[ Page 6389 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act Establishing The Right To Public Information And The Protection Of Individual

Privacy (Bill M209). Mrs. Dailly.

Introduction and first reading –– 6389

An Act To Amend The Vital Statistics Act, Chapter 425 (Bill M2 10). Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading –– 6389

An Act To Regulate Smoking In Public Places And Meetings (Bill M21 1). Mrs. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading –– 6389

An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code of British Columbia (Bill M212). Ms.

Brown.

Introduction and first reading –– 6389

Valhalla Park Act (Bill M213). Mr. Nicolson.

Introduction and first reading –– 6390

Oral Questions

Homemaker service rates. Mr. Cocke –– 6390

Government employment of George Lenko, Mr. Lauk –– 6390

Mr. Barber

Mr. Hall

Mr. Macdonald

Management of 21st Century Communications. Mr. Hall 6392

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

On vote 22: minister's office –– 6392

Mr. Barrett

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Barber

Appendix –– 6410

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REE: Today in the gallery opposite you, Mr. Speaker, is the president of the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia. It's most appropriate that he is here today, since we had the pleasure yesterday of first reading of Bill 28, the Notaries Act. I ask the House to welcome Mr. Roy Bishop.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE RIGHT TO
PUBLIC INFORMATION AND THE
PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY

On a motion by Mrs. Dailly, Bill M209, An Act Establishing the Right to Public Information and the Protection of Individual Privacy, introduced and read a first time.

MRS. DAILLY: I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS –– 45

NAYS — 7

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) neither voted for nor against the resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: I heard the member's name read.

MR. BRUMMET: I did vote, Mr. Speaker; the Clerk was correct.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I believe I heard the Clerk mention my name as voting nay; actually I voted yea.

MR. SPEAKER: Has that correction been made? So ordered.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would very much like to welcome to the assembly this afternoon a very good friend of the citizens of this province, and certainly of the members of the Legislature, the former secretary of Government House, Commander Gar Dixon.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as a result of that division, did you make an order?

MR. SPEAKER: The result of the voting was clearly read; I did not repeat the decision. However, I could repeat the decision, if the member so wishes. The bill is introduced.

MRS. DAILLY: I would like to move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Did we not already entertain that motion? That motion, then, is put before the House.

Motion approved.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to ask leave to introduce a bill which, I'm sure, the government is going to split on too.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VITAL
STATISTICS ACT, CHAPTER 425

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill M210, An Act to Amend the Vital Statistics Act, Chapter 425, 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.

AN ACT TO REGULATE SMOKING IN
PUBLIC PLACES AND MEETINGS

On a motion by Mrs. Wallace, Bill M211, An Act to Regulate Smoking in Public Places and Meetings, 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.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE HUMAN
RIGHTS CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill M212, An Act to Amend the Human Rights Code of British Columbia, 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.

[ Page 6390 ]

VALHALLA PARK ACT

On a motion by Mr. Nicolson Bill M213, Valhalla Park Act, 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.

Oral Questions

HOMEMAKER SERVICE RATES

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health and other government members have been served with a notice from 80 community homemakers' associations across the province. One of the things that has come to our attention is that last year and in years before the rates for the homemaker service came out in April. Last year we discussed the estimates in July, but the rates came out in April. This year the rates are not out. I ask the minister: has he decided to announce the rates for homemaker service today?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I haven't made that decision today.

MR. COCKE: I will be asking leave to table a document at the end of question period.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT OF GEORGE LENKO

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. In November 1979 Mr. George Lenko resigned and admitted responsibility for editing and producing tapes for the Social Credit Party which implicated Social Credit caucus staff in the dirty tricks scandal. At the time of his resignation he indicated that he lied to the Premier about his role in that scandal. From the time Mr. Lenko resigned to the present, has he been receiving any payment from government sources by way of either salary or expenses?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The innuendo contained within the first member for Vancouver Centre's question is, I think, clearly out of order. However, the answer to the question as to whether he has been employed by my ministry — and that is the only responsibility I have in terms of employment of anyone — is no.

MR. LAUK: The preamble to my question was correct. It's been admitted; there's no problem.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Oh, no, it has not.

MR. LAUK: Oh, yes, it has.

The question I asked the Minister of Human Resources was this.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: A little upset are we, folks?

I asked whether from the time Mr. Lenko resigned to the present he has been receiving any payment from government sources by way of either salary or expenses, Is the minister aware that Mr. Lenko has been receiving any payment from government sources by way of either salary or expenses?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There seem to be two questions. The first question is: am I aware of any salary that has been produced for Mr. Lenko? I am not aware of any salary. As far as any government expense is concerned, I am aware that Mr. Lenko has a contract with the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). Perhaps the question could be more properly directed to him.

MR. LAUK: Is the minister aware of any salary or expense received by Mr. Lenko prior to his appointment by the Minister of Universities to his new post as announced recently?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I am not aware of that, but I also would like to make the member, who has been a member of this House for some time, aware of the fact that when questions regarding personnel are asked, they are usually asked of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). In answer to his question, no, I am not aware.

MR. BARBER: I have a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister of Finance advise the House whether or not Mr. George Lenko has been in receipt of any payment for services or any payment for expenses in any ministry of the government since the time of his resignation as executive assistant to the Minister of Human Resources to the time of the announcement that he would be working for the Minister of Universities?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would think the answer to that question is no.

MR. BARBER: I have a question to the Minister of Human Resources. At the time of Mr. Lenko's resignation did, he receive any severance pay or payment of any order in lieu of notice?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would not be aware of that. I think that question should properly be taken as notice. I would not have that information.

MR. BARBER: To the Provincial Secretary: at the time of the resignation of Mr. Lenko as the executive assistant to the Minister of Human Resources, did the minister authorize or approve, or does he have knowledge of, any payments made to Mr. Lenko by way of severance pay or any other pay in lieu of notice?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't have that information, but I'll take the question as notice for the information of the member.

MR. BARBER: Did the Minister of Human Resources authorize or request of any minister in the government any contract at the time of Mr. Lenko's resignation or any payment for any purpose to be made to Mr. Lenko?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer to that question is no.

[ Page 6391 ]

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Human Resources a question regarding the same gentleman? Can the minister confirm that since Mr. Lenko's resignation he has been working in the minister's office?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer to that question is no.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that Mr. Lenko had access to the parliament buildings from the time of his resignation up to the time of his appointment, insomuch as Mr. Lenko had a key to the side door of the parliament buildings and gained entrance to the parliament buildings on several occasions?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see that the junior counsel has asserted himself and found the floor. The answer to those questions would be appropriately no to the second question, and to the first, I take it that Mr. Lenko, like all good citizens of the province, has access to this building at any time.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that Mr. Lenko had given instructions to her ministerial staff throughout the last several months, including correspondence and other matters concerning whatever?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that I don't know what is implied by that question, but if the member would like to make it clear, I'd be pleased to answer any question he has about Mr. Lenko. Mr. Lenko is known to myself very well. He is a good citizen, and he's been a good servant of this province. I receive him in my office quite regularly and I will continue to do so. If the opposition leader is suggesting that Mr. Lenko has a key to my office, I can tell you that that is not true; nor did Mr. Lenko ever have a key to the side door.

MR. MACDONALD: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier confirm that in October 1979 Mr. Lenko told him that he did not listen to the dirty tricks tapes until well into the election campaign, when it was supposedly too late to rule out the offending parts? Did he make that statement to you?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Could you repeat it? I couldn't hear it, because of the noise.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in order that the question might be heard, let's have order.

MR. MACDONALD- Did Mr. Lenko tell you in October 1979 that he didn't listen to the offending dirty tricks tapes until it was too late and the election campaign was well underway?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, this far back, and in a period for dealing with important matters.... I think it was something like that.

MR. MACDONALD: Can the Premier confirm that in November 1979 — a month later — Mr. Lenko admitted to him that he not only listened to the tapes before the 1979 election but also actually edited them for the Social Credit president's election manual?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I ask the Premier directly: is it not true that in that period of time you came to the conclusion that Mr. Lenko had lied to you between October and November?

No answer. I ask the Premier: was he angry with Mr. Lenko at that time, as a result of these two statements or for any other reason?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is hardly urgent.

MR. BARRETT: We'll decide that.

MR. SPEAKER: No, the Chair decides that.

MR. BARRETT: Are you protecting the government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Why aren't you answering the question?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the Leader of the Opposition to please retract any accusation against the Chair that the Chair would be protecting anyone in this building.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the member asked the question and the Premier answered in silence; then you made the judgment.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the only way we can continue with an orderly question period is if we abide by the standing orders which are provided for question period, and it is....

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member please be seated.

The only way we can continue in an orderly question period is to follow the guidelines that are established for question period. The guidelines clearly say that it is in the hands of the Chair to determine whether or not questions are in order — and that, of course, without debate. I recommend that procedure to all members.

MR. BARRETT: The admonition from the Chair as to the urgency of the question came after the minister in question refused to answer. There was a great pause, and then the Speaker made his ruling. I find that difficult to interpret in terms of when the decision was made that it wasn't urgent: after silence from the Premier, or before?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there were two questions. One question received no answer. The second question which was asked had to do with whether one member was angry with another member or some question like that, and the Chair found it hardly urgent.

[ Page 6392 ]

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Premier. It was reported at the time of Mr. Lenko's resignation that the Premier was very angry because he'd given a story to the public that turned out to be untrue based upon what Mr. Lenko had told him. Was the Premier aware that Mr. Lenko was again getting a contract with this government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker.

MANAGEMENT OF 21ST CENTURY
MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS

MR. HALL: I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. Can the minister confirm that Frank Ogden, the principal owner of 21st Century Media Communications, presently providing a service to the government, has a partner in that company by the name of Ed Hawkes?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I believe that's a matter of public record. I think it was in the press of recent date.

Mr. Cocke tabled a document mentioned in question period.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled answers to questions standing under his name on the order paper.

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.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, when the committee adjourned at noon I was dealing with certain matters which had been raised by the hon. member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown). I would like to continue with the matters she raised this morning which were of significance to her. There were two matters with respect to the operation of the family court. On the subject of maintenance orders, as the member, I'm sure, is aware, we have a program for the automatic enforcement of maintenance orders which has been in place in some jurisdictions of the province. It has been a success, but only a limited success. Therefore the ministry has, through the family law division, been examining the approaches taken to this very important problem in other jurisdictions.

I can tell the member that the techniques employed range from, on the one hand, a concept whereby the government itself — the state — undertakes the payment of the amount awarded in the maintenance order, and then requires the person against whom the order is made to make regular payments. In the event that there is a default, the Crown pursues the person who has that responsibility to make up the payments due under the order. It ranges from that level to one where the order is still obtained by the individual, and there is a requirement to pay to the court; but if payments are not made it still remains the responsibility of the person who obtained the order to attend to its enforcement. Legal services are made available to the person holding the order for that purpose.

We are examining these two techniques, and we also have a third under consideration. I expect later this year to be able to announce the institution of a program in this province which will improve upon our present automatic enforcement provision, and coupled with that a program which will require those persons in receipt of social assistance to obtain maintenance orders. We find that in many cases there is a drain on social assistance funds, and yet no attempt has been made to obtain for the offending spouse — in almost every case a defaulting husband — an order obliging him to pay what he could pay, and thereby provide additional funds which are very much needed by the deserted wife and children.

This is not intended to require anyone to deal with the family court in a way which they may not choose to; but we think it will provide an opportunity for a more orderly conduct of the maintenance order program, and thereby assure that the person who has the ability and the responsibility to pay does meet his obligations, and that in the case of the wife she is not faced with the horrendous task of having to pursue a defaulting husband, whether he is in this province or has moved to some other province. With that, we will be encouraging those reciprocating provinces to assist us more effectively than they do today in the pursuit of persons who owe moneys under maintenance orders and who have moved to other jurisdictions. We also hope that we will be able to change the type of order which is obtained so that it will, in effect, be a continuing responsibility in the way of a continuing garnishment concept. Once the employer is aware that a person has a responsibility to make payments to the family court for a spouse, it won't be necessary to go back month after month, and go through this frustrating process that so often faces women who have been deserted by husbands, as we do in the courts today. A great deal can be achieved if we move in that direction. With that and the changes that are being made respecting the provision of legal assistance for people who have access to the family court, we'll have two programs that will work together.

The member raised another matter which touches upon this question of whether or not persons who need the assistance of the family court will be able to use the services of family court counsellors, or whether they will be obliged to seek the assistance of a lawyer. I appreciate very much what the member said. Dealing with courts and lawyers is a terrifying situation for some people. It's very distressing. It's a forum which is unnatural and one in which people find themselves somewhat at a loss when they are asked to explain what their particular problem may be, and to make a presentation of their problem to the court so there can be an appropriate adjudication. In this respect the family court counsellors have been and will continue to be a major source of assistance to people who come before that court.

However, the family court counsellor's role is essentially one of mediation. We hope to use the family court counsellors to the fullest extent to resolve the difficulties between parties and, hopefully, to avoid any contests in family court. Therefore, if orders are made, they can be made on the basis of consent — both parties having reached an agreement as to what their responsibilities might be, and that agreement turned into a court order. Therefore the person who may be uncomfortable in a court position is never put into that forum. As far as possible, the discussion and the resolution of the

[ Page 6393 ]

problem will be made in a private office, where there can be a free and comfortable exchange of necessary information, to achieve the desired result. That is a program which is in place and which will continue.

It is not in any way to be diminished by the other program which we are attempting to put in place in the ministry; that is, to establish in family law, for the assistance of persons coming to the family court, full-time, paid lawyers, who will act in family law matters in a way similar to that of Crown counsel in criminal proceedings. In other words, staff lawyers will be there, available and trained to assist people who must go into the family court. The difficulty that we're having in our present procedures was identified by the member — the lawyer available arrives five minutes before a court time. Therefore there is no interview or time made available to search out all the problems, so that when the case is presented, the impression left before the court may be something less than the full story.

One of the problems is that we are using lawyers to do this work under contract. Quite frankly, there is just too much work for the number of lawyers we're able to engage on a contract basis. This is not in any way a criticism of the lawyers who are serving under contract with the ministry; it's a question of the volume of work. We want to be able to provide skilled people, available full-time, who will have offices at or near the family court, so that, in advance of any appearance in family court, they can meet the "client" who needs the assistance and make sure that he or she has all of the material, and that the process is more orderly — not more leisurely. If there is need for additional time, it isn't a question of the pressure of work, where the lawyer has to say: "I'm sorry, I can only give you so much time this afternoon." It will be done on a more efficient and effective basis.

That program is not in place yet, but it is presently being designed. I might say to the member that one of the reasons we are moving in this direction is because the lawyers coming from the private bar are under contract, and the costs are escalating significantly. We believe that we can provide qualified legal service within the organization by hiring lawyers who will do this full-time. Those two phases work together. The question of maintenance orders will also be keyed in with this new concept of having a group of family law lawyers available to provide assistance to whomever may require it. Hopefully, with the use of family court counsellors in the mediative role there will be less requirement to go before the court. If court appearances are required, we want to make sure the lawyers give adequate time to develop the case so that the full story is before the court.

MS. BROWN: Are you going to monitor that?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. When the program is announced I will send the member the total program so she will be able to see precisely how it is going to be put together.

With regard to the last question raised — the matter of juvenile prostitution and what happens to the found-in — this is a most vexing problem. The problem with respect to the found-in, who most often is an adult, is whether or not anything can be done with that person under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. The difficulty stems from the fact that over the years that the the Juvenile Delinquents Act has been in place there have been a series of decisions by judges as to the application of that statute in these particular cases. The concept of "apparently under age" arises. The difficulty is that it is sometimes difficult to establish that the person involved was "apparently under age." That provides a defence. As a consequence, when incidents do arise where found-ins could be charged, that defence always raises itself, and it's a difficult one to overcome. I can assure the member that instructions have been given to Crown counsel and the police that in every case where there's a found-in every attempt will be made to bring charges against that person if the evidence exists.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

That's another problem. Sometimes the evidence exists in the juvenile herself, and that is one of our serious problems in dealing with the question of solicitation by juveniles. Not only that, but the criminal law in respect of juveniles and prostitution generally is incredibly weak in light of some recent decisions in the courts of Canada.

Last fall, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and I met with the Minister of Justice and placed the problems, particularly those of juvenile prostitution, before him. We also provided him with some proposed amendments to the Criminal Code which we believed would go a long way, if not completely towards a solution to the problem. Last fall we were assured by the Minister of Justice that he would move with amendments to the Criminal Code which would deal significantly with the juvenile problem. The general problem of solicitation and prostitution may require further consideration. It is a matter of regret that the work which has been before the House of Commons this past year appears to have delayed consideration of these amendments. We're told the amendments are ready, but the introduction and debate of them has not yet taken place. I have been in communication with the Minister of Justice urging him to move speedily in the resolution of this problem. It is a serious one.

We're also, of course, looking for the passage of the new Young Offenders Act, which we believe will also help in a very material way in the control of this particular problem. It's not going to eradicate it, but we think it will help bring it under control.

MR. BARRETT: I have a few comments for the Attorney-General, more by way of opinion rather than soliciting an answer. I understand that after this discussion is over the pressure of so many other problems in the A-G's ministry probably does not make this matter a priority. I'd like to say that as well intended as the federal legislation is in dealing with juvenile offenders, and in particular with the problem that expresses itself in juvenile behaviour in prostitution, it will not, in spite of our best intentions, go any measure at all in controlling the problem as the minister says he hopes it will. The minister admits that no law can eradicate it.

In my opinion we continue to make the same mistake in dealing with this problem-that somehow it is a legal matter, In actual fact, the attempts we've made in North America over the last 100 years to deal with this problem legally have only frustrated lawyers and people in the area of policing and servicing this problem. We must make an earnest effort to begin to examine the root causes that lead a young girl or boy into the kind of life that tragically erupts into death as the ultimate end or despair in family life, and perhaps into political battles during question period here in this chamber and in chambers like it throughout the whole North American continent.

[ Page 6394 ]

There is a tendency to look for easy solutions because the problems are pressing. The newspapers are part of the problem, in my opinion, in terms of (a) the way they handle some stories related to juvenile offenders, and (b) their own impressions and expressions of frustration in editorials. I will never forget an editorial during this government's administration, when there was a wave of particularly ugly and distasteful juvenile crime activity, and the lead editorial in the Vancouver Province stated: "Do something; do anything, but do something." That's the kind of blind emotional response that is reached at the end of frustration, when people learn that this problem cannot be dealt with in isolation or by specific laws or specific programs.

Earlier in this government's life we had a very emotional argument in this House. I was part of that emotion around the use of Brannan Lake. Aside from politics, I warned the then Minister of Health that the institutionalizing of heroin addicts, particularly young heroin addicts, in a so-called treatment program would be a mistake. The then minister, for some reason or other — perhaps, an inexplicable reason; perhaps it doesn't need to be explained — was entrenched and rigid and decided to go ahead with the heroin treatment program at Brannan Lake against the best advice of people — not politicians like myself — throughout the field who knew better and who said that the experiment at Brannan Lake would be a failure.

The government as a whole pressed on and spent well over $10 million on this experiment. As was predicted, it was a failure. Since that time we've had a succession of Ministers of Health, and we've had absolute silence on the government's part because it got its fingers burned on one specific attempt at a radical new program at Brannan Lake that we predicted would be a failure. The government has completely withdrawn and in effect has thrown its hands up in the air. Some people have been reduced to uttering the simplistic admonition that if we bring back rigid laws and deal sternly with offenders everything will go away. Well, I think it's important for politicians to take that position if they feel it's necessary for their constituents to understand that they're dealing with crime in a tough manner. Other jurisdictions have hung people for committing murder; that's certainly a terminal solution to that particular murder, but it doesn't deter other murders. Other jurisdictions cut off the hands of thieves; that's certainly a deterrent to that person, who has lost a hand, but people continue to steal, murder and be violent with each other. So the simplistic admonition, as enunciated by some politicians, that if we somehow lock them all up and treat them sternly then the problem will go away, is just very silly but necessary politically for some people to say in their jurisdictions.

The simple solution of dumping people in an institution and then saying that we have a treatment program, spending $10 million and then discovering that there was no treatment program, is again folly. We wasted the $10 million. I must say in this government's defence that you're not the first to waste the money. The only argument that I point out is that I would ask members of the House to recall that we warned you. I specifically warned the government not to embark on that program at Brannan Lake, because the minister concerned was not able to lay any evidence in front of this House that there was a specific treatment program dealing with addicts.

What is the basic problem that will always lead to failure of this kind of program? The basic problem is that the law or the treatment program will fit the needs of the child or the client. The fact is that these people have behaviour that is not normal, and we have an abnormal response to abnormal behaviour. We believe that by imposing solutions by law or by institutions these people will conform to the law or the institution. We've got everything backwards. We should be flexible enough to have services to meet the needs of the people, instead of expecting these troubled people to meet the criteria of our service. I think that point is fairly well made by the failure of Brannan Lake.

I want to warn and predict quietly that we are headed for even more serious problems in violent juvenile behaviour in British Columbia. It's not because I have knowledge that is not available to others. It's because sociologically speaking we are just catching up to the tail end of the the beginning of the disintegration of urban life in North American cities. We have been very fortunate in British Columbia. We are very lucky people in this province. We still have a small population, we still have a tremendous sense of community and we still have city police forces — like those in the city of Victoria and the city of Vancouver — which have a neighbourhood identity in giving the services. I must say that both chiefs of police and police forces in our major urban areas have evidenced a sensitive approach to problems — flexible and still upholding the law. But I'm worried that once the government had its fingers burned on Brannan Lake.... Once the government is forced — no matter what government of the day it is — to respond to the tragic suicide of a youngster or the tragic drowning of a youngster, there is an attempt, understandably, to take the heat off either by going to Ottawa — and I understand; I'm not condemning the minister — and saying that they're working on a solution, or by saying that, well, this is just an unusual case.

I think it would be helpful for all of us to begin to admit from the start that we don't know the answers. I really think it would be worthwhile for the public to understand that none of us really know absolutes in this field, and I think the community should be faced with that by all politicians. Look right into the camera and say: "Look, we just don't know; we're not sure; we've tried a number of things. This tragic event has happened, and it will probably happen again. We don't have any answers, and we've got a lot of problems in society." Okay. Having said that, let's move on to some other choices.

During our administration we made a decision, based on the best research information and experience available to people working in the field, to close two juvenile institutions. One was Brannan Lake and the other was Willingdon School for Girls. It was a debate, Mr. Chairman, that I'm more calm about now than at the time it took place; it was a debate that was initiated by the government, and that spread right into the bureaucracy itself. The bureaucracy resisted the closing of Brannan Lake and Willingdon; the bureaucracy came back to us, as government, and said: "What are we going to do?" At one point I bluntly said: "You get paid to think of alternatives; you are the professional people whom we pay money to, and we expect to get professional advice from you as to alternatives." To some people in the profession this was threatening, because the safest thing to take the pressure off a politician was to advise them to continue warehousing people. It's a dilemma. The politician cannot be the professional; the politician cannot be the expert.

During our term of office I tried to completely separate myself, as a professional in the field, from the debate; but I

[ Page 6395 ]

did get involved in, it and I reached the point of frustration where I laid down my opinion — my one equal vote to everybody else's equal vote, but sometimes the Premier's vote is a little more equal than the vote of others — and a decision was made to close Willingdon and Brannan Lake, Our first experience was that Willingdon School for Girls wasn't even missed, except by the people in the field who were then forced to be innovative and come up with brand new ideas. Some of them responded to the challenge; others couldn't.

What were the brand-new ideas? Aggressively seeking out foster homes. Looking toward temporary placement rather than local jails for juveniles. Putting a small mobile unit on a hospital grounds, capable of holding two or three adolescents for a period of assessment and a treatment program, and keeping that child in the community, looking towards a small mobile unit or mobile home, so that the needs of laundry, food and a bit of security are available at the hospital location, where medical staff are also available — and the pressure on such a unit in a rural area would only involve two or three youngsters at any given time. In an urban area there was the question of removing children from the downtown core and experience with prostitution. We discovered that Brannan Lake had actually been a school for training prostitutes, just by centralizing young girls who, incidentally, were charged with promiscuity. Boys don't get charged with promiscuity in our culture. It's kind of interesting that only girls are charged with promiscuity. But once we charged girls with promiscuity, we were warehousing them; and the experiences they got in warehousing showed them that the promiscuity that led to them being warehoused was profitable, by going to downtown Vancouver and learning to be a prostitute.

We've reopened Willingdon. It was a mistake. The idea was good; the intention by staff was good; but once you reopen such an institution, the pressures of population immediately demand that the original idea and concept be abandoned. Just as the government learned in Brannan Lake, we are learning now in Willingdon that the pressures are not on treatment or program evaluation for a child, but on housing all these troubled children under one roof where you have your hands more than full in just keeping them there. We have this running battle in the newspapers about questions being left in the public mind about a tragic drowning there. We probably will never know the answer. But the focus of the public on that tragic incident takes away from the opportunity for us to find alternatives.

I'd like to go back to the prediction I want to make. It's not a happy prediction, and I hope I'm wrong. But I think we will see an escalation of violent juvenile crime. I think we'll begin to see, almost at the same level as the United States cities of similar sizes are experiencing, violent expression by alienated youngsters who are under the pressures of cultural differences, as we have a major mix of urban population from various cultural backgrounds. There is also going to be a dramatic shift in violence because of the change demanded by housing in the lower mainland. You can't help it; it's not your fault. We are moving away rapidly from single-family dwellings. The experience in major cities, when they move away from single dwellings and the identity of neighbourhoods that those dwellings guarantee, is that the family orientation and support of a neighbourhood becomes lost and we become more and more the victims of the alienation of mass housing.

People who live in apartments and attempt to raise families don't know their neighbours or the people down the street. There is no possibility of expanding human contact that we have traditionally had in our cities such as Victoria and Vancouver. What is the response? With the rapid escalation of family breakdown, the rapid escalation of the destruction of married life as we view it or have an image of it, more and more youngsters will be on their own. Even in marriages that are "nominally succeeding," because of high interest rates, the high cost of housing, the lack of opportunity of two working parents to buy a single dwelling, both must go to work as mother and father just to meet current costs of living. The consequences of that to a child are, again, more time away from home, in unfamiliar surroundings.

The government has cut back on day care — terrible mistake, Because now people shop around to leave youngsters in their own co-ops, or with people who do babysitting during the day. Those kinds of places are not supervised and there is no consistent program. A troubled youngster is not spotted outside of a good day-care program. That troubled youngster continues to drift. They will show up as young as 6, 7 and 8 with emotional problems which lead to the abuse of alcohol and drugs and to prostitution.

I'm making a plea for the minister to consider all the headaches he has as Attorney-General to have to carry the burden of juvenile delinquency almost alone in terms of his arguments with the federal government to get the law changed. What might be a better method is to establish a working committee, as we attempted to towards the end of our administration, among the ministries of Education, Attorney-General, and Health and Human Resources: a small working committee to come up with a coordinated program to establish preventive services for young children who are heading for trouble. You're not going to be able to solve it all, but you can make a start. It also takes the pressure for those in the back bench or the opposition to stand up and demand immediately answers of the Attorney-General or anyone else.

We would welcome your being able to outline a plan to this House and say: "This is what we're trying to do; this is what our long-term goal is. This is the experience of our American neighbours. This is what we see happening, and this is what we're going to try to avoid." We could use it as a touchstone so that when the emotional, tragic cases come up, the government of the day — no matter who it is — can get up and say: "Yes, this is tragic. Yes, we're aware of the problem, but we also have this long-term coordinated effort to start bringing in a whole new approach to meet children's needs." It is not to have children meet the programs. There are endless programs for children, but we don't have the self-defined needs of the child met by a flexible approach.

I will never forget, by way of an example — if it's not confusing the point that I'm making.... When I was a young probation officer finishing my master's degree in St. Louis University, I had a young black child on probation to me in the juvenile court. The youngster had stolen some 40 bicycles, and we had a very wise judge who was a former lawyer, which I hope wasn't a handicap to him. He was an elected judge, which wasn't a handicap. I came to the juvenile court, and I said: "Your Honour, he's stolen 40 bikes. What are we going to do? We sent him to the training school I don't know how many times." The judge finally said: "You know what we should do as a court? We're going to buy him a bike." Guess what? We bought the youngster a bike, and he stopped stealing bikes. I don't advocate the state buying

[ Page 6396 ]

bikes for kids who are stealing bikes, but sometimes a simple, practical approach in defining the child's needs early on may be the best answer, rather than punishment, discipline. strapping, spanking, beating or anything else.

What I'm saying to the Attorney-General is that he's still going to have these problems. The press is still going to demand that he take some action on juvenile crime. Because of this horrible case, the opposition will still get up and say: "What have you done?" You're still going to get those pressures, unless you can demonstrate to this chamber that your government has quietly and efficiently put together a working committee to deal with this problem and unless you can go back to the municipalities and say to them: "We have attempted to begin to work with community preventive programs." You must integrate a complete availability of day care and a complete awareness of the staffing of community centres — it must be more than just between 9 and 5 or between 11 and 11; a complete request from the religious communities out there — those church and community facilities held in the name of the churches — to be involved in an integrated attack on the problems that lead to juvenile delinquency. The shame of one child who is a juvenile prostitute is the shame of all of us. The shame of the behaviour of one youngster who has done a violent thing is the shame of all of us. To simplistically say that we must throw the book against that child is a rejection of our total responsibility as a society, regardless of political differences: we have failed that child and that family in terms of making services available.

I would like to suggest that now that the failure of Brannan Lake has taken place, that institution be turned over to the Ministry of Education. If I am correct in predicting the pressures that will happen in the large urban areas and the continuation of the family breakdown, there will be less and less opportunity for youngsters in the city core to have a country experience or an experience in a semi-urban setting. During the Depression some major experiments were conducted that led to some interesting experiences. Disadvantaged youngsters in the core area of major American cities went into what was known as the CCC camps of the Roosevelt administration. They discovered that group activities, good food and a healthy atmosphere, with no sloganeering about demanding that they work, but work-producing and healthy activities for a short period of time, gave the urban-centre youngster new confidence, new social skills and a new experience, and gave the parents a break from their kids. Why not try a small experiment at Brannan Lake at a third of the cost? Set up Brannan Lake as a core education centre to be used flexibly by youngsters from the urban core areas or from anywhere in the province, for short-term training programs for adolescents — not just in summer months but on weekend seminars, in the Christmas holidays, at Easter break and then in summer programs, with day-care programs or day summer camp association.

There is very good research material in this province related to what was known as pro-rec. In the Premier's office today is a man who has more experience in this field than anyone else in British Columbia — Lawrie Wallace. Lawrie Wallace's whole experience in terms of becoming a civil servant and servicing this community came right out of the ranks of pro-rec and the experience of delivering community recreational facilities that gave a whole life experience throughout this province during those Depression years. Talk to Lawrie. See where the research papers are buried. Pull them out and, in my opinion, apply them to Brannan Lake.

I made a promise to myself that I was not going to make this kind of speech any more in the Legislature. Maybe this will be the last time that I do. Who knows? I feel a tremendous sense of frustration at the fact that we just made a little bit of progress during our administration. The Attorney-General, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education took the bold step of closing Brannon Lake and Willingdon and began to decentralize the service. They began to take a look at day care and its role and, most importantly, the Minister of Education set up the special services education — alternate education — in the core areas that has been so successful.

Mr. Attorney-General, there is no difference between your government and the opposition on the goal; absolutely none. There isn't a member of this House that wouldn't seriously want to ensure that every youngster had the maximum opportunity to develop. The difference is in the method. I think you've learned from Brannan Lake. The evidence of prison riots at Matsqui and elsewhere are further proof that the old system doesn't work. I must say, for those who simplistically write letters and say to bring back the lash, i.e. the old system, it is the old system and not the new systems that brought us to this point. There's not been anything new in the penal system in the last 50 years other than physical surroundings. There's been new paint, new walls, a new style of jails and a new style of institutions, but there has been no real basic difference in the delivery of service.

The last point I want to make, Mr. Attorney-General, is to encourage those politicians who are willing to point back at the community when the community points at them and says: "What are you doing about a problem?" They are able to point back at the community saying: "What are you doing about the problem? They're your children."

The religious communities of this province have never been challenged to come up with alternate programs. Until our Minister of Education allowed the hours to be changed, the school system had not even opened their doors to alternate programs on weekends and evenings to use taxpayers' buildings.

Having said all those things, Mr. Attorney-General, this has been a nice quiet day in debate. You'll get your estimates, and you'll have to, by the nature of the job you've got, go on to other things. But somewhere in the corner of your mind I ask you to tuck away a little bit of the warning and fear that I have. Firstly, we're going to have serious explosive problems in the juvenile field regardless of new laws. Secondly, anticipate those problems by understanding that what we've done in the past has been a failure. Thirdly, please consider to establish, not outside the politicians' orbit, a working committee to integrate the services that we are already spending a lot of money for. Fourthly, tell the staff: "You are highly paid, highly trained and highly skilled. We're paying you for your brains. Go out there. Take 12 hours off, but come up with an accumulation and distillation of research material. Give me programs and come back to us with innovations we can try in British Columbia. No more Willingdons and Brannan Lakes. Try something new." That's the least that some troubled youngster can ask from any government.

MR. STUPICH: A lot of what I was going to say has been said by the Leader of the Opposition, so I won't be long. I simply want to say on behalf of the people of Nanaimo, please listen to the Leader of the Opposition and do not use Brannan Lake as any kind of a correctional facility.

[ Page 6397 ]

I've had more correspondence on this one issue than on any other single issue since I've been the member for Nanaimo — going on for 16 years now. The Times reported encouragingly and optimistically to the people of Nanaimo an interview with the minister in an issue of the paper dated March 3. On the basis of that interview the reporter said — this is paraphrasing — the provincial government had no intention of ramming a Brannan Lake decision down the throats of Nanaimo. I'll quote the minister: "Any proposal for the property would be considered by cabinet along with proposals from the public and other departments of government." Another quotation from the minister is: "If I go back to cabinet and say there is no way the mayor and people of Nanaimo are going to accept this facility" — that's speaking of it as a correctional facility — "they're going to say: 'You'd better find another site.' " I wouldn't be speaking on this at this time except that this paper is dated March 3, but the indications since then....

I'm not going to go through the editorials in support of this position, or the brief that was submitted to the minister. The school board minutes are along the same lines as the decisions of the regional district and city council and all of them. More recently concern is being expressed in the community that the minister is now saying that he's going to use it, at least in part, for some kind of a correctional facility. I believe there's a quotation in one instance where he's saying that after he's decided how to use it as a correctional facility he's going to go into the community, tell the people what he has done and then ask for their support. It's quite a change in position from that announced in the press statement of March 3. I liked what the Leader of the Opposition had to say about it. I have the quotation in a paper dated May 15: "Williams" — speaking of the Attorney-General — "said: 'The cabinet will make its decision before December. Once the decision has been made by cabinet then, as I have indicated publicly, I will be going to the community, to the mayor, council and others in the community who are interested in the property. They will be made fully aware of what we intend to do with it, and hopefully I will get their support.' "

That's completely at odds with the indication given earlier to the effect that nothing would be imposed upon the community that the community was not prepared to accept. Now the position would seem to be that they're going to do it, and then try to get support. I just hope the minister will reassure me and the people of Nanaimo that the position announced on March 3 is his position today and that it will not be done unless the community is ready to accept it.

Nanaimo has had the Brannan Lake facility for quite a number of years now. It was a very unhappy experience when it was outside the city as a youth centre; it wasn't always called a youth centre. It was not a happy experience, but at least at that time it was outside the city. Now it's within the city limits. There is a rapidly growing population in that area. A shopping centre is being built very near the Brannan Lake facility. It's such an ideal site for the kind of purposes that were presented by the Leader of the Opposition: park purposes, recreation and education. There are so many purposes that it could be used for. They're not opposed to a correctional facility in the regional district, but there is complete opposition to any kind of a correctional facility almost in the population centre of Nanaimo city.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to the member for Nanaimo and the Leader of the Opposition. First of all, with respect to Brannan Lake, it seems so difficult to respond to questions from the press from time to time and to have them translate what one says without apparently raising apprehensions. I wish therefore today to reiterate my position, which has not changed since March. In so doing, maybe I could explain to the committee precisely the process upon which I am embarked.

My ministry officials responsible for corrections have identified the need for significant modernization and improvement, and perhaps relocation, of some facilities we have which serve the northern part of the Island. When the Brannan Lake facilities became available I asked for the opportunity to plan how they might be used for corrections purposes. That decision was made, but it was only to plan how they might be used by my ministry for these purposes. We have produced plans. The next step is to obtain the approval of the government to move forward with those plans. During that period of time I made the statements which the member has indicated were reported in a newspaper in March,

I have made a partial presentation to the executive council, but it has not been completed. Other ministries, including Health and Education, have also been requested to indicate what use they might make of the property, or some parts of the property. Of course we have before us from citizens' groups in Nanaimo a number of suggestions for the use of that property. The cabinet will not made a decision with respect to my proposed use until they have had the opportunity of examining the proposed uses which may be advanced by other ministries, or indeed those which have been sent forward to the government by community groups in Nanaimo.

My position is that even if the government indicates that I may proceed beyond the planning stage, I do not propose to locate a correctional facility in Nanaimo until two things happen: until I have laid the proposal before the citizens of Nanaimo — before that community, its local government and anyone else who is interested — and until I have obtained from that community an indication that they support the direction in which we propose to go. This decision is made for two reasons; I suppose it is actually one reason with two parts. First of all, I think it inappropriate for government, particularly the Ministry of Attorney-General, to impose a correctional facility upon a community if that community is opposed to it. It's not conducive to good relationships between the facility and the community itself. The other side of that concept is that unless we have community support we do not believe that the kind of programs to which the Leader of the Opposition made reference can function if we have antipathy between the corrections facility, its staff, the programs they wish to utilize, and the community which must be part of that program in many respects — then the proposal could not go forward. Therefore I wish to make it clear, as I have tried to make it clear since March, that as was reported in the press in March, it is not the intention of the Attorney-General's ministry to ram a correctional facility down the throats of the people of Nanaimo. If it fails for them, it fails for us.

I come back to what the Leader of the Opposition was saying. It's some considerable time since we've had an opportunity for this kind of debate in this House, I hope, as the Leader of the Opposition indicated, that this would not be the last opportunity for this kind of discussion, because the solution of the problem to which he referred is surely not one which lies in the hands of either the government or the opposition at this particular time, or at any time. Surely the

[ Page 6398 ]

will of the citizens of British Columbia will be to recognize the nature of the problem, to examine the options for solution and, having made that examination, to choose the option or options which will lead us toward a solution. I'm not sure that we'll ever find a solution in the true sense, but we can at least move towards that solution.

The Leader of the Opposition said that the question of juvenile prostitution was not a legal problem. Well, it's a legal problem in the sense that it is going on today, but the solution for it is not to be found in law. Recently I was asked a question by the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) about a case which is now before the courts. I'm not going to talk about that case, but it's about a juvenile girl and juvenile prostitution. I know, and that member knows, as sure as we are sitting in this chamber, precisely what will happen. The case will be proved, I'm sure. A penalty will be imposed. It will become a correctional problem, and I would forecast that in a matter of weeks, maybe even days, that juvenile will be back on the streets, probably conducting herself exactly as she did before she was arrested. Therefore it's not a legal problem. I can solve the legal problems. That's purely administration. But what do you do to stop this revolving-door situation that we have in our society today, particularly with our young people?

When you get the older people, the ones who have engaged in violent crime, breaking and entering — the kind of conduct that I referred to yesterday as being beyond the norm which society is prepared to accept — you can use the law in stem measures. You can remove them from society for a period of time. You can attempt to rehabilitate them, and in some cases you may be successful. To that extent society will be rewarded, or at least, for a period of time, protected against the conduct exhibited by those persons.

But when you're talking about the juvenile, it's not the same. We have a situation in this province as exists elsewhere in this entire world, where for a variety of reasons, juveniles find themselves in conflict with the standards of society — standards which they did not make, and standards which they cannot, in some cases, attain. One of the reasons they can't attain them is that society itself raises barriers for those juveniles in attaining the standards that society would prescribe for them.

A year ago I had the pleasure of going to one of our Outward Bound camps at Porteau Cove, to what was called their "graduation" ceremony. That's an opportunity for juveniles who find themselves in conflict with the law to go for an intensive period of self-reliance testing. They are put up against barriers that they have never faced before, including, at the end of their stay at Porteau Camp, the barriers of themselves. They're sent out into the wilderness — into the mountains surrounding Porteau Camp — to spend two or two and a half days alone; there is nobody else. Before they go they are equipped with the necessary supplies. They've already been given some survival training. When I talked to some of those young boys, they indicated to me that the toughest barrier they had to face was being alone and to recognizing that if a problem developed there was nobody who could solve it except themselves. We don't have many repeaters at that camp. It seems to me that society has to realize that when those young men leave a setting such as Porteau Camp and go back into urban society, they face barriers; they face a lack of concern on the part of older people with respect to their problems, and they can't always turn to themselves for the answers.

It may be true, as the Leader of the Opposition has said — and there is some evidence to support this already within our communities — that we are coming to a period in which we will see increasingly violent juvenile behaviour. Whether that is to be the case or not, however, the solution to unacceptable juvenile behaviour nonetheless rests, as indicated by the Leader of the Opposition, with the community. We have in the Ministry of Attorney-General a special projects branch engaged in the matter of community crime prevention, particularly addressed to the juvenile. We are attempting to encourage communities to assess the nature of the problems that they are experiencing with young people to determine why it is that they are facing those problems in their particular community, and then to set about finding the solutions as a community. We want to give every assistance we possibly can in the development of the technique, but we don't want it to become a government program — that's always the easy way out — because when it becomes a government program, then the community seems to lose interest. If the community loses interest in such a program, the program is gone. We attempt to engage the local government, the school board, the teachers, the recreation staff, the churches, the service clubs, the police, professionals in Corrections and family court committees — all those people who in the community can lend their assistance.

One of the biggest problems we have in going to the communities is making them understand that it's a community problem, but we're having some considerable success. As well as all of the groups I've talked about, we are also encouraging the active support of the commercial community, because they're part of the problem too. They see the problem as being one that affects their revenues, their profits and their property — and so it does — but the solution to the problems that affect them directly are still to be found in the community as a whole. While there has been active participation in this concept in a variety of ways in British Columbia for a number of years, it is just in its infancy; it needs the support of everyone, particularly in identifying the problems.

You know, I come from a community which is seen to be, and is, composed of upwardly mobile people, many of them very wealthy, with large homes and expensive properties. It's a rich community, and you would wonder why in a community such as that we would have a juvenile crime problem. But we do. It's not just vandalism, breaking and entering and theft; it's hassling of people at community centres....

Why would this be in a community where you would think that the young people have everything they could ask for? Maybe they have everything they could ask for in the material sense — and probably too much — but other things are lacking.

Therefore in my community — and this crime prevention committee concept is just beginning there — they've got to look very deep to find out why there is a problem. There are lots of reasons, but they must be identified and the root cause, once it is identified, cured. It will require the assistance of members in all the communities throughout this province if we're to make any move to solve the juvenile behaviour problems that we envisage today and those which were forecast by the Leader of the Opposition. Government too must be involved.

The Leader of the Opposition indicated that close to the end of their term in government they decided that there had to be a different kind of approach. I would like the House to

[ Page 6399 ]

know that we have continued along that line. I wish we could claim success. We have an interministerial committee on children in crisis. It's a nice name. It is comprised of the Ministries of Health, Education, Human Resources and Attorney-General. Our deputies sit on that committee, and they come up with some good ideas. But it's not as easy to work on the problem through the interministerial committee as it is to do the normal administrative tasks of each ministry. That's traditional with government. The Attorney-General does his thing, Health and Human Resources do their things — their traditional roles. It seems to be exceedingly difficult to meld together and to focus the resources — both people and money — on some new ideas. Some success was enjoyed by the former government, some success by ours.

While this doesn't have much to do with my estimates, I think it's important that these things be considered at a time like this. As I said at the outset, this transcends political boundaries. If any government fails to recognize the problem and devote its efforts to the solution, then surely some other government will face the same or a worse problem. The difficulty is that it is the citizen to whom we are responsible who, in the final analysis, will be the victim.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, when I listen to the minister discuss the problems of juveniles, I have to say I support him in a lot of ways. Something that we as members and as part of society must realize and keep uppermost in our minds is that we do have faith in people. Over my 23 years in the police, I guess I met a lot of people who were involved in crimes of all types. Juveniles were the vast majority of where you first identify a person in conflict with the law. When you go over what has happened over the years, you see that society today swings in a pendulum. It's important to realize that we should have control over that pendulum. When something does not appear to be working in one end, we swing the other way.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) talked about Brannan Lake. I remember the days when Brannan Lake was in operation. This was before computers and instant knowledge at your fingertips of stolen cars. I remember many a time at 2, 3 or 4 in the morning, if you saw a car driven by a youth and — because in the old days the licences were issued by cities — if the licence plate was from Nanaimo, you automatically stopped it. In the vast majority of cases when you found a juvenile at 2 or 3 in the morning in a Nanaimo car, he was an escapee from Brannan Lake. Many a time we have phoned owners who have gone to bed never realizing their car had been stolen, but it had been stolen by an escapee from Brannan Lake. So I can relate to the problems of citizens who live in that vicinity and lose their cars and have them totalled in a car chase or involved in a crime. These were the facts of what happened.

I want to bring four issues to the minister's attention. One of them deals with the juvenile problem. The minister spoke on some of the changes and new programs that are in effect. One of the great ones is the program involving youth, the Outward Bound program, where youths are taken out on weekends. They're given an opportunity to learn survival, hiking, the ways of the outdoors. For a lot of kids who've grown up in single-parent homes or in homes where their parents are not involved in the outdoors, this was their first opportunity to get out and do the things that a lot of our children, because of different lifestyles, have the opportunity to do as a family unit. I, like the minister, have talked to many kids who have gone through the program and completed it. In the local program it was hiking the West Coast Trail. When you're hiking the West Coast Trail, it's a great challenge to pack the food you're using for survival and complete the hike within the five-day period. To many of those kids, it was the greatest thing in their lives. They brag about it. They would talk to us about this accomplishment they made with their efforts, training and knowledge.

This brings up one of the issues that affects my riding in particular. That is the location of the juvenile correction camp in the Metchosin district that is the base for this particular program locally. It's the base where the juveniles and the probation workers are working with kids on weekends and summer holidays. On April 22, 1981, I raised a question with the Attorney-General and the Provincial Secretary concerning negotiations dealing with the relocation of the Metchosin correctional camp. This wasn't something that I'd pulled out of the air; it was something that people in the correctional branch, members of the police and neighbours to that particular location had come to me to ask what I knew. As the Attorney-General is quite aware, I do have friends in the various police forces. I do have friends in the correctional branch, and they were interested in what was taking place. I would like to raise the answer I received from the Provincial Secretary. My original question was if there were any negotiations taking place with that particular piece of property. The answer recorded in Hansard was from Hon. Mr. Wolfe:

I would like to respond to a question which was raised yesterday by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. He asked a question related to suggested negotiations on behalf of the Attorney-General's department with Happy Valley Timber Ltd. for the sale of Crown land in Metchosin on which a provincial juvenile correction camp is situated. The question asked whether there were negotiations taking place on behalf of the Attorney-General's department for this property.

The answer to the question specifically is that the B.C. Buildings Corporation is in fact not negotiating for the sale of any Crown land or, in particular, this property. They have expressed an interest in the property in question.

It goes on, but the statement was that there were no negotiations taking place. Because of the answer, my good friend Mr. Hume wrote an article saying that I did not have the facts and the question was out of order, etc. As the Attorney-General knows, the question period is to find facts. It is to ask questions. In any investigation, you don't start off with facts; you start off with rumours, information received and suspicions, and then you start an investigation. Part of that investigation was from people who had been consulted. Police officers in the area had been consulted about a possible new location for the juvenile correction camp. Social workers had been consulted about the location of a new correctional camp in the Metchosin–East Sooke area.

A number of pieces of land had been inspected by people in these departments. One particular piece of property was — and I would like to read it into the record for the Attorney-General, and maybe in his answer he could cover the reason — parcel A, section 42, except plans 14953 and 26149 in the Metchosin district. That particular piece of property was located on the East Sooke Road. This need for a new correctional camp, a camp where juveniles are going to be working in the program that the minister so ably described as part of the Outward Bound program.... Knowing the particular property, it may be an excellent piece of property for this particular program. I was berated in the press for not having any facts. At that time, I will confess to the minister, maybe

[ Page 6400 ]

there were no facts available. But since then a number of pieces of information have come across my desk. One was a document presented to the Assessment Appeal Board of British Columbia.

I realize that the minister is aware of how the Assessment Appeal Board of British Columbia works. If a person is not happy with his assessment, he can appeal it to the board. The board takes similar types of property in that area and compares recent sales for those pieces of property so they can compare an average per acre or the value of the property to that of the person who is appealing his assessment. It was interesting how the assessment board picked certain properties for comparison. They picked the piece of property I was talking about — parcel A, section 42, except plans 14953 and 26149 in the Metchosin district — for a comparison.

When they made the assessment of some of the history of that property and when it appeared before the appeal board, the following information was submitted. I find that it ties into my original question: was there any property being negotiated, and was a certain piece of property being considered as the new location for the juvenile correction camp?

It was interesting that this particular piece of property had been listed with Block Bros. for a number of months. It had originally been listed at the price of $275,000. For the period of time it had been listed, they had received a number of bids around $225,000. The owner of this particular property, Hazelmere Estates Ltd., turned them down. On January 2, 1981, an offer from Mr. L. Mezuka was accepted for the price of $250,000 with the completion date for the sale of this property to be March 2, 1981. The deal on this piece of property fell through on approximately March 12 or 14, 1981. An interesting thing then happened. On March 20, 1981, an offer of $300,000 was made on this piece of property by the same Happy Valley Timber Ltd. It was the same piece of property that police officers and correctional officers had looked at as a possible site for a correction camp. A bid of $300,000, which was $50,000 over a bid that had been accepted — because the deal had fallen through it was $25,000 above the price listed with Block Bros. prior to the sale of this property.... Part of the offer was that it would be accepted with a completion date of April 15, 1981. The purchaser, Happy Valley Timber, put down $100,000 and the vendor carried a mortgage of $200,000 at 17 percent. A condition of the contract was that the details of the mortgage were to be agreed upon by the solicitors of the vendor and the purchaser, because it was important to the purchaser to have title to this property. It appeared to be common knowledge within the area that this piece of property was to be a possible location for a juvenile camp. Again, I am not saying it is wrong to have the juvenile camp at that location; maybe it would be a better utilization of that land compared to the present location. The property was eventually transferred; on April 13, 1981, the property was transferred from Hazelmere Estates Ltd. to Happy Valley Timber Ltd. for the price of $300,000.

This is the part about which I thought we had originally received assurance from the Provincial Secretary that there were no negotiations taking place. A lot of people in the community and the police force find it hard to accept the fact that one piece of property changed hands for the price of $300,000, which, as I say, was $50,000 more than the price that had been accepted a month before and $25,000 above the list price. But as we in the House must accept the word of the Provincial Secretary that there were no negotiations taking place, a lot of us wonder what was happening in that particular area. I was prepared to forget it and accept the hon. member's word that there were no negotiations taking place, but when we were in the Housing estimates, 200 acres of provincial government property had been sold to this same Happy Valley Timber Ltd. to make up a parcel of 400 to 600 acres. Again, only because of rumour and suggestion was there an idea that there was a possible land development in that area.

In his estimates the minister stated that the provincial government property was sold so they could go ahead with land development and the building of houses. We in the greater Victoria area realize the need for houses in this area. We realize the need for affordable property. I support that, but I'm sincerely asking and wondering, as are many other people in the Metchosin area, whether it is the intention of the Ministry of Attorney-General to allow a juvenile correction camp, situated on 105 acres and completely surrounded by 500 or 600 acres of property presently owned by Happy Valley Timber for housing, in the centre of that development.

I don't think anyone is trying to raise a great scandal, but I feel the people of this particular area have the right to know what is taking place. I believe the contractors who will be buying and developing land in that particular area should have some knowledge of where the correctional camp is going to be located. I feel the police who will be policing that area have a right to know the potential changes the ministry has in mind for that area. I feel those who are working in the corrections branch and in the probation service should have some knowledge of what facilities will be constructed on that location or what needed facilities may be constructed on the present site.

Up until the time that I raised the question in the House on April 22, there had been a freeze on the present Metchosin correctional camp. No repairs had been made and no upgrading of facilities was being contemplated. After the flurry of press and radio statements, they then started doing repair work on the camp. So one of the things I would ask of the minister for those who, as I have outlined before, are involved in juvenile correction is that they should be given some open, straightforward answers. If there is a deal being made, if this particular piece of property.... The Provincial Secretary said there is nothing taking place. I hope that is correct. There's no law to stop a company from paying $50,000 more for a piece of property than it was a month ago. It's not an offence to pay $25,000 more than the list price. I know the vendor is quite happy; I know the real estate people who are involved were more than pleased to get the extra commission. But I think we as taxpayers and citizens — those involved in that particular issue of juvenile correction — have a right to, know what programs are going to be put into operation. Is it all going to be scrapped? Are we then going to take the children from the local area and incarcerate them all up in Brannan Lake? These are the issues that we feel are important.

As one who has worked with juveniles over the years, I know — and I say from actual experience that the instructors at the camp who are involved in this are doing a damned good job. They don't have one hundred percent success, but they do give kids who are involved in crime a different concept, a different attitude, and they are far more approachable after they have gone through the course and completed the hike along the West Coast Trail, which is all part of the program. I would hate to see that program lost because of some political

[ Page 6401 ]

statement or some misplaced political interpretation of what is going to happen in that area.

The second issue I would like to ask the minister about is an issue I am receiving a number of calls about from different sources. It is the spin-off effect that is happening because of the long, drawn-out stalemate in the ICBC strike. I know, Mr. Chairman, before you rule me out of order that you will say that ICBC does not come under the Ministry of Attorney-General, but enforcement of laws being violated because of that strike do, The large number of cars that are on the road today with damaged headlights and damaged doors are not being repaired because of the strike. They are on the road today and being driven. Everyone is turning a blind eye to the broken headlights and the damaged fenders, but these cars are becoming a hazard on the road. I think it's important, Mr. Chairman, that the Ministry of Attorney-General bring a little pressure on the government and on the corporation for those people who are being denied proper repair work or the right to drive a car. They have paid insurance, and their cars are not being repaired.

I have one particular complaint from a young lady who is a student at university. She had taken her car off the road when she was going to school and made an application for the balance of her insurance. Because of the strike, the money was not returned. Because of a job that she had hoped to get as a result of the change of the Minister of Labour's (Hon. Mr. Heinrich's) new policy, after graduation she had to bring her car back into operation, she had to get her licence back and get insurance. This particular person had a credit at ICBC of two hundred and some odd dollars, which hadn't been returned when she had taken her car off the road prior to the strike. When she went to put her car back on the road, that credit that she had coming to her was denied. The insurance company and the local agent in the area she lived in said that she would have to take out new insurance, and she would have to pay $300 to start her insurance from that date. There was no opportunity that he could see to give her any credit for the money that she had invested, the money that was sitting somewhere in the vaults or in the accounts of ICBC. Again, I feel that it's not fraud or theft or anything like that. But because of the inaction of the government and the Attorney-General, who has a moral obligation to see that cars on the road are properly insured and repaired, this is not taking place. Because of the long, drawn-out strike that for some unknown reason has not had the attention.... The government has not used the pressure that I know government and the cabinet can if they want to get this operation back to the bargaining table, settle with the workers and get the people of British Columbia the proper insurance that they have paid for.

The third issue I would like to bring to the attention of the minister is a problem that I see taking place. As I said to begin with, the pendulum swings from left to right and back again. I know that today there is a large hue and cry that we have to punish those charged with impaired driving; we must lock up those who, because of their impaired driving, have added to the carnage on the highways. I don't think anyone in this House has seen more carnage from impaired drivers than I have. Again, in many cases those who are involved in impaired driving are not criminals in the criminal sense of violence. They are criminals because they are part of our social order and part of the social necessity that many people feel to drink to enjoy themselves. I have great fear that....

I know I can't discuss pending legislation, but legislation will be brought in because they think it's a simple answer for everyone charged with impaired driving or with a second offence to be immediately sent to jail or have their licences suspended.

I would like to make some comments and observations. In Sweden they send you to jail for one year for impaired driving. Right now they have a three-year waiting list to go to jail. In Sweden they have a different cultural arrangement. A lot of people live in cities that are served by transit. People can come and go wherever they want. They can get from point A to point B on public transit. But in my particular riding many people are living away from the transit system in the rural areas. To deny them....

Mr. Chairman, if I can get an intervening speaker, I will finish my little story

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to deal very briefly with the question of the facilities at Metchosin. In my earlier remarks I spoke of the Outward Bound camp at Porteau Cove on Howe Sound. Of course, as the member has indicated, at the Metchosin Road property we operate the same style of program. In addition. as the member knows, we have a program which is known as WELD — work experience, leadership and learning development. That's a very exciting program. I wish to assure the member that that program is to be in no way discontinued.

The member raised questions concerning the property upon which that program was situated and other matters touching upon the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary. The present facilities at Metchosin Road consist of an old house, a barn and six cabins. They are in poor state of repair; in fact, they have been condemned. They are a fire hazard. We must replace them, and we will. The facilities are used approximately 50 weekends each year. Juveniles arrive on Friday night and return to their homes on Sunday.

About a year ago the corrections branch of the ministry made a request that these facilities be replaced. This request was included in this year's budget, the 1981-82 budget estimates we're now considering, and Treasury Board has given its approval. We therefore went to the Buildings Corporation, who provide us with our facilities, and said: "Here's our problem. We would like them to be replaced." In the course of examining the facilities and the property they considered other locations, because we were aware that the regional development plan for the area will eventually see this particular Metchosin Road property surrounded by homes, and it makes it less attractive from our point of view to use it for Outward Bound facilities.

A number of sites have been presented to the corrections branch for consideration. One of them happens to be the property to which the member has referred, apparently presently owned by Happy Valley Timber Ltd. I'm advised that the Buildings Corporation had independent appraisal of that property, as they had of others. They found its value to be somewhat less than what Happy Valley Timber had paid for it, and they approached Happy Valley to purchase it — not to exchange the property, but to buy it. The purchase was subject to rezoning from rural to public institutional use and also to the question of availability and cost of necessary services. These conditions haven't been met, and in this regard we are continuing to look for other properties which will be more removed from residential development, or we will proceed with the reconstruction and replacement of the existing facilities. What discussions there may have been

[ Page 6402 ]

between BCBC and Happy Valley Timber I have no idea. The information I was given was that there was a proposal to buy the property, not to exchange it, but that proposal has come to nothing because of the questions of rezoning and other conditions.

With regard to the property at Metchosin Road, I am advised that BCBC has indicated that if the property ever becomes surplus it will be advertised for sale by public tender. That depends upon two conditions: one, that we are found some other acceptable location; and secondly, that the property becomes surplus to government needs.

MR. MITCHELL: I'll get back to the question of when it first came before the House and when the estimates came before the House.

I'd like to follow along what I was saying on the threat that appears from discussion within the House and the community — that people are going to automatically lose their licence because this is the way it happens in certain countries, and some people may go to jail because of impaired driving. I think we must take into consideration the different locations and different types of people who are involved in impaired driving. I would like to plead a case for a lot of people who work for a living and live in the rural areas. I know it's a sin to drink and a criminal offence to drive, and I know that because of parties and circumstances many people, including maybe members of this Legislature, have both drunk and driven.

But what is happening? If we have this automatic suspension of driver's licence because of a person being involved in impaired driving, what actually happens? Many people who live in the rural areas have homes, families and mortgages. They have responsibilities. It's easy for some person interpreting the regulations back in the parliament buildings to say: "Yes, your licence will be suspended." But when a person is faced with the knowledge that for six months he is going to be denied a job, he is not going to be able to make his mortgage payments or to pay his children's dental bills, what does he do? Human nature being what it is, the need for survival comes forth, and people drive while under suspension. It's a fact of life. From a police point of view, if you're going to bring in laws to curb something, bring in laws that are enforceable. The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) suggested that people who have a driving conviction should have an "A" on their licence for being impaired, indicating that they're a danger to fellow motorists. But again, that's not really enforceable.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I feel that some consideration should be given for a person to have the right to drive so that he can continue his employment. We have people going to jail who get out to go to work and then go back to jail at night or on weekends. I feel that cars being driven for work should be easily identifiable when they're on the road. I'm making a suggestion for the minister's consideration. It's not to point people out, but so that the fact that a person has the right to drive to work is known by everyone, and so that it can be enforced by the enforcement officers patrolling the highways. Some type of large flag, something like these large whip antennas, can be locked on and sealed to the car burnper. If he has the right to drive in daytime hours it could be one colour, and if he's driving at night it would be a different flag, because people work shifts.

A person would have to pay for additional insurance, but it would be restricted so that he could commute from his job to his home during working hours. When the enforcement officers spot that car around a beer parlour, show or dance hall, they'll know it's in violation. The mechanism can be sealed, and if there is any damage to it there should be a fine. But the person has the opportunity to drive his car to protect his job and maintain his home.

What happens is that people start off only driving to work and back. They get away with it, and next week they're driving to get the groceries. Then sometime they'll stop at a beer parlour, have a couple of beers, and get involved in an accident. Because they're under suspension, they flee the scene. Normally, law-abiding citizens wouldn't flee, but because they're under suspension, self-preservation drives them to leave the scene. All this builds up because they got away with driving to work two or three times, being very careful and going on the back roads. The average policeman does not know all the people convicted of impaired driving. Someone convicted in Victoria can drive through Saanich, Oak Bay or Esquimalt and never be seen by an officer involved in the conviction in Victoria. The car itself should have some way of being identified, but only for the opportunity to go to work.

With any regulation that you bring in or any recommendations for changes that may come out of other departments, the law should be workable and enforceable for those who are obliged to try to police the streets and highways. Don't let people get away with driving three or four times, building up.... It's very human. We all do certain things like that.

I have a fourth suggestion I would like to make to the Attorney-General. Today I read in the paper: "Drop Police Right to Strike." Every so often when police officers are negotiating a wage increase, all the power of public opinion comes down on them if they go on strike. A lot of people have never worked as police officers or in the negotiations with an employer who has gone through the frustrations that have taken place over the years. Society feels that it has a right to demand that a police officer be on duty 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year. This is a right. We all say that that thin blue line between democracy and anarchy is manned by a group of police officers who are dedicated public servants. We have gone though negotiations and arbitration, conciliation and mediation procedures. As the minister knows, in arbitration a fair type of labour negotiation was hampered because of the rules of court. You had to have direct evidence; you couldn't quote something someone said in Ottawa. You couldn't use that evidence; you had to fly in a man from Ottawa. All the evidence had to be evidence that was acceptable in court. The conciliation board always depended on the third man who was appointed. For all those who ever suffered through that short period with a mediation board, you know the disaster that happened.

The minister has the responsibility to protect the morale of the officers who are working, and to see that they have an opportunity to share the same benefits as fellow workers who have the right to strike and the right to increase their share of the gross national product. I'll make a suggestion to him for study. For those who remember the old theory — going back into history to the late 1920s when they were fighting for parity prices for wheat — the value of wheat was to be decided on a selection of goods in a so-called basket. The price of butter, sugar, beef, clothing and machinery....

As those costs rose, the price of wheat should rise. I suggest

[ Page 6403 ]

that if there is any consideration of the idea that people are going to be denied the right to strike, they should have another built-in mechanism. Their wages should be tied to those of selected occupations, like electricians, carpenters, boilermakers, plumbers and social workers within a community where you can come up with an acceptable average. In negotiations maybe you would debate the fact that you were going to replace boilermakers' wages with carpenters' wages, or something else. There should be some area that we can negotiate, to come up with suggestions that are not swinging from the left to the right, as I said before. You don't deny to one group in society a benefit that their neighbours are getting. There should be some order in negotiations. I say this to the minister because it's his duty to keep the morale of the forces in top form at all times. When you have long, drawn-out, bitter labour strife within the police force, the taxpayer is not getting the service that he's paying for.

There was a good example of this when the federal government decided to increase RCMP wages. Instead of making it retroactive to the beginning of the year, as is normal, they moved it up to April. Instead of getting a 12 percent increase, they got an 8.5 percent increase. In the short period that was being fought over in the media and in Ottawa, there was a real drop in the morale of many officers. They felt they had been shafted by the federal government. I would like to see the provincial government take a new approach and bring in some new ideas and new suggestions to a very complex program that has gone on for a number of years. Every so often we have the example of what happens when complete frustration takes over, as in Moncton and in Halifax recently.

If the minister could come up with some suggestions of what kind of leadership his government could give, I know a lot of the people out there would appreciate it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I just want to respond very quickly to points raised by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. I understand the concerns that he raises with respect to the consequences for persons who are employed, when they lose their right to drive. It affects both professional drivers and the ability of others to get to and from work. There is one very simple answer. You can think of all the administrative techniques possible — licence numbers, flags and so on, so the police can identify whether the person is under suspension for impaired driving, but there's one very simple answer. If you're going to drink, don't drive. It's the beginning. That's where you start. If you going to drink, don't drive. The experience of this province is such that even though the courts are imposing increasing fines for first offences and not giving jail penalties — which they can do on a first offence, but don't — and in spite of the fact that it is expensive in legal fees, we are having people who are coming back for second offences, for which they get 14 days in jail. They come back again and their licences get suspended. With that, we have the problem of the carnage on our highways, about which we spoke yesterday.

What do you say to a person who writes the Attorney-General, pointing out that a member of their family has been killed or badly injured in a motor-vehicle accident and that the person driving the other car who caused the accident was driving with his licence under suspension. We have 50,000 people in the province of British Columbia whose licences are suspended. We would have more flags on the backs of cars than we would have cars, in many communities. The laws in this respect have been too lax, and in many respects the enforcement has been too lax. If you have constituents who are concerned, the answer to them is: read the Counterattack literature. The basic message is there. If you want to drink, don't drive.

If you have a friend at your house who consumes too much liquor and wants to drive his car home, what do you call that guy? The answer is you call him a taxi. That becomes your responsibility as the host. It applies equally to the person who gets himself in a situation where he loses his licence and can't go to work. What you do is you get some other member of the family or some neighbour, and say: "Look, I was a damn fool. I've got a problem, but I've got to get to work. Would you help me out?" That's better than all the flags and all the licence numbers, because then it becomes your neighbour, you see. who has to help you out. Maybe it makes you think the next time you drink and drive. That's the answer to the problem.

The last matter is with respect to police officers in this province and their rights to negotiate with their employers for their wages and working conditions. The story which appeared in the paper this morning to which the member made reference, I gather, was initiated by a letter which I wrote to the mayor of West Vancouver, who had raised with me the concept of taking away the right to strike of police officers. I responded to him that collective bargaining is the basis upon which we adjust our affairs between employers and employees, irrespective of what their position may be. In the case of those who find themselves working in an essential service, we also provide additional assistance to both the employer and the employees to resolve any disputes they may have. It's worked very successfully. Quite frankly, if you look back in the records in this province, we have not had those problems with our police officers. They recognize their responsibilities, both as police officers and as negotiators when the bargaining time comes around.

When I was Minister of Labour, I was involved in police negotiations. Nothing could have been conducted more responsibly. They recognized that the decision to take the men off the job was a very serious one, and would only be taken after every avenue had been exhausted. We have been very fortunate. We had a little problem here in the city of Victoria, where the police officers showed their disgust at the way the negotiations were going on, but they stayed on the job. They performed their responsibilities as police officers. It's my view, from the police officers with whom I come into contact in my present position, that their sense of responsibility, their duty as police officers, will ensure that no matter how difficult the negotiations may be, they will use every avenue of assistance which we can provide in the resolution of their affairs,

MR. MITCHELL: I just have a brief point to make. I have to agree 100 percent that the police have been responsible. I didn't want to see a swing that was going to deny a group of people in that particular.... I also wanted to mention that the minister is still looking for that simplistic answer. It is not there. People are committing additional offences because they are driving under suspension because of necessity. They are forcing another type of criminal act that I think the minister should look at. Don't think there's a simple answer, because I know that those who are working with it realize that there isn't a simple one.

[ Page 6404 ]

MR. BARNES: I don't want to address the issue that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) was addressing. However, as far as I am concerned, driving while drunk should be a one-time experience, because when you're caught you shouldn't be allowed to drive again. I want to congratulate the Attorney-General on his creativity. Normally I'm not in favour of name-calling, but I think that, as you say, when a person has been drinking and you want to call him a name, call him a taxi — that's a good line. It's apropos to some of the things that I wanted to ask the Attorney-General.

After almost two years of attempting to raise the issue of the Canadian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in this Legislature, I appreciate the opportunity to inquire with respect to the Attorney-General's position in using the Criminal Code of Canada in addressing this problem.

With that brief introduction, I would like to move right into my concerns. The Attorney-General will, of course, be familiar with section 281. In fact, there are two subsections, 281.1 and 281.2, dealing with hate propaganda. The first section, 282.1, has to do with the advocacy of genocide, and section 281.2 deals with public incitement to hatred. In reviewing this section, it states: "Everyone who by communicating statements in a public place incites hatred against any identifiable group, where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, is guilty...." I won't go into the offence. At this stage I'm not concerned about the sentence. Subsection 2 states that everyone who, by communicating statements other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is also guilty. However, there are some interesting "ifs" to those two sections that I would also like the Attorney-General to comment on. They are apparently exceptions. Notwithstanding either of the two subsections which I read, if a person establishes that the statements communicated were true, if in good faith he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion upon a religious subject, if the statements were relative to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true, or if in good faith he intended to point out for the purpose of removal matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred towards an identifiable group in Canada, these would be exceptions if these can be proved.

I'd like to ask the Attorney-General, on reflection of some of the examples of literature that the Klan used in the past two years that have been in various publications ... the most recent one was in the Vancouver Sun, June 1. This was at a cross-burning ceremony at Stave Lake. One of the members was quoted as saying: "Let us offer a prayer of thanks to God for creating us in his image, for giving us white skin and superior intellect." In the Times-Colonist of April 4, 1981, one of the other leaders suggested that the East Indian community were bloodsuckers and trash — and that was associated with a more extensive expression with respect to propagating hate concepts in the community. Another one in a publication last year suggested that all the blacks in Canada should be repatriated to their homes, wherever that is — 35,000 non-whites at $35,000 apiece should be forcibly sent back to their homelands.

My question to the Attorney-General as the chief law enforcement officer in the province is: although you have stated in the past that in your view no laws have been broken — in other words, nothing that the Klan or any such groups have said or done or appear to be doing is in violation of any provincial or federal statutes.... I would like to ask the Attorney-General to explain away some of these remarks, and I'm sure he has on file some much more penetrating remarks than the ones I have quoted. I don't really feel that I'm an authority on the extent of grievances that people suffer with respect to verbal or other remarks that they receive from people who are clearly intending to offend them.

I would like to ask the Attorney-General if he would explain his role as the chief law enforcement officer in this problem with respect to the Criminal Code of Canada. There is a section in the Code, 281.2 (6), states that "no proceeding for an offence under subsection 2 shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General." Mr. Chairman, I believe this point has not really been addressed satisfactorily in the past two years, ever since the re-emergence of the Klan in this province. There are two aspects to my questions; one is that while the Attorney-General has made it quite apparent that in his opinion he does not feel any laws are being violated and has offered his immediate response to anyone who brings forward information indicating a law has been broken....

As recently as question period this week he suggested to the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and, I believe, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) that if they had hard evidence that would indicate there was a case to be made against the Klan, he would appreciate the information.

However, a number of organizations in' the province, one of which is the Black Solidarity Association of British Columbia, I think lodged a formal complaint with the Attorney General asking that the Klan be prosecuted under the appropriate section of the Canadian Criminal Code. The Attorney General has not, to my knowledge, proceeded to do as requested; presumably he has acknowledged the request and has rejected it.

That subsection (6) concerns me, because it would appear as though the Attorney-General is the sole authority with respect to the justice system on this issue. He being a lawyer and I not having had professional training, I don't doubt that there are other examples of where the Attorney-General may also be required to give consent, but I'm suggesting that it seems rather curious in a matter of racism and hate propagation that the procedure as laid down in the act requires that the chief law enforcement officers of the different provinces have to give consent before a complaint under this section can be effected. It is on this that I would like to have the Attorney-General give his comments. It may well be that Ottawa has successfully manipulated the provinces by giving them the burden of having to initiate action in clearly politically sensitive matters. In any event, I think the Attorney-General should indicate his position.

My view, Mr. Chairman, has been that if the Attorney-General is not satisfied that the law is bring broken despite considerable public indignation and outrage in this matter, one would wonder why he hasn't been inclined to protest to Ottawa and the Solicitor-General and press the MPs in Ottawa to amend the Canadian Criminal Code in such a manner as to make it more accessible to the ordinary public. What I'm asking is why he should take the heat when he may in fact, in his own view and with the limitations he has as a single person, have no ability to be able to know all things and all matters; but still he is sitting between the people of this province and their access to due process of law. In this case he's doing it despite very strong public opinion that he do

[ Page 6405 ]

otherwise. It would seem to me that his desire not to stand in the way could be shown by simply indicating to the public that while he disagrees he does not feel they should not have their day in court.

I would like to feel — and I hope the Attorney-General would agree — that groups of individuals, religious organizations, racial groups, minorities, majorities or whatever — classifications of people by race or any denomination — would have the same rights in our justice system as individuals have, and that they would be able to press charges of defamation of character, libel, slander or any affront they feel has been committed. However, when it comes to identifiable groups, targets of racism and hatred, as has been the objective of the Canadian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, they have had no recourse, and it seems as though our statutes indicate that we are aware that there need to be some laws in place to address issues such as this.

But we have an anomaly, and I would like the Attorney-General to clarify just how this happens. I am concerned, because I don't think it is sufficient to merely sit and say: "The Attorney-General won't take action, so we will condemn the Attorney-General." The Attorney-General has a right to his opinion, as has any other free citizen in this province, but as the chief law enforcement officer he has to provide solutions to difficult situations as well. I think it is irregular in a free and democratic society to find ourselves in a situation where large numbers of the population are asking that the courts test some of the complaints they have made against an organization they feel is very close to being seditious with respect to the Canadian mosaic and the integrity the country has enjoyed for so many years and hopes to continue to enjoy.

There is a real threat of a different nature than any other form of violence the Canadian Criminal Code has been addressing in the past. It's a little bit different than a physical form. It's a slightly different attitude than that which we have been able to include in our legislative process, because we're talking about things which are not always concrete, tangible or measurable, although it's quite obvious that tempers can get out of hand and people can do things they ordinarily wouldn't do as a result of provocation. Hate propaganda in this form and this manner is clearly a very effective device in creating disturbances in the community, as the Klan has discovered.

Perhaps the Attorney-General would indicate to the House as well his analysis of why the Klan regards British Columbia as a haven for the recruitment of their members. They indicated that of all places in Canada British Columbia rates number one. That's curious. I'm not certain of the explanation. I'm suspicious, however, that the atmosphere in the province, because of silence — not because of indifference, perhaps, but because of not being more immediately responsive to concerns and clearly able to articulate our position, values and priorities with respect to our most important resource, the human beings who live here.... The cultures, races, classes, the different forms — whatever we have to make up our population — are not being addressed in such a manner as to concern the Klan. So they feel it's sort of like a fox going into a chicken coop — no one is attending the place except the chickens. Obviously, it's going to be a heyday for the fox — dinner at will; pluck them off one at a time. In this case, they undermine the integrity of the community little by little. It's an erosive tactic that is bound to have a damaging effect for many years to come, certainly for many generations, unless we're able to come up with effective priorities within our statutes that clearly articulate where we are, what we stand for and what we will not tolerate.

I guess I'm saying that, just as you remarked earlier about some of our problems with respect to juvenile crime, this should be less of a political issue with respect to the different parties and more a matter of our concern for the integrity of the community that we're all battling to try and assist in being a fruitful and productive community. So the Klan has challenged us. They have successfully challenged us. In fact, they led with their right. right off the bat, and have given us a very heavy blow to the chin. In some respects. they've brought us to our knees. They have certainly caused considerable political embarrassment for the government. Perhaps it may have been any other government, although I feel that my personal orientation is such that I don't have too much difficulty recognizing enemies when I see them. I'm not afraid to identify them and take action.

I'm hoping that the Attorney-General will stand in his place and try to address the matter not so much as the Attorney-General and the chief law enforcement officer in the province — although I'm sure he's preoccupied with that work on and off the job: it's a full-time responsibility — but as a person. I realize that all members are honourable and that we regard them according to their duties and responsibilities with respect to the constituencies they serve. I recall knowing this member. Mr. Chairman, when I was first elected in 1972. We used to travel together on the ferry, and we had many philosophic debates about our role as public officials. No ill comment intended, but at the time the Attorney-General was on this side of the House. I believe he was one of the five Liberal members at the time, under the leadership of Mr. David Anderson. However, I don't wish to wave any flags before the minister, so I say that in a friendly tone at this time.

I do believe that the Attorney-General, as the Attorney-General and as an individual, has to be able to resolve this problem. It is a serious one. and one he knows well. It is one I'm sure he must have had many sleepless nights over, as many of us have. But I can assure him that there are hundreds of thousands of people affected by every day that we delay. I happen to know that practically the whole population, particularly in the East Indian community — just to mention one — is very concerned. They are amazingly controlled in light of the circumstances, because they somehow have been specifically identified as targets for abuses and insults with respect to their right to live in dignity as citizens in this province. I for one — and, I'm sure, any other British Columbian. regardless of race. creed or colour — would be concerned, because we are no stronger than our weakest link. When the abuses are effected upon my neighbour, it affects me in the same way that it was intended for that neighbour. We're all together. So it's a very serious matter, and we are hurting as a result of it. Even if we take action today, it does not mean that we will reverse what has already happened; but we can at least indicate our willingness to turn things around.

I'm going to conclude my remarks by appealing to the Attorney-General as a person and not necessarily as a political opponent, because I have to live with what I say as well. I wouldn't stand here and play games on a matter that involves so many people, and I don't think the Attorney-General would either. I urge him to think seriously about what he has been saying in the past little while about his doubts as to the effectiveness of the Criminal Code as a successful device in prosecuting the Klan.

[ Page 6406 ]

As a lawyer he is perhaps extra cautious, as I probably would be if I was a lawyer. Being just an ordinary practitioner out in the streets, I tend to behave like ordinary people. I'm not clouded by all of the legalese and concerns of a lawyer who has to face the courtroom. But then I don't think that the Attorney-General would guarantee one of his prospective clients that success is in the bag, as he took their retainer. I don't think it is possible for any solicitor or attorney to guarantee that he will win every case. So I'm saying to this Attorney-General: give the people of British Columbia the same break you would an ordinary client. Say: "Look, I'll take the case; we'll do our best. If we lose, we'll come back and appeal — we'll fight. You can be sure that you're going to have your day in court." That's really all that we're asking on behalf of the people. Mr. Attorney-General, I would appreciate your remarks with respect to that specific problem.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the second member for Vancouver Centre speaks eloquently on this vexing problem. His concern and the concern of those on whose behalf he speaks is my concern. I am disgusted that we would have in our midst people who would espouse the views, attitudes and conduct, recently displayed in our press, of the Klan. The government has indicated, as the member has, that such conduct, standards and attitudes are unacceptable in this province and in this country.

We are without question a multi-racial community. We have welcomed to Canada and to British Columbia from all corners of this world peoples who have indicated a desire to live here and to share with all Canadians their culture, background, skills and personalities, and at the same time to enjoy with all other Canadians, from wherever they may have come, including those whose families have been here for decades, the freedoms which we treasure in this country. For that reason I find disgusting and reprehensible the espousals of those who would in any way — through intimidation, terror or threat — attempt to diminish the rights of any individuals in this country, no matter from whence they or their ancestors may have come. It's beyond consideration. That's my view as a member of this House and as Attorney-General.

To the extent that I and those for whom I have a responsibility are able, our efforts are directed to ensure that within the limits of the law we provide the measure of protection which citizens of Canada are entitled to have in this particular respect. But therein lies the problem. What I might wish to do as an individual is somewhat different than what I am able to do as Attorney-General. It's not like being a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Member. It's not like saying to a client: "I'm not sure whether you're going to win or not, but if you're prepared to pay the price, we'll take a try." There are certain tests which must be met with respect to any particular incident before the step is taken to lay information under the Criminal Code. It's lawyer talk, I know. But following the investigation of any incident, whether it's done with the assistance of a police force or based upon evidence which is brought forward by a citizen, a decision must be made as to whether or not a prima facie case can be made to disclose that there has been a breach of the criminal law of this country. I want to assure the member, as I have on other occasions, that all of the information which has been bought forward to the authorities and to Crown counsel — whether that information has come directly from citizens, from the Ministry or Education or from the police — has been subjected to careful scrutiny not by this Attorney-General, but by skilled, trained lawyers in this field. They are impersonal in their decisions. They are professionals. They know that they are examining that material on behalf of an Attorney-General who feels as I have just expressed myself.

So far, Mr. Member, they have not reported to me that the evidence coming into their possession will meet the test. That may be unfortunate, because the Klan representatives, with the advisers that they have, know just how far they may go. It gives me as much heartache and concern as I know it does you.

You mentioned that public opinion is strong on this subject. But public opinion is not the factor which triggers a prosecution under the Criminal Code. It's facts that do that. However, public opinion does trigger legislative change. Public opinion also initiates actions at the community level which can withstand the activities of groups such as the Klan. I spoke earlier this afternoon about questions of community involvement in juvenile crime prevention. I hold with equal strength that it is action within our communities which is required in order to make any real advance on the problems that you and I are currently discussing.

You suggested that if I feel this way and if the law is inadequate, then representations for change will be made to the Minister of Justice. That process is underway. Officials of my ministry, who are directly involved in the current revisions of the Criminal Code, are under instructions to ensure that these sections are addressed. Let me suggest to you the direction that that should take. I know that, because of your interest in these matters, you will have read the material, the debates in the House of Commons when these sections were brought into the Code. You will have read the reports of the commission that looked into this matter prior to the amendments of the Code. As I do, you will recognize that a conscious decision was made by the government of Canada at that time, in addressing this problem and in attempting to balance the express concern about racial hatred and all the problems that it creates, on the one side, and other rights and freedoms which were identified in the course of studies prior to the drafting of the legislation... They may have thought that they achieved a proper balance. It may have been appropriate for that day. But as we all know, since that time we have invited increasing numbers of people to come and live in our midst who were not here in those days — not in the numbers and not in the variety. Our society has changed significantly from those days. The advances that have been made in respect to the concept of human rights at all levels, provincial governments and the federal government — have created a significant change in the attitudes of our society since the days the Code was amended to include the sections dealing with hatred on a racial basis. Therefore it's time — it may even be beyond the time — that those provisions were readdressed in the light of modern attitudes. I suspect that in some respect the modern attitudes are indeed encouraging this small, unfortunate group in our society to espouse the things that the Klan espouses today. It is a reaction from them.

It is a reaction, of course, which we have had in Canada for many, many years. If you look back in the Journals of this House, you will find that in 1925 a major debate took place in this very chamber on this very subject. And I think if you look at what the situation was in 1925, it will perhaps provide some key as to why we are still having the difficulty in 1981.

[ Page 6407 ]

Events create events, as the member well knows. It's time to rethink the Code; it's also time to rethink the reasons why they included subsection (6) in the Code, giving the Attorney-General the responsibility to consent to a prosecution. The member will recognize very clearly why the consent is required for a charge under the second subsection but not under the first.

MR. BARNES: It's under both, isn't it?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You don't need the consent under the first subsection, but you do under the second subsection. It's very significant why the consent is only required under one, because under the structure of the criminal law in this country any person may lay an information — whether you're an individual just walking the streets, whether you're a police officer, no matter who you are, whether you're the Attorney-General. Anybody under our law can lay an information, which is the very first step in the criminal process. It is quite clear that even though the House of Commons, when they introduced this legislation, thought they were providing a fair balance between the need to put down matters of racial hatred on the one hand and other rights and freedoms on the other, just to make sure that there wouldn't be any frivolous or vexatious use of these provisions by individuals in our society, they required the consent of the Attorney-General. So while in respect of other offences the citizen can go to the justice of the peace and lay an information, it's not so when you're dealing with matters of this kind. It was a sort of double caution, in spite of the fact that they believed that they had achieved an acceptable balance between the two rights. They said: "Just in case we're wrong, we'll provide this additional caution or safeguard." So the citizen, as you quite properly pointed out, is kept one step away from the use of the laws of this country. Well, I think that needs to be addressed as well.

There are a few other sections in the Criminal Code where the consent of the Attorney-General is required. I am surprised that in 1981 this would continue to be a section to which those restraints would be applied.

Before I sit down, let me say that I agree with you that this is not a matter of politics. It is not a matter of what side of the House you sit on. It's a question of whether or not people can walk up and down the streets of our towns and cities. What colour you are should not matter. That's what we're talking about. It's not an incident between you and me; it's classes within our group. I wouldn't want anybody to say I couldn't walk up and down the street without feeling threatened. The same applies to anybody else. That's the kind of fear that exists in our community. It exists because of the activities of this group and others who think like them.

I wish to assure the member that all of the police forces in this province, and in particular those who operate where these activities are taking place, are under instructions to pursue as best they are able, with the investigating techniques they can employ, any incident which can be laid before Crown counsel for the purposes of considering charges under the Code. Crown counsel are under instructions to deal speedily with any such matter that comes before them. Those officials of the ministry who are involved with legislative change are likewise under instructions to seek appropriate amendments to the Code which will ease the burdens that face us and reduce the barriers towards effective prosecutions of persons who conduct themselves in this way.

MR. BARNES: Those were very useful comments. In fact, I think they were new revelations for most of us in the province who have been attempting to get some perspective with respect to concrete directions that the government might be taking. You have indicated that you concur in some of the concerns I've expressed about the problems in using the Criminal Code, You indicated that you are making representations to Ottawa with respect to appropriate amendments and changes that would address the matter. You did not indicate whether you anticipated success in this regard or when we might expect something that would be useful in dealing with this menace that we have to address today.

I'm curious about one aspect. You indicated that you had the benefit of your staff, who are professionals and who can operate in a dispassionate and objective way in analyzing the potential applicability of material that comes before them in using the appropriate sections of the Criminal Code. You concluded those remarks by saying that the facts are the main determinants, not what one may be inclined to do or one's personal wishes. You indicated that times do change and that the Code at one time may have been effective. I would appreciate it if you would share with the House an example of what kinds of facts and what kind of hard evidence your department requires in order to exercise your authority under the Criminal Code of Canada. In my view and in the view of the human rights branch under the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and other practitioners in the field — lay though they may be, nonetheless experienced in trying to protect individuals who complain of being subjected to racial abuse — the Code as it stands could be applied and successful prosecutions undertaken on the evidence that has been presented to you.

You say that certain tests have to be made. I think it's important to interpret the legal terminology you use in coming up with your definitions and descriptions of what that test requires, so that ordinary people can understand what the problem really is. As I said to you earlier, every day that goes by and we find no solution — only promises that we are doing studies and making representations to other authorities and other officials — every day that the matter is being reviewed can be, perhaps unfairly, interpreted to mean that one is stalling. I say "perhaps unfairly" because perhaps that's not your motivation or your desire. Perhaps the matter is too difficult to come up with a solution immediately, but you should be more definitive with respect to what the facts really have to be for the benefit of members on this side of the House and others. In my mind it takes no more of a fact than for someone to wave a red flag in my face when I'm walking the streets to provoke me if I feel it is being done with malice and hurt, and I'm the only that can determine that. If you used an example of how you feel when you're walking the streets, you certainly wouldn't expect someone to in any way impede your freedom of movement. And so be it, as it should be in a free and democratic society.

We have a problem that perhaps won't be solved at this sitting or during this session, but I want to advise the Attorney-General that our dialogue has been fruitful in my view and given us some new insights, certainly new from the formal standpoint, because we've had to deal through the media, second and third person or whatever, but we haven't had an opportunity to address these matters specifically and directly.

As we move on to other business the people who are complaining and concerned are looking for leadership from

[ Page 6408 ]

the government, and I think it would be refreshing and encouraging if the Attorney-General were to indicate what he sees as a kind of evidence and interpretation of these affrontaries that would make them apply under the Criminal Code. I think the best way to illustrate my point is to refer to the remarks made by the Attorney-General himself. He recalled that back in 1925 and during that era debates just as intense as the one we're having this afternoon took place with respect to the role of the Klan in British Columbia and the response of the government.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

He reflected on the demographic change in this province, which is in itself a curious revelation coming from the Attorney-General, when he suggested that we now have a greater variety of new Canadians coming to the country who are of various descriptions. He did not go so far as to say that they had created specific problems to do with racism but indicated that perhaps the problem that existed when that special House of Commons committee in 1964 was dealing with this matter and came up with their recommendations when the act came in in 1970. In that last 11 years the situation has dramatically changed so that although they were well-meaning at the time, the act is inappropriate and obviously ineffective today in just 11 short years. If he's indicating that the immigration policies are a problem and the demographic mix is a problem — as has been suggested by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) on occasion — and if he's indicating there are some problems with respect to programs and orientation of new Canadians and of citizens generally in dealing with the variety of people that make up our population — part of that Canadian mosaic — I would appreciate specific reference to how those problems evolve and how they are created.

My view is that although those points that he made may be verified to some extent, the principles which he, as the chief law enforcement officer in this province, is defending have been with us for hundreds of years, perhaps thousands; certain basic principles go back to the Magna Carta. You talk about freedom of speech and certain basic freedoms that we regard to be fundamental and inalienable in a democratic society. That's all I'm saying. The things I'm saying should be effectively addressed in the Canadian Criminal Code are basic, simple, democratic concepts of the right of an individual to be able to live in dignity, peace, tranquillity, motherhood and everything else that you might imagine in a free and democratic society, without being offended by a fellow citizen who has the same rights. So we don't have a difference of opinion with respect to protecting the rights of individuals, be it free speech or otherwise. The difficulty is that freedom has parameters that the Criminal Code does not recognize and does not specify. Therefore we have extreme difficulty in applying the law and clearly many blatant examples of the severest effrontery.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw your attention to the assembly and ask that some of the members would come to order. I find it somewhat distracting to try to continue my remarks in light of the different conversations that are going on on both sides of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member makes a good point, hon. members. There's nothing in our standing orders that allows us to interrupt a member who has taken his place in debate. I would ask the committee to please come to order and attend to the member who is now speaking.

MR. BARNES: The main principle is that of human dignity. The Attorney-General has said on many occasions that to his knowledge no statutory laws have been broken. But the law of humanity has certainly been broken. The law of tranquillity, cooperation, coexistence, goodwill, brotherhood, motherhood, sisterhood and just simple justice. Those are all laws that do not have to be written in statute books, I hope, before we recognize them. But if it's coming to that, and the evolutionary process is such that we've now reached the point where we have to enshrine every single thing in law, then the very first thing we should do is protect the Canadian mosaic and come up with the laws that we've been living by gratuitously for so many years through tradition and custom. Perhaps some of these customs and traditions will have to be enshrined in legislation. Perhaps this is the kind of innovative thinking the Attorney-General and the members on that side of the House will have to begin to do before we will get anywhere near addressing the kinds of grievances and abuses that people are suffering in this society.

It is not merely a case of burning down their homes and running over people or threatening them with violence by physical means. It is also the innuendo, the atmosphere and environment of suspicion and paranoia that exists, the kind of nervousness and distrust that we get in our community. Those are the kinds of things that I believe we have to set a priority on. I believe it's well worth while calling to task people who take liberties with their free speech to the detriment of their neighbours. I don't believe that that type of freedom should be defended in any society.

I think that everyone has the right, when someone abuses or insults them, to defend themselves. In committee this morning we had a remark from the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) that we no longer live by goodwill, we live by the sword. That was interesting. That's what he happened to say on a private member's bill this morning, and while I don't agree, perhaps that member knows what his priorities are. I'm suggesting that in this society our priorities are the people. They should have confidence in their government and confidence in democracy. They should be able to feel good about being Canadian citizens and British Columbians. If they can't feel that way, if they have nowhere to turn except to the closet to get out their shotguns or clubs or baseball bats or whatever they think they need to defend themselves, then I say: don't be afraid to bring down laws that are going to make people live with responsibility in our free and democratic society.

I believe that concludes my remarks for now, Mr. Chairman. Maybe we can have a response from the Attorney-General.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, one almost hesitates to change the subject matter after such an important point has been raised. I might just say in passing that when the minister was talking about the very careful steps that have to be followed before an information is laid, I was reminded of the strange steps that must have been followed before an information was laid against J.J. Verigin, leader of the Union of Spiritual Communities of Christ. Anyone attending all or part of that trial in which J.J. Verigin was found innocent.... I did attend part of that trial and I had to pinch myself to reassure myself that I was not in Salem, Mas-

[ Page 6409 ]

sachusetts, during the witchcraft trials. I was hearing testimony about curses and this and that as evidence upon which the Crown laid a case, which I would say brought out the new aspect of this ministry, and that is not prosecution but persecution.

I say that also in the case of Mr. Ray Demarchi. Thank goodness the system is good enough and strong enough that he was acquitted and the case was thrown right out of court. But I'd sure like to know how it ever got there in the first place, and by what careful steps. I should think that if some of the very same careful steps applied in those cases were applied.... I also think of the careful steps that must have been applied in deciding not to proceed against people like Mr. Mickey Moran, in spite of the evidence and the witnesses who even went on television. He is now the late Mickey Moran, but nevertheless I wonder about the careful steps which must have been taken before laying such an information.

You've heard of the wolf at the door. Last weekend we were sitting around the table — my mother-in-law, my mother, myself and my family. We looked out the window and there was a very large bear standing on our deck. You feel a little bit threatened by that, and I can only imagine how one feels threatened by an idea and a menace which is growing in this province as this government does nothing.

That is not the purpose for which I sat in this House all afternoon. I have a very quick matter to bring up with the minister.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What happened to the bear?

MR. NICOLSON: I didn't shoot it, but I did get a gun and some shells at the ready, in case it decided to come any closer. If it had come any closer, it would have come right through the patio window.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring a rather mundane, routine matter to the attention of the minister. It actually deals with county court. I know county court appointments are made by the federal minister, Warren Allmand, but, of course, in our estimates we pay for the administration and the services which are provided to the county court. In Nelson the seat on the county court has been vacant since Mr. Justice Houghton was appointed to Kamloops in December. Having the county court vacant since December is not something we're used to in Nelson. We were served for many years by Judge Leo Gansner in that position, who, upon his retirement, was replaced by Judge Houghton. But as Judge Houghton has left, just in the past two weeks we have experienced the cancellation of a two-week county court schedule of work for a visiting judge.

A visiting judge could only be present for one day, not for two weeks. It means a postponement of a trial involving indecent assault, a divorce trial, an appeal on a criminal matter, a civil debt trial and an assessment of damages arising from a motor-vehicle accident. It also means that ten cases, which were matters to be dealt with in chambers, had to be postponed. I can only think that one of the handcuffed passengers that I recently shared the plane with was probably one of the prime witnesses in this criminal trial, being escorted back and forth by sheriffs at great expense. I can only think of the people and their problems in terms of getting a divorce resolved. I can only think of the damages arising from a motor-vehicle accident. You know, these people have already been through the various trials. They won the case, and now it simply remains to set and award the damages; it's another level that has to be gone through.

I would simply ask the minister these two questions. What steps are being being taken to fill this vacancy, and how many county court vacancies are there in British Columbia at this time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, there are at least five. Mr. Chairman, I don't treat the problem lightly. Presently there are two county court vacancies in the province of British Columbia; the one in Nelson has been vacant for many weeks. It's so unusual. This matter is not being ignored. Although it is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice, Hon. Jean Chretien, both the chief justice and I have been in recent communication with his office, urging that the vacancy in Nelson be filled without delay. For a time it was felt that the Nelson courthouse requirements could be served from Kamloops, but that has clearly proven not to be the case. As late as Monday evening I had discussions with the Minister of Justice's office on this subject.

MR. BARBER: On February 8 of this year I wrote to the Attorney-General as follows:

"Dear Sir:

"I write to ask if you could inform me as to the intentions of the government concerning proclamation of those portions of the Ombudsman Act which would permit Dr. Friedmann to investigate hospitals, their boards of management, and professional and occupational associations in British Columbia.

"I've recently had two distressing cases come to my attention. Each of them involves a lengthy and difficult procedure involving a public hospital and certain physicians. Dr. Friedmann's help in those cases would be most useful, but his authority to act is at the moment most limited.

"I would be grateful if you could tell me how quickly it may be that Dr. Friedmann will be permitted to act on these matters, "

A reply was received on February 21, 1980. "Dear Mr. Barber:

"In your February 8 letter you asked when schedules 3 to 11 of the Ombudsman Act will be proclaimed in force."

The Attorney-General goes on to say:

"Much has been accomplished by Dr. Friedmann and his staff during the short period since the provisions of the act were first proclaimed. The procedures, practices and working relationships developed by them while assisting many persons within the present scope of the ombudsman's responsibilities will be invaluable to that office as it prepares to expand the scope of its activities to encompass all matters for which the act provides. This process of development would be delayed rather than hastened if the scope and volume of work were allowed to expand at a rate beyond that for which Dr. Friedmann and his staff were prepared."

The Attorney-General concludes:

"In principle the government agrees wholeheartedly that the scope of the ombudsman's activities should expand at the earliest practical date to cover all matters provided for in the act. To this end we are ready to have the remaining schedules of the act

[ Page 6410 ]

proclaimed in force as soon as Dr. Friedmann and his staff are ready and able to assume the additional work entailed."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll remind, the hon. member at this point that the Committee of Supply does not allow for the discussion of necessity of legislation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Or policy.

MR. BARBER: What do you mean "or policy"? Come on, Garde, that's total nonsense.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I didn't want you to lose your sense of humour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is discussing legislation, and we are in Committee of Supply.

MR. BARBER: What I'm asking is for the Attorney-General to indicate whether or not it is his policy to proclaim schedules 3 to 11 of the Ombudsman Act, which would allow the ombudsman to do what he says he wants to do. The ombudsman has told me personally and has indicated publicly, and I presume he has informed the Attorney-General directly, that he is prepared, willing and able, and wishes to have the authority of the act extended in regard to the requests which would denote schedules 3 to 11 as to be proclaimed. I wonder if the Attorney-General could indicate whether or not it is his policy now to allow schedules 3 to 11 in the Ombudsman Act to be proclaimed. If that is his policy, that would be a very good thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again the Chair has to remind the committee that we are discussing a necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation. Those cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. I'm sure the member is well aware of that.

MR. BARBER: Yes, I am. With respect, what I've argued is not the necessity for legislation. You see, Mr. Chairman, the legislation is already on the books. There's no necessity there. It was passed unanimously in this House. The question is the proclamation of a schedule. That's quite a different matter from debating the necessity of legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is also adequately covered by Sir Erskine May in the sixteenth edition, page 739, where he states: "...matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply."

MR. BARBER: The only matter involved here is the willingness of the government to do what it said on February 21 of this year it was prepared to do, which was to receive advice from the ombudsman that he was ready, willing and able to have the services of the office he operates expanded, so as to better protect the interests of the individual citizens and the individual freedoms of the people of British Columbia. I'm asking the Attorney-General what his policy is.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Without in any way offending against the rules of the committee — and I do not do so — may I say that the letter I wrote to the hon. member indicates my position. I have not had, nor am I aware that the government has had, a request from the ombudsman which indicates the nature of his ability to deal with other matters or what may be involved with respect to changes in his establishment — if he did so. I responded fairly, I think, to the member's query.

MR. LAUK: I've been conducting an exchange of notes with the Attorney-General. Just to put it on the record, I wonder if the Attorney-General would be so kind as to confirm, on the question I asked some months ago with respect to the First Canadian Land Corporation and its intimidation of tenants' associations within their apartment blocks, that although the criminal justice section of his ministry has indicated....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Could we get the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) a Jolly Jumper, Mr. Chairman?

...that there probably is no offence for which the landlord can be charged, because the issue is unique and serious in my constituency, the Attorney-General has asked for an outside opinion. Is that correct?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member reads very well. He's reading from a note I sent him. Yes, it is the case. It's not being delayed, and we're anxious to have the answer as quickly as he is.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker 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 5:58 p.m.

Appendix

50 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

The 1981-82 Estimates show under "Total Contributions from Other Governments" $726,000,000 in revenue in respect of Established Programs Financing. What is the allocation to British Columbia under the federal administrative formula for each of: (a) Hospital Insurance; (b) Medical Care; (c) Post-secondary Education; and (d) Extended Health Care?

[ Page 6411 ]

The Hon. H. A. Curtis replied as follows:

"The revised 1981-82 estimate for revenue to British Columbia in respect of Established Programs Financing is $728 million. The portion of the'se funds for hospital insurance, medical care, and post-secondary education is $648 million. For internal administrative purposes only, the federal government applies to this total an allocation formula of 50.5 per cent for hospital insurance, 17.4 per cent for medical care, and 32.1 per cent for post-secondary education. The remaining $80 million is for extended health care."

52 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

1. For 1981-82 what will be the cash value of the 13.5 personal income tax points and 1 point of corporate income tax transferred to the Province in respect of Established Programs Financing?

2. For the amounts listed in answer to No. 1, what portion is attributable to compensation for: (a) Hospital Insurance; (b) Medicare; (c) Post-secondary Education; and (d) Other (please specify)?

3. Which portion of the 13.5 points of personal income tax and 1 point of corporate income tax referred to in No. 1 is attributable to compensation for: (a) Hospital Insurance; (b) Medicare; (c) Post-secondary Education; and (d) Other (please specify)?

The Hon. H. A. Curtis replied as follows:

"1. For 1981-82, the latest estimates of the cash values of the 13.5 personal income tax points and of the I point of corporate income tax are $509 million and $40 million, respectively.

"2. According to the terms of Part VI of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, there is no allocation among these programs of the personal and corporate income tax points transferred to the Province in respect of established programs financing.

"3. This appears to be the same as question 52(2)."