitentiary system and was proceeding to move across the broad gamut of operations in which organized crime operates in. He has now completed some five reports. He has a staff of seven people. There are four lawyers and three investigators. He has the assistance of the FBI and of an exceptionally sophisticated computer operation which comes out of El Paso in Texas.

He's made an attempt there to identify some of the real problems in connection with what he characterizes as organized crime. But he's quick to point out that when you talk about organized crime, you're not simply talking about some Mafia-like organization that has all sorts of family relationships. He characterizes organized crime outside of that, as understandings between large groups of people that do things on a broad scale in terms of organized crime.

If it includes the computer rip offs which are now taking place at some length, or land speculation, or the business of the massive strong-armings and holdups that take place in the trucking industry.... All of that is part of a very large organized group which is not necessarily related to what we often think of as the Mafia. It's much broader than that.

I suggest to the minister that our problem in this province and in Canada is much broader than the kind of information that has come out as a result of the crime commission report. I know that the minister had an opportunity recently to meet with the former chairman of that commission, who has now finished his mandate. It was extended to three years and he has now gone back into private practice. It's very interesting talking to this individual because one of the things I became convinced of after talking to him was that perhaps the mechanism of the Quebec-type crime commission - not perhaps, I am now sure in my mind certainly is not as effective as many people think it is.

I would like to see the minister give consideration to giving some work to the standing committee of justice and labour in this House, where their mandate would simply be to look at what would be the best way to approach an investigation of organized crime. They would not become the investigators; they would not become the commission. They would simply look at the options. Do you want an organized crime commission based on the hearings that went on in Quebec? We know that in Quebec 75 per cent of those hearings were in camera.

The committee could examine whether in fact the Senate inquiry committee as done by Senator Maclellan - or, years back, Senator Kefauver - was worth looking at or, in fact, whether you would want to look at what Representative Ratliff is doing in Arizona, where he has taken the organized crime field in general and carved it up into about 10 areas. He's examining one area at a time. That way, he feels, he can bring some public notice to bear on a particular issue. It's much easier; you don't have to wait for a lot of recommendations. You bring a lot of light on to the problem and then you make some changes.

The minister tells us in relation to the Proudfoot report that he had the Proudfoot

[ Page 2078 ]

commission and as a result he has implemented quite a lot of the recommendations. Okay, that's another way you could go.

You might want to look at the possibility of a royal commission, or a one- or three-man commission. There are all sorts of options, but those options should be discussed publicly. One of the ways that could be done is through the justice and labour committee in which they examine that, make a recommendation to the minister, and say: "After due consideration, with all sorts of input" - and you could call Representative Ratliff up here; you could get the people from the United States; you could get the people out from Quebec; and they would make their contribution in terms of their experience, and then you could make a decision.

I'm not recommending in any way that we rush into this thing. We should learn from other people's mistakes and problems. One of the questions I did ask the former chairman of the Quebec commission was: having done all of the interviewing and all of the exposure that you had - and certainly they had it on TV when they were holding public hearings for something like eight hours a day - what was the result? Did organized crime suddenly disappear?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No.

MR. LEVI: It didn't. The only real impact any of that work has made really cam out of the result of inquiries into the meat industry. Everything else kind of cooled down and everything else was operating - no question of that. There were two significant inquiries in Quebec: one was the crime commission inquiry into the tainted meat problem; and then there was Judge Cliché's inquiry into the construction industry.

I would ask the minister to give some consideration to this. I would ask him to look - he doesn't have to answer tonight, he can answer tomorrow - at some of the problems that we are having in this province. It may very well be that the government does not share the same view that the previous government had. In our government we were convinced that there was needed to be mounted a public and broad attack on some of the more significant aspects of organized crime.

In this province we tend to think of the drug industry as being the major problem. I would suggest to the minister that there are other problems that are developing to equal size in terms of what goes on.

One of the ways that this whole approach can have significance is if the government is prepared to give a lot of openness and publicity to it. I don't mean raw publicity. I'm talking about specific statements by the minister, and publishing. Bring us up to date on what CLEU is doing. Have they had problems? Already two major people in that organization have gone. I did have some concern when I asked the minister about staff sergeant Hameluck, who left CLEU. At that time, he told us that he had given an undertaking that he would keep everything confidential. The only thing is, I don't think that the undertaking the minister got from the former Employee actually has any force and effect. We don't have a secrecy Act here. Can he be prosecuted in any way if he does? There are great difficulties there. Perhaps the minister would comment on them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: lie could be sued.

MR. LEVI: Tomorrow I intend to raise some other aspects of this. We have only got about six minutes, and I'm sure that the minister couldn't answer all those questions in six minutes. I'll sit down now.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to respond in short, if I can, Mr. Member, to some of the points that you have made. The Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit and the Joint Forces Operation and the forces in British Columbia are continuing with their work - particularly CLEU - with emphasis on infiltration of organized or disorganized crime into legitimate businesses. CLEU is continuing to work with drug importation and trafficking, fencing of stolen property, prostitution, loan-sharking, bookmaking and illegal gambling. A study of pornography has been completed, and that was presented to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

I note your suggestion vis-à-vis our own committee, and that is a matter I will give consideration to.

On the feasibility of an organized crime commission for British Columbia, I requested a study be undertaken by the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit. They have traveled not only to Quebec but to the major areas in the United States where such commissions have been held. They have been evaluated and in due course I will be receiving that report.

I think you very correctly stated that a crime commission unfortunately does not necessarily eradicate crime. But if it is a useful tool at a useful point in time, it is certainly something that should be entertained. The question is the viability of that type of a process at whatever point is desirable.

[ Page 2079 ]

This is an illustration of the proactive activities of CLEU in an attempt to avoid the infiltration of organized crime on the Canadian pipeline, similar to a problem that developed in Alaska. A programme of education and awareness for all participating agencies has been launched. Meetings with officials in Alaska and the Yukon have been held, and the situation is going to be monitored over the next few years. This is in conjunction with the individuals and people and provinces and countries that will be involved in the construction of the line. Counsel has been retained for advice on legal matters. I think targeting major criminals continues to be the principal direction for CLEU: to remove these key figures from an organization, as you well appreciate, hon. member, who frequently lead to the disintegration and the inability of that particular organization to function. I think if you have been reading the newspapers over the past few months, you will see that there have been some very, very successful roundups as a result of the combined activities of the forces and of the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit.

You mentioned co-operation with the regulatory agencies. This is always a difficult problem. There are constitutional difficulties there as well as the problems of confidentiality under the Income Tax Act. There is co-operation with the regulatory agencies. We are certainly continuing to seek the use of their special expertise and knowledge. That is a high priority. To this end, work has begun on designing an information-sharing system with the regulatory agencies. At what stage that is at today, I cannot inform you, but the initiative is taken. Whether or not we're able to produce on that score is another question.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Presenting reports.

MR. BAWTREE: I'm pleased to present a report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and ask leave to make a brief report.

Leave granted.

MR. BAWTREE: Mr. Speaker, this report is an outline of the scope and methods of research and a listing of all the reports which will be forthcoming from the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. The press and many other citizens right across this country have expressed great interest in the study being undertaken by this province into the food industry. It is to try and answer some of the questions about the scope and nature of reports which will be brought forth that the committee decided to file this report at this time. We hope that it will be helpful for everyone to be aware of the subjects covered by the study.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have an accompanying motion?

MR. BAWTREE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report, The Scope and Objectives of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt files answer to question 39.

Mr. Barnes asks leave to withdraw resolution No. 12.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11 p.m.

[ Page 2080 ]

APPENDIX

39 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture the following questions:

With respect to the Farm Income Assurance Program-

1. What was the effective starting date for each commodity or commodity group covered?

2. To the latest date available, what was the premium balance with respect to each commodity?

3. What was the maximum number of participants in each commodity plan?

The Hon. J. J. Hewitt replied as follows:

ERRATUM

In the CONTENTS page of the Hansard report of Thursday, Nay 25,1978, the introduction of Bill M 213 was wrongly attributed to Mr. Skelly. The entry should read:

Legal Professions Act Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill M 213) . Mr. Stephens.