[ Page 1067 ]

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 12, 1974
Night sitting

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates.

Mr. Steves — 1067

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1068

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1070

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1071

Mr. McClelland — 1071

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1078

Ms. Brown — 1079

Mr. Gardom — 1082

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1087

Mr. Curtis — 1088

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1089

Mr. Wallace — 1089

Statement

Motions on the order paper. Mr. Speaker — 1091

Mr. Chabot — 1092

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1974

The House met at 8 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(continued)

On vote 11: Attorney-General's office, $79,652.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in support of the comments made by the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) before the dinner adjournment. It seems that the opposition didn't like them too much, and I'm sorry that there is so much defence of the landlord class and that they have not too much regard for the tenants and their problems.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House and of the Hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) some of the correspondence that I have had in the last couple of days about the plight of the tenants, and I would like to read some of this to bring it to the attention of the House. I had one letter from an old-age pensioner who is blind and disabled and in very difficult times. I'm not going to read the entire thing. It's a very sad letter, in which the person suggests that myself as a backbencher and the lot of us as government have not done that much in the area of trying to control the rents. I will read part of it to give you some idea of what some of these people are up against. The letter says:

"What the (blank) good is an increase of $5 in my pension when the rent increases are as high as 60 per cent? I receive a blind pension of $214.85, and now pay $165 a month rent for an apartment. So I am left with $48.85 to eat on and clothe myself. Perhaps you will go and suggest that I get a bed-sitting one room and pay an average of $22 a week for it, and end up eating in a restaurant. Why isn't there something to get landlords off our backs, eh?"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that there is a motion on the order paper standing in the name of the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) to deal with this subject. Also, this is not, strictly speaking, within the administrative responsibility of the Minister.

MR. STEVES: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the Hon. Attorney-General is responsible for looking after the Landlord and Tenant Act. There are some amendments or some suggestions on rent controls….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point is that this would involve matters of legislation rather than administration.

MR. STEVES: Well, perhaps I'll deal with it in such a way — I have written to the Attorney-General on several occasions, and presented letters to him, and I would like to present that one to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Table the letter.

MR. STEVES: I would like to deal with rent problems as well. I would like to mention this one letter. The person talks about a rent increase from an apartment….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would again draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that any matter concerning rent controls, et cetera, is a matter of legislation. Therefore it is not in order.

MR. STEVES: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I haven't been suggesting rent controls, but there was a very liberal, discussion earlier this evening on it, and other people were not brought to order for going into these areas.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The Chair rules according to the rules, not according to what took place previously.

MR. STEVES: Mr. Chairman, I would hope then that the Hon. Attorney-General would be able to look into these matters, whether it is a matter of rent controls or not. I suggest that he might be able to look into the matters that I am presenting in this correspondence. I am not suggesting here that I am asking him at this time to rule tonight whether we are having rent controls or not. I am simply asking him to look into the matter, Mr. Chairman.

The other matter I was mentioning is partly to do with rents, and partly to do with parking and extra charges for Hydro in car ports. I think that this is something that the Attorney-General should be aware of that is happening to the tenants out in my community and throughout the greater Vancouver area.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Just read the letters.

MR. STEVES: These are letters that I haven't sent

[ Page 1068 ]

to him. I am just suggesting that I will be passing these letters on to him. I have passed on about two or three hundred others that the Attorney-General has been looking into and I would like to congratulate him for the attention that his department has been giving to them.

The other thing that I would like to draw the attention of the House to has nothing to do with rent controls, but it has to do with the Law Reform Commission. I am a bit disturbed, Mr. Chairman, at the philosophy of the Law Reform Commission. I would like to draw your attention to page 294 of the Law Reform Commission's report, where it states that in the area of landlord and tenant relations the remedies of self-help ought to be discouraged if other means of solving disputes can be found. I am a bit concerned that by adopting that particular philosophy, we are ruling out a lot of the options that might be open to us. I hope that in considering help for the tenants the Attorney-General will consider areas where the tenants are able to help themselves, rather than strictly following the legalese and the type of strict, rigid law reform that the Law Reform Commission is imposing.

They have come down against self-help on the part of tenants, they have come down against collective bargaining on the part of tenants, they have come down against the rent review boards, and so on. I hope that the Attorney-General, in considering the philosophy of the Law Reform Commission report, will consider that basically there may be some area in landlord and tenant relationships where self-help is perhaps a good philosophy and a good area that we should allow them to operate within.

I am very much concerned that we should not be rigidly imposing things upon people, and that there should be some areas where they can negotiate and work together to help alleviate the problems that the tenants are facing.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I think it has been an interesting debate in the last few moments. Quite honestly, the NDP caucus has decided to put the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) in his place for having leaked all the caucus secrets with regard to landlord and tenant problems. I notice he is not here this evening, and I am sorry he can't be here to defend himself. Maybe this is a way of getting an emergency debate before the House — that is, to breach your rules, Mr. Chairman, which I don't intend to do.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Breach and run.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise something which is clearly within the area of the responsibility of the Attorney-General. What I want to know from the Attorney-General is when the women of this province are going to have equality before the law in British Columbia.

There are some tragic situations occurring in the province, and the women are bearing the brunt. It is because of an unwillingness on the part of the Attorney-General to see that they are properly looked after.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): No unwillingness. The spirit is willing.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, but poor old Britannia is apparently heading for another dose of socialism, and that she doesn't need.

I would just like to draw the attention of the Attorney-General to an article that appeared in The Vancouver Sun of Wednesday, February 27, 1974. The headline is: "Payment Defaults Cost $384 Million." It's a story from Canadian Press out of Ottawa, and it says:

"Taxpayers may be paying roughly $384 million annually in welfare payments because of separated or divorced parents who neglect to make court-ordered support payments."

We have those cases right here in British Columbia — cases which have been drawn to the attention of the Department of the Attorney-General, without solution. Not only is this a burdensome cost to the Province of British Columbia in respect to welfare payments, but it is casting an unbearable burden upon mothers and wives who have been deserted by their husbands, who have sought justice before our courts, and haven't received any.

I want to bring one specific case to the attention of this committee. It is one of 30 emanating from the Province of British Columbia. I have the authorization of the woman involved to give her name so that the Attorney-General can locate this file — Mrs. Gwen Battle. She was deserted by her husband in November, 1972. She is very well named, Mr. Chairman, because she has been in a battle ever since November, 1972, and she hasn't had any success yet. Deserted by her husband in 1972, leaving her with two children, she sought redress in the courts of this province, and in February, 1973, she obtained an order from a judge in British Columbia for the payment of $917 a month for her support and that of her children — $200 for each child and $517 for the wife.

The only security that was available to enforce the order was certain shares in a company that belonged to the husband. The judge ordered that those shares be held as security for the payment of this obligation. But, Mr. Chairman, the husband upon leaving this woman and her children went to the Province of Quebec. Under the reciprocal legislation which we

[ Page 1069 ]

have in this country, the order, made by a judge in West Vancouver, was sent in April of 1973 to Quebec, and by the month of May had reached the Superior Court in the City of Montreal.

Due to some difficulties in the administration of their proceedings in the City of Montreal, nothing was done until September when the matter was finally placed in the hands of a lawyer in Montreal. He then asked for the material which apparently had been lost in the interim. As a result of this request, a complete set of the records from the Province of British Columbia was sent to this lawyer in Montreal. Then, lo and behold, negotiations started with the husband — negotiations which were designed not to perfect the order made by a judge in British Columbia, but indeed to resolve this matter by settlement.

Then there was silence. Nothing was heard at all. In January of 1974, Mrs. Battle, having received no assistance whatsoever — by this time the matter had been fully referred to the Attorney-General's department — wired the lawyer in Montreal saying she planned to come down to discuss the matter with him. She was advised by this lawyer not to come, but suggested instead that she choose a private lawyer. She engaged somebody, at her own expense, to handle her affairs in the Province of Quebec.

Mind you, here's a woman who all these months had been without the support of her husband; living on welfare to support herself and her children; borrowing those moneys which she needed for expenses over and above welfare; receiving no assistance from the Department o f the Attorney-General, except their willingness to try and ensure that the law was enforced.

In order to get some results, she's now hired her own lawyer in Montreal. She is obliged to go at the end of this week to Montreal, at her own expense, for the purpose of instructing her lawyer there. Her husband has now indicated that he's willing to settle — settle, if you please, Mr. Attorney-General — the order made in British Columbia in February, 1973, at a reduction to $800 a month, but he refuses to pay any arrears. More than a year this woman has been without support from her husband, and the husband is now offering to settle.

It seems to me, Mr. Attorney-General, it's a clear case that there is one law for the men, and one law for the women. By the inability of the Attorney-General's department to see the enforcement of orders made by courts of competent jurisdiction in British Columbia, you can get away with this kind of nonsense. What is the end result?

So far as the Province of British Columbia is concerned, they've paid to this woman and her children $3,180 in welfare. In addition, to assist her in a matter of an emergency which occurred because of flooding which took place in West Vancouver, they've loaned her, from welfare, $350. She's had to borrow money for her medical coverage, dental expenses and the like. Her total loans from the bank are $2,500. She's borrowed $500 or $600 from her relatives.

During her marriage, during the time she and her husband lived together, he apparently was able to encourage her to sign a note at the bank so he could buy a boat. The boat has since been seized and sold, but there's an outstanding balance on that note of $600 or $700. And this is still a liability to this woman in the Province of British Columbia. She's being charged with the interest on this loan.

Now, in order to get some relief in the Province of Quebec, she's obliged to spend between $300 or $400 to travel down there this weekend in order to instruct her lawyer. She's already paid this lawyer $100 to retain him. She's incurred legal expense in the Province of British Columbia of about $1,500 which she hasn't paid in order to assist her in getting this private legal advice.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: To Mr. Kowerski?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. I'm glad the Attorney-General knows about the case.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I try to keep up with these things.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, you should keep up with these kind of cases. Why didn't you give this woman some assistance?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I just keep up with it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, keep up with it!

AN HON. MEMBER: He'll have to ask the Minister of Finance about it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: When it's all over, Mr. Chairman, if this woman is able to go to Montreal, and through her own private lawyer to get some redress in the Province of Quebec, and to force her husband to pay the order that was made in the Province of British Columbia more than a year ago, she'll still be married to this guy, and she faces the problem of a divorce after all these difficulties.

What I cannot understand is — because this is only one of 30 cases of a similar kind — if there are difficulties in the Province of Quebec in getting them to fulfil their responsibilities under the reciprocal legislation we have, why the Attorney-General's department hasn't seen fit to instruct a lawyer in the City of Montreal to handle all these cases coming out of British Columbia — to resolve these difficulties.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, for the welfare

[ Page 1070 ]

expense alone for this one woman, they could have hired a solicitor in the City of Montreal to resolve all 30 cases. But no, we've been 13 or 14 months in this one particular case waiting for the Province of Quebec to fulfil its responsibility. Because of some procedural problem there, some disorganization in their legal aid situation, nothing has been done all these months. And this one woman, in order to get her own redress, has now had to go to this kind of expense.

No wonder that the total for Canada is $384 million in direct welfare expense as a result of situations such as this, if this woman's case is anything like an example. We have this one case, involving her own borrowing, her own losses, and the welfare expense exceeds $7,000 or $8,000 in one year. Multiply that by 30 and you're already into astronomic figures — figures that could be saved if the Department of the Attorney-General would ensure that the laws of this province and the orders of judges in this province are enforced.

If other provinces are not prepared under the reciprocal arrangement to fulfil their part of the responsibility, don't wash your hands of it, Mr. Attorney-General, do something. Hire somebody if the people in the other provinces aren't prepared to do their job. Then when you have your meetings with the other Attorneys-General from the provinces, when your Deputy Minister meets with them, solve the matter at that level. But don't cast the burden on the individual citizen. Don't cast the burden on the deserted wife and mother, who with all the problems that situation alone creates has to face the responsibility to go on welfare, the obligation to borrow moneys — all the while having to raise her family by herself.

Now, the thing that makes this case so shocking is that the husband is a person of means. In November of 1972, which was the last concrete information that this woman had concerning her husband's income, he was receiving an income of $24,000 a year plus bonuses plus an expense account from his company, plus a free car and free gasoline. The shares in the company, which are supposedly held for security for the payment of this obligation, are worth $250,000. This is not a man who doesn't have the means to fulfil his obligations; he has lots of means. He just doesn't have the willingness to meet his obligations, and unless the orders of the courts of the Province of British Columbia can be enforced, people of this kind will continue to fail in their obligations.

While we can criticize the individual, so far as the Province of British Columbia is concerned, it's a complete and utter failure on the part of the Department of the Attorney-General to see that the laws of this province are enforced for the protection of all our citizens.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we enforce the laws as best we can here in the Province of British Columbia. We establish legal aid offices as quickly as we can; the latest one we hope to establish is Campbell River, not Montreal.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Everything's up to date in Campbell River.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's asking a bit much, it seems to me, when we have a reciprocal agreement with the Province of Quebec for the enforcement of these judgments, that we should enforce the judgments of people because they happen to be in British Columbia and the Province of Quebec. That's a very big order. If we do that, then I suppose that if somebody's husband takes off to Timbuktu we'd have just as much an obligation to employ a lawyer for that person. Now maybe it's fine idealistically, but where does it end?

AN HON. MEMBER: Within the borders of Canada.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You limit it to Canada; well, that's something. But let me point this out: Quebec has a legal aid scheme; British Columbia has a legal aid scheme; Quebec's scheme has denied this lady legal aid because they maintain that she has means of her own.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, no.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't know the truth of that. Well, they rejected her, didn't they?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: They did not.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, she applied to legal aid and then she has to go to a private lawyer at the present time.

This is the way I understood the case: that she had applied for legal aid to enforce her B.C. judgment in Quebec, and she had been denied legal aid in the Province of Quebec.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's not true.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Therefore, when I heard about that, I got in touch with Mr. Robert Norman, who is the Deputy of the Minister of Justice there, and I asked him to intercede on her behalf to see that she gets legal aid in Quebec to enforce her judgment. But if a Quebec deserted spouse sought to enforce a judgment in the Province of B.C., and qualified for legal aid, that person would get legal aid in this province. On the other hand….

[ Page 1071 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, in Quebec they do. Anyhow, our legal aid scheme is open to people outside of the Province who qualify and who have got a good case in this province. I expect the same of Quebec. I expect them to accord the same privilege to our citizens under their legal aid plan. And that having broken down, I have written — I think we wired at one point — to Robert Norman and asked him to intercede.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I don't like to correct the Attorney-General, but his facts are wrong. It was sent down to Quebec to be dealt with by legal aid, and was sent to Montreal to be handled under their legal aid system. In the summer of 1973 the advice came back that the Montreal legal aid system was in the process of restructuring and they weren't able to handle any cases, and this and the other 29 or 30 cases from British Columbia were stalled in the same way. Finally, the lawyer who was then involved in legal aid in Montreal went into private practice, and it was suggested that he take the case into his private practice to handle. He has since chosen not to do so.

Your department, Mr. Attorney-General, knew of these facts, and I just can't understand your reliance upon a legal aid system which breaks down, particularly when the Province of British Columbia, out of its own pocket, is going to a $3,000 welfare expense to maintain this woman and her children on welfare — not to say anything of the cost to herself. But all this is excused because once you push it out of the jurisdiction of the Province of British Columbia, it's supposed to be handled under the legislation.

If it's not being handled, Mr. Attorney-General, it's far more than just a breakdown as it applies to one woman. The whole scheme has broken down. In order to ensure that the orders of British Columbia are being enforced, and that our citizens are being protected, the very least you could have done for the temporary period of the few months that legal aid broke down in Montreal was to engage your own counsel in Montreal to handle these cases. But no, you haven't done it. Now, this woman, after seeking advice in British Columbia and so on, she has finally had to give in and hire her own lawyer on borrowed money in order to get her rights.

I understand what the reciprocal legislation means. There's no question that if it all works smoothly then all provinces who belong to the reciprocal scheme can sit back and say, "Fine, it's being taken care of." But when it's not, when it breaks down, then it seems to me that the Attorney-General's department has the responsibility to step in — not only to save our money, but to help this woman.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, for the next couple of hours I'd like to talk a bit about drug dependency, drug addiction. I first want to say that it's to the sorrow of British Columbia that all initiatives in attempting to solve the problem of drug dependency and drug abuse in this province seem to have come to a complete halt — particularly in reference to the initiatives being maintained by the Attorney-General's department.

The question that the people in British Columbia are asking today is simple: what are you going to do about the terrible problem in British Columbia of drug dependency? It's clear that we can't wait any longer in this province.

I'd like to say before I go any further, Mr. Attorney-General, that we're not prepared to accept any excuses that the blame lies in the past because I know that's what you're going to say. We're not prepared to accept any excuses, Mr. Chairman, at all. No excuses at all. We're only prepared to accept some answers.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just on a point of order. The Legislature has established the Drug and Alcohol Commission under the Hon. Norman Levi. This is a very important problem, but should you not take it up in that way?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I intend to take it up at that time as well. But this is a problem that concerns the Attorney-General of British Columbia and he'd better start acting on it, and I think it's time we brought it up under the Department where it belongs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order, I would rule that the Hon. Member may bring up matters in this regard providing they relate to the administrative responsibilities of the Attorney-General.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That's what I was doing and that's what I intend to continue to do.

What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that if we don't do something now — and it's a problem which bears a direct responsibility of the Attorney-General's Department — if we don't do something now we're going to develop or allow a destructive force to develop that will threaten our greatest resource in this province. That, of course, is the people of British Columbia and particularly the youth of this province.

The Attorney-General said, I believe in the last session or the session before, that the problems of juveniles in our society and drugs would be the first priority of this government as far as he was concerned — and certainly the first priority of a task force which was set up to study a lot of problems relating to

[ Page 1072 ]

correction, drugs, crime and its relation to the community.

The Attorney-General said that that was his first priority: juveniles and drugs. Do you agree with that? Right. That's all very well to have that as your priority, but it doesn't mean a thing if you don't do something and if you don't develop some kinds of programmes. And I don't see any evidence of anything happening, no evidence whatsoever.

The Attorney-General has had a report from one of his staff, Dr. Matheson, a pretty comprehensive report about the problem of drug dependency. What's being done about that? It looks like nothing. Has that report been shelved? It certainly hasn't been open to any kind of public discussion.

Has the Attorney-General's Department had the word from the social workers in the government to lay off? Is the muscle being applied to the Attorney-General's department, like it was applied to the Agriculture Minister's department, to lay off? Has it?

I'd like to know, and I think the people of British Columbia would like to know, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General, whether or not he's made any recommendations to the cabinet about the Matheson report.

I feel little but pity for the Health Minister (Hon. Mr. Cocke), Mr. Chairman, who sits and laughs about the most serious problem facing British Columbia today — sits and laughs. What kind of a Health Minister are you? What kind of a Health Minister is it that doesn't even care about the problems that are killing our youth in British Columbia today? And you sit and laugh. It's a serious problem, Mr. Chairman.

There's nothing in the budget to deal with drug dependency, not in the Attorney-General's department. There's nothing but cutbacks in the Health Department and nothing in any other department of this government to deal with the problems of drug dependency. Where is the money? There isn't any money.

The Attorney-General says that this is a top priority. If it really is a top priority, Mr. Chairman, I'd say that it's time the Attorney-General moved to stop the tug-of-war that is apparently going on between the Attorney-General's department and the Human Resources department. It's time that tug-of-war was stopped because the problem that's concerned is too important to allow that kind of thing to continue.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney-General had better start to take a strong and public initiative in this whole matter, because I believe in all of my heart, Mr. Chairman, that the chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission will never ever approach this problem honestly; and it must be done from some other department of government, notably the Attorney-General's department at this time.

The commission so far has done absolutely nothing, but I note with interest a comment recently in the newspapers, Mr. Chairman, by the chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission, who said that he "is working through the Attorney-General's department with volunteers in the B.C. Pen."

Now I don't know for sure what the Attorney-General's department has to do with the B.C. Pen, but nevertheless that's the public statement by the chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission.

It might help all of us in British Columbia to just take a look at what form that programme is taking. It's called the Drug Study Group and it's made up of members who are behind bars, all drug addicts, admitted drug addicts, and there's nothing wrong with that. I think that's a commendable objective. But we should look at what they're doing and what some of their criteria might be.

First of all, they must be 30 years of age or older in order to get involved in this. They must be drug addicts; and one of the criteria is interesting: it says "No B.S." That's not what it says exactly, but I'll use the abbreviation — "no B.S. or games to win short-term goals like passes, parole and the rest of the carrots that have helped to perpetuate the myth that most addicts want to quit."

One of their functions is to expose the myth of abstinence being the only answer. Do you suppose this might be a loaded committee?

When I talked about drugs in the House during the budget debate I was sent this information along with a letter, and I really feel that the government would be interested in what I've received. One of the documents is called a profile of the Drug Study Group, and I won't read it all — just some of the quotes in it.

"All the so-called treatments have proven time and time again to be of no avail." Sounds like Mr. Stein. "We have accepted the fact that we will always be addicts. We do not advocate that being addicted to any opiate is a good thing or a desirous habit. We are saying that for us in particular, and for most addicts generally, there is no choice. We are proposing an experiment and we are offering ourselves as volunteers."

Then the letter, the personal letter that I received, might be interesting.

"Our group's reaction after reading your press statements re drug treatment was dismay at your total lack of understanding of the current drug problem and your attack on Mr. Stein of the drug commission. The one person who has taken the first positive steps in 60 years is Peter Stein. His proposals for a pilot study using maintenance would prove

[ Page 1073 ]

successful if given a chance, and one successful pilot study is worth a hundred plausible projects without practicable goals.

"History has shown us that while abstinence is desirable, it is never attained, and therefore is impractical as a solution to our drug problems. Your labeling of Mr. Stein's theories as irresponsible without testing them and at the same time praising Malcolm Matheson's theories, which consist of a treatment that no one will or can define, as being responsible, is in itself irresponsible and borders on the criminal. When you consider that such thinking has been responsible for our present drug problem…."

I won't read it all.

"Your statement that providing legal drugs will achieve absolutely nothing has not taken into consideration the stabilizing effects it has had in keeping Britain's addict population small and under control."

Some of the people involved in the addict problem in Britain would be interested in that and would find that a meaningful statement.

"A maintenance programme attached to the larger hospitals across the country would eliminate your fear that all the addicts in Canada would flock to B.C. This myth of a mass migration of addicts is just another ploy to impede the only realistic solution to drug addiction."

That's, of course, maintenance on the drug of their choice.

"You describe Peter Stein as someone with no experience and no successes anywhere in drug treatment, but judiciously refrain from mentioning any person or agency that can claim a success."

Later this evening I'd like to mention a person or agency that can claim a success.

"If Peter Stein is given the chance he will show you what success is. Your experienced Matheson, law makers and health departments have experienced only one thing: failure. And it is customary for these people to attribute poor results to insufficient financing, and to use the evidence of a programme's failure as an argument for expanding it. That is why today we have failures expanding at the same rate as the addict population."

Here's a most interesting comment, Mr. Chairman.

"Your proposal" — he's talking about me, of course — "for more drug education at the school level has proven to be counter-productive and arouses an unhealthy curiosity in inquiring minds as to the false glamour associated with the addict's lifestyle. Legalized maintenance of addicts is the nemesis of the traffickers and people like yourself.

"Mr. Matheson and all the advocates of abstinence could not be more helpful to the drug trafficker. I know that you are not in their employ but they would gladly pay you for expressing your views as you ensure them an ever-expanding market. The Drug Study Group of the B.C. Penitentiary would like to invite you to one of our meetings."

Then they continue:

"We may not alter your opinions but we will educate you in the realities of drug addiction."

I'm sure they would. I have no doubt that they would educate me, Mr. Chairman, in the realities of drug addiction, and while that paints a fantastic picture of maintenance as the only way, and heroin addiction as a problem which really isn't of concern to Canadians, maybe a short moment to read a letter to the editor in The Vancouver Sun recently, might be in order. This letter is headed "Back From the Dead," and it says:

"Sir, after using heroin for three years without a break, having anywhere from one to 25 caps a day, I finally came face to face with something real that I couldn't fix away any more. My wife and daughter were the real thing in my life and junk was the unreal thing. I was faced with the reality that I had to make a choice, something a junky rarely does, because junk always comes first. No matter what, junk comes first.

"I think the only way I can explain it is if you're watching a really good show and you have to go to the bathroom. Your body keeps sending you messages but you don't want to leave the show. Finally you give in and go. When you're finished it's a relief and you feel great, but when you get back to the show you find you've missed the best part and you're sad.

"That's similar to what many junkies go through every day; only it's not a show they miss, but life. I've used every trick and dirty thing a person can do, and if they didn't work to get me my fix, I turned into a poor excuse for a human.

"Now that I'm clean I can look at what I did and what I was with revulsion and pity, but I know now that I was not that person. That person was something made of junk, and I'm made of blood and guts and meat and bones. When you're made of junk you're nothing. You don't count. You're dead, because that's what you want — death to everything but your heart. Your mind no longer functions as it was meant to.

"Listen to me, world; I'm free. I'm happy. I'm alive. I'm made of flesh and bones. I'm a clean junky. Hooray! It's beautiful to come back from the dead."

[ Page 1074 ]

That's the other side of the story, Mr. Chairman, that was told by those people from the Drug Study Group in the B.C. Pen. Those people told us in that letter that there's nothing wrong with a maintenance programme — that a drug addict, given a sensible and reasonable proportion of his drug, can function normally. But that's baloney. It's baloney, Mr. Chairman. No one functions normally while addicted to any kind of a drug.

I was reading the other day in a magazine — I don't recall which magazine it was — a description of the doctors who suffer from drug addiction. This person who was writing the story was telling us how to spot a doctor who has become an addict. He said: "The doctor's efficiency begins to suffer. He becomes irregular in his hours. He makes minor mistakes. He evades authority figures. He tends to make his hospital rounds at odd hours." And he went on and on.

The basic thing he was trying to tell us is that there is a notable change in the personality of the addict, and that personality change does not allow him to function as a normal person. No way can he ever function as a normal person.

When I read that letter over and over again from the people in the Drug Study Group, I remember the words I have been told by people who have dealt with drug addicts time and time and over and over again. The one thing they always tell me is that addicts are great salesmen, fantastic salesmen. They're the greatest manipulators, the greatest con artists going.

They have one goal and one goal only, and it comes out very clear in that kind of a letter, that kind of a programme. That goal, Mr. Chairman, is to be legally maintained on the drug of their choice on their terms. They are looking for a source of supply and not a cure. We must always remember that when dealing with drug addicts, because right now, in the directions that we're going in this province, we're playing right into the hands of those manipulators.

With your indulgence for just a half a minute I would like, Mr. Chairman, to just remind the House and the Attorney-General of a couple of the comments that have been made by the chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission, because I don't think that we can separate the two. I've said that there's a tug-of-war going on and it's time that that tug-of-war stopped, because if we're ever going to arrive at some kind of a solution, that's the only way we'll do it — working in concert, not in competition with each other.

The Stein commission has said that they're calling on thousands and thousands of volunteers to take over the job of looking after the drug addicts in this province. In part that's all right because we certainly have to return this problem to the community to some degree. We've got to get the community involved or we're never going to solve the problem, and I understand that.

But you've got to also ask yourself: how many doctors in the community today are willing to work with addicts? I doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney-General can name 10 who would willingly take on the job of working with addicts, because those doctors have been manipulated and conned for too many years now, and they don't want any part of treating drug addicts today.

I want to warn the Attorney-General that there is no way that community groups — regardless of the kinds of thrust that they have, regardless of the kind of feelings they have for the problem — there's no way that community groups can cope with this problem. If they are given the job and if there isn't any back-up facility available, the addict population in this province will spread like wildfire; that's a prediction.

The last person in the world, Mr. Chairman, to deal with an addict is a naive and vulnerable community worker, a volunteer, because the addict will manoeuvre his way into that volunteer's life and twist that person's life and destroy the community volunteer. It will happen just as sure as anything.

I think that the chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission unfortunately has bought the addicts' story hook, line and sinker, and it's time for the Attorney-General to bail him out.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's a different department.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes it is, Mr. Chairman; it's a different department. But I think, as I've said, that you had better get together and find out where you're going. It's your responsibility, through you, Mr. Chairman, to make sure that that's done. The Attorney-General has that responsibility in this province.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): What's your solution?

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll tell you what my solution is in a minute, Mr. Chairman, through you to the little fellow in the back there. (Laughter.)

I want to warn the Attorney-General that the chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission, in my opinion, is basically pro-drug. Pro-drug!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the Hon. Member discussing the Alcohol and Drug Commission at this time?

MR. McCLELLAND: No, I'm discussing the estimates of the Attorney-General's department, Mr. Chairman, if that's all right with you.

He says the treatment programmes won't work,

[ Page 1075 ]

nobody has tried them and nobody has listened. Well, that's not true, because a lot of programmes have been tried and a lot of programmes have worked, all kinds of them, Mr. Chairman, but we haven't listened. You, know, not too long ago they held a seminar in Vancouver — I believe it was sponsored by UBC — at which a number of people were called to talk about this problem of drug dependency. It was in the Hotel Vancouver. I don't recall the exact date, but it wasn't long ago. It was the day on which the so-called Matheson proposal was made public for the first time. It was a seminar in Vancouver. A number of people were there, including Dr. Matheson of the Attorney-General's department, Mr. Chairman.

At that seminar we were exposed — I was exposed for the first time — to the programme in Japan, and it was very interesting, extremely interesting. I want to read a couple of the items from that programme that all of the legislators in this House should read. It's contained in the task force on correctional services and facilities issued by the Attorney-General's department. I won't read it all but I will read part of it. It points out:

"In 1961 and 1962 the number of addicts in Japan was estimated at 40,000. Further to that, there was an abuse of sleeping pills among teenagers. The seriousness of the problem of heroin abuse prompted the Japanese government to take decisive steps for effective suppression and control. By all-inclusive counter-measures, the heroin epidemic subsided rapidly. Since 1966 in Japan, few heroin addicts have been discovered."

As a matter of fact, we were told at that seminar, Mr. Chairman, that as far as they knew in Japan now, there were only 100 heroin addicts in the whole of Japan, and those 100 heroin addicts were on Okinawa, which has just recently been taken over from the United States. In Japan proper they couldn't find any addicts, but there were 40,000 of them just a few years previous — 40,000 and a terrible problem, Mr. Chairman, with youngsters abusing pills of all kinds; and we've seen that in Canada. That problem too was eradicated in Japan.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did they do that?

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm glad you asked, Mr. Member. I won't attempt to paraphrase this, I'll read directly from the report of the people from Japan:

"The success experienced in Japan appears to be based on five major factors. The first was the promotion of comprehensive and coordinated counter-measures. The government established a firm and consistent policy that there would be no drug-maintenance programmes allowed…"

Let's get that very straight: no drug-maintenance programmes allowed in the country.

"…and that the country was determined to rid itself of heroin and drug abuse. As a consequence of this policy, close co-operation was developed between all agencies and Ministries concerned with law enforcement and the movement of goods and people. This included the Ministries concerned with maritime control and immigration as well as health and law enforcement. This in turn included a much tighter control being placed over the manufacture and distribution of legal drugs, with a very tight surveillance on their use by doctors.

"The second was the reinforcement of the police. There was a substantial increase in the size of the police staff assigned to the control and suppression of the narcotic trafficking. And through a thorough and sustained crackdown of the gangster groups, the police exposed the relationship between illicit narcotics and these organizations."

The third, and probably the most important is one factor that people in British Columbia sometimes tell us that we can't expect, but I don't believe that. I think that if given the proper opportunity, we can expect the same kind of results in this province.

"The third was the encouragement by the general public for the kind of programmes which the Government of Japan had implemented. Through the mass media an extensive campaign was launched against the crimes of drug trafficking. Public opinion was aroused, demanding the eradication of narcotic crimes along with the elimination of acts of violence. Along with the development of public support for the actions taken against narcotic trafficking a great deal of attention was given to the education of the public in order to make them knowledgeable about drugs and the dangers inherent in their use."

I want once again to hearken back to that letter I read from the Drug Study Group which said that no way do we ever want to start educating our young about the evils of drugs because that's not good. Well, in Japan they found it was pretty good.

"The fourth item was the strengthening of penal provisions. The courts handed out more severe sentences than before to criminal addicts and drug traffickers. The law was revised to provide a maximum of a life term and a fine of 5 million yen — I don't know how much that is in Canadian money — for trafficking in drugs. Severe sentences coupled with the priority given to the police to narcotic offences acted as a powerful psychological restraint to potential narcotic offenders.

"The fifth of the entire programme was

[ Page 1076 ]

compulsory hospitalization of drug addicts. Legislation was developed to provide for compulsory hospitalization of addicts for a maximum of six months. In the hospitalization period, no methadone or heroin is used, and withdrawal symptoms are eased with mild tranquilizers. This medical programme is made possible with use not only of the general hospitals but also nine special hospitals established for the treatment of addicts. There are counsellors and supportive counseling services as well. After release, the addict is kept under close supervision in the community for a continuing period and provided with the necessary support and controls to prevent his return to the use of drugs."

I won't read any more. There's a lot more there. Of course, there's more to it than that, but basically that's the programme. The point is that heroin addiction in Japan has virtually been wiped out. There isn't any. It's as simple as that.

There's another approach here called the "Baltimore approach." Rather than read that out this evening, perhaps all of you would like to read it. It's as enlightening as the Japan approach.

I'm not suggesting we adopt that approach holus-bolus in Canada, but we're stupid if we don't learn from it. Stein says nothing will work. We say things are happening, but nobody is listening, including the Attorney-General. We have proposals like the Matheson proposal. I mentioned earlier that that report was made public at the meeting I talked about. Perhaps it might be a good idea to talk about the Matheson proposal a little bit and what it's all about.

It's fairly simple; it's a simple report, not complicated by any means. Once again, I won't bore you. I respect your intelligence, Mr. Chairman. I know you'll go out and read it in the morning. Basically it recommends that public health facilities be developed regionally around the province to allow the non-criminal user voluntary access to treatment. It is recommended that the addict who wishes to engage in a voluntary treatment programme be dealt with as a public health problem rather than being left until he reaches the stage where, in order to support his habit, he enters as an offender into the criminal justice system.

It gives a programme, first of all, of voluntary access to the treatment system; the police serving notice on an addict to report for treatment; the police being allowed to concentrate on trafficking rather than possession. And something else: it allows the police to serve notice on such cases as glue-sniffing and things like that, which we don't have at the moment.

The addict has to report into a treatment situation. If he fails to report in 48 hours, the warrant can be served. Of course, the detoxification facility is the key in the whole programme. Without them we can't develop any type of a programme. It's with that kind of urgency that I ask the Attorney-General to get on with those kinds of programmes.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Alternative facilities are not in my budget.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Attorney-General, the Matheson report is sure in your budget. You commissioned the Matheson report, nobody else.

Don't worry about it if we talk about drug abuse in this chamber. You're the logical person to deal with it. I'd expect that you would be the person who would want to deal with it. We're talking right now about the Matheson report which was commissioned by you, no one else. He happens to be one of your Deputies. Say hello to him.

Dr. Matheson says it is obvious that "with the extended period of control and treatment available, under the provisions of the Criminal Code…."

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: He's still reading the affidavits. (Laughter.)

I want to make sure everybody hears this quote from the Matheson report. I'll back up just a bit; we have lots of time.

"It has been estimated by Dr. Jaffe, the special assistant to the President of the United States on drugs, that if the drug offender can be kept on the street for a year, there is a 40 per cent probability of his remaining off drugs. If he can be kept on the street for two years, there is an 80 per cent probability of his staying off drugs.

"It is obvious, then, with the extended period of control and treatment available under the provisions of the Criminal Code allowing probation supervision, that the necessary programme could be developed within British Columbia."

How do you relate that kind of positive statement with the statement by Mr. Stein, the chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission, that "nothing can be done, so let's not do anything"? How do you relate those two?

Here's a positive statement by a member of your staff, Mr. Attorney-General, balanced by the kind of statement we're getting from the Alcohol and Drug Commission, the chairman of which has decided already that this Matheson proposal will not work. What does he offer in place of this?

He said: "My job is to set up a voluntary system of services only for these people who want help." No compulsion — no way. If an addict doesn't want help,

[ Page 1077 ]

then,"buddy, you're on your own." That's a quote from that chairman at that same meeting in Vancouver: "buddy, you're on your own." Some solution. Some cop-out. And that's about what it is.

Do you know that at that seminar at which the Matheson proposal was made public for the first time, there wasn't one member of the New Democratic Party in attendance — not one? That's the kind of concern that party has for the problem facing this province — not one member of the New Democratic Party. Yet across the hall in that same hotel on that same day, there must have been 30 of them sitting around talking about atomic energy in a special meeting called by the Premier who has already said we're not going to have atomic energy in this province.

So they were all sitting across there, talking about atomic energy, while not one was at the most important meeting of all, not one. That's the kind of concern the NDP has for one of the most serious problems facing British Columbia today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind the Hon. Member that in the estimates it is not customary to make full-fledged speeches, but rather to make comments and ask questions of the Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, you allow complete latitude in the salary estimates of any other Minister; I expect you to allow me the same courtesy. I'm talking about a serious problem in British Columbia which the Attorney-General has not as yet seen fit to attack. I'm expecting that he will soon.

What else does that chairman say? Well, I suppose the comment of the day at that seminar in Vancouver was by Mr. Stein when he said: "In a year or two of fumbling around, I might have a better idea of what to do." There is no way we can allow that to happen. We've got to act today. No way!

I didn't plan this, but I wanted to bring a couple of quotes before this House by another gentleman who is in the gallery today. A fine and responsible jurist, Judge Les Bewley, who said, "The Matheson report, commissioned by the Attorney-General, is a very good start." It deserves the urgent support of the government and the Legislature. Its recommendations are necessary, workable, and practical. He was talking about the report by Dr. Matheson, commissioned by your department.

He also said, "Something must be done now for the social health, peace and order of the community."

He also said, "In Vancouver alone, at least $1 million a day is being lost to crimes directly related to drug addiction."

He also said, "The Matheson programme could save hundreds of young people from a life of degradation and could cut crime by 25 per cent in a short time." He also said, "Too often we completely ignore the cost to the victim. Too many social workers haven't seen enough victims."

On legalization of drugs and a complete maintenance programme, he said, "If these dangerous dreams come true, addicts from all over the world will descend on B.C. and our coat-of-arms will be the Dogwood with crossed hypodermic needles rampant." Amen to that, Mr. Chairman.

Everyone seems to agree that addiction is a medical problem. Why won't we treat it as such? Other dangerous and infectious diseases call for quarantine. Why not addiction? We can't break addiction unless we break the links in the dependency chain. It's the only way it can be done, Mr. Attorney-General. We have to isolate if we're going to stop the spread of the abuse, and availability is one of the most common causes of dependence.

No one disputes that British Columbia today leads the nation in addiction problems. Why can't we lead the nation in providing a solution? What's wrong with that? We cannot afford another 50 years of philosophical debate on this question. We can't afford it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Or even two years.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's right, or even two years, or one year, or six months. It's time that the Attorney-General got off his fat estimates and started to do something.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Member asked where do we go from here and do we have any solutions? Well, if we first identify the problems, I'd say the major problem right now is that we don't have a national policy to deal with the problem of drug dependency. We don't have at this time the adequate treatment facilities which are needed. We must have them if a programme is to be developed.

We also need facilities and a plan of some kind for other drugs besides the true narcotic drugs. Those problems, I'm afraid, Mr. Chairman, we're sweeping under the rug; problems that I mentioned in the last session of the Legislature: the mother's little helpers, the glue sniffing, the solvents of all kinds, the many other exotic substances with which young people in our province are experimenting. If you don't believe that's a problem, I just commend the Attorney-General to ask any parent in British Columbia who has been faced with a nine-year-old or a ten-year-old sniffing glue and ask them where they went for help. They won't be able to tell you because there isn't any place for them to go for help.

I suppose if I was asked, I would say that's a far

[ Page 1078 ]

worse problem than even the spread of heroin dependency in this province. It's one that we can't seem to get a handle on. We've got to develop some kind of a programme which deals not only with narcotic drugs but with other substances as well. Even the abuse of a potentially fine treatment, methadone, is becoming a serious problem in this province.

We were sitting at breakfast right in these buildings the other day and heard a story from a gentleman from Prince George who told us of a youngster, I think of 17 or 18 years of age, who had shot methadone mixed with orange juice into his veins, as a new experiment, I guess. He lost his hair and went blind.

We're hearing stories like this happening all over British Columbia. It's no longer confined to that corner in Vancouver; it's now in 100 Mile House, Kamloops, Prince George, Dawson Creek and Fort St. John. It's spreading like wildfire. We had better start to concern ourselves about that problem.

I could break down the needs into four areas: control, research, education and treatment. But if it's ever to work, it all has to be done on a national level. The Attorney-General must with all urgency approach the federal government, if he hasn't already, and demand that a national drug policy be established, and as quickly as possible.

I'd like to commend to the Attorney-General a document called "A Brief on the Need for a National Plan for the Control of Drug Abuse in the Interim Period." It's a fine report, a fine report. It's all there: a plan that will work if we only have the nerve to try it. But I must insist again that it has to be a national thrust.

Until permissiveness got out of hand in British Columbia and the Steins were allowed to take control, the number of heroin addicts in this province was held at a fairly constant level. But in the last few months, the last couple of years, that certainly hasn't been the story in B.C. Now we're seeing the cancerous growth among the young and the invasion of this vicious infection into all parts of our province.

In the long run I believe that we have to strengthen our law enforcement because it's a vital link into this whole problem. I agree that our sympathy must always be with the drug-dependent person because he's the person who is in desperate need of help. But besides that, the person who actively manufactures and imports and distributes and traffics dangerous drugs deserves nothing but the severest of penalties — and we must never forget that.

I mentioned when I was speaking in the budget debate that none of this would work without education. I was disappointed that the Matheson proposal contained no suggestions for a long-term educational programme. We don't need some kind of a special programme or separate programme which will be set up holus-bolus or willy-nilly in the schools but a real programme which embraces all of the life problems that youngsters face.

It's no good for us to come along and start that programme in grade 8, because by grade 8 most adolescents in this province have already been offered drugs of one kind or another. We've got to teach them well and teach them early that life is the greatest high of all. The most difficult thing that we have to do is to counteract the pressures, the extreme pressures from the youngsters' peers and from the other external forces which they're faced with every day, to experiment in these kinds of substances, starting I suppose with simple experiments, the drugs they find around their homes, progressing to other more dangerous drugs from there.

We've got to convince the youngsters. I think this is the most important task the Attorney-General has. He really must address himself to it. We've got to convince the youngsters that they cannot function while their minds are stretched and warped and assaulted and abused by dangerous foreign substances.

I recall again in the letter from the people in the B.C. pen, when they told me, "Your proposal for more drug education at the school level has proven to be counter-productive and arouses an unhealthy curiosity in inquiring minds as to the false glamour associated with the addict's lifestyle."

They don't want education. The addict, in his selfish attempt to maintain himself at all costs, with a legal and always available supply of the drug of his choice, doesn't really want us to educate our young people.

Mr. Chairman, somebody with a lot more wisdom than I said not too long ago that the enemy of drug abuse is knowledge. The enemy of drug abuse is knowledge; its friend is ignorance.

I would just like to say once again to the Attorney-General that we cannot wait any longer for a comprehensive policy, both on the provincial level and, through your good offices, the national level to eradicate the terrible problems we have in British Columbia with concern of drug dependency.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, nobody wants to underestimate that problem, as the Hon. Member says. However, I have to point out that my jurisdiction is to enforce the Criminal Code of Canada, which involves the prosecution of addiction and, of course, the prosecution of trafficking, and the administration of justice, which involves the investigation and detection of trafficking.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, my estimates do not show, and I have never said, that my department

[ Page 1079 ]

does involve itself in the diversionary programmes which we want to see. We want to divert….

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, we've done studies — certainly we have. But the policy of this department is that the addiction problem should be taken out of criminal justice — I am not talking about trafficking — and it then should be the responsibility of another area of government, because it is basically an illness. It is Human Resources, and the Drug and Alcohol Commission. The question of alternatives and education should be taken up under that vote.

In terms of the magnitude of the problem, though, it is a law enforcement thing. The figures speak for themselves. In 1973 a street value of $30 million worth of hard heroin was seized in the province. The RCMP estimate that that is 10 per cent of the amount being distributed. I am mentioning the hard stuff; I am not talking about cocaine, hashish, marijuana or LSD.

So there is no question about the magnitude of the problem, but there is a little question that under my estimates alternatives to the criminal justice system are not under my department, and should not be under my department.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the Attorney-General about some of the areas affecting women under the law. We have been told, Mr. Chairman, that women are people, like everyone else, and they should be treated exactly like everyone else. The laws, as they exist, would seem to belie this fact.

I want to start out, first of all, by talking about rape. Does the Attorney-General know that within the first six weeks of this year, in the municipality of Vancouver alone, the police records show that rape was up 500 per cent over last year? Does he also know that it is common knowledge that only one-tenth of the amount of rape that is committed is actually reported? What I am concerned about is what happens once a rape is reported.

First of all, the maximum sentence for rape is life. As you know, juries are very reluctant to sentence somebody to life for this crime. What is the procedure involved in this? First of all, the woman involved in the case usually does not have a lawyer of her own, and so the prosecutor is supposed to be acting on her behalf. The prosecutor spends no time with her, does not become familiar with the victim, and, of course, when he stands up to speak on her behalf, he has no real personal knowledge of her.

The prosecutor has three responsibilities towards this woman. First he has to prove: (1) that intercourse in fact did occur; (2) he has to prove that it occurred with the accused involved; and (3) it has to be proven beyond a doubt that it occurred without the consent of the female involved.

I would like to quote from an article which was in the Canadian Journal of Corrections, written by a Dr. McAldon, a psychiatrist at the Kingston penitentiary. He says:

"In a sense, this places an obligation upon the victim to struggle physically with her assailant. It seems unjust for the law to demand this type of resistance when it is a case of sexual compliance on the threat of death. But this is not required in the case of a robbery. It is not known how many women have been murdered because of their physical struggle with potential rapists."

What is the instruction that the judge gives to the jury in terms of considering a case of rape? Under section 142 of the Criminal Code the instruction is that there has to exist material evidence to corroborate the woman's testimony. In other words, it is not safe to believe her if there is no evidence to show that she did not, in fact, consent to the act, or if there were no witnesses.

When someone moves in to rob a bank, does the law ask a bank teller whether she in fact did entice the robber? In what other crimes than rape is the victim expected to prove that there was no enticement involved?

Then what happens to these cases anyway once they go before the courts? A year ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk), before he became a Minister, spoke in this House about a case involving a young Indian woman in Quesnel who was raped by two men. The jury of 11 men and one woman, who deliberated for over four hours, found that they were not guilty, because there was no evidence that she had resisted rape. One woman was supposed to give evidence that she had resisted being raped by three men. What happened to that case? Those three men were acquitted. The Member at that time asked the Attorney-General to take a second look at this case. We are kind of interested in knowing what happened in that case.

Does it always have to be, no matter how many men are involved, that the law always insists that there be evidence that there was no compliance? In point of fact, the law does insist on this.

What about the fact that the law also demands that the reputation of the woman be such that it be pristine. She has to be a virgin, or she has to be happily married, or it has to occur at dark of night in an alley, or some such thing. No one ever asks that the man's reputation or his past history become admissible as evidence.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) earlier mentioned that there seemed to be one law for women and another law for men. I would like to bring the law as it applies to rape

[ Page 1080 ]

to the attention of the Attorney-General, because I think this is a perfect example where the woman involved is treated quite differently by law than the man involved. The statistics are even worse. The statistics show us that of the number of men who actually come before the courts on a charge of rape, only between 18 and 25 per cent of them are actually convicted. "In most instances" — again I am quoting from this Canadian Journal of Corrections — "when they are not convicted, it is because once again there was no indication that the woman put up a fight, and did not comply."

I can remember a workshop which I attended at the University of Oregon a year ago. This was a workshop on self-defence, and this was a Judo expert who was going to teach women how to protect themselves against rape.

The first thing that the teacher said to us was: "You have a choice if there is a rape attempted against you. You can try to protect yourself and be beaten up and raped, or you can relax and be raped." That was his advice to us. But in point of fact the law says that unless we are first beaten up and then raped, we do not get any justice whatsoever before the courts.

I don't want to go into, Mr. Attorney-General, the whole business about the psychological impact, on what this actually does to a woman, when it's all over with, because I realize that this does not come under your jurisdiction. But I would like to ask you very seriously to take a second look at the law as it is practised under your jurisdiction and as it affects women in this situation. And I would like to make a couple of recommendations to you.

New York State has an all-woman police rape squad to investigate rape cases. Now in Vancouver we have no such thing, but what we do have is a voluntary bureau known as the Rape Crisis Centre. Who is funding this Rape Crisis Centre? Is your department funding this Rape Crisis Centre? No, your department is not funding this Rape Crisis Centre. This Rape Crisis Centre is operating on…. One person is paid by an Opportunities For Youth grant, and they have submitted an application for funding to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke). He has received this with a lot of sympathy and has promised that he will assist in their funding.

But in point of fact, your department should also be involved in this, because the police are actually referring people to this Rape Crisis Centre. Did you know that, Mr. Attorney-General? The police are already using this Rape Crisis Centre. The police of Vancouver recognize the seriousness of this, and I would like to suggest to you that you seriously look into the matter of supporting and funding this Rape Crisis Centre.

The whole business of education of the police force comes into this too, because although the Vancouver police seem to have some kind of understanding of what is involved, once we get out of the Greater Vancouver area, we are still running into problems with the kinds of justice — as I have quoted in the Quesnel case, and as the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) mentioned earlier, about the kind of justice that goes on in her area. I would like to suggest that education become a priority issue with your department in this whole business of rape.

It is the fastest growing crime in this province. It is the fastest growing crime in North America, and I think you have to seriously address yourself to it.

There are a number of other areas, of course, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, which affect women. Some of them are really so inconsequential I can't understand what the hang-up is about them. And here I am referring to the Change of Name Act. It's a silly little Act, a really silly little thing. In the spring we amended it so that a woman who is divorced can apply to have her name changed.

Why did we stop there? In point of fact, there is no law that says….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe that this is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke). This is to do with vital statistics.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I was under the impression that the Attorney-General was responsible for writing the laws.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, in that case we would consider all estimates under the Attorney-General's estimates, and we don't do that.

MS. BROWN: Oh, okay. Mr. Attorney-General, I would appreciate it if you would approach the Minister of Health and suggest that he….

MR. CHAIRMAN; Order. I would point out to the Hon. Member that it is not permissible to request one Minister to influence another.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Is the Attorney-General responsible for the Married Women's Property Act? (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: He's never heard of it. (Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: Okay. Now I realize and suspect that this Act is being studied by the Commission on Family Law.

Is that another point of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member may not either suggest amendments to legislation or propose legislation in estimates.

[ Page 1081 ]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll read the relevant section from May. "The necessity for legislation, and that includes amendments to legislation, and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply." That's page 766, 18th edition of May.

MS. BROWN: Is that Beauchesne?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, May.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A point of order.

I'll tell you, if you look in the statute dealing with the Attorney-General, he's responsible for the administration of the laws of the Province of British Columbia, and this is one of them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He tried to amend this in a previous session, and I think this is probably quite proper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member discusses the Act in terms of its administration….

MS. BROWN: Yes. That's what I'm trying to do.

In point of fact, Mr. Chairman, the fact still remains that the property Act, as it is presently administered in this province, is just not fair to the married women in this province. Whether it comes under the Attorney-General's estimates or not, that is the one thing that I would very much like to get out. I would like to see some real kinds of changes, not only to the legislation, but to the administration of the Act, and if in order to change the administration he has to change the legislation, I'll go along with that too.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What happened to Bill 1?

MS. BROWN: That was a dreadful bill. Let's not discuss it.

I think what I'll probably be able to do is discuss this under the administration-of-justice section anyway.

Is the Attorney-General responsible for the liquor stores?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MS. BROWN: Okay, fine.

I'm dealing specifically now again, Mr. Attorney-General, with the whole business of employment of women in the liquor stores. I read in The Vancouver Sun of March 7 that there's now been one woman hired part-time in Port Alice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Big deal.

MS. BROWN: But there are also, as you know, Mr. Attorney-General, a number of women who applied. I actually have on file 6 to 10 applications which were submitted to Mr. Palmer, and we are still waiting to hear something from them.

I know and I am sure that you are doing everything you can about this, and I would ask you to expedite.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I believe that he probably is, and I would really appreciate it if he would expedite.

The other thing about the Liquor Board, Mr. Attorney-General — and I don't know whether this is under your jurisdiction or not — is the stuff that's on the shelves. I wanted to once again support the Members of this House who have spoken against the South African and Portuguese liquor that you have on your shelves, especially when it is so difficult to get some really good West Indian rum on the shelves.

I want to complain, Mr. Attorney-General, that the liquor store for once was bringing in really good rum. It really was. There was one particular brand, Mount Gay, made in Barbados, that was being brought in. It was so good that the word went around, and everyone, including the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and various other Members here to whom I recommended it, were purchasing it with the result that it is no longer on the shelves anywhere. I would like to bring that to your attention.

But in all seriousness, Mr. Attorney-General, I think something has to be done about the stocks on our liquor shelves.

In closing, I want to go back once again to the business of the law as it applies to women in this province. What we need is a systematic study of all the legislation that affects women in this province. Now surely that comes under your jurisdiction, Mr. Attorney-General.

It shouldn't be necessary for us to wait until the anomalies show themselves, as in the ICBC legislation, and as in other pieces of legislation. It is not until it actually affects somebody that we see it. We need a systematic study of the whole thing. Surely it is important enough that some kind of person from your department can be seconded to do this.

We actually tried to do this on a voluntary basis. A number of women students from the faculty of law at UBC tried to do this on a voluntary basis, and it is a horrendous task. It really is too big.

The national Law Reform Commission is looking at it on a national scale. I would like to suggest that

[ Page 1082 ]

the provincial government make this one of its priorities through your department, so that we don't wait until the anomalies show up and we don't wait until the discrimination shows.

But you be the white knight in shining armour and move this stuff out before it actually starts to affect our lives. Thank you…and I said white knight. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: It's been a long evening, long evening, Mr. Chairman….

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I've been listening to some of these speeches in our caucus room and I had to turn a few up and I had to turn a few down. I'll leave that up to you, sir, to determine which I turned up and which I turned down.

I don't know whether or not the House has welcomed His Honour Judge Bewley but he's sitting here tonight. He's a very, very dedicated public servant and I would like the House to acknowledge him.

I'm not going to go through all of this tonight, Mr. Attorney-General. Have you had your seventh inning stretch yet, or not?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

MR. GARDOM: Your streak?

You know, Mr. Attorney-General, the public in the Province of British Columbia still look upon you as the fountain of law reform. They do indeed.

You've got good advisers, you've got some very bright young assistants, you've got an energetic Law Reform Commission, you've got a wealth of precedent and all sorts of help from committees for legal consistency throughout Canada, and you can certainly gainsay some assistance from the existing legislation that we find in the other western world areas, plus a multitude of law reform commissions throughout this country and the United States and England. In fact, there's a very fountain of law reform and you, sir, are regarded as being that fountain — Fons Macdonald. (Laughter.)

You have every means and every economic requirement and untold resources right at your finger tips. You know what we've struck in this province, Mr. Attorney-General? We've struck a dry well. (Laughter.) We have struck a dry well — that's right.

Fons Macdonald is an empty well, because there aren't any effective checks and balances against the abuse of your government's powers. It's your responsibility as the Attorney-General to see that we have those particular things.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Shame!

MR. GARDOM: Indeed it is, Mr. Member, and I'm glad that at long last you're getting the message.

AN HON. MEMBER: The fountain has turned into a wishing well. Throw a penny into it.

MR. GARDOM: Well, if a penny would produce results, I'll tell you I'd put a penny into it right now — even more than that, if it would produce results.

I'm going to talk about three specific areas that are perhaps the most important of all in the field of law reform. First, we don't have an ombudsman — a person who's independent and impartial, free of political influence….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Wait till I write these down.

MR. GARDOM: That's right. Under the "O" — ombudsman. A fellow, Mr. Attorney-General, with the right and responsibility to blow the whistle on the abuses of the very, very widening and ever-increasing mountains of red, red tape. Your mountains are getting bigger and your tape is indeed getting redder in B.C. Make no mistake of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. GARDOM: Oh! Granny's awake. Glad to see you here. (Laughter.)

No auditor-general either, Mr. Attorney-General — that's under the "A," or "A-G," if you prefer — a fellow similarly with independent powers and impartiality free of political influence, and with similar rights and responsibilities to investigate and tell the people of B.C. about governmental and bureaucratic waste and improper programmes and improper shortages.

Thirdly, Mr. Attorney-General,"L" — no province-wide legal aid in the true sense.

You know, we're still burdened in B.C. with the age-old criticism that there's one law for the rich and another for the poor. It's a very, very brutal criticism, and it's not true once one gets in front of a judge, but it is certainly true insofar as access to the courts is concerned. I say that it is high time that we had province-wide legal aid in the Province of British Columbia for those in need — judicare for those in need — and it should certainly cover all fields of law, civil as well as criminal.

Mr. Attorney-General — the reformer, Fons Macdonald….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're beginning to sound like Bruce Yorke! (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: I don't know whether you're trying to destroy me or re-elect me with that

[ Page 1083 ]

statement. (Laughter.)

There are no laws against arbitrary expropriation. You know, Mr. Attorney-General, you're in reports about laws against expropriation right up to your ears — or elsewhere, depending upon your point of view. We've had the Clyne commission, we've had the Law Reform Commission — a terribly valiant effort. I remember when you were sitting in opposition and how warmed you were, how cheered, how encouraged. You were just like Prince Valiant.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, I'm coming to that in a minute.

"At last!" you said. "By golly, we've got it! All I've got to do is convince Wes Black" — that's what you said — "and we'll have a law against improper expropriation in the Province of British Columbia." Now, don't tell me that you couldn't even convince Wes Black. Obviously you couldn't, and you can't even convince yourself. This is absolutely disgraceful, and quite frankly, Mr. Attorney-General, it's time that you beefed up your convictions instead of your backside, and stopped sitting on these reports. You've been sitting on them for far, far too long.

Another point, and an equally serious one — you are breaking the law in the Province of British Columbia every single day. I don't know what the proper penalty is for an Attorney-General breaking the law, because he has to ask the Attorney-General.

You are breaking the law and your government, and every Member of your government — including the intense lady Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) and that great fighter for Indian rights, the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) and that great fighter for civil rights, the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes). All these champions every day are breaking the law in the Province of British Columbia. No wonder you're suggesting that incarceration is perhaps not the answer for cure. That's a very valid premise you're raising now. I'll tell you how you're doing this.

HON. MR. LAUK: What do you call Liden? (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: Don't pick on the little fellow, man. (Laughter.) B.C. is a democracy, I'm told, and it's got to be democratic for everyone, Mr. Attorney-General. We have to have equal rights and we have to have equality before the law. That's the philosophy surely to goodness, that we have to unqualifiedly accept. Do you agree with that? Good!

Now, I'm going to read to you one section of a statute that is dominant over British Columbia statutes, and that is known as the Indian Act of the Government of Canada. Section 87, which I'm sure you know very well, reads this way: "Any provincial law of general application shall be applicable to and in respect of the Indians of the province."

Mr. Attorney-General, you and every single, solitary member of your government have not only turned a blind eye to that law, but you're breaking it every single, solitary day of the week — every week of every month of every year — because you still deny, in the Province of British Columbia, reserve Indians the same services that are available to all British Columbians. Those services are available to all B.C. people and they fall under the definition of provincial laws, and by virtue of the Indian Act, Mr. Attorney-General, those provincial laws which I just read to you have to be applicable to Indians of the Province of B.C., but they're not.

Now, just a couple of economic facts dealing with that. The Indian people are taxpayers. They contribute to provincial revenues just the same way as everyone else. They pay their 5 per cent. They have to pay their motor-vehicle user taxes.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You've got me.

MR. GARDOM: Indeed, I have got you. They've got to pay their gasoline tax, driver's licence, compulsory automobile insurance, building material taxes, manufacturing tax, liquor tax. They contribute to workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance, and no end of other items. And they pay income tax for their off-reserve of income.

The only tax haven for a British Columbia Indian, as you well know, is that he does not have to pay income tax for any income that might be earned upon an Indian reserve. As the Member says, how much is that? Sweet-boom all. No levity at this time of night. Boom all.

There's no tax shelter for the Indians in the Province of B.C. They don't have to pay land taxes for their reserve land either. We know that, but I tell you, Mr. Attorney-General, by far the average Indian home…. . I would say about 95 per cent of the Indian residents in the Province of British Columbia would never have to pay a cent of land tax by virtue of their monetary worth.

The homeowner grant would take care of it. Is there a homeowner grant? No. They don't receive the benefit of that. They don't receive the benefit of the same services that every white man in the Province of British Columbia receives.

They don't see that every provincial law of general application is applicable to them; it is not applicable to them. You are breaking the law every single solitary day of the week — and make absolutely no mistake of that. Mr. Attorney-General, you have got to follow the law.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We changed that

[ Page 1084 ]

homeowner grant.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. GARDOM: You changed the home acquisition grant — tell the Minister behind you — and you changed it because I brought a bill in 1968, 1969 — 1970 I think I missed — 1971 and 1972, and I'm glad you got the message. Congratulations! I'm happy to hear that somebody thanked me here tonight — maybe myself. Thank you.

That's the only thing that was done. In the last session you extended the home acquisition grant to the Indian community on Indian reserves. That was a most worthwhile measure and I congratulate you for that. But all of the services that are received by the rest of the citizens of B.C. are not received by Indians on Indian reserves. Why shouldn't they receive the per capita grant of $34? They need it! My God, they need it more than anyone else in the province does. Bring them up for a proper standard of living, give them the opportunity to cope, equip them — that's what we've got to do.

You're carrying on the reserve system with the same kind of punitive taxation that's always been followed in the Province of British Columbia. It's no credit to you and, furthermore, you're breaking the law every day of the week and I think that's an absolute, categorical disgrace.

Now, what about a few other things? Let's see, we've got a little bag of tricks around here somewhere or other.

Mr. Attorney-General, what are you going to do about misleading advertising — honesty in advertising?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I am going to refer it to the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young).

MR. GARDOM: Well, Mr. Attorney-General, since you are the chief law enforcement officer of the Province of British Columbia and not the Minister of Consumer Services, who's new in the job, we find in tonight's Sun:

"CONSUMERS! GET SHARP! Have a refund coming? Everybody knows AT BIG JOHN'S THERE'S MORE CASH for your TAX REFUND. Suite 4. (Upstairs) 'It's worth the Walk.' 'Little Lawrence'"

— Le Petit Laurence. I don't know what he's offering. "Unattached." — oh, no, that's got nothing to do with it. (Laughter.)

Okay, on the next page — "PACIFIC PAYS PLENTY. GET MORE for your TAX REFUND'. No Bonus Needed. We Pay Most Cash for Your Income Tax Refund."

"New Westminster Tax Buyers. Cash for Tax."

"A&R. Cash For Tax Now!! $15 Dollar Bonus on Tax Refunds."

"Sam's All Cash Now."

"West End Tax Buyers."

"Free Pick-up Service. Special Rates When You Come and Make Your Own Deal. $10 bonus on purchase of your tax return when you present this ad."

"We Still Pay the Highest. Phone 525-1684 for Guaranteed Rate." What's that? What's a guaranteed rate?

"Licensed and Bonded — Guardian Tax Buyers."

"Sue's Dating and Escort."

"I Can Teach You to Dance."

"Marriage Minded?"

Here's a lulu — "Need a Lift?" All it's got is a telephone number — what does that mean? (Laughter.)

Mr. Attorney-General, what are we doing in this province? You've talked about mortgage brokers and so forth and so on, and this tax discount system procedure that's being carried on today is a rip-off — make no mistake of it. It's not regulated….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's a federal problem.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, the old constitutional sidestep. "It's a federal problem," he says. These offices I think are New Westminster, Vancouver, North Vancouver and Victoria — and that doesn't seem to be in Ottawa. It seems to me, Mr. Attorney-General that if somebody is offering a discount at an exorbitant rate, which is serious, you can't tell me that's a federal matter. That's a B.C. matter.

Furthermore, it's misleading advertising and it's time that we had in the Province of British Columbia, as I advocated to your predecessor and to his predecessor, some check on the word "guaranteed." It is used constantly and without any indication whatsoever to back it up. Without knowing what is behind the word "guarantee," a guarantee is worthless. Here's another great example, in my view, of totally misleading advertising. This is the British Columbia government news release, issued by the Premier's office. "For release immediately" — at public expense, March 8, 1974. You know, this little NDP…

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Rag.

MR. GARDOM: No, I'm not going to use that word. The Member for Cariboo uses the word "rag," but I'm not going to use that word, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Get a better one.

MR. GARDOM: No, I can't think of a better one,

[ Page 1085 ]

but I'm not going to use that one. (Laughter.) But this is just a propaganda sheet. I remember years ago when you fellows were struggling with the competitions between the leadership and there used to be that little thing you put $1 a week into and you got "NDP Calls," or "Homilies from the Caucus," or whatever it was. Ernie used to collect the money — I remember that. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: "MLAs at Work" — thank you very much. I'll tell you, it wasn't as blatantly propagandist as this thing that comes out of the Premier's office. He says: "It's been a crazy week here in Victoria." At least he starts out with a good lead. That's correct. He talks about the snow and the blossoms, and then constantly through this thing is a deliberate and shocking slanting of the news in favour of the socialists.

Why does it come out in this colour? It is the wrong colour — it should come out in the colour of the Foulkes report, if nothing else. Well, so much for it. (Laughter.)

Now, Mr. Attorney-General, can Mr. Brunsdon, or any citizen on his behalf, sue your government or your Premier for political interference with the egg board? Can he do that in B.C.? Yes or no?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If he has a cause for action.

MR. GARDOM: Does he need a fiat?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It has nothing to do with fiats.

MR. GARDOM: They can't sue today, and you know that. Furthermore, under the bill that you've introduced, which is a toothless wonder, they won't be able to sue then either.

Is it possible today, Mr. Attorney-General, for the parents of a lad who made his way to one of the higher stories in Crease Clinic, and he leaped through an unbarred glass window and fell four stories, and is in extremely critical condition…is it possible for them to bring damages against Crease Clinic for alleged neglect or improper supervision? It's not possible today, is it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It will be, under the new bill which we're bringing in after years of Social Credit and Liberal Party neglect.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I much welcome the interjection of the Hon. Attorney-General there. I think it only fair, Mr. Chairman, that I should be entitled to respond — I really do. I understand the words "Liberal neglect." I think the first Crown Proceedings Act was introduced by the late George Gregory, followed by now Mr. Justice MacFarlane….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What about John Hart? He didn't do it.

MR. GARDOM: John who? (Laughter.) I was in swaddling clothes in the days of John Hart, for goodness' sake. Get up to date! And under this toothless wonder that you're admitting, you don't even permit jury trials and just about every kind of a bill you wish to bring in to exclude actions against the Crown that can happen. It is just a complete sieve.

Furthermore, Mr. Attorney-General, what about letting some of the people who wish to initiate proceedings against your government since you've taken power? Your bill is going to be a proclamation bill.

Mr. Chairman, I forget the number of it. I'd tell you in a minute, but I don't intend to carry on with the topic any longer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope you'll take your own advice, then.

MR. GARDOM: That's right.

Mr. Attorney-General, was the decision taken by the Egg Marketing Board correct when they made up their mind that Mr. Kovachich owed $21,000? Was that legally correct? Mr. Attorney-General, if it was, was it legally correct to reduce it from $21,000 to $7,500 or was that ultra vires the powers of the Egg Marketing Board?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're out of order on that …

MR. GARDOM: Oh, no, I'm not at all, Mr. Chairman. With every respect, you've made your first mistake of the night, because I'm not out of order. I'm completely in order.

I'm discussing the responsibility and the office of the Attorney-General. I have come upon a breach of the law and I am asking him what he is going to do about it, because he is the chief law-enforcement officer, you see.

You know, Mr. Chairman, in the event that any of his cabinet steps out of line, as he said, he is like Caesar's wife. He's got to act, yessirree. I think we have got a case here, Mr. Attorney-General. Are you going to investigate as to whether or not this was a legal assessment, or as to whether or not this was an illegal reduction? Because that's your responsibility in this province, as the chief law officer of the Crown.

Another one: what happened to Mr. Bremer? He didn't just walk away into the night — no sir. He

[ Page 1086 ]

wasn't an order-in-council patient or anything like that, not on your life. Mr. Bremer — did he get paid two years for one worked? Did he really? He got paid two years for doing one year's work? Legally? Mr. Attorney-General, how much money does that amount to? And was that a legal payment? You don't know?

I don't mind you shrugging your brow. By golly, I would shrug more than that if I were you, because you had better find out about that. Is the fact that Bremer received this extra money…is that done according to the law of the Province of British Columbia or against it? What gave you the power to go ahead? It's like paying off football coaches.

How many more people are you going to hire for a year and give them a two-year salary for one? You have unlimited discretion to do that? Under what law? There are four sets of the books of statutes there. Tell me under which one you have the power to make that compromise with Bremer — just one.

Mr. Attorney-General, you were always a great proponent — and we admired your advocacy and your charm and your salability — of bringing the administrative process into the open. You came out with the most significant bill of its kind. You had Jack Webster clucking like a mother hen when you told him about it (Laughter.): the sunshine bill.

It elected you, and then you pulled down the blind. There hasn't been any sunshine since you got in. That's right. And this was the strongest point in your whole platform. Mr. Attorney-General, since this government has taken over, it has compounded the administrative process like it has never been compounded in the history of this province. The bureaucracy is just overwhelming.

You have heard some very good speeches from the Member in the far corner up there about the increase in the civil service, admitted by yourselves. Your control is ever-increasing. That is admitted by yourselves. You say,"We intend to regulate and control and direct society." But what are you doing on the other side of the coin to provide some checks and balances? Nothing. And your sunshine law has proven to be nothing more than a tongue-in-cheek sham, that's all.

There has been no credibility to that posture of yours. There would be if you brought it in, and I'd commend you to do it, and everybody in this House would thoroughly congratulate you. And if your caucus won't back you up, resign and have a secret meeting somewhere and go somewhere else.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Could I join that other party?

MR. GARDOM: Sure, certainly; go ahead, move around a little. You would get an invitation from all sides of the House, I am sure.

But, Mr. Attorney-General, today it is a fundamental and basic requirement of natural justice that all of our administrative procedures be under some degree of consistency. We have got to have an administrative procedure law, Act or bill, or call it what you will, whereby all parties whose rights could be affected should receive a notice of a hearing; where they should receive particulars of the allegations against them, and the requirement of a proper hearing — a requirement that decisions would have to be rendered, and by those who heard the evidence — that there should be a right of appeal; that there should be one simple form of application to the court, if the administrative tribunal refused to exercise its statutory power following an incorrect procedure; and that power be granted for every tribunal to incorporate detailed rules peculiar to its functions.

You know, I like this quotation, and I am going to read it again. I have mentioned it before in the House. It's one of Mr. Justice Frankfurter's, and he said: "The history of liberty has largely been the history of procedural safeguards." What we are asking for here are just those kind of procedural safeguards for administrative bodies, so one can define the ballpark, see the game played — in the open with a proper set of rules and with an impartial referee.

Let's go ahead and bring in a bit of the sunshine. Let's do just that very thing. See that they conduct their business at meetings open to the public at all times. Let the Egg Marketing Board make their records, correspondence, decisions and awards open to inspection by interested persons at reasonable times and places.

That is the kind of B.C. we should have. It's not a Nirvana. Something like this can always be changed and improved by man. But you've got the responsibility to act. You've got an enormous mandate here. You've got more money than B.C. has ever seen. And really and truly, the performance of the government to this point, in the field of law reform, has been pretty weak — pretty darned weak.

When I was in my caucus room tonight, I listened to some of the remarks by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) about drugs. I thoroughly concur with what he said. It is without doubt the worst, single, vicious, stinking, rotten business that we have going in the province of B.C. — estimated at what? — $175 million a year. What we need is a total all-out war.

I am not at all inclined to hold everybody by the hand in this drug business.

It's $300,000, my colleague says here; I don't know. But it is an enormous amount of money.

There are no end of Mr. Bigs in B.C. Are they being tracked down? Is money being spent to find them? Are we being able to fight big crime in a proper manner, or are we going against big crime in a

[ Page 1087 ]

horse-and-buggy fashion?

That is a pretty important thing. It is a darn sight more important than a lot of things that we have been talking about in this Legislature, both at this session and the last. And I have not seen any improvement by any government, save and except the fact that you have got a commission. I'm not suggesting that there has not been improvement by everyone in society to try to get down to the root causes. I thoroughly agree with that.

But I'll tell you one thing: the fight against organized crime in B.C. has been abysmal, over the past 10 years, and it is worse. Big crime is growing, and the fight is not even keeping close to where it should be. We are absolutely in total neglect of the thing, and the public are screaming for protection.

The lady Member was talking about rape. Rapes are up. Muggings are up. Robberies are up. Vicious crimes are up. Narcotic convictions are up, left, right and centre — and barely enough. Have they come to B.C. because of lush fields, lush areas? There was certainly every indication, when the securities commission in Ontario started to crack down, that all of these boys came over the Rockies, because they figured B.C. was a soft touch. They parked in Howe Street, and they are still there.

Mr. Attorney-General, the thrust of this talk on my part tonight is this: we have not coped with crime. We have not coped with it effectively as an opposition. You have not coped with it effectively as a government. We can propose changes; it is your job to do them. We can propose changes; it is your job to do them. You are not doing your job. You are flunking.

Now with those cheering words, it is 10:20 p.m. and I shall sit down, and thank you for the very respectful audience. Thank you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to return to a subject raised by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) and then commented on by the Attorney-General. It was a subject on which I thought he commented in most inadequate fashion, for the following reasons: There is no question that the fight against drugs, and the battle that I think we all would like to see brought to a successful conclusion, was not touched upon properly by him.

It is all very well to try to say that another Minister has certain responsibilities and he has certain responsibilities, and therefore he will say nothing. The fact of the matter is that there are essentially two distinct points of view — two philosophies which have been battling away at the civil service level.

Whether it is exactly right or exactly wrong, I'm not sure, but I can generalize by saying that on the one hand you have the wishy-washy approach of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) — a weak approach and an approach which I feel to be obviously the wrong one — and on the other we had a few rays of sunshine from Dr. Matheson of the Attorney-General's department. That came up at the beginning of December in the conference at UBC, described so well by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland). There are two philosophical points of view — two distinct approaches — one represented by Matheson, and one by Stein.

Now, this perhaps is an oversimplification, but nevertheless there are clearly two ways of approaching the problem, and the government obviously is going to have to make up its mind which to accept — indeed, whether it accepts either. It may accept yet a third which we don't know about. But to try and pass the buck and say — "Well, it's all the other Minister's responsibility. I just enforce laws. I'm not too concerned about precisely what is going to happen or what should happen in terms of changes." — is a complete cop-out.

What we need at this stage is a statement by the Attorney-General as to which point of view is winning in cabinet. Is his point of view winning? Or is the point of view of the Minister of Human Resources winning? All I can say from listening to him this evening is that he seems to have conceded the battle, because he's up against somebody who pushes a little harder than he does, works a little harder, tries a little harder. He apparently is not supporting Matheson because he did not come out with one word in Matheson's support.

Now, if he's given up the battle, let's know it. Let's have a clear statement that the Stein approach has won, cabinet has gone for the soft approach, cabinet has gone for the permissive approach, and the Matheson approach — which I hoped would have been identified with the Attorney-General — is to be abandoned because the Attorney-General doesn't want particularly to fight that battle.

I don't know and nobody in this room — except cabinet Ministers, presumably — know what has happened in debates in cabinet on this issue. But it's perfectly clear from what you've said tonight that you're not interested in pushing Matheson's point of view.

Please don't fob us off with: "Well, I'm enforcing certain laws, and my hon. colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, has got his policy group." You know full well what the situation is: on the one hand Stein and permissiveness; on the other Matheson with first his reference to the Japanese approach, which I think would be — I differ with my colleague from Langley — too severe and tough for this type of society to take. It takes an extremely cohesive society to take that approach. Nevertheless, Matheson modified it, and he came out at UBC with some very interesting proposals, some of which may, in my mind, be quite acceptable in British Columbia, some of which may succeed.

What we cannot do is continue dithering and have

[ Page 1088 ]

this,"After you, Alphonse," routine, played by the Attorney-General with the Minister of Human Resources. Either on the one hand we have Stein's approach or on the other we have Matheson's. And all I can conclude by tonight's performance by the Attorney-General is that he has abandoned Matheson and that his hope that was held out in the beginning of December — it's now early in March — has simply gone.

What is the situation? Is Matheson's approach the one that is being given consideration, or is it not? Is Stein's approach the one that is going to be given consideration, or is it not? I agree with my friend from Langley — I don't think we can have two more years of what was described by Stein himself as bumbling. I think that Matheson's approach has some promise.

I don't think we can go to the Japanese situation, but I do think we can have some of the proposals put forward by Matheson on December I and 2. I'd like to know from the Attorney-General whether or not we're going to get that, or whether or not he's going to continue failing to support Matheson and thus conceding the battle to Stein and the Hon. Minister of Human Resources.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Does the Minister want to reply at this point, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, it just happens to be a responsibility of another Minister.

MR. CURTIS: I hope the Minister won't tell me and the committee that this is a responsibility of another Minister. The hour is late, and I want to talk about a dead teenager. I suppose this is perhaps not very dramatic, because this sort of thing occurs in every riding represented in this House, in every community, every few days. We tend to become rather jaded when we're confronted with the death of a young person, male or female, through alcohol and automobiles.

I want to say also how very pleased I was to hear the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) touch at length on the question of drugs. But I really hope the Attorney-General will have some comments on the subject, which I don't think I'm quite competent to cover adequately.

Not far from here at 1:15 a.m. on December 15, 1973, a boy not yet 18 years of age, a grade 12 student, not a bad athlete, well-liked in the community, very fondly loved by his parents, apparently while impaired was driving a 1955 automobile on the Patricia Bay Highway which was involved in an accident which resulted in his death and injuries to others.

I've spent quite a bit of time since then in discussion with his parents. I did not know the boy, although I met his parents a number of years ago. If the Attorney-General would like them, I have a voluminous file of letters from people who knew him, his employers where he had a part-time job, someone who coached him in Little League and individuals who had come into contact with him at school and in the community over his seventeen-and-three-quarter years before his tragic and violent death.

I think one of the most touching letters I've ever read was written by his parents about a month later to the coroner, I don't think it's a very lengthy letter but I would like to quote from it.

"Last Monday at the inquest after many hours of testimony, when you asked if anybody had anything to say, I found it difficult not to jump up and tell the jury and yourself what a wonderful young man Mike had been. How different he actually was from the picture that cold, factual testimony paints — the warmth, the kindness, the depth of his questioning, the reliability of his work at school, and so on and so on.

"Mike would come home and talk with us each night after work, or after returning from visiting friends. He would wake us, if necessary, and there was never a hint of boozing. We did talk about this subject occasionally, but far more we talked about the drug problem."

I'll leave the letter for a moment to say significantly — and without in any way belittling the drug problem — that this boy was killed by alcohol.

"As a family we are very moderate in the use of alcohol. How surprised my wife and I were to find that Mike was able to purchase alcohol at the liquor store and at a pub — places where neither was he legally allowed to obtain alcohol, nor was he legally allowed to be sold alcohol. In this regard our naivety must be astounding and is completely irrelevant to your inquiry. Our reason for writing you is our hope that the weight of repetition will not dull your opportunity and the jury's duty to consider ways in which we all can proceed so that such accidents are at least less likely to occur. Responsibility, of course, has to be born by the individuals themselves — Mike, Bob, Susy, Jo-Anne, Shelley, his brothers and sisters, and, of course, his parents. There is no escaping the terrible burden of the many, 'what ifs,' however useless they may be. But society in general, and our immediate community in particular, also bears the burden of responsibility, and it is to this latter responsibility that I would call your attention.

"In our opinion there are three major areas of concern that we, the people of this province, can and should do something about. The first is

[ Page 1089 ]

in the field of driver training."

I won't take the time of the committee to go into the details, but there are some very helpful suggestions.

"The second point is that of highway design." Perhaps I could again refer this to the Minister privately, and to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). They are general observations. But I must quote from the next paragraph:

"The third and by far most difficult area is that of alcohol — where to begin and what to do. Mike and those with him were where they were and did what they did of their own free will. To condemn only the government liquor store — for that is apparently where Mike bought the mickey, and not from an older friend — and the pub would be wrong. It's very true that they should not sell to a minor and Mike was a minor. He had no false identification on him and his appearance was definitely in the 17-to-19 years group. There's no doubt that Mike should have been challenged and he wasn't. There is far more care exercised during the cashing of a cheque than in the purchase of alcohol, a drug that is, in fact, a thousandfold more of a problem than marijuana or bad cheques.

"The burden of determination of eligibility to purchase alcohol, or that point at which a customer should be served no more because he probably is impaired, should not be laid upon the waiter or the cashier.

"It seems to me that as individuals in total, we are not likely to wise up. We have not so far. Probably in this area, Big Brother will have to be accepted. Maybe we need an official to judge eligibility upon entrance to a government liquor store, so that all customers inside are legitimate.

"Of course, this does nothing to stop bootlegging or buying for a friend who may be underage. Maybe we will require all patrons leaving a pub or a nightclub to take a breathalizer test and be cautioned not to drive if they are impaired. Of course, they may still go ahead and drive, but as an individual they would have been informed of their condition and, hopefully, would be less likely to drive.

"But this would have no effect on those who wished to get drunk in their own home or a friend's home. We don't know what should be done, but something must be done because impairment too often results in death, heartache and varying degree of physical and mental suffering not only to those impaired, but also to innocent victims.

"I think we have to start at Sesame Street and perhaps classes in school on drinking alcohol. As repugnant as that may sound, I fear that out of necessity we will be forced to erode some freedoms of choice we now enjoy, and that would be very sad indeed."

Now, Mr. Chairman, it's very tough to raise the question of alcohol without appearing to be anti-alcohol, to espouse the teetotal cause, to try to suggest that we should not make alcohol available. I can subscribe to none of those points of view. That is not the point of bringing this to the attention of the Attorney-General this evening at this late hour. But the carnage on our highways involving underaged drivers surely must be something to which not only the Attorney-General and his senior advisers, but all Members of this House must continue to direct themselves.

This was no punk; this was no dropout; this was no failure; this was no kid who had been in lots of trouble; this was no youngster from a disadvantaged home. This was a boy who was loved, admired by his peers and very highly regarded by his teachers and others in the adult world who came into contact with him. For some reason, in spite of moderation in the home, in spite of direction in other areas, guidance, for some reason or other, the boy got a mickey at a liquor store — perhaps not the first time — and he was served in a pub. That is clear beyond any shadow of a doubt. He was served in a pub.

Again I emphasize that I am not in any way criticizing the staff or management of our beer parlours and liquor outlets. But something must be done to tighten up the situation to prevent this kind of tragedy from escalating, as I fear it is.

Again, Mr. Chairman, if the Attorney-General would like this material, I'd be happy to make it available to him. His parents know that I was going to raise it and they gave me their permission to use the family name. I've chosen not to; I don't think that it would serve any useful purpose. But it may serve as a reminder that while we get hung up on law reform and we get hung up on a lot of so-called big issues, we still lose fine young boys and girls through alcohol and automobiles.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I appreciate what the Hon. Member's said. It's in Hansard so I don't think I need the file of correspondence, but I intend to make an inquiry as to what safeguards they use in the vendor stores and how strict they are about it in the case of minors.

MR. CURTIS: And outlets — not just the stores.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I would like to add my comments to comments already made on the subject of how to handle in the criminal system drug-associated crimes. Now I don't care if the Attorney-General feels that we're in the wrong department. The fact is that many crimes are committed for the sole, simple reason that the person

[ Page 1090 ]

is using drugs. If it's going to be a semantic argument as to whether we're in the Attorney-General's department or the Health department, I think that it would be ridiculous if this House were to split hairs in this way.

I, like others who have spoken tonight, have the greatest respect for the calm, objective, clever perception of Dr. Matheson. I happen to have taken part in two private seminars where Dr. Matheson spoke — and the Minister for Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) knows the two meetings that I'm talking about.

With the greatest respect for social workers that I have, I have to say, and echo the feelings that have been expressed tonight already, that you can go namby-pamby around the situation from a purely social point of view and lose the whole point of what's involved for a great number of families and young men and women in this province today.

I agree with others who have spoken that it would be nice if you could sit down and talk to a drug addict that he or she is on a somewhat dangerous and even inevitable course to disaster. But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that because they are on heroin, they are not their own physical or mental masters. They cannot control their function or their action or their thinking.

Therefore, this argument was put forward when I tabled a bill last year suggesting a measure of compulsion — that, oh, dear me, we'd take away their freedom. We talked about people this afternoon who are in Riverview who have lost their freedom because they're carrying out criminal actions related to mental instability, to use a vague description — but some mental disorder.

Mr. Chairman, when you're dealing with somebody who will steal from their own mother and commit any crime imaginable to sustain their drug habit, is there not some mental instability in this person? What is the difference? Granted the initial condition is self-inflicted in the case of the addict who starts of his or her own volition to take the drug. But there's a point of no return. There's a point beyond which that person can be reasonably considered to be a normal individual, either physically or mentally.

Mr. Chairman, with the greatest of respect, and I'll touch on this very lightly — the Drug and Alcohol Commission…. I don't know if this proposal's been referred to by earlier speakers tonight, but there are 29 pages of stuff from Mr. Stein. I can't think of anybody who takes 29 pages to say so little that's really meaningful. It's all a bunch of gobbledygook — the phraseology, the evasiveness, the long words and the abstruse language — but no solutions.

In fact, the negative nature…for example, the opiates. I'm quoting from page 9: "The opiates, for example: The prognosis for the attainment of a drug-free existence is in many cases exceedingly remote." Now how more negative can you be than that?

I know reformed heroin drug addicts; I'm constantly in contact with one who is now functioning by going out to William Head regularly once or twice a month to help rehabilitate the drug addicts who are still serving sentences in there. This young man was at the absolute bottom of the heap. He couldn't be in low respect or in worse physical or mental shape.

There are people who make it back from heroin addiction. Don't let the record get around this House and around this province that we should all throw up our hands in horror and talk about defeat and negativism.

Furthermore, this idea that…page 10: "Methadone appears to offer the best hope in a very limited field of managing heroin addiction." Again, Mr. Chairman, you should talk to some of the addicts who are strung out on methadone and ask them if they think it offers hope. Now I'm not saying there are easy simple answers. Anybody who has spoken tonight realizes that. But I agree with what I've heard.

I've missed some of the debate tonight, but I couldn't agree more that at least the attempt should be made to implement the kind of programme that Dr. Matheson outlined in private at a meeting I attended. I was not able to attend the December 2 meeting in Vancouver, but I understand he brought forward some draft legislation suggesting that jail for the drug addict in many cases holds no more hope than jail for the man who signs bad cheques or who steals or who carries out a variety of other illegal acts.

As far as incarceration and jail are concerned, without some realistic attempt to find the person's motivation — his social, mental, physical background — simply to incarcerate that person then put him out on the street months later and consider that society solved anything is just absolutely unbelievable in the so-called enlightened age that we are living in.

The big hang-up for many people, Mr. Chairman, is this element of compulsion — the feeling that you are compelling somebody to take some type of treatment. Well, I can tell you, I've been a member of a group of parents most of whom have their sons and daughters in jail right now. You talk to these parents, and regardless of the use of compulsion or otherwise, you ask them what avenue of help even existed when the child or the young adult came to the parents and finally said that he or she wanted to try and break the habit. Never mind compulsion; I'm talking about voluntary efforts by the individual to get off the drug.

The facilities and the personnel and the real potential even to help a person on a voluntary basis are very, very limited. I guess it is something like the shortage of forensic services at Riverview.

[ Page 1091 ]

The only point I would like to try and get across tonight — not to get into great detail on necessarily compulsion, or how much compulsion — is that it is a very serious problem in our society here in B.C.

Someone talked about a national policy. I know why there's no national policy. We've got about 10 times the problem of any other province in Canada.

I wanted to have some of the parents appear before the health committee of the federal parliament, and there wasn't a vestige of interest in these parents even being allowed to go before the federal health committee. I talked to Allan McKinnon, the Victoria MP, and he asked the chairman — I forget the MP's name who was chairman — and not one vestige of interest. Why should Ottawa worry about B.C.'s problems? They haven't got one-tenth the heroin problem that we have in British Columbia.

So once again I say to the Attorney-General that regardless of the specific programmes and patterns of treatment that might be indicated from experience in other countries, we have to have some measure of federal-provincial co-operation. I would like to know to what degree the Attorney-General has taken up this matter with the federal government.

It is my impression that there is an appalling indifference by the federal government to the drug problems that we have in British Columbia. Apart from all the other directions from which this problem has to be attacked, there certainly needs to be some kind of leadership and co-operation at the Ottawa level.

I heard the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) make a point, and I would simply like to reinforce it. It seems to me that we have a definite polarizing of opinions between the Minister of Human Resources' (Hon. Mr. Levi) department — he is responsible for the commission — and the Attorney-General's department, responsible for attempting to implement the law as it relates to illegal use of drugs and drug-associated crimes.

It seems to me that there is little doubt — in fact I am completely convinced both from many comments elsewhere and from my listening to Dr. Matheson, and from his task force report. I might say that I listened to Dr. Matheson and went to hearings when he was carrying them out on behalf of the task force assignment, and we had a roomful of drug addicts and their parents here in the health centre on Cook Street in Victoria. I thought his objective approach, his very attentive attitude and his penetrating questions were one of the most refreshing things I have heard in the whole drug business. He didn't come with preconceived ideas. He didn't waste a word. He asked questions and he listened. After that we had private meetings with him when he explained to the audience present that this seemed to be the route to go.

Here is a man who has looked at the problem at your direction, Mr. Attorney-General, on the widest basis. He's a man, as I say, of objectivity and a very rational man with great insight. He comes out with what offers at the very least the basis of a pilot project, which I would suggest you waste no time in implementing.

If it may be that there is some clash between the policy which you adopt as Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, and the kind of gobbledygook that is in this 29-page report of meaningless language, then so be it. But all through the province I hear parents saying that there has to be leadership in dealing with the drug problem.

The choice is quite clear. We have two divergent opinions in two different departments of government. I certainly would want to add my voice to supporting the others in the House tonight who said that it is time to provide the facilities — not jail, not bars, not Wilkinson Road. For God's sake, that just makes the thing 10 times worse.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to finish tomorrow?

MR. WALLACE: Okay, but I just want to finish, Mr. Chairman, by saying that when I talk about compulsion and taking away a person's freedom, I'm not talking about the kind of facility that we have, as I said earlier today, in Wilkinson Road. We're talking about an intelligent, modern approach where the medical and psychological aspects of the problem are given priority — not the dehumanizing, futile, penal system where you lock somebody up behind bars in a cell with no privacy, and all the other inhuman circumstances that I mentioned this afternoon.

That's not what Dr. Matheson recommended either. He's recommending restriction within a facility, plus associated facilities and personnel to try and bring about rehabilitation of the person — not simply punishment within the criminal system of justice. If this is not acted upon by the Minister, I wonder if, in the course of the debate, he'll tell us what point the cabinet has reached as to who they are listening to. Are they listening to the social workers and the Drug and Alcohol Commission, or are you listening to Dr. Matheson?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we adjourn, a matter was brought to my attention by the House Leader this afternoon and also by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) dealing with two motions

[ Page 1092 ]

on the order paper.

The problem that the Chair has in matters of this kind is illustrated by the statement in Beauchesne on page 60, where it says:

"The Speaker decides questions of order only when they actually arise and not in anticipation. He is bound to call attention immediately to an irregularity in debate or procedure and not wait for the interposition of a Member."

When a Member was putting a question to the Speaker on a procedure, the Speaker said, and I quote from this report: "I must deprecate the practice of putting questions of this kind to the Speaker. The Speaker's duty is merely to answer questions of order and procedure as they arise."

The matter is not yet before the Speaker in that a motion on the order paper has not been called; therefore a ruling cannot be made upon it in advance of the matter coming up in the orders of the day. So it would be anticipating for me to say more than that were the matter to come up, Members can take advantage of the previous rulings of the House.

In studying the question, in the 1956 Journals of the House, page 10, dealing with the Sturdy-Sommers case, and the following year, 1957, at page 88 — both those cases deal with the question of sub judice, and in both those cases when the matter arose the Speaker had to deal with it.

I think it's obvious that unless some interesting arguments are produced whenever these motions come up, the House's rulings on the matter previously would naturally be considered by both the Speaker and the House.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Point of order. You suggested there that motion 13 be sub judice. If that is the point you're making, I want to say that I think you're prejudging the….

MR. SPEAKER: I indicated that I'm not prejudging the matter. I'm telling you that if the Members wished to study those two cases that come up, it's your prerogative to study them in advance. I'm saying now that I cannot anticipate the matter until it comes to being called before the House.

MR. CHABOT: I appreciate that very much. Mr. Speaker, but I think it would be an excellent opportunity — tomorrow being private Members' day — to bring forward those two motions and let us debate them without delay.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know if that's a point of order.

MR. CHABOT: Well, it's an excellent suggestion, though. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: It may be your earnest prayer, but it's not a point of order.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On a point of clarification, you quoted from Beauchesne. Which edition?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry — fourth edition, page 60.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:52 p.m.

ERRATUM

Page 797, column 1, line 37 should read:
and his friends, Mr. and Mrs. Reed Clark. I'm sure

Page 831, column 2, line 17 should read:
Vernon, which are logical land areas and our regional