[ Page 3809 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Police Act (Bill 91). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3809

Mr. Smith — 3811

Mr. Curtis — 3814

Mr. Cummings — 3817

Mr. Fraser — 3818

Mr. Dent — 3819

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3819

Mr. McGeer — 3820

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3821

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3824

Division on second reading — 3825

Mineral Royalties Act (Bill 31). Second reading.

On the amendment to postpone second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 3826

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 91, Mr. Speaker.

POLICE ACT

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, in introducing Bill 91, I want to say just a few words. It's a small bill. It is a bill that is crowded with sunshine because we've opened up to public view and let the sunshine in on the hearings and sittings of boards of police commissioners in the municipalities and in the New B.C. Police Commission that is created by this bill.

I want to say a few words about the bill, if I'm not out of order. I think it's very important that we recognize the value of police services in a rapidly changing society, the changing nature of their role. We have therefore over a period of time, as a result of studies, established conferences and commissions and studies — beginning in 1971, as a matter of fact — that have led to this present enactment.

Wherever we have proceeded in terms of preparing for the kind of actions we are taking we have consulted organizations as disparate as the Civil Liberties Union, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the B.C. police chiefs' organization, the B.C. Union of Indian Chiefs and the non-status Indians and all of those groups.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Since the Hon. Member has interjected, let me say that there has been very little in the way of canards about this bill in the community. But there are a few things that I would like to set straight.

I'd like to set straight that it's got nothing to do with the new sheriff service which will be provided by the Attorney-General's department. It has nothing to do with that whatsoever. That is not to be in any way a police force, or carry out police functions in terms of police work as such. They are officers of the court; they will serve the court. They haven't ordered a lot of ammunition; they haven't ordered a lot of guns. So I would like to put that kind of rumour at rest.

They haven't ordered specially equipped cars or that kind of thing. They haven't ordered truncheons and they haven't ordered jackboots. They are officers of the court who will be relieving police officers, it's true, in their court duties, in their lockup duties and in the transporting-of-prisoner duties for further service in our communities where the police officer is trained and badly needed in those communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: How many what? Oh, the sheriffs' force which was not under the bill. We would anticipate that it would at some time be 200 or more possibly — less than 300, I would say, but 200.

Hon. Members should appreciate that there are not going to be 200 right away. It's a matter of training. It's a matter of finding the personnel and it's a matter of integrating these new officers into the court service. That will take time. I would think we've had our first class so far as the sheriffs' officers are concerned. It has been fairly small — I think about 35. So there will be time involved here.

We're facing under this bill the opportunity to develop minimum standards for the selection and training of police officers, to assist in the coordination of the work of police forces in this province, to determine the adequacy of police services in the various communities of British Columbia. I am amazed as Attorney-General — as I'm sure other people would be — at the difficulty of appraising the adequacy of these police services.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right. Because there's a whole body of data that we don't have in terms of the provision of police services. We don't want to over-police, because that leads to confrontation. It isn't the wish of police forces or anybody else that we should over-police an area. I'm talking particularly about the rural areas. But we don't want to under-police either, subject to whatever financial disabilities we have and the ability to train people.

We find that there are officers in some of the rural communities in British Columbia today that are putting in long hours of overtime because they have a detachment with seven or eight men and a population of 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 people to service. So we have to gather and study the adequacy of police services in the community.

We are concerned about the question of civilian complaints against the police, and we believe that a proper forum where these complaints can be heard — and, I stress, heard in public hearing — is in the interest of not only that person who feels that his

[ Page 3810 ]

rights have been abused by police action, but is in the interests of the police officer who today in many cases is subjected to rumour and accusations without a chance to defend his position, except perhaps by trying to give a press interview, which is something rather new in the field of police relations.

There will be no intention under this Act of phasing out the RCMP in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Can we have that in writing?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would point out that the RCMP contract has recently been signed and they go on for a further two-year period up to March 31, 1976. That is the term in which the federal government…. This is the federal terms that we have just renewed. Now there'll be no intention on the part of the Province of British Columbia to make a change in what is a favourable financial formula and favourable police services.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In 1976. But I would point out to Members that the contracts do come up there at that time. There are the suggestions from Quebec and Ontario that they are being unfairly treated in terms of the financial formula. So I suppose that negotiations, in terms of that financial formula — which is favourable to us and I don't want to give it at the present time — might be undertaken in 1975. But as far as this government is concerned, we're happy with the services that are being provided, and we think that the choice as to whether it should be municipal or RCMP should be at the local level.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll come to the studies we're making. I would list some of the matters that are already under consideration by the B.C. Police Commission, even though it has not been established by this Legislature….

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …that this Legislature did in its wisdom confer upon my department through the Justice Development Committee. So we're able to do some advance planning even before the commission is formed. We held our conferences in terms of leading up to it. I want to pay a lot of tribute to Dr. John Hogarth in terms of the planning that has gone into the preparation of this legislation and the work they will be conducting.

But the task forces that are already beginning to consider their work I'll list very briefly.

MR. FRASER: How many task forces?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Six.

First, we've got training and manpower development, because the quality of training of police officers in a rapidly changing society is very important. We have the services in this field of Inspector Bob Stewart, who is of the Vancouver City Police. He was for a long time with the B.C. Federation of Police Officers and is a well-respected police officer who is taking an active part in terms of training and manpower development.

Assisting him as consultant will be a former bobby who has become a professor — namely Professor Alan Grant, now of Osgoode Hall, who is an expert in these matters. He was formerly with the metropolitan London police force.

We'll be thinking in terms of a range of educational institutions that could be used, from BCIT to Simon Fraser University to community colleges. There will also be included in this area management-development courses as well — including the subject of police-community relations.

Secondly, a task force will be undertaken, I believe by Assistant Commissioner Gordon Cunningham, to examine the whole area of developing minimum standards of policing in the Province of British Columbia in terms of the selection of officers, their training, their equipment, their rank and promotion opportunities and matters of that kind.

Thirdly, there will be a consideration of the kind of role that police perform in the community. I would point out to the House that today 80 per cent of the complaints that come into a police station relate to non-criminal matters. They relate to things that are basically in many cases within the realm of the Department of Human Resources or other departments of government.

Yet the police have to serve as intake officers, because they're the front line in terms of receiving these complaints and referring them out. The police role should not be that of a social worker; nevertheless there has to be training. Theirs is crime prevention and detection. Nevertheless, they have to be knowledgeable in the kind of human problems where the complaint arrives on the desk of the police officer.

Fourth: we are looking at the role of women in police forces. We believe there should be career opportunities open to women in the police forces of the province, not only the municipal forces, but also the RCMP. We believe, apart from the role they can play in police work itself, that they have a special relationship, a special job to do, in terms of women offenders, and in terms of women, the victims of

[ Page 3811 ]

crime.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): That's happening.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's happening because of the government, and only because of this government in the province. Absolutely. We have established….

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, things are happening in this province, Hon. Member, even before you pass this bill.

We have been able to obtain from Toronto Inspector Fern Alexander, the highest ranking woman police officer in Canada, to help as a consultant in terms of this work.

Fifth: we are concerned not only with the police function on Indian reserves and the recruitment of Indians as police officers on, I may say, and this is the policy of this government, equal terms and conditions with those of other officers even though they may perform special functions in terms of Indian reserves. We have some under the RCMP at the present time and we intend to expand the role of native Indian citizens particularly in areas where the population of native Indians is predominant. Through our commission and with the help of Chief Don Winterton of the Vancouver City Police Force, we expect to see in the City of Vancouver a priority placed upon recruitment of constables from minority groups in the City of Vancouver. I include not only the native Indian people but also, let's say, the East Indian community where there have been problems in terms of law enforcement and protection of these particular groups.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It could happen and will happen.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but the vehicle must be set up. I'm surprised at the reactionary attitude of that Member who thinks these things can happen without setting up any kind of a vehicle in this Legislature to conduct the research and to spark the developments that I'm talking about.

MR. CURTIS: Oh, sure. Nobody can do it but you.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Sixth: we will be conducting planning and there will be a task force to analyze trends in crime on a provincial, regional and local basis, and the kind of police response there has been to crime across the province, and the impact of police activity on the number of cases going to court or the cases that are diverted to community-based resources.

The whole question of crime prevention and detection has been an area where we have not had the data or the studies. We've just been, as it were, staggering from one problem to another and waiting for the thing to happen before we think in terms of prevention. There has been no attempt to analyse the kinds of offences we're dealing with so that we can think in terms of prevention and the kind of social programmes which can lead to crime prevention.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, this is the bill — and throughout all our task forces there is full cooperation, not only with the B.C. Peace Officers Federation….

MR. CURTIS: You hope.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, let me say this to the Hon. Member, because he's spoken up in this way and he's spoken up before, I hope he does not…. I don't know whether he was in the House when I laid to rest certain rumours….

MR. CURTIS: I was.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I hope the Hon. Member does not, without checking the facts, repeat those things because some of the things… They are just opinions expressed by a very small group, or one or two people, and some of them are quite false. You know, when you are embarking on this kind of programme, which is of such importance to the community of British Columbia, it's very important that we do so on a rational basis and that we as legislators do not attempt in any way to panic people, as on a few occasions has been done in this province.

Talking about special police forces, that it's not really a sheriff's force, it's really going to be a new police force and we've got specially equipped police cars and this kind of thing - I say that that kind of talk is destructive of the best interests of the Province of British Columbia, and I hope it will not be repeated in this Legislature without some foundation of fact.

Mr. Speaker, I've spent a little time on the bill, not as much, perhaps, as I should because I think it's an important bill. I have pleasure now in moving second reading of this bill.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I certainly agree with the final comments of the Attorney-General in moving second reading of this bill, that it is a very important bill, one of the most

[ Page 3812 ]

important in many aspects to come before this Legislature Assembly this session. There he and I, perhaps, part company to a certain extent, and I'm about to tell the Attorney-General why.

It's been said by the Attorney-General that, really, this was just a simple re-enactment of the Police Act which was there on the books in the statutes of the Province of British Columbia. Really that's not true because it is a new Act. I'm glad the Attorney-General nods his head and agrees that this is a completely new Act.

Certainly it's moving into the field of one of the most touchy situations and the one that affects people more than anything else, a very sensitive area with respect to the average life of persons in the Province of British Columbia. I have to say, Mr. Attorney-General, that there's a fair amount of apprehension among the people of the province as to what your actual goal is. I think you deserve to take the full brunt of that apprehension because in this Act there are powers which you can exercise without referral back to the Members of this Legislative Assembly which does give you the power to create a special police force within the Province of British Columbia.

Regardless of how you might wish to walk around and tiptoe around that particular aspect of the Act, it's there. It might not be serious if we didn't see a number of other Acts in the Province of British Columbia with many of the same provisions. There are powers there, excessive powers, and the Attorney-General knows that. They are there in matters of other Acts which we have debated in this House.

It would seem to me that the total intent of the present NDP government is to pass Acts in this Legislature which, when they become law, will remove from the people, who are the elected Members of the Legislative Assembly, the rights or the power to do anything with respect to the direction that you wish to go because you can do it then by your appointed commissions and orders-in-council.

I agree that the Attorney-General will not initially or quickly phase out the RCMP in the Province of British Columbia, and there's a very good reason for that — you can't do without them right now. You can't do without them right now because they are the only large nucleus of well trained enforcement officers that you can call upon at this particular time. But that does not mean, Mr. Attorney-General, that you will not have in two years time a body of provincial sheriffs who could become the nucleus of the, then, new provincial police force, and have them trained to the extent that you can slowly but surely, before the next contract comes up for renewal with the RCMP, phase them out as the law enforcement officers in the Province of British Columbia. It's there and you can do it without doing anything more than exercising the powers that you have given to yourself in section (16) of this Act — where we deal with the special agreements or the agreements between the government and the RCMP.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That was in the previous Act — you've got to do better than that.

MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Attorney-General, all the provisions were not in that previous Act, you know that as well as I do. There's nothing to prevent you from coming up with the type of agreement that it would be impossible for the RCMP to live with or to sign.

At that point you will turn to the public of British Columbia and say: "Well, we have had no choice; we have to set up our own provincial police force. Thank goodness we now have the nucleus of that force in the sheriffs I was far-sighted enough to appoint in the Province of British Columbia. It just so happens that we do have a number of well-trained peace officers now who can become the nucleus of our new provincial police force."

It's there, Mr. Attorney-General, and you know it as well as I do.

There's a feeling of unrest among the people of the province, and with good reason. They've seen too many of the other Acts you have passed in this House, and this follows the same pattern for the Province of British Columbia. You have the power there and you also delegate the authority of this Act to an appointed commission.

It would seem to me that the appointments could be made on a political basis. I'm not saying they will be, but it certainly is possible, The Attorney-General must agree that it is possible to make those appointments strictly on a political basis. It wouldn't be the first time, Mr. Attorney-General, that we have witnessed appointments of people to positions of authority and power in this province that have been made strictly on the basis of political preference. It has happened before in the last 18 months and it certainly can happen again.

I know the B.C. Federation of Peace Officers of the province are concerned about the total ramifications of the Act and they've expressed that concern to the Attorney-General, both by meeting with him and by written brief to the Attorney-General.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: This is a favourite ploy of the Members of government now. Whenever a Minister gets into a corner, he says: "Well, we've called on the public. We've called upon the people of the province who are most interested in law enforcement and

[ Page 3813 ]

they've helped us to write the Act."

Well, it may be true that they have given you ideas and suggestions. It does not follow, Mr. Attorney-General, that you have any intentions of following those ideas or suggestions. By the very sections and subsections of this Act where you perhaps on the surface go along with those suggestions initially, you turn around and make it possible after the Act is passed to completely circumvent any of those ideas or suggestions by order-in-council or by direction to an appointed board or commission. You know it, and so do I.

There is good reason for people to be apprehensive, even though most of the people who do view this with apprehension say quite openly and frankly that there are areas of law enforcement in the Province of British Columbia which need revision and change. But there is a great deal of difference between revision and change and bringing into the Province of British Columbia a state police force. There's a great deal of difference.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't believe that.

MR. SMITH: There's a great deal of difference.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't believe that, do you?

MR. SMITH: The power is there….

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the power is there, Mr. Premier, if you wish to exercise it. The power is there.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're not saying that that's what we intend to do.

MR. SMITH: I say at the present time you've renewed the contract with the RCMP for two years.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not saying that we intend to create a state police force….

MR. SMITH: Time will tell what your real intention is under this Act. If I do nothing more than express to the Attorney-General the apprehension of some people in the Province of British Columbia, in growing numbers, then I have accomplished a well worthwhile purpose on the floor of this House this evening, Mr. Attorney-General.

That apprehension is there and it's there because of the manner in which the Act is written. It's there because excessive power is available through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council after the Act is passed. It's there for the Attorney-General to exercise if he wishes to direct the appointed board which will administer this Act.

I'm all in favour of taking a fresh look at law enforcement in the Province of British Columbia and updating some of our processes because this is a constant problem in every jurisdiction in Canada. I think all of us must be concerned not only about the enforcement of law but the image of the police force generally in the minds of the public. There has been a tendency on the part of some individuals to berate the force for no justifiable reason. There is also a tendency in law today to greatly reduce the power of those people who are supposed to represent law and order, not only in this province but in all parts of Canada. I think this is perhaps impairing them in a job which they would like to perform for the average law-abiding citizens in this province.

There are areas the Attorney-General should look into and suggest improvements. But I say to you this evening if it is your desire and your decision to exercise fully the powers vested in you as the chief law enforcement officer of this province under this Act, then you can do almost anything you desire between yourself and the commission you appoint.

It is a very important bill and a number of people feel we need a greater explanation than we've had so far. It's not good enough to say you wish to let a little sunshine in. It's not good enough to say that some of the recommendations in here are from the Law Reform Commission, the B.C. Federation of Peace Officers and all the other law enforcement bodies of the Province of British Columbia. It's not good enough to try to gloss over, in 10 or 15 minutes of debate in opening this particular bill, some of the sections of the Act that give you extensive powers. I think you owe more than that as the chief law enforcement officer to the people of this province.

I would say that in closing the debate you should certainly say in clear and unequivocal terms what your real intention is with respect to the future of the RCMP and the law enforcement body in the Province of British Columbia and what your real intention is with the rules you have made in the general overhaul of the judicial system in the Province of British Columbia and what the real goal is with respect to the removal of the duties that we were elected to perform from the Legislative Assembly by passing Acts which put those powers in the hands of appointed commissions or the Attorney-General through passing Orders-in-council.

There is a need for….

AN HON. MEMBER: A straight answer.

MR. SMITH: Yes. We'll get the answer.

We must go through this bill section by section, as

[ Page 3814 ]

the Attorney-General well knows.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: No. We'll discuss it in committee a section at a time, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. BARRETT: By that time you hope you'll find something.

MR. SMITH: It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the only answers we have so far from the Attorney-General or from the Premier himself is ridicule. If that is their concept of law enforcement in the Province of British Columbia we're really worse off than I even suspected in this province.

I say the power is there, but you'll be doing a great disservice to the Province of British Columbia if you exercise that power to its fullest extent. That's not what we want in this province. We want proper law enforcement.

We want the assurance of the Attorney-General that we will update and modernize where we have to and that in the final analysis the protection of the people of this province and their property will be the main concern of the Attorney-General and this government. Until we get that assurance many people, including ourselves in the official opposition, will look with great reservation on the provisions of this particular Act.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate on second reading of Bill 91. I want to assure you, and through you the Attorney-General, that I have no intention of indulging in scare tactics or extremism to allow people around the province to get the wrong impression of what precisely is intended by this bill.

Nevertheless, I feel that it is important — it is vital, in fact — for me to make a number of points and to do so with a feeling of constructive comment, constructive criticism, to point out some of the dangers which a number of us see in this particular legislation.

I hope that the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker, is fully in control of all the task forces, commissions and other organizations and bodies which he has permitted to be established or which he has in fact established since he assumed the role as chief law enforcement officer of British Columbia. If he is not, then he is an individual who will be faced with a runaway vehicle, with something which I think all of us have sincerely hoped would never come to British Columbia: that is, a Ministry of Police.

I think there is a danger, if I interpret all that is possible within the legislation and if others who have reviewed it with me are correct in their interpretation, that this province at some time in the future — not necessarily under this Attorney-General, but with this law in the statute books — could have a new Ministry separate and distinct from the Attorney-General's department.

One of the obvious consequences, of course, is an increased burden to the taxpayer — that would be self-evident — and increased paper load and increased work load imposed on many already overloaded, understaffed major police departments. Experience, I think, shows that whenever and wherever governments create new systems, new structures, new departments, naturally vast quantities of paper and detail work follow. Even to move the paper from one desk to another desk requires considerably more manpower — or I may say "personpower."

Does the Attorney-General fully appreciate — and I believe he does not — the power which is lodged within this Act — the power to set up separate organizations, undercover agencies, and in fact — I hesitate to use the term — police forces within police forces?

I hope that in closing debate on second reading the Attorney-General will tell us about the JFO, the Joint Forces Organization, that he will tell us precisely what the provincial police commission is doing. He's admitted that it is already functioning.

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: He doesn't know what the JFO is.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: UFOs.

MR. CURTIS: JFO. It's not unidentified. JFO, Mr. Speaker.

If he doesn't know, then our worst fears, the fears expressed by the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), the fears which I am sure will be expressed by other Members on this side of the House, will be in some respects justified.

We want to know why there is this determination to centralize police organization in British Columbia, whether it be under the aegis of the RCMP or, as the previous speaker has indicated, a provincial police force. It follows, of course, on the basis of previous experience with this government, that there is this tendency to centralization. But, with the exception of some lack of co-ordination, Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with the basic police establishments which we now have and which, as far as I'm concerned, have functioned effectively and efficiently and in the best interest of the majority of citizens?

The Minister indicated that one of the beneficial aspects of this legislation will be the introduction of minority groups into the police forces. As I said in an interjection, we don't need Bill 91 to achieve that. That has been happening in the province.

[ Page 3815 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, sir. It hasn't been happening.

MR. CURTIS: Well, with respect, Mr. Attorney-General through you, Mr. Speaker, it has been happening.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It hasn't been happening.

MR. CURTIS: Is has been happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: Show us, right now.

MR. CURTIS: Well, if you wish names….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Do you want a division on this or will you address the Chair?

MR. CURTIS: If the Attorney-General wishes names, I'll be happy to provide them to him at any time. Minority groups are represented, perhaps not as far as the Attorney-General would wish. But we didn't need an NDP government to introduce minority group representation in police departments in British Columbia. It started some time ago.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Name names.

MR. CURTIS: I'll name names very happily, but not in second reading debate. I fear that the Attorney-General may have been a party to creating a monster in Bill 91 which he will be unable to control. I think there is a very real possibility that this bill will lead us to the establishment of behind-the-scenes police organizations which none of us want, with the spectre of political intrigue at some time in the future.

What concerns me more than anything else, I think, is the removal of the control of police departments — I'm speaking of city and municipal police departments — from the local community in which they serve. Because the main thrust of this bill without question and beyond doubt is centralization, as I indicated just a few moments ago.

I am somewhat disappointed that a number of locally elected people have not realized this since the bill was first introduced. A few have wakened to the fact; one of them, the mayor of New Westminster, Mr. Evers, has expressed concern publicly and privately. He has pointed out that the present setup as far as police commissions are concerned — the mayor with one appointee from the provincial government and one by city council; not an alderman or member of council — has provided an efficient and effective administrative body for many years.

Mayor Evers goes on to say that the proposed increase to five could prove cumbersome, and that the majority appointees over the city does indicate an erosion of civic authority — an erosion of civic authority, where traditionally the control and jurisdiction for police departments has rested.

Mayor Evers goes on in his letter to say that every city has its own problems and should have majority say on how they should be controlled. If it is the desire of the provincial government to enlarge the board, why not have two appointees from each level, plus the mayor as chairman?

A very important aspect of this bill is the reduction of authority and control at the city or municipal level with the introduction of a provincial police commission. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is at the very least, undesirable.

Now the B.C. Federation of Peace Officers has been mentioned. The reading which the Attorney-General gets from their comments and the reading which I have are not completely compatible.

I think that policemen in this province — municipal policemen in particular — can be forgiven for questioning much of the content of Bill 91, but at the same time they would agree with, they recognize the need for, and have indeed spoken in favour of standardization of training, standardization of equipment, standardization of recruitment, training facilities and all that goes with that. But they are, I feel, justified in asking: have those individuals who drafted this legislation studied in depth the importance of local control of local or municipal police departments?

Not every community in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, should be patterned on the experience of Vancouver city or metropolitan Toronto. I think that is essential to the discussion in second reading on Bill 91. Not all the problems which police experience are to be duplicated in a metropolitan situation.

I think it is also important to refer to the United States briefly in connection with this bill. The United States in the 1960s, Mr. Speaker, wakened to the fact that crime had become a national menace and that many of their law enforcement bodies were entirely inadequate or incompetent to cope with so-called big crime. A detailed study was undertaken and in 1967 — I emphasize the year 1967 — a report known as the "President's Commission on law Enforcement and Administration of Justice" was compiled — a massive document examining many aspects of police, policing and the community. Insofar as I'm aware, Mr. Speaker, little or no research was done outside the United States, but the report was extremely comprehensive relative to the American problem and I'm going to quote from it for just a few moments.

Under grievances of citizens, as an example, and I paraphrase from the President's Commission:

"The best way to deal with police misconduct is to prevent it by effective

[ Page 3816 ]

methods of personnel screening, training and supervision. However, there will always be some citizen's complaints, warranted and unwarranted, about treatment by the police.

"Formal machinery within every police department for the investigation of complaints against police activity or employees is an absolute necessity. It's also important that a complainant be personally informed of the results. And if the complainant remains dissatisfied with the disposition of the case, there are other avenues of appeal outside of the police agency — the local prosecutor, the Courts, elected officials or the Attorney-General."

I continue to quote:

"While all of these are traditional institutions of legal redress, they are frequently too formal, awesome or geographically far removed from the bewildered citizen. Some of them lack the resources to process grievances. Some can take action only if the criminal law has been violated."

And still quoting:

"In going beyond the established legal procedures, the commission finds it unreasonable to single out the police as the only agency that should be subject to special scrutiny from the outside. The commission therefore does not recommend the establishment of civilian review boards in jurisdictions where they do not exist solely to review police conduct,

"The police are only one of a number of official agencies with whom the public has contact, and in some cases because they are the most visible and conspicuous representatives of local government, they may be the focus of more attention than they deserve."

The President's Commission, Mr. Speaker, concludes with this particular section:

"The commission recommends: every jurisdiction should provide adequate procedures for full and fair processing of all citizen grievances and complaints about the conduct of any public officer or employee."

It's recognized, Mr. Speaker, that most of the larger Canadian municipal police forces and, I believe, the RCMP have generally adequate internal disciplinary procedures and codes for investigating complaints against their members. Frequently a policeman will be dealt with more severely by his force than would a citizen for committing a similar offence. If we could just look at the RCMP system of investigation of complaints against its members, the orderly room or summary court proceedings were upheld by the Supreme Court in 1953 after a member had appealed his conviction by the presiding RCMP officers. That was known as the White case.

I further quote, if I may, Mr. Speaker, from an article by Professor James Q. Wilson of Harvard, who is a former director of the Harvard MIT Joint Centre for Urban Studies. In writing on the subject of police reform, he says, and again I paraphrase slightly:

"The rise of demands for community control of various public services, including the police and schools, has placed the problem of order on the political agenda.

"Whether the problems of managing disorder can best be handled by turning city governments over to neighbourhood groups is a complicated question. Provisionally I would argue that the war becomes more, not less, likely when a political system is Balkanized.

"The current anxiety about crime in the streets continues to lead some to define the police task as wholly or chiefly one of crime deterrents. This is unfortunate, not because this problem cannot be left solely or even primarily to the police, acting as if it could raise false hopes among the citizens and place unfair and distorted demands on the police.

"At least as much attention to the courts and correctional systems will be necessary. Crime deterrents and law enforcements require or are facilitated by specialization, strong authority, improved mobility and communication, clarity in legal codes and arrest procedures, high standards of integrity and the avoidance of entangling alliances with politicians."

Quoting from Professor James Wilson:"… the avoidance of entangling alliances with politicians."

Some of us see Bill 91 as laying the foundation for the re-establishment of a provincial police force, and the previous speaker has already referred to that. Whether this is good or not, depends a lot upon one's viewpoint. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it depends upon the motivation behind such a move politically as to whether or not such action is in the best interests of the public in terms of costs and efficiency.

Again, there are some good features about the bill, particularly in the realm of public police relationship, the handling of grievances.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there may be those on the other side of the House who will see any criticism of Bill 91 as a law-and-order speech. That is not why I am on my feet tonight. I'm concerned.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What's the reverse of that?

MR. CURTIS: Well, I indicate law and order in the unfortunate sense, as has been used elsewhere and I think the Attorney-General knows what I mean.

[ Page 3817 ]

I had a number of years as the chairman of a municipal police commission, recognizing the importance of maintaining a strong and responsible force, growing year by year as the community grew, aware of the occasional shortcomings of individuals in the police department, shortcomings with which we dealt, with which we were certainly capable of dealing. Discipline was used when it was necessary, but we saw this as a municipal police department responsible to the municipality within the framework of existing provincial and federal statutes.

What is proposed in Bill 91 is the centralization and the resultant weakening of that municipal community-police relationship. This is what distresses me most about the proposal.

Again, I have to ask if the Attorney-General really, clearly understands the monster that he may have let loose in British Columbia and I say "may." Is he aware of the task forces? Does he have them fully under control as a responsible, elected official in B.C.? Are they under your thumb? I hope so.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh! Well, this other Member thought I was controlling too much. You say I'm controlling too little. You're supposed to be a united party.

MR. CURTIS: I'm speaking of the task forces. The Attorney-General knows full well that is my reference. I hope he has them under control.

One of the excuses used for this is the need to put together a super-force or to control major crime — crimebusters. The drug situation obviously looms large in discussions relating to Bill 91 and what the Attorney-General is attempting to do. But I submit the centralization indicated in this bill is not necessary in order to combat the drug menace in British Columbia.

In the greater Victoria area the Attorney-General knows, I hope, that there is a drug squad with members drawn from more than one municipal police department as well as from the RCMP. They work as a team. They are able to move freely from municipality or community to community with no problems respecting boundaries or jurisdiction. We don't need Bill 91 to strengthen them.

What is good for metropolitan Toronto and metropolitan Vancouver may not be in the best interests of the smaller communities of British Columbia where many of our citizens live.

I hope the Attorney-General, when he concludes the debate in second reading, will at least acknowledge the existence of the RCMP national crime intelligence unit, which, I understand, is funded by the federal government in cooperation between the RCMP and municipal forces. I want to ask the Attorney-General what the relationship is between this, which has been operating for a good number of years, to some of the agencies or task forces or groups which are to be established or which, in fact, have been established under this Act. This unit is operating now and does not need Bill 91 to support it.

I hope the Attorney-General will be able to deny that law students are travelling to various parts of North America now to presumably investigate major crime. I wonder why this is necessary. Are some of them, in fact, travelling as far afield as California and Florida under the aegis of one of the agencies which has been established.

It is my information that 25 senior Vancouver city detectives have been taken into a special force and their replacements are going to be financed by the provincial government, if in fact that has not already taken place.

This kind of thing distresses those of us who are reasonably happy with the kind of policing we have had in British Columbia in the past.

AN HON. MEMBER: You shouldn't be.

MR. CURTIS: We shouldn't be. There's always room for improvement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right!

MR. CURTIS: I said "generally happy," I believe. There's always room for improvement but there is not the need for this massive upheaval of policing in the province, as proposed by Bill 91, in order to correct the faults which will be found in any organization, police or civilian.

Again, at the risk of being repetitious, I hope the Attorney-General clearly understands what he has unleashed, who is doing what and where, and that it is in the interests of citizens of British Columbia and not in the interests of a new, centralized and, perhaps in the extreme, unreachable police organization which could prove a threat to the liberties which bring us to this chamber.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I rise to support this bill. There is one little section which I am slightly mystified about and I would like to touch on it. This is the inquiry respecting the municipal police when a complaint is lodged against them. There is one little thing that bothers me.

For example: a policeman, if he is being charged, can be found innocent of the charge, guilty of the charge, and guilty with no disciplinary action. To me this smacks of an old verdict in Scotland called "not proven." I don't think it is fair for a policeman to be subjected to a possibility of this charge, "not proven guilty." I feel if the evidence is that weak, the charge shouldn't have been brought in the first place. The embarrassment to a respected policeman brought

[ Page 3818 ]

before….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! May I point out to the Hon. Member that this would be more appropriate in committee because it deals with a specific matter which you apparently oppose. Therefore, it should really be reserved for that occasion unless you have an amendment.

MR. CUMMINGS: I'm going to switch right now to the verdict "not proven." And if you think this is going to get through this chamber, I've got news for you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CUMMINGS: I don't even think this part should be in here. I can't see any reason for it.

Interjections.

MR. CUMMINGS: Mr. Speaker, laws are too precious to be trusted to lawyers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CUMMINGS: They were won not by lawyers.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure you will probably object if a lawyer tells you that you should deal with that in committee, but I must do so.

MR. CUMMINGS: Well, just in general, one of the first things they teach a young lawyer is that ignorance of the law is no excuse — but send the bill anyhow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: But it's a great excuse in this chamber, I'll tell you.

MR. CUMMINGS: All we need is a hostile Speaker. We've got a hostile….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I really must point out to the Hon. Member that you're dealing with a specific section.

MR. CUMMINGS: If I can get back, I really don't think the verdict "not proven" should be allowed in this or in any law in British Columbia.

MR. FRASER: I just have a few remarks to make on this bill.

First of all, I am very apprehensive about it. I think maybe we are leading to a police state here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRASER: There is nothing in this bill that says we are not. What I'm concerned about is the RCMP. I have the highest regard for the RCMP and I think they are the best police force in Canada. They have a contract now with the Province of British Columbia to police the province, particularly in the rural areas. Then they have subcontracts with the municipalities. I would like to hear the Attorney-General in the windup of this debate say, which he said earlier, that they will have a preferential position when negotiations come in 1976.

Are we going to create a police commission here and undermine the RCMP between now and 1976? If we are, I would like to hear from the Attorney-General. I am afraid this might be what is happening and I would like to hear the Attorney-General state most emphatically that this is not going to happen because….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's not going to happen!

MR. FRASER: Well, you can say that in the windup, Mr. Minister. (Laughter.) Get it on the record.

Thinking about RCMP contracts with municipalities, under this bill the municipalities will have to live up to a standard that they can ill-afford to live up to if they want to go another route for policing. I would like to hear the Attorney-General on that point inasmuch as there are some municipalities that have their own police forces other than the RCMP.

I might say that there are other municipalities in the province thinking of going the route of having their own police force other than the RCMP.

For economic reasons. I think in this bill it provides for a very high standard. I haven't anything against that, but maybe this will stop any economies which the municipalities might be thinking about. I would like to hear from the Minister on that point.

My main concern, Mr. Speaker, is: is this really a bill to eliminate the RCMP from the Province of British Columbia? The Minister said earlier in the debate that their contract is up in 1976. The reason I say this is because a lot of RCMP officers have asked me — they are concerned. If this is the intent, where do they stand? They would still like to stay in British Columbia. Will their seniority continue if the RCMP is eliminated? Will their present seniority in the RCMP continue on with the new B.C. police force which it seems to me is indicated here. Certainly this bill gives the authority to do that. With those few

[ Page 3819 ]

remarks, I'd be happy to hear the Minister's reply.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, and I would congratulate the Hon. Attorney-General for grasping the nettle in this case. I think this is a very difficult undertaking in many respects simply because it's going to be misunderstood by people who think somebody's under the bed.

Interjection.

MR. DENT: I say it's bound to be misunderstood by the kind of people who always think that there's somebody underneath the bed, and they're afraid to look.

AN HON. MEMBER: There always is with you guys. (Laughter.)

MR. DENT: You're proving my point.

There are a number of purposes outlined in the bill — in section (5) on the functions of the commission. I was reading through these and I fail to see what the alarm bells are ringing for. The purposes of the commission, as outlined, are just briefly: research assistance, nothing very ominous about that; advice and information to local police forces and other communities, people involved with law enforcement; setting standards for police training and for police; training programmes; promoting harmonious relationships between the public and the police; coordination between the various police forces, hardly an ominous thing at all.

Then, of course, in part 2 of that section, the regulation of the proper use of firearms and other functions are clearly consistent and would be consistent with these approaches.

I just want to refer to one of them very briefly — the standards for police. Police forces have come down through the centuries as having sort of a traditional role of being the cops who look for people doing wrong things or bad things. Many people still see them in that light, still see them in that sort of thing. They see the police force locally as the cops who will make sure that the kids don't shoplift, don't do this or don't do that and so on, and as long as they sort of keep the lid on things, that seems to be the standard they expect of them.

But in my experience when I was in the ministry, and I worked with the police a great deal, I found that not so much because of their training but because of necessity, they were performing a great number of services in the community which are not, you might say, the cops-and-robbers type of thing. This is increasing and it's quite clear, and it has been clear to me for a long time, that a much higher standard of training is required and a much more capable and better educated policeman is required in order to perform the very sophisticated jobs that have to be performed today.

I would congratulate the Attorney-General again on grasping the nettle and facing the realities of the modern world and trying to bring the whole standard of policing in this province up to date. Thank you.

MR. L. A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say a few words in this debate, and I wanted to associate myself with the remarks from the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis). I can't help but recognize from the Hon. Member for Skeena, who has just taken his place, the real concern that I feel about this legislation.

As he read the functions of the police commission and said that they were really so innocuous he didn't know why anyone would object, I would have thought that he would have recognized, as I do, why have this police commission if indeed its responsibilities are to be so simple? We could solve all this by handing it over to a community resource board under Bill 84. Really there is nothing here — and if there is nothing here, Mr. Speaker, why are we debating a bill which is long and is as important appearing as this one?

I suspect, as has been said by other Members, that what we have is the beginning of centralization of police authority in the provincial government, and I happen to be opposed to it.

The Member for Saanich and the Islands said that his wasn't a law-and-order speech in the normally accepted meaning of that phrase. I don't have any such concern; if I am making a law-and-order speech, then I am prepared to stand by it because if there is one thing we need to have in this province and in this society it is a respect for and a response to law and order which, in far too many cases, is lacking in our communities today.

It's all very well to talk of police forces and police commissions and police boards and so on, but I happen to be concerned about the individual police officer. When it comes right down to it, Mr. Speaker, that man in his day-to-day existence is the last bulwark that exists between law-abiding citizens and those elements in our society who will be prepared to destroy it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: We have had the City of Vancouver referred to as the murder capital of Canada. How many people are proud of that? We've had it referred to as the drug capital of Canada. How many people are proud of that? Yet, you know Mr. Speaker, the law enforcement officer, the policeman — constable, corporal, sergeant or what-have-you — is

[ Page 3820 ]

the man who we expect to go out, begin his shift every day and put in his whole working day standing between us and those violent elements in our community who carry on those activities.

It's all very well for us to sit in the safety of this building and talk about these problems, but when it comes right down to it, Mr. Speaker, it is the cop who has to go in on the drug pusher, kick in the door and suffer the abuse. He does it for us. It is no credit to us that we know, and I'm sure the Attorney-General knows from information which comes through his department, that there are 35 major drug units functioning in the City of Vancouver which are completely beyond control. They are completely beyond control because the police forces of the community are not being supported. This is major crime.

How about the minor crime? How about the harassment that takes place in all of our communities by young men and young women who don't care about the law, who force cars off the road, who break into houses and commercial establishments and do as they wish? It is the policemen who we expect to stand up and protect us from individuals in our society such as that.

I think it is a crime of the highest magnitude that the government of the Province of British Columbia would employ as its principal provincial force the RCMP and permit the officers of that force to be as badly paid as they are. For years the government of British Columbia….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Their pay is set by the federal government.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I think it is a crime that the Attorney-General in the Province of British Columbia would permit the federal government to pay the policemen in the province as badly as they do.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They're paid by the federal government — it's the Solicitor-General's department.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I think, Mr. Speaker, if that is the Attorney-General's position, he should be ashamed. He should say that the law enforcement problems in the Province of British Columbia are serious enough that we want properly paid police officers to carry out the responsibilities that they are expected to carry out in the Province of British Columbia.

What is the extent of this? The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) said it is unbelievable. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that after 18 years in the force, rising to the rank of sergeant, you can barely expect to get paid over $15,000 per year? Does the Member for North Okanagan stand for that?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): No, but if….

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If you are a superintendent of the RCMP, do you recognize that you get paid less than an MLA in this Assembly? That is true. I've got the information, the most recent statistics: a superintendent of the RCMP is paid between $23,100 and $25,000 per year. That is the pay scale.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Some security! You've got the security Mr. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) of going out any day and getting your can beat off by some crook, or shot at by some hood. That's the kind of security we offer to the police in our society.

Under this legislation we find that the social workers in our government are going to introduce local committees which will have the power to adjudicate on the performance of police officers when a complaint is raised. Not only are they subjected to the law, not only are they subjected to the discipline of their own force but they are now going to be subjected to the discipline of some local committee of bleeding hearts. This government supports that kind of activity. We can certainly see this occurring in the City of Vancouver.

I happen to support the police officer. I happen to believe that he should be supported by the government and by the people of this province. This legislation is not designed to produce that result.

The Hon. Attorney-General has not given one single solid reason for bringing forward the centralization of control of which he speaks in this legislation.

Earlier in the session we had the Attorney-General making announcements with regard to crime-busting task forces that he was going to have. We all applauded the announced appointment of the then prosecutor, Mr. Stewart McMorran, who is now a judge of the county court of the province. That appointment didn't come about. It is regretful that it didn't come about, Mr. Speaker, because following his appointment to the bench His Honour Judge McMorran said that he was sorry, he wished he could have told the truth about the problems of crime in British Columbia. Truly it is unfortunate.

The legislation which we have here is not going to approach the solution to the problem. What we need is legislation which will support the police forces and the police constables, and ensure that they are assisted in the fulfilment of their responsibility, not attacked and centralized as this legislation provides

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks about the

[ Page 3821 ]

problems of law enforcement in British Columbia, perhaps in a slightly more conciliatory tone than my colleague for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). I can tell you that I share his views….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: So does Archie Bunker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Does that make you Meathead, Alex?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, if I have to be characterized as a redneck or an Archie Bunker to stand up for law enforcement in British Columbia, then I am happy to be characterized as a redneck or an Archie Bunker.

Just this week I paid a visit to the morgue in the City of Vancouver. Laid out on the table was a young man of 21 who was the fourth death this week from an overdose of heroin or whatever people are shooting up this week in the City of Vancouver. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that although it is not in our newspapers, one of the major causes of death in British Columbia today among young people is mainlining heroin and other drugs of abuse.

In British Columbia today we are averaging one contract murder every 10 days. Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General knows, and if he doesn't know he can find out, who the back-end men are, who the connections are and who the major people are in all the drug rings of British Columbia.

British Columbia is the drug capital of Canada, the murder capital of Canada and the crime capital of Canada. It is these things because we have failed to stand behind the police forces of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the government does not stand behind them, the courts do not stand behind them, the politicians do not stand behind them. With all these people failing to support law and order we are letting down the public of British Columbia. If this were a law-abiding province, if we did not have major crime in British Columbia, it would not be necessary for me or for the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound to stand up and champion law and order even at the risk of being characterized by the Attorney-General as Archie Bunkers.

The Premier looks quizzical, Mr. Speaker, but I advise him to do what I have done and pay a visit to our city morgue and see our young people being killed off because of the drugs that are available on the street.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right. Go and see what happens in Coquitlam.

MR. McGEER: Go and talk to the police about the people who are being murdered in British Columbia. They run about three a month. Ask them if they are people who are known to be associated with the drug trade in this province. They will find out that they are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Coquitlam is one of the worst areas right now.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, we would be derelict as Members of this Legislative Assembly if we turned our backs on what are obviously the facts.

Mr. Speaker, it is also a fact that people who have been arrested on drug charges, sometimes after months of undercover work by representatives of the RCMP and the city police, are turned out on bail the very next day and continue on with the crimes that had them arrested in the first place. Of course it's true, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to place yourself in the position of the police who are risking their lives every day, pitting themselves against the business that brings the top man in the province $5,000 a day, against their $15,000 a year and ask yourself what your attitude would be if you were expected all alone to pit yourself against these forces in the face of indifference on the part of the politicians and the opinion makers in the province.

I want to tell you that I'm not indifferent to what is going on today. I'm broken-hearted by it because I think the average law-abiding citizen of this province is being given a bad deal by the people who should be exerting their influence to see that British Columbia is cleaned up.

Mr. Speaker, it is possible to clean up British Columbia. It is possible to get drugs off our streets. It is possible to end the most despicable business that has ever been invented in human civilization and which runs rampant in British Columbia as in no other place in Canada and few other places in the world.

I've spoken many times, Mr. Speaker, of the necessity of British Columbia coming to its senses to realize the situation that we have in this province and begin to move decisively to bring it to an end. All of these speeches have fallen on completely deaf ears. I only tell you that this week I visited the morgue and saw the fourth victim — a young man — this week dead from drug overdose. That's what is going on in the streets of British Columbia today and in heaven's name I appeal to the Attorney-General to take the steps necessary to end it all.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know just what the emotion and the harangue we have had from the Member serves in terms of purpose of finding good peace and law and order in this province.

[ Page 3822 ]

MR. McGEER: Your job is to clean British Columbia up.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's exactly the kind of cliché that I am asking about. I hope it is sincere anger. I wouldn't want to believe it was feigned. That kind of speech is so void in rational content in terms of alternatives to a very serious problem. That kind of harangue is in terms of clichés — "Clean the province up. Stop the contract murders. It's all in Coquitlam."

The tragedy of our society doesn't know geographic bounds. Unfortunately there are young drug takers in West Vancouver, downtown Vancouver, the Fraser Valley and all through this province. The federal government has attempted to grapple with this problem sincerely. The previous administration tried to deal with this problem. We're trying to deal with it.

If that Member knows any single formula other than the cliché that he has espoused tonight, he has a duty to all the people of this province to tell them who the master operators are behind the crime ring.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Attorney-General should know. If he doesn't know, then he should resign.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, the Attorney-General should know. He should have all the information, and break the international drug ring. And he's a failure because he doesn't have all that information….

Do you mean to say that the RCMP is not telling the Attorney-General that they know who these people are? Are you alleging that the Attorney-General of this province is in some way stopping charges against people that the RCMP know about and have told him about? The Attorney-General should know?

Mr. Member, do you know how stupid that statement is?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Surely to goodness, if there are 35 known drug units, surely the police will ask us to press charges. Do you mean to say that the police are not asking us to press charges?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Member, the move is through a better police force. That's exactly what the bill is all about.

But for me to stand in this House and somehow have a government tagged as being responsible for the problem of drug addiction…! If you really mean that, then you've reached a new low in politics. If you really mean it. If you're just playing games, I understand. But if you are alleging that this government, or any other government, is deliberately withholding some magic solution to the problem of drug abuse, then that is pretty low. Very low!

To allege that because you visit the morgue and see four dead bodies gives you some mystical approach to understanding this complex problem is beyond me — especially coming from a scientist. I've made many speeches in this House on the same subject. My speeches have been borne out to have been more right than yours, Mr. Member.

I remember the hysterical harangue you gave one night on LSD in this House. I want to tell you, Mr. Member, that I sat and witnessed that kind of speech — which is inflammatory, not designed to solve any problems, not giving any positive contributions to any of these social problems.

You are a scientist who is always talking about the value of research. Every single scientific researcher has come up with conclusions absolutely contrary to the position you took that night on LSD. Every one! University people!

You know, Mr. Speaker, at that same time we discussed the establishment by the federal government of the Matsqui institution. I stood in my place in that corner of the House — and the former Attorney-General, Mr. Bonner, agreed with me — and said that Matsqui was a blunder. Matsqui was the hard line that you believed…. Oh, yes, that's the way it was sold originally. The former Attorney-General and I agreed on this floor that the Matsqui institution would be deemed a failure. We catalogued the reasons why.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Maybe not for the same reasons.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, for the same reasons: because I had worked for that department before I came into government — before I came into this House.

I must say that the former Attorney-General….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sure, I'm a failure. Blame all the drug problems on us.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: We're not talking about users; we're talking about pushers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Speaker, most pushers are users. The people behind the drug scene who are really the money-makers never get out on the street and hustle drugs.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not users.

[ Page 3823 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, they're not users. The allegation is that somehow this Attorney-General knows who those people are, but is protecting them.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, if he knows who they are and if there is evidence to convict them, they will go to court.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Have you asked him if he has ever asked the police? You have not. You have come into the House and made that kind of speech in an attempt to gain some kind of political manoeuvering which I do not understand.

The statements around Coquitlam and all this jazz are deliberately inflammatory, in my opinion.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has taken more time than anyone else in this House to find out what the drug problem is all about. As a medical practitioner he became alarmed because of the number of young people in his own constituency who were involved. He gathered more information in about three months than some of you seat-warmers who don't show up for half the Legislature have done…. And you come in and make those kinds of speeches!

You have contributed absolutely nothing with that kind of speech. Is there any kind of attempt to define that somehow the NDP is soft on drugs and the Liberals are hard? That's stupid. There isn't anybody of any political party that's soft on the use of drugs. All of us want an end to the abuse of anybody's body.

But nobody has a monopoly on genius, and nobody has a monopoly on wishing to solve the problem. The federal Liberal record….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, an all-out war. The federal Liberals went on an all-out war with Matsqui. I stood in my place over there and warned and stated over and over again that Matsqui would be a failure. And I was proven right within six years.

There was no Hansard, but there are newspaper records of the speeches that I gave. I catalogued the research. I quoted the Lexington experience. I read Dr. Cawlf's research papers in this House. The only reaction I had from the good doctor, who is also a researcher, was an emotional attack that night. And now there's another emotional one tonight.

All research in North America indicates that the directions in which we've gone, especially in institutions like Matsqui, are failures. The federal government duplicated the failure; and now everybody is groping again. No simplistic harangues around a war against drug pushers….

MR. McGEER: What are you doing today?

HON. MR. BARRETT: What we are doing today is more, in terms of long-term results, than anything else. We closed the Willingdon School for Girls, for one thing. Now let me tell you the consequence of that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll tell you what it's got to do with it. One-third of all the women offenders in Kingston came out of the Willingdon School for Girls. There were no preventive programmes in this province to head off the epidemiology of drug offenders. The Drug Foundation of British Columbia did the research on the basis of epidemiology and indicated that the traits, in terms of young offenders, came out very early in terms of drug users.

Okay, you asked us what we've done. We haven't done spectacular head line-grabbing speeches like that, saying: "War on the Drug Pushers." But we have cut off the kind of situation that created psychological frameworks that allow people to get to become drug users.

Willingdon School for Girls was a classic example. When we came in there were over 200 boys in Brannan Lake School. We have got that figure down to 70. I'm telling you that the lack of that kind of experience will guarantee a diminishing of the odds of young people showing up with the kind of severe problems that exist now.

There are no simplistic answers. We are trying to create a network between education and Health Services and Human Resources to a preventative programme in this province. Prevention is the biggest thing we need.

But I see no useful purpose served with that kind of speech by that Member. It's the kind of cliché harangue that solves nothing, has no positive alternatives and is, quite frankly, filled with ignorance.

To stand up and rant and rave about a war on drug pushers and law and order…. The greatest law-and-order man in North America was Spiro Agnew.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that was his line. Its true. Every time he was in trouble, he used to make that kind of speech; but the substance was never there. And there is no substance in that Member's speech. If he is withholding from the people of this

[ Page 3824 ]

province the information that he thinks he knows — or that the Member for West Vancouver (Mr. L.A. Williams) knows — about who the drug pushers are, their names and their rings, then they are doing a public disservice.

If they are withholding from the people of this province information that they think they have….

MR. McGEER: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. BARRETT: What do you mean, "Come on!"? I sit here and listen to that kind of nonsense….

MR. McGEER: You're not going over. You're not selling.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, to come in here and presume, because you have been to the morgue and seen four dead bodies, that you are an expert in drug problems in this province is a little bit thick.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Premier to relate his remarks to the principle of the bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am responding on the basis of what he said. If he is allowed to do that, then I'm certainly allowed to respond.

I want to tell you that the drug problem is not a political problem associated with any party. It is a social problem.

MR. McGEER: It's your job to clean it up.

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Horse manure," says the Member. It's the NDP's fault.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It's a law-enforcement problem.

HON. MR. BARRETT: A law-enforcement problem. His attempt through this bill is to bring better law enforcement to this province.

MR. McGEER: There's only one government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to say this, Mr. Speaker: to leave the impression that that group knows all about the drug problem and knows all the answers is to give false hope to the people of this province.

He knows the answers? He does not know all the answers to the drug problem.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, what do you think he's doing? You know, to hear that speech and to give the false impression that there's some easy answer to a very complex social problem is just sickening, absolutely sickening.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to, perhaps at the expense of a little repetition, refer to the things that have been said.

The sheriffs are not and could not be the nucleus of a new police force; they haven't got the training. They have sheriff training, court officer training. I don't think I have to deal with that any further.

Appointments will not be made on a political basis, and have not been made on a political basis, in this department in any of the police commissions with which we have had to do at the present time.

What will be the future of the RCMP? Mr. Speaker, the RCMP contracts are very favourable in terms of British Columbia because we get 51 per cent this year of the cost of the provincial RCMP force and 50 per cent for the first five men, when they are municipal, and 25 per cent of the cost thereafter — that's about a $23,000 contract, so it is very favourable. I would wholeheartedly hope that we could renew, as these contracts come up every two years, on that kind of favourable terms, the kind of contracts we have with Ottawa with respect to RCMP policing. That's my attitude in answer to that question.

MR. FRASER: But you wouldn't guarantee it, would you?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, if we could get the renewal of that formula, we would sign up. The answer is yes.

MR. FRASER: Thank you.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I mean it's a very favourable thing in terms of the service they give, the kind of people they have and the financial costs. Of course, we'd be glad to renew the contract on that basis. Frankly, Mr. Member, I don't think we are going to be able to have it on the same basis because, as I say, of the protests of Quebec and Ontario.

Now the next question which came up was centralization, and one Hon. Member said that I was going to take control of everything, another Hon. Member said that this was a monster that would be out of control. Well, it's neither.

But we are creating a provincial police commission not unlike the Ontario Provincial Police Commission, except theirs, I suppose, is a more significant body because there's an Ontario police force there for the Province of Ontario, and we're similar in many

[ Page 3825 ]

respects to other provinces.

In terms of the speeches which have been made from the Liberal Party about organized crime, let me say this: for the first time in the history of this government we are forming — although it is not under this bill — the CLEU programme. As we go along with that programme, the development of the personnel and facilities — and the work is proceeding apace — and the selection of the advisory committee, we will keep the public informed because it should be visible to the public in that sense.

MR. CURTIS: What does "CLEU" stand for?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit … drawn from existing forces and whose task will be to accumulate the evidence to engage in the detection and to prosecute organized crime.

MR. McGEER: C-L-E-U — that doesn't spell clue!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Nevertheless it's called CLEU. I'm sorry for the Hon. Member, but that's the way it's referred to at the present time.

So, we are doing something about the kinds of things that are being talked about by the Liberal Party.

Now, in this bill which we proposed to the House I would ask the Members who have said that we are not doing anything to support the police to consider whether they are prepared to vote against improved training standards for policemen, which all of the police forces recognize as long overdue. That's No. 1.

Are you prepared to vote against minimum standards of police equipment personnel and recruitment? That's No. 2. Specifically, this government is prepared to undertake that.

MR. CURTIS: You very cleverly tied the two together.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All right. You'll have a chance to vote against this if you wish to, Mr. Member. I'm just telling you what you're going to vote against if you do: you are going to vote against these training provisions, which all the police forces have asked for for a long time, and their cries have fallen on deaf ears. You're going to vote against these standards.

Are you prepared to vote against for the first time looking at and supporting the adequacy of police forces in all of the areas of British Columbia? — which is a prime job of the Provincial Police Commission.

Are you prepared to vote against, under this B.C. Police Commission, the kind of crime prevention research which will be one of the main objectives of the commission?

Are you prepared to vote against increasing coordination of the police forces in the Province of British Columbia?

So I say, Mr. Speaker, that this bill supports the police forces as they exist in the Province of British Columbia. I say that the vast majority of the police officers in the Province of British Columbia welcome the fact that for the first time a government is in office which is prepared to do something about the standards and training, is prepared to give the police officers greater standing both in the community and in all other aspects of their work.

I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

NAYS — 14

Bill 91, Police Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Record it.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

HON. MR, BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 3 1.

MINERAL ROYALTIES ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, we were on the amendment to Bill 31, on the motion of the Hon. Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) that the word "now" be deleted and substituting therefore the words "six months hence."

[ Page 3826 ]

Is anyone prepared to debate further on the amendment?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of very excellent reasons put forward as to why Bill 31 should be postponed for six months. I want to say that I support that proposition.

Like many Members, I've had a surprising amount of correspondence, extremely well thought out, by people from British Columbia who come from all different walks of life but whose livelihood will be jeopardized in the most serious way by the Minister and his government. It is because of the widespread and deleterious effects of this proposed legislation that I support the amendment that it be hoisted for six months while a re-evaluation takes place.

I expected and, I suppose, as the Minister and as Members of the New Democratic Party suspected, there would be detailed submissions from the large producing mines of British Columbia. One always gets these kinds of analyses whenever legislation that is not favourable to an industry appears and one tends to discount the importance of such submissions.

But the point really came home to me, Mr. Speaker, when a citizen of the constituency I represent telephoned me one morning and said: "I have a problem; what do you suggest I do? I had invested $180,000, my life savings, in some properties in the Highland Valley. I can't ask my family to make any more sacrifices to hold on to the claims I now have which are adjacent to producing property. In order to retain my claims and keep them in good order, I am going to have to spend about $20,000 more. All of my partners have deserted me. There is no way I can sell the beneficial interest on my claims. I either have to mortgage my home and place my family in greater jeopardy or abandon my assets."

Mr. Speaker, what advice would you give someone in that position? There is no prospect, none at all, of new producing mines being developed in British Columbia. Because there is no prospect of new producing mines being developed in this province, there is no point in exploring for new properties. Because there is no point in exploring for new properties, the mining exploration industry in British Columbia — not the mining industry but the mining exploration industry in British Columbia — is dead.

The Minister of Mines either knows that industry is dead or he has been derelict in his responsibility to learn what is going on in the industry he represents. I'm not a mining man, though members of my family have devoted their lives to the mining industry. I've been given information which absolutely shocks me as to the state of the mining industry in British Columbia today.

In order to illustrate this, I brought into the chamber this evening a graph which shows the claims staked in British Columbia in the four-month period, January to April, for each year between 1969 and 1974, selecting four of the most important mining exploration districts in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, look at that graph! It shows you that the claims staked in mining in this province have taken a nosedive in 1974. That is since Bill 31 was introduced. We're only into the first quarter. I predict that the precipitate decline will continue the death of an industry.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) or the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) or perhaps even the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) have any idea of the seriousness of this data which is being accumulated by the civil service and by that Minister's department. During the first four months of this year only 3,836 claims were staked compared with 8,405 only a year ago. That's a decline of 54 per cent.

If one takes only four of the mining districts in British Columbia…and this is the sample that I've been given which includes Nanaimo, Cariboo, Atlin and Omineca. One of these was Omineca, and when I read the figures for that area you will be able to understand why the people of Omineca have gone to the extraordinary lengths of circulating a petition asking that their Member (Mr. Kelly) resign.

In the first four months in that area only 241 new claims were staked, but 1,359 were allowed to lapse. That is out of a total of 2,073 held, for a net reduction of over 58 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Members realize what is involved in allowing a staked claim to lapse. These are claims not held by the big mining companies — they can afford to pay the extra rental charges, they can afford much more than the average prospector to go out and spend the money to do the exploration. And if individuals let their mining claims lapse, of course, the big fellows are in a position to come in and snap them up. Little people who go out and do the dirty work of hunting for mines in British Columbia have done the work and have paid for these claims to the provincial government. All their work and all their efforts has been undone by the thoughtless and vicious legislation of that Minister and his government.

I think vicious is a more appropriate term than thoughtless, because it takes a lot of guts and effort to go out in the wilds of British Columbia and hunt for the mineral wealth of this province. There is not a single producing mine that brings in all the wealth to the province, which these people insist be spent on their luxuries and privileges, including MLAs salaries, that hasn't first had someone who was prepared to work hard and risk his savings in order to locate those minerals.

Look at this, Mr. Speaker. Claims staked, 1969 to

[ Page 3827 ]

1973. Do you see that drop? That drop there marks the future mining industry of British Columbia. Where did the mines come from that we're counting on today to bring in the royalties? They all came from claims that were staked in previous years under governments that had a lot more common sense than this one.

MR. CURTIS: By ordinary prospectors.

MR. McGEER: They were staked by ordinary people.

Mr. Speaker, I hear the stage whispers from the socialist Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). He's never been out staking any claims.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): In his white jacket he wouldn't.

MR. McGEER: No, sir. That's not his style. His style is to make his money on real estate deals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: Yes, sir!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Less personal references, and on with the six months advisability….

MR. McGEER: I am going to have a lot to say to that Minister when the disclosure bill comes up because I've been in politics, not as long as that Member, but a fair number of years, and I think I've only been really unfairly attacked once in all that time and it was by that Minister.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I wouldn't do that.

MR. McGEER: Well, I'm afraid that you would, Mr. Minister. You've done it before and you'd do it again. But that's beside this particular debate.

This particular debate concerns the future of the second most important industry in British Columbia. It is an industry that is dying. And the claims staked in the first four months of this year prove quite clearly that is the case. If no other information were available other than what has happened during the first four months, that would be enough in itself to justify the hoisting of this bill for six months while the Minister dug into his department and learned for himself what was going on.

Mr. Speaker, that Minister, first of all, has to become aware of the realities of mining in British Columbia today and then he's got to go in and tell his socialist friends in caucus what the facts of life are.

You know, I dare say that if the Minister doesn't change his tune, not only will he be out of office, but the old job he used to have as a warehouseman for one of the mining companies won't be there any longer.

MR. CHABOT: He's retired.

MR. McGEER: Well, that might be the happiest proposition that's been put before our second most important industry in British Columbia in many a year.

Mr. Speaker, there's a second important reason why this bill should be hoisted for six months. It is the prospect of conflict between the federal and provincial governments regarding tax jurisdiction which has pitched the economic future of even producing mines into doubt. The Province of Manitoba — and you will have read this in the newspaper this morning, I know — withdrew their mineral legislation for a period of time even though it wasn't nearly as harsh in its concepts as Bill 31 introduced by this Minister. That's a socialist province, Manitoba.

But even a socialist province can see the light. If the Minister cannot take his advice from his well-meaning colleagues in this House on the opposition side, then he should get in touch with his socialist cousins in Manitoba and seek their advice.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): They have more convincing speakers on the opposition side there.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister suggests that the opposition speakers were more convincing. I don't think that's true. I think the opposition speakers in this House are without peer. What they had was more perceptive Ministers. They didn't have the kinds of handicaps in Lands and Forests and other portfolios we might mention. That's the reason for the glimmer of intelligence in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, they may even have had a Minister who checked into his own department and learned what was going on.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Do you suppose, Mr. Speaker, that key executive assistants in the Province of Manitoba were so busy in the federal election campaign that they didn't have a chance to examine the implications, and decided to postpone it for that reason? I could even see some virtue in members of

[ Page 3828 ]

the provincial civil service acting as campaign managers for federal NDP candidates if I thought that their absence would cause the government to postpone this bill until it could study it more closely.

Mr. Speaker, you know, the Minister is a thoroughly delightful person. I think he's an example of Peter's principle, but I sense that in the first two arguments I'm not quite getting through to him, and maybe in this argument I will.

I'm not going to present points with the deliberation of the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), but I am going to make a genuine effort.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, it might be very easy, but you know, the opposition people aren't given the kind of responsibilities that allow them to do the sort of damage that the cabinet can do by bringing in legislation that isn't well thought out.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: In the case of Bill 31…. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Lands and Forests is descending into personal attacks again and I'm not offering any opinions of my own, I'm merely reiterating for the Minister data that's appeared from other jurisdictions. He's got all the data regarding staking of claims in his own department. He can only telephone the Province of Manitoba if he thinks that they really haven't lifted their particular legislation.

I know he's received a brief, Mr. Speaker, from Professor Lew Evans of the University of British Columbia, pointing out in quite logical facts that the higher you place the royalties on operating mines, the less revenue the government gets.

I know that that sounds a little paradoxical, Mr. Speaker, but it's really quite simple and logical. I think that if the Premier or the Minister of Lands and Forests were to look at this thing, that it's really not too difficult to understand.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No, as a matter of fact, they didn't, Mr. Speaker. This one is from a business editor, Mr. Bob McMurray in the Vancouver Province Page 24, Monday, April 8. Here are the graphs right here…

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: This is a graph right on my desk, Mr. Speaker, and the point that this professor of mining, and he's got no axe to grind for the industry…

AN HON. MEMBER: Show us the other graphs.

MR. McGEER: …Mr. Speaker, what he points out is that the higher you set the royalties, the less return the government gets because what the mine is forced to do is to abandon low-grade ore in favour of high-grade ore, thereby producing less funds in the way of total sales and less return to the government.

The logic of this argument, Mr. Speaker, isn't simple mathematics because simple mathematics would lead you to believe that all ores are of the same grade, and that a mine will continue to operate on the same basis regardless of the taxes that are charged. Anybody who does an economic analysis of mining knows that this isn't true and you only have to examine to see that the returns to government will be less.

You know, one of the things that's come out of the studies of Russia, and I think that this will maybe get through to some of the Ministers, is that when they ran the concentration camps in Siberia, they found the prison guards used to take some of the wood away from the prisoners who brought it in. They found that if they took more than half the wood — and this has been written up by accounts that have slipped out to the west — the prisoners wouldn't go out and cut it anymore, they'd sit around and stay cold.

This is what you're doing by trying to extract more from the industry than it can bear. Even the producing mines, Mr. Speaker, will return less to government and the mines themselves that will come on in the future, under your leadership, will be zero.

Everyone understands that to get a producing mine, and there's no question that the ones that make it and do succeed, become very wealthy. I daresay the people who are the major shareholders and the owners of these mines become a little bit arrogant, but it's a little like sending salmon fry down the river. You've got to send buckets and buckets down to get a few great big fish back.

What the Minister has done with this legislation is to eliminate all the small fry going down the river. If you eliminate that, there ain't going to be any big ones coming back. The claims are gone and those are the fish fry that go down the river. You think you're getting at the big producers. They are going to keep going. They will high-grade the ore, but the people you have destroyed are the little people in British Columbia. More than that, you've destroyed a whole series of industry that depends on the exploration activities….

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: I won't be long. No, no. I'm going to wind my speech up because I think one can't add more than to say, Mr. Speaker, when you get a letter

[ Page 3829 ]

of complaint from Jones Tent & Awning saying that their business is going to fold because people aren't going out in the woods anymore to hunt for mines, things have got to a desperate state.

The Minister has got the message. The mining industry has folded its tents in British Columbia. It is number two in this province and one doesn't have to stand for big business to condemn what that Minster and his government has done. One only has to stand for the little people of British Columbia who have worked their guts out to develop the second largest industry in the province, to stand up and say Bill 31 is a disaster.

Mr. L.A. Williams moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.