[ Page 8347 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 10: minister's office (continued) –– 8347

Ms. Brown

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Stupich

TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(continued)

On vote 10: minister's office, $149,981.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: At the adjournment yesterday at 6 p.m., I was in the process of responding to some matters raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who referred to the problems associated with the conduct of family law in courts that she has observed. She raised the matter of applicants who appear without counsel and find the respondents accompanied by counsel; the applicants in those circumstances find themselves under some difficulty, with the result that the judges assist in the proceedings. This is not unusual. In circumstances such as those described, where one of the parties is without counsel, it is entirely appropriate for the judge to ensure that all the information he may require in order to adjudicate upon the matter is brought out before him. This applies even in instances where both parties are represented.

If, during the course of the examination of witnesses and the presentation of evidence, there are matters which a judge believes have been overlooked, then judges appropriately address themselves to those matters and call upon the parties to supply them with the additional information. Historically, this has been a practice in our courts. However, when both sides are represented by lawyers, it has become usual for them to feel entirely secure in those circumstances. But if, under the present restrictions that apply with respect to counsel for family law, one of the parties should be without counsel, then it is quite proper for the proceedings to be conducted in the way to which I referred. This has been the case in juvenile courts for years. Unfortunately, some of our judges today haven't had that kind of experience in the conduct of litigation before them, and they find it unusual when they don't have counsel on both sides. I have discussed this with the chief justice of the provincial court and he indicates that it will perhaps be necessary for the judges to recognize that they have a responsibility to discharge in those circumstances where counsel is not available on both sides.

In this matter of family law, as I have indicated in earlier debates in this House, we have imposed some very stringent guidelines on the extent to which the ministry will make counsel available in all cases. We will also impose significant restrictions on counsel in regard to the amounts they may charge for their services. If we don't do this, the system runs open-ended, and the cost burden of conducting family law can grow so great — and it is growing at a great rate — that it could result in the collapse of the entire system.

The guidelines to which the member has referred on several occasions are guidelines at that moment. As I indicated earlier, they are subject to analysis and change. As a matter of fact, at the ministry's invitation we have now received a brief from the Legal Services Society indicating the manner in which they believe they can make their services available not only to the respondents but also to the applicants. Thereby, they will be able to provide legal counsel in appropriate cases as the situation arises. That circumstance is under examination by, the ministry.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, it's really very noisy in here. It's very difficult to hear.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. All members of the committee are advised that it is most unparliamentary and discourteous to interrupt a member who is speaking. It is also discourteous to the member who is obviously trying to listen. If we could maintain silence, the committee would be well served.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Within the adjustment of these matters and their appropriate order and regulation, the guidelines set out in the memoranda the member has received will be subject to modification and change. It is the intention of this ministry and the family law division to ensure that counsel is available in every necessary case.

The member has referred to some circumstances based on the memorandum, where she presumes that young persons are not going to be represented. As I indicated earlier, that's not to be the instance. We have examined a number of alleged circumstances when this has been the case, and we find that the concerns are not substantiated.

The member also raised the question of emotionally disturbed children and the facilities we have in this province to deal with those children who find themselves in the criminal justice system when perhaps they should not be there at all. Their conduct may attract the attention of the criminal justice system as they are juvenile offenders. They find themselves in that process, but they're in that system because of emotional disturbance. which may come from family background or a variety of reasons.

The Ministry of Health has been examining this particular problem for a number of years, and the Interministerial Children's Committee is examining this particular matter at this time with respect to children in crisis. At the request of the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), I met with Dr. Gossage, who has been practising in this field and has been of major assistance to the courts in dealing with juvenile matters, particularly those involving emotionally disturbed children. He is putting forward what I think is a very exciting concept to deal with this matter. It will require some particular study and his recommendations in this regard have been referred by me, through the Deputy Attorney-General, to the Interministerial Children's Committee on children in crisis.

It is sometimes easy to look to the facilities in other jurisdictions that deal with children who are faced with these problems. We know that Alberta has a facility which is looked to as being very superior in this regard, but even Dr. Gossage raises some questions on whether that kind of facility should be repeated in this province. He believes that there are some other approaches that can be taken. I hope that out of the representations he has made and the proposals that are being considered by the ministries at the moment with respect to this particular problem we will get some initiatives for the development of institutional facilities and programs

[ Page 8348 ]

which will better assist children who find themselves in this particular position.

We are unfortunately today in the situation where if a child is not identified as suffering from mental disease, then access to the facilities is severely restricted. We have difficulty in the corrections service, because we find we have children who don't fit into that category but who do need a level of care. We are working with the Ministry of Health in the use of their facilities to bridge this gap between those who in the narrow sense qualify for the use of the facilities and those who are identified as simply being emotionally disturbed.

MS. BROWN: The Attorney-General forgot the first two questions I asked of him, so maybe I should place them again.

First, I asked for a definite statement on the future of the Oakalla lands. That was an oversight, I'm sure. It's going to be pursued by my colleague the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) ; maybe at that time we'll get a full answer from the Attorney-General.

The second issue I raised had to do with the funding for rape crisis centres. Pursuing the line raised by my colleague from Maillardville, I pointed out that instances of rape not only are on the increase but are in fact taking on a more violent and bizarre form. If ever we needed the psychological support which women get from a rape crisis centre, we certainly need those services now.

On January 30 the minister served notice that as of February 26 he was going to terminate funding to the Coalition of B.C. Rape Centres. That is exactly three days less than four months ago. Using the statistics from his own ministry, last year there were 22,000 reported cases of rape in the 12-month period. We can conclude that in that four months something in the neighbourhood of 8,000 reported cases of rape could have and would have been dealt with by rape crisis centres if they had existed around the province. What we should be finding is an extension of that service, not curtailment.

I quoted from a newspaper article in which the minister stated on February 19 that there would be a break, a temporary interruption in service until a new agency was found to be funded. At that time he said it would be about a month. I also quoted from another statement of May 27 in which the minister said that in about a week there would be a lot more money available for the funding of rape crisis centres than the $151,000 which was set aside in the budget. Now it is almost a month later — June 22, just three days short of exactly four months since the last rape crisis centre was funded.

During that time the minister has, in response to a number of questions raised by me, indicated that there had been applications for funding and that his ministry has been looking seriously at these applications. I understand from speaking to one of those groups that they have been told that they have to come back with some statement of support from the police as well as support from feminist organizations. This is absolutely ludicrous. If there is a service that needs to be delivered, it doesn't matter who supports that service. The only persons that the rape crisis centres have accountability to are the rape victims. That's their function. Their function isn't to make policemen happy or to make feminists happy. Their function is to meet the needs of the rape victims — the psychological needs, the emotional needs, the advocacy needs — and to see to it that they get the kind of services they need. That's their function. For the minister to keep rape crisis centres waiting for four months while they continue to try to meet these phony criteria being designed by the ministry is doing a disservice to the rape victims. It's not hurting the police and it's not hurting the feminists. It's not hurting the rape crisis centres either. The only people who are suffering as a result of the behaviour of the minister and his ministry on this issue are the victims.

I don't know what else to do to get this message across to the Attorney-General. I don't think it would have made any difference, incidentally, if the funding had remained with the Ministry of Health, which is where it started in the first place in 1974. It was then shifted to the Attorney-General, because presumably one saw this as something that should be dealt with by the justice system. In the meantime, we have in this province one crisis centre in the Duncan area, which is receiving something in the neighbourhood of $5,000 — that's all — so that they can give a limited service to the women in that particular catchment area. The rest of the province gets no funding whatsoever, not because there isn't a need — that need has been demonstrated by the statistics coming out of he Attorney-General's ministry itself. The ministry reported hat there were 22,000 reported rapes; the ministry reported hat only 10 percent of rapes ever get reported. Those statistics came from the ministry, yet for four months of this year not one cent has been given to fund any rape crisis centre anywhere in this province, to deliver a service which the ministry itself identifies as existing — aside from the Duncan area.

I told the Attorney-General yesterday, and I'll repeat it: it makes no difference if two or three months from now a billion dollars is placed into crisis centres. That's not going to help he victims of the last four months, or the victims between now and whenever that money becomes available. While the studies are being done, while the phony criteria are being drafted, there should be funding. Centres should have received their funding; they should have been allowed to continue the service which they were delivering while all of this phony criteria stuff about support from the police and support from feminists was being demanded by the ministry. I'm asking the Attorney-General once again: how much longer?

My colleague from Maillardville had a long discussion with the Attorney-General yesterday about the dangerous changes in sexual assault, and the sexual crimes that are taking place. There are more victims than ever, because more bizarre, violent and cruel kinds of sexual assault are taking place. All of this is happening while the ministry is telling these groups, "Go away and bring a letter from the police saying they love you," or "Go away and bring a letter from feminists saying that they adore you." That is nonsense. I would like a statement from the Attorney-General as to when he crisis centres in this province can start getting some funding from this government, so that they can deliver the service to the victims of rape.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman. The issue that he member raises is very important and is not being ignored by the ministry. However, in her vehemence in debate she fails to apply her mind to the problem. First of all, she speaks of 22,000 reported cases of sexual assault or rape. That's not a ministry statistic at all. The statistics are in fact 2,200 reported cases, not 22,000. Now some statistician, on the slimmest of criteria, has applied a multiplier of ten, but that is not supportable. You can only deal with the cases that are reported.

[ Page 8349 ]

Frankly, one of the problems with the agency which was funded over so many years by this government was that they counselled against the reporting of cases. It was in that respect that many victims of sexual assault found unsatisfactory the service previously offered. As a consequence, that led to questions requiring them to account for the way in which they discharged their responsibility.

They raised the phony issue of confidentiality. Confidentiality was never a problem with this ministry, as the member well knows because she was involved directly with the people who had to make the decisions in this matter. That was a completely phony red herring by the coalition. Confidentiality was never the issue. We never wished to inquire into the identity of persons who sought the assistance of the rape centres. But very serious questions were raised as to the way the service was being delivered.

You say that we have been stalling. We have gone out into the community, in the past four months, seeking the services of people who believed they were qualified to deliver those services in the community. We are not establishing phony criteria. We recognize that for a sexual-assault service to be effective in a community, it must be broadly based. It must be recognized by the people in that community as being a worthwhile service and must be supported by them. Therefore the agencies which have come forward — and they are to be given great credit for coming forward — have been careful at the outset to ensure that they had the level of credibility, and would enjoy the support of the communities in which they were preparing to carry on their responsibilities. During that period of time the ministry has not been dragging its feet.

The funding for this kind of service has heretofore been split between three ministries: Health, Human Resources and the Attorney-General. The decision has been made that the program will come entirely under the Attorney-General's ministry; and the funding formerly drawn from the other two ministries has now been transferred to the Ministry of the Attorney-General. In addition, while the funding for this service in the past fiscal year was at a level of $151,000, approval has been given to increase that by 50 percent; so on an annualized basis, $231,000 will be available to support these services throughout the province. With this additional money, we are now in the position to go out and complete our arrangements with those community-based services which have come forward and offered to supply the need.

As a consequence, we will be in a position in the next few days to announce the settlement of an agreement with the Cowichan rape relief centre; which has been operating throughout. It will be funded additionally, more than ever before. We will also be able to announce the settlement of agreements for the operation of services in Kamloops, Fort St. John, Terrace, Victoria and Vancouver. The difficulty with the two major metropolitan areas is that competing organizations wish to supply the service. We are working out which of those agencies will undertake the responsibility and discharge the job in the best manner possible.

Yes, it is the victim who is looking for and is entitled to the service, but that service is best delivered by an organization that has credibility and the respect and support of the community in which it functions. I don't care about their feminist organizations; I don't care about their feminist politics. The people who run these centres will deliver a service to the victims, they will work with the law enforcement agencies, and they will in turn ensure that the law enforcement agencies discharge their responsibility. If there are inadequacies in the law enforcement agencies in dealing with these matters, we want these centres to identify them to us so that we can make the necessary changes within the criminal justice system to ensure that the victims of sexual assault and rape are not put through some of the embarrassing, emotionally stressful circumstances which have occurred in the past. We can only do this if we get the assistance of these rape centres and the victims who make it clear to us exactly what kind of training programs we need in order to develop the specialized police techniques to deal with people who are in these sensitive positions.

For some victims it’s easy. For other victims it is extremely difficult, as the member well knows. Therefore it takes carefully trained people at the police and Crown counsel level. It's part of the program we are embarking on, called CARE — Criminal Activities Response Effort — whereby the victim is the one given the major consideration. The criminal justice system has for too long involved itself with the perpetrator of crime. All the attention has focused on the perpetrator of crime, not on the victim. That is changing, but we can only successfully change it if we have in these areas organizations prepared to understand their responsibility, and to work with the authorities to ensure that both of them discharge their responsibility to the person who has been victimized by crime. I wish there was more money available. I wish more organizations would come forward more quickly to assume this responsibility.

On the question of feminist politics, I have to recognize that some organizations are timid about coming forward and involving themselves in some of the politics reported to take place in this area. That's something over which I have no control.

However, we are doing our very best to ensure that this kind of service can be rendered without the philosophical debates that so often accompany service of this kind. The delay is longer than I would have wished, but it's understandable. When you suddenly decide to offer the opportunity in, now, six areas throughout the province, a network we've never had before, we have to be careful that we have developed in those centres, in those communities, organizations that can respond to the need of the victims for whom their service is designed.

As for Oakalla....

MS. BROWN: Can I respond to that before you go on?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, you can't respond. I have the floor.

MS. BROWN: I thought we were having give and take.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: All right, then when I sit down, you can stand up.

MS. BROWN: Okay. Are you going to sit down?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to reserve my remarks on Oakalla. I know how interested the member is in

[ Page 8350 ]

this particular issue, but I know that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) is also interested in the matter. I would like to hear his contribution on the subject and I'll respond to the issue raised by both of you at the same time.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the minister first of all that the statistician who used those figures was from his own ministry.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I know that.

MS. BROWN: Oh, you recognize that the statistician was using your own statistics.

The problem started when the Ministry of Attorney-General decided that it was going to decide what kind of rape crisis centre was going to be best for the community and for the victim. John Hogarth and the former Attorney-General first recognized that rape crisis centres came out of the women's movement. Women decided that they needed this, women approached the government and asked for funding and police training for the kinds of services they needed. They did build and they now have a broad community base.

When the Attorney-General decided to get himself involved in the crossfire that was going on in the feminist movement about the correct or incorrect way to deal with the rape victim, then the ministries went out and started looking for agencies and organizations which they thought would give better service. That's where the problem came in, and that's why it's taken four months. As long as the communities themselves were allowed to come together and say that they needed a rape crisis centre and were prepared to deliver that service and asked for funding, there was no problem. It didn't take that long. It was when the Ministry of Attorney-General decided to develop its guidelines and its criteria and tried to impose that on existing agencies like the YWCA and crisis lines — agencies that has no experience or training in dealing with rape victims — that the whole problem started. That's why it took four months.

I'm relieved to hear that Cowichan is going to get an increase from that measly $5,000 they had last year. There is also going to be an extension into Fort St. John, Terrace and other places like that. As long as the ministry insists that it establish the guidelines, control the kind of service that is given and that it knows what's best, it's always going to run into trouble, because it doesn't. It's that kind of paternalism that created the whole battle in the feminist movement in the first place — the refusal to accept that kind of paternalism from the government.

I'm pleased about the $231,000, and I certainly hope that it is going to be coming down this week, as the minister indicated, and that we are going to have the service reinstated so that victims around the province will have the kind of service they need. I just want to suggest to the minister that as long as his ministry insists on dictating the way the service is delivered and the guidelines and the controls for it, he is going to run into trouble, because he cannot make those kinds of decisions.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up a little bit on the debate over victims' rights; I'd like to expand on it a bit in terms of victims of crime generally. In a broad statement of policy, the Attorney-General said in answer to the member for Burnaby: "All the attention is now on the perpetrator and not on the victim, and we are changing that." I'd like the Attorney-General to tell us how he's changing that. What are the services that the Attorney-General now provides to the victims of crime generally? I want to deal with a couple of specific problems in that area and I want to know how the Attorney-General is addressing those problems.

I have witnessed, for example, assaults on children where the alleged assailant — the alleged criminal — has been placed in a waiting room with the victim prior to the giving of evidence. That's a common occurrence in this province.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Where?

MR. LEGGATT: In courtrooms everywhere. When you have given the alleged perpetrator bail, they simply wait to testify at the preliminary hearing or whatever type of hearing is going to be held. That is a matter that should be changed. I'd like to know what the Attorney-General's reaction is to that in terms of protecting the victim as witness.

There has been a tradition of insensitivity in dealing with victims as witnesses. I see very desirable changes occurring in terms of rape victims. I think that there has been real progress. I think that sorting out the counselling centres is long overdue, and the Attorney-General has full responsibility for failure to put a system in place. It should be properly funded, and he should not use his bureaucratic interference to slow down what is essentially a sound service. It's a very needed service in the community.

My initial remarks intend to deal with the actual services that the Attorney-General's department is now providing to victims of crime. We're aware of the rape side of things. I'd like to look at, for example, the old couple whose home has been broken into. Is there any service to provide security for their home? Is there any service that would provide locks on their doors? Is there any service that provides followup counselling to victims of crime who have obvious fears — and in some areas justified fears — that the crime will be repeated? How sensitive is the justice system now to the victims of crime?

In the United States there has been a broad movement toward victim's-rights legislation, inspired, I might say, by the failure of the United States to provide adequate backup services, particularly in the medical area. This was the inspiration that brought forward victim's-rights legislation and compensation legislation. We do not have anything in place in the law. Initially, I'd like the Attorney-General to respond as to what his department is doing for the victims of crime in the areas of counselling the victims of crime, providing security — in terms of locks, particularly in breaking and entering — and, perhaps the most important area of all, counselling victims who can become seriously disturbed and fearful as a result of a crime taking place.

With those initial remarks, I ask the Attorney-General if he'd like to respond.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member for Coquitlam-Moody raises what I think is a most important emerging problem in the field of criminal justice. For some years in this province we have had criminal victims' injury-compensation legislation, which provides a measure of compensation in some particular cases. However, the wide range of assistance for victims of crime, to which he refers, which is developing in the United States has not yet moved into Canada, but it is under active consideration. The federal government, under the auspices of the Solicitor-General of Canada, has raised

[ Page 8351 ]

this matter for consideration with the Attorneys-General. It is contemplated in legislation at the federal level, and this province is taking a major role in the discussions on this subject. There has been a major conference sponsored by this ministry. Dr. Thorvaldson, who has been one of the principal researchers in this area, is dealing with the question of reparation and assistance to the victims of crime. We're just beginning. There is no program whereby people's locks on their doors will be replaced or reinforced, whatever the circumstances may be.

In one region of the Ministry of the Attorney-General we already have in place the program that I mentioned to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. Under the auspices of the Attorney-General, with a unified Ministry of Justice approach, we are drawing together all of the elements — police, Crown counsel, courts and Corrections — and focusing their attention on the need to concern themselves with the victim and the witnesses to an extent that has never before been the case in this province.

We are constructing new court facilities to ensure that there will be proper separation of people who don't wish to face the perpetrator of the crime of which they've been the victim or in respect of which they're called as a witness.

I don't apologize for the fact that we are only now taking the first firm steps in this regard. It is a new and emerging field in Canada which has to be approached cautiously but nonetheless consistently to ensure that we begin to remove from the criminal justice system some of those elements which have been oppressive to the victim and to the witnesses on behalf of the Crown, who are there to ensure that the perpetrator of the crime receives his proper and just consideration before the courts.

It has been said of the system that it is uncaring. I think that's a proper criticism, but in the moves that the Attorney-General's ministry is now making we are taking out the "un" and turning it into a caring system. That's why we have adopted CARE as the name of the program being instituted in the Fraser Valley region.

MR. LEGGATT: I suppose it's progress to know that the Attorney-General is talking about it. I suppose it's progress to know that they're holding meetings about it. But I didn't hear a specific proposal. I haven't heard from the Attorney-General about specific action in relation to the victims of crime.

I want to give some more examples to the minister. One of the real problems, from every point of view, to those of us who work a little bit in the criminal justice system is what I would call lack of sensitivity to the witnesses and to the victims before the trial process itself. In other words, the servicing of witnesses in a civil case, for example, is far better.... That is, the contact between the people conducting the trial and the witnesses is far better in a civil case than in a criminal case. Surely the reverse should be true.

A couple of police departments in Canada.... Edmonton has started a program which looks like the leading program in the country, from what I can see. The deputy minister is here, and he may know of others. But I must say that, of the ones I looked at, I was impressed with the Edmonton system. The system is to provide a victims' service unit in major police forces in urban centres. The victims' service unit has a specific responsibility: to refer the victims to the appropriate agencies — criminal injury compensation boards, social assistance, sexual assault centres, hospitals, to assist in the return of stolen property to the victim, also to keep in touch with both the witnesses and the victims, notifying them of the trial date well in advance and making it convenient for them, in terms of available dates. This is only the first step in changing the nature of the justice system to make it a caring and compassionate system.

I don't necessarily agree with the Attorney-General that all the emphasis has been on the criminal. You're always going to have some difficulty, because the person charged has certain rights in a civilized justice system. Those rights have to be protected; if you take those rights away you take away the rights of everyone in the community. It's an oversimplification when the Attorney-General says that all the attention has been on the perpetrator and not on the victim; he's certainly half right. The system has not been compassionate or caring about the members of our community who have to participate in the justice system.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I think the most horrendous example is the way we mistreat jurors in terms of their pay and conditions. How would you like to take a year out of your life and sit on a jury? That just about happened in the case that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) raised yesterday — this very long drug conspiracy case. I'm not sure that I agree with him that the penalty is Something you're faced with no matter what happens. You've got a judge and jury who have to look at all the circumstance. I won’t comment on the penalty imposed in that case, but imagine the sacrifice of the jury in that case — an incredible sacrifice to their community. They always get a routine "thank you" from those who participate in the trial, which is good. Maybe it's time they got adequately compensated for their time, which is not the case at the present time, Mr. Chairman. The Attorney-General knows it's not the case. How much do we expect a person to give in terms of community service in sitting on a jury? I think the whole structure of jury pay should be revised, and it should work on a much higher level. I forget the present day rate, but the Attorney-General will know how much it is a day. It's less than a bottle of Pouilly Fuisse, as somebody said.

So we're asking people to participate in the criminal justice system, but the criminal justice system does not respond to them. The criminal justice system abuses the victim. The criminal justice system asks witnesses to come in at a moment's notice. The criminal justice system does not contact witnesses properly and give them adequate notice. It sometimes treats them very cursorily and very unfairly, as if they are cogs in a wheel rather than human beings. All that is a part of the insensitivity and the lack of compassion that has come up in our system.

Changes in the way we treat victims will be the beginning of the way we treat everybody in the criminal justice system. It's got to stop being this arrogant kind of system where we provide justice from on high, which has been the tradition. The amount of compensation to jurors is hopelessly inadequate. The compensation to witnesses in a case is inadequate — I think it's still $7 per day under the tariff, as I recall. It's absolutely minuscule and ridiculous. We've never revised those rates for witnesses. Is $30 or $40 the average wage?

MS. BROWN: Even the minimum wage works out to more.

[ Page 8352 ]

MR. LEGGATT: We don't even pay witnesses the the minimum wage for sitting around waiting to testify. Compassion to the public from the criminal justice system is a two way street. You can't expect the public to respect the system, to contribute to the system, to participate in the system if we lawyers sit around telling them they get $7 a day for giving up pay sometimes for weeks at a time, waiting to testify. A whole review should be made of the witness pay structure and the jury pay structure. It's right out of the Dark Ages, Mr. Chairman.

Having talked about victims, I want to talk about a case that's very famous, which is the Kocurek case. A headline in the Tuesday, June 15, 1982, edition of the Vancouver Sun read: "Williams urges more protection from sex animals." I don't like the use of the words "sex animals," but I suppose the Attorney-General is free to use it if he wishes. The Kocurek case is an interesting case because Kocurek had been given a two-year sentence. The Attorney-General will recall that this is the case of the young lady who was jogging in Duncan and was a victim of this man Kocurek. This is what Judge Stewart said previously. When he was sentenced to two years he said: "It seems extremely doubtful to me that a further period of probation would be in the interest of this unfortunate man who has a serious sexual problem which the material indicates, and his history shows, he has no immediate hope of controlling — none whatsoever." That was the decision of Judge Stewart previously, before the murder took place, when this young man was given a two-year probationary sentence.

Yesterday the Attorney-General was concerned about the sentence that was given by a judge and jury in the heroin conspiracy case. Remember that judges are limited. It's the Attorney-General who proceeds under the dangerous sexual offence section. Under section 6.88 and 6.89, the Attorney-General can proceed to put indefinite sentences on people like this. That didn't happen in this case. Kocurek could have faced a dangerous sexual offence application previously, but he didn't have that to face. The responsibility for that isn't with the judge or jury; it's with the Attorney-General's department for not proceeding under the dangerous sexual offence section. You can't always blame other people for your problems. You can't say that the judge was too weak, that the jury didn't look at it right or that something else in the system happened. The buck stops with the Attorney-General. It's time that the Attorney-General's ministry started reading lower court judgments around sexual offenders. The Attorney-General knows, I know, and other people who practise law know that there are five or six other little Olsons running around in this province. We are going to have a lot of potential trouble.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know that at all. Do you know that?

MR. LEGGATT: I certainly do know their potential. I will give you the names.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Do you want to say it outside the House?

MR. LEGGATT: I will be very happy to say outside the House that there are potential Olsons presently in the system who are not being properly dealt with.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Are you going to name them?

MR. LEGGATT: I'm not going to name them, of course. The Attorney-General knows very well that there is a certain degree of discretion, which he failed to exercise when he called Kocurek an animal. There is a certain degree of discretion which you exercise in terms of those who are presently in the system who the criminal justice system is desperately trying to deal with. We, as the Attorney-General knows, do not have those facilities to deal with them. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) has raised the question of how you handle the uncontrollable, young psychopath. What facilities do we have? As far as I know, we now have no facilities in the province of British Columbia to deal with the seriously and dangerously disturbed young man. We have judges all over the province trying to get young, dangerous people committed to Roper Hall in Calgary, but there's nothing for them in British Columbia. I think it's The Maples.

MS. BROWN: It's not even open.

MR. LEGGATT: I understand that they've closed the wing in The Maples that was specifically designed for this purpose. I don't know whether Eric Martin is treating any of these people; I doubt whether they are. It leaves us with one institution outside of the province to deal with what is essentially the Olson problem.

An ounce of prevention is always worth a pound of cure. You can hang the Olsons, cut them up, or draw and quarter them, but you can't stop it without prevention, because penalty means nothing to people like a dangerous sexual psychopath. Penalty is very unlikely to deter criminals of that kind. We must spend the money, take the time and use the resources first of all to identify within the system these people who have potential for this kind of crime. They are in the system now. The Attorney-General said: "Name them." I will provide him, confidentially, with names that I have from judges who are deeply concerned about dangerous young offenders and who, for example, have had to receive protection for themselves from the sheriff's office when they've sentenced these young people. I'd be very happy to provide the Attorney-General with those names in confidence to see what can be done in terms of treatment.

This is not, as I think the Attorney-General was trying to suggest, a scare tactic. This happens in other jurisdictions as well. It's an extremely difficult problem to handle a potential young psychopathic killer. But we aren't doing very much about it. We aren't identifying them within the school system and I don't think we're even identifying them within the criminal justice system. I think they're possibly falling between the stools. How carefully are we reading the judgments of local judges? How carefully did we read Stewart's judgment on Kocurek when he said: "I can't do anything for this man. This man is uncontrollable." I think the Attorney-General has a very strong duty to begin, first of all, identification; secondly, the provision of rich, meaningful treatment for dangerous young offenders. Quite frankly, local judges are unanimously throwing up their hands and saying: "What can we do with these people?"

At times I begin to think Les Bewley is the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General is carrying his messages to the chamber, but that may be a little unkind.

[ Page 8353 ]

I want to ask the Attorney-General about plea bargaining. I'm not sure the Attorney-General is clear on what plea bargaining is and I want to be sure that he understands specifically. I'd like to know particularly where he draws the line on this question.

Obviously I've left my notes somewhere. I'm going to sit down and get up later when I find the rest of them.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Plea bargaining comes under either P for plea or B for bargaining, whichever indexing system you use. When you find your notes of what plea bargaining is I'd be happy to....

MR. LEGGATT: I'll tell you what it is. You don't know what it is.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: At least I don't have to go into my index file and find my notes before I can discuss it. I can assure you of that. At any rate, I may deal briefly with this question of victims of crime and witnesses, briefly in response to the comments made by the member.

With regard to witnesses and victims who will be witnesses, we have in this province adopted a number of programs which we find of major assistance to people in that category. Crown counsel is now communicating on a regular basis with witnesses before preliminary hearings to advise them of the dates when they will likely appear, and of adjournments, for the purpose of ensuring they are not unnecessarily inconvenienced in discharging their responsibility following preliminary hearings when the same continues. With respect to those witnesses who may have to come some distance, we have put in a witness transportation and accommodation program. As a matter of fact, we recently concluded arrangements with Pacific Western Airlines whereby they will provide a package service to transport witnesses and victims by air and provide them with accommodation while they are away from their homes for the purposes of discharging their responsibility in the particular case.

We have also started this year the trial coordination program in the provincial court. Eight trial coordinators have been appointed and it is their specific responsibility to ensure, to the extent possible, that trials go ahead on the days scheduled. It is the responsibility of the coordinator working directly out of the office, under the auspices of the chief judge of the provincial court, to be in touch with both Crown counsel and defence counsel with respect to the operation of trials. The trial coordinator or Crown counsel has responsibility for witness management to ensure that the witness is similarly not inconvenienced.

We also involve the victim at the other end of the system. The British Columbia Parole Board is presently considering whether, in the course of deciding parole matters, they will be interviewing the victim of the crime as well as the sentencing judge, so that in matters of parole concern will be had for the victim and the views of the sentencing judge taken into account. Under the B.C. Parole Board system we have persons appointed who reside in various regions throughout the province. This is to ensure that, when the parole board makes a decision with respect to an applicant for parole who is going to be returned to his or her home community, someone from that community who can measure the impact of parole on both the inmate and on the community will have the opportunity of participating in that decision.

With respect to witnesses and what they are paid, under many collective agreements there is provision to cover off the matter of attending as a witness in court or as a juror. Statistically we find that in respect of juries about 70 percent of our jurors are persons who are employed under circumstances in which they receive their full regular pay while performing that duty. I don't disagree that it would be desirable to increase the fees payable to witnesses and to jurors, but there comes a limit as to what the Crown alone must do. One has to take into account the duties of the citizen in respect of being a witness and in respect of being a juror. If our system is to function, it cannot function entirely based upon economic matters; there still remains the citizen's responsibility to take his or her proper place in the justice system. It seems inappropriate to me that we would rely entirely upon the ability of the system to compensate a person for whatever the loss might be. If you take the variety of people who are involved as witnesses and jurors, then the concept of no loss and of adequate compensation becomes almost impossible to implement.

MR. LEGGATT: I take it, though, from the Attorney-General's response that he has some concern about the present level. I'm sure that we're not going to have a system that's perfect. But imagine a small businessman with two employees and one of them has to sit on a jury for four months, and he has to hire another employee to replace that man under his collective agreement. This I not impossible, and it's this kind of thing for which some compassion should be shown by the Ministry of Attorney-General. I'm glad to see I have the agreement of the Attorney-General — but not of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). There is good reason to change the structure of jury pay and certainly the amounts that are paid to witnesses. I'll leave the question of the legal tariff alone, since there is obviously a conflict of duty and interest. Quite frankly, that's far too low as well but that's the amount that one can tax after a trial.

I want to ask the Attorney-General some questions about this question of plea-bargaining. Plea-bargaining was the headline — I don't know whether it's an accurate reflection, but this is what the Attorney-General was quoted as saying — in the Times-Colonist of June 18. "Any Crown counsel who plea-bargains 'will lose his job,' Attorney-General Allan Williams said Wednesday." Since I didn't have my notes so that I could specifically identify what plea-bargaining is, I'm wondering if the Attorney-General would like to rise and assist me, and tell me what kind of conduct on the part of a Crown counsel would be so scurrilous that he would lose his job. What are we talking about in terms of plea bargaining?

Let me give you some examples of something that does a service to the judicial system and a service to the criminal justice system. For example, if one is to contact a Crown counsel and disclose one's defence, and that defence is very persuasive in terms of seeing that a lesser charge is laid, surely that comes within the definition of plea-bargaining, and if that is a plea-bargain then the Crown counsel is going to lose his job.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. LEGGATT: I see the Attorney-General shaking his head, and I would very much appreciate it if he would tell me the nature of plea-bargaining. For example, an informant decides to turn witness against his fellow criminals, but in

[ Page 8354 ]

return for his providing the police with key information, let's say in a drug conspiracy, the police say to the informant: "You will not have to face a charge, even though you participated in the conspiracy." Isn't that a plea-bargain? I can't think of a better definition of a plea-bargain than that. Is the Crown counsel going to lose his job when he drops the charge against the state witness? Surely that's not what we're talking about. It would be a marvelously idealistic way to approach the criminal justice system. How do you get people to turn Crown evidence if you don't give them some assurance that they won't face the same charge, as co-perpetrators of the crime?

I can see I've got the Attorney-General thinking about that one. I'm glad to see that.

My colleague from Surrey has asked me if the Olson case was plea-bargaining; I don't think that was plea-bargaining, because they established the number one charge and he got a maximum sentence. But the process still has a certain odour to it.

For the guidance of counsel who have to practise in the courts of this province, it's time the Attorney-General rose in his place and told us what, specifically, is not appropriate in terms of plea-bargaining. Can I not go to the Crown prosecutor and lay out my case and say: "This is the defence you are facing. You have about a 10 percent chance of making your charge stick, but to avoid that 10 percent risk we'll accept the lesser charge." Is that inappropriate to the justice system? Is that wrong in the justice system? I don't think it is. I think you'll double the number of trials you are going to have. It means that every charge will be a number one charge; yes, and even more important, it will mean that the police will make a determination of all charges. If there can be no plea bargaining, the police will make the ultimate decision as to the nature of the charge laid, without consideration for the court process itself, which surely is the function of the Crown prosecutor and not the police.

In view of my own incapacity to properly define plea bargaining, would the Attorney-General now rise in his place and advise the lawyers of the province, advise the House, specifically what plea-bargaining is, and what conduct will result in the dismissal of a Crown prosecutor?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There is no mystery about the question of plea-bargaining, and I have spoken about it on a number of occasions, most recently last Thursday evening to regional Crown counsel. The circumstances identified by the hon. member are not plea-bargaining. When the police, on the advice of Crown counsel, have laid every appropriate charge, based upon the investigation conducted by the police, and competent defence counsel approaches the Crown counsel and lays out his case, saying, "Based upon the witnesses I will call you will not be successful in achieving a conviction on that particular charge or count," Crown counsel then has the obligation, because he is perceived to be equally competent, of re-examining the evidence available to him, discussing the matter with the police who have done the investigation, perhaps re-interviewing witnesses, and reaching a determination, based upon his skill and experience, as to whether he can achieve a conviction on the count identified by defence counsel, and on that basis to advise defence counsel he doesn't propose to proceed with that count. But to do so in exchange for a guilty plea is where you run close to the problem. It is not acceptable to suggest that if you accept a plea of guilty on this particular count, then you won't call the 14 witnesses and will save the court the time, and in order to expedite the process of criminal justice, to save money or whatever the case may be, you will drop charge number one and proceed on charge number two.

In the hands of unskilled persons, such a device could be abused. The guidelines set down for Crown counsel make this quite clear. I'm happy to say that we have developed a Crown counsel system in this province whereby, with the availability of senior district and regional Crown counsel, matters of this kind can be discussed and decisions made with respect to such approaches as are appropriate in the proper case — not for the purpose of ensuring that someone escapes responsibility for the sake of efficiency, time or the saving of cost, but only to ensure that the Crown is not placing before the court a case that they know in advance they aren't going to make, because they've been advised by competent defence counsel. That's the system in its simplest form.

The question raised by the member with regard to the laying or staying of charges against witnesses who may decide to turn Crown evidence is always a very difficult case to examine. Each one has to be examined on its own circumstances. In recent years we have not used the unindicted coconspirator concept. It is an approach which I personally deprecate. I think the consequences of using that approach are damaging to the criminal justice system, and the number of instances in which it has been successfully employed is so limited as to make it of questionable value. The criminal justice system, under the Assistant Deputy Attorney-General, are aware of this and share this point of view. The concept is extremely dangerous. It is confusing to the system. It is confusing to the people involved in the trial. It diminishes the system in such a manner that we doubt whether it should be employed, except in the most unusual circumstances.

The Department of Justice approaches narcotics offences differently. It's understandable because of the nature of the persons with whom they are involved and the wide scope in many narcotics conspiracy cases.

The question of staying charges against persons prepared to give Crown testimony likewise is dealt with on an individual basis. We use the stay process sparingly. It is almost invariably used in circumstances where the person charged is such a minor participant in the criminal conduct that it is justifiable, in order to achieve a conviction of the major perpetrators of the crime. It is a part of the system. It is used sparingly and only in very special circumstances.

MR. LEGGATT: I appreciate the Attorney-General's remarks, because he's now defined plea-bargaining in a very narrow sense. I appreciate that he has, because I think there are a good number of people who make an assumption that the words plea-bargaining are self-explanatory. Of course there will always be changes in plea when all the evidence is examined, particularly if the Crown counsel has the opportunity to examine the potential defence.

I'm still left a little puzzled by one remark the Attorney-General made. It's the question that there should be no bargaining around the plea. Let me give you an example. A dangerous driving charge has a very substantial defence presented and the option is given of pleading to a motor vehicle offence in place of it. Remember that a dangerous driving charge does not have a motor-vehicle offence as an included offence; it's an all-or-nothing situation on dangerous driving. If the Attorney-General's position is that there

[ Page 8355 ]

should be no bargain made on plea but only on the level of the charge, and if after examination defence counsel feels it's in his client's interest to present what is the potential defence and after examination another charge is laid, it is the Crown counsel who wants to be assured of a guilty plea. He doesn't want to face a defence of the lesser charge; it's just simply, impractical for him to bargain in that sense.

What I'm surprised at, Mr. Chairman, is that it would not be appropriate for the Crown counsel to insist on a guilty plea after the withdrawal of the more serious charge. If he's not given the option of asking for a guilty plea, it will mean, first of all, that we'll have a doubling of the number of trials clogging the criminal courts. You'd also put Crown counsel at a disadvantage in that the defence that's been raised to the more serious charge may also be acceptable to the lesser charge, and yet justice may not be done in those circumstances. It may be that a reasonable outcome would be that there be some sanction provided to the offender. I'm concerned about this last aspect of the question of the plea itself not being a bargainable question.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I'm sorry if I'm not being clear. The decision made by Crown counsel is not to be predicated upon what the plea will be; the decision is to be based upon an examination of the circumstances, the application of the appropriate law and a skilled judgment by qualified Crown counsel. They must feel that in these particular circumstances they are not going to be able to make that conviction.

May I just say something before I go into this aspect. It is the same decision that the Crown counsel had to make in the first instance before the charge got laid. The authorities had t to come and say: "This is the case we've got. What does it I provide?" Crown counsel will say: "Okay, criminal negligence and an offence of dangerous driving." That's based upon what the Crown counsel understands he has by way of a case. Then along comes the defence counsel to convince him that he's not going to make it. As I say, based upon competent, experienced examination of the circumstances, including perhaps the re-examination of the witness by the police, he says: "Well, okay, fellow, you're not going to make this one." By the same token, competent defence counsel, having been successful in that and having the interests of his client at heart, will also recognize that if the Crown says, "Fine, we're going to proceed against your client under the motor vehicle legislation," he would have to say to his client: "The Crown is going to charge you with this motor vehicle offence and, frankly, you've got no defence. It's my recommendation to you that you plead guilty." It may not be. All I'm saying is that in those circumstances what the person charged may do is based upon the advice he gets from his counsel, but it is not appropriate to use as the bargain the dropping of one in order for the guilty plea on the other.

MR. LEGGATT: I urge the Attorney-General not to move too quickly on the standards that he's laid out, because there are a number of Crown counsel in the province who aren't up to date on this latest wrinkle on the question of the plea itself. I understand the reasoning behind the Attorney-General's position, but there is a misunderstanding, I think, around the question of the plea. A good number of defence counsel still believe that it's appropriate to deal with Crown counsel on the plea and not just the nature of the charge or the evidence. The Attorney-General is now firm; he's telling us that that is inappropriate, and I accept that. Crown counsel will have to accept that.

It's not necessarily going to be an easy row for Crown counsel to hoe, because they're going to have a lot more trials on their hands. Obviously if you've got a defence for one charge you'll probably use it for a second and a third. Therefore you're not going to gauge the success or failure of the trial as carefully, perhaps because the Crown is going to be faced with the same defence to the more serious or the lesser charge. The witnesses are the same, they're going to say the same things. and so on. In effect, this new position, I think, is going to increase the number of trials in the criminal justice system. I hope the Attorney-General is prepared for the number of judges and courts that it will take, because I think there will be some increase in that. However, we've canvassed that in some detail and I appreciate the minister's candour.

I want to deal with another question which concerns me a bit, and that is the minister's obviously jaded view of the Charter of Rights, which he suggested was going to create all kinds of problems in the criminal justice system. I'm sure he must have been referring to section 7, dealing with legal rights under the charter, and particularly to section 10, which says: "Everyone has the right on arrest or detention (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefore; (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful." What I think the Attorney-General was concerned about must have been (a) and (b) — to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence, and particularly to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right. I suppose that he's thinking of the Moribito case in the United States, which caused some concern about what many felt was a technical problem of failing to be advised of the right to counsel at the appropriate time.

But you know, Mr. Chairman, as matters of principle....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Northeast coal and Noranda.

MR. LEGGATT: Would you go back to intergovernmental affairs there, Mr. Minister. I mean, you should be in Ottawa with the Minister of Industry and Small Business development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) helping the Japanese auto industry, for gosh sakes.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's Miranda in the States and Moribito in Canada.

MR. LEGGATT: It's Miranda, you're right. I gave you he wrong case citation, didn't I? It's the Miranda decision. Anyway, the two subsections are (a) and (b) — to be informed promptly of the reasons therefore and to retain and instruct counsel without delay. It seems to me, first of all, that those are very straightforward rights that I think most people in a civilized society would accept as being only fair and just. t's very confusing to anyone suddenly brought into the criminal justice system and charged with an offence to understand what his or her rights are. Unless you know what your rights are, you don't have any rights; they can be so easily used.

I'm sure what the Attorney-General must be referring to the problem of police constantly having to provide these

[ Page 8356 ]

warnings. I suppose some of them are now carrying cards and doing that; but they do it anyway. They provide the standard warning before taking any statement, and the number of statements excluded from the courts in the last five years you can almost count on your fingers. Very few statements made by the accused are any longer excluded from evidence, because the police have understood how to obtain a statement and how to meet the standards of voluntariness that the courts have set out.

It seems to me that it's not that difficult for those charged with the enforcement of the law to comply with these three sections of the charter. For the Attorney-General to suggest that somehow the whole criminal justice system is going to be in chaos because these three sections were passed — and I can't imagine that he's really referring to any of the others; that's sections 10(a), (b), and (c), and 11 (a) and (b)....

I'm interested in the Attorney-General's response to those sections — why he disagrees with a person having the fundamental right to be advised and to be represented by an adviser.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Very briefly, yes, I had in mind the two particular provisions of the charter to which the member refers, but there are also a number of others in the charter. I don't have my copy with me, unfortunately, but if the member refers to them he will see that the charter has a number of aspects which influence the conduct of trials and therefore impose themselves upon the criminal justice system.

My remarks on the occasions to which the member refers were provoked by recent statements made by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He has concluded that after 200 or more years of experience with their constitution and Bill of Rights, the direction that the courts have gone in the implementation of decisions based upon their constitution has reached the stage whereby he wonders and questions whether or not the purpose of criminal justice, which is to protect the citizen on the street, is not being converted into a system which protects the criminal on the street. My remarks were to the effect that after that kind of experience in the United States of America it seemed strange to me that we were embarking upon a similar direction in Canada.

We will find, as more and more decisions are reached in our courts under the interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that we're going in the same direction. Frankly, I have to view this as a retrogressive step. As the member points out, the police do these things anyway. They know how to take statements. They are able to accommodate this, and therefore the citizen who finds himself attracting the attention of the police hasn't been badly dealt with. There is no evidence of compelling need to change our system, but we're facing the prospect of that taking place.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to address myself to this particular subject in the light of what has been said earlier here today about how terrible it is that we have these sexual offenders running around in our society. The member is going to identify some of them confidentially to me. We want to do something with them. We want to take away their rights, such as they may be, without charging them with any offence, and give them treatment or whatever the case may be. Our laws don't accommodate that. I have some difficulty in seeing where it is that the member stands on these matters. In particular kinds of offences he wants the law to come down as heavily as possible on that person, maybe for the rest of their lives. Yet with respect to, I suppose, the ordinary criminal, he wants to ensure that they get some fairer treatment, as if the authorities are going to impose themselves property upon that citizen. How you identify the distinction between the two, or how the police officer does, is very difficult for one to imagine.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, the minister asked me where I stand on these things. I don't see any reason why he needs to be confused about that. First of all, police do not do these things unless they are in the law or in a charter of rights. That is why it is inappropriate to attack the charter of rights in that he won't have those protections provided to both innocent and guilty parties. You don't make an assumption that everyone charged is guilty. There is a presumption of innocence. That's the position that I still take, Mr. Chairman. I still take it as a given that in the British system of justice there is a presumption of innocence until proved otherwise. That's the way our system has always worked and the way it must continue to work.

On the question of victims, and on the question of sexual offenders, we have always placed our remarks in terms of treatment and identification. We realize that you can't convict someone before they commit an offence. It's always been the terrible conundrum of the justice system: how do we identify and stop something happening before it does? Prevention is still worthwhile. While it does not mean that they are charged with something that they haven't done, it means that they are provided with adequate treatment facilities, which they do not have in this province, Mr. Chairman, and the minister knows they don't. We haven't got a single maximum-security system available to us in this province in terms of seriously disturbed treatable children. Those are not my remarks; those are the remarks of people who are involved in the system, who are doing the sentencing process. We have a most inadequate system in terms of dealing with the seriously disturbed, potentially psychopathic killer. It's the only area where we're going to make any progress. You can do all you like about mandatory 25-year sentences or hanging, but it's not going to save the next victim. The area of early identification and treatment, the justice system identifying those individuals in the system who clearly have already conducted themselves in a manner that shows they're going to be a serious problem to the community for the rest of their lives.... It's not that hard to identify. Kocurek could have been identified, but he wasn't identified. He was identified by the judge, but he wasn't identified by the Attorney-General's ministry. No dangerous sexual offence charge was laid in the Kocurek case. It ill behooves the Attorney-General of this province to stand up and call Kocurek an animal and complain about judges. In the dangerous sexual offence section some responsibility lies at his door.

That's my position. It's not a confused position. It's a consistent position. It's a civilized position. Under the British system of justice we presume their innocence, but we certainly will provide treatment and rehabilitation if at all possible; if it isn't possible, then indeterminate sentences are appropriate in those cases. Under the Criminal Code indeterminate sentences can only be granted when the Crown makes application for them; the Attorney-General knows that. That's where the problem lies. We don't request enough indeterminate sentences for dangerous sexual offenders, and there are too many in cases of indictable offences of a property nature.

[ Page 8357 ]

I participated in a study of all the maximum-security prisons in Canada. We had a chance to interview a number of these people. There are people who are serving habitual criminal sentences in our maximum-security prisons who passed bad cheques all their lives because they got drunk. People who got drunk and had eight, nine or ten break-and enter charges against them face habitual-criminal sentences. We have instances where some of these people never see the light of day for a long time, but in cases of dangerous sexual offences, charges are not laid. Charges are not laid against people in cases where the evidence is very clear that that kind of conduct — which in the Kocurek case Judge Stewart called "uncontrollable" — has not been seriously dealt with at the Attorney-General level. That is where the buck has to stop from time to time.

You can't always take the Les Bewley position on the system of justice. You can't always let Les Bewley provide you with your one-liners, in terms of press releases calling criminals animals. That's no service to the system. How is that going to contribute to the criminal justice system. Of course we all know the man's a dangerous sexual psychopath, but that's picking up cheap Brownie points from that particular case.

I want to look at solutions to these problems. The solution is not that simplistic right-wing view that all you have to do is increase punishment, lock people up forever, and you get rid of crime. It doesn't work that way. You must bring prevention into the system. You must identify and treat the problems. Therein lies the reduction of crime.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Crime is really the measure of the civilization of the state. How civilized a state are we? The crime rate tells you a lot about this civilization. I can tell you that the crime rates are often highest in the regimes that are allegedly the most free. We have to ask ourselves why that occurs. It's a combination of lack of respect for the law and the feeling that "I'm totally free and can do anything I want." We have to respect people who wait at the stop-light out here in front of these buildings until it says "Walk," and don't go across on the red. That seems like such an insignificant thing, but it is the beginning of the acceptance of law and order, of rules in our society. That philosophy is what we as legislators and lawyers must all be about: respecting the rules that society provides to make itself civilized and to protect itself. It includes not cheating on your income tax; it includes all kinds of things that are within respect for the law.

I get upset when the Attorney-General says he doesn't know what my position is. My position is very clear on this subject. It's clear because of the principles that he and I were both taught at the University of British Columbia law school. The presumption of innocence must still prevail in the criminal justice system. Sometimes I worry that the Attorney-General has forgotten that old principle when I read some of the things I see here; when I see the kind of scare headlines about animals and plea bargaining. I'm satisfied that the plea bargaining question is one that can be resolved in the narrow context that the Attorney-General has laid out.

I want to ask one or two other questions. One deals with the Olson case. I'm not going to go into the background of the case. Frankly, in the bit I know about it, I think the police did have a most difficult and challenging job. I think it's easy to use hindsight on these things. I think the Attorney-General would have been better served, however, had he had a full coroner's inquiry into the matter. That's been raised. The other area is the question of compensation for the victims of the crime. There is a point when the community, together, can be very wise. I believe in this case if you ask the community at large what they felt would be appropriate, they would say some compensation should be made in this unprecedented case. The amount of compensation would be a matter for the Attorney-General's ministry to determine.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On what basis?

MR. LEGGATT: The basis is that this is an unprecedented case in which, for perhaps the first time I know of in the history of Canadian jurisprudence, an amount was paid to the murderer — or to his designate, who was his wife. Out of a common sense of decency and fairness, I think the community at large would be perfectly ready to accept a special bill in this Legislature which would not necessarily be precedent-setting. Since there are no avenues of law that I'm aware of, a special bill compensating the victims of a reasonable amount.... The community at large is feeling that somewhere down the system it's easy to lay blame and that the system has failed them somewhere. I'm not saying that it's the police department. It could be somewhere farther down the line.

Maybe it's appropriate in these circumstances that some compensation be paid. If those young people had been hit by a motor vehicle on a highway there would be some compensation paid. I realize it's not a large amount for children under the present law, but there would have been some compensation paid. Instead, these horrible crimes go with that feeling of a sense of injustice: that there's something wrong, something empty and something that surely we, as people who represent our community, should together, in community, agree to. I think it's worth serious consideration that there be a special piece of legislation providing compensation to the parents of the victims of that horrible crime.

I know the Attorney-General will be concerned that that is precedent-setting and that every time a murder occurs there will be claims. The amount of money in any terms is insignificant in any terms of funding. The criminal injury compensation fund, for example, is still very modest in the amounts they pay, based as it is on the Workers' Compensation system. We could use increases, but in the Olson case it seems to me very worthwhile that consideration be given to special legislation. I think the Attorney-General would receive the unanimous support of this House if he would give consideration to exercise that special degree of compassion that is appropriate in these circumstances. I know the Attorney-General is no doubt concerned that this is a case of somebody saying they did something wrong and that there's some blame attached. I don't think it's a question of casting blame at all. I think the public are entitled to know what occurred. They're still concerned about the circumstances — thereby some form of open inquiry.... Secondly, I think compensation for the victims is an appropriate question.

I have two more matters I want to deal with. One is the question of impaired driving. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Hyndman) is embarking on a change which will promote the consumption of alcohol by allowing increased advertising of alcohol in the media — and this at a time when the number one concern of the public is drunk driving. In terms of driving offences, it's the number one

[ Page 8358 ]

problem that we want to direct our attention to, and yet we have a government that feels it's all right to promote its sale and thereby increase consumption. That's a conflict. I'm sure you'll have the support of this side of the House on changes in penalties. You have had support in terms of changes under the Motor Vehicle Act, and you'll have support if you want to go further in terms of penalties on the drunk-driving sections. But it's inconsistent for this government to do one thing with the right hand and another with the left. It neutralizes the action. Increasing the advertising of alcohol increases its consumption; otherwise, why do they advertise? What's the purpose of promoting the stuff if it doesn't increase the sales?

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: On, they say: "Brand names." That means maybe Labatt's will wind up being the only company. I suppose that's the long-run effect. That's also bad socially, my friend; it's also bad that we want to concentrate it into one manufacturer or supplier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair reminds the hon. member that we're reflecting on past legislation and regulations, and also on a totally different ministry. Perhaps we could relate our comments to the actions of the Attorney-General.

MR. LEGGATT: It's obvious that the Attorney-General either wasn't persuasive with his colleague, or supports the position of alcohol advertising.

There is another way in which the Attorney-General could, I think, have some impact on this one that has not been tried, and that's to enforce the provisions of the liquor act concerning the serving of alcohol to any person who happens to be under the influence of alcohol within a drinking establishment. I know the hotels' association and the bartenders' union and so on are very concerned that we try to stiffen our enforcement. One of the ways we could have some impact under the existing law would be to strictly enforce the rules against the serving of alcohol to anyone in an inebriated condition. I don't have the section in front of me; I think it just says under the influence of alcohol or impaired by the consumption of alcohol. The word "drunk" is very rarely used. It seems to me that that section is rarely enforced. Could it be that the hotel industry has the ear of the Attorney-General? Could it be that the hotel industry has decided it doesn't want to be interfered with? I have rarely seen a charge laid against a hotel for serving a drunk. But under the law that's an offence. You know what they do: they fill him up with alcohol and then they kick him out into his car, they hand him his keys, and they push him out onto the road. Then he gets arrested for drunk driving.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, he hires a lawyer after that; thank God for that. And then the good guys catch him. That's right. My colleague from Esquimalt saves the day.

I submit that you are doing very little in enforcing the provisions of the liquor act against the hotel industry, and it's time it was done. We can increase the penalties, we can agree with that; we can increase suspension time, we can agree with that. But we've got to fight drunk driving at every level, and this is a very important level to fight it at. Charges must be laid against the hotels that serve drunk drivers, and it can be done. My gosh, if you can spend $10 million on the last heroin conspiracy, we can spend a little money on undercover in beer parlours, lounges, etc., to stop people over consuming and then getting into their motor vehicles and killing people. There are a number of other things we can do within a hotel. There's no reason why we can't provide more breathalyser facilities in public drinking places too, so that tests can be done. A serious attempt must be made.

The last issue I wanted to raise with the Attorney-General deals with Mr. Justice Berger's present position in terms of the Judicial Council. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I don't think the Judicial Council of Canada had the jurisdiction to do what they did. They are in danger of an application being made to the court and being accepted in one of the courts of British Columbia that the Judicial Council of Canada acted without jurisdiction in the Berger case. They are in danger of that.

The reason I raise it is that I know that Mr. Justice Berger had the support of the chief justice of the province, his fellow judges and the bar of the province of British Columbia. What I want to know is: has he got the support of the Attorney-General of British Columbia? Is what Mr. Justice Berger did inappropriate or wrong? I don't think so.

I thought one of the reasons we gave judges tenure was that in these special circumstances they had a duty and an obligation to speak out on matters of deep principle. That's one of the reasons I think the independence of the judiciary is necessary and appropriate; because they are not faced with political election, and therefore they have a sense of independence. This was not an intrusion into politics in any sense, in the way anyone would define politics. This was a matter of deep principle.

I won't go into detail. The case is overwhelmingly in favour of Mr. Justice Berger. Imagine the complaints suggesting that what Mr. Justice Berger did in trying to protect native rights in Canada could be classed on the same scale as sleeping with prostitutes or over-consuming liquor. That was the nature of the letter sent in to complain of Mr. Justice Berger's conduct. That is disgraceful, Mr. Chairman. I would have liked to have seen the Attorney-General get on his feet and say so, because he is the chief law-enforcement officer of the province. He's the administrator of justice in this province, and it is appropriate that he call a spade a spade every once in a while, and say this is appropriate conduct on the part of Mr. Justice Berger, and point out that there are some very real questions about the jurisdiction of the Judicial Council. It's time to stand up and be a British Columbian about this subject and protect one of the finest judicial figures we've ever had in the province.

MR. STUPICH: For the past year or so, the citizens of Nanaimo, especially in the north and east Wellington area, have had the Attorney-General's sword hanging over their necks awaiting his decision. Ever since this government's ill-advised, ill-fated and extremely expensive attempt to prove that everything known about drug rehabilitation was wrong was abandoned at Brannan Lake, the Attorney-General has made it quite clear to the citizens of Nanaimo that he would like to establish a corrections centre at the Brannan Lake facility.

He did say sometime last year that this would not be done if the citizens of Nanaimo convinced him that they really didn't want it. The Attorney-General attended a meeting in Nanaimo on February 8, 1982, at the invitation of the city

[ Page 8359 ]

council. The meeting was held in a hall and there were quite a large number of people in attendance. The Attorney-General tried to tell everyone what he wanted to do with Brannan Lake and why it would be good for the community and province at large. The people at the meeting tried to tell the Attorney-General why they didn't want a correction centre at Brannan Lake. I don't think either side was listening to the other. I'm wondering whether the Attorney-General got the message at that meeting — that the people of Nanaimo really didn't want it.

There was a bit more information that he brought to the meeting that I'm still puzzled about it. He said it would cost the government some $35 million to establish the kind of centre he wanted elsewhere — to provide accommodation for 100 people who didn't need to be locked up. That's an average of $350,000 each to accommodate people who really didn't need any particular care and attention, as I understood it at the meeting. That kind of money would provide accommodation for 700 families. He kept reassuring everyone at the meeting that the people who would be there — the tenants if you like, as you could hardly call them inmates — wouldn't require any particular care or attention. It was just that they had to be removed from society for a time for education, accommodation or simply to keep them as some kind of punishment. It seems to me that the cost figures are way out of line.

My main concern at this moment is whether the Attorney-General is ready at this point to tell the people of Nanaimo that he did hear them on February 8, 1982, when, at the conclusion of the meeting, the city council — and they were all present — voted unanimously against the establishment of a correction centre at Brannan Lake.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) raised questions that I wish to deal with. First of all, we had a discussion earlier this morning about the matter of victims of crime, but he raised one particular aspect that I think bears some consideration. I would hope that the member, who I know is concerned about this particular matter, could offer some better suggestions as to what should take place when we are concerned with circumstances wherein the principal victim is a young person. The criminal victims injury compensation legislation in this province does make provision for limited compensation in those circumstances, but since the legislation is based upon the Workers' Compensation model — and Workers' Compensation doesn't involve itself with very young persons who are unemployed — there has not been brought into this legislation any adequate measurement upon which the board could base an application for compensation. While it is brought forcefully to our attention by reason of the Olson incident, it is an area which is of concern to me, because there are many other young persons who find themselves victims of crime; they may not be murdered but may suffer a serious physical disability as a result of criminal acts. It seems to me that we need some assistance in developing this kind of legislation.

I'm not in favour of bringing in special legislation which may assist 10 or 11 people; I'm looking for legislative change which we can apply in these circumstances generally. That's currently under review by my ministry. We are looking at one aspect: that is, the Family Compensation Act model. The tests that are applied are difficult tests, but they do provide one method of measurement with respect to this almost impossible attempt to value a young person's life. It seems to me that the criminal-victims injury legislation is lacking in this respect, and I would be most pleased to hear any specific ideas from the member that he might have during the course of this debate: or if he wants to write me about any studies that he has made into the matter, or any assistance that can be given.... While it looms large before us with respect to the consequences of the Olson murders, it applies across the whole range of our society. Mrs. Clausen must feel as damaged as anybody else. Whether it's one, five or ten doesn t make any difference; the loss is still there, and the legislation is inadequate in this respect.

We're looking at what has been done in other jurisdictions in this regard. My Deputy Attorney-General reminds me that in the Sutcliffe case in England, this was approached by the courts there, and we are trying to develop a program which could be introduced in this province.

Impaired driving. I agree with the member that we must attack this problem of drinking and driving at every level. My difficulty at the moment is that the resources available to the Ministry of Attorney-General are fully utilized in attacking the drinking-driving situation on the road. To suggest that we should involve ourselves in going into the hotels, bars and lounges and identifying the person in there who may go out and get into a car.... We don't know that, and then we get into a situation of waiting in the parking lots. We've got enough to do on the streets. We wait until they get on the streets, and then we can find out if they're in care and control of a motor vehicle.

I agree that it must be attacked at every level. I have been discussing with my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), this matter of hotels and lounges, and their seeming unwillingness to discharge their responsibility in this field. We may have to take some stern measures to ensure that they discharge that level of responsibility. We're asking the citizens to discharge their responsibility as to the identification of people who are drinking and driving. We're asking the Insurance Corporation, safety groups and schools to involve themselves in what is the community's responsibility with respect to drinking and driving. It seems that the people who make their livelihood from selling the booze should also be expected to discharge their responsibilities — just limited to those imposed upon them by the laws; forget the general community responsibility. I think some stringent action is clearly indicated in that respect.

To the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) with respect to the use of the facilities at Brannan Lake, yes, I recall the expression of opinion at the city council meeting I attended. The member will also be aware that subsequent to that meeting the government invited four groups who had ideas as to how the facilities at Brannan Lake might be more appropriately used than for the purposes of the Ministry of Attorney-General.... I hope that matter will be resolved very shortly; I'd like to make an announcement. I believe it is still appropriate to use the very limited acreage that is required for a correctional facility for that purpose, leaving by far the larger amount of property for community use and development. I hope a decision will be made shortly.

The member raised the question of the cost. It is a matter of regret to me that correctional institutions — even the kind that would be used at Nanaimo, which is similar to the Alouette River unit — are expensive to acquire the necessary land and provide the buildings to house 100 or 120 persons

[ Page 8360 ]

and the staff who will be there for a period of time. But the figures that we have from the British Columbia Buildings Corporation for providing us with the facility we would like to see at Brannan Lake — including land — run in the $30 million to $35 million range.

MR. STUPICH: I'm wondering what kind of facility is being provided if it is going to cost $350,000 dollars per resident. The figure just seems very high, and it seems to me that the facilities must be much more than would be needed for people who are simply being held because there is nothing else to do with them. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) isn't here right now. I have to wonder again about the empty community of Ocean Falls in his riding. I wonder why it couldn't be used for something. I don't know whether this would be....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Maybe, but to the best of my knowledge there's nobody living there right now. Maybe it would be cruel and unusual punishment, as the minister suggests, but it would be cruel to put another correction centre at Brannan Lake.

I come back to my original question. The Attorney-General earlier said that this kind of facility would not be imposed upon the people in that area unless they agreed to it. All the evidence....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't say "if they agreed to it."

MR. STUPICH: That was certainly my understanding of the newspaper reports of his speech, that unless he was satisfied — perhaps it was simply a negative thing — that there wasn't opposition in the area, then this facility would not be imposed upon the residents of Brannan Lake. I'll dig that up and perhaps show it to the Attorney-General later on.

I gather from his reaction to my attempt to remember what he said that he is not going to say that today. Will he stand up today and say that if the citizens convince him that they don't want it, then it will not be imposed on them? That's my question. How does he feel today? Does he feel that for the facility to be successful — and he did say this at the February 8 meeting — the people in the area must accept that kind of a correction facility in their residential area? Now I would like him to say whether he still feels that way. I think the meeting was unanimous. There might have been one lawyer who went partway with the Attorney-General. Apart from that, the meeting was unanimous in opposition — the city council was unanimous, the school board had been unanimous and the regional district had been unanimous. I suppose one more question follows from that: what else would it take to convince him beyond this that the people of the area don't want a correction facility at Brannan Lake?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think what I said, if I recollect, was that we wouldn't ram it down the throats of the people of Nanaimo, and I certainly did indicate that the successful operation of such a facility would depend upon the acceptance of it by the community. But that's something different than saying that we've got to get their acceptance in advance.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the member laughs; but the fact of the matter is that if the member would like to read what was written by the reporter who went and visited the Alouette River unit, if the member would like to go and talk to the mayor and members of the council of Maple Ridge in whose community a similar operation functions and has functioned for years, he would find that it is accepted in the community, and they do recognize that it has a value. As a matter of fact, the city of Maple Ridge, which was at one time identified as one of the most unkempt communities — it was so identified by some news agency — decided to get together and do something about it, and the principal supporters of the campaign, who cleaned up the streets, were the inmates of the Alouette River unit, who volunteered to come. They do that kind of work in the community, and the community of Maple Ridge recognizes this and accepts it. So there is a lot of difference between going to a community, saying we're going to put a correctional facility in, and asking them to accept it in advance and the recognition that the function of that facility in the community is a direct benefit to the community and becomes acceptable in the course of operation.

The Alouette River unit, like other similar facilities we have in the province, makes a major contribution to the community in which it is located. They build their parks, and they assist in the development and the maintenance of senior citizens' facilities. The inmates, who in many cases are there no longer than four weeks, work within the facility in order to assist in community betterment by building park benches and things of that kind. They're kept busy doing those kinds of activities, and the community benefits. That's what's being offered to Nanaimo in this particular case. Instead of being excluded from the land as they presently are, they're being offered a major community park, which the inmates in this facility will build. There has to be some realistic evaluation of the need for this kind of facility by the people in Nanaimo, as well as of the implications of having it in the Brannan Lake location. The member asks why we don't send it to Ocean Falls. We don't need it in Ocean Falls; we need the facility in Nanaimo, because it's from Nanaimo and North Island that the inmates come. We're presently transporting to Victoria the people who breach the law in Nanaimo and North Island. There happen to be a few lawbreakers in Nanaimo and North Island, and we need that facility to service that part of the island. We have people in this facility who are serving their sentences on weekends, and who will work in the community. We don't want to transport them to correctional facilities outside of their communities. Since the average stay at those facilities is three to four weeks, we think it appropriate that they be kept in and near the communities from which they come. We're not planning to transport inmates to Nanaimo. We want to facilitate the people who already live in that community and who find themselves in correctional centres.

MR. STUPICH: It might have been easier to persuade the citizens of Nanaimo if this were the first attempt. You will recall that it was originally established as a school for boys; it wasn't a school in any sense of the word until the school board entered in and actually did the educational part of the work at Brannan Lake. For a while that program seemed to be

[ Page 8361 ]

working. However, it was closed down. Then the drug rehabilitation was set up and that proved to be even more unsuccessful. So this is not the first time that the government has tried to impose something on that area that the citizens fought in advance. And they proved to be right in the end, because the government changed its mind on both positions.

Once again the people are being asked to accept something and told that in time they will like it. Mr. Chairman, in view of the record, I doubt very much that the citizens ever will like it. It looks as though the Attorney-General has made up his mind that they're going to get it, like it or not. I am going to look for that quotation from the newspapers about what he said earlier. It is a shame that such a park-like setting, with excellent facilities that could be used for educational purposes, is going to be used for the kind of people that the Attorney-General has just described: people who need to be taken away from their homes for a while as some sort of punishment, and the punishment is that they're put into a facility that he said would cost $350,000 per inmate to duplicate somewhere else. I still question that figure. But I wonder at the sense of values in a government that is taking perhaps the best location on Vancouver Island, which could be used for so many purposes that would benefit society, and using it simply to lock up people for a few days, a week perhaps, a few weeks at the most — just taken away from home for a few days at a time to remind them that they've done something they shouldn't do.

I believe at that meeting in Nanaimo, while the Attorney-General didn't identify anyone, he described a judge who had been caught drinking and driving twice, and that was the kind of person who would be locked up in that centre. Mr. Chairman, the citizens of Nanaimo believe that that facility is too good for that kind of purpose, and I certainly go along with them.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on Thursday last, after introduction and first reading of Bill 53, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1982, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) rose on a point of order, namely that insofar as Bill 53 contained amendments to a number of statutes, "the bill ought to be divided."

Sir Erskine May's twelfth edition states at page 254 as follows:

"The ancient rule that when a complicated question is proposed to the House, the House may order such question to be divided, is observed in the following manner. When two or more separate propositions are embodied in a motion or in an amendment, the Speaker calls the attention of the House to the circumstance, and if objection be taken, he puts the question on such propositions separately, restricting debate to each proposition in its turn, though this course is rarely adopted...."

This reference to a complicated question refers to motions generally, and does empower the Chair under proper circumstances to divide a motion and to then put separate questions to the House on each proposition contained in the original motion. However, this power of the Chair to so intervene is not extended to a bill before the House, such as the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. If it is the will of the House to divide a bill, the appropriate course is for the committee on the bill to be so instructed by the House. It is not for the Chair to intervene on a point of order as raised by the hon. member for Skeena. Please refer to Sir Erskine May's seventeenth edition, at page 539.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved,

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.