[ Page 1133 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act (Bill 75).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 1133

Agricultural Credit Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 69).

Hon. Mr. Stupich.

Introduction and first reading — 1134

Oral Questions

Municipality complaints on high auto insurance rates.

Mr. Bennett — 1134

Income tax rebate loans. Hon. Ms. Young — 1134

"Scabbing" among herring fishermen. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1134

Boxcar shortage, the current situation. Mr. Wallace — 1135

Reduction of stumpage rates to forest industry. Mr. Fraser — 1135

Future payment of municipal taxes by ICBC claims centres.

Mr. Gibson. — 1135

Boycott for Turkish produce. Mr. Phillips — 1136

Freezing property tax increases. Mr. Gardom — 1136

Negotiations between B.C. Hospitals Association and RNABC.

Mrs. Jordan — 1136

Insurance cost for government vehicles. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1136

Import quotas and price rises of beef cattle. Mr. Curtis — 1137

Statement on tourism by the Minister of Highways.

Mr. Morrison — 1137

Meeting on land claims with B.C. Indian Chiefs. Mr. Wallace — 1137

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates On vote 11.

Mr. Phillips — 1137

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1140

Mr. Rolston — 1141

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1143

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1144

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1144

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1145

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1145

Mr. Wallace — 1146

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1150

Mr. Wallace — 1151

Mr. Gardom — 1152

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1154

Mr. Gardom — 1155

Mr. Skelly — 1155

Mr. Smith — 1157

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1157

Mr. Smith — 1157

Mr. Cummings — 1158

Mr. McGeer — 1159

Mr. McClelland — 1160

Mr. Phillips — 1164

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1165

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1167

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, last night I was at a secret meeting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

HON. MR. BARRETT: After sleeping on the results of that meeting I have decided that I must tell the House the results and let the chips fall where they may.

Mr. Speaker, this House has a press gallery.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They have on occasion taken strangers into their midst and have suffered both ways, Mr. Speaker. In the past they initiated the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett as an honorary member of that group. Then they took in the former Leader of the Opposition and the present Minister of Transport, the Hon. Robert Strachan. Then they elevated their membership and status by taking in Ned DeBeck. But last night, Mr. Speaker, they went back to the same level as earlier and they took in as an honorary member James K. Nesbitt. Some people would like to applaud that, Mr. Speaker, and I give them the opportunity of doing it.

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of the House I'm sure you would all agree that we should commend the choice of the press gallery — one of the finest members we've had in the press gallery in many, many years.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have visiting us a group of students from that avant garde college Douglas College. Some of you know where Douglas College is. It has campuses in New Westminster, Surrey and Richmond. We have visiting us this afternoon a large group of community service worker students. I'd like the House to greet those students.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon in the Speaker's gallery beyond and above you we have the president of the Western Guides and Outfitters Association, Mr. Don Peck, and his son Tim.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): In the galleries today we have 25 students from that new and exciting community of Gold River under the direction of their principal, Mr. G. Seens, and I would like the Legislature to make them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): Thank you! It's amazing to receive such early recognition, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There's a reason for that.

MR. GARDOM: I do have to thank you very much. But I would like to very much welcome to the House Rev. Cyril Venables who said prayers today. He's my cousin and I apologize for not being present. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: May I say to Hon. Members that I have issued instructions to Hansard to send up immediately his remarks on your absence. (Laughter.)

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): You're not the only one that has to apologize. I'd like to ask you to welcome to this House my aunt, Ethel Foster, her son Walter and his wife Shirley. Walter and Shirley are here from Edmonton.

Also up behind the pillar over there we have the chairman of the Dewdney-Alouette Regional District, who actually lives on the largest island in the Fraser Valley. It's called Nicomen Island. It has, I might say, 27 miles of dikes around it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. No speeches.

MR. ROLSTON: Jim Jeffries is the chairman of the regional district, and from Maple Ridge we have an alderman, Reg Franklin.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in welcoming to us today Mr. Al Dawson, area representative in the Central Kootenay Regional District and a neighbour of mine in the quiet but progressive community of Willow Point.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House today to welcome Alderman Irene Howard, the chairman of the Richmond planning commission — and, by the way, we are surrounded with dikes in Richmond.

Introduction of bills.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES INTERIM
RENT STABILIZATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

[ Page 1134 ]

Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act.

Bill 75 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT

Hon. Mr. Stupich presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Agricultural Credit Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 69 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question that was raised yesterday by the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), may I ask whether you have, Mr. Speaker, had an opportunity to consult the authorities regarding an alleged offence which took place in the corridor, and whether the quote from May on page 433 where it states that "Misbehaviour in the lobbies, such as the use of offensive expressions or insulting words or threats is accordingly left to the House to be dealt with under the ancient practice as a contempt" will be followed, or whether you have been able to resolve this matter in some other way?

MR. SPEAKER: There's no matter at the present time before the House on this question. But I point out to the Hon. Members that page 434 of May, as I understand it, refers to those matters involving attacks or threats or libel upon Members., I will take a look at the Hon. Member's suggestion and give it some thought, but as it stands, nothing is before the House.

Oral questions.

MUNICIPALITY COMPLAINTS ON
HIGH AUTO INSURANCE RATES

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications: there has been registered some complaints from municipalities that they are paying rates starting as high as 100 per cent extra for their automobile insurance. I wonder if the Minister has complaints from other municipalities besides the ones from Castlegar and Langley that are reported in the press.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I've had, I think, two complaints from municipalities. I have a copy of the letter which was sent from the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) to all of the municipalities, trying to stir it up a bit. I am checking on the figures now.

MR. BENNETT: A supplemental. If there are extraordinarily high rates for municipalities — and I'm sure you wouldn't want to burden another former government — are you planning reducing the rates for municipalities...giving them a special rate?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I said earlier, I am waiting for a report on the situation.

MR. BENNETT: Another supplemental while you're on your feet, Mr. Minister: do the municipalities pay the same rate as the provincial government?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would have to check that. There's a fleet system. Now just how it operates with regard to municipalities and provincial government.... But, as I understand it, it's the same fleet system right through.

MR. BENNETT: A supplemental, because you took as notice about two or three weeks ago the rate the government was paying, and I haven't had an answer on that yet. Can you answer that question today as to what rate the provincial government pays?

Mr. Speaker, I would allow other questions while the Minister looks so we don't use up the question time.

MR. SPEAKER: Having had your permission I would ask the Hon. Minister of Consumer Services to answer a question.

INCOME TAX REBATE LOANS

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, a while back I took as notice a question from the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) referring to tax rebate complaints. I wish to inform him that I have received only the complaints referred to in The Vancouver Sun from Richard Aimes; these are the only complaints we have received. However, I anticipate that when the people go back to get the other half of their tax rebate and the tax rebate operators have flown, that's when we'll start getting the complaints. Thank you.

"SCABBING" AMONG HERRING FISHERMEN

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier: the recent issue of The Fisherman, a journal of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers

[ Page 1135 ]

Union had the Premier quoted as saying that the Pacific Trollermen's Association members fishing herring were scabbing. As this is a fairly important issue, I wonder whether the Premier would like to comment as to whether he has taken sides on this issue.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am not taking sides, Mr. Member.

BOXCAR SHORTAGE, THE CURRENT SITUATION

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Premier...? It has been mentioned before, but it's obviously acutely serious now in terms of the boxcar shortage, that people are being laid off and plants are creating unemployment. Could he give us the most up-to-date statement of where we're at in the shortage of boxcars?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I asked the Minister of Transport to attend the meeting, and I would ask, with your leave, to have him answer that question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, the four western Ministers of Transport met with the federal Minister yesterday. That was an area of some lengthy discussion. I think if I read one paragraph in the press release, it would indicate the area of discussion.

"In response to a strong expression of western concern about shortage of rail cars for the movement of western commodities, Mr. Marchand confirmed that as part of the short-term solution the federal government would contribute some $3.4 million for the refurbishing of CN and CP rail cars that are now not being used because they require some work done on them."

The Minister's also agreed that more rail cars must be build and that a national monitoring system should be started immediately. This arose out of complaints that in different parts of the country — on an observation basis — some cars were sitting on sidings for weeks on end, rather than being utilized. So we are proposing to set up a monitoring system.

There was also an agreement that long-term policies are required to provide adequate and efficient equipment and systems to accommodate unexpected economic booms like the country has recently experienced in the wheat, lumber and fruit industry.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. How soon can the Minister anticipate some real increase? The refurbishing, for example, will take how long? Is this weeks, months, years?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, as fast as the two national railways can get to work on these cars, they'll be on line.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister couldn't put a figure on the time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, but the federal government is providing the funds for the two corporations to refurbish these cars. The monitoring system will allow us to check on whether cars are being utilized as adequately as they should be.

REDUCTION OF STUMPAGE
RATES TO FOREST INDUSTRY

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. In view of the high cost to the forest industry of getting their manufactured products to market, they have to shop by truck, which costs a lot more money. Because of the shortage of rail cars it's obvious, from the answer we just got, that this is going to continue for some time. Has the Minister considered reducing the stumpage fees to the industry to offset this extra cost?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): It has not been considered to this date, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FRASER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: will they consider it?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'll take that as notice.

FUTURE PAYMENT OF MUNICIPAL
TAXES BY ICBC CLAIMS CENTRES

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport and Communications. Is the Minister as yet in a position to reply to the request of the council of the District of North Vancouver for reassurance that the two proposed ICBC claims centres to be located in the district will definitely pay full municipal taxes for the years beyond 1974?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I just got the first look at that letter this morning; I haven't had time to give it any consideration. I've given a guarantee to the North Vancouver council that they will be paid those rates. For some reason they have failed to accept that. I don't know what the next step is, quite frankly. I guess that service centre will be delayed because of the attitude of the council. I've given them the assurance.

[ Page 1136 ]

MR. GIBSON: It's a question of beyond 1974 — on a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister give his undertaking that until this is resolved the matter won't proceed without a building permit at least?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The people of North Vancouver are certainly being delayed with an adequate claims service.

BOYCOTT FOR TURKISH PRODUCE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Hon. Attorney-General.

In view of the recent announcement made by the Government of Turkey that they are going to allow poppies to be grown on farms again, is the Province of British Columbia going to make any move to boycott products such as artichokes, wines and things that we purchase from that country?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): No, I wouldn't think we should even think in terms of a boycott. I'm inclined to think the Government of Canada (because the Hon. Member has raised a very important subject) should consider some financial assistance to the farmers of Turkey who feel they need to grow poppies to make a living and who do not take into account, because it's a matter of economic hardship for them, the terrible effects of the plant they happen to be growing, even in the Province of British Columbia and places as remote away as that. I'd like to consider representations to the national government in that respect.

M R. PHILLIPS: I appreciate the Attorney-General's remark. It is a very serious problem, as we mentioned yesterday. However, does the Attorney-General feel a boycott of products would not be similar to a boycott of wines from South Africa? Would this not be a more important subject, or equally important?

MR. SPEAKER: That question appears to me to be argumentative, therefore probably not permissible.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It would be counter-productive. That's my first thought.

FREEZING PROPERTY TAX INCREASES

MR. GARDOM: I'm not going to talk about the Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act which was introduced today. But has the Attorney- General considered freezing property tax increases for 1974 to not over 8 per cent of 1973?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, legislation in that respect would be under a different department. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: Which one? Mr. Speaker, as a supplemental, since he's pointed to the Premier, we'll have the answer from the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought you were talking about legislation; I may have been mistaken.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's still time for more legislation this session. I have already stated publicly that we are considering deferment legislation on small commercial interests.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, that's got nothing to do with this.

NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN
B.C. HOSPITALS ASSOCIATION
AND RNABC

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the Minister of Health. In view of the fact that the B.C. Hospitals Association and the RNABC (Registered Nurses Association of B.C.) are not now negotiating, has the Minister any contingency plans?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, to announce any contingency plans in the House would be counter-productive if, in fact, there were any. At the present time I understand there's a good feeling between the B.C. hospitals association and RNABC. I am quite sure they will eventually work this question out. I think at the present time there's need for more communication, and I think that's precisely what is occurring.

MRS. JORDAN: Can I take it from the Minister's statement then that they are negotiating since noon today? Has there been a change?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I didn't say they were negotiating directly, but I suggest there is communication. There always is in this kind of situation. I'm given to understand that it would be precipitous for me to make any moves at the present time. I just don't feel it's a question we can resolve here in any event.

INSURANCE COST
FOR GOVERNMENT VEHICLES

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

[ Page 1137 ]

Bennett) regarding the insurance cost for government vehicles. I told him earlier there were 9,552 government vehicles. The gross premium was $677,021.

I might say that in the light of some submissions from some employees discussions are taking place regarding the coverage so there may be an additional amount later on after we've discussed that with the comptroller of the government automobiles.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's that hidden in the budget?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's in each department.

IMPORT QUOTAS AND PRICE
RISES OF BEEF CATTLE

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of Agriculture. Has the provincial Minister had any contact with the federal Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Whelan) on the subject of perhaps introducing a long-term quota system or interim tariff s concerning the importation of American beef cattle into Canada?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Discussions only to this point, Mr. Speaker. We have been supporting the B.C. Cattlemen's Association in their representations to the federal government and are pursuing this.

MR. CURTIS: Does the Minister agree with the prediction that beef cattle prices are about to commence another price rise to the consumer?

HON. MR. STUPICH: There is certainly a very grave danger of this from the way the cattle herds are being depopulated in this country as a result of the inaction on the part of the present federal government, which again can go right back to the actions President Nixon took in attempts to try to....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not a chicken-and-egg thing, is it?

STATEMENTS ON TOURISM
BY THE MINISTER OF HIGHWAYS

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry. The Minister of Highways made a speech at the Empress Hotel on March 11, and he made the statement that tourism is in need of a major re-evaluation. My question really is: did the Highways Minister have the Provincial Secretary's clearance before he made the statement that tourists should stay away, which was included in that speech?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): I don't think this government will follow the previous practice of Ministers having to check with any one person particularly before they make statements. The whole subject of tourism is constantly being reviewed, as I mentioned in my estimates last year and, I think, in correspondence to communities in your area and others. The fact that tourism is a very important thing in this province — it's the third biggest industry — means we're naturally re-evaluating it all the time.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Point of order. At no time did I say that tourists should stay away.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, Yankee go home!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! When a Member makes a statement it is to be accepted without dispute.

Interjections.

MEETING ON LAND CLAIMS
WITH B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Human Resources if a date has now been set for the Minister or the Premier to meet with the B.C. Indian Chiefs regarding land claims?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): I took notice on that yesterday.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in relation to this question, I did take notice. The wire has been acknowledged and there will be an official government representative at those meetings.

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. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I certainly appreciate the opportunity again to discuss the estimates of the chief law officer in British Columbia. I'd like to bring up a question to the Hon. Attorney-General.

[ Page 1138 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll just be a minute.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, are you going to discuss your bill? I'd like to discuss your bill with you too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member continue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't go into the hall.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, you might get attacked. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of the Attorney-General's estimates he mentioned that there would be a faculty of law opening up in the University of Victoria. I was very interested to hear that; disappointed, however, that the college will not be ready in September. I intended to ask him shortly after that, but couldn't get the floor, what provision is going to be made in this new faculty of law to assist young, qualified students from up-country to be able to attend this faculty.

When this government first took office, I mentioned the fact that areas in the north country were suffering from a shortage of dentists, in some areas a shortage of doctors, and in some areas a shortage of all professional people. I'm not just sure who it was on the other side of the House who made a speech saying that this government was going to look into that very matter to see that students from the Prince Rupert area, from the Minister of Highway's (Hon. Mr. Lea) area, and from your area, Mr. Chairman, would somehow be able to have a better opportunity to attend these facilities.

So it was the feeling, Mr. Chairman — and I think you recognized that — that we can get young people from these areas and give them the opportunity to attend the profession. It's an expensive deal, as the Attorney-General pointed out in his estimates; particularly more expensive for a student from the northern area because he has to pay his transportation to and from. He has to pay his board here while a person who lives in Victoria could board at home. But it's the feeling that if we have some of these students from the outlying areas taking professional courses, they will return to the area to practise.

Indeed, it could be written into some kind of contract that if the government subsidizes them — I don't like the word "subsidize" — but if the government assists them financially to obtain their education, you can have a contract whereby they must return to the area they come from for a certain period of years.

Now, this type of assistance with education, Mr. Chairman, is not new. There are many veterans who took their training during the war and after the war, who signed a contract with the federal government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member has a very good point, and I certainly agree with him. However, I think this would be more relevant to the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) estimates rather than those of the Attorney-General.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'll certainly abide by your decision, and be happy to. But it was the Attorney-General who discussed the faculty of law at the University of Victoria. Before the faculty actually gets the opportunity to open is the time to give consideration to this, not after it's functioning and is filled with students from the lower mainland, Mr. Chairman. Now is the time we should be giving consideration to this very, very important aspect of this new faculty.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is no item in the estimates for this purpose, and I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to those matters which are contained in the estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, maybe, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General, on his return to the chamber, will have some remarks to make about that.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Maybe the Chairman can give us a list of the things the Attorney-General has got in his estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to pursue the matter which I raised in the question period just a little bit further.

MR. McCLELLAND: He won't allow us to talk about anything.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Attorney-General stated he might give a commitment and that he would be interested in suggesting to the federal government that some action be taken. I think this is very important.

Now, we discussed drug addiction in the province at some length. It has been discussed during the Attorney-General's estimates, and here we have an opportunity to get to the very root of the problem — where the heroin is actually manufactured. If we have to take some harsh steps against the country of Turkey, we're going to have to do it. But I think we should stand up and be counted.

I'd like to read into the record, Mr. Chairman, part of an editorial in today's Province, because I think it is very timely. It's quoting another Phillips, Mayor Phillips of Vancouver, and I can see that both he and I have strong feelings towards this very timely subject. I would like to read this into the record before the House. I'm going to quote this article. It's

[ Page 1139 ]

just a short article from the editorial page, Mr. Chairman.

"As Attorney-General Alex Macdonald steps up his war on crime, with special investigations, Vancouver's Mayor Art Phillips is busy getting to the root of the problem.

"The local police, he says, are not much use at all when it comes to dealing with the deadly heroin trade. What's needed is swift, international action: for its part in the opium business the country of Turkey should be relentlessly avoided, boycotted, and snubbed." Now, those are pretty harsh words from our mayor, and I may say that I agree with him.

"Angrily condemning the Turks and their ugly economic practices, the mayor pledged himself to urge all-out federal action against the poppy-growing offenders.

"Clearly this is a step towards revolutionizing crime control in Canada. Is the Mafia the source of organized Criminal activities across the country? A sharp boycott of tinned tuna and artichokes, not to mention Marsala wine, will soon bring the Sicilian saboteurs to their senses.

"Next we can eliminate the products of that major source of sophisticated misdeeds, the United States. Country by country, group by ethnic group, we will boycott until the streets of Canada are safe once more.

"And when at last Canada is self-sufficient in crime we will follow Mayor Phillips' plan to the letter. And teach us a lesson we will never forget."

I would like the Attorney-General, when he comes back to the House, to give me assurance that he will go to Ottawa.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, he's out still. I mean he's still out.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): He's having a press conference out there.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult to talk to an empty chair — not that your chair is empty, Mr. Chairman. But indeed the chair of the Attorney-General is empty. I suppose that the Deputy is there and he and I could chat, but I want to bring up something really important.

AN HON. MEMBER: He might want to talk about it more than the Attorney-General does.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to bring up something really important — something, Mr. Chairman, that concerns all of the people of British Columbia.

Before I bring it up I want to again read into the record a bill which was introduced by the now Speaker in 1972, and it is called An Act to Establish the Office of Commissioner for Grievances. The purpose of this Act, reading it, would be for anyone who feels that they have been hard done by by the government, or indeed anyone in the province, to go to the office of the commissioner and state their grievance. Sort of an ombudsman, I guess it would be, Mr. Member — much the same as an ombudsman.

Now suppose, Mr. Member, that we had this office established in British Columbia today. Had you owned shares in a particular company and had sold, and as soon as you sold the price went up two or three times what you had sold them for, and then you find out later that the government had bought the company, would you consider, Mr. Member, that you had been grieved by the government? Would you consider that an offence?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): I'd think I'd been taken.

MR. PHILLIPS: You'd consider that somebody had stolen your shares, if they had indeed bought them at a very low price and sold them at four or five times that price. Oh, you'd be pretty worried. Yes, and I'd be pretty worried too.

Now, this was a private Member's bill. It evidently wasn't adopted by the government of the day, but it does show the concern of the then Speaker for the little people of British Columbia. And then, indeed, our Attorney-General in 1972 introduced an Act that's An Act to Provide for Public Scrutiny.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Hear, hear! That was a darn good one.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. That shows, Mr. Chairman, the concern ....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Since then it's been used by another Member, which is petty larceny. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Have the public been "scrutinized" since then? (Laughter.)

All joviality aside, this is a very serious matter because, Mr. Attorney-General, I think you should — and you owe it to the people of British Columbia — to conduct an inquiry into the trading of shares in Columbia Cellulose prior to the government acquisition of that company.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General, I ask you in all seriousness, sir, as the chief law officer in British Columbia.... Shares in a particular company traded at the average of

[ Page 1140 ]

30,680 shares a month for a 12-month period the previous year, and I'm referring to 1972. Then in January of 1973, three months prior to the government making an announcement that it was going to purchase this company there were 294,976 shares traded on the market.

The value of the shares in that three-month period, Mr. Attorney-General, went from $2.95 — I'm talking about the preferred shares — to $8.38 a share. That happened over a three-month period. Mr. Attorney-General, keep in mind that average trading in 1972 was approximately 30,500 shares, then in the month of February there were 1,014,483 shares traded, and in the month of March, 673,461 shares traded. I ask you, Mr. Attorney-General, do you not consider that these should be circumstances enough for you to conduct an inquiry into these trades?

You mentioned yesterday, Mr. Attorney-General, that the government made the announcement at the end of March to purchase this company.

My question to you is: when did negotiations with this company start? When did it first become knowledgeable to anybody that the government was interested in buying Columbia Cellulose?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I can't help you.

MR. PHILLIPS: You can't help me?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, yes. I was just talking to myself. It was done through another department, you see, and through lawyers engaged....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request that Members not answer from their seats.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I do have that information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request, if the Attorney-General does answer a question, that he rise so he can use the mike.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I was just talking to myself. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll sit down and let you talk to the whole Legislature, because Hansard is not aware of you talking to yourself. You shouldn't do that anyway; it's a bad practice.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): You get better answers.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the other day the Hon. Member asked me for the number of officers engaged in drug work. The number is: 114 men in the RCMP force, out of possibly 2,790 in the province, and they're split down by areas; in the municipal forces, 27 men out of 1,335 who are assigned this particular investigative and detection work.

The Hon. Member asked about the faculty of law. While the selection of students in any faculty of law should depend upon their quality excellence, not their background, whether it be patrician or poor — wealthy or poor. It should depend on their individual excellence and their ability to benefit, not only themselves but society, from receiving that education. And that should be equally available to people across the province — to prove that excellence.

Nevertheless, the question of, possibly, boarding allowances or other things of that kind...or a contract that they serve, if they get through the law school, in a particular area of the province.... As to the first, I suppose that's for the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) — there's another passing of the buck. As to the second, it's a matter that we'd be glad to consider, but we have not considered it at the present time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, all right. What was the other one — Col-Cel?

MR. PHILLIPS: I also pursued the....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Turkey!

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Columbia Cellulose...And Turkey too.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On Turkey: Now, I'm speaking quickly on the thing, but my first reaction is that while I strongly favour this federal approach to help farmers to divert....

MR. PHILLIPS: The United States is already doing it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I know. But I don't think the amount of their aid has been adequate and I think, therefore, the Government of Turkey has been under tremendous financial pressure to allow the resumption of poppy growing. That's a bit of the problem.

It's all very well for us to say they shouldn't do that; I know they shouldn't do it. But I think we should assist them to make the right decision, if we can, in those circumstances.

As for a boycott, my first reaction is that that would be counter-productive. We would get into a quarrel, nation-to-nation, with the country of Turkey and, really, on this thing I doubt if it would lead to a

[ Page 1141 ]

resolution. It might make the problem worse because they would say to heck with you. Or if the United States did it as well — to heck with you, we will not maintain surveillance over our farmers as you are requesting because you're not being...we're engaged in kind of a trade war. That's something to think about. But that's my feeling at the present time.

Now, in the case of Col-Cel, I think I answered that yesterday but I might add something further to it. My concern is whether there has been insider trading that hasn't been reported, because we have those sections of our Securities Act and our Companies Act, or whether there have been false insider reports. I'm very much concerned with that, and we're looking at that. We want to make sure those provisions are being observed.

I'm also concerned as to whether there's been any leak, of course — whether it's Col-Cel or any other company where there's been a suggestion of a leak whereby some person has illegally benefited from the leak. I might as well say, quite frankly, in the case of Dunhill, which I think is subject to a suit....

MR. PHILLIPS: You can't discuss it. It's before the courts.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Okay, all right. I did the other day though. Can you look that up and read what I said about it the other day without being in contempt of court?

But in the case of Col-Cel, which is not before the court — I don't think it is — I would have to go to the Securities Commission of the Province of Ontario and present some evidence of irregularity along lines I've mentioned, and ask them to order the investigation of the share purchases and sales that were made — and they were very massive — in that province. Now, I can't go to get at those eastern sales without some evidence. I'd need some prima facie case of a leak, insider information or something of that kind. You know, some individual who bought...whereby a reasonable thing could be made out that he bought unlawfully because he had inside or leaked information which would be improper. But I would have to go in that case.

In the case that we can't mention, I did assign an order to a bank, but it was in British Columbia because it was a bank purchase and we didn't know who the real purchasers were. So, to expedite the investigation, make sure it was thorough, I signed an order as Attorney-General, which I'm entitled to do, requiring the real beneficial people involved in that purchase or sale to be shown up so that the Superintendent of Brokers would know who they were.

But on the other one, I'd have to go to Ontario — that's where most of the trading took place. But if anything comes to my attention suggesting irregularity, I can assure you it will be traced down with all the resources we have at our command.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General: In my riding there is a place which is a minimum security jail, called the Alouette River unit. At one time it used to be one of the largest logging camps in the old days — the Emerson-Abernathy logging show was there at one time.

One of the things that's concerned me, and I've said this earlier, I understand that there is no director there right now. We are looking for a new and more capable person who can work with people who have been sent to jail and who are often chronically addicted to alcohol. We need a director who has an understanding of the institutionalized alcoholic and can, really, for the first time, give and stick with a programme of rehabilitation.

I knew the previous director, I spent a lot of time with him, but there was no real sense of direction as to what the programme was. I feel in this field, which is a very high risk field with many, many setbacks, that it's very necessary to decide that — whether you're going to use the Johnson or whatever programme and you stick with that programme and you test it over quite a few years. There's a great deal of outlay there. There's even a hospital in this facility and yet it's really not used as a hospital. It's not used to the advantage that it should be.

We have a Judge Varcoe, in Maple Ridge, who has asked the question which I ask you — at least I like to get some kind of feedback: Should chronic alcoholics who walk away from an enforced place, a jail such as the ARU, be treated as criminals? Should they, once they are picked up and sent back to either this jail or to some other jail, have another fine imposed on them?

I understand that under section 64(a) of the Summary Convictions Act many people feel this was never really intended to add further penalties to this person who has the problem — a health problem — namely in this case, alcohol, but it could be other addictive problems.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. I wonder if we aren't really kidding ourselves that we're going to do much for him in this compulsory way.

I would like to just say that when you think of the whole business of corrections, a great deal could be done in the community. I'd like to ask you, for instance, how many more probation officers are we going to get under your estimates. I heard that the head of probation was hoping for 68 more probation officers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty-eight.

[ Page 1142 ]

MR. ROLSTON: I feel it's very essential that we have greater use of these people as they work in the community, as they develop a greater sense of trust.

In the district of Mission, from the Stave River to the Harrison River alone, there were 44 people on probation. This is increasing all the time. I understand our government is committed to more probation and less use of incarceration of people.

In fact we're told that, really, there is a very low recidivism or setback or disappointment with probation. Only about 11 per cent of the people on probation really have to come back a second time.

The failure rate in probation is still only around 11 per cent, despite the very high, I would say too high, caseloads. I understand that we have 10,000 people in B.C. on probation compared to only 2,000 in incarceration.

I would like to get your support, Mr. Attorney-General, for the M2 programme — the man-to-man programme, the programme started by a Presbyterian minister from the State of Washington. It was first started, I think, in British Columbia in the Haney Correctional — later on into, the Oakalla — a programme to which, as far as I know, I believe we give $13,000 and the federal penitentiary service gives them $13,000. It's very little money, Mr. Attorney-General for a very excellent programme, a programme with nearly 500 man-to-man relationships in the province — a man out on the street and a fellow in a jail.

Hopefully we'll get to the woman-to-woman programme eventually, but we need your support. We keep talking about community programmes, trying to get more people to face their responsibilities in their community, responsibilities which they really aren't going to face very effectively with any real testing if we keep them locked up unnecessarily in jail.

I appreciate that jails are often a sanction for some people who must be in jail, but there are many people that needn't be in there. You know, I really feel that it is very important for us, especially in the light of some of your statements two days ago, to keep our cool regarding people and offenders. I often feel that — you know, we live in the same province; we live in the same community; it's very necessary for everybody in the community to help the police.

We are trying to set up some kind of a citizens committee, not just for corrections, but for policing I congratulate you in the kind of work you've done. I'm a little surprised at the negativism, or the disappointment, from the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), who seemed to suggest that you weren't doing lead-up work with your police commission and your administrative justice legislation. I understand a tremendous amount of consultation has gone on.

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: Well, don't say there was no consultation, though. Probably a whole lot more than two meetings.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): How many?

MR. ROLSTON: Well, I understand there were a lot more than two meetings. I'm not going to answer for the Minister...but a great deal of preparation.

I really appeal to you as the chief magistrate in this province to try to minimize the kind of adversary climate there is in your field — in the court system and the police system.

I feel the responsibility as a citizen in this province that all of us.... As I said last year, the best policing is preventive policing. We can think of certain RCMP people who are excellent illustrations of preventive policing. I mentioned Sergeant Ted Foster, just a few miles from this Legislature in Colwood, as an outstanding leader.

I am just hoping that there'll be less of the adversary kind of thing. I look forward to this in legislation which is already before us. More and more people, not just professional people — although I think you need to start there in a kind of shared feedback of information on policing and on the administration of justice — all of us are in on this, and as the adversary which often ends in such a negative result, it can be less obvious as you and all of us administer justice in this province.

So I feel the responsibility. I feel that all of us have responsibility. I feel that the inmate really does. He can exercise a responsibility, at least some responsibility, to the community.

It might interest you, Mr. Attorney-General, that in Mission in a minimum-security jail, which is called Mission Forestry Camp, they are actually starting a defensive driving course. Can you imagine that emanating from a jail? It might be a new thought to this Legislature.

The last time I went to this jail there were two lawyers there, one a very prominent lawyer who is incarcerated for a period of time. They thought that maybe there could be — not in criminal law, but certainly in domestic law — even a night school programme that might help some of them. There are many ways that I think we can get these people to become responsible, to become less devious.

I understand that one of the emphases you're trying to make now in corrections is to kind of defuse and give distractions — creative, innovative distractions — to high-risk people, whether they're in probation or in the jail, so that all of these people can face responsibility — their responsibility to the community.

I'd like to ask you about definite sentences. There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the definite and the indefinite sentence. I wonder if a lot of these

[ Page 1143 ]

people who are on an indefinite sentence and go to a place like Haney Correctional, and hope to take a course for some kind of a skill, find after four months, if not six months, that they're out on probation and they haven't been able to really do anything with that kind of preparation, that kind of programme.

I'm a little confused as to the whole business of indefinite sentences. At the same time you're trying to put them on a programme to get them to become responsible, to develop their skill. It seems that if the guy doesn't even know how long he's going to be in the institution, I don't think we can expect that much rehabilitation, that much of skilled training.

I would finally like to say that I think all of us really need to get into this whole thing to work with you. I would appeal to you to have a night school programme at the university in the law course. You have the library and you have the staff there. I'm not so sure you have an adequate facility. Hopefully there would be ultimately a better facility.

I'm appreciative that you're going to have eventually at least 30 more students in the UBC law programme in the next few years, but why not just a night school — a poor person's law programme at night? It's not necessarily towards an LLB degree. Why not develop people in domestic law?

We're just into the landlord-tenant kind of hassle right now. Why not develop certain people who don't necessarily have a law degree, but certainly you could give some direction and your department...just to help people develop skills in certain sections of the law. I wonder if we need to have everybody go through the three-year programme and just end up becoming a general practitioner. It could be that possibly they could take a year, or maybe they could take a whole year of night school, to develop a certain expertise in a certain kind of law.

So I appreciate what you're doing. I appreciate the legislation which we'll be dealing with in a few weeks' time and I feel all of us, including the people in jail, have a responsibility and that if the positive is emphasized they can respond to that responsibility.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the Hon. Member for Dewdney, I appreciate his remarks.

In regard to the alcoholic people committed to Alouette under 64A, I think it was a chance remark of his that drew the subject to my attention. Two weeks ago we gave instructions that people who go to Alouette Lake because they are found in a condition of alcoholism and need treatment, and then run away from that facility, should not be charged with escaping lawful custody and then taken to Oakalla, or something like that. So I think it was happening and it's been stopped, because I think it was wrong.

More probation officers: yes, we have more in the estimates and we can improve on that too as it's needed in our programme, I'm sure. Thirty more I think are planned for in the estimates. But one of the big problems is to find the qualified trained people.

The man-to-man programme is an excellent one. I appreciated reading that pamphlet. In terms of the Hon. Member's remarks about what was said by the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), who wasn't in his place at the time, I appreciate him saying that there's been long consultation with respect to this police matter.

Indeed it does date back to before my becoming Attorney-General, when a group headed by Neil McDermott looked at the Alberta experience with police and other consultants, and made a report at that time. I think the report came in to me.

Since then we've had a very extensive consultation because we want it to be as much a matter of consensus as possible; and I think it will be a matter of consensus in the community. That's the way it works. To the extent we've not consulted, we'll try and make up for any gaps in that, because it's very important that there not be any irrational fears — valid fears, fine — out in the community when you're trying to embark upon a social step of that importance.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're out there now.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There are some out there, that's right. I know. I've been called Himmler on a hotline, because it was mentioned in the throne speech debate. That's what I regard as the kind of irrational fears, and anything we can do to allay those fears I'd be interested in doing.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): You'd better start with the police, then.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, they've been consulted. They've been part of the consultation — both municipal forces and RCMP forces.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, it is not. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to argue that, but it was not take it or leave it at all; it was a consensus when they left the room and I'm sure it still is a consensus. Yes, sure, I say that.

Now in terms of definite and indefinite sentences: I don't think we've had the results of the Bernshine case in the Supreme Court of Canada which, remember, our court of appeal knocked out. They said they were an abridgement of the liberty of the subject concerned. We're waiting on that court decision in terms of the indefinite sentence.

Finally, in terms of a night law school and other

[ Page 1144 ]

training facilities which would encompass not only potential lawyers but para-judicial people, I think it's terribly important that we improve the training and the facilities for training for these people. That's certainly part of the administration of justice programme in which we are engaged.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): I would like to deal for a few more moments with this matter of the Attorney-General's plans for an elite police group in British Columbia.

When this debate began on Tuesday, the Attorney-General was good enough to indicate that there was a policy group being established, and that hopefully Mr. McMorran would take a position in that policy group, and we all applauded that. We have gone on with discussions about how it is to develop and so on.

I wish the Attorney-General would be a little more candid with the Committee than he has been in the past. I was quite disturbed to see the second front page of The Province this morning: "Two More Anti-Crime Units Planned." This is not a result of any discussion that has taken place on the floor of this Committee, but it is the result of an interview with the Deputy Attorney-General. It appears that in addition to the policy group, of which the Attorney-General advised us, we are also going to have in this, province an investigative and a prosecuting group which is to work as a team.

I think that the Attorney-General should come clean on this matter with the House and with the public, because if you want to have irrational or irresponsible concern raised in the community as to the direction that you are planning to go, then you are going about it in the right way — by silence. As I suggested a few days ago, and I think the Attorney-General will agree, in the matter of doing away with our penal institutions or providing some new and better method of looking after whoever has to be incarcerated or rehabilitated, it was important to take the public into the confidence of the government in this respect, and it is equally important that you do the same with respect to this kind of organization.

I really seriously wonder about the direction the Attorney-General is going, when I recognize what already exists. The Attorney-General said the other day that we have to go after big crime, that B.C. shouldn't be a garden in which big crime can grow. What crimes are you after? It is already well recognized with respect to the drug trade that the RCMP has its own separate organization which deals with drugs. It has a drug squad which goes to work and infiltrates the organization. We already know that the federal Department of Justice has got their whole staff of drug prosecutors who work closely with the RCMP in the preparation of cases and so on. So there is one area which is already, hopefully, being adequately covered by an existing special crime unit.

What other crimes do we have in this province of such significance that we want to establish this own special crime unit — B.C. home grown? To what extent is it going to override the authority of existing police forces? How big will it become? When can we expect to have some indication of the formation of these special anti-crime units? If it's this year, would the Attorney-General indicate where, in the estimates of his department, the moneys for the establishment of such a special crime unit will be found? They may be there but they are lost in the vagaries of estimates recorded as it is presently carried on by this government.

Aside from those detailed questions that I asked, I wish the Attorney-General would take this opportunity to stand here and tell us what the policy is of his government in this matter. Precisely what kind of programme is he planning? If we are going to have our own special police anti-crime units in British Columbia, controlled from here in Victoria, then I think we are entitled to know.

If we are going to end up apparently like the American system where you have investigative forces working with lawyers as a sort of an Attorney-General complex, as is often the case in the States, with its own separate crime detection, enforcement and prosecuting units, I think we are entitled to know.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it's true that, for example, the RCMP has its own drug detail. I gave some figures a minute ago. They have their CIP — Vancouver City police has its own unit. I want to make it clear that the new proposal I am making is to coordinate existing efforts, to backstop them, supplement them and, as I say, coordinate them with prosecutorial assistance and research assistance which will assist them in their investigations and their detection work. So it's basically a matter of coordinating, providing policy, research and targets and not really a matter of a special force. The existing units are simply to be coordinated and targeted and assisted in this work.

You ask when it will come about. I can't answer that. I don't want to be strapped down to timing, but we regard it as a matter of priority that we get at this work as quickly as possible.

In the department at the present time, for example, for the first time we are really moving into the area of research. While we haven't made a decision as to use of computer or whether we'll use government services or other services, research, whether it's in the companies field with all the companies, the land registry, the various returns people make in their daily lives — all of this can have a benefit, too, in terms of crime detection as we get

[ Page 1145 ]

to know more. There's a background of easily accessible, well-researched, knowledge that would be made available to the police forces. That's part of what I mean when I say there should be research and coordination and that they should be closely related to the legal assistance which takes a prosecutorial aspect so that it isn't a matter of the investigation moving independently. It might be commercial fraud, where it becomes an organized thing and not an isolated case. It might be drugs.

We just feel there hasn't been that coordination and concentration and targeting of objectives that there should be in this field. It is not some kind of a new elite police force because it is a coordination of existing forces.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: This year?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. What year is this? I've forgotten when these estimates started.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: 1974.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. This year.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, where's the money?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, because it is basically coordination, we are using our research department, we are using existing forces, so I think you will find the money already exists. In addition to that we intend that a great many of the policemen who are now engaged in clerical, court and escort duties will be released from those duties, hopefully pretty quickly, so there will be additional forces at our disposal in terms of crime prevention and crime detection. We hope to train sheriffs to assume these para-legal duties on a fairly massive scale. We are hoping to use BCIT and maybe other institutions so that this kind of thing will relieve the policemen and we will have additional numbers at our disposal.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I thank the Attorney-General for going this far with us. Then do I understand that you are going to take the policemen who are presently engaged in court and administrative work out of that field and back into crime detection and so on, that somehow or other you will reach into the City of Vancouver police force and begin to dictate to them how they are going to run their affairs — the same as West Vancouver and with the RCMP?

With whom do you replace these people? Recently your provincial court judges have taken very serious exception to the fact that trained police officers are not available in the courtrooms in order to protect the judges and others who are assembled there from dangerous situations which have been known to arise. They are opposed to taking the police out of the courtrooms, but you indicate that this is going to be done.

That's one area where it seems to me that you are going to have to exercise some direction and control over police forces that already have their own officers and police commissions and so on which regulate their function.

With regard to prosecutors: The City of Vancouver has its prosecutors who work in conjunction with the investigative branches of the police force. Other municipalities have prosecutors. Certainly in the drug field, the Department of Justice and the RCMP work together.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's changing, of course.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: So I wonder is the Attorney-General going to assume an area of responsibility with respect to the prosecutor's office in the City of Vancouver? Will you be staffing that directly from the Attorney-General's department rather than the City of Vancouver?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. I don't know whether that's in Hansard, but the answer is yes.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: So that's one definite change that will be made in that kind of an organization.

With respect to sheriffs: Sheriffs have performed a law enforcement role of somewhat minor nature over the years in this province — far different than it is the case in other jurisdictions. Are we going to find that on a county basis we now have a new police officer functioning with the county, namely the sheriff and his various deputies, such as we have in the United States of America? Are we going to have RCMP, sheriffs' officers, city police, all with conflicting jurisdictions? — which is one of the major problems in the United States of America, as to within whose jurisdiction does a particular crime fall and who has responsibility for investigation and prosecution. Perhaps the Attorney-General could indicate that.

I happen to know the sheriff for the City of Vancouver; I just don't see him with a big badge and a gun on his hip. That just doesn't fit his image at all. Maybe the Attorney-General could indicate what's going to happen in Quesnel, for example?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, there will be no imposition on municipal forces, in the organized crime unit we're talking about. There's been discussion; I am sure there will be co-operation between the CIB and their participation, and the municipal forces. It'll be totally co-operative.

[ Page 1146 ]

In terms of court security: the complaint of the judges is not that they want policemen in the court; they want security. The new sheriffs will be officers of the court and will not have law enforcement powers, so there'll be no confusion between them and policemen. They will, among other things, provide that court security.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Pardon me, Mr. Attorney-General, sheriffs are county officers, surely.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If you read the bills that are before this House, the sheriffs' force will be part of the one administration of justice programme. We have a course training programme laid out for these new court officers — not totally new — which is quite interesting. It starts with: introduction; history of sheriffs, which George Curtis is going to give; note-taking and home study; human behaviour; law; peace officer community relations; communications; jail operations and procedures; escort procedures; first aid and self-defence.... I don't want to read the whole curriculum.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Knitting, crocheting, anecdotes....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's a nine-week course, and it's going to take a little while to develop these trained personnel, but we're hopeful.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to follow on a little bit on the question of judges and the courts. The policy of the Attorney-General is to bring the so-called lower courts under the direct control of the province.

I've been making some inquiries in various directions, and I'm wondering if the Attorney-General is aware of certain concerns which exist. Primarily that the justice committee of his department, indeed his department itself, might well run the risk of, in some way directly or indirectly, interfering with the established powers and functions of the courts. Could there be a danger that by....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that there's a bill on the order paper entitled the Provincial Court Amendment Act which I believe covers the area he's now discussing.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'm talking about principle. I'm not talking about providing the facilities or the judges; I'm talking about a principle, namely, to the effect that the more direct degree of involvement between the executive and the judiciary, the more directly does there follow the possible complication, even unwittingly or unintentionally, that the independence of the courts might be brought under question.

I'd like to quote, for example, from the very excellent task force report. I mentioned the other day how well Dr. Matheson had evaluated the drug problem. But there's one little bit on page 39 which bothers me a little bit. The task force report states:

"Law enforcement judiciary and corrections have for too long preferred to isolate themselves not only from the purview of the public but also from each other as component sub-systems in the total criminal justice system."

I'm just suggesting, Mr. Chairman, in one or two ways that the general philosophy of his department — the philosophy which the Minister has stated — is one of very considerable change. He introduced his own comments in this debate; he said that things are happening very quickly in a very short period of time.

While I've no wish to intrude upon the content of the bill you've quoted, Mr. Chairman, I think a very serious principle has to be kept in mind here. I think some very wise person once said that there can be no liberty in the true sense of that word without an independent judiciary.

I'm merely saying that the greater degree to which the actual executive 'branch of government is shown to be connected to the courts, the more we run the danger of the courts losing their essential function and their independence.

In passing, Mr. Chairman, another factor came to light which I'm sure does not intrude upon the bill either. It seems to me a little bit like medicine where the general practitioner is sort of looked upon as the basic unit, the guy who really gives you primary care, and the specialist is somebody up on a higher level.

I'm rather surprised at the tremendous difference in salary between a provincial court judge and a supreme court judge — despite the fact that the provincial court judge deals with about 95 per cent of all the actual crimes which come before the provincial court.

This is the kind of level of justice that very intimately affects the liberty of the person concerned, whereas the supreme court judge who's getting 50 per cent more money every year.... I don't know the exact figures, but he gets about 50 per cent more than the provincial court judge, and it seems to me, in terms of the protection of the freedom and rights of the individual, that it's at the provincial level and so-called lower court that justice really begins to be applied.

It's no real argument to say, well, if he doesn't get fair treatment at that level he can always go on to appeal. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, our judicial system should provide first-class justice at all levels, starting with the so-called lower court level. It would seem to me that since appeals cost a great deal of money and

[ Page 1147 ]

time, and are not within the reach of every individual, we have to try and do our utmost to ensure the highest quality of justice be provided at all court levels, starting at the lower courts.

I drew the analogy between the general practitioner and the specialist, and I'm not so sure that the supreme court judges are so elevated or superior, to use the word again, that there should be this tremendous difference in the attitude of the administration, and getting down to the nitty-gritty, namely, the remuneration which they receive. They do a very important job. This is the first level at which a person committing a crime has his criminality, or otherwise, assessed, and either penalized or vindicated. I just think this is a point which perhaps gets lost sight of.

Furthermore, it seems to me — and I know we can' t get around this — but a judge being in the position he is in our society.... I don't know how he bargains for his remuneration, anyway. I'm pretty certain he hasn't got a union, and I'm pretty certain he's not allowed to talk in public. He hardly gets to tell anybody anything about himself when he's a judge. In my view, and this is only a personal view, a judge pays quite a sacrifice of his own freedom when he becomes a judge. He doesn't get to invest in Dunhill on the inside or the outside. In that regard, these are some of the facts I never knew before until I started making some inquiries.

But the fact that the judge has such a responsible position.... And on top of that he sacrifices some of the freedoms, really, and the privileges in our society which you and I take for granted. But, as I say, he's not allowed to indulge in any other business. He's not allowed to invest in the stock market or do a lot of things which the ordinary citizen takes for granted. Therefore, I just say in passing that that being so, and with the cost of living and inflationary effects and so on, I hope that when we get around to debating the bill, Mr. Attorney-General, we can discuss that in more detail.

A question was raised, I think by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), which interested me greatly. It is something I have gone into in the past. It is this whole question of international efforts to control the growing of poppies in Turkey. This went back to the middle of March, 1972, when the United States government allocated $35 million to Turkey to replace the income which the Turkish farmer would otherwise lose, because in 1971 Turkey had banned the voluntary production of opium, or the growing of the poppies.

I think it should be put on record for the Member for South Peace River, and indeed for the whole House, that at that time he didn't want anyone to take this as any kind of permanent agreement that the Turkish farmer would not grow poppies, and that it depended very much on the financial and economic consequences which might flow from it, notwithstanding the $35 million subsidy.

The up-to-date information I have is that Turkey has chosen, for financial and economic reasons — and presumably because of pressure from the farmers — to make it legal once again to grow as many poppies as they like. So I doubt that very much can be achieved at the provincial level, other than to make representation to our national government and, hopefully, through the vehicle perhaps of the United Nations.

I certainly support entirely the Member for South Peace River in his attempts to at least stop a large part of the production of opium and opiate drugs.

Another subject I'd like the Attorney-General to comment upon, a subject which is raised every single place I go, is the question of abortion. As recently as this morning I was asked about this in a programme. A common impression — and I'm not being critical — but the man in the street, the woman in the street, seems to feel that the Attorney-General has quite a role to play in the whole matter of abortion.

It seems to be relatively unknown or overlooked that the law governing abortion is written in Ottawa in the Criminal Code. I know that doesn't excuse provincial politicians or Attorneys-General from being involved, but I think it should be emphasized, particularly for the interest of people who, quite rightly, express their opposition to abortion, that the only answer to making it less than it is today is in either taking it out of the Criminal Code or rewriting the Criminal Code.

But for the repeated emphasis and approaches that are made — I am sure, to all of us in this House, and possibly more so to myself because of my medical training — it is not possible for the provinces appreciably to change the present situation we have with relation to abortion. The relevant section of the Criminal Code is written in such a way that we, in effect, have abortion on request.

The federal government chose to create abortion committees in hospitals which, in effect, put onto the shoulders of the physician his need to interpret what he Criminal Code was saying, and the Criminal Code uses such vague language to the effect that any woman of whom the life or health may or would be likely to be endangered, or some language of this nature.... It's so all-inclusive that you can find almost any adequate reason to justify abortion.

I have the feeling, Mr. Chairman — and I don't know what the Attorney-General feels about this — but I'm having sufficient information and approach to me being made by enough people that I think the Attorney-General should take, this up at the next meeting, whenever it is, of the national government and the provincial Attorneys-General.

There is a tremendous feeling among a very substantial number of people that abortion is too

[ Page 1148 ]

readily available in this country. I'm not here to argue whether it is or it isn't. I'm here to represent views that are brought to me very frequently in almost every part of the province where I go; and I don't like to sound evasive to these people by saying,"Well, it's a federal government problem." Technically, it certainly is.

I do feel that I would like to hear from the Attorney-General as to whether this is a priority topic at meetings which take place between the provincial and federal authorities, and to what degree the Attorney-General feels there should be any kind of public inquiry or otherwise.

Of course, this would not be in his jurisdiction because probably the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) might choose to conduct inquiries. But there's enough said through all the media and by individual citizens; this is a very difficult public issue and, if anything, the law seems to go beyond what many people feel is correct in our modern society.

The person who talked to me today felt that the frequency of abortion and the ease with which a person can have an abortion today is simply opening the door to euthanasia, and that the thinking will drift very clearly and steadily towards the elimination — if that's the right word — of elderly people in our midst, and that this very lighthearted and rather easy way in which the unborn are being killed will very readily lead to the thinking that other persons in our society, for one reason or another, are not wanted. That is all abortions are really carried out for: because somebody doesn't want the child that has been conceived.

My personal feeling is that this, indeed, is a very dangerous precedent: that if it becomes all too easy to kill the unborn child, it may not be too long before it becomes thought decent, shall we say, and not at all inhuman, perhaps, to encourage taking the lives of unwanted elderly people.

I feel there are some occasions when abortion is justified, but I personally feel that the degree to which it is being carried out is not in keeping with the need. It is my feeling that many of the abortions, while actually falling within the strict technicalities of the criminal code.... I don't think anyone is breaking the code; it's simply because of its very loose and vague definition.

But I would like the Attorney-General to be aware. Perhaps he himself is not contacted as frequently as I am, but there is a very substantial number of people who are deeply concerned about the legislation governing abortion. I would hope that the Attorney-General can tell us that there will be discussions with the federal authorities.

There are some general points I think are worth mentioning, Mr. Chairman. I've talked about the lower court facilities. I wonder if the Attorney-General is considering making the courts more conveniently available to the individual citizen. To what degree could we anticipate that justice might be dispensed on a Saturday morning, for example? I gather that in the United States they have night courts and justice is dispensed fairly promptly after the offence sometimes. At least people don't have to take time off from work in order to attend in court.

I presume that this would involve extra personnel. Perhaps the Attorney-General could talk about that.

I see that the Premier is back in his place. The Premier has made the point that we must make good use of our universities and our school facilities and so on. I am entirely in agreement with that, and I'd just say how about court facilities? Should we not be making a greater effort to make full-time use of our court facilities?

What about fees to jurors? I made the inquiry and somebody told me; I've forgotten the year it was last changed. Was it in 1965 or 1966? Somewhere in the late 60s, I understand; seven or eight years ago. We're all worried about rents and inflation and wage control and so on, but what about the juror who has to take time off his work to go and give evidence? If it was worth (whatever it was worth) $10 a day, it must be worth a great deal more today.

In the same way I was trying to emphasize that we shouldn't overlook the judge's role in society, I don't think we should overlook this pretty important input to the whole judicial system, namely the juror. Jurors sometimes can be held up over a very considerable period of time playing their role in the justice system. I'd be interested to hear about that.

Dr. Matheson in his task force report also makes it very clear that if there's any group in our society that really isn't getting their fair share in the justice system it has to be the Indian population. Unquestionably, the Indian citizen has less chance of getting proper defence, has less chance of understanding what on earth is going on and has a greater chance of having a heavier penalty simply because he can't afford to pay the fine.

We've heard a lot of discussion and proposals about the native Indian and his eagerness to settle land claims and his eagerness to become recognized as being just the same as any other Canadian citizen. But in our criminal justice system as of today, Mr. Attorney-General, I don't think the Indian is getting a fair break.

The Indians constitute 2.5 per cent of our population in British Columbia but they represent one in seven of every person in jail. It may even be higher, the Member says, but I think that was the figure quoted in the task force report. I can't find the exact page in the report. Anyway, the proportion of Indians in jail compared to their proportion of the population is quite unrealistic. It means several things. Frequently, the Indian person is not fully informed as to his rights when he is arrested. He

[ Page 1149 ]

frequently pleads guilty, presumably out of ignorance or in the absence of counsel or, more often, in the absence of money to get himself a defence. I know the Attorney- Genera I has talked about making more court workers available to help Indians.

There was an article in The Vancouver Sun not too long ago which very clearly pointed out what could be done. I forget the worker's name who had been arrested himself some 14 years ago but is now one of the leading workers in supporting the cause of Indians who come before the courts. I wonder if the Attorney-General can tell us to what degree these services are going to be increased. On that subject, Dr. Matheson's report should be mentioned again.

In passing, I might say that I consider the Matheson report — not so much the part to do with drugs which we've already covered, Mr. Attorney-General — but the report per se in my view is one of the best reports on any topic that's come before this House in the years I've been here. It's precise; it's to the point; the statements are backed up by figures and facts. If there is any problem, the print is a bit small. Maybe I'm getting to the age where I need glasses, I don't know. But apart from the rather small print which could be larger, the way in which this report is written and the precise, logical, accurate way in which you can pick up the meat of the report very quickly I think deserves credit. I've got the highest regard for Dr. Matheson as a person and I certainly think this report must rank among the best that has ever been brought before this House for our study.

He goes on to mention, as I said earlier, that we have far too many people in jail who don't need to be there. The reason some of them have to be there is that we don't have probation officers to provide the alternative kind of service. You can't have it both ways. If we're going to save money on not having a high jail population, we have to spend the money on the supervisory service which is the alternative. The Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) touched on this already.

It is a fact that under the heading of probation the first thing Dr. Matheson says is that an immediate — he uses the word immediate, a pretty urgent word — an immediate increase of 58 probation officers be authorized to deal with the present caseload and range of services which they supply to the court and the community.

Furthermore, under organization, he says that an appointment of a chief probation officer be made as soon as possible. Perhaps the Attorney-General could tell us whether we're going to get the 58. I think he said 30, which is really only half the number needed. I'd like to know if in fact we are to have a chief probation officer.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I talked not too long ago to a probation officer and we discussed the importance of the pre-sentence report. I'm sure the Premier would also be very interested in this because of his experience in social work. This is a vital part of deciding what is an appropriate sentence for a person who has committed a crime.

The probation officer told me there's a real danger that he just becomes what he called a "pre-sentence-report factory." In order to learn the essential nature of the prisoner, his background, his social problems, whether he's got a job or unemployed, his family problems, his health, a vast variety of factors come into the making up of a proper pre-sentence report. I think he quoted to me that something reasonable would be 8 to 12 a month. But it's at least double that number which the probation officers are expected to cope with. Almost without exception they spend almost all of their time on pre-sentence report making when they feel that a greater amount of available time to be in the field and to carry out some of the other duties they have would enable them to do a better job. Perhaps the Attorney-General could respond to that question too.

Is it simply that there are not enough of them? If there were more probation officers, would each of them, in effect, have fewer pre-sentence reports to make up and then be in a position to take a wider view of his function in the criminal justice system?

I don't want to talk again about the actual jail facilities. I've touched on one particular jail, namely Wilkinson Road. But there was another excellent report written which dealt specifically with correctional facilities. I think the Attorney-General is to be commended for making that kind of up-to-date information available. "B.C. Corrections Facility Descriptions" it's called.

I can't agree entirely with that report. It isn't in the same class as the Matheson report because I don't agree with it's description of Wilkinson Road jail for a start. But at least it gives MLAs an opportunity to be much better informed about what exists so that we can discuss what we should be planning for the future.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I can't finish without just saying one word about the drug problem. I hope the Attorney-General will take steps to involve the parents of drug addicts in some productive way to develop some of the programmes which would be essential if Dr. Matheson's programme were to work.

Looking at Dr. Matheson's programme, it tries to blend two systems. It tries to give the drug addict a reasonable chance to be his own salvation without being incarcerated in jail. On the other hand, it does provide control. If the addict is given the opportunity to be treated in a measure of freedom, and by choice he decides to break that regulation, he then goes back to some form of compulsory detention.

I would predict that the greatest danger in Dr. Matheson's programme not working will be in what

[ Page 1150 ]

happens to the addict when he's given his freedom under some form of supervision. It's that form of supervision that's the key to the whole plan. In my experience with the Concerned Citizens' Association the parents, who often have received rather a rude awakening by finding that their son or daughter is on drugs, suddenly feel that they do want to be involved in finding solutions and participating in the treatment.

I wonder if the Attorney-General could give us some idea where Dr. Matheson's suggestions stand at the present time. Are we getting to the point of planning the actual facilities which would be required for this modified degree of detention and treatment? Are we laying out a Programme whereby the necessary social workers, parents and ancillary personnel can be available when a drug addict having broken the law is brought within this, what I might call a semi-detention, semi-prison type of system whereby you don't just put the person behind bars for 90 days and then put them out in the street?

The whole idea is to have a measure of control, a measure of detention, plus some form of compulsory treatment, plus help and assistance and various forms of guidance by people when that person is released from whatever period of compulsory detention he is sentenced to.

I have a feeling that the Attorney-General accepts the concept and I'll take the licence of suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that the Deputy Attorney-General certainly accepts this concept. He's a young man with a progressive outlook and I just know that he realizes, as you do, Mr. Attorney-General, that the present system is a complete and absolute failure. I think with people such as your Deputy and Dr. Matheson, we actually can be optimistic as to what can be accomplished in this province.

But let's not start the Matheson programme without the proper facilities and the proper personnel; otherwise it will fail and then the system that was proposed will be condemned, not because essentially it has a lot of promise, but because you haven't got the personnel and the facilities to make it work. While I would certainly encourage the Attorney-General to get ahead with it, I would also suggest that we have the proper programme ready to roll before you put it into effect. Otherwise, we might well indeed have some serious complications.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, perhaps before things slip out of my mind, I might reply.

I completely recognize the first point the Hon. Member for Oak Bay made, that there must be independence of the judiciary. I'm charged with the administration of justice, which is sort of the management of the justice system, in my position. But I am not charged in any respect with the adjudication that should take place in that system, and I think that the independence of the judiciary must be jealously guarded.

As a matter of fact, there's going to be a little amendment to one of the bills on the order paper — I have to say this quickly because I'd be terribly out of order — just to make sure that that principle is not being interfered with by current legislation.

On the question of salaries of provincial court judges, again I agree. I think their level is now $26,500; Supreme Court judges are $38,000 or $39,000. There'll have to be adjustments and there will be adjustments that should be substantial, as part of the overall changes in provincial service in April, or soon thereafter. We must give our provincial court the standing that the importance of their work merits. I appreciate what the Member has said in that respect.

On abortion: I'm sure that will be on the agenda. I say I'm sure because the Minister of Justice, the Hon. Otto Lang, has raised this matter. It's his legislation, but I think from what he has said that this will be re-discussed at the next meeting of the Minister of Justice and the Attorneys-General of the provinces.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's called "passing the buck".

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it really is, but if he's passing the buck in terms of receiving the opinions of Ministers of Health and other people, I don't blame him for that.

Fees to jurors should be improved, and we should look at that. I don't think there should be total recovery of lost income because I think there's an element of public service there too, which should be recognized by the people concerned and appreciated by the community.

Vancouver Provincial Court is sitting Saturdays on a fairly regular basis, and as part of the whole business of the reform of the delivery of legal services we must make those courts more accessible.

With respect to Indians receiving fines that in many cases they can't pay, I would hope that before the end of this session, and perhaps even before the end of my estimates, legislation will be introduced on that subject also.

AN HON. MEMBER: When will that come up?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I don't know how long the estimates will be.

In terms of a chief probation officer as recommended in the report: Tony Sheridan is that person at the present time, although he doesn't bear that title, but that has been implemented. He's the Director of Community Corrections, but one of his things is Chief of Probation Officers.

I wish we could say that we could have 58 qualified probation officers right now. We can't,

[ Page 1151 ]

because they have to be found and trained, and we should only take ones who are really dedicated a bit to that job, not just take everybody. But we have provided in the estimates for 30 more at the present time and I hope that we'll be able to find the bodies.

In terms of the drug problem, I must point out that I am very much concerned with it because it is now my unfortunate duty to prosecute addiction and to incarcerate addiction. Therefore we have contributed to the research material in this very important field, and we must. Nevertheless, the matter is under the other department, and, I think, by an Act of the Legislature, is setting up the Drug and Alcohol Commission.

There's been not only Matheson's contribution to this field but also the reports of other bodies and research institutes here and other parts of the world. I am sure they are being actively considered by the Drug and Alcohol Commission. I certainly hope that these alternative facilities are brought into being because it will relieve me of the consequences of a jail population which might be 50 per cent drug related, and everything that flows from that. So I hope for progress in that field.

MR. WALLACE: I'm really quite concerned about the way, Mr. Attorney-General.... And pardon me if I misinterpreted what you just said, but I get the horrible feeling that you're just trying to wash your hands of your responsibility in the drug problem and the association.... I'm sorry, but that's the impression you leave.

The fact is you're doing your job to prosecute people who are breaking the law, whether it's because they're on drugs or not, and I agree that is your function. But in case you haven't got the message, I'm saying that the treatment of the drug addiction problem in this province, if it is given entirely over to Stein and the commission, will get worse not better. Now, I don't know how often we have to say it. I don't know to what degree you, Mr. Attorney-General, and the Minister of Health and the Minister of Human Resources sit down and hammer this thing out in a realistic fashion and look at the facts.

One person who indeed did look at the facts was Dr. Matheson. You've heard from many people on this side of the House, and I know that many of your own Members...I know that your own Deputy believes in this. He took part in the meetings I've attended. This is a whole new, realistic, more optimistic prospect if the Matheson plan can be implemented. But the Matheson plan depends on having the appropriate kind of legislation which charts this middle course between permissiveness and complete incarceration in a jail without treatment.

It seems to me we run the risk of going from one side of the scale to the other. We seem to have agreed that the present system is just a failure. To dump the person in jail and get him out of the way until he commits the next offence seems to be the path we're on.

The alternative, in my view.... I'm sorry, but that 39-page report I quoted from the other day just has no meat in it at all, no realistic, credible proposals. It just talks in a loose, inexact, inconsequential way which really offers no solid proposals. So, through you, Mr. Chairman, when I hear the Attorney-General say, "Well this really isn't my responsibility," I'm sorry, Mr. Attorney-General, there has to remain in the whole drug addiction field what I would call an enlightened degree of legal control; that you can, indeed, put a person in a facility and take away his freedom and compel him to have treatment, or at least take him out of the stream of society.

It really bothers me when I think of the hours and the effort that your staff have put in to coming up with the draft proposal that Dr. Matheson presented. When I think of the number of people that I have talked to in the drug field — again I must come back to the parents.

I've had very substantial exposure to parents who have sons and daughters addicted to heroin and who have fallen foul of the criminal justice system. They have been putting their opinions forward for a very long time to have just something like the system that Dr. Matheson suggests. It really bothers me when I hear the Attorney-General say, Mr. Chairman, that he's just sort of waiting for the day when he's going to give the whole thing over. Indeed, he says the legislation has already given it over to the drug commission.

I'm not going to argue the interpretation of the legislation. All I'm saying is that I'd be stunned, if I had been stupid enough in the previous session of the House to vote for that legislation, to find that the very people who have had the most down-to-earth, sensible, productive proposals are going to be right out of the picture and it's going to be run by social workers on the Drug and Alcohol Commission. If that's what happened I'm....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh! The Premier's affronted. I didn't mean it in the sense that only the social workers were to be involved.

I'm so convinced of the need for some compromise approach whereby the addict will always be subject to some measure of compulsion and control of his problem. I haven't got this other report in front of me, but at one point I remember distinctly, for example, that it says they will only deal with addicts referred to the commission by a physician. There are all kinds of addicts who never go

[ Page 1152 ]

near a physician, don't want to go near a physician, and if they do go near a physician he's usually too busy to help them anyway. So I just take that isolated paragraph out of the report to show how unrealistic it is in coming to any kind of grips with the problem.

We've had quotes about the Japanese system. I've read about it and it's got a lot to offer. I think probably our society would not accept so rigid a degree of restriction of freedom, but restriction of freedom is a relative thing.

I do feel that you would have tremendous community support, Mr. Attorney-General, for implementing what is a kind of a compromise system whereby we don't go from just incarceration, with no effort to rehabilitate, over to a kind of a permissive approach where you set up various clinics where really I can't see how much is going to be achieved, and indeed where emphasis seems to be placed on replacement therapy with methadone, which is highly debatable. It's highly questionable whether in the long run that replacement therapy achieves very much.

What we need is, first of all, to keep the addict in some kind of facility where he does not have complete freedom, but at the same time is not penned up behind bars in a cell, and where we have people who can help that person — medical personnel, social workers, psychiatrists, whatever is needed.

I really am disturbed to hear the Attorney-General suggest that really all he does is prosecute the offender and leave the Drug and Alcohol Commission to deal with the other aspects. If I misunderstood you, Mr. Attorney-General, I apologize. Maybe you'd like to comment on what I've said.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I've heard that Colonel McGuigan is not too well these days in the Royal Jubilee Hospital. He's certainly been a very, very faithful servant to the Province of British Columbia and I think all Members wish him a very speedy recovery.

That brings to mind, Mr. Chairman, the Liquor Control Board, where we find $111 million net profit and still no thought of customer convenience.

It's not really the newest thing in the world, Mr. Chairman, to speak of refrigeration; yet it's impossible in the Province of British Columbia to enter a liquor store and buy cold beer. There's absolutely no reason for that.

I think it's also high time that there was greater choice and greater selectivity in the spirits, and specifically the wines.

There's got to also be a secondary use for containers. The liquor bottles could well be structured at the outset whereby they could be used as lamps or glasses, or made into water pitchers, or something along that line. It's total nonsense that they have to be absolutely thrown away.

Now, there's a very interesting little article dealing with wines, and it was written by a man by the name of George Bain. It's called "Champagne is for Breakfast," and it was published in New Press in Toronto in 1972. I'd just like to read to the Hon. Attorney-General certain of the criticisms contained in it and ask him whether or not the situation that we have in B.C. is improved, which it does not seem to have been, and, if not, why it is not improved. He says this:

"For the scant service that he receives, the Canadian wine buyer gets no compensating economies."

Then he gives some examples:

"At the time when the British Columbia board was selling its one claret of what is called a 'classified growth' at $6.05 — Pontet Canet...."

The price went up later by 90 cents a bottle, and I think it's standing now at $7 plus, isn't it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well that's not....

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. GARDOM: Just let me finish this, in any event. The article states this:

"...D. Silelin in New York listed four of at least equal standing at roughly $3.25 or $4.40 a bottle.

"The pricing policies of the Canadian provincial liquor commissions are, to put it in as restrained a way as possible, mysterious."

We have certainly had mysterious pricing policies in B.C.

"In most cases the commissions flatly refused to reveal what those policies are."

Those policies have never, ever been revealed to the people in this province.

"The three largest provinces, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, all acknowledge that the mark-ups they apply are different for wines produced within the province, within the country, and abroad, but still no explanation to the general public of the formula that is used.

"One of the greatest success stories in Canadian business, it has been so written in several places, is that of the little firm called Domestic Wines and By-products Ltd. formed by Pascal Capozzi in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia in 1931. Its first president was a young Kelowna hardware merchant who later went into politics. After a slow start Calona Wines, as the firm became known, bloomed in the 1950s and 1960s, and by 1968 this became a Canadian success story. The control was sold for $9.6 million to U.S. Food Products

[ Page 1153 ]

Standard Brands.

"Four or more of every 10 bottles of wine sold in B.C. were Calona Wines."

Is that still the situation today?

"This is perhaps not surprising considering that the Liquor Control Board of British Columbia lists no fewer than 61 of them by name. The 61 Calona Wines listed made only three fewer than the combined total of those of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal, Europe's five leading producers.

"The British Columbia government, both by discriminatory pricing and the relative non-listing of foreign wines, gives the same generous support to a provincial industry in which the leader already holds 40 per cent of the market."

Is that still the situation today?

Not only are the three provinces which he is referring to bilking their customers of a proper freedom of choice for a start; they are also on questionable grounds constitutionally.

"The regulation of trade and commerce lies solely within the authority of the federal parliament and the discriminatory mark-ups applied in these cases by the provinces constitute both an interference with trade within Canada and an intrusion upon Ottawa's rights to regulate the importing of goods into the country."

Is that true? Have you ever posed a test case on that point, Mr. Attorney-General?

What percentage, Mr. Attorney-General, of B.C. wine is made from B.C. grapes? I gather that in Ontario 100 per cent of Ontario wine is indeed made by Ontario grapes.

How is the shelving process in the Province of B.C.? Who determines what wines or what liquor commodity will be placed closest to the cash register? Is it on a preference basis? Is it on the basis of first come, first served? Is it on the basis of the greatest number of sales? Or is it regulated and turned over from time to time? The people don't know that.

Secondly, Mr. Attorney-General, does the Liquor Control Board do any true shopping, in any sense of the word? Once the spirits get on the shelf we've got a completely protected market. It's impossible to buy or sell spirits in the Province of British Columbia except through this particular facility. So it's a monopoly unto itself, but it's also a monopoly of choice and it is dictated choice to the B.C. public.

In our Act, Mr. Attorney-General, is there anything about disclosing the chemical breakdown of wines? If added preservatives are put into wine, should not the public know about that? I don't believe there is such a provision within our statute. I gather that there is that type of thing, say, in Washington state.

Secondly, how are these wines purchased in the first place by the Liquor Control Board? Are there professional tasters? Should there not be a wine counselors? Do we have that kind of a person in the Province of B.C.?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Ask the Minister of Health. There are lots of volunteers.

MR. GARDOM: Most of all, Mr. Attorney-General, the point that I'm stressing in this little talk is that the consumer is the person who is getting the short end of the stick here, and he is certainly entitled to a much fairer break than he's ever had before.

I'm now going to spend a couple of words talking, Mr. Attorney-General, about stock write-downs.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Is this Can-Cel again?

MR. GARDOM: No, it's not Can-Cel. This is something that is happening in the Province of B.C. It is an extremely confusing topic, but I'd like to give you an example.

A company in 1967 sold its assets to another company on the basis of six shares for one. Then in 1973 they were sold, written down again on the basis of 10 shares for one, and then a little later, a month or two later in 1973, they were written down on the basis of five shares for one.

In order to make this rather simple arithmetic, Mr. Attorney-General, let's say you start with 6,000 shares. So the 6,000 shares a person pays for are written down to 1,000 shares in 1967. In 1973 the remaining 1,000 shares are written down 10 for one, so the fellow ends up with 100 shares. A month or so later in the same year the 100 shares are written down on a basis of five for one, so the fellow ends up with 20 shares.

This is just great. He starts off with 6,000 shares and within a period of five or six years he ends up with 20. He ends up with 20.

Now the point I wish to make here, Mr. Attorney-General, is that this apparently is within the law — maybe barely within the law, but it's within the law. But the general public are not informed on the whole of this write-down process and are totally ignorant of what's happening to their dollars in it. In most cases they have no rights in preventing it occasioning, because the insiders with control of the bulk of the stock can control the write-down, and can control the disposition of the company that's concerned.

So why not, in order to see that the public can receive some independent advice, establish a public investment bureau? It's to protect the investor. It could perform a counseling function whereby an investor or a borrower could make inquiries and

[ Page 1154 ]

could seek assistance and receive expertise and get help before he enters into an investment or a loan to see if he's getting a fair deal, or if he happens to be scrooged throughout.

The bureau would be able to consider all of the facts — the kind of stock concern, the assets that the company might have, the degree of risk, the amount of money that was required in a borrowing situation, or the duration of loan, the amount of bonus, interest, and so forth and so on.

Rather than always looking at the thing after the fact and providing some very, very limited remedies which we have here for protection of people to get themselves out of usurious loan transactions — but not necessarily usurious stock transactions — why not cut it off at the beginning, and at least provide a vehicle whereby people can come in and obtain the kind of advice and the kind of assistance that I'm speaking of?

I think then we might find these investors and these borrowers not being hooked from the outset.

I again reiterate, Mr. Attorney-General, and I find it rather appalling that this continues to be missed.... I've spoken to you about it as recently as yesterday and in the last session and to every other Attorney-General that we've ever had here. We've got to have some powers dealing with misleading advertising. There's still none in the Province of B.C.

You just have to look at the pages in the classified section: trips to Hawaii, $115. There is nobody who can go to Hawaii on that trip for $115. Fortunately this has been exposed, to an extent, via the hotline people, but that's not enough. It is purely and simply come-on advertising. There is no trip to Hawaii for $115. It's $115 plus, plus, plus. And that is misleading advertising.

Again I reiterate, dealing with the word guarantee, that if people are preaching guarantees in advertisements, it has to be made the law of B.C. that they've got to explain how, where, why or by whom the guarantee arises. That's got to be done. The general public have got to know that a guarantee is only as good as the worth of the value of the guarantor. Otherwise it's not worth a nickel. It's not worth a nickel.

One of the Attorneys-General we had, I think way back in 1969, did agree that the word guarantee in newspaper advertisements could indeed be misleading if it wasn't explained how, where or by whom the guarantees were made. He suggested that one course would be either removing the advertisements in question, or requiring them to be more specific.

I'm asking you that, Mr. Attorney-General: why not make it the law of the Province of B.C. that if you're going to utilize the word guarantee in an advertisement, you've got to be specific as to what the worth of the guarantee is, or it doesn't go into the advertisement at all?

Now I'm going to belabour this question of the woodsman's lien thing forever if you're not going to do anything about it. I'm going to read to you the judgment of the court of appeal. I just want you to get the message, because I do know that you are busy.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Can I just say that as a result of the Hon. Member's representations — and I do have a feeling of deja vu about this speech a little bit — we did ask the Law Reform Commission investigating mechanics' liens to be sure that the question of woodsmen's liens was included in their study and recommendations.

MR. GARDOM: Well, the message has been received.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Right.

MR. GARDOM: Then the speech is short.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Very briefly, I am glad that the Hon. Member's become a convert to the socialist faith. In purchasing shares he doesn't say that the rule of caveat emptor should apply any more. He's saying there should be some kind of a semi-official body which will help him with his investments.

MR. GARDOM: No.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Okay, I'm glad to hear that, because I kind of felt that you were tending in that direction. We're the socialists over here; you're supposed to be the caveat emptor boys over there.

MR. GARDOM: Are you trying to set up a secret meeting?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it's for us to.... I may end up joining that darned united party if you keep confusing things and keep making out that we should mothball investors to the extent that you're suggesting. But don't forget; in the new Companies Act — that writing-down that you mentioned — it's much harder because shareholders now have to approve a reorganization of a company.

I don't know the case you're talking about but I'll bet it didn't happen under the new Act.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: LCB: I just want to say in terms of container return and everything else that we have instructed that there shall be a management survey in respect to the Liquor Control Board, which is a $111 million industry — profit, not

[ Page 1155 ]

the gross. It's a big business being carried on by a few very dedicated public servants — and I pay tribute to Mr. Bruce, Vic Woodlands and the others — but under difficulty.

It has not been looked at in terms of modern management techniques. I don't think it's ever been looked at in that way. So we have a management survey underway; I think the firm is Urwick, Currie and Partners of the City of Toronto — maybe that's bad. Have they got an office out here? I hope they have because then we won't.... But we've looked for the best firm and we want to assist the management in running what is a very big business.

I won't say anything more about that at the present time because I think that's important. I look on it as an aid to the existing management of the LCB — not a criticism of their efforts, but an assistance. They recognize it as such. In terms of listing and other things, that too is being actively considered. There is a listing policy now before the Liquor Control Board, which is Neil Davidson and his two associates. They'll be coming back....

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Listing policy? Well, it's all laid out in the public accounts committee. But that is being looked at. Listing policy is being reviewed by the Liquor Control Board — that's the three-man supervisory group — and they will make recommendations to the government. I'm not pushing them. I know you might say,"Why haven't they already made their recommendations, and why haven't we changed things in terms of giving people a more sophisticated system in which there will be greater selection and so forth?" But I'm not pushing them because it's a big subject, and they will be making their recommendations.

MR. GARDOM: You are informing the House, Mr. Attorney-General, that the board is considering the listing problem. The people who should have a voice in that are the consuming public, not the administration. It's not an administrative function; it's a question of public choice.

The public in B.C. would love to have a wide selection of California wines; that's what they want to have. Just ask them; just ask that very question and you'll have a resounding "yes." So, please don't leave the decision up to the board as to what the listing is going to be. It's always been the board's decision and it's always been criticized. That's the very point I'm trying to make.

Another thing: whatever is wrong with a liquor company if it chooses to sell a case of liquor on a basis of a loss leader — say 12 bottles for the price of 11? That happens in all of the states; you've visited in the United States. It doesn't seem to send anybody to rack and ruin. If Gordon's Gin wishes to give a discount one month, why can't they do it? What's wrong with that?

You are shaking your head. You're not even jolly. Well, what's wrong with it? There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. In B.C., insofar as liquor distribution is concerned, we have been tax-oriented and board-oriented but never consumer-oriented. The consumer has got the worst end of the stick — if stick is the right word. The shallow end of the bottle.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Let's keep the merchandising tricks out of the liquor stores.

MR. GARDOM: Merchandising tricks!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, gimmicks.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Pretty soon you'll have a tiger in your tank.

MR. GARDOM: It's not a gimmick. A sale of liquor is certainly not a gimmick. If there happens to be an oversupply of very good wine and a person wishes to buy it and get a break on a bottle or two, they should be entitled to do that.

You know, it's the people we are supposed to be representing, not the Liquor Control Board.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): We have had a fairly wide-ranging debate in the Attorney-General's estimates this year — everything from euthanasia, abortion and rape to poppy cultivating in Turkey. The debate has been fairly wide-ranging, but I would like to bring it back to prisons because this is something that I mentioned in my contribution to the throne speech debate last year when we had a full, wide-ranging throne speech debate.

At that time I offered to assist the Attorney-General in taking a wrecking bar to Oakalla. I am pleased to see that he made a speech to the John Howard Society's annual meeting in Victoria, saying that we are phasing out the institutional-type prison system. Although I understand that one of the Members for Burnaby would like to be the first to wield that wrecking bar, I would ask him that when he is thinking about it, will he reserve at least the west wing for me because I worked there for two years. I hope we can sit down later and work out an agreement on who is going to wreck which.

I don't think you can talk about knocking prisons down, and destroying the institutional type of prison system, without considering the alternatives. I believe I agree with the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) when he said that a lot of work has to be done with the public before we start breaking down this old system and before we start going out into community corrections — taking

[ Page 1156 ]

inmates, taking people out into the communities.

A lot of work has been done in the United States and other countries....

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Encourage me to make that speech again.

MR. SKELLY: I don't want to encourage you to make that speech again because most Liberals make their speeches every year since they were elected, and, really, I don't want you to be repetitive on that.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Recycled!

MR. SKELLY: Well, they've had a head start on you.

I would like to refer you to an article in Time magazine, July 24, 1972, that outlines some of the alternatives that have been used in the United States, and have been used fairly successfully, I might add.

A very few years ago a task force in the State of Wisconsin recommended that all institutional prisons in that state be phased out by 1975, although that task force, I understand, was very weak on alternatives.

In the State of Massachusetts, when Mr. Jerome Miller became Commissioner for Juvenile Detention Problems in 1969, they had institutions in that State that housed up to 1,000 juveniles up to the age of 17 years old. This was back in 1969. In 1972 there was only one such institution left in Lancaster, Massachusetts, and that institution housed only 20 people. The rest had been phased out, had been placed in group homes in communities and had been placed in foster homes. Much the same thing had been done to those institutions as has been done with the Willingdon School for Girls, and I would like to see more of that in the prison system in this province.

An interesting comment on this, as far as finances goes, is that where it cost $250,000 to house 12 people in a large institutional type of boarding school, under the new system, where delinquents are kept in group homes in communities, the cost for 12 people is only $85,000. So there is a tremendous saving both in human terms and in financial terms in that type of breaking down of the institutional system.

Other states have also followed this community correction programme. In states such as Florida where they have 28 community correction centres, such as North Carolina, where they really pioneered this system 15 years ago, they have a recidivism rate of something in the nature of 2 per cent, whereas institutions have rates which range as high as 80 or 90 per cent.

I welcome the speech that the Attorney-General made to the John Howard Society annual meeting in Victoria a few days ago, and I would like to see us proceed on the decentralization of the prison system, of the correction system, as quickly as possible. But again with that warning, a lot of track should be laid with the public first; a lot of information should be given to the public and a lot of information, a lot of feedback, should be sought from the public before we go ahead in this venture. The second thing I wanted to bring up...and I was really waiting till the fire marshal's vote, vote 29, but I almost despair of us ever getting to that vote.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Brousson will be proud of you.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That'll be next week!

MR. SKELLY: I may not be here next week, rather when the next vote is discussed, so I'd like to bring it up now.

This is quite an unusual cabinet Member. He wears many hats: he's the inspector of credit unions; he is the exalted law officer of the province; he is in charge of the judicial system; he is the supervisor of companies and corporate morality. I would like him, just for a few minutes under vote 11, to maybe don his slicker and his helmet and maybe borrow a set of rubber boots from the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) and just for a few minutes consider the fire departments in this province.

I have more than a dozen volunteer fire departments in my constituency. I only have one municipal fire department. With the limited equipment that these fire departments have, with the limited staff they have — dedicated staff — they do a tremendous job in protecting the life and property of the residents of my constituency.

But they have one problem; and they are hampered in their attempts to improve their service to the residents of those small communities and rural areas. They have a problem in acquiring equipment. I think the main reason they have this problem is that, unlike municipalities, they are liable to pay federal sales tax and provincial social services tax on all their equipment. Municipal fire departments are exempt from those payments. They are exempt from that liability even though they have more resources at their disposal than the small volunteer fire departments in the unorganized and rural areas.

I would like to know if the Attorney-General would be willing to go to the Minister of Finance.... And now I am talking about extortion and aggravated assault, so this really comes under your vote. I would like to know if you would go to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and twist his arm and maybe grab him by the ankles and shake a few shekels out of his pocket — that's aggravated assault, although I would like to see you do it in a

[ Page 1157 ]

gentle way and not use any undue pressure.

On behalf of volunteer fire departments in my riding I would like to ask the exalted fire chief of the province to use his influence on the Minister of Finance to try to relieve the people who are working in those fire departments of that onerous burden of paying the provincial sales tax. I would also like you to make representation to the federal government to try to relieve those small volunteer fire departments, with their dedicated staffs and their limited equipment, try to relieve them of paying that 12 per cent sales tax on emergency equipment. Thank you very much.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago the House was engaged in a conversation with the Attorney-General concerning the Liquor Control Board and the Liquor Commission. I would like to just add two comments concerning the sale of liquor and wines in the Province of British Columbia.

I had asked the Attorney-General if he is studying the idea of allowing a refund on empty liquor or wine bottles throughout the province. Certainly if we are going to refund on beer bottles then we should go the other step because it would be helpful. I see he's nodding his head. This must be under investigation and study.

The other point of course has been discussed in this House many times: the Attorney-General's indicated that he was sympathetic to the position of people asking for licences in neighbourhood pub areas. What is happening with respect to the implementation of recommendations for more facilities throughout the metropolitan areas of British Columbia?

There's quite a demand now for neighbourhood pubs and I think that people are entitled to have this facility available to them. But there seems to be a very go-slow programme at the present time with respect to the licensing of them or getting any concrete direction as to what is going to happen.

I hope the Attorney-General would give us some indication on that. If he would like to reply right now I'll sit down, providing the Chairman would recognize me again.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I don't fail to recognize that Hon. Member either here or up in the Peace River. But the regulations that you speak of have been drafted, they've been considered by the British Columbia Liquor Appeal Board. They're now back and they'll be taken to cabinet as soon as I can get time on the cabinet agenda.

MR. SMITH: Thank you.

There is another item that I want to bring to the attention of the Attorney-General. I tried to bring it to his attention briefly in the form of a question a few days ago. At that time it was suggested that the matter should be left to the Minister's estimates.

That is, I would like to give you a bit of the background concerning a problem that mining companies are having with respect to the Securities Commission of the Province of British Columbia. I'm not sure that the Attorney-General has read a report "Mining Exploration in British Columbia" prepared by the B.C.-Yukon Chamber of Mines. It's the recent one, 1973-74, and it's a very interesting report because it outlines the number of mines and the location of mines in the Province of British Columbia that are actually presently in operation. Then it goes on to list potential producers in the province and lists those producers in the areas where the particular deposit is. There are 10 in number — potential producers — and they have actually gotten to the point where they've estimated tons per day of production from each one of these mines. There's existing mines and existing mills.

Then we move another step beyond that and we move into locations of potential mines in the Province of British Columbia where the ore body has actually been discovered, where they've done enough work to prove up the fact that an ore body exists.

They're scattered throughout the whole Province of British Columbia, some 46 different locations listed in this particular report. Now some of those 46 mineral mines and seven coal mines, as a matter of fact, some of these particular mining companies at the present time will have filed prospectuses because they're far enough along with their development that they would have been required by now to file a prospectus with the Securities Commission.

But at least some of these potential mines and mining locations have not as yet taken that step to file their prospectus with the Securities Commission of the province. Now their problem is one of trying to file a proper prospectus, taking into consideration the ramifications of Bill 31.

While I don't wish to reflect upon the bill, I think the Attorney-General must be aware of the fact that there's a wide degree of difference of opinion as to the actual impost this particular bill will produce upon the mining industry throughout the Province of British Columbia.

You can get almost a difference of $100 million depending upon who you talk to. Well, if that's the case on existing mines, it certainly must be a problem to those people who presently wish to file a prospectus concerning a potential mine in the province, particularly when they wish to file a meaningful prospectus with the Securities Commission.

There's too wide a degree of interpretation of that bill and there's too much power and latitude left to the discretion of the Minister. I would hope that the Attorney-General, while I don't wish him to run afoul

[ Page 1158 ]

of the rules of the House by reflecting directly upon the bill that's before the House, I would hope the Attorney-General would take those comments that I've made concerning mining, give them some consideration. Because there is at the present time a very grave concern not only to the ones who are presently in the business of producing minerals or coal but those that would like to get on with a mining venture in the Province of British Columbia.

It's no secret that the number of claims has gone down considerably in the province and I won't get into that until we discuss the bill. But I would hope that the Attorney-General has some idea in mind as to how he's going to overcome that, particularly when there are mining companies that would like to file prospectuses in the Province of British Columbia.

One other thing I would like to get back to is the point that I raised originally in the debate when I was first speaking. That is this matter of potential conflict of interest. I think that during the discussion of the last two days a number of those of us in the opposition benches have pointed out to the Attorney-General the type of conflict of interest that can exist in the Province of British Columbia as a result of the policy of the present government to continually expand into the business sector. It's a known fact that the government is presently in the lumber business, the pulp mill business....

AN HON. MEMBER: And alfalfa cubes.

MR. SMITH: Alfalfa cubing, although that's a very small investment as far as the government is concerned. You're in the business of running private hospitals. You've got an industrial development park in Delta. You've bought Dunhill Development. You're considering the purchase of 40 per cent of Sukunka Coal....

AN HON. MEMBER: And alfalfa cubing?

MR. SMITH: Alfalfa cubing. I understand that was a loan, Mr. Attorney-General, that the equity position was very limited in that particular operation.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was 22 per cent.

MR. SMITH: Oh, 22 per cent. Well, that's a little less than you generally like.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like an old soldier, we're tapering off.

MR. SMITH: There's a deal pending concerning Vancouver Island Coach Lines. You've recently, or the Minister of Lands and Forests has recently completed a deal with the Kootenay Forest Products. These are all areas where I believe the Attorney-General needs to investigate closely. Well, I've heard the Attorney-General when he was on his feet speak quite often about the conflict of interest which can come about as a result of individuals in public life and highly-placed civil servants having access to information that would allow them to make a profit at the expense of the public. I'm sure that he would like to consider equally the conflicts of interest that now exist where Big Brother government is so much involved in the business life of this province.

Yesterday I posed a number of hypothetical cases, hypothetical in that there's no proven conflict of interest, but certainly it leads me to conclude that conflict of interest is a very real problem in these areas. In my view, the best remedy for the situation that I described yesterday, and some of the situations, would be a decision by this government to concentrate on governing and regulating rather than on owning and operating.

I know that that's probably unacceptable to the NDP because it's part of your policy to become involved either totally or partially in equity positions in many businesses in the province. But I do believe that the government would be well advised to consider governing and regulating rather than owning and operating.

Now if that's unacceptable to the NDP and their party, then I say it's the duty of the Attorney-General to bring in a proper level of remedies and restraints. This must be done before irreparable harm is done to the economy of this province. If the possible conflict of interest in the public sector is serious enough to prompt introduction of a Public Official's Disclosure Act, then you cannot overlook the closely-related area which can result in the abuse of monopoly power by the state and unfair competition by the state.

I realize the Attorney-General commented briefly on the remarks that I made before, but I do believe it was glossed over and perhaps other particular matters that I brought up were given more attention when the Attorney-General replied.

But I would like to know his position with respect to legislation which would protect the people of British Columbia from unfair competition by big brother government.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver-Little Mountain): Actually I didn't plan on coming in on this part of the debate, Mr. Chairman, but the Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) inspired me, as usual. There is nothing like Liberal platitudes to get me going. For example, he's mentioned competition. Now let's listen to these things.

Captain Morgan, Peter Dawson, Distiller's Corporation, Myer's Rum Limited, Seagrams, J.E.

[ Page 1159 ]

(Quebec), Seagrams, J.E. (Scotland), Seagrams Overseas Sales, Wood's Rum Company — plus all the many labels that these companies control in the liquor stores. Do you really think they're going to be arguing about loss-leading? No way! They've got the market.

Basically, according to people that are in the trade, there are only three corporations, and Corby is one of them. An American company. And maybe Seagrams — we could get a little patriotic and call it Montreal — but maybe it's New York. Nobody really knows anymore. And Schenley's is another great, large company. Do you really think there's competition? I don't think there is.

Interjection.

MR. CUMMINGS: Are you talking about the Social Credit...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you direct your remarks to the Chair?

MR. CUMMINGS: I am directing them to the Chair.

For example, I'd like to now switch to Seagrams. This is Seagrams' give-away promotion, and they give away to all good customers — it's called advertising. How come they can only advertise in newspapers? Is that the law? How come they can get away with this?

How about Captain Morgan? That's Seagrams again. This is advertising, isn't it? You can buy this in stores. Basically, I'm trying to say that Seagrams is breaking the law, the B.C. liquor law regulations. And I'd like to see them enforced.

Now these gloves are for barbecues. This is Mr. Corby. If you are a good customer or a good friend they'll give you a barbecue. They are very useful for shaking hands with Liberals. That way you don't really touch the palms. (Laughter.)

Another thing that bothers me very, very much with Seagrams — they tell me this is true from the days of the Wismer — Senator McGeer Liquor Machine — that the House of Seagrams has supplied

MR. McGEER: What's that liquor machine again?

MR. CUMMINGS: This was in your birth. This is how you got your education. It paid for your education. Uncle Jerry.

Interjections.

MR. CUMMINGS: This is way before you. This is in the thirties, so sit down. I'm not talking about you. I withdraw it if you think I meant you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe you'll tell us exactly what happened.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you make your comments to the Chair? We're dealing with vote 11 — the Attorney-General's estimates.

MR. CUMMINGS: This also happens to be booze, which happens to be the Attorney-General's vote.

The point I'm trying to make is, there has never been a public tender for the rye whisky which is merchandised under the Liquor Control Board's label. It's always been the domain of the House of Seagram, or the other giants. I feel that this should be put to public tender because sometimes you hear the argument "selected tenders." In other words you select bids from among a certain number of distilleries that are in the province.

This sounds real good, but actually you know how companies are. They like to raise prices like in a cement cartel. Maybe they decide "it is my turn to be low bid." Maybe the next company just decides that it is his turn to be low bid. To me public tenders across the country, is the only true way to get the best buy for the people of British Columbia.

Thank you.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver-Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words this afternoon about the drug problem in British Columbia, and I'll apologise if any of the things that I say have been brought up already by Members earlier in the debates on the Attorney-General's salary.

I can assure you that the things I have to say now are things that I've said in previous years, and I'm completely dissatisfied with the performance of the Attorney-General's department and law enforcement generally in British Columbia is soft on drugs because it is government policy.

We have, in British Columbia, according to the figures that I've been given by police officers, about three murders a month that are drug related. Everyone knows that there are about 10,000 drug addicts in British Columbia, an increase of probably five to sevenfold during the past two years when the romance of drugs has been held before the young people of Canada and other countries in the world.

Surely our experience over the past few years has taught us the insanity of permissiveness in the use of drugs and drug promiscuity on the part of people young or old.

We have now in British Columbia very effective drug organizations. The market is there. The 10,000 drug addicts. The roles are well defined, and if one person is murdered or muscled out, or arrested, or sent to jail, his place in the organization is taken by

[ Page 1160 ]

someone else.

It's like a political party, if you like, since there are definite roles to be filled in order to keep an organization functioning, and if you get rid of one, someone else is there.

The rewards, the financial rewards of being high up in a drug organization and having a share of that market supplying the 10,000 addicts in British Columbia are very high. Some at the top can make thousands of dollars a day. So they are prepared to take risks and commit high crimes.

It does no good, Mr. Chairman, to give free drugs to anyone because that merely helps to keep the demand going. It keeps the number of drug addicts at a high level, which suits the people whose organization supplies the drugs.

It does no good to arrest one individual and then allow him out on bail; no matter how high you set that bail they can raise it. Therefore you arrest someone high up in the organization, he's out on bail the next day and carrying on with his work, which is supplying the illicit market.

What has to be smashed, Mr. Chairman, is the organizational structure itself — not picking out one individual or another. Because the avariciousness of part of our population being what it is, someone else will always step in and take the place of the man who is either knocked-off in the literal sense of the word, or who is arrested and sent to jail.

Mr. Chairman, this is why I so strongly disagree with the approach taken by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), by the policy of the Attorney-General, undeclared though it is, to go along with that Minister, and I'm sorry to say, by the Conservative Leader (Mr. Wallace), a misguided physician from Oak Bay.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Well, it won't be the first time he's changed his position, but I'm very pleased to hear that, Mr. Chairman.

There are a number of countries in the world which have successfully licked that drug problem. One of them is Japan. The countries that are successful have all followed one single course: to be as tough as it is possible to be on drug addicts, pushers and everybody associated with the drug trade. Let no one say that the drug user is not an important part of this; he's the essential part of it, even though he's at the very bottom of the pile.

As long as the Attorney-General — and he's leaving the room now — remains soft on drugs (and he is soft on drugs), we're going to continue to have major crime problems in this province. Murder, theft, breaking and entering, prostitution — a very substantial percentage of all major crimes in British Columbia are related to the drug trade. Nothing could be more important from the point of view of the Attorney-General than that he set about the business of demolishing the crime organizational structure in, British Columbia which centres around the drug trade.

Let no one say it can't be done, because it has been done in other countries. But it required an Attorney-General with some guts and a government which will stand behind the tough policies which he sets forward.

If there is to be any progress at all — we've had none during the period the NDP government has been in office — it will require a total abandoning of the policy which is the Holy Grail of drug addicts, namely to get their drugs free. It will have to involve an abandoning of the romance which has been put forward by many misguided people and retailed by the media that drugs are a shortcut to happiness. Drugs bring nothing but tragedy — hard drugs or soft drugs. There are no winners; there are only losers.

When we give comfort or tacit approval, or rationalize in any way the universally unhappy experience of drug usage, we only encourage the continuation of the problem.

I'm sorry the Attorney-General has left the chamber during these remarks, because I would like to hear him change his course of action. I'm pleased to learn that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has finally realized that what he has been saying about drugs over these years is wrong. If we get that message through to the Attorney-General and to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) and to some other Members of that cabinet, and if this is followed by some hard policies on the part of government, then I think some progress will be possible.

It's an urgent problem. Nothing in the law-enforcement field begins to approach the significance of the drug problem. I would hope the Attorney-General would give some indication during this debate that he intends to take some action.

MR. McCLELLAND: I just want to express disappointment again with the Attorney-General's attitude to this problem of drug dependency. Certainly with the evidence we have about the spread and the nature of the drug dependency problem, we would have thought we would have had some kind of action from the Attorney-General.

As has been indicated in the news reports from the City of Vancouver, the city is getting tired of being labeled the drug capital of Canada. That city wants to see some action started. Certainly that action must begin with the Attorney-General's department.

We all welcome his announcement the other day that he wants to plan a programme to get at the kingpins of big crime. The Attorney-General has said that most big crime is directly related to the drug

[ Page 1161 ]

trade, so I don't see how the Attorney-General can stand in his place in this House and attempt to convince the Members of this House that drug addiction and problems related to it are in the sphere of some other Minister of the government. There is no way he can take this attitude.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) earlier today spoke about what he thought might be the failures of the Matheson report. However, he presumed at the same time that the Matheson report was getting any kind of thought at all from the Attorney-General. Contrary to that, however, the failure of the Matheson programme is going to be that it won't be allowed the opportunity to even be tried. The Attorney-General has foregone his responsibilities by passing the buck again to the Minister of Human Resources by allowing the Minister of Human Resources' attitudes to prevail in this whole drug addiction. I say again that it will be on the conscience of the Attorney-General when the consequences of that kind of approach to the drug dependency problem become apparent.

I would like to pass along to the House some information that perhaps it needs — and perhaps the Attorney-General needs — about the whole history of drug dependency, particularly in this province. It has been documented very well in a release called "Drug Abuse in The Floundering Society." (Hoskin, Huntington) It has never been introduced to this House but parts of it should be, I believe.

The report points out that:

"In 1880, as the transcontinental railway pushed further westward, one Andrew Onderdonk was awarded the contract to build the section west from Eagle Pass to Port Moody, perhaps the most difficult terrain in the world. Faced with almost insurmountable obstacles, and to aid his hard-pressed crews, he sought the only possible solution to his dilemma — large numbers of cheap, docile, hard-working manpower. He knew his source and he knew his people, the Chinese, and he began recruiting from three different areas. The first source was the some 3,000 Chinese who had followed the gold rush trail from California to the Cariboo in 1854, many of whom remained in the province. The second source was 1,500 Chinese labourers who had previously worked on the railways in the western United States and came north from Oregon in 1880 and California in 1881. The third source was a group of some 6,000 Chinese recruited" — if that's the right word — "in southern China and brought directly to China via the Port of Vancouver.

"Unfortunately, they brought with them the habit of opium smoking and no one, developer, the law or the government, either through lack of concern or ignorance, expressed the slightest interest in this phenomenon. Thus opium smoking was to flourish quite legally in British Columbia for over 50 years. The federal authorities, never at a loss to seek additional sources of revenue, enriched the federal coffers by the imposition of an ad valorem tax on the importation of opium, and in 1884, for example, collected $40,219 tax on some 60,700 pounds of opium. Invariably, enterprising businessmen alert to the size of the market decided to participate, and opium began to be processed quite legally in British Columbia. The use of this addicting substance was sanctioned if not encouraged by Canadians in responsible positions, and the social use of mood-changing drugs became firmly entrenched in the Canadian culture.

"Few Canadians today are aware that during this time period, astute businessmen in New Westminster, Vancouver and Victoria made fortunes operating seven legal opium-processing factories to meet the needs of the Chinese residents and a flourishing market in the northwestern United States. It was also inevitable that the Chinese opium user would ultimately be joined by an increasing number of native-born Canadians and other Caucasians, admittedly the dregs of society initially, and by the year 1908, Vancouver began it's long and infamous history as the drug capital of Canada.

"It is hardly complimentary to the citizens of the west coast that the first concern and compassion for the drug user came about almost by accident. In 1907, MacKenzie King, then Deputy Minister of Labour in the national government, came to Vancouver to investigate, evaluate and make restitution to the Chinese merchants of Vancouver whose property had been damaged in the anti-Asian riots of the day. In fact, the sum of $1,200 was paid to two Chinese merchants for damages and loss of business (opium) during the six days of rioting.

"One of the highlights of Mr. King's visit...was a tour of the so-called 'opium dens' and to his everlasting credit he was so appalled at the misery and degradation of the drug users, both white and Chinese, that on his return to Ottawa he pressed for immediate action by the government to combat this evil. In 1908, largely through his efforts, the first anti-drug legislation titled The Opium Act, 1908 became law, and this Act, amended periodically to restrict or prohibit the sale and use of other narcotic and non-narcotic drugs and now titled the Narcotic Control Act, is still in effect."

Incidentally, it's the Narcotic Control Act that was so viciously and vigorously objected to in the letter

[ Page 1162 ]

which I received from the Drug Study Groups within the walls of the British Columbia Penitentiary.

"During the 19th century, two events of tragic consequences for the drug users were also taking place. First, the discovery of the two opium alkaloids, morphine and codeine in 1805 and 1832 respectively, and equally disastrous, the invention of the hypodermic syringe and needle in 1843 and its introduction into America in 1856, brought substances at least 10 times more powerful than opium into use and also brought subcutaneous and intravenous injections to the drug cult. Thus, the user by means of a soluble substance and hypodermic needle was able to experience almost instantaneous euphoria or 'blast,' and 'ritual of the needle' became almost as powerful a factor in addiction as the substance itself."

That's an important point which is all too often forgotten in relation to addiction, either psychological or physical, not only with narcotic drugs but with non-narcotic drugs as well. It's the ritual, in this case "the ritual of the needle", which becomes as powerful a factor in addiction as the use of the substance itself.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

"The use of heroin, a morphine derivative, and the ritual of the needle (intravenous injection) did not catch on in this area until 1911."

In the middle years, Mr. Chairman,

"except for a continuing anti-drug operation waged by the customs and law enforcement authorities, the public paid very little attention to the phenomenon until 1952. It was only then, some 44 years later, that a group of community minded citizens, alarmed at the increasing use of heroin by teenagers in Vancouver, sparked a preliminary study of the drug scene by the Community Chest and Council. This study was followed by a very detailed survey conducted by a team of researchers headed by Dr. G.H. Stevenson under the auspices of the University of British Columbia. "For some reason, whether professional jealousy or whatever, this very valuable and worthwhile report was largely ignored, yet much of its deductions and recommendations are as valid today as they were on the day of its completion — June 1956. One need not be surprised, for the federal government in particular ignored or overlooked the first of many opportunities to act."

And there have been many opportunities since that time.

"The period 1955-1964 was a period of experimentation and learning, also a period in which the addict increasingly offered to participate in the treatment programmes. (The Stevenson report offered us) the first really accurate picture of the addict: — The majority of addicts were in the age range 25 to 34;

" — The addict usually left school before completing grade 9 or attaining the age of 15;

" — The addict of heroin before age 18 and became involved in the sub-culture within a few weeks or months after taking his first 'fix';

" — The addict had little trades training or trades experience and a poor work record;

" — The majority of addicts were delinquents prior to drug use;

" — Few, if any, at the time of the first use were well-conducted persons by the usual standard of good citizenship;

" — The majority came from a low socio-economic group;

" — The majority had poor peer group relationships and had disciplinary problems at school;

" — The majority came from a poor family situation — parental discord, alcohol, broken home."

What I said the other evening and what I repeat here, and what is in direct opposition to the comments made to me in that letter by the Drug Study Group — direct opposition — and what society knew and has known but has chosen to ignore up to this point, what government should know but has chosen to ignore, is that the addict in every study ever undertaken is always a delinquent first and an addict second, not the other way around as the addict would like to have us believe. He is a delinquent first and an addict second. The answer to the drug dependency problem is neither legal sale nor complete segregation, but rather the need to reduce the availability.

We must have strong and vigorous federal laws initiated by this provincial government to make the severest penalty possible available for the person who traffics, the person who manufactures, the pusher who is pedaling drugs to our kids on our streets. It must come from this Attorney-General's department. He must press the national government for a national policy and we must begin to take our own initiatives in this field or we're going to go down the tube in relation to drug dependency.

I've given this House the kind of solutions I think should be followed; the kind of answers that are available to the Attorney-General. All he need do is act upon them. He has chosen, however, once again not to take the opportunity that he has at hand to finally end the 50, 60, 70 years of philosophical debate about drug dependency and finally get some action going on a positive level initiated by this government.

[ Page 1163 ]

I want to make a couple of other points with relation to this document. The Minister of economic development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) indicated in an aside across the floor that things have changed in relation to the make-up of the addict in today's society, and that's true. The profile of the addict began to change about 1966 and the most serious change in that profile became the preponderance of cases in which multi-drug abuse became a serious problem, involving the use of barbiturates, amphetamines, marijuana, LSD and heroin.

As I've also mentioned on other occasions in this House, the terrible problem which is killing people is the kind of dual dependency that many of our addicts have today of alcohol and heroin, or alcohol and some other either narcotic or non-narcotic drug. I've said that people are dying in the streets of Victoria, and that's true, because of this dual dependency.

Also, the changes that started to happen in 1966 showed us that the user began to show a higher socio-economic level. No longer was the user confined to that corner in Vancouver. I think "the corner" is the way it has been described in the past; that corner around Main and Hastings where prior to the 1960s virtually all heroin addiction, at least, was centred. But that pattern around 1966 began to change and began to change quickly and drastically.

The people who were involved with drug use showed a profile of later school leaving, no longer just the youngsters who dropped out of school at 15 but even those better educated people, many of whom had university educations. Many of them professional people — that's correct. There was a reduction in that history we saw prior to 1966 of delinquency and criminal records. That's true as well, as the Minister for Industrial Development has pointed out. Nevertheless, even though that history changed, the drug addict still had that history of psychological problems; maybe not pure delinquency but certainly problems in his psychological make-up.

"By 1969, an increasing number of users had come initially from the middle income level, had attended or graduated from a senior high school, or reached first-year university, with no previous history of delinquency or of criminal involvement."

I recall some years ago a report commissioned by the Kiwanis Club of Vancouver under their Operation Drug Alert programme in which a young researcher was hired at that time to attempt to correlate and to pinpoint the user and where he came from and what those changes were.

With what seemed to be recent attacks on established drug-control agencies such as the Narcotic Addiction Foundation and the alcohol education people and things like that, I recall that the present Premier of this province had an application in for that position as researcher and was turned down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! It's getting a little noisy.

MR. McCLELLAND: I wonder if that's part of the reason the Premier of British Columbia has for his apparent lack of concern for the work many of these established agencies have been doing and can continue to do if given the proper funding and proper encouragement from this government. It's an interesting question, Mr. Chairman.

That report at that time made it very clear, and this report from which I'm quoting today reaffirms that position, that contrary to public opinion (this is one of the old wive's tales that goes abroad about drug addicts) there were no drug pushers skulking around in the corners attempting to force youngsters into addiction. I recall this young researcher spending much time on the corner of Main and Hastings in one of the famous cafes down there where you can buy anything you want from a woman to a fix with no problem whatsoever. I recall him spending several days in there attempting to get a heroin fix. He was unsuccessful because in those days a member who decided to get involved in that subculture at the corner had to go through quite a period of scrutiny and acceptance by the pushers. They just wouldn't sell to anybody. You had to earn your stripes, as it were, before they would allow you to get involved in that subculture. Today we're seeing a new kind of multi-drug trafficker and he'll offer or sell any drug, whether it be heroin or glue or Varsol or barbiturates.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Varsol? You bet your life. He'll offer to sell anything to anybody today on the street. I might also say that the old-time pusher wouldn't sell his vicious drug to youngsters on most occasions; there was a kind of a code that set the age level at which they could bargain. But not anymore. There's no concern about the credentials or who it might be. That's probably part of the reason for the recent successes of the drug squads. The addict pusher is no longer as concerned about establishing those credentials any longer as he was at one time. He has no fear; he doesn't seem to have any concern about apprehension.

I wonder why he doesn't have that fear of apprehension any longer. Perhaps it's because we have gone soft on drugs at all levels of society. That includes the law enforcement level. Maybe he has no fear of apprehension because we're too soft and because he knows that the consequences in relation to the rewards that he can enjoy immediately, whether it be financial reward or whether it be that possibility of being legally maintained one way or

[ Page 1164 ]

another on the drug of his choice, offset the soft approach we've adopted in British Columbia in relation to drugs.

"Prior to 1966, the user commenced a serious involvement with drugs about age 18. By 1968, the age had dropped to 16, and (today)...12 to 14 years. Prior to 1966, the time between the first fix and complete dependency was on the average from l 1/2 years to 2 years. By 1968, it was down to 1 to I ½ years, and (today)...down to a few months."

So what we're seeing now is that the profile of the average user has dropped to 12 to 14 years of age and the length of time in which it takes to become thoroughly, physically, psychologically addicted has now dropped from 2 to 21/2 years to a few months. That's the situation with which we're faced in British Columbia today.

"Perhaps the two most frightening aspects of the drug scene are the easy availability of drugs and the violence attached..." to the whole drug profession. Once again, in the years prior to 1966, violence wasn't a part of the drug subculture. In fact, violence was hardly known in the drug subculture. But today it's a common occurrence.

I had a letter from a lady in Vancouver the other day who told me a frightening and disturbing story about a friend of hers, a Chinese merchant, who has a small store in the West End of Vancouver, who has been robbed not once, not twice, not three times, but six times in the last 18 months. Six times in the last 18 months. On two of these occasions, Mr. Chairman, violence was a part of that robbery. On one of those occasions, this elderly man's family was forced to watch him being pistol-whipped by an addict searching out funds to maintain his habit. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that storekeeper's family will be psychologically scarred for the rest of their lives because of the incidents they were forced to watch. This is only one incident in thousands.

Anyone who has ever sat and listened to the police radio in the City of Vancouver knows that night after night after night on occasion after occasion after occasion the radio crackles with reports of robbery after robbery with and without violence. All related directly to the drug dependency trade.

Today, beatings and thefts are no longer sensational news items. Prior to 1966, if someone was killed in relation to the drug trade or in relation to an addict attempting to maintain his dependency, that would have been front-page headlines in the The Vancouver Sun. Today it will be on page 48 because it happens every day of the week on too many occasions for it any longer to be considered newsworthy.

Today, that compassion I spoke about earlier in relation to a pusher's concern with the age of the addict is no longer a concern. "...children aged 10 to 14 are offered drugs (now on a daily basis), even heroin. Fourteen year olds have been known to have trafficked in heroin" — all over British Columbia. "No user or small-time trafficker is immune from a beating or death because of age." The 14-year-old trafficker is just as likely to find himself or herself beaten to death or killed because of a deliberate overdose of drugs as is the 50-year-old pusher who has had a lifetime in the B.C. Pen, Oakalla and similar institutions. No longer is age any concern in this vicious business of drug dependency.

I won't repeat all of the solutions and suggestions for solutions that we offered in this house the other evening, Mr. Chairman, but I would appeal once again to the Attorney-General of this province to address himself to the problem of drug dependency and the enforcement of some kind of a vigorous plan to control that dependency, and to address himself to the urgent problem of attempting to convince, once and for all, the Government of Canada that it must develop a national programme today, and that we can't spend the next five years or 10 years or two years or one year talking about drug dependency any longer.

The Attorney General has the opportunity before him today to take some action, and I suggest that if he doesn't take that action, he is abrogating the responsibility that he doesn't take that action, he is abrogating the responsibility that he gave and the promise that he gave the people of British Columbia when he assumed the office of Attorney-General.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I want to certainly add my few words to this discussion on drugs. I've had quite a bit to say about it in the past. As far as I am concerned, as I have said in this Legislature before, it is one of the biggest problems in British Columbia today.

I just wish the Attorney-General would give us some indication of where he intends to go and how he intends to curb this cancerous plague that is growing daily in British Columbia.

This afternoon he gave me the figures of the number of RCMP constables directly concerned with drug abuse in British Columbia: 114 out of a total of 2,790 in the province; and only 27 of 1,335 are directly involved in this the major problem facing British Columbia today.

The Premier said that he would have to think about his representations made to Ottawa with regard to Turkey allowing their farmers to grow poppy seeds again, which is the source of 70 per cent of heroin in North America. And the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) stated that although he appreciated my remarks he was not necessarily in favour of trying to take a stern action against the country of Turkey.

You know, they say we are becoming a soft society. So we sit back and say, "Well, you can't do

[ Page 1165 ]

this because there might be some other reaction." I want to relate to the House a similarity between Turkey going back into the growing of poppies....

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): They never stopped.

MR. PHILLIPS: They never stopped? Well, at least they were slowed down.

I remember not too long ago, Mr. Chairman, that the United States of America were going to dispose of some of their poisonous gases by dropping them in concealed, highly concealed, containers in the Atlantic Ocean. Mr. Chairman, there was world-wide condemnation of this act, because of the results it might have on some future generation or, if one of the containers leaked, the results it would have on the fish population.

Yet to my way of thinking, Mr. Chairman, the decision of the new Turkish government to allow their farmers to go back into openly growing poppies is a far greater act against society and the world. I think that all of the people who demonstrated against the Vietnam war and who demonstrate against the use of the atom bomb, if they are really concerned about civil liberties — indeed, if they are really concerned about the good of the world — I ask them to stand up now and be counted wherever they are, whether they are British Columbians, in Canada or San Francisco — no matter where they are.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that we have an Act which aids countries for the development of agriculture. Why doesn't British Columbia use some of the money that we have in that Act to send a team of agrologist to Turkey to seek out and to advise their farmers what crops they can grow to replace...and make it economically feasible for the farmers in Turkey to grow a crop which will be for the benefit of mankind, not to the detriment of mankind?

Why couldn't we explore this? We will never be able to subsidize sufficiently the farmers in Turkey against the growing of poppy seeds, because when the criminal element in the world wants to get hold of heroin, the price will just keep going up and up and up. So the subsidy will never be large enough. But if the crop were replaced with some foodstuff which the world is in need of, as inflation sets in the increased prices which these farmers could obtain from this foodstuff would keep up with inflation.

Mr. Chairman, I am asking the government to give this very serious consideration. They don't have to wait for Ottawa. We have legislation and we have money available to send a team of agrologist into Turkey to search out alternatives for those farmers there.

HON. MR. COCKE: Used car salesmen.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you know, the government wants to treat this matter lightly and be frivolous about it.

Mr. Chairman, I remember you standing in your place in this Legislature last year, pleading with the government, and I think your words were "...to get out a scalpel and cut out this cancer from our society."

Mr. Chairman, what action has your government taken? What positive steps is your government going to take? I would like to hear from some other members of the government backbench — some of the silent Members — speak on this very very important issue that is facing not only British Columbia, but indeed all of Canada today.

Are we indeed becoming a soft society? I recommended that pushers and traffickers of heroin receive much stiffer sentences than they are receiving. Indeed here is an article where a life term for traffickers is proposed by the police chief in Vancouver.

I would like to hear from other Members of this assembly because this is not only a problem in British Columbia; it is a problem in all of Canada, in the United States, in North America. It shouldn't be treated frivolously; it shouldn't be treated lightly. We in British Columbia could lead by following up the suggestion I have made.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: And we should too. That's right, Mr. Member, we should.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, the debate on drugs has ranged wide, and I think a lot of interesting information has been brought to light. But the real crux of the question is the question that was asked yesterday. I think there will be a great deal more debate on these estimates, unless we start getting some answers on that specific question.

The Attorney-General knows. Now he knows; yesterday he didn't.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I know.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The "United Party's" connection with the role of the Attorney-General at enforcing the law is something which he'll have to comment upon later because I'm unaware of it.

The crux of the question is this: are we going to continue with the soft, woolly-headed, amateurish approach epitomized by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) and Peter Stein, the head of the Alcohol and Drug Commission, or are we going to give some support to Dr. Matheson? Matheson may not be right in everything he says. I'm not a person with the experience of my colleague from Point Grey

[ Page 1166 ]

(Mr. McGeer) in this area and, I must say, I'm not as familiar with it as my hon. friend from Langley (Mr. McClelland). There's no question that this debate will continue for a very, very long time unless we get some indication from the government as to whether a cabinet decision has been made on which type of approach is to be adopted. The two approaches are irreconcilable. On the one hand you have a soft approach, one favouring drugs to be provided free of charge for addicts; in other words, an attempt through that method to cut out the illegal market. On the other you have the tough approach of Matheson. If you wish, I'll go through all the details of both approaches but I don't think it's necessary at this point.

What I would like to know from the Attorney-General, what my friend from Peace River who has just sat down would like to know, what the Member for Langley, the Member for Vancouver-Point Grey, the Member for North Vancouver would like to know, is what is the approach of the government? Has the Attorney-General abandoned the fight, probably without real effort, to the forces symbolized by the Minister of Human Resources or has there been a cabinet decision to back up Dr. Matheson?

I said yesterday, and I have no reason to change my mind on this, that Dr. Matheson appears to have been abandoned by the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General got up and at the very beginning of this debate tried to slough it off and say, "Well, we just enforce the law. You're going to have to speak during the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources." But we found along a little bit of questioning, a little bit of debate from this side of the House, that the Attorney-General did have a role, that he had established this task force and commission, that he had asked Dr. Matheson to dig up proposals which, according to the Attorney-General's initial very narrow definition of his role, were totally out of the ambit of the Attorney-General's department.

Why was Dr. Matheson given instructions to carry on, to study and bring in a report outside of the specific area of the Attorney-General's department if the Attorney-General was thereafter simply going to abandon him? What decision has been taken by the government in this area to determine what the course of government action will be? There are two different points of view, as I mentioned earlier, and enforcement is critical in both.

I would like the Attorney-General at this stage to answer the questions. What has happened? Where does the government now stand? They can't continue to play hot and cold; they can't continue to throw the Minister of Human Resources into the fray when they want someone to represent the soft viewpoint and throw the Attorney-General and people like Dr. Matheson into the fray when they feel it would be more advantageous to have a harder viewpoint. They can't keep on playing hot and cold because they're playing with people's lives and they're playing with the lives of young people in this society in particular.

If a decision has been reached, let's hear it. If a decision has not been reached, let's hear from the Attorney-General and later on from the Minister of Human Resources how the debate is going. At the present time, we're marking time. We're not doing anything in this area because, apparently, the cabinet doesn't know which way to go. We only suggest that the debate would be expedited enormously by a frank statement from the Attorney-General instead of the evasions we have met on this subject to date.

I say evasions quite advisedly. His comments have been interesting but they have not dealt with the central issue. The Attorney-General would like to speak at this time or indicate to me he would like to speak. He shakes his head.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I did yesterday on this subject.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Unfortunately, Mr. Attorney-General, you didn't give an answer to the question. That's why I would like you at this stage to get up and face the Members of the opposition who are asking these questions, who are representing concerned parents, concerned citizens of the province, who are trying to get the government to do its duty in this area and come up with a policy and indicate what that policy is. We think this would all be handled a great deal better if you would indicate clearly what the government policy is. But we haven't had that.

I would like to know, Mr. Attorney-General, specifically, whether you have abandoned Dr. Matheson. I've been critical of him and his computer programmes for trying to determine potentially delinquent kids before, but I feel Dr, Matheson, at least in this area, has come up with something which deserves some sort of encouragement from his Minister. We haven't had it from you, Mr. Attorney-General.

Now, Mr. Chairman, as the Attorney-General is sitting back in his chair, reclining, and has indicated he won't answer this issue at this time, I would like to in the few moments remaining to me, go into a number of other issues.

First of all a question. I asked the Attorney-General some time ago in the question period whether he thought it proper for a private citizen in Vancouver to throw a $25,000 party for the outgoing chief of police. I pointed out to him at the time that the gentleman in question had placed policemen on the boards of his company and they were also shareholders of his company. I pointed out

[ Page 1167 ]

to him that this man was quite irate that the Attorney-General should even receive a clipping which asked the Attorney-General, Alex Macdonald, to investigate police dishonesty and inefficiency.

It may well be completely proper for policemen to take part in the affairs of the companies controlled by Mr. DiCimbriani. It may be completely proper and no one wishes to suggest any improper conduct at all. But I find it of extreme concern that in an area as sensitive as that of the police of Vancouver, such an enormous amount of money could be spent on a party as the farewell gift to a police chief. Would you like to make a statement? Thank you, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the newspaper clipping which was drawn to my attention by the Hon. Member. I wasn't concerned about the party and I'm not making any reflections whatsoever on the character of Mr. DiCimbriani. I haven't got the file and I may not be pronouncing it right.

I was a little concerned about the fact that some of the police officers were reported to have been directors or shareholders in companies of DiCimbriani and that DiCimbriani was going around making statements saying this proves that this is an honest operation. I think it's just naivety on his part; I see nothing sinister in it. But I think it raises an ethical question. Therefore, I put together the information, as I had it, in a letter to the Vancouver Police Commission and I asked them if they would discuss it in terms of the ethics involved, in terms of the image of the Vancouver police force and whether or not they considered it might be affected by this kind of a newspaper story. Since that time I think I had an acknowledgement saying that it will be discussed.

But as I say, I'm not making derogatory remarks about the individual nor am I criticizing the farewell party. But there were some other things that I think should be discussed by the Vancouver Police Commission and I've so asked them to do.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to present a report entitled "Toward a System of Post-Secondary and Adult Education for Northwestern Alberta and Northeastern British Columbia." The Minister in Alberta has tabled the same report in the Alberta Legislature today.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.