[ Page 3001 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Access to Information Act (Bill M-209) Mr. Gibson.

Introduction and first reading –– 3001

Oral questions

Fuel prices. Mr. Macdonald –– 3001

Systems Corporation hirings. Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies –– 3002

Sex discrimination in schools. Mr. Wallace –– 3004

Presenting reports

Interim BCR report on affairs of Railwest. Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 3004

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 54) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading I –– 3005

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

On vote 60. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3016

Mr. Wallace –– 3005 Mr. Lauk –– 3017

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3007 Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3019

Mr. Lauk –– 3008 Mr. Macdonald –– 3020

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3010 On vote 62.

Mr. Macdonald –– 3011 Mr. Barrett –– 3020

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3011 Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3024

On vote 61. Mr. Barrett –– 3025

Mr.Cocke –– 3012 Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3029

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3013 Mr. Barrett –– 3030

Mr. Nicolson –– 3014 MR. Lauk –– 3032

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3016 Mr. Wallace –– 3032

Mr. Shelford –– 3016 Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 3034

Mr. Nicolson –– 3035

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today are several ladies visiting the Legislature as a follow-up to last year's Women's Rally for Action. They represent such organizations as the Vancouver Status of Women, the B.C. Federation of Women, and the Victoria Status of Women Action Group. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce Lee Grills, who is the president of the Vancouver Status of Women, Vaughan McMorland, Christina Johnson, Kerry Carney, Shirley Friend, Joanne Manley, Nadine Allen and Val Embrey. I would like the House to welcome them.

While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would also like to introduce Mr. Ed Randall, who is a member of the faculty association of Notre Dame University and who is also president of the provincial Progressive Conservation Association of Nelson-Creston.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): I would like to ask the House to welcome a long-time Surrey resident and pioneer - living in the Delta constituency, however - Mrs. Bellow.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome two young constituents of mine from the city of Kelowna: Gordon Black and Ian Blank, who are 11 and 9 years old respectively. They're accompanied by their grandmother, Mrs. Elizabeth Isabel Armstrong. Would the House join me in welcoming them?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): In the gallery today is a distinguished British Columbian who has demonstrated many years of service at the local and regional district level, hailing from Burnaby but here today in his capacity as deputy chairman of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. I refer to one most of us know, Alderman Alan Emmott of Burnaby, a noted raconteur and humorist.

I'm sure the members will appreciate the fact that inasmuch as this is the 10th anniversary of the formation of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, a small sample of anniversary cake is being delivered to the various caucus rooms in the course of the afternoon. The hon. member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) joins me in asking the House to welcome Alderman Emmott from the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Today in the gallery we have nine members of the former faculty of Notre Dame University. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Dr. Vince Salvo, Dr. Paul Pereek, Dr. Allan Child, Dr. Loma Morrey, Dr. Norman Thyer, Dr. Joan Snider, Dr. John Harling, Dr. Ron Charmers and Dr. Ed Randall.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House this afternoon to welcome Dave Bruce of the ARA. I know he won't have to come back again because I think the minister is going to resolve his problem, I hope, this week.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce to the House today four students from Oak Bay Senior High School. These students have distinguished themselves in winning the B.C. championship of the TV show "Reach For The Top." The students are: Pauline Bunn, Roger Cloolie, Terry Barnett and Allan Horgan, They are accompanied by their teacher and vice -principal, Robert Kendrick and their chief supporter, Mrs. Kendrick. Would you please welcome them?

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two groups of people here to express their support of the motion relative to Trident, They are part of a watching brief being carried on here in the precincts in anticipation of this assembly acting upon Motion 6. One group is from the World Federalists and includes Mr. Joe Haegart, Mrs. R. Johnson, Mr. Tom Tiddington, Mrs. E.G. Maurice and Mrs. Al Hallberg.

Two other visitors are from the Victoria Peace Council and they are Lillian Money and Ruth Doherty. I would ask the House to join with me in welcoming them.

Introduction of bills.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill M 209, Access to Information Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

FUEL PRICES

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. In view of the announcement today by the Hon. Alastair Gillespie that the price of a barrel of oil will go up by $2,

[ Page 3002 ]

meaning 7 cents additional at the pump for motorists in this province between July 1,1977, and January 1,1978, and 6.2 cents extra for home heating oil, and in view of the fact that British Columbia produces a good portion of its own old oil - about 45,000 barrels a day - will the minister refer this question at once to the B.C. Energy Commission in order to protect the British Columbia consumer?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member undoubtedly knows, the B.C. Energy Commission is currently holding hearings on fuel prices. I'm sure we'll take this recent announcement by the federal government into consideration.

MR. MACDONALD: Since the advent of the new Social Credit government, the B.C. oil companies, with the additional $2 they already had a short while ago and the reduction of royalties by this government from 47 per cent to 40 per cent, have received an extra $26 million a year net. As a result of this increase they're going to receive an additional $20 million. Will this government immediately look at the royalty structure so that some of that excess exorbitant profit can be returned to the people of the province?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I've asked a question about the royalty structure.

MR. SPEAKER: I realize the hon. member asked a supplementary question about royalty structure.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, that is broadly a question of government policy. Of course the government is concerned about taxation, but royalties are a matter which is of concern to the government as a whole. Therefore I'm not prepared to answer that question in detail,

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Let's hear it for the oil companies!

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary, I realize this is minor in relation to the total kind of rip-off that's taking place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member realizes that in posing a question or a supplementary question, you're drawing conclusions which are not in any way related to a question or a supplemental question.

MR. MACDONALD: My supplementary is this, Mr. Speaker. The phase-in period for this price increase to be passed on to the consumers is 60 days, as I understand it, Mr. Minister, because of the old supplies produced under the old prices. Under the NDP government the Energy Commission said it would be 90 days before the old supplies were used up and the new price should take its bite. Will that question be looked at by the Energy Commission so that there will be a little bit of additional protection for the consumer?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. However, the advice the former government received from the Energy Commission and that this government has received is that the phase-in period was less than 60 days in British Columbia's case.

MR. MACDONALD: No, 90 days.

MR. BARRETT: Ninety days or pay the fine!

SYSTEMS CORPORATION HIRINGS

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): I would just like an opportunity to respond to some questions I took on notice. These largely relate to the proposed Systems Corporation and consultants that have been involved in that.

First of all, there was a question referred to by the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) .

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I wonder if the Minister of Finance would defer until the member returns. His first day's absence has occurred today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's always away! Where are your members?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: It's his first day's absence, and he started to reply to his questions.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It appears that they don't want the answer, Mr. Speaker.

The first question was received from the second member for Vancouver-Burrard. He asked:

Can the minister confirm that up to 70 consultants have been hired at a minimum per them rate of $350 to do work in respect to the Systems Corporation and that some of these consultants are Americans from the United States?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where else?

[ Page 3003 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: The answer, MR. Speaker, is no. The so-called project team includes a staff of 27, including 15 consultants, seven programmers and analysts and five technical and clerical workers, The per diems vary from $90 to $400, most of which are below $350. None of the project group is from the United States. From time to time as many as three consultants have been brought in on a per them basis from Boeing in Seattle on a short-term basis. This was for the purpose of special advice on a charge-out system for computer time.

MR. LAUK: How much?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The next question was from the same member for Vancouver-Burrard. He asked:

Can the minister confirm that the government leased an IBC 3036 computer for $2 million a year without tender on the same day that IBM announced that such a machine was going to be available to the public?

The answer, Mr. Speaker, which I believe I gave in a previous answer, is that assuming the member means really a new IBM 3033 computer - the new, big IBM - the answer is no. We placed no such order,

The next question comes from the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I believe he asked:

. I . how many of the consultants are housed at the Harbour Towers? Was there a meeting of 50 consultants this morning . . . - that was last Thursday , - . . . and, if so, who paid for the meeting expenses and were meals ordered? Would the minister tell us if he will be attending any of those meetings?

The answer, MR. Speaker, is that three of this group are housed at the Harbour Towers. By way of explanation, out-of-town consultants are eligible for an allowance for subsistence expense-, they would pay their own accommodation expense from this allowance.

There was no meeting on Thursday morning at the Harbour Towers. The meeting referred to was a private party, held Thursday evening, in honour of one of the consultants who was leaving. This was not paid for by the government. Further, Mr. Speaker, as minister I did not attend this meeting.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Wrong again. Another wild rumour.

HON. MR. WOLFE: There was a further question from the Leader of the Opposition:

Are any of the consultants that the minister has hired related to the Boeing Computer Services and does the minister know a Mr. Norman Song of the Boeing Computer Services?

The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that Mr. Song is one of the senior consultants on the project team. He is associated with Boeing Computers and he is a Canadian citizen.

A further question, from the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , was:

Is it not true that Woods Gordon, who are the consultants for Clarkson Gordon, those great friends of the NDP, are receiving, for 10 to 12 people on the computer programme, per diems ranging from $250 a day up to $650 a day for consultants to work on that programme at the present time?

The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that no consultants are receiving as much as $650 per day and of the total project staff, which I referred to earlier, of some 27, 10 are Woods Gordon consultants. They receive per diems ranging from S94 to $384.

The last question which I took on notice, Mr. Speaker, was from the second member for Vancouver-Burrard. He asked:

In connection with Mr. McMinn, project director of the new systems planning centre, could the minister advise how much he is being paid for his services?

The answer is $384 per diem.

There was a further question asked by the same member: Please advise whether Mr. McMinn was formerly employed by IBM and if he has any financial interest in IBM.

The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes, Mr. McMinn was employed by IBM as a systems engineer from 1956 to 1962. Mr. McMinn is a minor shareholder in IBM, holding some 30 shares of stock which he acquired under the employee stock purchase plan. IBM has approximately 150 million shares outstanding.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that other members of the project team also hold minor interests in Univac, Honeywell, IBM and other data-processing firms, I'd further like to say that Mr. McMinn has never received consultant fees, commissions, or honorariums from IBM since leaving them 15 years ago.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a short question for the Minister of Finance. You said that one of the people that Woods Gordon employed as consultant was at the $94-a-day level. Is that a secretary?

HON. MR. WOLFE: There's more than one, MR. Speaker. This would be one of the clerical staff. That's correct.

MR. MACDONALD: That's $94 a day for a secretary? This is the bottom-line government, eh?

MR. LAUK: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance. In giving your answers, you indicated there were three consultants from Boeing. They're no longer on the project team, is that what you're saying? That's correct,

Could you indicate to the House the per them

[ Page 3004 ]

cost, if that's the way it was structured, for those consultants?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the three whom I referred to were brought in on an ad hoc basis on a few occasions on a special assignment. They should not be considered as being part of the project team. I will have to bring back the per them that they were paid,

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, is Mr. Norman Song, as the minister described, a permanent member of the team?

HON. MR. WOLFE: He could be considered a permanent member of the project team. I believe his term of contract or assignment expires on July 1. I believe he is leaving on July 1.

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary: could the minister please explain to the House the contradiction in his statement when he points out that consultants are only brought in occasionally and are complete, in terms of their consultation from Boeing, when Mr. Norman Song is still employed by Boeing?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction. The first question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) originally was: were any of these non-Canadians or Americans from the United States? Mr. Song is a Canadian citizen.

MR. BARRETT: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister stated to this House in his answer today that only on occasion are three people brought in from Boeing and that their consultants' contract has been terminated. He's announced that Mr. Song can be considered more or less as a permanent member of the team. My information is that Mr. Song is a permanent member of the Boeing Computer consultant services. Is that true or not true?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll have to bring that information back, MT. Speaker. I believe he is a member of the Boeing Computer company, which are functioning out of British Columbia,

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Will the minister tell the House whether or not MR. Song is included in his statement that no further consultants from Boeing are being used, There's a contradiction in your answer.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Finance referred en passant to the daily allowance. I take it that would be for meals and hotels - subsistence, What is that daily allowance? Does it vary for the individual or is it a flat daily allowance? If so, what is it?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'm advised it applies to members of the team who did not reside in the city of Victoria and who are required to commute or live in Victoria away from their residence. I believe the additional per them was somewhere in the vicinity of $40 to $50 per diem, I'd like to clarify. My information is that that is the complete allowance for subsistence, out of which they have to pay their room and board, hotel and everything.

MR. LAUK: That's the daily rate?

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's right.

SEX DISCRIMINATION IN SCHOOLS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Minister of Education with regard to sex discrimination in the public schools. The problem is far from resolved, as depicted in a text book for grades I I and 12 which states: ". . . that women and girls play a subordinate role in society." That is from one of the textbooks for grades I I and 12. Can the minister tell the House whether he has on his staff any person or persons actively involved in initiating studies and making recommendations on the subject of sex discrimination in the schools and, if so, what has been accomplished?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, that same question was posed to me earlier today by the Status of Women Action Group, who are, as you know, a very active and aggressive lobby.

MR. WALLACE: It's a very good question, though.

HON. MR. McGEER: The answer to the question is yes, it's a concern of the whole curriculum development division. It's a policy of the provincial government to address itself to any questions of sexual discrimination that occur in the schools and we are actively pursuing the problem. Now I must add, Mr. Speaker, that of some 300 pieces of mail that arrive each day in the ministry office, in the past year, coming across my desk, there has not been one single written complaint, But to the extent that matters are drawn to the attention of the ministry, we will certainly address these as a priority.

Hon. Mr. Phillips, on behalf of HON. Mrs. McCarthy, tables the royal commission on British Columbia Railway interim report on the affairs of the Railwest railcar manufacturing plant.

[ Page 3005 ]

PROVINCIAL COURT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. Mr. Gardom presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 54 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tables the fourth annual report of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for the year ending February 28,1977.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY

OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 60: Crown counsel, $7,644, 422 -

continued.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this issue was indeed discussed yesterday at the close of the sitting but I don't think the main point was brought forward that the situation is very little improved.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, you talked awhile and didn't quite get to the point,

The fact is that there was a great deal of publicity and an inquiry, which the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) had referred to, but it's my information that really the situation isn't much improved, if improved at all, as a result of all the furor, It's my understanding that back in September, 1976, a task force composed of Mr. Filmer, Mr. Brewin and MR. McCallum was set up to investigate the problem in the Crown counsel's office in Vancouver. I understand that a report was submitted to the Attorney-General.

I have a series of questions, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the minister or his deputy could list these questions so that we get all the answers at one time. It makes the work of the committee that much more efficient.

Interjections.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Thank you. Could we have a little order first? I can't hear you.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, a little order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I remind committee members that perhaps if it is necessary to have conversation, it may be a good idea to have that conversation in the hallway.

HON. MR. GARDOM: They are going to caucus outside; it's all right!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the order. The member for Oak Bay proceeds.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that cabinet was meeting continuously from 7 a.m. until I p.m. today, Mr. Chairman, so that's why they all have to go and have their little siesta.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What about me?

MR. LAUK: Again?

MR. WALLACE: You're the surviving member of the cabinet today, Mr. Attorney-General!

Seriously, there are one or two questions that I think we should have on the record. Was this report submitted to the Attorney-General by the committee of Messrs. Filmer, Brewin and McCallum? The second question is: were the essential recommendations of that report to the effect that there should be permanent ad hoc Crown counsel - that the procedure of the ad hoc Crown counsel should become a permanently established procedure and the terms spelled out for that arrangement?

I understand that senior Crown counsel in Vancouver wrote to the Attorney-General in February, 1977, opposing the proposals of that committee report. I would like to know if, in fact, that is accurate information.

Finally, as we know, the action of certain Crown counsel in Vancouver led to a confrontation situation, culminating in a meeting with the Premier and the Attorney-General and also followed by the inquiry to which the member for Vancouver Centre (MR. Lauk) referred yesterday. I don't propose to go into that aspect of the subject, Mr. Chairman.

It became clearly obvious that the system was in disarray and that Crown counsel were very dissatisfied with the relatively poor salaries paid to the staff members, compared with the very substantial consultant payments paid to the so-called ad hoc counsel who were called in.

I'm a little confused in all this, Mr. Chairman, because the reason, in some cases, that the ad hoc

[ Page 3006 ]

counsel were called in, I'm told, is that the permanent salaried staff were not capable of handling some of the trials. I'm told, for example, that because of the intricacies of wiretapping evidence and the circumstances under which that wiretapping evidence is sometimes obtained illegally - I referred to that earlier in this debate - regardless of the salaries of the permanent Crown counsel, there were certain trials which could just not be proceeded with unless consultant counsel was called in. The particular example that has been quoted to me is in trials that involve evidence gained through wiretapping.

On the other hand, it has also been admitted by the salaried staff that there are people walking free on our streets today who in all likelihood would have been convicted had the quality of the prosecution been at a higher standard. The fact is that in many of the drug-related offences it appears that the accused has all kinds of money to acquire very expensive legal counsel, whereas the prosecution is struggling to present the case for the Crown through the well-meaning efforts of relatively inexperienced counsel who are also feeling very much ill-done-by because of their relatively low salary.

So the problem is there regardless of what has been done in the past to correct it. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that in general terms a regular Crown counsel on a salary gets $1,400 to $1,500 a month, but the ad hoc Crown counsel can be receiving something on the order of $4,000 to $5,000 per month.

This is a question that I think the public of British Columbia would like to know: how much is this conflict between the regular Crown counsel staff and the consultants based simply on money, and how much is the system necessary in order to have the expertise to conduct the Crown prosecution and some of these very complicated and long, drawn-out cases, particularly involving drug-related offences?

There has been considerable emphasis laid on the lack of experience of Crown counsel, leading to inadequate preparation and poor carrying-through of the prosecution in court,

So really, Mr. Chairman, the last two or three questions I want to ask are: in the light of that situation, what has been done as a result of the confrontation that arose? I understand salaried counsel were given an increase of something like 5 to 7 per cent, which, I'm told, is just scratching the surface of the problem. I hope the Attorney-General will correct me if I'm wrong with my figures, but this is the information I'm given. It really has solved nothing. The need for expertise in presenting Crown cases still pertains and it is not always available through the medium of the salaried counsel. That's one question - what, if anything else, has been done other than the rather modest increase in salary to the permanent Crown counsel?

The second question: under the vote which we're discussing, the money allocated in the 1976-1977 fiscal year was $1 million for professional and special services, The figure projected for 1977-1978 is $3 million. Again, I just wish to be accurate in the figures and facts as I'm presenting them. Can I confirm that this is the item which refers specifically to the money that is paid to ad hoc Crown counsel? If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, then it is obvious that the government appears to be continuing and sustaining the very same policy which has apparently led us to a confrontation situation in which, in some respects, it has become very difficult to conduct certain trials, to proceed with them on time, to ensure that the case for the Crown is presented efficiently and as effectively as possible, and to try to obtain a conviction where the person is, in fact, guilty.

So this increase in one year from $1 million to $3 million has the obvious effect of confirming a continuation of the present government policy, which has not been wise. Of course, it also leaves the permanent salaried Crown counsel wondering if the meeting they had with the minister and the Premier brought about any particular change of attitude by the Ministry of the Attorney-General. Those to whom I've spoken have the feeling that the meeting was granted to them as a courtesy or as a measure that the government appeared to be willing to listen to their point of view. But the fact that here in the vote we're tripling the money available for ad hoc Crown counsel would suggest that the government's going straight ahead with the same policy that it's had until now, a policy which has caused all the problems that members of the House have already mentioned, I've no wish to repeat all that,

The last question is this, Mr. Chairman. This is a positive suggestion as to one way in which this situation could be resolved. I'm sure that the Attorney-General has a copy of the document which I mean to refer to - a proposed draft of legislation, I think the minister was given a copy at the time that he and the Premier met with the Crown prosecutors. At any rate I can easily send the minister a copy of this document. It's a draft of a proposed piece of legislation called the "British Columbia Crown Counsel Commission Act." Again, without going into a lot of detail, MR. Chairman, the whole purpose is to propose one way in which this difficult situation of having an adequate supply of experienced Crown counsel, who are paid a fair rate for their professional expertise, could be solved. A commission should be set up, directed and staffed by Crown counsel. It would give them a measure of self-regulation and autonomy, and at the same time, because of many of the proposed provisions in this draft legislation, it would upgrade the quality of work provided by Crown counsel in our courts.

[ Page 3007 ]

Now the minister shook his head a moment ago. I had presumed that he had a copy of this proposed Crown Counsel Amendment Act. But if he doesn't then it would be difficult for him to respond. I do believe that if the minister isn't aware of it, his deputy is aware of the proposition put forward by Crown counsel. Perhaps he can do what he's been doing for the last day, and that's whisper in the minister's ear at appropriate intervals.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He'll growl at you later.

MR. WALLACE: Regardless of the specifics in the Act, Mr. Chairman, I do feel that the minister can probably give the House and the people of the province some idea of how this ongoing problem regarding Crown counsel is to be tackled by this government,

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would first of all like to respond to some of the questions that were raised last night by the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) ,

When he opened his remarks, he stated that the difficulties that were being experienced in the offices of the Crown counsel seemed to centre principally, if my recollection is correct, around 222 Main Street in Vancouver, He also made the point very strongly that in his assessment the problem did not occasion overnight and existed under the former administration. He was certainly correct in his assessment there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Your colleague, my friend.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, you used to say he was a great little minister. That was your quotation, Mr. Member.

I'd like to draw to the attention of the hon. members that the establishment in the office of the Crown counsel in the province a year ago was 110. We have 142 permitted establishment today and we're up to 130, so we're 12 short. I would like to say that according to the information which was related to me yesterday by senior regional Crown, as of September we're going to be in full staff at 222 Main Street. The likelihood and necessity of ad hoc counsel, save and except senior members in the event of very difficult cases and for the purpose of receiving their expertise and advice and assistance.... The principle of ad hockery is one that we are moving away from with a great deal of success,

You referred to the figures that are in the estimates. You will see in last year's estimates that there was an estimate of $1 million; today the estimate is $3 million. Yet the actual expenditure last year was just a little over $4 million, so you can see from the basis of our estimates now we're moving into a very realistic pattern and moving away from ad hoc counsel.

Dealing with the Fitzpatrick, Filmer, Brewin, McCallum report, that is a very comprehensive report, and it is being considered in the House at the present time. What I wish to do, Mr. Member, is to receive from officials in the department, many of whom have made this their life work, their complete assessment and review of a multitude of proposals that are contained in that report. I wish to receive that from the lawyers we have in the department, not just on the criminal side. I say great credit to the four gentlemen who prepared the report. It's a good report, but we wish to prioritize it. We wish to receive the recommendations of the senior civil servants and of all the legal members of the department as to their views of it. Following that, we certainly intend to act upon recommendations as advised and as requirements present themselves,

I talked about the reduction of ad hoc counsel -I've covered that. You mentioned something about wiretap evidence. I think there was a great deal of difficulty with that, but principally in the federal side. As you know, we have two prosecutorial roles in the province, which we do not agree to. We've taken a position as a government, as did my colleague before me, and I commend him for his response to it, that there should be not a dual, but a single prosecutorial role in the provinces in the country. We feel that if the federal government is going to become involved in the prosecutorial role, it should really restrict itself to cases that just are federal cases.

MR. MACDONALD: Income tax,

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, income tax and that type of thing, because the overlay occasions in the narcotic cases. We feel that our people are better equipped to handle those cases and they're closer to the scene of the action than the federal prosecutors. This is not attempted as any criticism of the abilities of those federal prosecutors, but the system will work better under the administrative process that we talked about last night, The member for Vancouver Centre very well articulated that the system will work a great deal better if we are running it here, as opposed to having this dual responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver East.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for

[ Page 3008 ]

Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: The Chairman and I have been friends for so long I don't know why he's so resistant in recognizing me. I'm the fellow who's prematurely balding, Mr. Chairman, over here in the corner.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The standing order clearly provides that a member must stand in his place uncovered, and be recognized by the Chair. I cannot recognize the member on his way to his place.

MR. LAUK: I was standing.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, if the hon. member's going to stand uncovered, would someone please check Tremeear before he does that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: That was an obtuse reference to Tremeear on indecent exposure.

In any event, I find premature balding indecent exposure indeed. The Minister of Agriculture (HON. Mr. Hewitt) and I have consulted on the matter and we have asked the Minister of Health (HON. Mr. McClelland) to do something about it. He hasn't found any solution so far.

Now to Crown counsel.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have another question to answer,

MR. LAUK: You have another question?

HON. MR. GARDOM: To answer.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I see. Well, I'll answer it for you.

The Crown counsel situation, as I pointed out yesterday, does not revolve around just the fact that you used ad hoc counsel that were being paid on a per them rate and, because you do that, the tremendous cost to the treasury is obvious. The solution t o the problem was on the Attorney-General's desk as long ago as the first month he took office. That was the point I was trying to make; that this Attorney-General must not act with unseemly haste, but neither must he act with unsavoury delay. That's what has happened. A year and a half or more has passed and you find great cost to the public treasury and you find great dissatisfaction among Crown counsel, particularly in the city of Vancouver, as well as unrest and low morale.

That problem was developing over the last two or three years. One of the solutions - it seems to me the best solution - was that the Attorney-General should have taken on senior counsel who did not want to be appointed as permanent Crown counsel but would take the job on a contract basis.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Good suggestion.

MR. LAUK: Now the Attorney-General says: "Good suggestion." Well, for heaven's sake, the suggestion was on his desk in January, 1976.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, it wasn't! It was later than that.

MR. MACDONALD: February 23.

MR. LAUK: Was it February 23? I'm sorry. I do apologize. It was February 23,1976. That seems over a year. Isn't it over a year? Perhaps you should consult your Deputy Attorney-General. If you have a calendar you can count the months, but it seems a little longer than a year to me.

Nothing has been done! I have had conversations with senior criminal defence counsel and senior counsel in the city of Vancouver. All of them would be willing, from time to time, to take on a contract prosecution in the lower courts.

HON. MR. GARDOM: How long would they be prepared to do it for?

MR. LAUK: A quarter - a three-month period.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Name names.

MR. LAUK: I will send you a list.

HON. MR. GARDOM: L-A.... (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: No, no, Under the Constitution Act, Mr. Chairman, I am not entitled to take this on, but I would be most willing if I was not otherwise blockaded.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you recommending your colleague?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, HON. members. Let's have orderly debate. The first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. LAUK: There are some, I'm sure you can find many good counsel to take on these kinds of contract situations at more reasonable costs than these per diems. I think the per diems are unreasonable and I think they're unsatisfactory.

Secondly, I think the Attorney-General should be making statements to the bar encouraging them to take on some public duty in this matter. I am really

[ Page 3009 ]

disturbed by the fact that some lawyers are always citing the difficulty of, "Oh, if I'm away from practice, I'm going to lose all this income." Surely, because of their privileged position as counsel in this society, they have an obligation to take on a contract with slightly less than their daily income in a firm.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: I'm glad the Attorney-General is applauding that point of view, because I believe in it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I've suggested it.

MR. LAUK: There was a situation, when I was first called to the bar in the city of Vancouver, where there was very little or no legal aid and a great many lawyers, with many years' experience, took on cases for absolutely nothing at great loss to their income -nothing,

I'm not saying we have to go back to that situation, and I'm not saying we should. We cannot rely on the charity of individual professionals in our society - in the legal profession - any more than we can rely on the charity of the medical profession to provide free aid to people. We have to bring it under a certain amount of state control and regulation to provide that kind of aid on a regular basis so that no one goes without a doctor or a lawyer in this country. That is a basic human right. We'll be getting on to the legal services and legal aid votes in a moment.

Now getting back to Crown counsel, where is that sense of public and community duty? Where has it gone? I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that it's still there. I think the Attorney-General should move in and around the bar association more often. Many of them are complaining that they don't see him any more. Many are complaining about that. Then again, many are complaining that they see him too often. I'm one of those. (Laughter.) But there are very few of us. There are only three of four who complain about that, There are many in the bar who wish to see the Attorney-General, not because of the club, but because the Attorney-General should be getting some real and meaningful feedback from people who are seeing real problems emerge in the administration of justice - and that includes Crown counsel as well.

I say to the Attorney-General: get off your aplomb and go and sign up some people on these quarterly contract situations. I do not like the idea of in-house prosecutions and I'm going to ask the Attorney-General a series of questions, the answers to which, I think, will prove my point that total in-house prosecutions are a bad thing for the quality of Crown prosecutions in British Columbia.

The questions are these: how many Crown prosecutors in the province have been called to the bar for over five years? How many for over four years? How many for over three years, over two years, and over one year?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Put it in the order paper and I'll find out.

MR. LAUK: That's fine. Just find out and hand it to me privately. I'd like to know. My speculation is that there are very few who have been called to the bar for over five years. As a matter of fact, I would say just a handful. There are just a few more in the fourth-year call, third-year call, second-year call and first-year call. They increase as you go down the list. In other words, the vast majority of people who prosecute crimes under the Criminal Code have one or two or, at the most, three years' experience in the prosecution of sometimes very serious, indictable offences.

So I contend that although these people try their best and do very well with the experience they have, there are people who I think are walking the streets who have been acquitted on technical defences because of sloppy, inexperienced prosecutions. That is no way to protect the public. The goal of the Crown counsel's office, when they feel a charge should be laid and prosecuted, is to achieve the best possible results. If the person is to be found not guilty on the merits, nobody feels bad about that. But when a person is found not guilty on a technical defence because of sloppy prosecution, everybody, even defence counsel, doesn't feel great about that -where they can see that a Crown counsel could have done a better job. That's a sad situation, and those incidents are increasing every day in this province.

Now I think to go totally in-house is a mistake, but a partial contract and in-house prosecution is a solution. The one example that I can give is George McMinn, the former Clerk of this House. I don't like to mention names in terms of prosecution, but he was appointed Crown counsel on a per them basis to handle that contract killing - the Ross affair - here in Victoria.

Now I looked over the press reports and had chats with certain people and got a pretty good overview of that case. Many complicated legal arguments were made. There were objections by the Crown to evidence being introduced by defence counsel requiring very complicated and experienced legal argument. I can say with great deference that I don't know of any in-house lawyer who could have competently, within the time strictures, handled that case.

Now it so happens that the jury convicted and so we assume under our law that the man was guilty of a contract killing. If it wasn't for George McMinn, with his 20 years of experience, prosecuting that case on behalf of the public - because defence counsel, as you know, was equally as experienced, with 20 or 25

[ Page 3010 ]

years experience - that contract killer would be taking another contract today. He'd be on the streets today.

I say it is very dangerous indeed to put a five-year man or a three-year man or a two-year man in charge of that prosecution when you've got a 25-year, experienced, top-notch, highly-paid defence counsel on the other side. It just isn't fair to the public.

That's one example out of many that I could cite to the Attorney-General as to why he should not go down the road of total civil-servant prosecution.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The attitude of the bar - whether it's unfortunate or not - is that they do not want to stay as in-house prosecutors for any length of time. They start after call and they stay for three or four years and then they leave. They go into private practice because they are in pursuit not only of justice but of wealth.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Like any other lawyer.

MR. LAUK: Many of them would suggest that they just want to live like gentlemen - or ladies - at a paltry $150,000 a year. Nevertheless, that is the attitude of some of the bar and that's what happens.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gordon said: "Chicken feed."

MR. LAUK: I see. Well, we can't all have that kind of skill and ability and get-up-and-go to inherit fortunes. I hope that my very good Liberal friend (Mr. Gibson) does not take offence.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The next pineapple you get will be ticking.

MR. LAUK: I'll go buy dinner tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could get back to vote 60.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

I think the Attorney-General has my point.

Before taking my seat I wish to add my words of congratulation to the Deputy Attorney-General, who is retiring, and remind him of the little dinner we had for him when he was appointed. I stood up at that dinner, that was kindly attended by the former chief justice of the province, J.O. Wilson, and the Lieutenant-Governor, Walter Owen, and I said: "Gentlemen and ladies, I would like to tell you that it was me that interceded in my cabinet to have this new Deputy Attorney-General appointed, but I can't."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you going to make that as a point of order? Okay. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, could these two gentlemen please divide outside of the chamber instead of within.

MR. Member, in response to your questions concerning the contract route for Crown counsel: I think that's a very valuable suggestion and I would certainly agree with you. I've had discussions with many members of the bar with a view to them being prepared to come into public service, and at reduced figures, because public service is not paying the kind of dollars to lawyers that they are now earning. But we've got to remember what has happened to salaries in the legal field over the last few years.

In 1972, for example, the senior deputies in the province of British Columbia were in the range of about $27,000. Today, legal officer 1 starts at $14,730 up to $27,060; legal officer 11, $26,720 to $34,965; legal officer 111, $33,000 to $40,845, plus the MEG benefits.

MR. LAUK: Are you trying to entice me to resign my seat?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I always understood the estimated figure to be 17 per cent, but yesterday I was told it accumulated at around 23.7 per cent. So you can see the salary range is pretty compatible.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not starving.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The incomes of the legal profession over the last five years have tremendously escalated. I'd very much like to reiterate your remarks and certainly put the question to the legal profession: yes, be prepared to give some of your time and be prepared to work for public service for a defined period of time at an agreed rate.

Recently the regional Crown counsel were directed by our criminal law division in a letter of June 9 signed by Mr. Robert Simpson, legal officer of the criminal law division, who is 21C to Mr. Neil McDiarmid, as you know. This letter was to all the regional, district and senior Crown counsel in the province. I'll read an excerpt from this letter.

" I'm instructed to advise you that henceforth when ad hoc Crown counsel are retained at a provincial court level other than for a specific case, every effort is made to negotiate fees for the period of time for which the counsel is to be retained.

"As an example, should counsel be retained for one month to cover off during the absence of a permanent Crown, a fixed fee for the month should be negotiated. The nature, complexity and volume of the caseload for that

[ Page 3011 ]

month would necessarily play a part in the fee negotiated, but in any event should be substantially less than the hourly rate currently paid projected over the month."

This is an attempt to proceed along the lines that you have suggested. Certainly there is great value, six, in having a mix in the system and the benefit of senior people.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'll be as brief as I can because the estimates are not moving particularly fast, but they are important. I'll try and get to the point.

I want to support my colleague from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) in respect to the mix. Basically you need a good prosecutorial staff on salary. You shouldn't think about some Crown corporation intervening between the Attorney-General and them; they are acting for the Queen through the Attorney-General, And some guy who brings an Act over to Victoria and says, "pass this and make us some separate association, " doesn't understand the function of a prosecutor, quite frankly,

Some of the salaries were not as bad as they may appear. When you have to go out and start your own law firm and hire a secretary, some of those salaries weren't so bad. Nevertheless, there was a lot of wastage in the system in the last year and a half because of the Attorney-General's failure to act. My colleague is quite right there.

We spent $4 million - was it? - last year on our prosecutions.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, that's all ad hoc.

MR. MACDONALD: That's total, eh? You were $1 million over the projected budget. A lot of that was caused by the Attorney-General because of his delay in acting on it. The problem lay festering on his desk since December, 1975, when we left office.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not true!

MR. MACDONALD: Let me tell you this. As late as February, 1977, according to the Fisher report on the McKinnon incident, both the deputy minister and Mr. Filmer laid a proposal before the Attorney-General, The proposal was a contract that would save us about $3,000 as a result, This is what Filmer said in sworn evidence about this proposal from the deputy and from Mr. Filmer, the regional Crown counsel: "I indicated to him that the Deputy Attorney-General had told me that in his opinion the chances of a contract proposal being accepted by the government were one in 100 against, "

No government can be that bad. To have a sensible proposal to solve the thing finally come forward in February and being told a hundred to one against....

That's kind of amusing in a sense, but it indicates there was a real delay in accepting a sensible proposal between the $70,000 or $80,000 a year that was being made by counsel on an ad hoc basis and the contract system which stood between that and salaries.

I want the Attorney-General to comment just briefly on the report on page 7 of the Fisher findings on the propriety of a person - say a prosecutor -who is on salary going public. Mr. Fisher, in his report, sort of dodges that.

He says: "It is, in my opinion, a procedure that must have a most disruptive effect on employee-employer relations." But he dodges it. That's what was happening as the system was blowing up through inaction. We were wasting money and not getting on to a contract system plus the salaried system. So what's the answer to that?

In relation to the mix brought up by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, I suggest that on the defence side you should have some public defenders in the province of B.C. I'm not suggesting at all that there should only be public defenders. I think that when you do have some kind of a mix, one keeps the other on its mettle. The contract people who are prosecuting help to keep the salaried prosecutors on their mettle. A public defender would help to keep the defence bar on its mettle and make sure, for one thing, that costs to accused persons were reasonable. When you talk about employing 142 people on salary as prosecutors, then surely you ought to have four or five people as public defenders in the major centres. You're having trouble providing duty counsel to the courts, which is unfortunate because they're very valuable. But surely there should be some salaried people as public defenders to make sure that the accused people are going to have a choice and are going to get value for their defence in court. As I say, out of 150 prosecutors, surely you can add a few public defenders for efficiency in the courts.

I understand that question's under study, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes it's under study in the wrong context, I think, because you look at it from the point of view of the cost per case. The public defender can handle so many more cases in the course of day - just as a prosecutor can - because he's there. He's got his office and staff in Vancouver - it would be at 222 Main. So I suggest there's a substantial saving in cost to the public through a public defender system and it would give accused people a good choice and it would help the Legal Aid Society. I would like his comments on that,

HON. MR. GARDOM: The public defender suggestion, Mr. Member, is not a new one. It has value; it is under consideration. I gather that a pilot project will be initiated via legal aid within the next short while. I'm not too sure in which centre it will

[ Page 3012 ]

commence, but it will be in one of the larger centres, hopefully during this fiscal year.

I would like to say a word about Mr. Filmer, hon. members, He was one of the original lawyers recruited to public service at the time the office of the Crown counsel began in 1974. Prior to that he had been retained on numerous occasions by the Ministry of the Attorney-General to prosecute criminal cases on the instructions of a number of Attorneys-General. His first employment with the provincial government was as regional Crown counsel in Nanaimo. Through competition he was promoted to the position of regional Crown counsel in Vancouver during the past year. His skills as a lawyer are acknowledged by all of those who have met him in the practice of law and his integrity as an individual is exemplary. I'm pleased to say, without qualification, that he has my and this ministry's complete support.

Vote 60 approved.

On vote 61: police services, $29,137, 388.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it strikes me from time to time that people, particularly little people, don't have the protection that the law should afford, in my view. There was a case in our town of New Westminster that was brought to my attention forcibly by a long, long interview with a man by the name of Benias, who lives in Vancouver. Now this gentleman has probably a pretty good reputation as a cook - as a chef, I should say - in the city of Vancouver over a number of years. He has worked in such places as Capozzi's Restaurant on the top of his - whatever - and other places. Prior to buying the Bacchus Restaurant in New Westminster, he worked at Carmen's in Gastown in Blood Valley. Here's a situation where I say that a man was taken by shady characters at best - and I'll name them; they've been named in the press - and, worse than that, squeezed by a bank in a very unseemly way.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Is this the Greek Connection?

MR. COCKE: Yes, it's part of that.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer to the Greek Connection for a second. The Greek Connection was a stamp put on the files of 45 customers of the Bank of Montreal in New Westminster. That's pretty racist, to begin with, and quite unseemly on their part. It was a big red stamp that they had to go out and purchase in order to identify certain files. The files that they were identifying were files of loans that were made through a John Douglas Mushet. John Mushet at that time was the senior accountant manager of the branch in charge of loans. The loans amounted to $1.5 million. It's a fairly significant sum. I believe it was $2 million; I think that they are losing $1.5 million.

But in any event that has nothing to do with the situation. Our particular individual who had not.... There was no question about his kicking back any money to Mushet or anybody else who might have taken him to the bank. However, he was taken to the bank by a man by the name of William Dedemaius. William Dedemaius had some connection with the other loans as well. I don't want to go into that particularly; anybody can read it.

But here is an individual who really bailed the bank out of a real problem. In the first place he was competent. He went to work in his new restaurant which he bought - the Bacchus in New Westminster. He worked 18 hours a day seven days a week to try to pay back the money that he had borrowed. Why did he have such easy access to the money in the first place? They wanted to get their money back from a previous very bad deal that they had made. They wanted to get out of it, so they were able to enslave a man.

Now I really don't want to talk too much about the shady characters around but I do want to say that I believe that police should have better access to this kind of situation. CLEU, the police and others have looked at it and have said that there is very little that they can do. Well, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that when people of this sort are taken to the cleaners in what I consider to be a conspiracy, even if it's tacit on the part of the bank, then I think the police should have pretty good access to that bank. I've been hearing a good deal.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Have you told the police?

MR. COCKE: The police know. The police have been investigating this situation, but the only problem is that they don't look at the bank's side of it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, but if you've got some.... I don't want to interrupt, but....

MR. COCKE: No, this is all really public stuff. The police have read it and I'm sure.... I'm going to ask the Attorney-General as my first question, and I'll ask him now: will he, at his earliest convenience, see Peter Benias? I think that it would be a real revelation to him to see this individual, have a talk with him and follow this particular case. It's been well outlined and I don't really think I need to follow up on the whole thing. The Attorney-General has it in his office but it's one of a myriad of cases, no doubt, that people complain about. Now it may not be in your office specifically but it's certainly in your department.

But I would like to see, for example, how the

[ Page 3013 ]

Attorney-General's office would look at the involvement through the real estate aspect of this of one Alvin Zipurski, well known for some of his activities. As a matter of fact, he and his lawyer colleague who left Winnipeg, I believe in the '60s, have been investigated for many, many things, including 12 fires in property which they have either a loan upon or an investment in, including a Bacchus Restaurant in Kamloops and including a Bacchus Restaurant in Vancouver, as I recall. Mr. Chairman, these names also appear in this situation as landlords and as one of the people making loans in this situation.

I think that it's very serious. The little people are able to be broken by the connivance of others, I'm not saying that they're crooked, but I'm saying that the bank will collect their money in spite of hell and high water. Here is a man broken, an absolute slave to that business - incidentally, they've had a fine record for food and a fine record for service and everything else - but a man who went in there with his life savings and came out with nothing. He finally had to give it up. It broke him. I really feel that this is the kind of thing that the police should have better access to. I believe that one of the problems we have is that everyone stands in awe of these big international banks,

MR. Chairman, there seems to be some confusion about the Bacchus restaurants and where they are. It may be that the one in Kamloops wasn't called Bacchus, but I'm almost positive it was.

AN HON. MEMBER: I know the one you mean.

MR. COCKE: It was a Greek restaurant serving Greek food. The players are all here. Particularly since this is on a vote - if this is on the Attorney-General's salary - I think maybe we can get into a lot more detail. The details are available and I want to acquaint the Attorney-General with a lot of it. I didn't realize it hadn't been brought to his attention.

I want to ask him this one question, so that he can really react to this kind of thing in his own way and his own time - and I hope quickly - so that maybe in the future, and possibly even in the present, some justice can come for these people who are ambitious, and often ambition gets one easily bilked.

With that, I would ask the Attorney-General, in light of what I've said to date, whether or not he would agree to see this Peter Benias.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the hon. member: If he has any specific information that is not yet brought to the attention of the police, I would please request him to bring that to their attention directly. He certainly has the opportunity and the responsibility to do that.

Insofar as Mr. Benias is concerned, I'm happy to say to him that I will arrange for an official of the department to have a discussion with him if you can give me his name, address and telephone number.

MR. COCKE: I would do that. I would be only too delighted to do that, but he's not answering the question that I asked. I asked the Attorney-General if he would see Peter Benias.

The information I have is the information that comes from that individual, along with his chartered accountant. I've met with both of them for two or three hours. A lot of the information in The Province on Saturday, May 28, while the way it's delivered leaves one a little confused, certainly introduces a number of actors.

I would like the Attorney -General to talk to this particular individual, who can go over, chapter and verse, exactly what happened. I think it's important that the Attorney-General - not his department people - use this as an example in his own mind of some of the things that can happen. He can also get the feeling, if he would, of the bank's total lack of concern and willingness, despite the fact that they fired their accountant, John Douglas Mushet. He, incidentally, set up a finance company of his own. They fired him, obviously admitting that he was part of a conspiracy.

Yet the one person in this scene who is innocent -certainly in my view and in everyone else's view who has had anything to do with this; and in his own chartered accountant's view who put his prestige and whole future on the line.... I would ask the Attorney-General to take the time and not assign it to one of his department officials. I know what happens when you go to department officials; I had some department officials one time, in the long past. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. GARDOM: I put the question to the hon. member: do you have any information which should be revealed to the police?

MR. COCKE: I only have information that this man gives me, and there's certainly nothing that I can give the police myself. I can advise him to go to the police, possibly, and I'm sure that on some occasions he has. I think he should talk to the chief law enforcement officer in the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before you proceed, may I remind you that, as Chairman, I can only recognize one member at a time while standing in his place?

MR. COCKE: We're both sorry we lost our tempers.

[ Page 3014 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Sorry, I was just stretching, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you stretch out of your seat?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm suggesting that he would see an official, Mr. Member, because I'm sure that there's somebody within the department - I'm not speaking of the police now - who is aware of the specifics of the case and who would do greater service to Mr. Benias by him seeing them, I'll certainly assure you that it would be a senior official.

MR. NICOLSON: I represent an area - the city of Nelson - which is unique in this province in terms of its police force and police services. It's the only municipal police department outside of the lower mainland and Victoria metropolitan area which has its own police force and is not served by the RCMP.

In looking into some of the problems which are faced, and in responding to some complaints and fears of some constituents, it has led along a fairly long search of various types of information. It was initiated, I suppose, by some outbreak of violence and intimidation which was going on in connection with drug trafficking. I'm not necessarily saying heroin or anything, but perhaps marijuana.

Things were said to me and I sought some confirmation from responsible authorities. I could think of no more responsible authority than the local police force. In connection with this I became aware of some things which I found rather surprising. I do know that Nelson, because of a few of its other special qualities and facilities, might be somewhat different from other parts of the province.

One would expect that if we were looking for the area with the highest incidence of crime in the province of British Columbia, we would perhaps find it either in the big cities - which is what most people would think - or else we might find it in some of the unpoliced, remote areas where the life is rather hard and the work is rather challenging, perhaps in logging communities or fishing communities or some such thing.

I was surprised to find that the number of criminal cases handled by the Nelson police force per 1,000 population - that is the per capita rate based on per 1,000 population - was almost as high as that of Vancouver city and Victoria city. Then looking at other areas such as Burnaby, New Westminster and Richmond, I found that in general the metropolitan areas ran about the same. That is about 119 in Vancouver for the year ending 1976; Victoria, 128.7, slightly higher than Vancouver on the pro-rated basis; the city of Nelson, not far behind either of these at 115.2.

What really did alarm me, however, was that when I looked at this rate based not on per capita but based on the number in the police force, the rate dropped in Vancouver to 54.4; Victoria city was up to 66.5; and the city of Nelson was 114.2 - more than double the rate in Vancouver, then, if we take the number of criminal cases handled per police constable.

This led me to wonder, Mr. Chairman, if Nelson was somewhat unique in this area. I got this information from the list which is part of the c o m p u t e r printout compiled by the Attorney-General's office, or I guess by the Police Commission. This was only for municipal police forces; that was not for jurisdictions covered by the RCMP. So, for instance, it did not include Burnaby, but it did include such areas as Port Moody, West Vancouver, New Westminster, Delta, and of course in this area, Oak Bay, Esquimalt, Central Saanich and Saanich. Of all of the numbers on this list, Nelson was the highest in terms of number of criminal cases handled per police,

Then in response to a request to the Police Commission, I was also furnished with some figures for the remaining jurisdictions and sections and subdivisions of the province. I find that in Kelowna a situation somewhat similar to Nelson exists where the number of criminal cases per police is 100 while the number of cases per population is 94.5, slightly less than the other areas. I find that Penticton has an alarmingly high rate of 198.4 cases per 1,000 population and a caseload of 191.3 per police constable in the Penticton city or municipal detachment. I find the same in Vernon; it's even higher than Nelson - 150.3 per population of 1,000 and 150.7 criminal cases being handled per constable.

One can go on and see that in Kamloops a somewhat similar situation exists, and in Cranbrook. Indeed, one could generalize that there is something which is quite different in these interior cities. That is, these interior cities are surrounded by a rural population.

If we go back and we look at rural Kelowna - we can assume that to be the area surrounding Kelowna - we find the number of cases per 1,000 of population is down to 52.8, running around half of Vancouver or even Nelson city or the Kelowna municipal average. The number of criminal cases for police is only 38, which is running roughly one-third of the activity in municipal Kelowna.

Similarly, in Penticton, in the rural area, the number of criminal cases per 1,000 population is 29.3, which is about 16 per cent of what it is within the city on the same per capita basis. The caseload per constable is 41.2.

What we can see from this, Mr. Chairman, and what I would like to bring to the attention of this committee, is that if we look in Vancouver we see the situation where the city of Vancouver adjoins another densely populated area of Burnaby, Richmond, North

[ Page 3015 ]

and West Vancouver, Port Moody and Coquitlam. One might say that the opportunity for crime exists in the various areas; a person from Vancouver might go to Burnaby to commit a crime, a person from Burnaby might go to Vancouver to commit a crime. I would submit that the police forces in these cities in the interior which are not contiguous to other municipal jurisdictions are under-policed and under-serviced and under-protected. The caseload is very heavy.

One may also point out that in addition to this, in Vancouver there is a commercial fraud section and there is a special drug division, which is again part of another separate statistic. They come into this separate from the Vancouver municipal police force and they're counted separately within these statistics. So in these areas of Penticton, Nelson and Cranbrook, many of these things have to go on.

Now crime is becoming serious, and dangerous criminals in these areas are serious. People were alarmed last year when the city of Nelson police apprehended some suspects, turfed them out of their car, put them face down on the ground, pinned their hands behind their backs and searched them sprawled out on the ground. People thought this was police brutality. They found unregistered hand guns in the trunk of the car. These people were certainly not up there just as average tourists. They had come up there with some intent in mind.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

In fact, it could be that the same attractions which have caused some sort of a reverse shift in some areas - some very cultured and educated people are moving to the country - is attracting the criminal element which is seeing some of these same attractions.

I would submit that in the case of the city of Nelson police, we are unique in that it is funded on the same basis as the city of Vancouver and Port Moody, but it is not contiguous to other municipal jurisdictions. But the city of Nelson police are having to deal with the problems not only of that city but of the contiguous and much larger rural population. That, I think, is fair enough to assume for the general situation in all of the interior cities. I could also say that the northern Island cities also fit into this pattern.

What we find to be a special problem in Nelson, in having a municipal police force of which we are very proud, is that the funding arrangements are not the same as for the RCMP. There are hidden benefits; there are really some subsidies from the federal government. I'm sure the Attorney-General would like to do something about that.

There's no need, if one looks at this Nelson police force, of thinking in terms of a precedent. There is at present only one municipal police force outside of the two metropolitan areas of this province. I think maybe one could argue that Matsqui is outside of the metropolitan area. Maybe Matsqui should also be given some special consideration.

I would like the Attorney-General to consider that some finance formula should be made up in order to provide adequate provision of police protection in the community of Nelson.

I would like to have more data. I do have fairly detailed data on the type of crime that's committed in Nelson - the breakdown on armed assault, murder, indecent assault and all of these various things. I have asked previously for some of this detailed information so that I could find out - for lack of a better term - the quality of crime in Nelson as opposed to the city of Vancouver. It would also be helpful to know what it is like in Kamloops or Penticton as opposed to Vancouver. Are the armed robberies higher in proportion in Vancouver?

What I am pointing out, based on these statistics, is that the caseload in the interior municipality per police officer appears to be double or more than double that which exists in the metropolitan areas of Victoria and Vancouver for police forces.

I would submit that because Nelson, and possibly Matsqui, would form the only precedents there should be some way or some special grant considered, perhaps in consultation with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) - I'm not arguing that it should come necessarily out of this department - in order that the provision of police services in Nelson and possibly in Matsqui could be more equitably funded in comparison to other communities such as in our area, Trail, Castlegar, Cranbrook and so on.

In spite of the calibre and the quality of our police force, I'd just like to point out some of the little extra things that we do have because of this police force - the sense of pride that goes in our police force. They have provided out of their own efforts, and not out of the coffers of the city, a couple of very well-groomed horses similar to what you would see in the RCMP musical ride. They appear in parades throughout the Kootenay area and publicize the city of Nelson, smartly dressed, with the horses smartly prepared and groomed. These are some of the benefits that can come. I've found a very improved attitude toward the Nelson city municipal police force,

I think the only note of discord comes at times when the city of Nelson council is looking at the costs of providing this service and comparing it to the costs that exist in other areas served by the RCMP. It has been difficult to get a really clear, accurate comparison. I know one reporter on the Nelson Daily News who has gone to some fairly great lengths to try to find out what the alternative would actually cost -

[ Page 3016 ]

how they would compare.

So what I am pointing to here, and what I would ask the Attorney-General to comment upon, is: is he giving some consideration to this special problem which is existing? The fact is that the number of criminal cases being handled per police constable, I think, in all of the interior cities and smaller cities on the Island is higher than it is in the metropolitan areas. There seems to be some relationship toward being surrounded by a rural area. Is he considering that? Does the Attorney-General see any way in which a municipal police force in this predicament could be helped toward maintaining the fine police services which they have and having it in an equitable and comparable cost relationship to those areas being served by the RCMP?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, the statistics the hon. member is mentioning are of considerable interest, but they'd be of more assistance if we could consider the nature of the crime.

MR. NICOLSON: I would like that information myself.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, okay, but then one's more able to effectively evaluate the job and the responsibility of the various forces. That information is available.

A committee is underway, Mr. Member, of the Police Commission and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to consider police costing in the province.

Dealing with the mobility of crime, obviously as society becomes more mobile, then so does crime.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, the Attorney-General has said that the detailed information is available. I do have the detailed information with the various codes of offences. I've assumed from his remarks that if I was to ask the B.C. Police Commission for it they would provide me with this if I ask for Kelowna, Vancouver and a few representative areas.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Sure.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): I do not intend to hold up the vote this afternoon, but I would like to say a few words in support of our police force, which certainly does a very good job. But I agree with the member for Nelson-Creston that we do have a real problem in some of the interior communities. I don't think an increase in the number of police is the only solution,

I receive an awful lot of criticism from the northwest area about the whole justice system. We have an extremely severe problem developing in Terrace especially, but Kitimat and Smithers as well, with breaking and entering. It's got to a crisis situation where you have sometimes five or six on each weekend. I would suggest that if at all possible you gather as much information as possible in regard to this problem, as I'm quite sure you'll be shocked by the increase even during the last six months. Unless changes are made, there is no question people are getting so upset that they'll be taking the law into their own hands.

I know you'd be quite amazed at the number of people in Terrace, for instance, who even take a gun to bed with them because they're so scared of people breaking in, especially since the murder in Prince George where someone broke into this doctor's house and he was stabbed. But there are many cases in Terrace in the last short while where they've been attempting to break in as early as 7 or 8 o'clock at night. Just the night before last when I was up there, three fellows came into the driveway while a fellow was watching the news. They walked up to the door and started to break in. He went outside and asked them what they were doing and they said: "Well, we thought the house was vacant and we'd break in." He said: "Just because the house is vacant, you haven't any right to break in anyway." So they started to say: "You and who else?" Fortunately, one of the neighbours turned up at about that time and they left. As far as I know, they haven't been caught as yet. But this is the type of thing that we get, and I would say, most of the problem can be directly attributed to the soft society in which we live and with it, of course, a soft justice system.

We must all support our police forces, which, as I mentioned before, usually do a good job. They risk their lives to keep society safe from those members of society who wish to abuse the system. It must be heartbreaking for them when they catch some of these criminals to see them get only a very light sentence, or even just a suspended sentence.

I would say that the courts have let down our police force and it's time something was done about it. I think we have to face the facts of life, that our society is soft and our courts are also soft. We must make a change or we'll have chaos in society and the police force will become more and more ineffective. The police can only be as strong as the support we in the courts give them. As I said before, it's not their fault, but the fault of all of us for allowing our system to develop the way it has. In fact, we're so soft that we couldn't even defend ourselves from a country the size of Albania if they happened to be bordering on us.

We spend far too much time talking about the rights of individuals in this House and I think it's about time we started talking about the rights of the majority, the silent people who are out in the countryside trying to mind their own business.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's interesting to note, Mr.

[ Page 3017 ]

Chairman, that nearly 52 per cent of the admissions to the provincial institutions - which are two years less a day, as you know - are in the age bracket from 17 to 24 years, I'll give you these figures, which are interesting: 15 years, 0.1 per cent; 16 years, 0A per cent; 17 to 21, 36.2 per cent; 22 to 24, 15.5 per cent. It starts to drop off: 25 to 29 years, 15.7 per cent; 30 to 34 years, 10. 1 per cent, 3 5 to 39, 6.5 per cent; 40 to 49, 9.5 per cent; 50 years and over, 5.7 per cent; and an unknown factor of just 3 per cent. So the bulk of the problem is within the age bracket of 17 to 29, and then there's a marked dropoff at that point in time.

The racial origin, sentences under two years: native Indian, 13.7 per cent; non-native, 84.4 per cent; and unknown, just 1.9 per cent. In sentences over two years: native Indian, 8 per cent; non-native, 89.3 per cent.

Then, of course, as the deputy has very correctly indicated, you have to measure that against the total Indian population, too,

MR. LAUK: I think that's quite correct. I think it should be pointed out and I'm going to reserve most of my remarks with respect to the Indian population in penal institutions for the legal aid vote,

Insofar as police services are concerned, it's my impression that these figures - the percentage number of Indians in penal institutions compared to the small percentage of their population - relate not to any kind of assumption that Indians are less law-abiding than the average person in our society, But it's been my experience as defence counsel that those percentages of prison population relating to Indians relate to the fact that they most often do not have proper legal counsel before the courts, particularly outside of the city of Vancouver.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I don't think it's any joking matter, Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) . That may be your attitude up there. That's fine, It's not my attitude. Of course, this argues well for a proper legal aid system. But I would think also that even though there are many police officers in the interior of this province who have good attitudes toward the native population, there are quite a few who do not. There must be a special course, or some special training, whereby the law enforcement officers in areas where there are substantial Indian populations can understand the Indian culture and the historical context of the Indians in those communities and bring into line with the law enforcement that kind of knowledge and sympathetic understanding. We'll deal with the court situation and legal aid later, which is also part of the problem.

I wasn't intending to reply to the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) with respect to his arguments, but if he's talking about his constituency when he's talking about the soft life, he failed to mention that a great many offences against property increase substantially when high unemployment exists. That's a fact of life that has always existed in this country.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Back to vote 61, HON. member.

MR. LAUK: That's exactly what I'm talking about, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes these complications escape us when we're not listening to the debate. You see, when the member for Skeena was supporting the police service and so on, he brought up these remarks. I'm responding to it under this vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Only so far as they are in order, hon. member,

MR. LAUK: Thank you, MR. Chairman. It's not a soft society at all up there. There is 30 per cent unemployment in his riding.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. LAUK: I might say that in terms of police statistics, and I've conversed with....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're under police services, vote 61.

MR. LAUK: I'm perfectly aware, Mr. Chairman, what we're under. That is exactly what I am discussing. We're discussing police statistics - arrests and convictions, and so on - that come under this vote. No one can tell me that burglaries and robberies and crimes against property do not increase during periods of high unemployment, because they do, as well as other statistics like suicide and domestic violence, I think we've got to face this fact. You just can't blame people on a law-and-order basis. You have to look at the society and the economic system. If you have high unemployment, boy, you have trouble with people breaking the law! Certainly the police are pawns in the game. They are involved in the law enforcement process in these areas where there is high unemployment.

Insofar as the police service is concerned, the substantive point that I wish to make to the Attorney -General is that CLEU is only the first step in police law enforcement in reaching that critical problem, particularly of the heroin trade. I think CLEU has done a good job of co-ordination. I think what the Attorney-General has to do is look more realistically at the whole heroin problem. It costs $1 billion a year in this province anyway.

[ Page 3018 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: $255 million.

MR. LAUK: No, no. I'm talking about total cost -the loss of property through theft, robbery that is most often linked....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about maintenance.

MR. LAUK: You get shoplifting and robberies. The loss of property alone that's related to drug addiction in this province, and the cost to the state of prosecutions, police and institutions, penal and otherwise, reaches $1 billion a year. That's what it costs British Columbians to support the habit in this province.

The police officers are placed in an impossible position, Mr. Chairman, in enforcing the Narcotic Control Act against users in this province. It's absolutely ridiculous!

I know of young people in the police force -decent human beings with a sensitivity toward their neighbour - who, after two or three months on the drug squad, become totally and utterly brutalized because it is a requirement under the Narcotic Control Act that there be forcible, personal search of persons suspected of being in possession of heroin. People have heard these stories and they wish to ignore them, about where you grab the drug addict -sometimes young people and children - by the throat and you punch them in the stomach and you do whatever else is necessary to get them to cough up those drugs that they are trying to swallow, to get the evidence. Do you think a normal human being as a police officer enjoys that kind of thing? Do you think that is the proper task of a policeman in our society?

There is a former member of the police force sitting in his chair today. He knows what I'm talking about, He knows that these people, less than six weeks to three months on the drug squad, become totally brutalized. It affects their personal lives, I'm sure. It doesn't take much of an imagination to see how destructive that process - using a law enforcement answer to a medical problem - is to this society. There just has been nothing done in coming to grips with the heroin problem that is just a cancerous sore on this great society in British Columbia. It's a humiliation to every British Columbian.

CLEU is part of the answer to hit those businessmen involved in the heroin trade in this province. That's one answer in law enforcement, but law enforcement in terms of the drug user in the streets and the chippy trafficker on the street corner is not an answer, If police officers - normal, decent people - can be brutalized in a short period of time, then indeed society can be brutalized, because they act on our behalf. I ask the Attorney-General to really come to serious grips with this problem. Let's not call it a law-enforcement problem, because it's not.

He argued earlier that the prosecutions between the federal Department of Justice and the provincial department of the Attorney-General shouldn't be divided. One of the thoughts is - and it has been stated before - that the drug trade can more easily handle a provincial Minister of Justice than they can the federal minister. Well, I don't know about that, but this is one of the things that has been said from time to time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Who said it?

MR. LAUK: Well, it's been said.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Who said it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. LAUK: I don't agree with it either. Don't get excited.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm not excited.

MR. LAUK: I know the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. MR. Hewitt) is getting upset. His vote is coming up pretty soon and he wants to get it over with. But these are important problems, Mr. Chairman.

The heroin trade in this province is critical. It always has been critical. It's nothing new. What should be new is some solution to it. Oh, we can't eradicate it overnight, but it is a medical problem and we've got to come to grips with it.

What are some of the solutions? There is enforcement at the highest level. Adequate prosecution to ensure conviction where warranted is also very effective. Also very effective is dealing with that drug addict - preventing the contagion of that addiction from spreading from person to person in society. How? Part of it is the methadone maintenance programme. I think, MR. Chairman, the Attorney-General and his government must look seriously at a heroine maintenance programme.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: They've got to take the heroin addict away from....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Oh, for heaven's sake! Do you understand what the police services vote is all about? It's law enforcement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[ Page 3019 ]

MR. LAUK: These constant interruptions ruin the flow of debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre would keep his debate relevant, he wouldn't have to have any interruptions.

MR. LAUK: It certainly is relevant! I'm saying, with great respect, Mr. Chairman, that it is relevant. It relates to the problem of law enforcement officers having the responsibility of enforcing the Narcotic Control Act, That's what I'm talking about.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): You just want free heroin.

MR. LAUK: I don't want free heroin. I want a sensible....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I forgive the Minister of Education for taking a cheap, political shot on a very serious issue. That's always been his problem. Mr. Chairman, it's not because he doesn't understand the problem because he has made a speech or two in this House that indicate he does, He's been up since 7 o'clock meeting in cabinet on crisis issues, and he hasn't got his sensibilities about him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 61, hon. member,

MR. LAUK: Now the law enforcement problem of the Narcotic Control Act has to be confronted and addressed squarely by the Attorney-General. You can have these maintenance programmes expanded and you've got to take the addict away from situations where he will cause a contagion of addiction within his peer group, That's a problem that was raised by the Minister of Education when he wasn't the Minister of Education, and I agree with it, It is a contagious problem. Take it away from the police officer at the street level. It's a brutalizing thing on him and it's a brutalizing thing on society. It doesn't solve the problem. The problem just continues to increase at great cost to retail merchants, at great cost to the taxpayer in this province, and the social cost is staggering - absolutely staggering. That's the point I wish to make with respect to the police service. You know, we've had all kinds of discussions and seminars on this problem. The solutions are there.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the hon. member, we truly recognize the enormity of the heroin problem in the province of British Columbia. I would like to inform him that this ministry, in company with the Ministry of Health, has developed an initiative heretofore never taken in the province, A joint submission by this ministry and the Ministry of Health, prepared by CLEU - and it was an excellent presentation - was taken to Ottawa and presented to the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Basford) , the Solicitor- General (Hon. MR. Fox) , and the federal Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Lalonde) , That very day, a committee of senior officials of this government and the federal government was struck with a mandate to consider the material that was presented and present the governments with a series of options, which hopefully will be coming down within the next few days or few weeks.

I can assure you, sit, that we truly recognize the problem. We feel it has to be looked at - not only from law enforcement, because law enforcement cannot do it alone. It is an enormous problem, as you have stated. The estimated population of heroin addicts in Canada is 16,000 and it's estimated that 10,000 to 11,000 of those are situate in British Columbia. The maintenance cost per day at two caps per addict is $35 a cap - and that's a conservative figure, because it's as high as $50, $60, $70 in more remote areas and depending upon supply is $25,500 to maintain an addict for a year. By multiplying the number of addicts by the cost per addict, you can see it comes to $225 million worth of funds that have to be generated - illegal funds - to maintain addiction for those people in this province,

Nothing effective has yet been done, There have been great strides done by the work of the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit and the Joint Forces Operation in significant busts, and great credit to them. They're getting to some people at the top and already have done so, and a great number are incarcerated already. But it seems by virtue of the fantastic profits involved. . . . For example, a 30 per cent pure pound of heroin in Hong Kong will will sell for $7,500. By the time it's cut and distributed, its street-level value in Vancouver is $700,000. From $7,500 to $700,000. This is another reason why I feel that there is a considerable need for us to look at organized crime.

I'm not going to repeat what I said in the House because I've made my position abundantly clear there. We're looking at the possibility of a crime commission, but there is no way that we're going to indicate that that is a desirable necessity, particularly on a provincial level. I have serious misgivings, looking at it only in the provincial light, because it's not too much use attempting to solve for the time being, shall we say, a problem in one province and find it emigrating to another, It's a national phenomenon. In fact, insofar as we're concerned on this continent, it's an international phenomenon.

We have made considerable strides. The first time that this initiative in the history of the country has ever been taken was taken by this government over

[ Page 3020 ]

the past few months to seek more effective methods and to find out what options are available to reduce both supply and demand for this vicious drug.

MR. MACDONALD: The Minister of Health of British Columbia (Hon. Mr. McClelland) made a little speech not too long ago. It's at least a year ago. He's hoping for "legislation within several months that would require addicts to undergo medical treatment when their addiction is diagnosed rather than being charged by the police." So it's a police problem, Mr. Chairman.

"Compulsory treatment for addiction in the course of police services." Now I can't see that with the number of addicts involved in the province of B.C. I know many cases where the police encounter some young person who is obviously under the addiction of heroin but no possession charge can be laid because there is no possession of a drug at that time; there is no trafficking. So what does the police officer do? He releases the young person. Some of them are being exploited as couriers. Some of them are as young as 13 and 14. Nothing can be done.

Now the suggestion that in some cases you might be able to save a life by compulsory treatment - in other words by declaring a state of addiction on heroin or hard drugs - is the same as the state of addiction under alcohol, and compulsory treatment is something that is within provincial jurisdiction.

I can think of individual cases where a young person's life might have been saved at an early stage. Because they were addicted they could have been treated compulsorily. If they're not, then they're used as couriers, they get more heavily addicted, they end up in prostitution, they end up committing all kinds of offences. Or they die from the addiction at a very early age.

I intend, Mr. Chairman, to take this up under the Minister of Health, too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope so.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, it's both. It's a police problem and it's a health problem. While I can't see compulsory treatment for large numbers of people, I do think that in the case of young people you may very well have to save lives with some form of compulsory treatment.

Vote 61 approved.

On vote 62: corrections, $40,974, 313.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, all those who wish to take a brief rest and leave the House, please do so. I intend to make a very brief speech on a subject that I have put a self-imposed censorship on and have not spoken out publicly on for some time. However, I'm now back in the opposition. Viewing the current fad of talking about jails for awhile, I thought I'd get back and talk about jails.

But first of all I have one comment on the remarks about approaching criminals with the hard-nosed, simplistic jingoism that we have from the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) . You don't compel people to be good, Omineca; you don't compel people to be bad.

We continue in this country to go on with our great game of having parliamentary committees, royal commissions, investigations and examinations to continue a prison system that is bankrupt of one new idea, that has no new problems in front of it but just a continuation of old ones. On occasion we hear politicians beating their gums in response to a current wave of hysteria around any issue in the public's mind, only to have another report filed and nothing done with a justice delivery system that is bankrupt at the bottom end of the scale - that is, delivery of justice and protection to the community through a corrections system. We go on and on and on with lawyers blabbering at lawyers, politicians blabbing at politicians, and a court system and a corrections system that is so remote from reality that we design a by-system to continue it at whatever the cost.

This morning I picked up a newspaper and what do I read? A sensational headline: "Drug Overdoses Fell Rebelling Cons." Great stuff! It sells newspapers in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. It can be in British Columbia, Prince Albert, Dorchester. It's all over, but it just happens today to be in Prince Albert.

I want to read a paragraph of a report on jails. It's very interesting. I know you'll be back, because I know you've got an interest in this.

I want to read this. It says here: "A review of the conditions disclosed in connection with these disturbances" - that is in prison - "indicates that during the past five years the penitentiaries in Canada have been in a state of unrest." It goes on in the same report to say this: "The records of the penitentiary branch show that during the last I I years there have been 20 disturbances of more or less serious character in Canadian penitentiaries."

Was this out of the latest parliamentary committee report on the Canadian penal system? Was this a revelation of the latest parliamentary committee traveling all over this country? Is this the shocking new situation that exists in the Canadian penal system? No, those of you who are still listening, this was written in 1938. This is the Archambault royal commission report, and it is exactly the same as the reports done in 1947,1956,1969,1977 - on and on and on and the same blab, blab, blab by the same politicians, the same police forces, the same court systems and the same stupid system of prisons that we have in this country,

A year ago we witnessed the chronic debate in this

[ Page 3021 ]

country when all else fails - capital punishment. It's great stuff for backwoods bush politicians. When all else fails, run around screaming saying: "We gotta bring back the noose!" What kind of stupidity that centrally focused argument is, I cannot describe. But in historical terms the hypocrisy and the stupidity of that position has been pointed out. In earlier days we used to cut off people's hands for stealing. We hung people for murder and crime goes on, and human behaviour continues to be bad in some circumstances.

We sensationalize crime. We all have answers to correcting the prison system, but not one administration in this country federally has faced the responsibility of the fact that the Canadian prison system has been a chronic failure from 1913 on up to the present day.

I stood in this House as a back-bench MLA when a debate went on in this province about building the Matsqui prison for the treatment of drug addicts. I can tell you the high-fliers taken by politicians, both federally and provincially, on this great answer, the solution of drug addiction in this province, were unbelievable. These were chest-beating statements by politicians who went around saying: "We now have the answer. We're going to build Matsqui and we'll give 'em treatment."

Federal and provincial politicians, bureaucrats, police, social workers and everyone else who wanted to throw in their two bits' worth said: "Matsqui is going to be great." I stood in this House and I said that Matsqui would be a failure. I was criticized in editorial pages and I was criticized by professional colleagues. I recounted to this House some 12 years ago that Matsqui would be a failure because it wasn't a new idea. It was already tried once in the United States at a place called Lexington, Kentucky.

Lexington, Kentucky, had a United States medical hospital prison for the treatment of drug addicts. They operated for 25 years. They spent $60 million on the treatment of drug addicts, They had a cure rate of less than I per cent, but they did learn two things about drug addicts - $60 million and 25 years later they learned these two things about drug addicts: one, they have an insatiable desire for drugs-, and two, , they like chocolate cake. Those were the two consistent findings, after 25 years under Dr. Kalb's administration, with the most advanced approach to correcting the medical problem, as they saw it, of drug addiction.

Bunk! We've even had a naive cabinet minister of this province who, in innocence - and I do not criticize him for this innocence - has gone to Japan to view the Japanese "cold turkey solution." It's a different culture, a different setting, a different ethos, and a different morality. The minister goes there for three days, comes back and announces we should go to the Japanese method.

My dear friends, if we want to go to any Oriental method, the only Oriental method which I know of that has had an absolute maximum cure effect on drug addicts has been China. If we're looking for those kinds of simplistic final solutions, why don't we talk about China? I don't advocate what they've done. But don't mess around with the Japanese "cold turkey." China, right after the revolution, said: "We're going to give drug addicts a choice." The choice was this: "Quit or we'll shoot you!"

MR. GIBSON: Dead turkey!

MR. BARRETT: Dead turkey! And I want to tell you, it has been very effective. I'm not advocating that for Canada, for our social structure. But let us not play games by sending a cabinet minister to Japan, letting him have a steam bath over there, and having him come back thinking he's got the cure to drug addiction through some mystical Japanese "cold turkey" system.

We now have another report from the federal government to go with all of these other reports. Do you know what one of their dumbbell recommendations is? Build a hard-core containment centre for drug addicts! Too bad they couldn't recommend suicide, because once having committed that act, at least it's non-repetitive. They've gone through two generations of prison systems they haven’t attempted to deal with drug addiction. They built a high-class hotel at fantastic expense at Matsqui. I predicted it would be a failure; it is a failure. It was reopened at another location with a fancy bureaucratic name for another prison and that exists in Matsqui. Now they come back with a recommendation - build another place as a centre for treating addicts!

Why don't we start from the beginning and admit something very honestly? We don't know how to cure addicts. Now that is very simple. As a social worker, I discovered very early on in my professional career that all the complicated problems we had had simple answers. But we went to university and we had all kinds of things stuffed in our heads by doctors, by lawyers and by others, making very simple problems complex. For example, Mr. Chairman, I found out very quickly that one of the major problems with the poor is that they don't have enough money. Now after many years of profound experience working with poor people, it occurred to me that if they could overcome this one handicap - that is, the lack of money - the other problems would disappear. Instead we hire social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists - and then we get ourselves a brand new Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , who's going to clean up the mess by going around making redneck statements. The poor continue to be poor and the bulk of the poor continue to make up the prison population of this

[ Page 3022 ]

country.

Poor people go to jail! Then we spend thousands and thousands of dollars to give them good clothes, good food, good beds, clean sheets and a nice place to sleep and a comfortable place to work, at a cost of $16,000 per year per prisoner in prison systems in this country. We won't spend a dime to get those lazy, loafing bums out there a job or reorder our social or economic priorities. But we'll hire psychiatrists, medical practitioners, social workers and guards and put the unemployed in jail and say: "Here you are, gang - 16,000 bucks a year we're going to pay if you stay in this luxury hotel. Especially if you've stolen $20. Oh, sin! Oh, horror! Why you might have even stolen $100! "

Now, my dear friends, if you fraudulently steal $1 million through some corporate manipulation of stocks, if you steal out of the system by using a pricing structure that manipulates the marketplace, or inside information, and you walk away and make millions of dollars, the first thing you do is hire a lawyer, and a lawyer is worthy of his hire. The higher you pay him, the more worthy he is,

MR. LAUK: Does he go to jail?

MR. BARRETT: Rarely do lawyers go to jail and rarely do rich people go to jail. They spend years keeping each other out of jail. But who goes to jail? The small petty criminal makes up 85 per cent of the prison population of this country, not some vicious, horrible, sexual monster who is depraved and grabbing your children on the street, Some poor slob who hasn't even got enough brains to rob a bank gets caught on his first try and gets five years in the bucket becomes when it comes to court the judge says this old cliché: "There have been too many robberies lately and I have got to make an example of you." That's right. He makes an example of him and gives him five years. What kind of example was that? The other guys who got away are laughing,

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the banks who robbed you?

MR. BARRETT: Well, the banks who robbed us.... That's the system, my friend; that's the system. We don't like to talk about this system because we like to play serious games about the jail system.

What I've learned about the poor is that they don't have enough money and what I learned about the people in jail is that they are essentially poor. Rarely does the rich person go to jail. There are two standards of law in this country: one for the rich and one for the poor. If you've got enough money to buy yourself a good, high-priced lawyer - I'm sorry, I take that back; I delete the word "good" - if you've got enough money to buy yourself a high-priced lawyer, you've got a better chance of beating the system.

Who's in our jails - Mafioso? Who's in our jails -international manipulators of the money markets? Who's in our jails - big-shot politicians who got elected broke and end up out of office with huge apartments and motels mystically bestowed upon them by bountiful fate? No, those people don't go to jail; poor people go to jail. Once in a while....

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Who are you thinking of?

MR. BARRETT: Who am I thinking of? Nobody in particular. Do you have somebody in mind? (Laughter.) If the shoe fits, wear it, my friend.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Fox?

MR. BARRETT: Well, once in a while they get a big fish.

AN HON. MEMBER: John Mitchell.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, in the United States. Isn't it interesting how our voyeuristic editorials in all our national newspapers are going, "tut, tut, tut, " to Mr. Nixon and his Watergate? They're all sure shutting up about Mr. Trudeau and the federal cabinet and their Watergate, aren't they? I haven't seen the lead editorial in The Vancouver Fun saying: "Hey, Mr. Trueducks! Looks like Mr. Nixon and you got something in common here, y'all." We only look at the south and we're judgmental about them.

There is one law for the rich and one for the poor, But when the heat gets on we hire the bureaucrats and we hire the experts, and guess what? The bureaucrats and the experts tell us one thing over and over and over again. Shhh! Don't let it get out, but they've told us this since 19 3 8: "The prison system is a failure."

So what is the answer to the prison system being a failure? In the best Canadian tradition I want to tell you, folks, the answer is this: build more prisons! We've got more jails being constructed in this country than any other single federal activity, unless perhaps they want to buy another submarine that leaks like the last time they bought a submarine, Dumb! Stupid! Canadian! Made in Canada by us Canadians!

We've got more jails being built.... We've got one in Mission. We've got pictures on television - big, thick, concrete cells where we're gonna lock up these depraved guys! It's stupid, but we do it. We haven't learned a single thing. I'm not going to allude to another bill in the House that the Attorney-General just brought in with a nice, coloured brochure about it because it's just as stupid too, but I'll get a chance

[ Page 3023 ]

to talk about that stupidity later on.

So, Mr. Attorney-General, let's look at how much money the taxpayers are going to spend here under your auspices. Mr. Attorney-General, $40 million is going to pay room and board in this province for about 2,500 people. That's what it is - $40 million for room and board. A jail is not a place of punishment, dear friends; a jail is a place where you get three meals a day, a bed to sleep in and someone to complain to. You always know who to complain to because they wear a uniform.

What do we teach people in jail? Why, we teach them how to live in jail. Is that their problem? Not at all. People who go to jail don't know how to live outside - that's their problem. And do we teach them anything after they leave jail? No siree, Bob! Out they go.

How does the parole system work?

This is how the parole system works. If you're a good boy in jail and you've behaved yourself, you get out on parole, So you learn to lie. When you go in to see staff in jail and you know that they're evaluating you for a parole, and if you tell them that you really have urges to commit a crime and you have intense feelings about your mother and it's the psychiatrist, it's good stuff. But if it's an ordinary parole officer it's bad,

You learn the game. You learn who to say what to if you want to get out. The more you play the game, the sooner you get out for your chance to commit the crime again.

Let's talk about serious offenders and what goes on in this country. We can have the kind of moralistic jingoism from the member for backwoods down there, and the Attorney-General will applaud him by talking about people who rape. People who rape are sick people. I don't need a psychiatrist to tell me that a rapist is nuts. He's nuts! Now what do we do with that nut? Why, we wait 18 months before we get him in court. After we get him in court we go through a ritual dance and then we send him to jail for five years. And what have we done, Mr. Chairman? We take his problem and we put it on ice for five years. We lock him up, At the end of the five years, he's going to be released. Do we have a mandatory, post-release, parole programme? No. While he's in jail, he's considered for parole. Is a rapist given parole? No, because politicians and the community cry: "Don't parole the rapist." The only chance to keep that fellow back in the community under supervision is under parole. But we don't take the chance on the bad ones; they finish all their time, At the end of five years he comes out to commit the rape again - with no post-control because we want to keep our statistics good on parole supervision, Yes, that's how the system works, The nuttier you are, we guarantee that by the time you're out of jail, you're 10 times nuttier!

Now why don't we admit some basic things. Let's stop sending so many poor people to jail. If we want to pay for their room and board, it's a hock of a lot cheaper to do it in a downtown hotel than it is in a high-class jail.

Secondly, we've got some nuts out there.

MR. KEMPF: We've got some in here too.

MR. BARRETT: We've got some in here too, and I'm glad you mentioned it, my friend. Twice today you have spoken up at appropriate times in my speech and I want to compliment you. I'll give you a third opportunity. Three times convicted is three times ready for your term.

We've got nuts out there, Mr. Attorney-General, and not all in political parties. Some of them are absolutely insane and we have to start defining behaviour on the levels of responsibility and the levels of insanity. For years now we have had demonstrations in the Netherlands and in the Scandinavian countries of an entirely different approach to corrections. It means abandoning some of our preconceived notions about human behaviour and accepting one simple fact, and that fact is, we don't know everything. There are some people who are so crazy we don't know what to do with them. Now if they're crazy and they don't hurt anybody else, that's okay. But when they're crazy and they hurt other people, we have to remove them from society. We should develop a system, Mr. Chairman, whereby, when we remove a person from society and they're crazy, we don't let them go back into society until we feel that the risk factor has been diminished.

Where do they do this? In Holland. What is it called? Diminished responsibility. Are the Dutch more intelligent than us? No, Are they more sensitive than us? No. Do they have more brains than us? No. Why does Holland have this great penal approach for individual responsibility? I'll tell you why. During the war, most of the Dutch politicians were locked up in jails. After spending three or four years in jail they were released after the war; they came out and said: "we're going to reform the jail system; it ain't no good." Maybe the Attorney-General should go to jail for three months - not for any offence he's committed but for a holiday. I know the pace of how cabinets work. Three months in the bucket, hot meals and you don't even have to worry about showing up for a meal; they even ring a bell to call you down to eat. They never work overtime like we do here and they look after you. Jail in Canada is like a loving mother, It embraces you and holds you and feeds you and clothes you. You love it so much that when you get out you want to go back in. We have a recidivist rate of over 70 per cent in this country. Seventy per cent of the people who get out of jail go back in again within six months. They love it! It's going home to

[ Page 3024 ]

mama. There's no responsibility in jail. There's no duty in jail and there is no facing of the individual person's responsibility or role in a free society. We waste money, we waste people and we hire bureaucrats to maintain systems that are frankly absurd.

I want to congratulate the former Attorney-General and the present Attorney-General for continuing what the former Attorney-General started as an experimental programme.

Here in little old British Columbia we had a brand new prison, known as the Haney Correctional Institute, built to give first offenders a vocational training. It housed over 250 people. It was built at the cost of $5 million. It had 11 vocational shops to give apprenticeship training in 11 occupations. Of the 11 shops, 10 of them required three years of apprenticeship training.

After it was opened we discovered something: the maximum sentence to the jail was two years less a day. Out of the whole jail population the shops could only hold 120 and the average stay of any prisoner in any shop was three months. Nobody got trained; the jail was a waste. What we were offering for sick people in prisons or people who were ill-equipped to handle that situation was not available for the normal community.

My friend, the Attorney-General of this province, as he was then, closed the Haney Correctional Institute down as a jail in conjunction with the Deputy Attorney-General and the staff. They were the only people and the only government in all of this country that instead of building new jails and cutting new ribbons, while the rest of the country was running in the direction of plotting new jails, actually closed a jail down. I thank the Attorney-General for that and I appreciate the current Attorney-General's policy of continuing that.

Quietly, efficiently and ruthlessly we closed a jail down - and guess what, gang? Crime didn't increase!

MR. LAUK: It went down!

MR. BARRETT: It went down! There was less desire to go back to jail because there were less people having the jail experience.

So I'm trying to point out to you, Mr. Attorney-General - and I don't intend to stop entirely, even though the time limit will force me to take a deep breath and a drink of water - do not get called by the siren lull of new prisons. Do not get called by your Minister of Health (Hon. MR. McClelland) to believe that there are cold-turkey cures for drug addiction. Continue the policy of closing jails down, closing the availability of mental hospitals, increasing probation staff.

Beg your colleague, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , to take half of his money and put it in preventive programmes rather than throwing it away against the useless jail system. A dollar spent on a child now in a preventive special programme is worth $1,000 spent when that's an adult in jail. Tell your Minister of Human Resources that when we spend $500 to give a special treatment programme to a child, age 5, 6 or 7, that it may cut his $100 million surplus in welfare but it will save a life of crime and deter a child from growing into a pattern of anti-social behaviour.

Tell your colleagues in that cabinet that preventive services are the only guarantee to stop this flow of waste of human life and money in the prison system. Use some common sense. Stop his rhetoric of politics. Let's be unique in British Columbia and spend our money where it counts - on children - and stop crime at that level.

I'll be back for more.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his remarks. He has spent a great deal of his life and of his interest in this topic. His speech, I must confess, in my view is overstated, but that doesn't make it any less sincere.

MR. BARRETT: It has to be sometimes.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It was also recycled and that doesn't make it any less sincere.

But he's also talking about a system which he appreciates we inherited from the former administration and his government inherited from the former former administration. I'm the first person to state, and happy to restate, that there has been a paucity of reform in the institutional system and process, not only in our province but in Canada over the years. I feel strongly that there has certainly been an improper emphasis attached to this very grave problem.

But I think we're turning the corner. I think we're turning the corner very much in B.C. I was also happy to read the federal task force. I think they came to grips with some of the major problems that are being experienced in our institutional systems on the federal side.

But I would like to say, hon. member, that when you're indicating in your remarks that we're spending $40 million for people in jail, that is patently incorrect, as you know. This represents the total budget, and the total budget concerns itself with a multitude of programmes of diversion, parole and entry into the community; probation and monitoring of maintenance orders; performing a range of family relations work.

I'd like to say that over the last year we have made considerable strides with maybe your government would have got to. I think a considerable amount of direction that we're taking was perhaps on the

[ Page 3025 ]

planning boards, but we have also put new ideas into the system. Furthermore, we have come up with some very positive results. I'm very happy of that.

I would very much at this time like to pay a compliment to the commissioner of corrections in this province, Dr. John Eckstedt, who is a most forthright and innovative individual and has, in my view, a great philosophy insofar as this difficult and contentious problem is concerned.

We have, as you know, eight major correctional facilities. We have three specialized facilities. We have forest camps, community corrections centres and we have bed space in the community-based residential centres. In the planning and development the division has made tremendous strides in the past 19 months insofar as developing new programmes and the control of them. We've moved to the regional concept, as perhaps the hon. member knows. These senior managers were appointed by me in October, 1976. They commenced a very intensive three-month development course. I was very delighted to be invited to their function after that course to personally present the diplomas to them. I've met each and every one of them, I know them and I think they are outstanding men. I think it is far, far better that we now have people in the field able to make more localized decisions and respond better to community needs than there has ever been the opportunity to do in the province of B.C.

I'd like to say another thing about facilities. We heard about the phase-out of Oakalla forever.

MR. BARRETT: We cut the population down,

HON. MR. GARDOM: We heard about the phase-out of Oakalla from your administration.

MR. BARRETT: And we cut the population down.

HON. MR. GARDOM: But the phase-out was barely a pop out of a popgun. I tell you, we have started to move into the phase-out of Oakalla.

MR. MACDONALD: We phased out Wilkinson Road. That was part of our programme.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just be quiet for a moment, I'm sure you'll have your opportunity to speak again.

I'll tell you what we've done as far as the phase-out of Oakalla is concerned. No. 1, we have indicated that it is our policy to see that we can have small remand centres appropriately situated around the province. Those people who are in corrections feel very strongly that the mix of the remand population with the sentenced population is a bad mix.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. GARDOM: The remand population apparently creates the greatest amount of difficulty for a variety of reasons. We have announced, within the last month or so - perhaps it was longer than that - that we are establishing a 150-bed remand facility in Vancouver, close to the market, which is at 222 Main Street. That is a remand facility. That will take a load off Oakalla, We're also indicating that there will be another 75-bed remand facility in the lower mainland. I'm very hopeful, Mr. Member, that one day I'm going to be able to be on the bulldozer that will start pushing down some of those buildings in Oakalla.

I'd like to say that we're going to move as best we can, with the priorities that are open to us and with the dollars that are available, to see that the corrections facilities that we have in B.C. are going to be improved.

I think, with every respect, that we have been able to make greater strides - and I'm not being critical of what your administration did - in a shorter period of time than you were able to do on that score, So I'm optimistic that we're heading down the right track and I'm happy to see that I'm receiving some support from all members of the House on this score.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I prefaced my remarks by reminding the Attorney-General, who formerly sat in another location in this House to hear similar speeches of mine, that I had broken a self-imposed silence in this House. I have not spoken on this subject for a number of years in this House simply out of frustration. When we did become government, we faced the problem. I must say the credit goes to my colleague on my right, the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) and the present Deputy Attorney-General, who were two brand new faces in the jobs. I'm not criticizing what went on before that. I'm talking about what we were faced with when we became a government.

This province owes a great deal to David Vickers, and I'm sorry that he's leaving government service. I hope that other citizens of professional background understand, as Mr. Vickers does, on a non-partisan basis, that they have an obligation to serve government, regardless of party, from their professional backgrounds, even if it's for only a limited period of time. David Vickers is an example of that, in my opinion.

When confronted with the problem, the former Attorney-General....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Give him a gold watch! Never mind the nice words!

MR. BARRETT: The gold watch? Never mind the

[ Page 3026 ]

gold watch,

HON. MR. GARDOM: Never mind the words; he wants the watch! (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: His memories will be the scars of the Treasury Board in two administrations. (Laughter.) And that's it!

What I'm trying to point out, Mr. Attorney-General, is that yes, indeed, in British Columbia - under the former Attorney-General and the present Attorney-General - we are quietly taking a redirection by phasing out Haney and Wilkinson. And please, for goodness' sake, don't succumb to the blandishments to keep Wilkinson going: dump that one too. I will join you on the bulldozer on that happy day that Oakalla goes under.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Will you promise to be in front of it? (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: No. No, I will make no such promise.

MR. Attorney-General, I disagree with one commitment you've made. It is a mistake to build brand-new facilities for remand centres. I would urge you before you make that commitment to that capital cost as I tried to urge others in a different capacity....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Professionals don't agree with you.

MR. BARRETT: That's why I carved my own career professionally. I sometimes spoke alone in the professional field, and now I do it as a politician.

HON. MR. GARDOM: But look what happened to you.

MR. BARRETT: Look what happened to me. I ruined my career by getting involved in politics. That's past and I have no regrets. But now I speak to you as a black-sheep professional: please, Mr. Attorney-General, experiment with the following. Experiment by taking some of the remand prisoners up Mount Seymour into a small camp facility. Take only....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, we have those.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Broaden it on a remand basis. Give them a job, give them a salary,

HON. MR. GARDOM: We're trying to cut remands. Some experiments were tried with, . . .

MR. BARRETT: I know we want to cut remands,

Don't build a remand facility.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, no, no. The people who are in remand, who are in custody, are there for a reason. Otherwise, in most cases they're out on bail. You know that....

MR. BARRETT: Yes, most cases....

HON. MR. GARDOM: ...or on their own OR.

MR. BARRETT: That is exactly correct. There has been a high use of their own recognizance. We used to make that plea years ago in this House; that's now been recognized. Now they're out on bail, but who's left? It's the poor ones again who are left, the ones who have no means. The large percentage of them are native Indians....

HON. MR. GARDOM: And the dangerous ones. What about the dangerous ones?

MR. BARRETT: Okay, the dangerous ones are different. I'll come to the dangerous ones in a minute.

The rest of those petty felons are so incompetent they get caught stealing a loaf of bread. Any good university student knows better than that. It's the petty felon we spend most of the money on with this massive lock-up. Experiment, please, with moving people into small locations without massive capital expenditures. There's no point in repeating that point because you're committed to building another jail, but don't do it, please.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's not a jail.

MR. BARRETT: It's a remand centre. You know, I am a professional. I am a professional and I am proud of my professional colleagues. It's not a jail; it's called a high-security facility. It's not a jail; it's called a treatment centre. It's not a jail; it's called a remand centre, A jail is a jail is a jail is a jail! I don't care how my professional colleagues describe it - as a remand centre, as a treatment centre, or as a secure holding centre - it's a darned jail!

HON. MR. GARDOM: You've been out of the business too long!

MR. BARRETT: You wanna bet? One of the advantages of being out of the business is to step back for a few minutes and realize that although I've been out of the field for some 10 years, not a darned thing has changed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, baloney!

MR. BARRETT: Essentially it's the same

[ Page 3027 ]

dumb-bell decisions being made by the same dumb-bells. It's a fact. Look at that latest parliamentary committee! I do not blame the politicians, so help me goodness. I do not blame the politicians for asking a current parliamentary committee to go out and investigate the penitentiaries. It's a guarantee of getting the same results every other parliamentary committee has got.

This is a serious national problem. I have no simplistic answers, but one of the things that's missing nationally is the willingness to experiment with new approaches. We're doing it in British Columbia, It was started by my colleague; it is continued by the present Attorney-General, and all I'm offering is new experimental approaches.

I once brought a bill into this House to force people who stole money to pay it back. No kidding! I brought a bill into this House saying: "if you steal money, one of the processes of rehabilitation is to order that the money be paid back." Restitution -what's wrong with that? It was the old Hubor law passed in Wisconsin back in the 1920s. It worked well there,

MR. MACDONALD: We instituted it - a community service order.

MR. BARRETT: My colleague, the Attorney-General, instituted it with community service orders - the only province in all of Canada that says: "Look, you broke a window. Go and earn some money to pay to get it fixed up." It's so commonsense that it baffles the pros; it's so commonsense that it baffles the lawyers and the judges; it's so commonsense that the community got frightened about this criminal going out there working to pay back what he broke or stole, The greatest fear a jail holds to people is the fear of going there, Once they've been there they're not fearful of jail.

Now the other comments I want to make.... You're absolutely correct, Mr. Attorney-General, and I respect you without your presence or your presence. I don't want anybody to suggest that the Attorney-General is hollow; it's not true. He might be invisible, but he's not hollow.

I want to say this: it's $25 million for the jails and $15 million for the auxiliary services. I didn't want to break it down because I didn't want to embarrass the Attorney-General. If I told everybody in this House that the vast bulk of this $40 million is going for the high-class hotels, they would be embarrassed. But the Attorney-General broke it down. Only $15 million is going to prevention and post- supervision, and $25 million goes to run these jails -- 25 million bucks worth of jail, Twenty-five million bucks should go into preventive services.

The point that I was trying to make through this sympathetic, Liberal Attorney-General is to get through the hard heart of his unsympathetic, Liberal Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) to ease up on the money and do some preventive work.

Now I'm not going to raise in this House the difficulty I have of labelling the political identities. I'm embarrassed for my colleague in opposition down there who's still a Liberal to have to call those other guys Liberals. It seems to me that the only way of making it into the cabinet of British Columbia is not to belong to Social Credit but to belong to the Liberal Party, put on a cloak and run over there, turn the cloak around, and say: "Here I am - reborn and ready to serve as a Social Crediter."

My advice to the backbenchers who are listening: leave now, join the Liberal Party, be reborn over the weekend, and you might make it to the cabinet. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: We've got standards!

MR. BARRETT: You may have standards now, Mr. Member, but that's only because of the ability to sluff off those who obviously didn't meet your standards before.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now to vote 62, please.

MR. BARRETT: And then you destroyed your standards by taking Jack Horner.

You're right, let's get back to this vote.

The invisible Attorney-General who is not invisible, who is not indivisible - who is a staunch fighter for his budget against Grace and the Treasury Board - has got to go in there and tell Grace and the gang that there has to be more money spent on prevention.

I think the Attorney- General is being pushed around by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) . I think the Attorney-General is just one notch above Sam Bawlf when it comes to getting kicked around by our Provincial Secretary.

Now I say to the Attorney-General: stand up to the Provincial Secretary. Do the arm's-length thing. Put your arm around your former Liberal colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, and let's start spending some money back on kids again, the way the former Minister of Human Resources did.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: What's that? Shovel it out the back of a truck? If you want to make accusations about shovelling money out of the back of a truck, you're shovelling $25 million down the tube in a prison system that guarantees that it'll go up by 10 per cent to 15 per cent every single year. Every single

[ Page 3028 ]

year, the waste and the toil.

Now I want to talk a little bit about drug addiction, just a little bit about drug addiction, and the problem we have in our provincial jails with federal drug offenders,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member not like to reserve this until we get to the alcohol and drug administration section?

MR. BARRETT: No, no, no. This is people in jail. I've got another speech for that one. (Laughter.) Thanks for reminding me, I almost lost my notes.

I want to talk about the drug offenders who are an absolutely necessary ingredient in the cops-and-robbers game we play in our penal system. What would the jails and the court system do without drug addicts? People would lose jobs. Whole structures of social services would disappear, The very major reason why vast expenditures exist in this book would go down the drain if we solved the problem of drug addicts. It is in those vested interests' best interest to continue the cops-and-robbers game around drug addiction, and keep the nonsense going.

My good friend, my colleague for Vancouver Centre (MR. Lauk) , described one small part under a previous vote. He was absolutely correct to discuss it under that vote, and I commend him for staying in order under that vote and not broadening the base of his argument, as it should be under this vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope you can do better, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you.

The role of the drug addict is to continue an inadequate justice delivery system, an inadequate police system and an inadequate jail system. The drug addict has no real connection with justification for the court system, the police system or the jail system. We have a narcotic addictions Act in Canada that says: unlike any other illness, if you are sick under this particular medical problem, we're going to whup you, boy. You're going to be a criminal.

Somebody who is a drug addict is nuts. Now I can give you all kinds of high-blown professional words: maybe schizophrenic; he may not have come out of his adolescence. Okay. He may have all kinds of other problems, but he's nuts because he takes dope,

Now what do we do with the nuts who take dope? Why, we push them in the court, we push them in the jail, and we have cops chasing them around, playing the cops-and-robbers game. The little bit of research that has been done with drug addicts indicates that part of the reason for the continuation of the use of drugs is the psychological romanticism received in recognition by that drug addict playing the role of being the chasee, as the cop plays the chaser.

The whole romanticism around the social structure in terms of language, in terms of signs, in terms of cultural development, gives recognition to an emotionally deprived person who has wandered into the field of the use of drugs and gives them a recognition that gives comfort and succour to that person's inadequate personality structure.

Got a medical problem? Let's treat the medical problem and remove the romance of the cops and robbers, remove the romance of all the necessity of the paraphernalia, the closed hotel rooms, the intrigue and the criminal aspects around it. If you've got a patient who is using drugs, then let us, as North Americans, begin to experiment with maintenance programmes of heroin. I agree with my colleague from Vancouver Centre, It is a mistake if the Attorney- General says that will localize all of the problems here in B.C. They've got drug addicts in New York, they've got them in Saskatoon, they've got them in Halifax, they've got them in Newfoundland, they've got them in Vancouver and, shame, they've got them in Victoria. It's a medical problem. Let us sit down and come up with some medical answers and remove it from the Criminal Code,

Why do people bring in heroin from the Golden Triangle? Because they like to make money. Why do people smuggle in cocaine? Because they like to sniff, sniff and make money. Money, money, money. The reason for the whole continuous operation of this massive drug problem is the fantastic profit available in the sale of illicit drugs. Now we know we don't cure drug addicts, so let us begin maturely, rationally, on a regional basis in North America, to develop a registration and maintenance of heroin,

Now I know that those who are pushing methadone say that's the approach. The methadone treatment is no treatment at all, my dear friends. All you're doing is replacing heroin with methadone -that's all. It becomes a game to save up your methadone. There have been people who I worked with and when I used to go into their apartments to see how they're doing because I was their happy parole supervisor - the National Parole Board was too cheap to hire their own parole officers and I had to do it out of a private agency - I'd open the fridge and, instead of seeing food, I'd see half-gallon jug a quarter-full of methadone that they'd taken out of the narcotic addiction foundation ready to trade on or use themselves. With every rule, there is a game to it. Please end the game. Please end the nonsense. Please end the cops and robbers chase. Let's move, nationally and internationally, to a heroin maintenance programme,

One last plea and then, to the comfort of my colleagues in this House....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Is that a personal position

[ Page 3029 ]

or a party position?

MR. BARRETT: That is my personal position. My party is still grappling with this. I'm saying it cannot be done in a provincial jurisdiction. It must be done on a North American experimental basis. That is my opinion. I say let us experiment, as the British have done. , . .

HON. MR. GARDOM: It hasn't worked worth a bean.

MR. BARRETT: It doesn't work worth a bean? My dear friend, it has the highest record known of cure, and to get the highest record all you need is 3 per cent. Let's begin that experiment. Don't tell me it doesn't work when you've got a colleague over there who goes over to Japan and comes back and says: "I found the cure." It wasn't in the steambath he found the cure, I'll tell you.

I'm going to go on to the last thing and I promise I solemnly promise to reform - to go back to my silence about corrections with one last plea. That plea is for the young people of this province and the children in trouble in this province. I am suggesting that 98 per cent of all young people are law-abiding, decent, loving and loved children. Two per cent of our young population is unloved. The consequence of that lack of love in their life is that they act out and strike out against the community in violent and semi-violent fashions. Too often our society responds by being violent back to those children. The way to ingrain violent behaviour is to respond with violence to that behaviour.

We, , as North Americans, find it difficult to hug children, to love children, to comfort children. I'm alarmed, as I go down the streets in various communities, to see signs up in windows saying "block parent." People put signs in their windows to let children know that if they're being molested or attacked, they have a home to run to. What is that saying about our society? What are we really doing with those troubled youngsters? Some people want to punish them and they print fancy brochures about it, We'll come to that later on, But of that 2 per cent of our population, some of their behaviour is so incomprehensible and so unmanageable that we have to find a quick answer and we look to institutions or secure settings. It's wrong.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's not for health-problem people, you know.

MR. BARRETT: Look. I want to tell you, Mr. Attorney-General, that I came into this business of politics because of this reason. I have accumulated some convictions and some experience about dealing with children that I feel inclined to share with this

House on rare moments. This is one of those rare moments. Remain silent, and I promise you in 15 minutes or so I'll shut up and not talk about it again.

But I want to make this plea: what children need is a sense of security, a sense of love and a sense of participation. Those 2 per cent of our children in our society who do not receive that from normal surroundings - from either a single parent, or a nuclear family, or hopefully an extended family -must rely on the state to respond to those needs.

The state cannot respond by punishing. The state must respond by substituting the love, by purchasing it through better foster homes, through psychiatric services or through extensive programmes reaching out to meet that individual child's needs.

I now take my seat by saying quietly to the Attorney-General that we can save a significant amount of this S25 million if we get your other colleagues to loosen up in Human Resources and spend some money in innovative, daring, community-based preventive programmes through community resources boards that have local people involved in determining what the local children need, not some bureaucrat in Victoria who writes a fancy paper in response to a politician.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to make a short response to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I'm not going to refer to the bill that's in front of the House because we'll have ample opportunity to debate that when the time comes.

This afternoon, HON. members, we've heard the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) advocate methadone maintenance and we've heard the Leader of the Opposition advocate heroin maintenance.

MR. BARRETT: He advocated that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's right, he did. I suppose if we stay here long enough we're going to have someone advocate cocaine maintenance and lysergic acid maintenance and make complete availability of all of these soul- and body-destroying drugs for everybody in the community. Now if there's one argument to me which has come through loud and clear it is that those people who use illicit drugs wish to have other people do it. They don't like to do it just by themselves. They like to have a pal get on to the stuff as well. I cannot agree with you, sir, that the English experiment has worked. The medical evidence is totally to the contrary.

I respect, without question, the genuineness of your remarks ' but I certainly do not agree with your conclusion. I personally feel that this would be a retrograde step. You're saying what we have done has not worked. I don't suppose anybody in this chamber will disagree with that, but I'm certainly not prepared

[ Page 3030 ]

to say that the solution you're suggesting today is the solution, I really think that would be ultimate folly. You proposed it as a North American solution, really. Am I correct on that?

MR. BARRETT: As an experiment,

HON. MR. GARDOM: As a North American experiment. In North America ~here is heroin maintenance for anybody.

MR. BARRETT: Where?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, This is what you're suggesting. There would be heroin maintenance or methadone maintenance. Surely you don't want to go that far!

MR. BARRETT: When you sit down I'll explain it to you.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, that's the inference that I have received from your remarks. Sure, you'd wish to have it properly and adequately controlled and screened. You're not a fool. You're not going to suggest something along the line that it's there for the offering; it's there for the taking; a person can knock on the door and suddenly they can receive it. I subscribe to that; of course I understand that. I'm not trying to generalize on your remarks to that extent.

But, Mr. Member, the argument that I find most self-defeating of the thing that you have suggested is that I cannot see it decreasing the use but increasing the use. It certainly would decrease the profits but it could well increase the use. Furthermore, the problem that I just stated in my own words here which I gather to be the situation is that those people who become addicted to heroin definitely wish to have someone else along with them on that particular kind of a trip. It's like an alcoholic saying: "Come on, will you have a drink with me, Joe? Please, come on, have it." They're always very, very willing to share and very willing to have you have the kind of experience that they're going through.

We do not wish to multiply the problem. Now when you're making the suggestion you obviously do not wish to see the problem multiplied either. I appreciate that fact, but boy, I think you're running a great risk of having that happen.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Attorney-General, I think we're beginning a dialogue. All I'm asking you is not to be too judgmental and listen a little more closely and I'll try to be far more concise and perhaps less interruptive with entertaining comments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And in order to keep the dialogue under control, please address the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I will address the Chair, because I know above all the Chairman is eminently interested and I recognize him for that.

Mr. Attorney-General, what I'm suggesting, through the Chair, is that there has been enough social research evidence to indicate that the romance of using drugs, to which the Attorney- General alludes simplistically, is enhanced by the psychological structure within which the first use of drugs is available to the new drug user.

What the Attorney-General describes as "the person who is going on a trip, wanting somebody to accompany him" is a small slice of the reality of the world of the drug addict. It is a subculture manifestly held together as a subculture because of the romance of the cops-robbers-jails cycle that is associated, falsely, with this problem.

No one is going to tell me that a 16-year-old is going to leave school and go down to the local heroin clinic and say: "Here I am. I'd like my first fix." If he did, of course you'd kick him out. But the mystique, the necessity and the romance....

I want to punch holes in your theory by giving you the realistic analogy, Mr. Attorney-General - and you're the one who brought it up, not me. Alcoholism. Many, many people are on a maintenance programme of alcoholism - none, I hope, in this chamber; none, I hope, among those whom I'm acquainted with. Alcohol is 10, 15, 20,100 times more destructive as a social disease than drug addiction, and the same psychological consequences of dependence exist with the abuse of alcohol. '

Those people who argued for prohibition said that if we have legal liquor stores, everybody's going to become a drunk. So they outlawed the legal liquor stores and we had prohibition. Everybody who wanted to get drunk made the Mafioso and the bootleggers rich. They had to end prohibition because too many people were using the drug of alcohol.

Now we're talking about the drug of heroin. They are both drugs. Who is in the alcohol-drug business? The government is in the alcohol-drug business. The government liquor store makes over $100 million a year. Yes, we were in the drug business, you're in the drug business and our predecessors were in the drug business. I don't hear the Attorney-General standing up with sanctimonious statements, saying that if you allow a drunk to buy LCB rye that he's going to drag a depraved kid off the street and say: "Drink with me and we'll get high together."

Certainly, you know what happens, Mr. Minister. What happens is that we have been able to examine some social models of the pattern of alcoholism and they are uniquely able to translate to the same social models for drug addicts,

Have you ever asked yourself the question why Chinese families in the North American community

[ Page 3031 ]

produce so few alcoholics? Have you asked yourself why the Chinese community produces so few drug addicts? The answer is that there's a solid family life associated culturally with the Chinese community. Have you noticed that European cultures that have a solid family life show as a cultural trait less numbers of alcoholics and less numbers of drug addicts? My good friend will understand when I say the Dutch, those dour people, have handled a succession, through an open society, of all kinds of drugs, including alcohol and heroin. They have had extravagant abuses. They even had a political party made up of people who were heavy users. Fortunately, we don't have that here.

The point that I'm trying to make, Mr. Attorney-General, is that there is a behavioural pattern that is common with people who abuse drugs, whether it be alcohol, heroin, methadone or aspirins. That behavioural pattern established itself around one word - "dependency" - and the word "dependency" relates to something that is a vacuum in that individual's life, A member of a Chinese family is dependent and has someone depending on him or her. There's a place in family life for that child or for that family member. As a consequence, the pattern of dependency through the use of artificial stimulants or supports, i.e. alcohol or drugs, is not abused,

It is us - boobus North Americanus - who have destroyed family life, who have abandoned cultural patterns, who have gone for a high-flying materialistic society as a tinsel approach to life; who are the ones who are prone to be victims to the abuse of alcohol and the abuse of drugs. We replaced the interdependency and the dependency of love and role in family life with the abuse of alcohol and drugs. There is a simple, clear-cut, scientifically researched correlation between the use of alcohol and drugs increasing and the diminished influence of that individual's family, early on in life. The destruction of family life in North America is the seedbed for the use and abuse of alcohol and the use and abuse of narcotic-addictive drugs, For the Attorney-General to suggest that, when I'm offering as an experiment, an appeal through the Attorney-General, as he appealed to the national level.... Let us experiment internationally with the same medical approach that we've tried, with some success with chronic alcoholics, Let us register some addicts who are willing to participate in the programme. Don't open the doors to everybody and say: "Okay, kids, come on in. Get a fix and get high." I'm saying experiment, Mr. Attorney-General, recognizing the social factors and the economic consequences of what we're presently into. Take the base that we both agree on - we don't know the answers - and let us break new ground by experiments. If it's a failure, abandon it. But don't sit pat and say: "Well, we can't try it."

That's the mistake I'm talking about.

I repeat, in conclusion: it's too simple to abandon the heroin problem as if it's something unique. It is exactly the same psychologically as alcoholism. But the state condones alcoholism because it's in the booze trade itself. So when you come back to me and say, "we can't have maintenance programmes, " I say the state encourages maintenance programmes of alcohol use as part of our social structure. "Two cocktails before supper and eat heartily, " is part of the alcohol-maintenance programme in North America.

MR. LAUK: I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for a very knowledgeable and worthwhile description of the heroin problem worldwide and, in particular, in British Columbia. I made a speech in the spring session of 1973 about the heroin addiction problem; it was partly my revulsion at society's answer to that problem that interested me in a political life. Nevertheless, the speech went unheard as all those kinds of speeches - we know, as politicians - usually do.

The problem still exists and we seem incapable -we're almost semantic stutterers - when it comes to heroin addiction, There is a contagion and there is a problem with the peer-group influence about the use of heroin, but I think the Leader of the Opposition certainly came to the basics on it. I noticed, peculiarly, that when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, the Attorney-General was nervous and started to walk around. I don't think he's trying to reject the answer - he's just got information overload. I think some of the information which he's got is alarmingly incorrect. I spoke earlier this afternoon assuming that the Attorney-General knew what I was talking about. He acted, in response, as if he did, Then, when he responded to the Leader of the Opposition, it suddenly occurred to me that he has no idea what heroin addiction is all about -absolutely none! That reminds me of someone who told me that he didn't have much experience in the courtrooms of the province. I suppose, being more delighted with trusts and wills and conveyances and large developments....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on vote 62 which is to do with corrections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Gooey, gooey, gooey,

MR. LAUK: Don't feel offended, there's good money in it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Gooey, gooey, gooey. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I hope that "gooey,

[ Page 3032 ]

gooey, gooey" isn't the level of maturity of the Attorney-General's department,

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's what your speech sounds like,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, hon. member, I haven't recognized the Attorney-General and I have recognized the first member for Vancouver Centre, if you'd like to continue on vote 62.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Well, anyway, the Attorney-General referred to the British experiment as being a failure. That's news to the Home Office in Britain. I would suggest you read their Home Office reports that appear annually on the heroin maintenance programme in that country. The 1974,1975 and 1976 reports indicated a continuous diminishing of the crime rate related to heroin addition and dramatic decreases right after the heroin maintenance programme - dramatic by several of 10 percentage points year after year, until it is now virtually minimal. This is in a province where the total cost to the province is a billion dollars per year for heroin, most of that being loss of personal property through theft, robbery and so on to maintain heroin habits at high costs that would not be there if there was a heroin maintenance programme.

Read the reports. Is that a failure? Do you call that a failure? Did you expect that overnight there would be no heroin addiction in Britain? He hasn't read the Home Office reports.

The crime-related thing is the most significant thing in Britain. But also significant is that the number of heroin addicts has been maintained and some areas diminished. Here it's epidemic. That's a failure? The Attorney-General calls that a failure. What more does he want - to continue this insanity? I sympathize with the Attorney-General because we sat in office with the same frustrations. I'm just wondering when we're going to find our little spot of sanity someplace and solve the problem.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, on the subject of drug addition and all the associated problems, I'd like to just confirm the figures with the minister as to the percentage of persons in our institutions who are in with drug-related crimes. I understand it's around 70 per cent, but I'd like to get the figures as of to date, and again, as I did with another question another day, compare it with, let us say, a year ago.

We've had some evidence that the intensive efforts of CLEU have resulted in some substantial arrests of drug traffickers, and there seems to be some evidence to indicate that CLEU is succeeding in getting a little higher up in the tree of the whole miserable drug trafficking business. Again, I would like the minister to tell us to what degree CLEU seems to have enhanced the success in both the number of arrests and the apparent level in the hierarchy of the individuals who have been intercepted in their pursuit of that particular illegal practice.

I've listened with some interest as a physician who at one time was quite partial to the idea of heroin maintenance. But I hope that as one grows older one also grows wiser . . .

MR. LAUK: More confused.

MR. WALLACE: ... or as the member for Vancouver Centre says, more confused. I hope that isn't the case. One grows more experienced, perhaps, in a wider exposure to the problem.

But the comments made by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Barrett) regarding methadone maintenance is something that I would agree with. Many of the addicts that I've spoken to, even not too long ago on an open-line television programme, made it quite plain that really methadone maintenance, while it may be slightly better than being hooked on heroin, is such. . . . A marginal second-best, I suppose, would be one way to describe it. I think it is a very inadequate and, in the long run, not a very successful way in which to deal with the established addict.

We could talk, Mr. Chairman, at great length about the problems that arise in corrections when CLEU, for example, succeeds in arresting more and more persons involved in the drug business. They have to be housed in our correctional institutions, with all the attendant problems which the minister and the deputy minister know only too well. I suppose as recently as yesterday we had an example of the correctional problem in Saskatchewan where order broke down within the jail. There was a seizure of guards. Another consequence was overdoses of drugs to which the prisoners got access when the riot broke out.

In some respects, society wants our system to be more effective in locating and arresting the offenders in the abuse of drugs and the trafficking of drugs, but it just creates that additional problem when these people who are guilty have to be restrained for many years within our correctional facilities.

When talking about corrections, Mr. Chairman -and I realize that the penitentiary at New Westminster is a federal jail - but I think that....

MR. COCKE: Do you like it? How would you like it in Oak Bay?

MR. WALLACE: No, Mr. Member for New Westminster. It's a very human and natural fact that no community would want to have to locate a facility of that nature in their particular area of residence.

[ Page 3033 ]

I'm wondering if the minister could tell us to what degree he is in communication, or will be in communication, with the federal authorities as a result of the report on penitentiaries which has just been brought forward by the all-party committee in the federal House.

The riot in the B.C. Penitentiary brought to everyone's attention, in the most dramatic way, the fact that the conditions under which many of these prisoners are housed can do little else but lead to that kind of breakdown of order and control within the penitentiary. I wonder if, both in regard to the B.C., Pen and, even more responsibly so, in regard to Oakalla, the minister can tell us what plans there are, first of all, in conjunction with the federal authorities to pursue the findings of that report and, secondly, what is the date - if any - by which Oakalla is finally to be replaced?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I can't give you the date.

MR. WALLACE: Well, perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the minister can't give us a date, but can he give the House, at long last, some kind of timeframe within which the necessary changes are to be made? It's quite obvious to anyone who's sat in this House for a number of years that there are three particular jails that we keep discussing year after year after year, They are: the B.C. Pen, Oakalla, and Wilkinson Road.

We've had escapes from Wilkinson Road jail at regular intervals, which caused great distress to people living nearby because Wilkinson Road jail is in a residential area. I've got to be fair, Mr. Chairman, I want to report to the House, although this is my annual Wilkinson Road jail speech, that one tremendous improvement has been implemented and that is in relation to the new kitchen and eating facilities that have been created at Wilkinson Road jail.

The former kitchen, as I've said to this House many times, was unbelievably crude and unhygienic. There were the most broken-down tiles on the floor and the most ancient equipment that would do justice to any museum that cares to apply to acquire it. But at least this Attorney-General should get the credit if he had anything to do with the implementation of the new kitchen. I know that the staff and the inmates at Wilkinson Road jail are appreciative that at least that part of the improvement has been brought about.

I understand that the situation in Oakalla is little different from what it has been all the years we've talked about it in the House, Would the minister give us some kind of outline of the planning of his department? If he can't tell us when it will be replaced, are there some estimated figures both as to how long it will be and what the cost is likely to be in the replacement?

The other point that the Leader of the Opposition took exception to was the idea of the all-party federal committee which reported a recommendation that drug-oriented or drug-addicted prisoners should perhaps be housed in a separate type of correctional facility. I'm not sure that that isn't such a bad idea and I wonder again if the minister has any plans in that general direction. If so, to what degree is some real attempt at medical... ? I was about to say rehabilitation, and I know that the percentage rate of rehabilitation is small, but part of our problem, as with megavitamins, is that we don't always embark upon research before we start trying to come up with solutions.

I'm wondering, since the province is stuck with the responsibility - whether it likes it or not - of housing, feeding and looking after the well-being of prisoners who are in prison because of drug addiction and related offences, whether the minister has any plans at long last to try to carry out some kind of supervised medical research. That would obviously be easier to do within some separate kind of facility where the only persons there are there because of their drug-related problems.

The other area which I think I would like to ask a question on, Mr. Chairman - which the minister may care to answer - relates to the fact that we've had reports from CLEU which delineate many of the areas within which it is easy for individuals to become involved in crime - paying back enormous loans or being addicted to drugs or whatever. Gambling also has a role in that regard in that many people wind up in our correctional institutes because of the problems that arise from their gambling.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, the member on my left suggests that the stock markets should also come within my category. I suppose if somebody wants to gamble on the stock market, that's fine. But there are many ways in which people wind up in our correctional facilities because of the crime associated with gambling. I know that my personal comment recently, to the effect that maybe the government, in conjunction with the city of Victoria, should look at the prospect of a gambling casino, has drawn a remarkable amount of silence from the government. I wonder if the minister would care to spell out the government position on such a concept as a gambling casino, or would it just be contributing more and more to the need for more jails and more corrections and more rehabilitative facilities? Now if that's the government policy and the minister's opinion, I think it would be useful in this debate for him to spell it out.

I understand that the previous government was already looking at the concept of a gambling casino in

[ Page 3034 ]

an established nightclub in Vancouver. I wonder if the minister is aware of that; whether, in fact, any report was ever made to the former government on that subject; and indeed, whether the present government has any present or future intentions of pursuing that particular project.

The last point I'd like to make in relation to corrections, Mr. Chairman, is the degree to which the minister has plans to upgrade both the training and the various working conditions which would enable the system to attract as far as possible a more suitable type of person to work in. our institutions. Again, although the federal accord relates only to federal institutions, I think the principle applies to all institutions. Much of the problem relates to the small percentage of staff who for whatever motives manipulates the system within the jails. I think that's being particularly clearly demonstrated at the federal level.

It seems that time and time again, Mr. Chairman, members in this House and many people in the criminal justice system confirm the need for higher standards of training and more attractive working conditions in order to try and obtain persons of highest calibre who will work as guards and other staff members in our jails. I wonder if the minister has got any specific programme to set about trying to upgrade and enhance both the efficiency and the attractive.... Well, I can't call the job attractive -but to diminish the negative factors which make it difficult to obtain staff.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to your questions, sir, I'd like to mention some of the programmes to you, These are the figures for 1976. The community service order programmes, insofar as juveniles were concerned, were 1,174; and adults, 998. That was roughly a 261 per cent increase over 1975. It's a very dramatic increase and I'm most impressed by it. We also gave the impaired drivers' courses at 33 locations. I know the member will be interested in this next statistic - this deals with the temporary absence programme. Short term there were 9,078 granted, with a success ratio of 99 per cent.

Education: 169 granted; a success ratio of 83 per cent. Employment: 1,254 granted, with a success ratio of 86 per cent. Medical: 94 granted, with a 100 per cent success.

Now talking about the employment earnings, as I said, 1,254 people received temporary absence with a success ratio of 86 per cent. They earned $940,000, which was twice as much as they earned in 1975.

Of those dollars, approximately $457,000 was put into restitution, $25,000 to fines, $51,000 to room and board and $152,000 to family maintenance - it shows this programme is just an excellent one -$72,000 to payment of debts, and payment of income tax was $170,000. Of the total amount here, roughly 12,000 people receive the temporary-absence programme. Of that 12,000 people, I'd say there is a dramatic failure situation of 28 people. So they're very good odds; they're very good. I'm not saying fine, 28 is a figure that we'd like to see again, but if 12,000 people are on a programme such as this and there are just 28 people who are constituting a gross failure, it's not too bad.

Dealing with Oakalla very, very quickly, I've really talked an awful lot about Oakalla. Maybe the hon. member didn't hear it or was otherwise occupied in different business, but the phase-out is underway. We are establishing a 150-bed remand facility in Vancouver. Remand is the main problem out there; well, it's one of the major problems. We're establishing a second 75-bed remand facility in the lower mainland.

The staffing arrangements for Oakalla were in the vicinity of 567 people. That's the capacity that we're staffed to care for. But over the past one and a half years, we've had to accommodate about 650 to 700 inmates. This involved double-decking of people, an additional overtime load on the staff and created a number of tensions. Of course, when the prison riots and difficulties occasioned at the B.C. Penitentiary, Oakalla was called upon to carry the load there for a period of time.

But you'll be pleased to hear that according to latest figures I've received the overall population is stabilizing at around 525 to 550 to 575 - there's a fluctuation rate in there. This is a result of the drop of the number of remands, much more efficient classification than heretofore, and because the camps now are able to take care of additional types of inmates. The community sentencing options are also on the increase, including the community correctional centres and the community supervisor programmes.

Now the lessening of the inmate population at Oakalla has resulted in the reduction of 100 beds by returning to a single-bed cell arrangement from the double-bed cell arrangement. The effect is to reduce the capacity in approximately five of the tiers by about one-half. So while not manned, this reduction will enable us to have a safety bed factor of about 100 beds in the event of emergency.

Also I should mention to you that negotiations are underway between the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and a committee which are going to deal forthwith with some of the Oakalla acreage not presently required for correctional purposes. It's taken about 25 years, but I'd say, at long last, light is beginning to show at the end of the tunnel and I'm very glad of that.

You talked about Wilkinson: you are aware of the kitchen situation and Wilkinson is a priority. I can't give you a date or a dollar figure today, but I can tell you it is a priority.

[ Page 3035 ]

You talked about gambling. I think that question has been responded to by myself before in the press. It was requested in other areas. There was one mayor of a municipality who wished to develop a casino or a gambling situation, and then somebody suggested the same thing should be done in Victoria. It's not government policy, no.

MR. WALLACE: Was it ever with the former administration?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I've no idea.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, I still recognize the Attorney-General, if he would like to continue.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You asked me: was it the policy of the former administration? I don't know. Ask them; I haven't the foggiest idea.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I have some short remarks to make, but because of the hour I'd move that. . . .

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, if they're very short, let's do them now and get them over with.

AN HON. MEMBER: About three minutes.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, that's pretty short.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, go on, let 'er go.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, in a nutshell then: a constituent of mine who, I believe, was the victim of circumstances, was charged with embezzlement - and I'd like to see this vote get through, too - as a result of an effort of the credit union to recover funds that had been lost over thousands of years, and was subsequently sentenced and served time in Oakalla prison.

During this time, because of the fact that he was in his middle 60s, because he had a young son who needed parental guidance, because. . . . Without reflecting on the decision of the court, I certainly didn't see him as a danger to the community. Indeed, today I count him as a very good friend.

I made efforts to seek his parole after he had served the amount of his sentence of six months and was entitled to do so. Now here he was in a provincial prison on, I think, a federal charge against the Criminal Code. At any rate, he was under the National Parole Board, Through an administrative ball-up it took some three extra months to get this man, who had to be kept in the Oakalla hospital because his health was so poor, and his age. . . . The fact was that he was given the run of the place and was treated very well by everyone.

What is the cost of keeping a person in a hospital bed in a normal hospital? Certainly in a security prison, what is the cost of a hospital bed in Oakalla? You know, I would estimate that at $100 a day, we wasted some $9,000 keeping this absolutely harmless person - who, many people have since confided to me, should have just been confined to some kind of house arrest or. . . . I understand there are certain programmes where he could have.... We might have even saved the whole nine months and maybe $27,000 in costs of keeping this man under heavy security.

I would like to bring to the Attorney-General's department the fact that it would appear that an oversight on the behalf of the National Parole Board has cost the people of British Columbia and your corrections service a great deal of money. So that is what I would like to bring to your attention.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's a very good point and we're aware of it. Officials in the ministry are aware of it and they are trying to track it down.

In dealing with your first question, I gather we're expecting amendments to federal legislation to improve this system.

MS, BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) was trying to get onto his feet and, as a matter of courtesy, I was allowing it. I thought you were going to recognize the time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I was going to call another vote.

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry. I've been waiting patiently all afternoon.

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't been here all afternoon.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.