[ Page 485 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act (Bill 17). Hon. Mr. Chabot.

Introduction and first reading –– 485

Land Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 16). Hon. Mr. Chabot.

Introduction and first reading –– 485

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates.

On vote 19.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 485

Mr. Macdonald –– 485

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 487

Mr. Smith –– 488

Mr. Leggatt –– 488

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 489

Mrs. Jordan –– 490

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 492

Mr. Hanson –– 493

Ms. Brown –– 495

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 495

Mr. Lorimer –– 497

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 498

Mr. Stupich –– 499

Mr. Macdonald –– 499

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 500

Ms. Sanford –– 501

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 501

Presenting Reports

Annual report of the superintendent of insurance, 1978.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 501

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce three important guests from Alberni constituency: my campaign manager in the last election, Mr. Bill Dietrich; his good lady, Marlene Phillips; and also my beautiful wife, Alexandra.

Introduction of Bills

MINISTRY OF LANDS,
PARKS AND HOUSING ACT

Hon. Mr. Chabot presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act.

Bill 17 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

LAND AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Chabot presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Land Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill 16 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: On behalf of the people of the province I would very much like to express my thanks, and the thanks of all the members of this assembly, for their accomplishments, duties and responsibilities over the years. Perhaps, in fact, most of which they have to do is often unsung and unheralded, and in many cases involve cases and situations that are very difficult and contentious in the areas of police, courts and corrections, and in the various specialty designations such as coroners, fire marshals, public trustees, land registry offices, racing commission, and so on.

Throughout the ministry there are dedicated, hard-working people who are always endeavouring to improve procedures and develop policies to better assist the general public and society. On their behalf, I’d very much like to extend to the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Dick Vogel, and all his departmental leaders an expression of appreciation, gratitude and just plain thanks. To be included in those expressions of gratitude would certainly be the commissioner of corrections, Mr. Bernard Robinson; Associate Deputy Minister Dennis Sheppard, in court administration; Assistant Deputy Minister Dick Bird, in charge of legal services to government; Associate Deputy Minister Dean McDiarmid, of the criminal division; and Associate Deputy Minister Mark Krasnick, in policy and planning. We'd like to pay very best wishes to him on his recent marriage; he's now on his honeymoon. I extend also the kindness to Dr. Gilbert Kennedy, in charge of statutory revision; Mr. Allan Roger, of legislative counsel; and Mr. Mel Smith, who looks after and leads our constitutional wing.

Furthermore, before sitting down I'd like to express my compliments and congratulations to Mr. Alex Pearson, who has retired after 50 years-plus within the ministry. He has an outstanding career in public service in British Columbia. He is indeed an outstanding individual, and we wish both him and his wife the very best during his time of retirement.

I would like to reiterate the remarks I made a couple of days ago to Mr. Geoff Mortimer, who is now the retired chairman of our Police Commission. He has performed excellent service in the province of British Columbia in his various duties over the past few years.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would welcome questions from the hon. members.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman,  be getting up several times in the estimates, and the members needn't applaud and pound their desks every time I get up.

I appreciate the references of the Attorney-General to the people in his ministry, and I agree entirely with what he said.

I enjoyed his little repartee before we broke up for supper and various recreational activities at 6 o'clock. He referred to previous members of the House and didn't mention the story in the paper that said that the three Liberal members of the cabinet might have been retiring before the last election, and he didn't mention David Anderson, their former leader.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: False story.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, there is Cassius. Cassius says we should not remember David Anderson. No wonder. Et tu, Brute! Or. et tu, Cassius?

That was Cassius. Cassius spoke up. Anyway, I appreciate it: it was a good reference to other members of the House.

The Attorney-General spoke about how the press had to climb a drain pipe to try to ask him a simple question about the public polity of the province of British Columbia. It's the same Attorney-General who has a Freedom of Information Act at the very bottom of his drain pipe. What's the priority of giving it, Mr. Attorney-General? Will you answer that question?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Could I volunteer some..?

MR. MACDONALD: When I'm finished. Mr. Chairman, there can only be one member on his feet at any one time in this House. and the penalty for disobedience to that is that somebody has to leave, gets thrown out into the hall. They get thrown right out into the hall.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Those who seek the protection of the Chair should first ensure that they are in order themselves. Please continue.

[ Page 486 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, if you are suggesting I'm not in order, I was certainly fine when I came in here. Has something happened? I better go over that again; I'm not sure.

Mr. Chairman, I do want to ask the Attorney-General a couple of questions. We're not going to keep him all night — just until 11 o'clock, tomorrow afternoon, Friday afternoon and so forth. But I will ask one question at this time and it's a serious matter.

The Attorney-General has said a lot about the problems on the highways in terms of drinking drivers, reckless drivers and highway-caused deaths. I appreciate his sincerity in the matter. But time after time the Crown in the province of British Columbia has laid a charge of criminal negligence which, in my view of the facts as they come to me, was perfectly justified. And then the charge has been reduced to dangerous driving or it has been reduced to impaired driving, and when the charge has been reduced, the accused pleads guilty and there's a fine and maybe a six-month suspension of driving privileges. Very often out there in the community you have a bereaved parent or parents because there's been a fatality, and you have a great sense that justice has not been done in terms of enforcement of the Criminal Code, which provides for driving infractions.

Mr. Chairman, I want to give two cases in support of what I am saying, and I'm not going to mention the names. It's not that kind of an evening; it's not that kind of a Legislature, as far as I'm concerned. But I want to read from a letter the Attorney-General is familiar with about one incident that happened up north. This is from a mother whose son, who was 17 years old, was killed in the accident.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That was appealed.

MR. MACDONALD: The sentence was appealed but the charge had been reduced, and on that kind of a charge, the sentence appeal failed. You already know the case that I'm speaking about, but let me give the facts. I don't think the charge should have been reduced; that's what I'm saying.

The mother writes: "This accident took place in September 1977 near midnight. Our only son was killed and another youth seriously injured, driving in the car of the person who was accused while drunk." I think you know the letter. The mother and the boy who survived say that the driver was drunk.

The car was a Mustang, with a stick shift, and was registered, let's say, in the parent's name. The youth who was sitting next to the boy who was killed stated that the speedometer was at 84 miles per hour. The boy who was killed was sitting in what is known as the "suicide seat, " but I don't see why they should call it that; it was the third seat in the front seat of the car. All of the boys in the car were yelling and saying that the driver should stop, because they were afraid that something was going to happen.

The accused met an oncoming car, whose occupant was a man — and  call him "Mr. X" — who was forced to leave the road, and drove up on the sidewalk to avoid being hit. Mr. X was so put out by the conduct of this car that he turned his own car around and went down the street and was able to see the whole accident. He was a key witness, says the deceased boy's mother, who was never allowed to testify because the charge was reduced to the point where the accused pleaded guilty — as well he might. So these kind of vital allegations about the speed and about the drinking never came up before a court or a jury.

There was expert evidence called in from Vancouver who said the car was only going 24 miles an hour, but the mother says this about that:

"Our son was killed instantly. The coroner's report stated he had a fractured skull, ruptured spleen, damaged liver and something went right through his lungs.

"The accused driver of the car was driving west, and there was a pickup truck parked on the left side of the street, facing east, which he hit, and the pickup truck was pushed up onto the sidewalk and right across the street, a distance of approximately 40 feet, in a semi-circle" — and diagrams are attached — "onto a vacant lot.

"Can you in all honesty believe that there was not drinking, that there was not excessive speed, that there was not reckless conduct?"

And yet this charge was reduced to dangerous driving, which is a much less serious offence. The accused pleaded guilty, and he had a fine of $450 and a six-month suspension of his driving licence.

Now a jury never had a chance to weigh the kind of things that the mother believes about that accident: that there really was excessive speeding; that there was recklessness and some drinking; and that the speed of the car must have been pretty evident from the fact that it was able to push a pickup truck 40 feet. She does not think it was justifiable that the charge should have been reduced in that way. And, of course, there is no inquest when there is a criminal charge of this kind laid and disposed of, so the community feels justice has not been done.

I think there are quite a few cases of this kind, Mr. Chairman, in the province of British Columbia. Let me refer to one other. It's in a letter of February 14, 1979. This is from the father of the boy who was killed. The father writes this from the lower mainland of British Columbia:

"On December 18, 1977, our son Glen was a passenger in a car, in the rear seat behind the driver, coming from a Christmas party around 1:30 a.m. He was killed instantly as a result of a broken neck at the age of 18. He was wearing a seatbelt. The driver of the vehicle was 25 years old."

But then the pattern asserts itself. The driver was originally charged with criminal negligence, which is similar, I suppose, to the old manslaughter charge. We used to have a lot of manslaughter cases in the province where death resulted. This was then reduced to something else — and the father isn't sure what — and he was finally brought to court on an impaired charge and pleaded not guilty. Subsequently he was convicted, with an alcohol reading of .16 from blood samples.

In summation, the judge said:

" 'I suppose you will be faced with civil action. The fine will be $300, and loss of licence.' We do not know for how long a period he would lose this privilege, or why the charge was reduced."

The son who was killed was 18 years of age. The judge had made some reference to "civil action," and there was a claim, but when you lose a son and the son is not financially helping the parents — because the son in this case was 18

[ Page 487 ]

years of age and was still a dependent — the damages are extremely low. I don't know how that should have been taken into consideration by the judge, because that's paid by ICBC. And the parents, for the death of their son, received the funeral costs and things of that nature, amounting to $2,594.50.

The police accident report shows that it was more than a case of impaired driving. It says of the vehicle driven by the accused: "Vehicle No. 2 attempted to pass vehicle No. 1, lost control, and both vehicles left the roadway, with the vehicle No. 2, in which the boy was killed, striking a power pole." Yet that was treated by a judge as just another plea of guilty to having alcoholic breath content of over .08. The community never did hear the facts of the accident, and it does not feet satisfied that justice has been pursued as it should have been.

The Attorney-General has made some explanations from time to time, saying it is up to regional Crown counsel, whether it's in the northeast of the province or the lower mainland or Vancouver Island, to make these decisions. But, Mr. Chairman, I would remind the Attorney-General that in the last analysis — and the first analysis — he is the Queen.

MR. STUPICH: He is the Queen?

MR. MACDONALD: He is the Queen in this province.

MR. STUPICH: A queen or the Queen?

MR. MACDONALD: I don't know why I should be diverted in this fashion by one of my own colleagues.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The Attorney-General is responsible for every charge, be it large or small. Now you may delegate that out and say it is up to regional Crown counsel; but when a question arises, as it arises in this case of too many charges of criminal negligence being laid, and it then being reduced by the Crown What is it, Mr. Attorney-General? Is it to save money? Is it because you feel that you can't get a conviction for criminal negligence? Well. If that's the case leave it up to the jury. If they won't convict of criminal negligence, there is an included offence. dangerous driving, and they can convict of that. But should it be your prosecutor's decision, where there has been a fatality, usually of a young person, to reduce the charge, and presumably without conferring with Victoria, and then to have a whole community buzzing with the kind of speculation that maybe somebody knew somebody else and that kind of thing?

HON. MR. GARDOM: You were the guy that buzzed that.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, the Attorney-General says I was the guy who buzzed that. I haven't referred to the particular case. If he wants me to do it I will; but I think the Attorney-General is quite wrong in that suggestion. I'm not making any suggestions of that kind.

What I am saying is that, with these charges in which there is a death involved, and in which there obviously has been dangerous driving combined with drinking, you should not permit your prosecutor simply to accept a guilty plea to an impaired driving charge and have a fine of $300 and a six-month suspension of licence. Having started with that question, Mr. Chairman,  leave off. Perhaps I'll enter the debate at another stage, after I've heard his answer.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to thank the hon. member for his comments. He appreciates and knows full well — as do I, and as does everybody who is connected with the prosecutorial side in B.C. — that there are difficult decisions to be made and they have to be made in the localities where these incidents happen. I would just like to inform the hon. member, in case he's forgotten, of the procedures which are long-standing policy, and which have been recently altered as a result of a directive by myself. The general procedure is really a six-step one insofar as proceedings are concerned when a traffic accident has resulted in a death.

First of all, we have the investigation of the facts by the police, which means obtaining the necessary evidence. The second step is the police report to the local Crown counsel or directly to regional Crown counsel, outlining the evidence and the statements of witnesses and other details. Then Crown counsel determines, as the third step, whether the evidence is sufficient for the Crown to lay a charge, and what charge should be laid. Now sometimes, where the evidence is clear-cut, there is not that much difficulty. Sometimes, when it is not, or there are witness problems, there is more difficulty, as the hon. member knows. Under the Coroners Act the coroner proceeds with his investigation to determine the cause of death. If charges are laid then the coroner is requested to waive his inquest because the court case itself will determine the cause of death. If charges are not laid, obviously the coroner proceeds. The sixth point, Mr. Member, is that the regional Crown counsel is consulted if local Crown counsel wishes a second opinion on his decision. In what may be considered from an evidentiary point of view borderline cases or special circumstances the matter is sometimes referred directly by the police to the senior level. which is regional Crown. So the police can go directly to regional Crown or directly to the local Crown. If regional Crown counsel requires another opinion, which is the case in cases that are difficult, then he consults with the assistant deputy minister in the criminal justice division. Mr. Neil McDiarmid, QC.

As I mentioned to you, this has been the practice that has been followed in British Columbia. It was this spring that I requested the assistant deputy minister in the criminal justice division to ensure in the future that all cases involving a motor vehicle fatality in which charges are not laid, if the decision is made at that regional and local level not to lay a charge in a motor vehicle fatality — and that has happened — are to be reviewed not just by the local Crown but also by the regional Crown. If any differences of opinion develop at those levels, then the matter is automatically to be referred to the assistant deputy minister for consultation and decision. We certainly hope that this is a practice which will result in a more uniform charging practice throughout the province.

It is a difficult area, hon. member. I think that we have established the best guidelines that we can. It's not possible for us to say that in every fatality there will be one charge and one charge only. If that were the case, we wouldn't

[ Page 488 ]

have the Criminal Code written the way it is. There is an opportunity to take different routes. But I agree with you that those routes should be exercised with a great deal of caution, and this is the message that we have passed along to the Crown throughout the province. They should exercise a great deal of caution and be very deliberate in making those kind of decisions, because they're very important decisions. They do involve tragedies, and I thoroughly agree with your general sentiment.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that there comes a point where the Attorney-General should himself look at some of these cases and decide whether it was appropriate that the charge was reduced. I'm not talking about no charge at the moment. I'm talking about cases where criminal negligence has been laid and the charge reduced either to impaired or to dangerous driving. It's all very well to talk about the system, and the system may be good: you go through the local prosecutor, then the region, then the head of the criminal division in your own department. But there comes a time when the Attorney-General has to look at the thing and say: "That charge should not have been reduced." He must make a personal judgment because he is, as I said before, the Queen in terms of prosecutions.

I've given two instances of what I think is a very dangerous situation in terms of traffic enforcement and satisfying the parents and the families of people who have been killed on the roads of B.C. I ask the Attorney-General to look with care into those situations and have some of the files brought right to his own desk. He and his deputy should see whether that was the correct decision, and also ask whether the community will really think that justice has been done, has been seen to be done, or has seemed to be done — either way you have it. If you do have a widespread feeling out in the community that justice has not been done.... There were, in this first case, several witnesses who never got a chance to tell their story because of the reduced charge in the guilty plea. You have those people in the community telling their stories and the community itself feeling: "I wonder what really went on." That's what they think, and that's bad for justice. I think the Attorney-General should summon some of these files right to his own desk and look at them, because some of the decisions to reduce the charges are, to my mind, quite difficult to accept.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I have a little difficulty following the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) because he seems to be telling us that whenever there's a fatality the charge of criminal negligence or criminal negligence causing death should be laid. Also, he seems to be derogating from the discretion of Crown counsel.

I had the honour to prosecute when he was Attorney-General in this province, and I can remember prosecuting a number of cases of criminal negligence causing death, and I didn't have to check with him when it came to considering whether that was an appropriate charge to be reduced. There are some police in the province that have the notion that every time there is a fatality the greater charge automatically has to be laid. Then the matter comes to the attention of a Crown prosecutor, and he reviews the facts and decides that a more appropriate charge is perhaps dangerous driving or criminal negligence alone, and the charge gets reduced. I think that if we were to carry out his suggestions across the board, we would take away from the discretion of a Crown prosecutor.

The other thing that I had difficulty in following in his remarks was the further observation he made that the aggrieved family did not have a chance to testify and tell their story before the court. I never encountered a case of a fatality where an aggrieved family didn't at one stage wish to do this. It's a natural feeling and emotion, and it's one that you always encounter in one of these tragic cases. But that cannot be something that guides a Crown prosecutor as to the correct charge to lay. If the person charged with criminal negligence causing death were to plead guilty to that charge, then the parents and family wouldn't have the chance to tell their story before the court because it would be a guilty plea. So a prosecutor really can't take that into consideration either. He has to do his duty, based on the facts as he sees them, and for the good of the community. If you're going to have the Attorney-General operating in Victoria as a central "big brother" to override an experienced prosecutor somewhere else who has investigated the facts, then the Attorney-General is going to have to be the prosecutor of everybody in this province. With respect, I don't think he should be.

MR. LEGGATT: I would like to say how much I appreciated the earlier remarks of the Attorney-General. His capacity to deflect hostility with humour has probably half-worked, but I still feel a sense of hostility about something that I hope the Attorney-General will take very seriously.

The matter I feel so concerned about appears in a judgment of a provincial court judge, Judge Govan, on May 9, 1979, and I think it useful for the record that I read out the remarks of the learned judge in that particular case. The name of the case is Sumner vs. Sumner; it now has some notoriety in the province of British Columbia, because it's a case that deals with family law. But I think it useful that the Attorney-General pay some close attention to the remarks of the judge in that case. I'm going to quote from page 14:

"There's one other matter that comes to me that I think should be on the record now and plain here before Mrs. Sumner, and I'm sorry that Mr. Sumner isn't here; and that is the fact that the administrative judge, His Honour Judge Reed — who sets my schedule in this area — telephoned me prior to April 10 and after April 1, when I indicated that I was not prepared to grant orders until the validity was tested, to say that he had been informed by the chief judge of his province that someone in the Attorney General’s department had requested that I be transferred from this division of the court to elsewhere in the province, or elsewhere in any event, so that another, perhaps — and the suggestion was, and I draw the inference — more complacent judge, compliant judge, would hear and make orders without entering upon this constitutional inquiry.

"Subsequent to April 10 on the Thursday, I received a call, a telephone call from the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Vogel, who suggested to me the argument which you are about to put forward, sir, and suggested to me that I transfer myself elsewhere; that it was administratively inconvenient.

[ Page 489 ]

I understood from Mr. Kahn that he was present during this argument or this discussion.

"Now it seems to me there's a matter of deep principle here involved where the Deputy Attorney-General can suggest to the administrative judges that judges who in good faith render judgments contrary to the administrative convenience of the Deputy Attorney-General's department be transferred elsewhere in the province."

I go on to quote from page 42 of the judgment:

"So that there is no confusion in regard to the matter, I think I should also add and you convey my respect to the Deputy Attorney-General and say that I do not wish to have any telephone calls from lawyers or litigants privately, in regard to bias, alleged or otherwise. Nor, it seems to me, is it proper for him, or anyone in your department, to suggest to me that I transfer myself elsewhere for administrative convenience. I content myself with that. But you can appreciate that it's a most serious thing that I have to even utter these, of course, and I do so here in open court where a reporter is taking them down."

That was a decision of a provincial court judge made in open court on May 9.

I want to just refer back to one phrase; it seems to me absolutely vital. I think I should also add, and you convey my respect to the Deputy Attorney-General and say that I do not wish to have any telephone calls from lawyers or litigants privately, in regard to bias, alleged or otherwise."

The concern I have here is with the independence of the judiciary. Certainly anything done by the Deputy Attorney-General is with the authorization of the Attorney-General. I appreciate that the Deputy Attorney-General is a public servant, and not in a position to defend himself, but it seems to me that this judgment, made in open court, casts a slightly different light on it. It is the Attorney-General's responsibility in this House to respond to the actions of his deputy in this case.

It's vital and important that judiciary — provincial court judges — maintain independence, particularly when acting on matters where the province is in conflict with an independent litigant; and this seems to have been the case here, because the case surrounded the constitutional validity of a provincial law.

Surely a provincial court judge has as much right to act independently and test the constitutionality of any law, whether federal or provincial, without interference from the office of the Deputy Attorney-General or the Attorney-General himself.

If the public in British Columbia are going to have any confidence in their judiciary, it's absolutely vital that their judiciary be left alone by the Attorney-General and by the Deputy Attorney-General. If one is a litigant and is in conflict with the Attorney-General's office, we don't expect one side in that particular suit to try to influence the judgment of the judge in regard to the ultimate outcome.

We have had similar problems in the past on the federal level. You recall the case of the Hon. John Munro who, as a result of a telephone call, gave his resignation to the Prime Minister, since it could have been inferred as an attempt to influence the decision of the court.

There was another minister, Mr. Drury, who submitted his resignation as a result of a conversation with a supreme court judge. I could go on and on. It is important that the Attorney-General of this province not interfere in the administration of justice at the level of the provincial court judge, because a provincial court judge is not an instrument of government policy. He is an independent judicial officer, and we must understand that in our democratic process we are going to erode the confidence of the public in provincial court judges. Judges are not an arm of the Attorney-General.

I have some other questions I would like to ask the Attorney-General, but he may wish to respond to this now.

HON. MR. GARDOM: This particular case was a case in front of His Honour Judge Govan, as the hon. member has indicated. It dealt with the Family Relations Act. On April 10 of this year His Honour delivered a lengthy written judgment holding that one section of the Act was ultra vires the Legislature of the province, notwithstanding the fact that the matter had not been raised or argued by counsel; and no notice had been provided to the ministry pursuant to the Constitutional Questions Determination Act.

As a consequence of that determination by His Honour Judge Govan, an application pursuant to the Judicial Review Procedure Act was eventually brought before the chief justice of the supreme court on April 23.

In that intervening period, hon. member, it is certainly true that the Deputy Attorney-General spoke to the chief judge of the court, the administrative judge and Judge Govan. He explained to Judge Govan the approach that was being taken — that the request was going o be made in front of the supreme court for a mandamus that the matter be returned to Judge Govan for determination.

But I can assure you, sir — and I've been informed by the Deputy Attorney-General — that at no time would the Deputy Attorney-General or any Deputy Attorney-General that I've known attempt to interfere in any manner whatsoever with the independence of the judiciary. If he was doing that it would be highly improper. He would be the first person to say that and so would I.

However, the proceeding went forth before Chief Justice MacEachen. I gather that prior to it coming on, there was concern expressed by Judge Govan — and it's a justifiable concern — as to whether the unconstitutionality or otherwise would be argued at that stage. The decision was rendered by the chief justice and the matter was referred. A submission was then made on the part of the ministry, which seems to me to be a thoroughly appropriate submission by virtue of the predisposition of Judge Govan on a point of law. Without argument and without submission on behalf of the parties, a submission was presented to Judge Govan that he disqualify himself on the basis of an apprehended predisposition of the case. He declined to do that. That's where the matter sat.

Insofar as the additional steps in these proceedings, he has challenged the constitutionality. The matter is being very carefully considered. The question was raised by the hon. lady member across the way a few days ago in question period and I took the question as notice. The point that was raised as to constitutionality is under active consideration right now.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, the point is not the constitutionality. It's not the question of whether it was appropriate in these circumstances for His Honour Judge

[ Page 490 ]

Govan to have ruled in the manner that he did. That's a question for other courts to decide. The Attorney-General's department has quite properly taken whatever legal process they had available to them, but the point that has not been dealt with in the Attorney-General's answer lies again in the reasons for judgment given by the learned judge. I'll read them again so that there is no confusion in regard to the matter: "I think I should also add and you convey my respect to the Deputy Attorney-General and say that I do not wish to have any telephone calls from lawyers or litigants privately in regard to bias, alleged or otherwise."

Now with the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General or his deputy isn't just Joe Blow off the street. When a telephone call comes from that person to a provincial court judge in these circumstances, it is a very dangerous procedure indeed. I'm hoping that I can get a commitment from the Attorney-General that this is inappropriate in these circumstances, that a phone call should not be made to a provincial court judge where he has come to a particular conclusion and where there are legal proceedings available to the to a pro Attorney-General in terms of that particular decision that in fact are subsequently taken. What is improper is the phone call. The judge himself obviously believed it to be improper and felt so strongly about it that he did a very unusual thing — he included it in his reasons for judgment.

Now I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, for a commitment from the Attorney-General that this process should not go on in these circumstances. I wouldn't think that in his practice the Attorney-General would think of phoning a judge privately in regard to a case that he was actively involved in, pursuing his argument about the merits of the case over the telephone with him. That's most inappropriate. I don't know what the Deputy Attorney-General said, but it certainly seems to have left the judge with a very strong feeling in his mind that there was an attempt to indicate some bias — that's what the decision says. I'm somewhat hopeful that the Attorney-General will clarify this matter and make it perfectly clear that as far as he is concerned, this is an inappropriate procedure.

I'd like to refer the Attorney-General to another subject which is of some concern, I think, to practising lawyers and to the general public. It's been fairly said, I think, that one should not attempt to make political capital out of the very unfortunate cases of child abuse that have occurred in the province. This is not a political matter. All political parties wish to do whatever they can to avoid those kinds of activities and that kind of damage to society.

But there is one area that comes under the Attorney-General's jurisdiction, and it deals with the question of appointment of counsel in cases where children are being apprehended and taken from their parents. At the present time, just to give you some comparison, if you happen to have an accident with your car, ICBC will retain a lawyer at premium rates to make sure they get protected in regard to that particular fender-bender or particular accident that they've had. About $75 an hour, I think, is what they're charging.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Too much.

MR. LEGGATT: Okay. Let's say $50, $60, somewhere around there. But, Mr. Chairman, I do think — and I hope the Attorney-General will inquire into this — the rates paid to counsel in respect to cases of child abuse where they are before a judge trying to determine whether a child should be removed from the family unit as a result of mistreatment.... I can't think of a more important judicial proceeding than that one. I can't think of a proceeding where one would wish to have better representation for the child than in that particular instance where the child's whole future is in jeopardy and a very fair and clear determination has to be made between the rights of the parents and the rights of the child. Some of the most difficult decisions are right around this area. It's not a fender-bender; it doesn't involve money or property. Yet we are appointing counsel at about $35 an hour. We're putting junior counsel, inexperienced counsel, into this kind of a proceeding, which really should have the most effective counsel one could find in this most difficult kind of case.

What I'm urging the Attorney-General to do is to review the process by which appointments are made so that the superintendent of child welfare has carte blanche in terms of the appointment of counsel. If she feels strongly about the protection of a child who has been abused, she should be able to hire whomsoever she wishes at senior counsel rates, if necessary, so that we know at least that the court procedure that goes on in those cases is at a high level with very experienced counsel, so that the judge is fully informed of both sides of the case. It is particularly true if one were seeking to apprehend a child from a fairly wealthy family who can hire a very good and expensive counsel, where in fact the superintendent of child welfare is faced with using counsel of less experience.

I'm not here putting those counsel down. I'm only saying that there should be some seniority and experience in those kinds of cases, and my information is that there hasn't been. In fact we are not using senior counsel for those kinds of important human cases that are much more important than all the fender-benders and all the property damage you can imagine. You can't put a dollar figure on this one. I'm urging the Attorney-General to seriously consider changing the way we go about appointing counsel in some of these cases, so that the superintendent has any counsel she may wish or feels comfortable with at a reasonable rate, but not at the low rate.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to intrude in this debate, being but a mere member of the lay public and a citizen of this province who is confused and concerned about the legalities of this country, the protecting of the status quo that we heard just now — although it was related to a very serious concern — and the debate that has taken place in this House this evening, in which we've seen lawyer after lawyer get up and speak. They have exemplified to me the nub of this total problem of relating to the public and relating to the delivery of justice in this country, not only in British Columbia. Not one of these lawyers has been able to agree either with each other's argument, or with the decisions of the learned judges, or with the Attorney-General, who is the chief law enforcement officer of British Columbia.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in a sense they are taking this forum, which is a people's forum, not a courtroom, and trying to turn it into a courtroom, much, I am sure, to the satisfaction of their legal instincts and talents.

MR. LEA: Should the Attorney-General be a lawyer? That's the next question.

[ Page 491 ]

MRS. JORDAN: That's probably a very valid question, Mr. Member.

But the question that is in the public's mind is: what are we to do and how are we to understand? They don't understand, Mr. Chairman. They are frustrated, they are confused, they don't know where to go for assistance. The hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) is taking exception to what he considers inappropriate action of the Attorney-General and his ministry. What is the public to do? We have nine men who sit in the Supreme Court of Canada, the ultimate and final decision-makers of justice in this country, and no recourse for the public on those decisions, except through the capabilities or the lack of capability of their lawyers — if they choose to fight it.

Mr. Chairman, I have spoken on this subject in the House before, and I want to preface my remarks tonight by asking the Attorney-General if he will take this most opportune time, when this government has more legal members on its benches than at any time in the history of this party — very learned gentlemen, but unfortunately no gentle ladies — men who, I am sure, are dedicated to not only having the fairest and finest justice system in the world, but also to having the public understand it and make input, people who could give great guidance to an overview of this system, to set about establishing a royal commission to look into the total delivery of justice and the justice system in the province of British Columbia, recognizing that there is a good deal of justice administered in this province which is federal. I would also like the Attorney-General to allow input on those areas in order to make presentations to the new federal government in Ottawa. This is what makes this so timely: because we have a new government in Ottawa, we may well see new ideas and new attitudes, and perhaps they would be receptive to some of the changes that must be made if this time-honoured system is to stand on its strength. That strength is such that it can stand scrutiny, it can stand questioning and it can stand the input of the concerned public.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the people of British Columbia are lacking in understanding and are confused. When the hon. member says there is a suggestion that they may lose confidence in the justice system, I would suggest that 90 percent of the people of this province have lost confidence in the justice system. They have lost confidence, and they are afraid to say it. You can go to any coffee shop, you can go to any union meeting, you can go to any place of work, you can go to a cocktail party, you can go to a beer parlour, and you mention the word "justice," and you mention the concern that people have for understanding this system, and they throw up their hands and they say: "I don't understand it; the law seems to me as if it were now designed to protect the guilty."

The victim in our society today is finding that he is not only the victim of the act, but he is becoming the victim of the system. The only answer they have is: "Well, go to court." So he has to ferret around through the confusion and his lack of knowledge to select a lawyer, and what we are in danger of finding in our system in this country is that it is not justice and fairness and equity that is brought down in that decision or is influencing that decision, but the ability or lack of ability of the lawyer. We have no way of having assurance, and people are questioning how they can have assurance, that it is, in fact, justice for people, concern for the innocent that should be very much a part of the concern of that court. They need reassurance that in fact it is not precedent built upon precedent that is dictating the decisions that are being brought down in some of our courts. That precedent is feeding and serving the institution or the terminology of law, but the public is asking if it is serving what the whole court system was designed to do and was set up for, and that is the protection of people who are innocent.

Mr. Chairman, who can they go to? You yourself, hon. member, said: "Don't go to your MLA." We all know that we dare not express any opinion except in this House about decisions that have been brought down in the court about action or lack of action of the RCMP. If one stands up and questions the court or the system, then you're a redneck. The very system itself and the very strength of that system which is preventing appropriate questioning and criticism is intimidating, once again. the public.

I believe that there has to be a way that the concerns of the public can be expressed to an impartial body. We have a bill in this House now in which one of our colleagues, the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers), makes a very honourable recommendation. I won't transgress on the motion, but he asks for, in essence, assistance to provide more equitable judicial services for people, and he calls on the private sector to do it. But I wonder if we can consider that sort of a question until we analyse the costs and the efficiency of our judicial system.

Mr. Chairman, I was on the plane the other day and a young man had been called from the RCMP in Vancouver, put on the plane in Vancouver in the morning and sent to an Interior community at full pay, away from his work. He sat there all day on the assumption that possibly the defending lawyer was going to call a professional witness. The defending lawyer never did, but the people of British Columbia had to pay for that person's time, loss of effort and the expense of getting him there.

We hear the public questioning seriously the effectiveness of the use of our courts. Why are cases dismissed or adjourned time after time? What is the accountability of the lawyers in terms of the use of the time of our courts, in terms of the use of the time of our judges? This is something that perhaps we should be looking at. It is certainly something the public is asking us to look at.

The hon. members have talked this evening about drinking-driving. That's the "in" thing to talk about, and it leaves lots of room for discussion. But, Mr. Chairman, you can go right across the board. Let me give you a little example of a person who rented a home to a person, and after 19 days the individual renting the home decided that it was too cold and he was moving out. So the individual renting the home took the person to court and the judge said: "Well, you know, after all, the poor fellow was only there 19 days. Let's just dismiss the charges." Now wouldn't you, if you were that individual who had in good faith rented a premises to someone — it doesn't matter what it was like; the person entered into the contract freely — expect justice to be done, and that person to at least have to pay for the 19 days they were there? This is what people are questioning.

We've had the drinking-driving. I spoke on the case in the Okanagan that I thought was so shocking, and I don't intend to repeat it. But we have another case of a 21-year-old in that, area who has driven and had two light-delivery drinking-driving accidents. He killed two

[ Page 492 ]

people at two different times, then went to Alberta and killed another person, and he is driving today. When I spoke to the Attorney-General about some of these things — and he is a compassionate man — he said we must consider that these people have to live with this knowledge the rest of their lives. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, in many instances living with this knowledge is not a penalty. These people are not warm, loving human beings with consciences. I'll give you case after case where they're little more than animals in human disguise, and it is murder. The people are asking questions about just that sort of a comment.

Mr. Chairman, another incident of frustration that the public are asking about was in the North Okanagan. People were coming in from Lumby on a back road. They went by a gravel pit and there were about 200 young people up there from the ages of 9, 10 and 17, drinking, drugging and whatever else goes on. The hon. ex-Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) can sit there and laugh again, as he always does when it comes to the concerns of people. He just wants headlines and muckraking.

These people were very concerned about these young people. They went down to the RCMP and said: "Did you know this was going on? Could you go up?" The RCMP said: "We've been up. We couldn't get out of our cars. They bombarded us with beer bottles and liquor bottles, and so we left." Now we can be very sympathetic to the RCMP, but they were powerless to act, and the public is again asking why. Why do we stand by and let 17-year-olds lure 9- and 10-year-olds into the use of drugs, booze and what else right under our noses? Is there not some recourse for the public? I suggest there should be.

Mr. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), you can sit here, through you, Mr. Chairman, and make all the smart-alecky comments you want, but I would like to advise you that the public don't think you're funny. The public don't think the former Attorney-General is funny. And they don't think that laughing at the concerns of the people of this province is funny. They are concerned, and when the public become concerned and lose faith in the justice system, then we will have anarchy. Many a person has said, and you have heard it, Mr. Chairman, and I have, and I'll venture to say every member of this Legislature has heard people say: "To heck with the law. If somebody trespasses on my property and breaks into my house, I'll shoot first and ask questions later." That is the concern, and that is what people are thinking. We are honour-bound to address ourselves to an avenue of expression for the public so that they can develop better understanding of the system and so that, perhaps, the system, as good as it is — and I believe it is a good system — can become more responsive and be more in keeping with what, in fact, it was designed to do.

We have a bill in this House, which I won't touch on, in which the medical profession has asked to have a lay person on a board which includes a government member, who will have some input into patterns and practices of physicians. Might this not be something that the legal profession itself would wish to entertain in the interest of fairness, in the interest of having understanding on the part of the public?

I don't intend to take more time of the House and cite case after case, but I leave with you the thought that if we, as legislators and the representatives of the people in this province, ignore these concerns and continue to have lawyers battle each other, disagree with each other and disagree with judicial decisions, and have evidence of judicial decisions which vary from region to region in one province, when our total focus is on lawyers' fees and the fact that the first minister of justice in this province is to have his hands tied in terms of questioning any action, then we will be denying our responsibilities to the public. We will be guilty when they decide they can no longer go without having their questions answered. I would leave with you this question, Mr. Attorney-General: would you consider, if you don't wish a royal commission, a form of a committee in which there is broad, responsible representation? If you wish to use a House committee, then I feel that its terms of reference should be expanded well beyond any motion that exists before this House at this time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In order to avoid disputes across the floor, maybe I can make a quick response and they can flip a coin and decide which course they wish to take.

I think all hon. members will truly appreciate that in an area as diverse as this, we appreciate general statements, but I would much prefer — and I think it would be much more helpful for everybody within the system — that if you have some specific cases, and they are of great concern to you, we would like to know exactly what they are. You don't have to treasure them for a whole year to suddenly have them developed chapter and verse in here, without any specific facts of the steps that were taken and the reasons for those steps. In the majority of the cases, the steps were appropriate. This is why we do have the kind of legal system that we have, and it's the most appropriate of its kind in the world. Everybody in this province, and indeed in this country, has great reason to be proud of it.

The hon. member suggested holding commissions to do this and that and said that there's not any place for the public to express their points of view. With every respect, that is not correct. This is one forum in which one can express one's point of view. As to what is being done in it, I draw to the attention of the hon. members that we have a national task force which was established in 1976 at the Calgary meeting of the Attorneys-General. That national task force is dealing with the administration of justice throughout the province. This initiative was developed by British Columbia and it is concerning itself with and examining in detail the areas of police, Crown counsel, legal aid, pre-trial services, courts and adult corrections. It's also collecting information on juvenile services.

The purpose of the work is to reduce the disparity in justice services throughout Canada, and there's quite a difference between the level of justice service throughout the country. British Columbia, I can tell you, is very close to the top if not at the top of the pile.

The purpose of the task force is also to develop a means to evaluate the impact of changes in legislation on the specific services. I have just recently developed a new initiative myself which I'm not going to refer to in detail tonight. It deals with the Criminal Code, and I've already been in communication with the new attorney for Canada.

An additional consideration of the task force is to establish a rational basis for sharing costs. Cost-sharing in justice services throughout Canada has been handled in a very catch-as-can basis and is certainly not rationalized. We wish to reduce the duplication of services and improve the balance of services.

[ Page 493 ]

Some precise reports are on their way. More are on their way within the next few months and with recommendations to the deputy ministers to eventually be considered by the various ministers in the country.

Another initiative that was developed by British Columbia is the motor vehicle task force committee. I know the first member for Victoria appeared on this committee. I established that because of the complaints that have been made by the public that they have not had an opportunity to present their own specific positions concerning whatever the case might be or whatever the legal involvement might be. This task force has received the better part of 400 briefs now in submissions. It has held hearings throughout the province. We have received an interim report. Already it's starting to formulate some policy suggestions to government, and I'm looking forward to the next report, which the deputy informs me will be coming in October.

There's another area that I think is very, very germane because there have been a number of statements made here. I'm certainly not questioning the sincerity of them, but I am questioning the lack of knowledge of the basic concepts before they are made. We're attempting to do what we can to see if we can have the justice system better explained throughout the educational process.

I'm happy to see that I'm receiving a nod of the head from my learned friend across the floor, because up until now in British Columbia we've really had a paucity of legal education in the primary schools and in the secondary schools. I have always felt it a little preposterous that people who live in a democratic society don't receive any specific teaching as to how the thing works according to law, according to order and the administration of justice until they leave high school and find out on their own or don't find out, as often is the situation, or until they go to university and receive specialized courses or night school or the means that is offered by a variety of agencies today.

We already have some legal education in the high schools in grade 11 and grade 12. At the present time we have a submission in front of the Ministry of Education, which I think is a first-class submission, that this be expanded greatly and be expanded to other grades.

I think there's a great need for people to know a great deal more about this topic, and I think that's a good way to try to bring it about.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Attorney-General's comments, and I have great respect for him as an individual, as a lawyer and as an Attorney-General. But I would suggest to you that the very attitude that he displayed in this House is part of the problem. Don't clap so loudly, hon. member; your Attorney-General was worse. Your Attorney-General was one of the most unsympathetic and insensitive Attorney-Generals we've ever had in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, the law, the lawyers and the professionals are nearly always right but perhaps not always right. I appreciate the national task force; it's a great idea. We have all the lawyers talking to the lawyers, and we have the judges talking to the judges, and we have the judges talking to the lawyers, and the lawyers talking to the judges and professionals talking to professionals. This is all of great value, no doubt.

But I submit to you and would ask the Attorney-General to concede that the public themselves would like to have some input. They might be wrong, humble folks that they are, but it's possible they might be right.

I think we have to recognize that in questioning the responsiveness of the system, in suggesting that perhaps it could be made more effective, we're not tearing down the alcohol and drug program, the drinking-driving program or the family court program. That's the problem. Every time Joe Blow on the street, for whom this system is supposed to function and who pays for it, tries to ask a question, he is put down. He's not very bright. He's not very sensitive and he really needs a lot more education. Granted he does need more education. but not everybody is going to have the time to do this. Even with education people are going to have questions, and they will have suggestions.

The Attorney-General says we're going to have royal commissions rolling around; I suggest he's got quite a few commissions rolling around now, if he wants to put it that way. I leave with him the question again: will he not lead in Canada? I can't give you the legal terminology for how it should be set up and described — I'm but a humble citizen of this province. But I'm asking you, Mr. Attorney-General, to show some sensitivity to public concern, not to ask us to attack already good policies or accuse the public of attacking already good policies and programs — nobody is doing that. There is room for more. There is an opportunity with this government now, with the new federal government, with the position that British Columbia has taken through our Premier at the First Ministers' Conferences, to lead the way. The Attorney-General could go down in history as a very good man, as a man who was not only defensive of the law and the portions of it, but who was sensitive to the public. He could be regarded as a man who believed so much in the strength of that system that he recognized that it could stand scrutiny and it could stand public input. I ask you again, Mr. Chairman: call it what the he will, but will the Attorney-General consider the opportunity for the public?

MR. HANSON: You see how keen we are, Mr. Chairman, to speak on this vote. I can understand the previous speaker's comments regarding feeling somewhat intimidated speaking on the Attorney-General's vote, because the law is shrouded in mystique and it should be demystified. One of the things that I would like to say at the outset is that I would like to pay tribute to the former Attorney-General who attempted through the establishment of the community law commission to demystify the legal services and bring them to the people. I have some background in representing employees in the justice system: the Legal Aid Society and the employees at Oakalla and Wilkinson Road jail. From the observer’s point of view I’ve seen what it's like for the employees to work in those situations, and also for the people who are incarcerated in those institutions. I think everyone in this House would agree that it is outmoded to put people in boxes.

The point I want to make is that here we have a total budget of $196 million of which $10 million is allocated for the access of legal aid, legal services, to ordinary people. The increase over 1978 looks to be roughly the magic 5 percent. Here we have another situation — much like the hospitals — where we have an arbitrary 5 percent increase over the distribution of legal services to ordinary British

[ Page 494 ]

Columbians. I think there are about 14 legal aid offices in the province and roughly the same number of Legal Services Commission offices. Now I have a question of the minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, hon. member, I just think I should bring to your attention the fact that we are on vote 19 of the minister's office and not on vote 25.

MR. HANSON: Well, my understanding of the minister's vote is that it can be a broad discussion. Is that not correct? Can I not raise general questions and make general observations of the Attorney-General's ministry under the estimate of the minister's office?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be in order, but I think the points you are making specific to vote 25 should be brought up when we're discussing vote 25. The general comments will be allowed.

MR. HANSON: The observation I'm trying to make is the general priority of legal services to ordinary British Columbians that is reflected in this total budget. We have $186 million for the correction system, for police, for the court services and for the fire marshal's office. But the allocation for the community law offices, the Legal Services Commission and the native court workers in Elizabeth Fry to provide legal counselling and legal assistance to women and native people is only $10 million — 5 percent of the total vote. The point I'm trying to make is that the priorities are upside-down. I don't know how many of the members in this House have visited the Legal Aid Society office on Alexander Street in Vancouver, but it is full from the time it opens in the morning till the time it closes at night. It is full of poor people who need help. The Legal Services Commission here in Victoria, I think on Yates Street, is the same. The funding is not there; the funding is not expanding.

I took note of the fact that the minister made a comment that legal education is being introduced in grade 11 and grade 12.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Some of it is there now.

MR. HANSON: However, the actual access to legal help that is so needed in the province is not being funded. The growth of the funding is not there. I don't have the figures right off the top of my head, but my understanding is that the percentage of women incarcerated in British Columbia who are Indian women is overwhelmingly the majority; the majority of the female population in prison in British Columbia is Indian women. Now that is a self-evident problem; that is something to which your ministry should be addressing itself. I'm sure that the requests of the Elizabeth Fry Society to the ministry were far in excess of what they were granted for direct legal counselling to women in this province.

My understanding is that the Legal Aid society and the Legal Services Commission are going to undergo a meld. I would like the minister to advise the House of the status of that meld, and I understand there are some questions regarding the organization that that will eventually take. In other words, there will be regional boards. Will those regional boards be independent of the overall Legal Services Commission? Will they be accountable to the local citizens, or will there be an overall guarantee of the delivery of legal assistance province wide? I would appreciate it if the minister could answer that question for me.

I would also like the minister to answer why the Legal Services Commission vote was not expanded. Surely the minister recognizes that is an area that has to be expanded for the delivery of legal aid to ordinary people who cannot afford going through individual lawyers. Surely the 5 percent arbitrary ceiling on that vote doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Would the minister also answer the question regarding the future of Oakalla? Are there plans for either the upgrading or the phasing-out of Oakalla? It has been kicked around a lot, and I would like some kind of an update on the status of that question.

I've just been advised I'm giving Jim Lorimer's speech.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, you're doing it better.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Jim's asleep. Wake him up!

MR. HANSON: Jim just has his head down for a minute. [Laughter.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Victoria continues on vote 19, please.

MR. HANSON: The whole area of student programs, which is covered in the Legal Services Commission, again is an area where I don't have the 1977-78 annual report. I have the 1976-77 report I'm just looking at at the moment. I appreciate the expansion of legal education in the high schools. However, I think that it's got to be expanded at the university level as well, and I'm sure that out of $10 million.... I don't have the breakdown of what student programs get, but I imagine it is very, very small.

I would just like to underline that the Legal Aid Society, in my judgment, does a fine job. They are under-funded. The community law offices are under-funded; Elizabeth Fry Society is under-funded; and native legal services are certainly under-funded.

When you look at the proportion of Indian people who are in prison for generally.... They are not crimes against people, by and large; they are crimes that result from a number of circumstances. When you look at the number of poor people who are in jail as a result of inability to pay fines — they're not crimes against people; they may be minor crimes against property — that is the area.... If we're going to save money — and your government, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, always espouses fiscal responsibility, fiscal restraint — saving money — then surely there has to be money put at the preventive end of the justice system, not at the punitive end. We're front-end loaded with the punitive end, heavy on the court services, heavy on the police spending and the criminal justice division. We need more money training young people. We need to talk to them about the justice system and give them access to proper representation so they don't end up in jail by the mere fact that they cannot afford legal counsel. Just $10 million out of $196 million is not much money on the preventive end.

[ Page 495 ]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate, myself with the comments made by the member for North Okanagan...

MRS. JORDAN: Rosemary!

MS. BROWN: Home at last! ...and to certainly agree with her that there is a problem, certainly in the way in which lawyers not only speak to each other, but in the way in which they speak to the community at large. I suspect that what's happening is that she's suffering from having seven lawyers in her caucus, and I think it's enough to drive her to the nearest psychiatrist, if we could only find one for her, because it must be quite an experience.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names!

MS. BROWN: I know a good one, but we're not allowed to advertise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to settle for the Attorney-General's commitment just to teach English to lawyers, because I believe it certainly is a group for whom English is a second language. The only thing one has to do is simply to read a piece of legislation to understand that part of the problem why they don't understand each other, and why no one understands them, is because they're all speaking a foreign language which is not even understood by them.

I want to speak specifically about the Testator's Family Maintenance Act. As an example of the kind of English that one has to deal with from lawyers, it says in section 2: "For the purposes of this Act an illegitimate child shall be treated as if she or he were a legitimate child of his mother." Now if ever there was not a question of legitimacy it is the relationship between a mother and her child. One may question the legitimacy as far as a father is concerned, but only a lawyer would seek to put in the law a statement that a relationship between a mother and her child is a legitimate one. I thought that fact had been biologically established many, many years ago.

But the thing I really want to talk about in terms of this legislation, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, is the fact that it does not have very much protection in it for the second spouse in a marriage. I want to tell the story of a woman, right here in Victoria, who was married for 26 years to a gentleman whose first wife had died ten years previously. He had married her and they were married to each other for 26 years, but there were no children. He had had children by his previous marriage, but no children by the second marriage. Ten of those 26 years he was ill. He had a stroke, he lost his sight, he lost his hearing and she had to nurse him for ten of those 26 years.

He was not a very wealthy man but when he died he left the family home and one additional piece of property, which was a fourplex, from which rent they were living at that point because he was quite old. In his will he left her as the sole inheritor of his estate — the family home and a small piece of property which was worth about $80,000. His three children by the previous marriage — one aged 54, who is married to a mining engineer; one aged 53, who was a doctor; and one aged 48, who was himself a mining engineer — contested the will on the grounds, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier, that he had failed in his moral obligation to provide for his children. I want to remind you that when he died his children were aged 54, 53 and 48 respectively. There were two males, who were both professional people, and a female who was married to a professional person. So it was not a matter of the children being in need. However. the children contested the will, these three adults, on the grounds that their father had failed in his moral duty to provide for them. I want to add. Mr. Chairman, that the father had paid for both boys to go through university to ensure that they had a profession. He had also seen to the education of his daughter.

The case went through the courts for nine and a half years. For nine and a half years it dragged through the courts. It was agreed that she could continue to live in the family home that was hers. but the battle was over this small piece of property, worth $80,000 at the time. which by the time the case was over was worth more than $200,000.

The children's argument was that she had unduly influenced their father to cause him to leave his entire estate to her. She's been through this piece of legislation, Bill 378, which was recently amended, and I have been through it too and discussed it with lawyer, and also have had several legal opinions from the one or two lawyers to whom I spoke. But the consensus is that there is really no provision in the Act for the contribution of the spouse to the marriage. That is the main failure in the piece of legislation. Nowhere did the judge take into account the 26 years she had been married to this man, 10 years of which she had nursed him because he had had a stroke and he had lost his sight and his hearing. Also, the consensus was that a caveat is issued accusing a person of undue pressure: the Act does not say the onus is on the person who is challenging the will to prove there was undue pressure.

The third question she put, and suggested that I ask the minister, was: how long and to what age should a parent be held legally and morally responsible for his children, or for her children as the case may be? In fact, when the decision was finally handed down after nine and a half years, she lost. The estate was awarded to the children. She was allowed the family home and the decision was that she could continue to draw the rent from this fourplex, or whatever it was. That's what she would have as her income, but upon her death, this would revert to these three children who, as I said, were age 54, 53 and 48. There is absolutely no protection in this legislation. It does not take into account the contribution the spouse makes in the marriage. And there is no protection against the will ever being challenged, even after 26 years of marriage. I think anyone who remains married for 26 years deserves a medal, to say nothing of an inheritance. But the fact of the matter is that in this particular case — and it's no longer before the courts so I can discuss it — the estate was awarded to the children with the understanding that she would benefit from it while she was alive, but on her death it would have to revert to them.

That is just one of four specific issues I would like to raise. Maybe the Attorney-General would like to respond to that before I go on to the others.

HON. MR. GARDOM: First of all, is this in front of the court now?

[ Page 496 ]

MS. BROWN: No, no, it's settled. The kids have won.

HON. MR. GARDOM: But they entered into a settlement. Hon. member, you're referring to a factual situation that is unduly complicated by virtue of the allegation of undue influence, an added ingredient comes into play here. But under the Testator's Family Maintenance Act, the court can make — and I'm now quoting section 3 of the Act — such provision as it thinks "adequate, just and equitable in the circumstances." In order for the court to make that determination, it would have the responsibility to hear all the circumstances, including the financial circumstances, the contribution, the health, the welfare, the interests of the parties involved. Those are matters open to the court to consider.

You've mentioned there was a settlement. As I say, it's difficult for me to comment on something I don't have the specific facts on.

MS. BROWN: That is precisely the section which it was suggested should be amended to take into account — after all of the notwithstanding, et cetera, in that section — the contribution of the spouse to the marriage. It's not included in this. Her argument is that after 26 years of marriage, if the judge had taken into account the contribution involved 10 years of nursing this man — which, if he had to be placed in a nursing home, or whatever, would have wiped out the estate before he died — the case would have gone differently.

The other two recommendations had to do with the accusation of undue pressure, where the onus should be on the accuser to prove undue pressure.

The final question had to do with the law in terms of the legal and moral responsibility of a parent for children. Does it ever end? Or is it on to infinity?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Were some of the points you were making recommended by the court in its decision?

MS. BROWN: No, no. These were the recommendations that resulted from discussing this case with a number of lawyers, getting various legal suggestions as to how the Act could be amended. It was suggested that those things could be included.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It would be very helpful for my purposes if the hon. member would furnish me with a copy of the pleadings and a copy of the judgment in the matter. It is certainly something we can look into, but the test within section 3 of the Testator's Family Maintenance Act is very broad. I find it somewhat difficult to comprehend that the matters you have informed the House of were not taken into consideration by the court, but I would like to look at it.

MS. BROWN: I would be very happy to pass this information on to the Attorney-General afterwards. I agree with him that it takes into account the needs of the spouse; but it doesn't take into account the contribution the spouse made to the union. It takes into account the need. If the spouse needs it, it's fine. The judge did that. But it wasn't based on the contribution which the spouse made to union, and that's the amendment we're suggesting.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Did it go to appeal?

MS. BROWN: It went to the supreme court.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Of Canada?

MS. BROWN: No, of British Columbia. It went to the supreme court. Is that the right thing?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, that's the first step.

MS. BROWN: Oh, that's the first step. It's over anyway. But on behalf of future second spouses....

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm very happy to give you a complete answer to that one.

MS. BROWN: I just wanted to raise a couple of other things. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) touched on the Family Relations Act, and I wanted to ask the minister for one statement, for the record, and that is: are decisions now being handed down under that piece of legislation safe, are they protected, or is it possible that any future amendments or changes as a result of his asking for a constitutional question might in any way damage any of the decisions presently being handed down? That is really the basis of concern about the Family Relations Act.

HON. MR. GARDOM: My advice, Madam Member, is that the answer is no.

MS. BROWN: Okay. I have two very brief and quick comments.

The Lynda Williams Home, Mr. Chairman: it seems every year I make the same speech over and over, and so I thought I would read last year's Hansard into the record, because nothing has changed since then.

Once again the Lynda Williams Home is threatened with closure. It is the only halfway house for women. It is the only one. Why is it that every single year we have to go through this exercise to stop the Attorney-General from threatening to close down that home? There is no other halfway house. There are two halfway houses for men that I am aware of — there may be more. But the Lynda Williams house is the only one for women.

The rules governing it, as far as the municipality is concerned, have recently been changed. They have been relaxed so that women with drug-related offences can use the Lynda Williams Home. They can stay there during their process of rehabilitation, while they are gradually entering the workforce again. Yet once again we find the Lynda Williams Home is being threatened with closure.

There is a pile of mail — these are all carbon copies, and I know you have received them all, Mr. Attorney-General — from various and sundry people asking once again to save the Lynda Williams Home.

This is a Hansard of 1978. I can go back to the Hansard of 1977, and read you your estimates, Mr. Attorney-General, where I stood on my feet and begged, please, for the Lynda Williams Home. I am doing it again in 1979: will you save the Lynda Williams Home?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. member was a little more impassioned when she spoke about this before; but I informed her then, and she agreed thoroughly with me, that it would have to be looked at from the viewpoint of

[ Page 497 ]

cost-benefit. It was looked at from the viewpoint of cost-benefit. I'm happy to say that the use has gone up. The board of variance in Vancouver has altered the qualifications for occupancy. The use is up about 20 percent, with the net result that the per item cost is down about an equivalent amount. It is open and it is going to continue to be open on that kind of a basis.

But should it prove to be the case that it would not be effective and it would be a waste of taxpayers' dollars, I think everybody would agree that it or any other organization would have to have another look taken at it. But that's not the situation today. This was a recommendation of the Proudfoot commission, and I remember you speaking to me early on about that, and I said: "No, we're going to do what we can with it." And it's still open.

MS. BROWN: It's not the kind of resource that can be tied to cost-effectiveness. It is not the kind of resource that can be measured in terms of dollars and cents. It is a resource which has to be supported because it is needed. It meets a need in the community. It should not be operated in terms of how many people use it. We're not going to go out and encourage crime among women to keep up the occupancy of the Lynda Williams Home so that it can remain open; that doesn't make any sense.

This is what I am saying to the Attorney-General. It's the thinking that is at fault, and that's the reason why every year the Lynda Williams Home is jeopardized. When the crime rate among women goes down, there's a threat to close the Lynda Williams Home. It is the only halfway house for women. As long as it remains the only house, it has to remain open and we should thank God that it's not being used a lot — it means that the crime rate is going down.

We shouldn't be going out trying to increase the business of the Lynda Williams Home, trying to keep women in crime in order to keep the Lynda Williams Home open.

So I'm hoping that, under the estimates of the Attorney-General in 1980.... Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister has read the report done by the United Way for TRACY, the community group, about the sexual abuse of children in the Vancouver area. Has the Attorney-General received a copy of that particular report?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would be interested in the Attorney-General's response to the comments in the report about the ineffectiveness of the child protection laws of the province and the failure of those laws to protect the children of this province against sexual abuse. The report quotes statistics that speak about children being used as prostitutes from the age of 7, about children being owned by pimps and about the failure of the laws of the province to protect these children. The report talks about the fact that when the issue is raised we are told that prostitution is covered by the Criminal Code, and that only Criminal Code amendment can deal with this.

But I am speaking to the Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman, as the chief law enforcement officer of this province, who is responsible for the protection of the children of this province, and ask him whether he agrees with the report that there is absolutely nothing he can do to protect the children of this province from being abused sexually by people. Would the Attorney-General respond to this, please?

Mr. Chairman, I am going to deal at greater length with this, unless I can get a response from the Attorney-General. Are you saying, Mr. Attorney-General...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds resigned the floor and took her chair. The Chair now recognizes the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. LORIMER: I'll release my spot, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon defers to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. Please carry on.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and when I sit it should never be taken as a sign of resignation.

Mr. Attorney-General, the child protection laws of the province are the ones which are being discussed by us at this time. Would you respond to the accusation in the report that these laws are inadequate and in fact cannot protect the children of this province against sexual abuse?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I am waiting for some material.

MS. BROWN: You are waiting for some material? Okay, I appreciate that, thank you. I will release my spot to my colleague for Burnaby-Willingdon. Thank you.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the Attorney-General that I don't intend to ask him any legal questions or anything of that sort that might tax him. I'll leave those sorts of questions to the lawyers in the assembly.

I want to deal basically with the real old chestnut of Oakalla. This is the first opportunity I've had to speak to a different Attorney-General on the problems of Oakalla, the problems of an institution lying in the centre of a metropolitan area. built somewhere around 1910. It was built to confine prisoners and for basically, in those days, no other purpose. Although there have been additions made to Oakalla, the buildings themselves have changed very little, and the programs at Oakalla are still confined by the buildings themselves. We have what you might say is not a very model prison in the 1970s. It may have been a reasonable one 70 years ago, but today it has to be replaced.

I want to review the recent history of Oakalla and the Attorneys-General involved. You will probably all remember Mr. Bonner, who in the early 1960s announced to the newspaper and everyone else that the Oakalla prison would be phased out within ten years. The ten years passed and nothing much happened as far as the removal of Oakalla from the centre of the metropolitan area.

MR. MACDONALD: What about Peterson?

MR. LORIMER: Well, then he came along next, and he was going to carry out the promises of his predecessor. To give Peterson his due, he did do some phasing out. You remember there used to be 12 Clydesdales that used to go in the PNE show. They were housed in the farmlands in

[ Page 498 ]

Oakalla. Do you know what the Attorney-General of the day, Mr. Peterson, did? He moved the Clydesdales to Fort Steele. The member here for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) has the pleasure of seeing the Burnaby Clydesdales. They're very fine horses. The Clydesdales were in Fort Steele and the phasing out program was well on its way.

However, during the term of that Attorney-General they spent about half a million dollars on the construction of a new piggery, so that we could see then that the phasing out of the Clydesdales was merely a sham. We told the people of Burnaby that the phasing out wasn't taking place, it was merely a removal of the Clydesdales to Fort Steele. After the loss of Mr. Peterson to this House, we had a new Attorney-General. He's still here, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), I believe.

AN HON. MEMBER: The one who fired the Green Hornet. [Laughter.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LORIMER: The one who should have fired the Green Hornet. That's the one.

But you know, I was sure that everything would be all right, that things would progress in an orderly manner.

You know, I did get his attention after two years. [Laughter.]

MR. HALL: You went to a tennis court one evening.

MR. LORIMER: No, that's not correct. I didn't catch him on the tennis courts.

But in any event, we did have good progress. We did obtain a guaranteed agreement to lease, signed under the seal of the province of British Columbia for the transfer by lease to the municipality of Burnaby for 100 years.

The lease itself was to be signed within one year. You may remember under your term of office, Mr. Attorney-General, that that lease was not signed within the year. I don't know if you remember that but one year went by and the lease was not signed. A second year went by and the lease was still not signed. A third year went by and a committee was set up to look into what should be done with Oakalla lands after it had all been decided and after it had all been resolved.

However, this committee met for some reason or other, and I'm sure that you wouldn't guess when the lease was finally signed. It was signed on May 10. Do you know what that was? Election day.

All I can say is that the people of Burnaby were not fools. They realized that they had been deprived of the use and the value of this park. They knew they had been deprived by the Social Credit government for three years by you, Mr. Attorney-General. You deprived the citizens of Burnaby, the citizens of the lower mainland, of the use and enjoyment of this 160-odd acres — even lakeside acres.

You, Mr. Attorney-General, could have had that deeded over to Burnaby three years ago but there was delay, delay, delay. You were trying to get a little bit of political advantage by the delays, and the obvious result was that the advantages that you received were somewhat limited.

I must say there was something the four Attorneys-General that I mentioned had in common with the municipality of Burnaby: they had their QCs and Burnaby has their Oakalla.

When, Mr. Attorney-General, are we going to get rid of that thing? When are we going to get it moved? It's getting pretty late in the history of prisons in this province, and I want to know when it's going to be removed.

Now I'll sit down and wait for your promise and commitment. The other Attorneys-General such as Mr. Bonner and Mr. Peterson didn't mind promising.

Interjections.

MR. LORIMER: Well, he did something. The last Attorney-General did something; he got rid of three quarters of it at least, but you haven't got rid of any of it. Now it's your turn and I would suggest that you tell the House that after some 60 years, this prison will be removed from Burnaby.

HON. MR. GARDOM: My colleague, the Minister of Health (

So I'm hoping that, under the estimates of the Attorney-General in 1980, phaplMr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister has read the report done by the United Way for TRACY, the community group, about the sexual abuse of children in the Vancouver area. Has the Attorney-General received a copy of that particular report?

Hon. Mr. McClelland), wants the Clydesdales back. I guess you can't produce that, but I would like to say to the hon. member that there have been a multitude of commitments for the phasing out, the removal and the disposition of Oakalla. There has been just about every kind of suggestion one can think of, even to suggesting that it should be moved into the tundra, and we should send all of the incarcerated people up there via 747s, which we all know is a complete impossibility.

We have committed ourselves as a government, and I'm very happy to say that we have produced. We've committed ourselves as a government to the phase-out of Oakalla, and I'm not going to be stupid enough to stand up tonight and tell you that Oakalla is going to vanish tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, because it's not going to happen that way and you know that as well as I do. We've committed ourselves to reducing the problems in Oakalla.

We've committed ourselves to a 150-bed remand centre at a cost of some $18 million, to be established in Vancouver. We're able to say that great progress has been made there. This is not a promise; this is a reality. Treasury Board funds have been committed, drawings are underway, and once we're in the position to start construction, construction will start. So that is, without question, going to be the initial step in a phase-out of Oakalla.

It would not be possible, sir, or prudent or responsible for me to say to you this evening: "Yes, within a year there's going to be another 150-bed remand centre developed in the lower mainland." But I can assure you we are looking very carefully at the development of additional remand centres in the lower mainland. Once again, that will be a step toward the phase-out of Oakalla.

So I can say that we have made some progress. The date of May 10 was news to me; but I agree with you that it certainly does not seem the most appropriate kind of timing, and if it was timing that was supposed to produce results....

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are they questionable results? How would you describe them? I suppose....

Interjections.

[ Page 499 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: There is something now in the NDP tank that has been lacking for three years. That's what your colleague is saying over there, hon. member.

But that's where we are with Oakalla, and steps have been taken. Yes, I agree, it is an outmoded facility, particularly in the men's area. A number of recommendations were made by Madam Justice Proudfoot in her inquiry into the ladies' section, and the bulk of those items have been attended to and are still in the process of being attended to at this point in time.

MR. LORIMER: I am gratified by the remarks of the Attorney-General. He says he's not sure that he can stand in his place a year from now and say: "It's been done." But I can assure him that I'll stand in my place and repeat my speech a year from now, as I have in a number of years in the past; but I'm hopeful that it will not be necessary to do so.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, we're facing a very specific problem in Nanaimo, and that is the provision of detention facilities, or the need to expand those facilities. The need is created in part by people who are not necessarily charged in the community of Nanaimo but are charged in other communities and are incarcerated in Nanaimo, at least temporarily. I understand the community is reimbursed for the time that they are there. But it's falling on the city of Nanaimo to provide additional facilities, and the capital cost of providing these additional facilities that are used in part for people who are temporary prisoners from other communities, who are charged in Nanaimo and who are incarcerated in Nanaimo.... Nanaimo has to provide the capital facilities to house these people and is running short of space and is facing heavy expenditures to increase the jail facilities. That's the problem as I understand it.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, while the Attorney-General is preparing a reply to the member for Nanaimo, there are two things I want to ask him.

There was a reference by the federal government some time ago on a very important constitutional point in Canada, which I brought up, I think, in question period about six months ago. That was on the right of the federal government to change the constitution of the Senate of Canada — you know, whether it would be elected, appointed by the provinces, appointed this way, appointed that way, abolished, or whatever it might be. I'd like the Attorney-General to say why he wouldn't intervene in that case.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll read you Hansard. It's in there for four pages.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, I read the whole answer. But I think it was very regrettable. I don't say that the government should intervene in all of those cases. I know it costs money and so forth. But here, surely, is something that touches.... If ever there was a bedrock situation of the Canadian constitution, this was it. I think British Columbia should have been there with a position. I read the Attorney-General's answer. I don't know whether he believes the federal government should have the power to change the setup.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It does today.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, that was the question that was before the court. I don't think for one minute that the federal government should have the power to change the basic constitution of Canada without any say from the provinces. Now that was the reference, and there's been no decision from the Supreme Court. The hearing's been over.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Then you shouldn't be speaking about it.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm not speaking about the merits of the case. I'm speaking about why British Columbia was silent on a major constitutional point.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We went through that before.

MR. MACDONALD: All right. I think you could give your explanation again and I think we'I all go home without understanding a word of it. because I did read the four pages of Hansard when you gave your previous answer, and I couldn't understand whether you were in favour of the federal government having that unilateral power. Was that the position of the government of British Columbia, or did they think that the provinces had a say in the composition of the Senate? I would certainly think they ought to have.

Now the other point I want to bring up that the Attorney-General might be able to answer before 11 o'clock relates to childnapping. I'm not going through the old case in any great detail, but the classic case was the McFayden case, as the Attorney-General knows. There the mother up in Cawston had a custody order for her three children. There was a divorce pending, but there was a court order which gave her custody but allowed the father to visit and bring the children back at 5:30 in the evening on certain days.

The father came alone, and after a scuffle he pushed two of the children into the car. The older boy escaped and the other two children have not been seen or heard from since. The following day, which was July 10, 1978, the RCMP charged the father under section 248 of the Criminal Code, as it then was, with unlawful abduction of the children contrary to a custody order. That section, incidentally, has been strengthened in the meantime by the federal Parliament, but it was there and it was a criminal charge laid by the RCMP against the father.

Then the RCMP located the children in the skid row area of San Francisco. They appealed to the Attorney General’s office to authorize extradition — that is to say. a crime had been committed and they should be allowed to pick up that father and to recover the children through the FBI. The Attorney-General's office sent a Telex to the RCMP up in Osoyoos, saying that the policy of the Ministry of the Attorney-General was that it was a family matter and that the family could speak to the U.S. Immigration authorities, who don't really look for children who have been abducted from their lawful, in this case their mother's, custody; or they could take civil action, which is a ridiculous suggestion to make in the circumstances, because they would bounce around from one state to another. What

[ Page 500 ]

mother suffering the abduction of her children could possibly take civil action, first in California, then somewhere else, as the father moves around with the children and evades one civil order after another? It would cost thousands and thousands of dollars and be non-productive.

So the two things that the Attorney-General said in that Telex — that it was his departmental policy not to authorize extradition in those cases, but that they should rely on a civil remedy and the U.S. Immigration authorities — were of no comfort whatsoever to the mother. The children had disappeared and they're gone to this day.

I say first to the Attorney-General — through you, Mr. Chairman — that in these very serious cases where children have been kidnapped, which is the case here — it's true it was the natural father; but it was contrary to a custody order, and that natural father had a record of weapons offences and violence, and they were living in the skid row area when they were found in San Francisco.

I say that to lay down a general policy is a terrible mistake and dereliction within the Attorney-General's office. When one of these cases comes to the Attorney-General’s office he should, with his deputy, work out the best strategy for that particular case. At that time we had a letter from Marc Lalonde, the Minister of Justice in the federal government, saying that had extradition been requested, the government of Canada would have forwarded it to the State Department in Washington.

There's a new development in the case. The U.S. government, through the State Department, has taken the position, according to the information the mother has received — the children are still gone — that they will not honour extradition writs from the government of Canada, because the Attorney-General's department did change its policy, and did ask for extradition, so the FBI could get on the case and not just Immigration.

I'm thankful that this policy has been changed, but now we have the situation that the state department in Washington, D.C., advises that they would not get involved in this case since it involved family members saying the matter should be pursued in a civil court. They would not act on B.C.'s request for extradition. What that means is that if the criminal offence isn't carried over with the person being sought as a wanted criminal in the United States, that person is not likely to be found. Immigration doesn't go looking for him, and a civil remedy is ridiculous.

I think that in these circumstances the Attorney-General should follow this matter up because child kidnapping across international boundaries is a fairly common thing. When it happens there is untold anguish for the parents and untold destruction in terms of the personality of the children. I think the government of the United States has taken a very wrong position in this matter. Had the husband, who is Mr. McFayden, robbed a bank of $500 in British Columbia, and had the RCMP then laid a criminal charge — as they did in the child case — then extradition would follow naturally in the ordinary course. The FBI would have put that husband on the wanted list, and he would have been actively sought and the children would be recovered. But when it is the theft of children from a mother in lawful custody, children tossed around from one state and one skid row in the United States to the other, then the State Department in Washington says to the government of British Columbia: "Oh, it's just a family matter. Take civil proceedings...." I say that's totally wrong where children people are involved. There is nothing, no cooperation, even though both were provided for under the Criminal Code in section 248. If it was theft of property, extradition would follow in the normal course, and the full forces of the law enforcement agencies in the United States would be brought to bear to find those children and to return them to the mother.

What I would like the Attorney-General to do tonight is to stand up and say that he disagrees with the kind of attitude that the State Department in Washington has taken and that he intends through the federal-provincial conferences of the Ministers of Justice and the Attorneys-General of Canada to make a very strong point that the government of Canada should protest against this kind of action on the part of the State Department. If we put into our Criminal Code the theft of property as an indictable and extraditable offence, why should not the theft of children be also in there as an indictable and extraditable offence? And why should not our great neighbour to the south respect that decision of the government of Canada?

I ask the Attorney-General to comment about the attitude of the State Department of the United States. I say no more about what has happened in the past because the children are lost. While I have criticism, I'm now asking about the future. I say that that kind of kidnapping of children across international boundaries should be a matter of concern to this government, to the Ottawa government and to the State Department of the United States.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Dealing with this specific issue and its impact, not only, of course, in the United States and Canada but throughout the world, this was a matter that was under consideration by the International Law Advisory Committee in its meetings in The Hague earlier this spring. The province of Ontario was represented at that and indicated the views of the various provinces in Canada, and the view to having the American authorities change their policy.

It's a matter that we consider to be serious. It's one that we're giving a great deal of study and concentration to, and it has been placed upon the agenda to be considered at the next provincial-federal attorneys meeting which will be held in Quebec City early in September.

The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) asked me a question concerning the non-existence of remand facilities in the upper Island. Their need is being examined by the ministry at this time.

We are fully aware of the potential growth of need in the upper Island, and we hope to be able to act in an effective and proper manner to respond to that need. I think one can quite readily say we're better in having in the long run a facility there than transporting from the northern Island down to Wilkinson. So that's the general direction we're going. I cannot give you a specific tonight. No, I really couldn't give you a date as to the point of final submission. We've not yet gone through the specific committees of cabinet on the final submission nor to Treasury Board, but we're on the way.

I have to answer the second question. I'm sorry I don't have that right now.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're talking about the capital cost of that remand.... Well, the capital cost of the remand

[ Page 501 ]

facility in Vancouver is paid out of consolidated revenue by the general taxpayer; so conceivably it will be a similar route.

MS. SANFORD: I have a very brief question to the minister, but I do hope that he in his last answer to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) was not trying to give the impression that Nanaimo is upper Island.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, no.

MS. SANFORD: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is not the centre of the Island. I wanted to inform the House that the centre of the Island is Campbell River: that's the central point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps the argument could be dealt with in another forum.

MS. SANFORD: I did want to ask the Attorney-General, though, about a letter I wrote to him a couple or three weeks ago regarding the tragic death of two four-year-olds in the Comox area, who became trapped in an abandoned refrigerator. A number of recommendations came from the coroner's jury with respect to actions the provincial government might take to avoid future deaths of this type. In any case, I did write to the Attorney-General about this and I know he has now received a report from the coroner's jury. I'm wondering whether or not the Attorney-General plans to take any action on the recommendations. The recommendations, Mr. Chairman, included a general education program throughout the province on the dangers of fridges and freezers left where children can get in and just simply cannot get out again.

The parents of one of the children, Mr. Chairman, moved into a new home within a couple of weeks following the death of their four-year-old, and found to their horror that on the neighbouring property was another abandoned fridge. I think the fact that this does happen from time to time in this province indicates that some action should be taken through the Attorney-General's office. I'm not sure that legislation is the answer, but certainly an educational program of some type, I think, is warranted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I thank the hon. member for her comments, and also for bringing the case to my attention. I have not yet personally had the benefit of reading the recommendations of the coroner. I understand, though, that it was an excellent inquest and he did a very good job. The recommendations are certainly matters that we will give very fulsome consideration to.

I am just now grasping in my mind here. but I do believe that legislation that would fit those particular facts is existent in some states in the United States. I can't put a finger on it tonight, but it is a matter that we're looking into, and certainly it is fully deserving of fulsome study and consideration.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Presenting Reports

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented the 1978 report of the superintendent of insurance, the 67th.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:57 p.m.