[ Page 4231 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial statement

Log-scaling on Shoal Island. Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 4231

Mr. Lockstead

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 9: minister's office –– 4231

Hon. Mr. Smith

Ms. Brown

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1984

The House met at 10:01 a.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair]

Prayers.

MR. REYNOLDS: I have the pleasure this morning to ask the House to welcome the mayor of one of our great municipalities, a municipality that I was proud to represent in Parliament in Ottawa for close to six years: Mayor Ernie Burnett of Delta, who is sitting in our gallery this morning.

LOG-SCALING ON SHOAL ISLAND

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a ministerial statement.

The ombudsman's "Special Report No. 7: The Shoal Island Case," was filed in this House in mid-February. Since that time it has been fully reviewed and discussed, and the government is now in a position to respond to it.

The report records the position of the Ministry of Forests, as previously communicated to the ombudsman, that a legal basis for compliance with his recommendations does not exist; that even if it did, the information submitted would not be an acceptable basis on which to issue a new stumpage account; and, further, that the ministry's existing scale returns provide a more accurate estimate than the alternatives suggested.

The government has decided, however, that rather than allow the matter to remain in a state of impasse, as would be the case if the ombudsman and the ministry continued to hold their divergent positions, it will move forward on the ombudsman's recommendations. This approach is both fair and just, and will allow for a resolution of all differences in fact and could afford an opportunity for the resolutions of differences in law. Accordingly, I have today directed the regional manager for the Vancouver forest region to estimate the volume of Crown timber, if any, that passed through the Shoal Island sort location between July 1978 and December 1981 and was processed, sold or removed from the province without first being scaled.

In fulfilling this obligation I have requested the regional manager to (1) take into account ministry figures and data; (2) afford the logging contractors and B.C. Forest Products the opportunity to bring forward relevant information that might assist, and (3) review all relevant available data and obtain such independent professional advice and assistance as thought necessary or helpful to him. If the foregoing procedure should indicate to the regional manager that a volume of Crown timber was processed, sold or removed from the province without first being scaled, the calculation for determining the amount of royalty or stumpage will be made. The Ministry of Forests will then issue additional scale returns and invoices to B.C. Forest Products on the basis of that estimate.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The official opposition first of all wishes to congratulate the ombudsman and his staff on a job very well done We are pleased that the government and the minister have decided to act and accept the recommendations in the report and take, hopefully, appropriate measures. Last but not least, it has been implied many times in this Legislature that discrepancies possibly existed in other locations, and it our hope that the minister will look into those matters in other locations as well.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 9: minister's office, $200,506.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, it is a great privilege to rise and also to look across to see my critic looking so alert and eager this morning. Before members get into questioning these estimates, I think I'll just make a few general remarks — not filibuster my estimates, Mr. Chairman, but a few remarks.

It has been a year in which this ministry has had to make very strong efforts to find ways of being more efficient within a reduced budget, to play its part in ensuring that government expenditures and the size of government generally are reduced. That has not always been easy in the field of justice, because the expenditures in this ministry are mostly concerned with (1) the administration of criminal justice; (2) the operation of court services; (3) the correctional branch of the government. There are a number of other important facets as well, but those are the major expenditure items. I think we have played our part to reduce our size and cost, and still deliver the essential core of those programs unimpeded. I would not pretend, Mr. Chairman, that we have done so totally without pain, totally without outcry, totally without the shock that accompanies any kind of change. We have had our share of that. We have done our best.

We have not made arbitrary cuts in this ministry. We have tried to do them in a thoughtful way. The maintenance of core programs was terribly important, and it was the first principle that activated us in the restraint program. The second principle was to examine management and support services for a possible reduction, while keeping our sufficient management capacity to ensure direction and control. The third principle was privatization, where privatization could be brought about in a manner that was efficient and would afford government a likelihood of realizing cost savings over a period of time, not just privatization for its own sake. The fourth strategy was to examine those services and programs which might be delivered through contracts. By contracting out some of our services, we were able to achieve some flexibility and change without altering or diminishing those services. I think that was an important exercise as well.

The total funding for this ministry is budgeted at $344 million, which is a reduction of 4.3 percent from the previous year. In addition to the budget reductions, the staffing level has been reduced by 8.5 percent from fiscal year 1983-84. Staffing reductions in this ministry have been major and I think generally have been handled sensitively.

I want to say a few things on a couple of general issues, and then I'll respond specifically.

[10:15]

I want to say something about the police services, which are really the core of the enforcement part of the criminal justice arm of this ministry. We have been very well served by

[ Page 4232 ]

the policing community in this province, both municipal and RCMP. It's important that we continue to support the improvement of police activity in the province and the involvement of police activity in the communities. At the same time it's also important that we encourage the police community toward more efficiencies and cost savings, and they have been most cooperative in that regard.

As a matter of priority in the policing field, we will continue to assert the rigorous enforcement of laws designed to reduce the number of road traffic accidents, particularly from drinking and driving. The police community can and will play a vital role within the communities and schools in ensuring that this objective is achieved.

I will say a brief word about the court services as well. British Columbia has been a leader in the development and implementation of programs which provide for integrated support systems for all levels of courts. The pressures of our growing population, the increase in the business before the courts, the growth of the legal profession in the province and other factors have always put demands on the court system. The court services staff, sometimes inadequate in numbers, have met the challenges of the increased demands and have continued to provide excellent service to the public in times of considerable demand. During the course of this year the ministry will review court services operations throughout the province and rationalize existing facilities and locations, in the hope that we can improve service and create greater efficiencies.

In the area of criminal justice, I should also talk briefly about the Crown counsel system in this province. In the next few years there will be greater use of the private bar in criminal prosecutions. In saying that, though, I have to pay tribute to a Crown counsel system that has been established in this province in the past decade and which has seen in government, operating as regional Crown counsel, some very dedicated and highly trained professionals, people who can stand with anyone in this country in the prosecution of criminal trials. It is not my intention to dismantle that system but merely to diversify the system and to have the benefit, at the same time, of a highly trained corps of professional, in-house counsel, the facilities in the use of the private bar as well, so lawyers outside the public service will find new opportunities to act for the Crown in criminal proceedings. I don't regard that as a creature of restraint; I regard it as important, also from a philosophical standpoint, that we acknowledge in this province that it is healthy to have a criminal justice system served by people who work not only inside government but also in private practice. I have a very high commitment to that, and it is not just a restraint commitment.

The ministry also recognizes the need in the correctional field to constantly improve our programs. We have developed plans to ensure that the placement of prisoners throughout our adult correctional system ensures the most efficient use of our resources. Within the correctional branch, increased activity now is underway to extend correctional work activity in industry programs. At the present time our branch is active in salmonid enhancement programs, both through fish hatcheries and stream clearing projects, further development in maintenance of parks, and manufacture and repair of public facilities. These can increasingly be accommodated through that program. Not only do these initiatives provide valued work experience and income support to prisoners and their families but they provide an important vehicle to return some of the costs of the service necessary to sustain corrections to communities throughout the province.

Legal services. It is certainly my responsibility to ensure that publicly funded legal services are effectively provided. I am proud that at a time when the future of legal aid has been in question and when there have unquestionably been funding cuts in legal aid, we have been able to send a task force on legal services around this province to hear briefs on the subject of legal aid from all parts of the province. That task force has generally had a very good reception and has heard a number of excellent community briefs from a number of groups involved in the justice system. That task force, chaired by the deputy minister, the honourable Ted Hughes, Q.C., who is sitting here beside me, will greatly help the government in setting guidelines and priorities on the subject of legal aid in the future. We've had 14 public hearings at 12 locations, and in excess of 250 submissions. I think it's important that that is happening in this province, and that people are having an opportunity to tell the government what they believe the future of legal aid should be in this province.

  On the subject — often esoteric, I guess — of law reform, Mr. Chairman, I do believe there is a great deal of law reform yet to be done in this province. We have a law reform commission which has worked away at making recommendations — some technical, some of a broad nature — to government for a number of years on how the civil law in this province might be reformed. That commission has produced some fine work. Some of its recommendations have been implemented, but as the members of this House and my critic will know, many of the recommendations over the years didn't get implemented. I have found that a matter of some concern and I have asked for a review of all those recommendations. It is my hope and expectation that we can deal with some of the still very good recommendations of that commission in an omnibus bill, and that we can do so in a bipartisan way to bring forward some of the fruits of the commission which, I guess for reasons of legislative program or other priorities, have not been given the enactment that they should have. I make it a priority to make some gains in law reform. I think law reform is important and we must encourage the work of that commission. A commission that is independent of government and that provides government and the Legislature with advice in this field is highly valuable.

Mr. Chairman, I should make a few remarks about the Young Offenders Act. I have not commented extensively on this legislation in public; I have decided to comment on it during my estimates, because I think it's appropriate this week, as the Young Offenders Act was proclaimed into law in this country on Monday, that a comment be made. To say that the province of British Columbia was supportive of the basic thrust of the Young Offenders Act would, I think, be an understatement. We are in support of the notion that young offenders should be dealt with in an accountability way and that they should not be dealt with under the old system, under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, in force since the turn of the century, where they were treated like third-class citizens, did not have adequate access to the courts and accountability, but were treated totally paternalistically. I think that notion lost its usefulness in this country many years ago, and all of us looked forward to a change.

The Young Offenders Act which the Parliament of Canada has passed and is now law in this country does attempt to change the model to one of accountability, tempered by

[ Page 4233 ]

judicial process, and we are supportive of that basic notion. I have to tell this Legislature that in our judgment the Parliament of Canada has gone too far in building a number of bureaucratic requirements and processes into that act which are going to make it very unwieldy and costly to administer the new system under the Young Offenders Act. However, rather than taking a dog-in-the-manger approach toward federal legislation which has already passed Parliament and is now proclaimed, some time ago I instructed my officials to try to spearhead some changes in the federal position on cost-sharing and to try to bring about some cost-sharing for the provinces in the field of young offenders legislation which is more realistic and which we could live with.

Originally the proposal was: "We're going to pass it, the provinces must implement it, and there won't be any funding." That was then changed to an offer which amounted to some 23 percent of contribution when I came in as minister. As a result of negotiations they have now presented offers to us, which, roughly speaking, will result in about 50 percent of most of the costs — not all of them, but the major costs — being provided for by federal funding. I must say that there are some elements of cost under the Young Offenders Act that still concern me. For instance, absolutely no progress has been made on getting Ottawa to pay any cost-sharing for prosecutors' or police services, which I consider very disappointing. But they are prepared to make contributions to the equivalent lease costs of the new containment facilities that will have to be built to ensure the separation of young offenders. They are prepared to contribute toward legal aid. We have arrived at an accord with them so that we will be able to provide legal aid under the Young Offenders Act separately from the legal aid budget that was introduced as part of these estimates, which, of course, is reduced from last year. So I want to tell the House that we're not going to be looking at the already reduced legal aid budget to provide the legal aid funding under this act. It will be separate cost-shared funding. They have also provided funding in a range of other areas.

It is regrettable, I think, that the act was brought in holus bolus, in its whole form. I suspect that if the federal officials were to sit down now to devise a young offenders act, they'd do it differently, with far less process and bureaucracy; it would be more streamlined. I think they probably regret that themselves. But we must live with it as it is and make it work. We're going to make it work. For instance, the age in British Columbia is going to rise by a year; I would like that not to have occurred. I don't think that it's necessary to have a whole host of 17-year-olds now in the youth sector of the courts and not in the adult sector. But the act brings that into play in 1985 and we will have to be ready for that.

Another difficulty with the act, which I guess the member will probably well recognize, is that people under 12, and the few under 12 recidivist offenders — there are not very many, but a few — of course are not accommodated within the scheme of the Young Offenders Act. They were under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. They will not have to be dealt with in the family law, child welfare legislative ambit, but they will not be dealt with under the justice system.

So we have a number of problems. It would have been better legislation had it been legislation that could be staged by proclamation and brought into force in parts, and in various parts of the country; and brought in with consultation — as my colleague has said so rightly — and sensitively. I so many times urged Mr. Kaplan, the very earnest minister in Ottawa in charge of this bill, to make very modest change to the federal legislation providing for staged proclamation, which their legislation doesn't allow. All those efforts were rejected. I can say, though, that while it has refused to make any amendments, refused to stage the imposition of the bill, the federal government has moved on cost-sharing. I will be entering into a cost-sharing arrangement with Ottawa on behalf of this province, and I have approval from my cabinet colleagues to do so. That cost-sharing will include sharing the costs of pre-adjudication and remand custody, and for the moment will exclude, as I've said before, the cost of increased Crown counsel, court and police activity. That is highly regrettable.

[10:30]

This province has had for some time a full array of youth correctional programs, including restitution, community service, attendance centres and probation supervision. That has been part of our specific goal to ensure that we have a wide range of justice options, using custody only as a last resort. I'm proud that we have made substantial progress in that regard, and that should assist us in the implementation of the Young Offenders Act.

Because the old Juvenile Delinquents Act did deal with provincial statute violations as well as with Criminal Code matters, and because the Young Offenders Act deals only with violations of federal law, a provincial young offenders act is required. A draft of such legislation has been prepared and I expect — I hope — that I'll be in a position to present that to the Legislature next week. It requires only some technical changes. But it will provide an umbrella to adapt our provincial law to the Young Offenders Act. We are not entering the world of the Young Offenders Act unprepared. We enter it under critical and positive attitudes but under protest at the way and the manner of it and the cost implications.

I've only touched on a few of the issues that are important in this ministry. They are so vast, really. This ministry deals with everything from motion pictures to fire inspection to the subject of horse-racing, for which the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) is primarily responsible — matters of a very wide range.

I'm going to cease the opening filibuster and respond to issues, and introduce my Deputy Attorney-General Ted Hughes, my commissioner of corrections Bernie Robinson, and my assistant deputy minister of support services Frank Rhodes. We will be pleased to help you in the next few days.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, it's nice to see that some things never change. Although the Attorney-General referred to me as being wide-eyed when he started, it was all I could do to keep my eyes open when he was through his presentation. The thing that really frightens me is the threat which he has launched on the public that he is going to return to the practice of law. I can see the poor judges trying to keep their eyes open as he conducts his case. If there's anything that we can do to deter him — to keep him from inflicting himself on the courts — we'd very much like to do that. We can handle boredom in here, but I don't know if they can do that very well out there.

However, as usual he has been quite informative in the information he has given, and I certainly appreciate that. Before launching into any great response, I want to make two specific requests of him. Regarding the 200 submissions which were received by the task force into legal services,

[ Page 4234 ]

would it be possible for those submissions to be shared with the other members of the House? I'm not sure whether extra-parliamentary task force submissions can be tabled or not. Maybe the Clerk would be able to advise whether this is possible. But if it's not possible, is there some other way that we could have access to those submissions? They would be very useful to all of us.

AN HON. MEMBER: Labour and Justice.

MS. BROWN: Yes, the Labour and Justice Committee would definitely be very happy to peruse them.

My second request has to do with the provincial young offenders act, which the Attorney-General tells us is in its draft stage. I realize that if it's a message or something of that nature it can't be revealed to us before being introduced in the House, but I know that part of the promise made by the government after Solidarity and a number of incidents of last year was that there was going to be more consultation. I'm wondering whether, in its preparation or even as it is in its draft form, there is going to be any consultation about this provincial young offenders act and whether the Attorney-General would consider also sharing with us not the act itself but some information about the kinds of things that he is thinking of including in that piece of legislation. If he would just very quickly answer those two questions for me, Mr. Chairman, then I could get on with the rest of my presentation.

HON. MR. SMITH: On the first matter — the briefs on the legal aid task force — I don't have any problem in making those available at some time. When I say, "at some time," I mean sometime before the task force finally reports — when we have them all in. There are about 250 of them now, but they're not private property. The last task force I did on education, every single brief was available for inspection and was mentioned in the appendix. I have absolutely no objection at all if the member or anyone wants access to those written briefs. They're not in a complete position yet, and I would say that at some time before the task force concludes its work we would make those available. Whether we do it through a legislative committee or whether we simply make them available, we will make them available, because I happen to think that the more people who read those briefs the healthier it is. I don't think the briefs should lie in a dusty office and not be available. So the answer is certainly yes.

Number two, on the young offenders act, it being a message bill, and it being a bill that I have to get into this chamber fairly quickly, I would invite her, if she wants, to let me know the matters she thinks should be considered in it and do that fairly promptly. I would be glad to give consideration to those now; if she is not able to do that or if that isn't effective, it may be possible to make some changes to the bill when it is introduced. I feel that we have to try to bridge the hiatus now, so that we don't have provincial offences in which we have all our young people simply being treated as adults. That's really what concerns me. I would not have any problem in considering amendments or revisions to the legislation. I don't wish to have all young offenders in this province dealt with as adults under provincial law.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's response to that. I would like to start out with the same topic that the minister started with, and that's the whole area of police services and what's happening to them. Maybe I could begin with the 1981 report of the Police Commission, the latest one I have, which I actually received in March of this year. I don't know whether there is a later one or not, but this is the one that I have to deal with.

It says some pretty frightening things about crime in British Columbia. It says, for example, that the growth rate is increasing in our province at a pretty alarming rate. It talks about a 43.7 percent increase in crime in the city of Vancouver. It talks about the fact that over the last six years there has been an increase of 106.1 percent. It says: "According to Statistics Canada figures, British Columbia has for years led all other provinces in its per capita crime rate. All indications are that this is likely to continue for an indefinite future." The only reason that I'm bringing this to your attention, Mr. Chairman, is that at the same time as the crime rate has been going up, the funding for the personnel — namely, for the hiring and training of police — has not been keeping pace with the crime rate. In addition, the government is now adding a new job to the job which has to be done by the police; I'm talking about the decision of the government to turn the serving of documents, which used to be done by sheriffs, over to the police.

When the Attorney-General was introducing this new regulation or rule, he indicated that it could be done without too much discomfort or dislocation, in terms of the protection of the community at large. I have a real problem understanding how the Attorney-General could do that, in light of the kinds of reports coming out of the Police Commission itself about the inadequacy of the police staffing which we now have to deal with the increasing crime rate in our province. For example, in March of this year: "A top Vancouver cop reports eventual chaos in the city's justice system unless new personnel are hired immediately. There are not enough police, we are being told, in the urban areas. Presumably if one could look at the rural areas we would hear the same things about the RCMP and other people who protect the community. There are not enough of them to deal with the escalation of crime. The Police Commission report says that the development of highly focused crime prevention and crime containment strategies has to be the highest priority of the government. At the same time as the commission is asking for that, in the same report we are also told that the new budget does not have any money at all to deal with prevention. It says: "No funds were budgeted for crime prevention in the 1982-83 budget." As we know, the amount of money put into the system, as he said himself, has gone down by something in the nature of 4.3 percent reduction in the overall budget.

A new job is being added to the responsibilities of the police. Listen to the crime statistics for British Columbia. I know that this is old information. I think the Attorney-General — I hope — has gone out to hire some more police.

MRS. WALLACE: He's gone for breakfast.

MS. BROWN: Now that I've brought this to his attention, maybe he realizes the seriousness.... Oh, he's back. I know the Attorney-General never survives without his lunch, but I didn't realize that breakfast was an issue too.

[10:45]

What we're talking about is the number of crimes in British Columbia for the year 1982. I'm sorry I'm dealing with such an old year, but they're having problems bringing

[ Page 4235 ]

their reports up to date here. There was a 39.2 percent increase over the last time a report was given. I want to start out first of all by asking for the latest figures. I want to know what the figures are, on a per capita basis, for 1983-84. The figure I have for 1982 for the number of crimes per thousand people, based on a figure of 2 3/4 million, is 135.8 — as I mentioned earlier, the highest in all of Canada. As you know, we're not the largest city in Canada; we're quite a bit smaller than either Montreal or Toronto. I talked about the fact that our crime rate per thousand people was rising from 106.1 to 136 in 1982. So I would like to know what the very latest figures are in terms of the per-thousand crime rate for British Columbia.

Then I want to find out from the minister how he can justify.... It could be that the crime rate has suddenly started to go down. Certainly that's not what we hear from the chief of police for Vancouver, but it could be that he's incorrect. It's not what we hear from Burnaby, but maybe their figures are not as good as those the Attorney-General has. But if the crime rate is continuing to increase, as the commission reports it is, and the budget is continuing to go down, as the estimates indicate it is — because for police services, for salaries and benefits, there was a cut of 21 percent.... If you put those two factors together, how can the Attorney-General justify using police to serve documents? That doesn't make any sense to me.

It seems to me that what police are trained to do is protect us against crime. That's what their training is. Certainly, when you read the report, the focus in terms of recruiting, the training program and the advanced training program — all of these — has to do with the business of protecting us from crimes against the person and against property, and from various other criminal offences like drug offences and others. Yet we find that these highly trained and highly skilled personnel, who are already unable to do the job they have to do because they're short-staffed, are being asked to serve documents. This doesn't make any sense in terms of the cost of training the police. It doesn't seem to me that a person serving documents needs to have all of the training and advanced training that we are told in this report they're getting.

Maybe the report is not being as honest as it should be with us. Maybe the police are really not being recruited as carefully as this report indicates. Maybe they're not being trained as effectively as this report tells us is happening. Maybe serving documents is all they're really capable of doing. That could be the case; I don't know. But certainly I think the Attorney-General has to address himself to why it is, at a time when police chiefs are telling us they need more staff to deal with the increase in criminal activity, which we know is something that happens whenever the economy goes into decline.... We know that the two things tend to go together. During tough economic times, when there is high unemployment coupled with a drastic cutback in services to people and to community and social resources, the crime rate tends to go up. Certainly crimes against property and against persons tend to go up. We have all of the statistics that show violence within the family certainly to be one of the areas where the crime rate goes up. Here we have the police, who are highly skilled to deal with that, operating under great constraints because they are short-staffed, and suddenly, in addition to that, they are told now that they have to start dealing with the serving of documents.

The other question which I know has nothing to do with the Attorney-General and is not his concern, but which I just want to mention in passing, of course, is that the cost for this is an additional burden which the municipalities find that they are going to bear. However, I noticed in this morning's Times-Colonist that the Attorney-General has indicated that there is going to be some financial assistance in terms of picking up the cost of the policing. What does that mean? Does that mean that there is going to be funding so that the municipalities can hire additional personnel? Or does it mean that the municipalities are going to be hiring different personnel to deal with the delivery of documents? Is the Attorney-General now saying to us that he has given the matter serious thought and recognizes that the police should not be dealing with the serving of documents, so there is going to be money to compensate the municipalities so that they can hire people other than police to serve the documents — not sheriffs, because clearly he's trying to gut the sheriff service — or is he saying that he is going to pick up the tab for the municipalities? Burnaby, for example, says that they would definitely have to hire additional police if they were going to do this job, because in order to stay within their budget they had already lowered their staff component last year by something in the neighbourhood of two.

The other issue I want to raise under this police matter, Mr. Chairman, is, I guess, more of a philosophical one. I know that the Attorney-General likes to get into philosophical ruminations, so it wouldn't be fair not to permit him this little indulgence.

HON. MR. SMITH: And you don't.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I like it too. I think we both get a bit of a kick out of it.

When the sheriff service was first introduced in 1974.... I'm reading a clipping from the 1974 Colonist, where, when it was introduced, Mr. Mortimer said what the sheriffs serving the documents would do.... First it would get the police out of the courts and it would get them back onto the streets to fight crime and protect society where they belong. In addition it would separate the whole business of the police from the serving of documents. They are two different services, and they wouldn't be linked together once the sheriffs took over responsibility for this. He talks a lot about sheriffs being one of the oldest institutions in English common law, antedating William the Conqueror and all of those kinds of things, Mr. Chairman, and he was really quite pleased.

MRS. WALLACE: Who was that?

MS. BROWN: This is Mr. Jeoffrey Mortimer, who was the head of the sheriff service at that time. He was quite pleased with the separation which was taking place with the introducing of the sheriffs to do those jobs.

I wonder if the Attorney-General has a philosophical reason for returning to the police the serving of documents, and whether he has taken into account the reality of our high crime rate, the shortage of police staffing and the additional cost to the municipalities for this particular change which he has introduced.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 4236 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: Thank you for the invitation to wax philosophical, but I would, I think, prefer to be pragmatic about the police document service issue. The notion that a policeman who might have to testify in a criminal case shouldn't serve a document or shouldn't have anything to do with the service function, I think, was a lot of errant purism and did not have very much basis in reality, because I can't recall in the 15 or 20 years that I was actively involved in criminal justice, first of all as a prosecutor and defence counsel and then as a chairman of a police board, before this wonderful millennium with sheriffs came about in 1974 that there were incidents causing difficulties by the police serving documents and then being present in the same case. First of all it was rare, except in the small communities, but when it did occur I can't recall serious incidents that arose over it.

The notion that police can serve documents is based on work that we have done in this ministry to try to identify the cost and volume of documents served. Preliminary work indicates to us that the volume of documents can be greatly reduced and controlled, and that Crown counsel will now be exercising very strong controls. Many documents which used to be served as a matter of routine will not be served. We will be handling witness management differently, by telephone and letter, and serving subpoenas where they have to be served in cases where it's clear that people probably won't appear. I see absolutely no difficulty in the serving of summonses by the police. In many communities the increase in burden is going to be extremely small.

In February of this year when we examined in depth the number of subpoenas that had to be served in the Victoria area, under a system of more control than we had used in the past, we found that in the total Victoria area only 200 documents of that kind had to be served. In Saanich it was 52, in Esquimalt 22 and in Victoria 65. Those are the statistics for subpoenas; summonses were considerably less than that. In my own community of Oak Bay there were three during the month. Those figures don't indicate to me that the municipalities or police are going to have to go in and hire additional manpower to accommodate this. I have never been categorical on that, and if experience proves otherwise and it can't be accommodated in some areas and we have a cost factor, we know that we will have to sit down and negotiate some kind of cost arrangement with these municipalities. I think if we can examine this after six months, we will know a great deal more about the system. It is going to be a controlled system.

I believe that there is a great deal of duplication of staff here, where a sheriff comes in to serve criminal documents close to the area where there is a local police patrol car; and with very few documents to be served, there is absolutely no reason why the local police can't serve them. In any event, Mr. Chairman, the police have continued to be involved in the service of some process in their own communities in difficult cases. I don't think it is an alienation of the police from community work. It may indeed be a means by which the police will be more visible in the community. I don't think it is going to detract from their other serious duties. I know that there is some understandable disgruntlement about this duty being given to the police, but as far as I know, in every other province in this country the police continue to serve criminal documents. In my view, this is not an issue that will give very many problems once it is accepted and in operation.

[11:00]

I understand that the crime figures the member gave are those she took from the Police Commission report of 1981-82. Unfortunately, these figures are always about a year or a year and a half late in coming in. I don't know if the member has the annual report of the Police Commission for 1982-83, which is the current one. Do you have that?

MS. BROWN: No.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I'll get you a copy of that.

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry, it is 1982-83.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, I thought those were the figures you were giving.

MS. BROWN: Is that the latest?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, it is the latest. The current figures are being tabulated this month, so we don't have them, but I can give you some raw figures. I think the raw figures do indicate some reduction in the load that has taken place during 1983-84 over 1982-83. These are total offences, Criminal Code and provincial. The Police Commission has given us Code offences, but the actual total of all offences in 1982-83 was 429,688, and the actual offences for 1983-84 are 406,616, which is a decline of almost 4 percent. That's one figure. Another figure that might be of interest to the member would be figure of the total persons charged with offences, and that would be offences under both the Criminal Code and provincial statutes. The total figure is also down: 70,369 in 1982-83; 68,042 in 1983-84. So there's a reduction there of about 2.5 percent — I haven't worked it out exactly. Those are probably better figures than you'd get just looking at offences under the Criminal Code, because they represent the whole array that the police are responsible for. The volumes are down also for new criminal cases that are before the courts. They are down from 150,993 in 1982-83 to 146,049 in 1983-84. That is not quite a 1 percent reduction, but it is a reduction. I don't suggest that they indicate that the police don't have a heavy load. They clearly do.

I would identify myself with some of the sentiments the member has uttered here today. The lot of the policeman is a tough one — there's no question about it. Society makes increasing demands on him. The expectations of his training continue to rise. He's a highly trained professional, and more and more demands are made of him. The manpower doesn't grow. In fact, during this particular period the manpower of the provincial forces has actually decreased. I share those sentiments and I say exactly the same thing to the police. They are a very special paramilitary group in society who also have a number of judicial responsibilities placed on them as well. They can't just be paramilitary; they have to sort a number of things out. The system works. If the police were not as well trained as they are, not as sophisticated and careful in their work, the statistics that I've indicated here would have shown horrendous increases. I not only identify with many of the sentiments that you've expressed; I echo and repeat them. I think it's appropriate that we both express those here in this chamber, because demands by government upon the police to do more with less manpower have to be things elected members understand. I think that the police do a remarkable job indeed.

[ Page 4237 ]

You mentioned figures on reductions in police costs. If you examine those, I think you'll find that those reductions were in administrative. they were not reductions in operation. We have made some pretty major reductions at the administrative level of policing, and we have reduced some of the administrative positions in CLEU. We have not decreased the operative positions; we've kept that operative core. I readily acknowledge that having kept that operative core, both levels of government are putting more responsibilities on them. I have as much concern about that as you do.

MS. BROWN: I thank the minister for giving me the latest figures on this. I want to talk some more about the crime statistics, because I think they are really quite alarming. According to their "B.C. Crime Clock" — and I think this is a very dramatic way of illustrating it, and I certainly hope that future reports will continue to do that, because it gives you what's happening at a glance — one violent crime is committed every 17 minutes, one murder is attempted every 32 hours, there is one assault every 22 minutes and one robbery every two hours. Those statistics are pretty frightening. It again makes it difficult to understand why, having that information, knowing that the Criminal Code is offended against once every 1.5 minutes, the ministry would reduce the budget at all. I recognize that most of the budget reduction comes in the form of salaries and benefits, but look who you're cutting. You're cutting, according to this, instructors who are dealing with the training of the police at a time when we need them to be better trained and more skilled than ever. In the '82-83 budget you lost six such people. It talked about a 50 percent reduction in staff for the program. Again, the one point I made earlier, which is on page 17 of this report, is that there were no funds budgeted for crime prevention. Looking at the B.C. crime clock as it is reported here in the report, and also taking into account earlier in this report where it said that the focus had to be on crime prevention and crime containment strategies — that that was of the highest priority — it seems to me that the decision to cut that part of the budget doesn't make sense. Coupled with this additional job of sharing documents — which, according to all the reports we get from the mayors of the various municipalities, whether Vancouver, Burnaby, North Vancouver, Coquitlam or whatever, is going to be an additional burden on the police — it seems quite short-sighted.

However, I noticed in his response, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney-General is now going to monitor the program for six months rather than a year, which was the time-frame he issued earlier.

HON. MR. SMITH: We're monitoring it every month.

MS. BROWN: You're monitoring it every month, but you are going to be prepared to move in and pick up the tab for additional personnel if that becomes obvious even after the first month?

HON. MR. SMITH: Those are your words.

MS. BROWN: No, I'm asking you. I'm putting it in the form of a question. Mr. Chairman, does monitoring every month mean that if after the end of one month all the dire predictions of the various mayors prove to be fact, the Attorney-General will at that point move in and make whatever changes are necessary?

HON. MR. SMITH: This change in service will be reviewed immediately and regularly, but whether we have ample experience at the end of six months to discuss adjustments I can't say. If we do, we will. The commitment we made to them was that we would do so within the year and retroactively. I can't be more precise than that.

MS. BROWN: Okay, I guess I'm going to have to settle for that. Also, if the minister would again take into some account my comments about the alarming crime rate.... I don't think we should be proud of the fact that there are reports referring to our crime rate as being ahead of that of the rest of Canada. I realize that according to this report it has something to do with the fact that our population is young and there are demographic factors of one sort or another. But what that calls for is an innovative and diligent kind of response to the need. It seems to me that cutting the budget at this time is not the direction in which we should be going.

Moving on to corrections but dealing with almost the same kind of things, one of the issues attempted to be raised in Public Accounts this morning, which couldn't be dealt with because it wasn't '82-83, had to do with the new role of the police in escorting prisoners from one point to another, which used to be done by sheriffs. Maybe the Attorney-General could give some response to the concern expressed about this new job and additional burden also being placed on the police and what impact it's going to have on the corrections branch itself.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm glad the member mentioned crime prevention earlier, Mr. Chairman, because our juvenile crime prevention project has been of importance to us and has continued, and we do have $100,000 budgeted under planning for that this year. Also the RCMP, as the member is aware, do quite a bit of crime prevention work. While they do so with straitened funds — there's no question about it — they do it and do it loyally and eagerly. On the last occasion I had to go to an annual crime prevention meeting in Vancouver, I was impressed by the very broad representation from a number of the municipal and RCMP detachments from the lower mainland, and in some cases from around the province. Crime prevention is a very high priority in a number of detachments and municipal areas. We had a National Crime Prevention Week here, I think back in November; Mr. Kaplan came out from Ottawa for that occasion and presented some national crime prevention awards. In British Columbia those awards were given, I think in every case, to citizens who had had enormous support for the programs from their local detachments, whether it was the Surrey RCMP or the Saanich municipal force. They were responsible, really, for the support given to these crime prevention programs, the citizens then correctly receiving the acknowledgement and awards. I think crime prevention is terribly important. Unfortunately, it is never adequately funded. Everybody's in favour of preventive programs in social services, but we never put our money where our mouth is. I've been constantly frustrated ever since I've been in government about the chronically inadequate funding for prevention. Funding is always for maintenance not for prevention. But we have kept a presence in that field, and we have a strong and honest commitment to keep prevention work going. I just wish we had more funds in it.

[11:15]

I should talk about the other matter you raised, about sheriffs. There has been no decision taken to turn prisoner

[ Page 4238 ]

escort services over to the police. I know that that issue concerns a number of the mayors, who have viewed document service as the first step towards a general transfer of responsibilities. We have not made a decision to do that, and indeed would not make such a decision without a pretty careful understanding of what it would mean in manpower. I particularly think of smaller detachments and what the implications would be. That is something that would not be done lightly, I can assure you.

MS. BROWN: I'm glad that was straightened out, because I know there was some concern about this happening.

Just quickly, going back to prevention, I want to add that I am saddened, knowing the minister's commitment to prevention, about what's happening to funding for the Justice Institute, the People's Law School, CLEU, and the kind of people who are involved in the whole prevention system. I know he's going to be talking some more about it, but jumping ahead to that, rather than following in logical sequence — I'm getting ahead of myself — I just want to say that the work being done by the Justice Institute in terms of prevention is so critical that for it to undergo any kind of funding cut at this time seems very shortsighted; it certainly is a source of saving money in the long run.

On Monday of this week I attended a conference — jointly sponsored by the Justice Institute — on pornography and its impact on people in the community, in which Professors Donnerstein and Malamuth were brought in for a four-hour workshop with people working in the whole field of delivery of legal services, corrections, social work and teaching, and that kind of thing. I discovered to my amazement that a large portion of the cost of bringing in those two professors, who are experts in the field, was borne by a private citizen; that in fact that workshop would not have been possible if Mrs. Jancis Andrews, who herself is very concerned about the proliferation of that kind of material in our neighbourhood grocery stores and on newsstands around the province, and certainly through videotapes and that kind of thing, had not put up the money to cover the cost of bringing them in. The Justice Institute was able to give the use of their facilities and by charging each person $20 — which was a very nominal fee — that very important workshop was possible. It was also well attended. Certainly I recognized that a large number of the people there work in the corrections field — probation officers, social workers, court workers, people who are themselves police and RCMP. It seems to me that it's the kind of work which the Justice Institute does that should be protected. I'm very saddened to learn that the Justice Institute is also one of the services which is going to have its budget tampered with in a negative way. I'm going to speak later, at some length, about the People's Law School. I understand that CLEU is also going to come under the axe.

I want to get back onto corrections and deal with a topic which is of some concern to me. I'm hoping that the Attorney-General will speak, on our behalf, to the federal minister about this decision to introduce aversion therapy into the prisons for sex offenders. The positive or negative outcome of aversion therapy is unproven. Mr. Chairman, this is not an area that I am unfamiliar with, because a great deal of my training is in psychology; I know what these various therapies are supposed to do. Even though I have been cooped up in this House for the last 12 years, I have continued to follow what's happening in the field of psychology and social work. The research being done in aversion therapy has its supporters and its negative people as well, but until it's proven and we can see the value of it, I am really concerned about introducing this into the rehabilitation system at this time.

I don't know if you know what aversion therapy is, or if you've been following it in the newspapers. It is suggested that those people who are in prison as a result of sexual offences against young boys or girls, for example, are going to be shown pictures or video tapes — I'm not sure exactly what form it will take — of young children involving themselves in sexual acts with adults. Some kind of negative stimulus is going to be applied at the same time this is happening. It's the kind of therapy that's often used to get people to stop smoking or drinking. If you check with smokers who have taken aversion therapy to stop smoking, you will find that most of them are back smoking again within a couple of years. The percentage of successes is no greater or less than that used by people who use other methods to stop smoking.

The same thing is true of people who have used aversion therapy to stop drinking — this business of every time you have a drink you get a stimulus which makes you want to vomit or whatever. Years later, when they do an assessment of these people, they find that a large percentage of them return to drinking. In fact, the people who stop drinking as a result of the Alcoholics Anonymous program have a much better success rate than otherwise.

Why, then, are we introducing this? I know it's not the Attorney-General who is doing it, but he has some responsibility for what goes on in this province in terms of the corrections system. Why is the Attorney-General not speaking out in opposition to this very controversial form of therapy? People who are serving sentences because they have molested children — they have been involved with sexual intercourse with small children — are being exposed to, as I said, pictures, video tapes or whatever of adults and children involved in sexual acts. At the same time they are getting some kind of negative stimuli; either an electric shock or maybe the stimuli makes them vomit or gives them a headache or makes them feel some unpleasantness or something in return.

What are we doing? At the same time that we are trying desperately to eliminate the production, reproduction and distribution of pornographic material, we find the federal government endorsing the use of this thing in what we're told is supposed to be a therapeutic form. It doesn't make any sense to me. When we find out, Mr. Chairman, that someone is a murderer, what do we do? Do we put that person in prison and allow that person to watch murders being committed, and hope that that's going to cure them? Is that what we do? Is that the way in which we deal with murderers? If we run across someone who is a thief, do we put them in prison and show them pictures of breaking and entering, how to blow safes, and all that kind of thing, and then administer a mild shock and hope that that's the way we're going to cure them of that particular kind of crime? You know, pornography is hate material. That's what it is. It's hate literature against women and children. That's what it is. There's absolutely no justification for using that kind of material.... Even if it were proven to be 100 percent therapeutic, there would be no justification for using that kind of material in any instance to do anything whatsoever. That's condoning, aiding and abetting in the production, reproduction and distribution of hate literature.

[ Page 4239 ]

What was done during slavery? When someone was picked up for lynching a black in the South, did we then put those people in jail and show them pictures of lynchings in the hope that that would cure them? Was that endorsed then? As savage as that particular society was at that time, did it do that? Why then is the Attorney-General silent when exactly the same kind of thing is happening to children in our province? What are we going to do with that mass murderer, Mr. Olson, or whatever his name is — sit him down and show him pictures of young girls being raped and mutilated and sexually assaulted, and then administer a mild shock and hope that when he gets out of prison he won't do it again? What kind of perverse thinking is that? When are we going to be able to get this message across, through you, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Kaplan and the geniuses who put together these, for want of a better phrase, airy-fairy schemes? This is just absolute nonsense, and it makes absolutely no difference to me what kind of psychological jargon is used by the professionals to endorse and condone this sort of thing. There comes a point at which we say that this type of material is not fit for human consumption, and certainly as part of the justice system of this province and of this nation we are not going to condone it, and we're certainly not going to use it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to confess that I anticipated that the Attorney-General would have been the first person to leap onto the barricades and say: "Not in this province you don't. I have no control over Alberta and Ontario, and other places, if they want to use sexual aversion therapy. But not in this province you don't." And this, even when research does not indicate a 100 percent success rate! It is a very questionable form of therapy.

There are all kinds of therapists out there who think that the way to deal with a woman with depression is to go to bed with her. We're having problems with therapists who are doing that now. They say: "Well, you know, it's releasing all kinds of tensions and stuff." But we don't condone that. The College of Physicians and Surgeons doesn't condone that. The Medical Association speaks out against that. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) would speak out against that, if anyone tried to pull that one off and legitimize it in this province. So how can the Attorney-General explain his silence? What explanation is there for the silence on the part of the Attorney-General?

[11:30]

Now it is quite possible that I am doing the Attorney-General a disservice. Maybe he's been on the telephone with Mr. Kaplan, or whoever is responsible for this genius idea. Maybe they've been sending memos back and forth. Maybe there have been cables, conference calls and all those kinds of things. I'm just asking for an explanation; that's all. I'm just asking for an explanation from the Attorney-General as to why this thing is being permitted to take place in this province at this time.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, that was a highly passionate plea, Mr. Chairman, from a member who thinks that I'm the federal Solicitor-General, I guess; or that I have pointy headed therapy planners roaming this province anxiously considering schemes to introduce aversion therapy into institutions in British Columbia. That is not the case at all, but if the federal Solicitor-General wants to throw conferences, as he did in Vancouver recently within the last week under the auspices of Simon Fraser University, and outline steps that he's considering to try to deal with recidivist paedophiles and other dangerous sexual offenders who are in federal institutions, we at least go and listen to it before we shoot. I can tell you that the notion of some genius to show pornographic films to a paedophile and then induce various shocks into his system — having first stimulated him one way, then to stimulate him with shock for a negative response — is absolutely abhorrent and repulsive. But any attempt to deal with the problem of dangerous sexual offenders in our institutions — some of whom are not releasable, are recidivist or dangerous — and not release these people and put them back on the street is something that we should all encourage.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I must say I enjoyed the strong streak of conservatism I heard from the member in her remarks. I'd go considerably further and say that the restoration of capital punishment is important, particularly in areas of repeat sexual crimes. If there is ever an area where it is necessary to protect the public, if not to deter, it's there. We don't totally close our minds to attempts to try and deal with the dangerous sexual offender, but from the little bit I know about aversion therapy, it sounds goofy and reprehensible. I'm not an expert in that field, and I am most certainly under the impression that the idea is only an idea, that there are no plans to introduce it into British Columbia, but I will follow very closely general efforts to try to deal with the dangerous sexual offender to effect a cure. They have not been very successful, in my experience. Numbers of approaches have been tried and they have not been successful. Aversion therapy is an idea, but it is not a reality or a near reality, as I understand it.

MS. BROWN: I stated in my preamble that it was a federal decision, but I recognize that the Attorney-General has some kind of responsibility to at least let the federal decision-makers know that he considers the introduction of this within the boundaries of British Columbia, to use his own words, reprehensible. Apparently there is a plan to implement this at the Agassiz Mountain prison in the Fraser Valley, it's not just in the talking stage. It seems to me that in the same way the Attorney-General can talk to his federal counterpart about funding for young offenders and that kind of thing, he could say to the federal minister the things he said on the floor of the House here about his feelings on using this aversion therapy.

It is so disgusting when you listen to the way in which it is described. We are told that this is going to be done with dignity. "Sure," he said, "it's kiddie porn." Some of it is kiddie porn, but some of it is just pictures of little girls, and apparently what they're using is smell. They are going to see pictures of little girls and at the same time there is going to be an unpleasant odour released. So presumably every time they are in the presence of little girls they'll smell something bad. That's supposed to turn them off. Even the form used in aversion therapy is disgusting — associating little girls with a foul odour. You're dealing with some pretty sick people, right? You really are. Although I will not go as far as suggesting that they should all be taken out and shot at dawn, and although I agree completely with the Attorney-General that none of the therapy used with sexual offenders to date has proven to be very successful — I know that everyone is trying out something new — I also say that there is not now and never should be a justification for using and abusing and exploiting children in this manner. I'm asking the Attorney-

[ Page 4240 ]

General to get that message across to Ottawa, because I think that under the federal charter or under some piece of law somewhere, the Attorney-General can refuse to permit this kind of thing to go on in an institution in British Columbia, whether it's a federal institution or not. I'm hoping that he will get that message and take it to Ottawa on our behalf.

Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned about the cuts in funding for the corrections branch. I know I raised the issue earlier this year when we were dealing with last year's estimates and the memo which indicated that there would be real problems in security, safety and the quality of life inside the institutions if these cuts were carried through. Now that they have been implemented, I wonder if the Attorney-General could give us some indication, for example, as to what is happening in specific areas. I attendedPublic Accounts this morning, and there was quite a lot of discussion about the contracting out of the food services and the fact that it was going to be cheaper. However, I was a little bit concerned about the fact that there is not access to either a nutritionist or a dietician. One of the meals described to me, which was supposed to meet the Canada food guide, was weiners and beans. It didn't sound quite like it was meeting....

MR. COCKE: Hot dogs.

MS. BROWN: Is there a difference between hot dogs and weiners.

MR. COCKE: Yes.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I didn't know that. I thought hot dogs were weiners.

MR. COCKE: Hot dogs have a bun around them.

MS. BROWN: So what we have is an overabundance of starch — beans plus the bun. There was no mention of fruit or vegetables. Clearly the inmates are unhappy about the portions as well as the quality of the food they are getting.

The real question, which was raised by the Attorney-General's colleague the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), had to do with the loss of one more way of acquiring skills. Apparently the inmates used to work in the kitchens and presumably would learn something about preparing and cooking meals. That would be one marketable skill they would take with them when they were released. Certainly there's always room for short-order cooks around the province, either in lumber camps or in places where they serve hot dogs and beans and stuff. So they've lost that area of training, and at the same time there's no dietician and no access to a nutritionist, and generally there seems to be some discomfort about the quality and portions of food served.

HON. MR. SMITH: I guess any kind of institutional change is always greeted with suspicion and reaction. I guess in all institutions where people live, whether it's a residence or a custodial institution, any kind of change seems absolutely horrendous. People react very strongly to that and react very strongly to any change in food services. I gather that the meal you're referring to, hon. member, was lunch at Oakalla yesterday. Since you will at least concede that I'm an expert on lunch, I'm not shocked by a menu of hot dogs and beans, provided that there is a general nutritional balance overall during the day. Hot dogs and beans is not bread and gruel. It's not Devil's Island. It's a perfectly reasonable menu. It will be nutritionally monitored, and complaints on meals are always taken seriously.

The inmates are not being deprived of a major work program or educational training value program. They've simply, for the first month of the changeover, been kept out of the food services so that the adjustment by the caterers could be made and they could get in there. But at the end of that first month they're going to be actively involved again in helping in the kitchens and in the training program. In fact they'll be more involved than they were; we're going to expand it. But the first months of the changeover....

MR. COCKE: That is sheer, utter nonsense.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, it is not. Absolutely not at all. Those are most uncalled for sotto voce comments from the sour member for New Westminster, who doesn't get on his feet but makes them under his breath and who is a connoisseur of lunch at Oakalla, I know. Anyway, I tell you that the training program is going to be continued, and the inmates are going to be involved in the kitchen.

MS. BROWN: The minister did not respond to my other questions about the fears about continued security and those kinds of things. I can read the memo all over again if the minister wants to go through that, but I'm hoping he'll have remembered what I raised in February and respond to the fears outlined in that memo.

HON. MR. SMITH: I can do that maybe at a little more length after lunch, if you want, because I took....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Lunch is important. My hot dogs and beans are waiting too, you see.

The population increases in the institutions that were expected and projected did not occur, and they have levelled off. The changes that we had to make in shift patterns, which we did make — we negotiated those with the BCGEU — have worked reasonably well. We have made a number of changes, it's true. If you want to ask me specifically about any of them or any of the institutions, I'll be glad to respond on that basis. But the memorandum that you referred to and the cuts that we were looking at.... Some of those cuts we certainly did make, but we tried to make them always on the basis that we would in no way jeopardize security in any of the institutions, and also that we would not — indeed, which reflects on security — jeopardize the quality of service that was there before. If you do, that again has a security aspect to it. So we had to be more efficient.

We had to make shift changes. We had some alterations we could make after the BCGEU negotiations. We did that, and we have not had, I don't think, problems arising out of that. We've probably had some criticism from those that had a different system before, but I don't think that there have been serious problems, hon. member. If there are specific problems, I'd be glad to address them.

[ Page 4241 ]

[11:45]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the Attorney-General is suggesting that this would be a good time for the committee to rise. We could come back and go into more detail after he's had his lunch, because he doesn't function well without lunch. So, Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:46 a.m.