[ Page 6377 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 22: minister's office –– 6377

Mr. Macdonald

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Brown

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 22: minister's office, $150,500.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I think there's a kind of theme to these estimates, and it's an unfortunate one. It's the old theme of pull down the shades, button the lips and stop all leaks. The worst thing in this ministry is the leaks. They let out a little public information that should have been out anyway, and they're bad. We have to stop them. I want to see what the Attorney-General will do finally about someone who lives in Vancouver East.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do you live?

MR. MACDONALD: Point Grey.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do you run?

MR. MACDONALD: Vancouver East. Mr. Chairman, there's some kind of Charlie McCarthy echo down there.

What happened to this man — and I show the Attorney-General his picture — shouldn't happen to a dog. It really shouldn't.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You don't mean that.

MR. MACDONALD: I do. It's absolutely bizarre; it's sort of Kafkaesque.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You haven't read Kafka in 25 years.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I don't have to when I'm practising as an MLA in this place with this government.

This man John Colenutt, having taken down an annoying basketball post which was too close to his bedroom window — it was up on the church grounds of the Church of the Nazarene on East 15th and was a bit of an annoyance — was approached by a police officer about taking this down, because that was trespassing and that was nuisance.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: The member for Omineca wants a heavy hand for law enforcement. The Vancouver police officer came and probably did his duty.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, and that's the way it should be handled, Mr. Member.

Mr. Colenutt admitted everything, and the police officer told him he may have to go to court about this. Well, sometimes you have to go to court in one capacity or another. There's nothing much you can do about it. Some guy is going to run you over and you've got to go and fight back. So Colenutt thought he may have to go to court. As some of the House will know, instead of receiving a summons to go to court — he, had a steady employment; he lived there six years; he had no police record whatsoever — Mr. Colenutt is suddenly arrested at 5 a.m. in the morning. Actually there were two police vans because another came for him at 8 a.m. to arrest him. He is taken to jail, put into handcuffs and given a psychiatric examination by Dr. Mackenzie. He finally appears before a judge, and after ten hours of incarceration he is released.

Now the plot thickens, because it happens that the senior JP in Vancouver, Kennedy, is an elder of the Nazarene Church that had put up the basketball post which was going thump, thump, thump beneath this man's window when he was trying to get to sleep. Kennedy had been instrumental in terms of the arrest in the sense that he had sat around with the elders of the Nazarene Church and explained to them their legal options. When you get a senior JP in a Vancouver matter intervening to that extent, you've got trouble. But it didn't end there, because the first question in the case is why a citizen with no record, living there, working steadily would suddenly be arrested at 5 o'clock in the morning, having confessed everything to the police. Why? The Attorney-General can't deny that this is the nine thousand nine hundred ninety-ninth case out of ten thousand where you arrest, when a summons will do the job perfectly well. You don't do that. So there was something wrong.

Who occasioned the arrest. the incarceration for ten hours and the psychiatric examination of this citizen? Well, Inspector Noel Larkin, who investigated the matter on behalf of the police, said he found that it was L.G. Kennedy, the senior justice of the peace, who opted for a warrant of arrest instead of a summons. The warrant was signed by another junior JP, Doris St. Germain.

This is apparently the use of the law.... I say apparently, because all I'm asking is that the facts come out, that it be open and we raise the shades, unbutton the lips and allow some leaks to happen out of the justice system that the Attorney-General's got shut down so tightly. You have here, apparently, a senior justice of the peace having a personal interest in a case leading to very bizarre results as far as a citizen is concerned. Now what happens? Complaints from John Colenutt.... [Laughter.] This is very amusing to anybody who lives in Point Grey, I know. It's just an ordinary little guy picked up by the police in the morning. In a sense it's a small case. It's just one little guy after a very bad experience complaining to the Attorney-General and the police. Incidentally, the police are totally innocent in this thing, as far as I can see. They had no choice but to arrest. It was the JP who issued a warrant to arrest. So you can't say the police did anything wrong. Why they had two vans rather than one, to arrest this very dangerous criminal in the morning, I don't know. They came at different times.

It's just "the little man" in a situation where there's an obvious appearance of severe injustice. It appears that one of the officers of the law has allowed private considerations to influence his public judicial duties. That's a very serious thing to say. I say "apparently." What I object to on behalf of the government and the Ministry of Attorney-General is that

[ Page 6378 ]

it's typical of what's happened everywhere else. Then there's a secret inquiry or investigation with very good people involved: Judge Darrell Jones and Chief Judge Larry Goulet. But it's private and secret. Colenutt is sitting back there, having made his complaint. Ten months later all he finds out is that there's no merit to it. There's obvious merit to that. There was no reason in the world why he should be arrested. There was no reason why a man who is perfectly sane — saner than the Attorney-General or saner than me, if you prefer that — should be given a psychiatric examination before he even saw a judge. I think he's saner than anybody in this House. He'd never had any kind of an emotional disturbance of any kind. Why would he be given a psychiatric examination? He wasn't fighting, scratching, kicking or biting, but he was put in handcuffs, taken across the street and given an examination.

What I'm demanding here is an open hearing before the Judicial Council or before a judge, so that this man can be satisfied and hear the witnesses who are saying that everything that happened to him is okay. When you've got a closed justice system, it's very difficult to penetrate the veil of secrecy.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He didn't, eh?

MR. MACDONALD: It's possible that he could do that but there's a remedy sitting right beside you on your left hand, Mr. Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. The Attorney-General can ask the Judicial Council to hold an open hearing — raise the shades and let justice be done. All there was was an investigation — no hearing before the Judicial Council. The old act allows that to happen. I know it's been changed since, and changed a little bit for the better; I agree with that. But under the old act it shouldn't have been an investigation in which they didn't even speak to Colenutt. As far as I can see, they just had his letter. What Larkin, Justice of the Peace Kennedy, the psychiatrist and the police were saying is a mystery to Colenutt. Okay, anybody can get over ten hours of incarceration in a psychiatric examination; but it's typical of what's going on this province because the justice system is too closed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's more open than when you were there, my friend.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I don't know. If it is, it's a shameful record we have. I don't know. It ought to be opened up anyway. Let's agree on that — it's a nice early hour in the morning. But that's not the question under debate right now. What the record was from 1972 to 1975 we'll debate on another occasion.

MR. KEMPF: It was terrible; we know.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, we'll debate that on another occasion. It was awful, wasn't it.

Anyway, I'm very serious about this. There's got to be some remedy. This man is entitled to have some kind of an open hearing. The machinery is there. What does the Attorney-General say? Will he finally give him an open hearing?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In spite of the hour of the morning and the member's style of speaking, whereby he would seem to leave the impression that this is a light-hearted matter, I wish the committee to know that I don't see it in that light. When the member raised this with me — and I've had correspondence with his constituent — I thought there was something of very serious concern. I have asked for additional information with regard to what took place in the various events that transpired.

I have to say one thing. The evidence does not indicate that Mr. Colenutt was subjected to a psychiatric examination. He was visited by a doctor for the purposes of.... In view of the nature of the evidence that was available surrounding the offence, Crown counsel took the appropriate step of ascertaining whether there was any such problem, because these problems do arise. But Mr. Colenutt refused the examination, and that was the end of the matter. So there was no psychiatric examination in any sense of the word.

But I want to say to the member that I am not satisfied with the answers I have received, and the matter is proceeding. I urge the member to consider the provisions of the existing Provincial Court Act, which don't give me the kind of authority that the new act will. Nonetheless, I am not allowing the matter to stay there. It is under further consideration. I do not think that matters of this kind appear to have been appropriately dealt with. Whether the advice given by Mr. Kennedy to the elders of the church was an appropriate thing for him to do in his position, and whether there should have been an arrest as opposed to a summons, are matters which require clarification. That process is underway, Mr. Member. I hope that when it's finally concluded Mr. Colenutt will be satisfied that everything has been explained as best it can. Indeed, it may have been a mistake in judgment on the part of the justice of the peace who issued the warrant, or it may have been a mistake on the part of the police officers in the time that they chose to serve the warrant. All those matters will come out of the review. Mr. Colenutt will have the opportunity to be fully aware of what has taken place.

MR. MACDONALD: I appreciate the non-lighthearted manner; and I wasn't being lighthearted. I'm drawing attention to a serious case, in a kind of lighthearted way in a sense, but it is a serious case.

This is what I'm complaining about: the Attorney-General is going to make another private investigation. Of what? The present act allows the chief judge to refer this matter to the Judicial Council. It allows that hearing to be open, with witnesses called and cross-examined. Section 13(f) allows the Attorney-General to ask the council to report to him on matters he considers necessary. Well, here's one. So the Attorney-General could ask them for a report on this matter, officially, and I'll bet they would hold an open hearing. But to do it as you're suggesting.... It's two years later, and you say your inquiries are going along; there are good people involved; they're going to tell the truth. What they'll tell we don't know. I think the way these things could be handled is not by secret investigation; that's what it is. I want assurance that there will be some kind of open inquiry into this to clear the air. That means you could appoint a judicial inquiry. It doesn't have to be a big, elaborate one. As I say, this is not the greatest case. It's a little man in a civil liberties situation. There are bigger ones out there; I know that — KKK and everything else. But it's important even if it's one man. I say it's got to be an open hearing with cross-examination. Let Colenutt with his own ears hear what they're saying about how this happened to him. Inquiries and "everything will be all right" isn't good enough, Mr. Attorney-General.

[ Page 6379 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I don't want the member to be confused. Not only can the chief judge recommend to the council that there be an inquiry, but if the member would consider very carefully section 16 of the existing Provincial Court Act, he will find that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can also request.... I want the member to be assured that the review being made of the matter by my office is in order that I may properly consider the recommendation that I should make to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I don't easily ignore the recommendation of the chief judge that there should not be an inquiry. I think the member will recognize that in order to go farther I must make some review of my own. I just want to assure the member that it's being dealt with on that basis. If the results of the queries being made by office indicate that the chief judge was wrong in reaching his conclusion, then I'll be happy to recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that the appropriate inquiry be established.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm a little encouraged that there may be an open inquiry, but I do point out to the Attorney-General that Mr. Colenutt's very detailed letter was dated February 15, 1981. That's five months ago. This is a plaintive cri de coeur after the events of May 1980. So a lot of time has gone by without the kind of inquiry that should be open.

I want to say another word about the so-called psychiatric examination. I think it's very unusual, and I think it's happened before. Before a man gets his appearance in court, the prosecutor can refer an accused for psychiatric examination. As I understand it, Mr. Colenutt was in handcuffs and he was taken to the doctor in the other building. Maybe it was a very cursory examination — he said ten minutes. But unless it's a real case of mental illness, shouldn't the man be brought before the judge who remands in the adjournment court? Then the prosecutor says to the judge: "I think in this case I'd like this man to be looked at by Dr. MacKenzie." But I don't think the prosecutor should do that. They're busy in the morning. In this case there is no justification at all. So I think that should be looked at as part of what I hope will be an open examination of this case.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I just want to say that that is also part of the matter under review. I'll tell the member this. What occurred on this occasion was that Crown counsel — examining the nature of the evidence as to what Mr. Colenutt did in the course of this, at that time alleged offence — had raised in his mind the question as to whether or not it was the action of someone who was acting normally. Therefore that was his decision. I agree with you that that is something which should be properly considered. Maybe the right time for the consideration of an examination was not considered in this particular case. That's also part of the matter, so that it isn't just Mr. Kennedy or the justice of the peace, and it isn't just the police; the Crown counsel is also involved. If there is to be an inquiry into this matter, I think it will all come to light and perhaps some new procedures will emerge from this. It won't help Mr. Colenutt. He's already suffered his indignities and the penalties of the court for what he did, but hopefully we will learn something from this.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to discuss with the Attorney-General his responsibilities in line with law enforcement and the operation of the courts. I am wondering whether or not he has been so busy with his internal investigations and his various studies that he has perhaps failed to recognize some of the things that are happening in the court system. Certainly justice must be even-handed and it must be dealt out in a fair, prompt and expeditious manner.

I would like to present a case history of one of my constituents to point up the kind of things that are happening in relation to the dispensation of justice. This particular individual was apprehended in the driveway of his home, on being reported by a neighbour, and charged with impaired driving. That was in January of 1979. My constituent engaged counsel, and the case was remanded. They appeared again and it was remanded a second time because the police officer was on holidays. The first time was supposedly to prepare the case. The third remand was because the lawyer was unable to get to Duncan because there was heavy snow on the Malahat. It came before the court again and there was a fourth remand because there was no judge. The fifth remand was because there appeared to be problems on both sides — neither lawyer was ready to proceed with the case. It was remanded a sixth time because someone else was on holidays, and so the case was not able to proceed.

The charge was laid in January of 1979. Finally, in January of 1981, two years later, my constituent's lawyer persuaded the Crown to change the charge from impaired driving to obstructing a police officer. That was the charge that was finally laid and upheld. My constituent was fined $400. My constituent is unfortunately an alcoholic. He is married with a wife and children and was employed. Incidentally, his legal fees on that particular impaired charge, which finally wound up being a charge of obstructing a police officer, cost him in excess of $1,000. There is one income in that family. There is a history of violence within the home, and during the continuing delay of this particular impaired charge the wife of my constituent also hired counsel and was attempting to have the husband removed from the home because of alcoholism, violence and mental cruelty. They appeared in court and were told that her husband would have to have 24-hour notice and that somehow was not given. I don't understand how that happened, unless perhaps the wife's counsel was not aware of that. Anyway, a week later they came back into family court in Victoria; the judge heard the case and awarded in favour of the wife, agreeing that the husband should be banned from the family home. After the decision was handed down, the husband and his lawyer arrived — they were late. They hadn't been there. The judge withdrew his decision, heard the husband's evidence and then decided that if the wife and family moved out of the home, there would be a restraining order on the husband going into any other home that she might establish. Surely, Mr. Chairman, there is a degree of unfairness in expecting the wife to take the children and move out of the family home in order to protect herself and her children from violence and mental cruelty on the part of a husband who has a record of drinking.

The case goes on. On October 31, 1980, while the impaired charge were still out there, the husband was apparently still driving his car; he still had his licence. Another incident took place in the driveway of his home — this time he molested a young girl. She laid charges, but then she left town. So there was another legal fee for the husband, with all these legal fees coming out of the income that was supposed to support that family. I see smiles on the faces of some members, but it's not a funny matter to this wife and family — or to the husband, as a matter of fact — to be involved in

[ Page 6380 ]

these continuing problems with the law. Because the girl who was allegedly molested had left the area, the charges were finally dismissed in April of this year. But that particular case was hanging over the heads of those constituents, because certainly it involves the wife, who is faced with having to break up her marriage. Neither of them wants a divorce, but they agree that there is no way they will be able to live together because of his alcohol problem and the violence that results, and the court is doing nothing but frustrate a situation that is extremely bad.

As the chief law officer of the province, the person responsible for the administration of justice, I suggest to the Attorney-General that he has a responsibility to see that the law is administered in a much more expeditious manner. I would appreciate his comments on the point that the judge changed his decision when the husband arrived late for the hearing. Is that a normal procedure? Certainly we want the husband to be heard, but the time was set and if he wasn't there, wouldn't that decision stand? Would he not have to appeal? I don't understand that particular aspect of it. Perhaps that's a normal procedure, but I would like the comments of the Attorney-General on that.

I would certainly like him to take under advisement some method of either revising the laws of the land, if necessary, or, certainly, revising the ways in which they are administered, to prevent this kind of thing occurring. This is one instance, but it's not isolated; everywhere you go you find people with a court case hanging over their heads, waiting to be heard — remand after remand. I know of many cases that have gone on for years before they finally got a hearing and were decided. By that time witnesses' memories may have been affected — it's long after the event; the whole case could well be thrown out on technicalities, as has often happened. It's the kind of problem that makes people mistrust the justice system, and that's a very unfortunate sign of today's society. The attitude of society towards the justice system is not respect. I saw a bumper sticker last night. It was the first one I'd seen; it was on a police car. It said: "Respect the Law." That's something that we should do. Respect for the law is being eroded by the way the law is being enforced, or the lack of enforcement, the unfairness, or the apparent unfairness, and the delays. Those are the problems that I'm concerned about and that I'd like to see the Attorney-General address himself to.

MR. COCKE: I tried with very little effect, I think, to have a discussion with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) with respect to the town of Williams Lake and the problem they have with arrests for alcohol-related problems. I said at the time that there was little or no assistance in terms of health up there. However, the situation is one that overlaps into the Attorney-General's area; we're talking about arrests. As a matter of fact, the Attorney-General received a letter from the mayor of Williams Lake mailed as recently as June 17. Don't forget the report of two or three years ago that we were talking about that indicated that Williams Lake had a SIPP — state of intoxication in a public place — ratio of about 240 per 1,000. The closest to that would be Fort St. John with something in the order of 100 per 1,000, and Vancouver with around 30 per 1,000 arrests — I'm just going from memory now — in this particular area.

Three years ago this province got a report on the whole state of affairs in Williams Lake and other areas. Three years later, zero, zilch, nothing has been done in terms of looking after this important situation. The mayor of Williams Lake gets in touch with the Attorney-General and gets a reply. He says: "We need some help with our policing — more provincial input." They got in touch with the Minister of Health and said: "We need some help." Nothing. Unfortunately I didn't get a copy of the Attorney-General's letter, but obviously I can tell by the tone of the letter from the mayor to the Attorney-General — I received a copy of it a couple of days ago — that they're not getting any more help from him.

Let me read you a couple of excerpts in terms of this whole question up there. The mayor says: "Within the municipal boundary of Williams Lake, the total arrests were 1,701 in the last year. Of this total 1,171 were SIPPs, or 69 percent of the total arrests. This reconfirms the figures I gave you and are figures that you question." In other words, the Attorney-General questions the figures.

HON. MR. FRASER: The mayor's got his figures all mixed up. What do you know about Williams Lake?

MR. COCKE: Isn't that interesting. The member, who is relatively literate at times, can get a copy of the major provincial report that was done on the state of policing in this province in the year 1978. What we're seeing now are figures that are exactly in line with the figures that came out in 1978. If the member from the area — who's a little bit embarrassed because he's also obviously done nothing — is in any way embarrassed, maybe he should look to his own government to pull him out of the embarrassment, because you're doing nothing. Now can I proceed?

HON. MR. FRASER: That's your opinion, but as usual it's wrong.

MR. COCKE: Then you will get up and tell us what the actual figures are, I'm sure.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: We'll find out where the information came from, and then we'll find out whether or not the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) would like to get up and rebut.

The mayor goes on to tell us where he gets his information: "It follows therefore that as 69 percent of all municipal crimes are state of intoxication in a public place, you are in fact recycling alcoholics, and it is an indication of the failure of the province to deal with a serious health problem by calling it a a policing problem and charging the municipality."

I won't go through some other factors. He tries to draw analogies here. Let's get back to more meat. "My council has a right to be very annoyed when you ask: 'While you have singled out policing services as a contentious issue, is it not true that non-residents also have an impact on municipal services?' The answer, of course, is they do, but five wrongs don't make a right." He says: "You and I can solve the policing problem."

Where did he get the information? The mayor got the information as follows. He said: "Having just visited our local RCMP detachment office, and having studied the arrests and the SIPPs of 1980 on a local level, the following are the facts." That's where he got the facts, Mr. Minister of Transportation and Highways. Where else would you get them? At the RCMP detachment, right off their books.

[ Page 6381 ]

HON. MR. FRASER: Out of his own head.

MR. COCKE: I want it to go on record that the Minister of Transportation and Highways indicates that the mayor of Williams Lake got these figures out of his own head. Let the mayor and the Minister of Transportation and Highways have the argument. We know that in 1978 a document this thick on policing in this province indicated that Williams Lake was virtually three times as high as average.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, what we called for under Health and what we call for under the Attorney-General is something this government can do. They can come to grips with this problem up there.

HON. MR. FRASER: There's not supposed to be any politics in this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Once again I ask the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) to come to order.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I need protection from that Minister of Transportation and Highways. He's rough and burly.

I would ask that not only the Attorney- General get together.... The mayor says at the end of his letter: "It would appear to me a meeting should be held between our municipality, yourself and the Minister of Municipal Affairs at once, to once more elucidate the positions of each party, as our impasse can only fester with results that no one needs."

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the date of that?

MR. COCKE: June 17, 1981.

That's what's asked for, and I hope that's what they get. But I hope that they include the Minister of Health in this. You see, the original report dealing with Williams Lake, Fort St. John and a number of other areas in the province said — this was a policing report — that what was needed in those areas was some health facilities to take care of this problem. What you're doing is re-arresting chronic alcoholics. It's a burden and a cost on the justice system. Why don't we put our money in the proper area? I believe that the mayor should also call upon the Minister of Health to be part of this meeting — in other words, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Attorney-General and the Minister of Health. This problem can no longer be ignored. It was in a major report three years ago. Here we find, three years later, not a shred of evidence of anything being done to alleviate that problem up there.

I wait to hear what the minister has to say about that. Meanwhile I'd like to make a comment or two on some speeches that I heard yesterday, giving some advice to the, Attorney-General. There was a speech from the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), and there was a speech from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). The member for Omineca didn't disappoint me, because I recognize that Genghis Khan looks like a left-winger compared to him in his attitude towards people.

MR. KEMPF: You want a more lenient society. Is that what you want?

MR. COCKE: The member calls for a more lenient society.

On the same topic, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour dealt with the fact that the courts were terribly lenient. Yet he did complain about his own situation. He was innocent, you see, Mr. Chairman. That's the problem that we have in our society. If the member for Omineca was accused of a crime, he'd be innocent; but other people are not so innocent. He wants everybody else judged harshly, and we see this so often. Over the years we have seen....

MR. KEMPF: I never said "accused," I said "convicted," and there's a hell of a difference.

MR. COCKE: That's the whole story. We see that in all the fanaticism that comes out of the sort of right-wing attitude — providing it's not me or my family, who are obviously innocent of any crime ever.... But the rest of society must be confronted with a system that judges them harshly. I contend that that is an absolute crock of nonsense. Compared to the United States and most free societies Canada has a reputation of being relatively harsh now. What that member wants is something like totalitarian Russia or some other totalitarian country where people are really given the works.

MR. KEMPF: Oh, now you're on the wrong side of the floor, my friend.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I would remind the member for New Westminster that we are on the estimates of the Attorney-General, not the member for Omineca.

MR. COCKE: I'm giving advice to the Attorney-General as well. The extreme left-wing and the extreme right-wing are so close that they hold hands all the time. You're just exactly the same. Any totalitarian is a totalitarian.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. If we return to vote 22 specifically, which I'm sure the member for New Westminster is now going to do, and we keep the interjections to a minimum, we will accomplish the aims of the committee, which are to debate estimate 22.

MR. COCKE: I'll ignore the member for Omineca and say a word or two about the speech that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour made.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour was talking about the main complaint his constituents have about the administration of justice in this province which is that our judicial system is too permissive. "Not only do we have too many laws but the laws themselves are too bland and administered even more blandly." Then he has the temerity to complain about his own particular situation being handled by the courts unmercifully. I really don't make any kind of sense out of that. Either we want it one way or we want it another.

I suggest that the Attorney-General should look for real justice. In other words, those that are guilty of offending the law naturally should be handled in a proper way. This business of suggesting harsh penalties, in my view, only creates harsh reaction. What we're getting out of that, and have always got out of that....

[ Page 6382 ]

MR. KEMPF: Absolute garbage.

MR. COCKE: He would bring back the rack, and after having done that he would also like to carry a hand-gun right into this House.

MR. KEMPF: It's not a bad idea.

MR. COCKE: That's right. That's his kind of justice. He's the frontier cowboy. "If I'm offended, bang!"

I just hope we don't have to be offended by this kind of suggestion. Let's hear some positive suggestions about the administration of justice rather than this balderdash we've been hearing.

I would like to hear a word or two about the Williams Lake problem. I think it's a serious problem, and it's not the only area in the province that is faced with this particular problem. The Williams Lake situation is only an indication of what's happening in many other communities in the province, and we must deal with this whole question of alcohol. Years ago the former Minister of Health, the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland), took everybody's eyes off the alcohol problem in this province by putting up a program for heroin addicts — who, incidentally, they couldn't find. Anyway, after wasting much money maybe we can now come to grips with the real problem in society. That's the problem of alcohol as it relates to the Attorney-General and the health-care situation in our province.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to respond to matters raised by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace).

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to either come to order or possibly attend to other duties in other places.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member for Cowichan-Malahat raised some matters which are important to her in her constituency, but they are important throughout the province as well. As to the particular case that you raised, Madam Member, the fact circumstances are found elsewhere. It has been a matter of concern to the ministry in excess of two years to work out solutions. I won't talk about the family-law situation, because without all the circumstances surrounding that case I would hesitate to involve myself in a decision there, except to say this. One of the favourable aspects of the family-law system that functions in this province is that if the circumstances could justify a judge reconsidering a decision, because one of the parties couldn't be present at the very moment, rather than make a decision and put them through the process of an appeal, the family-law court system functions on a much more informal basis. Therefore that is not something to be criticized. But whether the result was correct, I can't say.

On the question of the man who was charged with impaired driving, and the long period of time it has taken, it is the standard in the ministry that we attempt to achieve a goal whereby 90 percent of the cases which come before the courts are dealt with within 90 days, with a maximum of 180 days. That's the goal, but we're not achieving it except in very few instances in the province. As a result, 18 months ago, with the assistance of the chief judge of the provincial court, the police services in the province, Crown counsel and the court services and finance administration divisions of the ministry, we established a case-management evaluation study. What we are finding is that there are faults in several parts of the system, which is just seven years old now. The system began in 1974. It has developed in various ways in various parts of the province. In some cases the problem is the way in which the charge was laid in the first place; the accused person is brought for his remand and granted his first adjournment. In many cases — and you have one here — the case was set and then had to be adjourned again because a witness was not available. This is a witness-management problem, and that's another very important aspect of the matter.

You indicated that there was an adjournment because defence counsel couldn't get there; I think the reason was snow. But this is another problem which has to be addressed by the defence bar. In many cases trials are being set by defence lawyers, and when they can't make that trail date because of some conflict with their other business, then they ask for an adjournment. Every time that happens the court time is wasted, the witness time is wasted and the accused is delayed in having his matter adjudicated.

As a result of the studies undertaken so far — and this case-management evaluation is continuing — we have already made significant changes with regard to witness management. That has now been made the sole responsibility of Crown counsel, who must work with the police forces involved in handling these charges and with defence counsel to ensure that the date being fixed is a date on which the police witness will be present. That would solve one problem as far as the police are concerned — first, that he's there, and secondly, that he's there at a time when he can testify without creating serious overtime problems for the police force.

A second and, we believe, much more useful tool is being established in the provincial court system. This is what is known as trial coordination. We've had a pilot project going on in the province for a couple of years. We find that with the use of trial coordinators the judges, in fixing dates for trials, have someone who follows up once that trial date has been fixed to make sure that Crown counsel and defence counsel are ready to go ahead, and that the witnesses will be available. That information will be before the court a week or so in advance of the trial date, so that if there is any problem the trial can be rescheduled and the court time not wasted. These steps are being taken to overcome the kinds of problems the member has enunciated in her remarks.

The trial coordination project, as I say, has been going on in two areas of the province on a pilot basis. In the next few months it will be incorporated in the provincial court system in the city of Vancouver, and then we will be expanding it throughout the province.

Before the member for New Westminster leaves, the question of Williams Lake....

MR. COCKE: He's not leaving. Quit rumouring.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I wasn't suggesting you were leaving; I just thought you were heading for the door.

The situation that exists at Williams Lake is one which is not unique to that community. It is found elsewhere. It is a problem which is associated with a set of geographical and population factors. Williams Lake is a small municipality which serves a much larger community. The people in that

[ Page 6383 ]

larger community come to Williams Lake for business purposes. Some people who work outside the municipality may live in Williams Lake, but the commercial or industrial enterprise which is their employment is not within the town, Therefore it contributes little, if anything, to the revenues. Yet Williams Lake is obliged to provide, being the community centre, recreation facilities, parks, policing services, and all of the amenities of urban life which are expected by the people who come from the surrounding area. With that come the problems. This is not unique to Williams Lake. We have identified three other areas in the province which are suffering from the same difficulty. As a consequence, the statistics with regard to court and police activity would indicate, on the standards used throughout the province, that Williams Lake needs a larger municipal police force. Therefore it has to pay for it. Because of the statistics, we are engaged with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in using Williams Lake as a pilot study for determining the options there may be to ensure that the financial resources are made available to Williams Lake for discharging its policing responsibility, which is clearly reflected by the fact that it is only one part of a larger community.

The mayor and I have some differences of opinion with regard to the statistical base. He views the figures in one way and we in another. Let me just say that they do have a very high state of intoxication in a public place record. It's the highest of any municipality in British Columbia, so they've got an alcohol problem. There's no denying that and I'll deal with that in a moment. The difficulty we have — and that the mayor has — in our view, is that he is relying upon the number of arrests for SIPP, and we do not take those into account in determining what the size of the police force will be. The facts are that there were a total of 1,701 arrests of persons charged with Criminal Code offences, but there were an additional 1,684 persons who were charged with Criminal Code offences who were not taken into custody. We base the police requirements not on SIPP case burdens, but on Criminal Code offence case burdens. It's also surprising — and we are hoping to ascertain the reason for this — that Williams Lake's Criminal Code case burden is nearly twice the average of 55 British Columbia municipalities. That's not drunkenness matters; it's Criminal Code case burdens. Based upon that, we concluded that the size of the municipal detachment in Williams Lake had to be increased by five members. Those instructions were given in the spring of 1980.

Policing is a municipal responsibility. It has been a responsibility of municipalities for decades. That was confirmed in the new Police Act, which was passed during the time that the member was in government, and that is the case today. Because of the size of this municipality, they enjoy a contribution towards their policing costs from the federal government. That is because those police officers are also available to discharge the federal responsibility in policing services within their jurisdiction. So the burden that is cast upon Williams Lake is no different than the burden that exists on any other municipality. They do have, as I indicated, a special problem, because they are a small municipality serving a much larger area. The suggestion in the letter sent to me on June 17 by Mayor Mason that there should be a meeting between the mayor, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and myself is one that I'm prepared to accept. As soon as we have made the review and have decided which of the options would apply to the Williams Lake situation, we would like to sit down with the mayor and indicate to him where relief may be found.

On the question of the drunkenness problem, we are concerned in the Ministry of the Attorney-General about the amount of time which has to be taken by police officers and court personnel in handling cases of extreme drunkenness. The SIPP situation is one where a person is picked up one night, spends a few hours in the lockup and is probably dismissed the next morning. By that time he is sobered up and back on the street; it's a revolving door. This is a matter which we have raised with the Alcohol and Drug Commission in this province. There was a suggestion that there should be a detoxification centre established at Williams Lake. Based upon the experience with those centres, Williams Lake does not appear to be a large enough community to justify such an approach. I have recommended to Mayor Mason that he deal with this matter through the Alcohol and Drug Commission. Because we have direct interest in the resolution of that problem, when meeting with the mayor with regard to the issue of policing costs, it would also be my desire that we have a meeting with the Minister of Health and the people from the Alcohol and Drug Commission to see whether or not we cannot assist that municipality in some local community efforts which will deal with that problem.

When I met with the mayor a couple of months ago, he pointed out that the problem seemed to stem from a very few people. Apparently there is a group in Williams Lake that seems to attract other persons for whom alcohol is a very serious problem. It may be that an examination of the matter and a study by the Alcohol and Drug Commission can indicate some way of breaking that revolving-door syndrome that they have in Williams Lake and putting an end to this senseless drain, not only with regard to the police and court services but the impact on the municipality. So we're not ignoring Mayor Mason's problem; however, Mayor Mason must also understand what the obligations of the town of Williams Lake are with respect to policing responsibility.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this morning I'd like to talk to the Attorney-General about the whole question of the relationship between women and the justice system. I realize that of course I can't deal with the entire topic, so I'm just going to confine myself to certain specific areas we're having some problems with at this time. To make the task of answering my questions easier for the Attorney-General, I'm going to give him a few headings so that maybe he and his assistants can prepare some responses even as I'm elaborating on the topic. I want to speak about some problems with the prisons — the penal system; some problems arising out of the Family Relations Act; problems about funding for some of the advocacy groups that work with women, such as Rape Relief and the Vancouver Status of Women, tie into that the whole question of violence against women, if possible; some problems with the family court; specifically some things to do with enforcement of maintenance, childnapping and some of the other problems with that; and also the whole business of prostitution as it applies to young girls.

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

I want to start out by talking about the prison system, Mr. Chairman, and really what's happening to women in that particular institution. As the Attorney-General knows, for a number of years we've been expressing concern about the total inadequacy of the programs within the prisons, of the whole physical situation of the prisons themselves and of the

[ Page 6384 ]

kind of budget that the penal system has to work with as it affects women. We have this really strange phenomenon that because there are not as many women criminals as there are male criminals, somehow the attitude is that there shouldn't be as much money spent on their rehabilitation in the institutions which they occupy. I visited Oakalla myself and brought to the attention of the previous Attorney-General the abysmal situation in terms of inadequate programs and plans for release, with few attempts at rehabilitation or helping women to re-enter the community after they've served their terms, and the really depressing surroundings of the whole physical structure of the place. Even after the Proudfoot commission went through and verified these kinds of facts and made some cosmetic recommendations, some of which have been implemented, but the whole problem with the Proudfoot recommendations is that essentially they were very superficial. They didn't go far enough. They weren't really in-depth. Painters have been in, and they've tried to use some brighter colours. Now they have a few more sewing machines, and a few more women can go through the beauty shop and learn hairdressing.

There have been some changes, and I want to thank the Attorney-General for those changes. However, there is now some discussion about a new federal-provincial institution dealing with women which is going to be opened in the province. I know that the Attorney-General received a brief which was prepared by the Female Offender Committee of the Association for Women in the Justice System. I don't know whether he's had the chance to read that brief, because it was just mailed on June 12. It's quite possible that he may have been busy and not had an opportunity to read it.

I want to start out by saying that I certainly would like to give my full support to the recommendations in the brief and to support some of the fears expressed that what we're going to end up with is a new building which houses the same old problems. I need some reassurance from the Attorney-General that this fear is not going to be realized. Some of the suggestions made for reintegrating the female offender into the community are good and are worthy of serious consideration by the government. The first thing it suggested is that reintegration and socialization should begin immediately upon admission. That makes sense. It doesn't make sense to wait until three or six months before it's time to discharge the female offender and then to hastily try to put together some counselling and some testing and make some kind of a life plan which will ensure that she has not become a recidivism statistic and will be able to rehabilitate herself. It should begin right at the beginning. The whole experience and the whole time that she is in prison should be part of the rehabilitation and reintegration training period for her, so that when she actually does come back into the community, she comes in with some real skills, a better sense of herself and her self-esteem, rather than being hurt or destroyed by this experience. If it's possible to be enriched by being in such an institution, we should certainly explore it.

The other thing they suggested is that there should be testing in terms of learning disabilities. This is an excellent recommendation. I know that the Attorney-General knows that the former Judge Morrison has done some research in this area and found that something in the neighbourhood of over 70 percent of the people who came before her were found to have learning disability problems — dyslexia or some other problems — which started in and really could have been dealt with in the school system if it had been picked up soon enough. Because it wasn't, they went through the whole process of dropping out of school, getting into trouble and on and on until they ended up first as juvenile offenders and then as adult offenders and became part of the community of penal inmates. I want specifically to express support for the concept of testing of these women immediately they come on. If there is any indication that there is any kind of learning disability the Attorney-General's ministry should then harness the facilities of UBC. The special education branch at UBC has an excellent program for dealing with children and adults who have a learning disability. I can't speak too highly of it. One of my three children has this dyslexia or reading disability — whatever term we want to use. This was discovered in grade 1 when he suddenly went from being a very bright student to not being able to read. He was immediately put on the program at UBC, and it's been really great. He's not the fastest reader in the world; to date he's not really a hotshot reader, but he can read. If it's possible for the Attorney-General's department to use that facility at UBC, not necessarily on behalf of the women only — I'm speaking specifically about the women now — but certainly with the juveniles, please avail yourself of that particular skill. It makes a difference. Just imagine trying to go through life not being able to read. What a difference it makes in terms of your options. You have very few options, even in this world of high technology where we're using so many visual aids.

The other recommendation I wanted to support very strongly is recommendation 5 which talks about switching the kind, of vocational training that would be available to women in these institutions. It goes on to say, for example: "Training in the area of hairdressing is outdated and unrealistic." What we're finding is that we're moving into a society where more and more women are becoming interested in so-called non-traditional jobs and trades. They are finding that these trades are opening up to them if they have the skills. Here again I think the Attorney-General can avail himself of the Ministry of Labour's apprenticeship and training programs and try to encourage these women to explore other areas in their work options. It's not necessary to concentrate on typing, hairdressing and sewing, which have always been the three areas available to them since the beginning of time.

In the United States we are finding that federal institutions are now encouraging women to go into courses in auto mechanics, plumbing, steam-fitting, painting, air-conditioning, refrigeration and heavy-duty mechanics — the kinds of skills that we need if we're going to be opening up the north or getting more active in the resource fields. There isn't any reason why, during the time they are in these institutions learning a skill, they can't learn those kinds of skills and they can't explore the non-traditional fields which, to begin with, lead to better-paying jobs, and jobs which are not slated to become obsolete, in the way that so many of the traditional female-ghetto jobs are becoming obsolete. Every day we hear more and more about the microchip revolution which is going to wipe out the whole idea of typing, shorthand and dictaphone as skills. Yet we still have typewriters in these institutions and we're teaching these women to be typists. We know that soon we're not going to need typists anymore. The same thing applies to hairdressing and dressmaking.

Recommendations 5 through 7, which ask that some consideration go towards directing these women through counselling and making the opportunities available to them to

[ Page 6385 ]

develop skills in these non-traditional areas are certainly ones I want to support very strongly.

The third recommendation they make, which I also want to support, is about the business of planning for their release to ensure that there are support resources in the community for them, in terms of day-care facilities, accommodation, funding for halfway houses and those kinds of things, and assistance in finding employment. It says that in terms of re-entry into the community they're going to need all the kind of support services that the rest of us take for granted. They won't even know where to find them. The institution has to take some responsibility, not just for releasing them but for sort of monitoring them for some time once they are out, to see that they have the support they need; to see that they've found suitable accommodation and a job in which they can use the skills which they learned in the institution; and to see that if they need such things as child-care arrangements, they're assisted in that regard. At the same time, I would like to see the institution continue helping them upgrade their academic skills. I don't think it hurts anybody who finds that they're short a couple of grades — if they left school in grade 9, 10, or whatever — to have the opportunity to complete high school while they're there. I know that that is now possible, so I'm saying they should certainly be encouraged to do that.

The other area that I mentioned was the Family Relations Act. We are having so many problems with that piece of legislation, I'm telling you. It's a real can of worms. I don't understand why the Attorney-General's ministry feels that a pension which a civil servant earns should not be split 50-50 in exactly the same way all other assets are, on the dissolution of a marriage. I need the Attorney-General's guidance. Is this before the courts? Does that mean I can't discuss it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not proper to discuss legislation in committee.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, the case of Rutherford v. Rutherford is before the Court of Appeal. I would think it would be inappropriate that there be any discussion at this time.

MR. COCKE: The Chairman seems to indicate that it's not proper to discuss legislation for which the Attorney-General is responsible. If that legislation is on the books, the statute that is his responsibility.... Of course it's quite proper, other than, as the Attorney-General points out, if the case happens to be sub judice, and so therefore, on that basis.... But let's not establish a principle in here that we can't discuss legislation for which the Attorney-General is responsible.

MS. BROWN: Did we win that round? [Laughter.]

I appreciate the Attorney-General clarifying that, because I wasn't quite sure whether it had already been dealt with. Maybe the Attorney-General could make some general statements about when a family asset is not a family asset and when 50 percent is not 50 percent. There is a lot of confusion around the whole 50 percent asset thing. The other confusion is about bank accounts and credit union accounts and these kinds of things, which spouses are finding are being frozen until some kind of settlement is reached. I need some clarification on that particular issue too. Even when the account is only in the name of one spouse or the other.... I realize that as long as it's designated as an asset, it has to be split 50-50. But what is the reason for neither one being able to use the account while the debate is going on? That's the thing.

I want to make a speech again which I made last year and will continue to make as long as the government holds this position. I do not support the governments position of taking jurisdiction in this area and the area of divorce away from the federal government. That does not have my support. Neither does it have the support of the vice-president of the Victoria family law section of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association. I don't want to use all the arguments again which I used last year, even though they still remain the same.

We don't want to have divorce-shopping. We don't want to see each province having its own little divorce laws and people rushing from one place to another trying to find a Nevada or Reno, a place where it's easier to get a divorce than anywhere else. In the long run, this is detrimental to us. When I say us, I'm speaking about the female spouse in this case. We do not believe that lack of uniformity operates in our favour. We would like to see one law which operates in every single province right across the country, so that it doesn't matter where one gets one's divorce — the same rules apply. As long as the provincial government is prepared to negotiate this away from the federal government, or the federal government is prepared to sacrifice women in this way, I guess I'm just going to have to stand up here year after year and say that the federal constitutional proposal to give jurisdiction to the provinces in this area does not have my support.

I realize that I am not speaking for every woman in Canada when I say that, nor indeed for every woman in British Columbia, but I am articulating the views of a great many women. Certainly if the Attorney-General wants to dig up the briefs which he has received from the Status of Women council and from other women's groups, he will find that we do not support this balkanization of the jurisdiction over divorce. We just do not support it at all. We would like to see it remain as part of the federal jurisdiction. I have listened to all of the legal arguments from all of the various and sundry lawyers about why it would be so much better if each province could do its own thing in this area. I have no doubt that it will work for the lawyers, but it's not going to work for the women. We are opposed to it. It is going to make life a lot more difficult for us.

MR. MACDONALD: Let's have a national law, but let it be administered at a provincial level.

MS. BROWN: That's fine. I support that concept. But the law has to be the same. This business of British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta and so forth each having its own does not have our support. We really fight for this uniformity. We don't want to lose it; we don't want to see it go.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The third area I said I was going to touch on has to do with funding for advocacy groups working in this area, and specifically Rape Relief and the Vancouver Status of Women. What's happening to their funding? I know the Status of Women received $87,000 last year. There is some indication that they will be receiving a marginal increase, but to date there hasn't been a cheque going in their direction.

As the minister knows, this group has a history of working very hard on behalf of women. Although they get a very

[ Page 6386 ]

small amount of their funding from the city of Vancouver, and bits and pieces of funding from various other ministries for contract work, they really do rely very heavily on the provincial government. This used to be under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Secretary, who covered the kind of interministerial responsibilities which the Status of Women represented. For some reason or other the government decided to transfer this to the Attorney-General's justice development fund. First of all, the justice development vote disappeared. It was moved and is now under vote 23, administration and support. It doesn't seem to have quite enough money in it to do all the things that it's going to be called upon to do.

So I want to express some concern and ask the minister about the justice development fund. Also, what's happening to the funding for the Vancouver Status of Women and for Rape Relief? We need some information on that. The Vancouver Status of Women is asking for $178,988 this year. We need to know what's going to happen to that.

As far as the family court is concerned, I'd like the minister to elaborate on some of the comments he made about enforcement of maintenance orders. One almost wonders why we bother to have maintenance orders. The extent that one is able to enforce them is so minimal that there surely has to be some way of beefing up that particular service. Everyone's frustrated: family court workers, social workers who deal with these women and the women. I don't know. Maybe the minister can tell me. He says he's been looking into this particular area.

I had a meeting with some family court workers. The first thing they talked about was this enforcement thing and how useless it is. "There are no teeth in it" was the way they put it. Apparently there's a rumour going around that the only people who will be able to accompany these women into court are going to be people with a legal background. The old-fashioned probation and family court worker who used to do the work upon the case and then would accompany the women into court and relate to the judge on their behalf is not going to be permitted any more. In fact, the women are now being assigned lawyers. According to this group I met with, the case will be called for 9:30, the lawyer will show up at 9:25, meet the woman for the first time, know absolutely nothing about her, read through her file very quickly and then go into court and try to speak on her behalf. First of all, the whole business of trust which has to exist between a person and someone who is her advocate just can't happen in five or ten minutes. The second thing is that the kind of work-up that needs to be done — investigation, looking into the family background, meeting with these women and talking with them, the kinds of things that the old family court worker has been doing until now — puts the family court worker in a much better position to really represent this person before the judge and makes it easier for the judge in the long run. When the judge asks a question, there is someone there who is competent and able to give an answer.

What I would like the Attorney-General to tell me is that this is only a rumour, and that in fact there is not going to be any reorganization in this particular area, that we're not going to find the courts being closed to the family court workers. The whole point of the unified family court was to get away from the old adversary process and to make it a more humane setting for people, so that people were not totally intimidated by the judicial system. Lawyers intimidate. Even during question period you get four lawyers asking and answering each other's questions in here. The rest of us may as well go to lunch, because nobody understands. All we know is that they keep calling each other honourable, but other than that we don't understand anything else they're saying to each other. It's pretty intimidating, so I'm hoping that the Attorney-General will say it isn't so.

The final issue: I'd like to ask the Attorney-General to answer the question raised by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) about the few arrests of found-ins, in the case of this juvenile prostitution. This is an opportunity for the Attorney-General to explain to us why that is so, why there have been so few arrests of found-ins, and what the real problem is, and to make some comments on the whole childnapping thing, and what kinds of strengths are being introduced into the system to cut this down or terminate it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member has posed a number of matters. I suppose it might be convenient if I start with the first item, the matter of prisons. The member will be aware from her experience in these matters that one of the difficulties that faces us in providing the kinds of programs to which she refers for women who are imprisoned in this province is that the average stay of a person in a provincial correctional institution is three months. Therefore by the time they come into the system and are processed it's almost time for them to leave. To attempt programs of rehabilitation and training of that nature that she suggests in non-traditional employment opportunities is most difficult to achieve. It is made more difficult by the fact that the direction the corrections branch takes is to make every effort to ensure that women who are convicted of offences are classified early so that they don't go into a closed situation. We are having some success in this regard. The most recent statistic that I have received with regard, for instance, to the Lynda Williams Community Correctional Centre, with which the member will be familiar, is that last fall 25 percent of the women admitted to that community correctional centre came directly from court; they never went through a closed institution at all.

The direction we're trying to achieve is to establish classification either while the person is in court or as soon as it is possible after conviction, or before sentence if possible, and to get them moved somewhere other than into a closed system. This has two advantages: first, it avoids some time in the closed situation, such as we have at Lakeside; secondly, it gives us an opportunity to do the kind of assessment necessary with regard to prospects of immediate rehabilitation and post-sentence assistance. In the latter matter, the member will be aware of the Elizabeth Fry program, which we support, to assist women coming out of the correction system in their re-entry into the community. With the prospect, however, of an institution being constructed in British Columbia, where the province will undertake the responsibility for the management of women who are there for federal offences, which will give them longer sentences, we are in the course of the design of the institution which will house those prisoners also taking into account the need for expanded programs. As we have women in prisons for a longer period of time than an average of three months, we recognize the responsibility to get into the program field. Discussions are underway with Douglas College for the provision of educational programs. We presently have a basic educational program available. Recognizing the need for employment-skill instruction, we are looking at the ideas which are set out in the brief to which the member made reference during the course of her remarks. We will be working in that direction with the federal officials who also

[ Page 6387 ]

are concerned about the opportunities that will be available for the prisoners who come into their area of responsibility.

The Vancouver Status of Women brief in the possession of the ministry is a valuable one and it is not being ignored. The ministry, the commissioner of corrections and his staff have invited the Vancouver Status of Women to sit down with them and discuss the way in which some of these matters can be accommodated. I was not aware of the University of B.C. program; it's a valuable suggestion, and the commissioner of corrections, Mr. Robinson, who is here in the chamber, indicates that they will examine that. There is no question that if we find learning disabilities in children which interfere with their development, obviously you may find those same disabilities in older persons. That can completely nullify any program which you may want to put on. Early identification is therefore very important.

I might point out one matter to the member which she may find of interest. At our Twin Maples institution we now have a licensed day care so that people in the community who need day-care services can take their children there. The inmates at Twin Maples get the opportunity of working with the children and looking after them, so therefore they serve a community purpose and it has also a rehabilitative effect. We hope that in every instance where we can provide this opportunity, this experience will be valuable.

With regard to the family court matter, I won't talk about the matter which is presently before the court, but I must correct the member on one matter. The Attorney-General is not involved in that case. We have not taken a position in that matter at all. The superannuation commissioner is involved because there's an issue which involves the superannuation act. Since the Attorney-General provides lawyers for all government agencies, they've got a lawyer, but the Attorney-General is not a participant or party in those proceedings.

You raised the question of the Family Relations Act and this matter of freezing property and bank accounts. This is a difficulty we have perceived, and we're trying to find a way out of it. You ask: "Why is it done?" Well, when there's a contest over the family assets, something has to be done, or else you have a situation where one may run away with the assets, and a bank account in the name of one spouse is obviously the most vulnerable one. The problems that can create, say in a joint bank account situation, are pretty severe. We're trying to determine how that matter can best be resolved.

With regard to jurisdiction over divorce, I appreciate the member's position and recognize the logic of her argument. I hold a different view, but I think I can say to the member that at the speed which constitutional change is taking place in this country you'll be making the same speech for a long time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: She has just made it three years in a row!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, she's got about ten to come.

With regard to the Status of Women and Rape Relief funding, the Vancouver Status of Women grant program was placed in the responsibility of the Attorney-General this year. We have funded that organization at the figure of $86,700. To date we've paid them $43,350. That funding level is under review for two reasons: firstly, because it's not as much as the organization is asking for; and secondly, many of the programs that the Vancouver Status of Women operates do not meet the criteria of the Justice Development Fund and the basis upon which we make grants in the Ministry of Attorney-General. They do serve purposes which relate to other ministries. I am attempting to be able to meet the Vancouver Status of Women's requirements with regard to Justice Development Fund matters, if we can identify those, and to ensure that the balance of their funding is handled by ministers whose programs more appropriately relate to that area of endeavour.

With regard to the Rape Relief centres, as the member knows there is a coalition of centres in British Columbia, and all the grant funding has been handled through that umbrella organization. Negotiations continue to be underway with the coalition in order that a further grant can be made for the current year. But there are certain rules that must be applied. It is a condition of each grant made through my ministry that the recipient account for the expenditure and show that the moneys were used effectively for the purposes identified in the application. We require the submission of a budget and justification for the budget request. We require a form of accounting to ensure that the moneys are in fact expended on that basis. The coalition and the three ministries which contribute to their funding were unable to agree during the last fiscal year on an appropriate means to give effect to this accountability as it pertained to the grant for that period. In order to avoid similar difficulties during this year, the ministries and the coalition are each proposing ways to strengthen this agreement under which the grant will be given.

If we can reach an early conclusion of these discussions, I have Treasury Board approval to make a grant from the Ministry of the Attorney-General in the sum of about $41,006; with the other three ministries, that will bring their total funding to about $150,000.

I'd like to deal this afternoon with the other matters raised by the hon. member.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.