[ Page 5475 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Discharge of Bill 65. Mr. King –– 5475

Post beetle infestation. Mr. Macdonald –– 5475

Effectiveness of Human Rights Code. Mr. Gibson –– 5476

PCB spill on Porpoise Harbour. Mr. Lea –– 5476

Details on Hydro borrowings. Mr. Wallace –– 5476

Trucking regulations. Mr. Lockstead –– 5478

Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill M 219) Mr. Gibson.

Introduction and first reading –– 5478

Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act (Bill 82) Committee stage.

On section 83.

Mrs. Dailly –– 5478

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5478

Mr. Cocke –– 5479

Mr. Gibson –– 5479

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5479

Mrs. Dailly –– 5481

Division on section 83 –– 5481

On section 86.

Mr. Cocke –– 5482

Division on third reading –– 5482

Land Titles Act (Bill 62) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 5482

Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Bill 64) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 5484

Execution Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 60) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 5484

Ministerial Titles Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 67) Second reading

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 5484

Ministerial Titles Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 67) Committee stage

Report and third reading –– 5485

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 91) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 5485

Mr. Cocke –– 5485

Mr. Gibson –– 5487

Mr. Macdonald –– 5488

Mr. Wallace –– 5489

Division on second reading –– 5491

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 91) . Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. Gibson –– 5491

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 5492

Mr. Macdonald –– 5492

Mr. Gibson –– 5493

Mr. Macdonald –– 5493

Mr. Barrett –– 5494

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 5494

Mr. Gibson –– 5494

Mr. Macdonald –– 5494

Mr. Barrett –– 5495

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 5497

Mr. Gibson –– 5498

Mr. Wallace –– 5498

Mr. Lauk –– 5499

Mr. Barnes –– 5500

Division on section 2 –– 5503

On section 9.

Mr. Lockstead –– 5503

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 5503

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I regret today that I have an announcement to make to the House of the passing of a member of the Legislature who was elected in a by-election but never did sit in this House. Frank Greenwood was elected on July 15,1963, as the Social Credit member for Revelstoke riding in a by-election. A general election was called shortly afterwards and Mr. Greenwood never did sit in the House, but I know that the House would pay tribute to Frank Greenwood, who offered his name for public service and was respected highly in his community. I would ask all members if they will join with me in expressing sympathy to his family. Regrets and sympathy will go forward from the cabinet and from this Legislature.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): On behalf of the New Democratic Party I certainly join in expressing our regrets to Mr. Greenwood's family. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that I knew Frank Greenwood very well, having worked in the riding of Columbia River, where he was elected, and being a fellow railroader, quite frankly, at that time. So I certainly do hope that the Provincial Secretary will include the official opposition in the expressions of regrets to the family.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): This afternoon in the Speaker's gallery is a very fine group from BCIT here to observe the proceedings this afternoon. They are led by Mr. Dick Melville and Dale Michaels and, from the students' group, John Scott and Allan Walker. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I would like the House to welcome the nine cabinet ministers who are available for question period this afternoon.

Oral questions.

DISCHARGE OF BILL 65

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, Bill 65 was introduced in the Legislature on June 22. 1 would like to direct my question to the Provincial Secretary, in the absence of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , and ask the Provincial Secretary if, in light of the apparent reluctance of the government to call this bill, we can anticipate that this bill will be discharged.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in response to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, I think that all members of the House can be assured that everything on the order paper will be discharged. The question should rightly be put before

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, may I please correct the statement that was just made -that the business on the order paper will be discharged by this House one of these days? The House Leader should rightly be asked that question.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): He's not here.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the House Leader has been in touch with the Whips and they have the order of business before them for today.

POST BEETLE INFESTATION

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Forests: is the minister aware that there are shipments of moulding coming from Colombia to Victoria by container ship -particularly to Van-Isle Moulding & Millwork Ltd. -that are heavily infested with post beetles? It's a serious matter because the shipments contain millions of these bugs - they are almost eaten up. Then the moulding is shipped across Canada. It could get into woodlands and become a very serious infestation. Is the minister aware of that?

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Mr. Speaker, this matter was brought to my attention a couple of weeks ago, as a matter of fact, by a member of the International Woodworkers of America. I understand the matter had been referred to the federal forest service and they had looked into the matter. I have asked them for a report on what their findings were.

MR. MACDONALD: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I know the federal government may have some jurisdiction, but we have here your own department and the Ministry of the Environment. Is the minister not taking prompt action in terms of spraying or curtailing those shipments, if necessary? It could be a very serious matter. It's certainly more serious than the piranhas, which would freeze to death in our rivers. This is a serious matter.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the federal foresters did spray the containers that were known to be infested with these beetles, and are

[ Page 5476 ]

aware of which country they come from. We will be co-operating with them to make sure that these insects do not create a problem in British Columbia.

EFFECTIVENESS OF

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour in his responsibility for the human rights branch. I would ask the minister if he has had any consultation with any officials of ICBC before they made the decision to appeal last week's supreme court decision that ICBC was indeed subject to the Human Rights Code.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): No, Mr. Speaker. There was no consultation whatsoever with ICBC.

MR. GIBSON: Supplementary. In bringing down that particular decision, Mr. Justice Meredith stated that if ICBC had won the case, it would have had the effect of emasculating the Human Rights Code. Now, of course, ICBC has appealed. Will the minister state unequivocally that he'll work in any way possible to protect the integrity of the Human Rights Code in this particular case?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the question of representation on the appeal is under consideration at this very moment.

MR. GIBSON: M r. Speaker, a further supplementary in the same general area. On June 10, Mr. Justice Branca made a ruling in favour of The Vancouver Sun being allowed to discriminate against an organization known as GATE. Is the minister aware that this decision is being used as a precedent for employers to discriminate in certain circumstances against handicapped people with physical disabilities? Many people in the field of human rights believe this will seriously undermine that section of the Act relating to unreasonable discrimination. I believe the minister still has a couple of weeks left to authorize an appeal against that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. Will the minister take steps to initiate such an appeal?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm confused by the number of questions the member asked. In answer to his first question, no, I'm not aware that employers in the province are using the decision as a basis for discrimination against the handicapped. It would be my view that if such is the case, it indicates a serious misunderstanding of that particular decision.

Secondly, on the question of joining in the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the matter is before the Attorney-General's department for an opinion as to the appropriateness of the Human Rights Commission being a party. It was not a party in the very beginning of these proceedings; it was not a party before the court of appeal. The legislation itself is not under challenge. Therefore I'm awaiting an opinion from the Attorney-General with respect to whether or not we should or are permitted to be a party to the appeal.

MR. GIBSON: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister not agree that while the legislation itself may not be under challenge, the impact and extent of the legislation turns very much on the decision in this particular case, and it therefore should be appealed?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's one of the factors that has to be taken into account in respect of joining in the appeal. We could appeal the Supreme Court of Canada, or ask to be a party on two grounds: one, that there was a question raised as to the vires of the legislation itself; the other, as to whether or not the decision indicates a matter of such substantial public interest as to demand the intervention of the government in the appeal. That is one of the things we're waiting to hear from the A-G's ministry about.

PCB SPILL ON PORPOISE HARBOUR

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): This is a question to the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker. A number of weeks ago there was a spill of PCB - a chemical compound - into Porpoise Harbour near Prince Rupert from the mill at Watson Island owned by Canadian Cellulose. I would like to have the minister report to the House, if he will, on the clean-up operations that are taking place around that PCB spill. It's my information that that spill, or the product of that spill, is lying in a heavy mass at the bottom of Porpoise Harbour. It is starting to escape and there's concern. There's also concern that the Pollution Control Board of British Columbia is not doing all that it could to urge Canadian Cellulose, and other agencies, to clean it up. I wonder if the minister has first-hand knowledge of the story there or whether he can bring it back to the House.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to examine the questions when the Blues are available and respond to it in some detail as the information is available as soon as possible.

DETAILS ON HYDRO BORROWINGS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, my

[ Page 5477 ]

question is to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. In light of the government's decision to give conditional approval to the building of the Revelstoke Dam, in view of the steadily increasing cost of borrowing, and the borrowing which presumably will be required for the Revelstoke Dam project, can the minister tell the House if any further increase in electricity rates and service charges is likely to be implemented before the end of the fiscal year, March 31,1978?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I might say to the hon. member that interest rates, while high, are not as high as those which were in effect when the previous government was borrowing OD behalf of B.C. Hydro. As to power rate increases for the future, I can't comment at this time.

MR. WALLACE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the approximate cost of the Revelstoke Dam has been stated to be $1 billion. I would like to know if the minister can tell us what portion of the $650 million authorization that this House passed through Bill 4 in March of this year is to be allocated to the early funding of the capital expenditures on the Revelstoke Dam. How much of the $650 million is involved in the Revelstoke Dam?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, a relatively small percentage. Current borrowings, of course, are needed to carry out current construction programmes. As the hon. member knows, there are projects being completed in the East Kootenay area. There are transmission lines, distribution connections, and so on, also being installed throughout the province, including those transmitting and distributing natural gas. Only a small part of the current borrowings would be going into Revelstoke, principally those involved in the early engineering phases. The main expenditures on Revelstoke are two or three years in the future and hence the main borrowings will also be two or three years in the future for that purpose.

MR. WALLACE: On another supplementary, could the minister tell us, then, regardless of where the capital spending will be this year, by what percentage amount capital borrowing will increase in this fiscal year as compared to the last fiscal year?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, my impression is that the capital spending this year will be roughly the same as last year, but I will get more precise information for the hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the minister related to the question of borrowing. Will there be any restriction on Hydro in terms of access to funds, either from Eurodollars or petrodollars?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I expect, Mr. Speaker, that Hydro will continue to borrow its mortgage money, if I can refer to it in those terms, in traditional markets: first Canada, then the United States and possibly in western Europe.

MR. BARRETT: Will they have access on a bargaining basis, in terms of shopping for mortgage funds, to Eurodollars and petrodollars if the mortgage rate is a fair rate?

HON. MR. DAVIS: In a very general way, I suppose, the answer is yes. They won't be prevented from shopping around, but we have to be very concerned about the strings attached to loans from those sources.

MR. BARRETT: On all conventional loans, the matter of strings attached is the same. If they are the same as conventional loans, the minister is saying yes. If they're the same as conventional loans, they'll borrow Eurodollars or petrodollars if they have the same mortgage conditions as the traditional markets. Is that correct?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I think B.C. Hydro, being a public utility, having to be concerned with its image as a circumspect spender of large amounts of money, will have to borrow from conventional sources. If conventional loans are available from conventional sources, that's where they'll get their money.

MR. BARRETT: Since the federal government took the position some years ago that Eurodollars and petrodollars are conventional sources, and has advised Canadian borrowers and Crown corporations to borrow on a conventional basis from those two sources, is the minister saying Hydro is free to make that choice if it is competitive and conventional in terms of the mortgage?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I would expect Hydro to borrow money at the lowest possible interest rates -in other words, competitive - and from sources that can produce that money reliably.

MR. BARRETT: The government has announced that it will now borrow Arab money. Is that a change in policy? That's what petrodollars are. You don't even know what You're talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: We know what you're after. You're trying to cover your tracks.

[ Page 5478 ]

TRUCKING REGULATIONS

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): To the same minister on a different topic: is the minister aware that illegal so-called truckers are stealing about one-third of British Columbia's volume of business in the truckload category of traffic from legitimate operators because he has failed to insist that his department enforce its own regulations?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the alleged facts are untrue, and therefore the answer has to be no.

Introduction of bills.

SOCIAL SERVICES TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill M 219, Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1977, 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.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Committee again, Mr. Speaker, on Bill 82.

COLLEGES AND PROVINCIAL

INSTITUTES ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 82; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 83.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Last evening we adjourned debate on this very, very controversial section 83. Again, may I repeat, it is a very controversial bill.

Now the Minister has had time to sleep on this, hopefully, and to give it a good second look. He's very much aware of all the arguments that have been put forward to him by the opposition - the Liberal, Conservative and the official opposition - plus, of course, those who are most vitally involved in this whole matter of removing the B.C. Institute of Technology from its own status and placing it in with the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act.

I do hope that the minister listened carefully to the points that were made last night - I don't intend to go over them. I hope we won't have to go over them again, Mr. Chairman, because we're simply going to ask the minister if he has given due consideration to deleting anything to do with the B.C. Institute of Technology from this Act. In other words, will he delete references to BCIT from section 83 and anywhere else applicable?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): I've had the opportunity to reflect carefully on the arguments which the members raised last night in committee, considering the various likely outcomes of the courses of action recommended by the members opposite. I have reached the conclusion that to follow their advice would be the worst possible course for BCIT.

MR. WALLACE: Thanks a lot.

HON. MR. McGEER: Accordingly, the section will stand. I would remind the members that the ministry does have the option of not declaring that particular Section 1f it would indeed appear as though their course of action would be in the interests of BCIT. But in a much more likely course of events - that it would be contrary to the interests of BCIT - that option would not be available.

As I've stated before, I think members have to recognize that the mainstream of educational funding is shifting as we give independent corporate status to the various colleges and institutions. That's where the funding will go, and all of the councils that will have responsibilities under this Act will be rendering reports to the ministry, which will be duly tabled in this House and which, of course, will be the cause of considerable scrutiny by the opposition. The Occupational Training Council - the academic council - will be acting, as the Universities Council does now, as intermediary between the interests of each of these institutions and the interests of the taxpayer that have to be weighed.

In the event that the available tax moneys for education are not adequate to meet completely the requests of the councils, properly vetted, then, of course, it's a legitimate matter for public debate, just as is the difference which sometimes occurs with the Universities Council on a request passed on from the universities about the availability of funds from within the ministry.

Nobody becomes a more passionate advocate for any particular interest group in British Columbia than the members opposite. I know this very well, because I sat opposite for a great many more years than most of the members who now occupy those benches. The people in the future who will be taking up with great gusto the case of the councils as they make their requests to the ministry will be the same opposition members who now plead to have BCIT removed from this particular legislation. But if we can avoid it we don't want to create a situation where all other institutions in British Columbia are funded in this manner, with the considerable public pressures that will result from that - one institution, as an orphan,

[ Page 5479 ]

competing for whatever ministry funds are left over, with the needs of the councils being met as best as possible.

We would also regret a situation where it would be every institution in British Columbia against BCIT -those institutions seeking their funds through the medium of the councils and one institution not doing so. So faced with the inevitable pressures that would accrue from this kind of dynamic situation ... and, of course, it doesn't refer just to myself as minister, because this Act, I'm sure, will carry on for a considerable period of time. But you would merely have a situation where ministry officials would respond as ministry officials always do to the competing pressures, and where ministers would respond, and where the institution that was faced with the combined opposition of all other institutions and all councils in British Columbia would be in an extremely difficult position in attempting to fend for itself. Therefore we think the advisable course is for the ministry to have the option to include BCIT in the mainstream.

Now as I've said, Mr. Chairman, the history of BCIT has been a productive one. We certainly think BCIT will have a very easy time in establishing its credentials before a committee. For that reason, it should prosper in fine style. The alternative course is filled with political obstacles. Therefore we consider that this particular section, with the option left to the ministry to make this change at the most opportune time for BCIT, is the course of action most in their interests.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I know we've all been hours and hours on this particular bill, Bill 82. We've been hours on this particular section 83. We've debated to some extent the question of BCIT being taken out under section 9 as well. It has been subject to a lot of discussion. But the minister, after having an evening and a night to think it over, comes in with the most specious arguments.

He talks first about the interest of the taxpayer. That's what we're all here about. If that minister is trying to hint wanton waste on behalf of BCIT as his excuse for including them in this Act, I suggest that he's doing the wrong thing, and he is impugning incorrectly a charge against BCIT that does not bear any kind of credibility whatsoever.

The minister, Mr. Chairman, is using a false excuse for putting them in. He said the opposition members are those who are pleading. Yes, we're the only people who can plead on this floor. But virtually every person connected with education is in the first place suggesting that this bill is bad. Secondly, BCIT people from top to bottom are saying: "Keep us out of this particular piece of legislation, which, in fact, we feel will do us no good whatsoever."

So, Mr. Chairman, those were the kinds of questions; those are the kinds of charges that were made. Mr. Chairman, just one thing and one thing only: the minute this bill is proclaimed and BCIT is in this new umbrella legislation, no longer can they have faculty representation on their boards; no longer can they have student representation on their boards; no longer can they have that close touch with people who are very well informed on education and education matters. No, Mr. Chairman. That's all being denied them under this legislation.

That's why we asked that they be excused. That's one of our major reasons why we felt that the bill should have been taken back and rediscovered, because they haven't discovered the basic principles that they set out to discover. When the task forces moved around this province, the messages they brought back were not the messages that we find in this bill today, and particularly the message in this section.

The minister then goes on to suggest that this orphan would be competing for funds and mentions the great strength of numbers that would be opposing this orphan competing for funds. If that minister has no more strength than to let a situation like that develop, Mr. Chairman, he's not worthy of being called minister. He would, in fact, permit an orphan status for BCIT, which has built a status in this province that's been superb and a respect in the whole provincial community that's been superb. Then the minister stands up and suggests that BCIT could become an orphan. It's a specious argument, Mr. Chairman. However, the minister has obviously made a final decision. As I say, we've carried on this debate hour after hour after hour. All I can suggest to the minister is that I'm certainly going to vote against this section, as I voted against most sections in this bill. I'm very, very disappointed in the minister today.

MR. GIBSON: With all of the problems and the reforms needed in this province, I think one of the mottoes of this Legislature ought to be: "Let well enough alone when things are going well."

I want to just try again with the minister. Does the minister not think that BCIT is currently doing a good job of educating young people in the areas for which it is responsible? What fault does the minister find with BCIT as it's currently constituted?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I think the member fails to recognize that the bill before the House will greatly change the educational system for the colleges and institutes. Therefore everybody will need to step into the future. We think BCIT has done very well. That's why we don't wish to see it left behind.

Mr. Chairman, I can reiterate the arguments that I have already made, but I have found in the past that it does little good to repeat and repeat and repeat. I

[ Page 5480 ]

don't think anything more can be added. I suggest we have a division on this section.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister says we have to step along into the future with the bill, and this bill may be part of our future in this province. But is it going to be good for BCIT? The minister suggests it will. I want to know how.

BCIT will be subject in its funding - I spoke on this yesterday - as a naturally capital-intensive institution just about alone to a management council that will be overwhelmingly dominated by more conventional colleges that all have their own needs and all have a better understanding of college needs than they do of BCIT needs. As it stands with its individual Act, BCIT has as a right of access and a right to particular consideration based on its own unique attributes. Those unique attributes will be submerged as it is overwhelmed in this management council, and that's what I'm afraid of.

The minister said last night and has said again today that this is a proclamation section and that he doesn't propose to proclaim it until and when he is satisfied that it will be in the interests of BCIT to do so. I hope I'm not putting words into his mouth; I think that is more or less what he has said. I want to ask him what he is going to use as the litmus paper for the benefit of BCIT. Would he, for example, agree that a unanimous opinion of the existing council that BCIT should be left the way it is would be prima facie in convincing evidence of the interest and benefit of BCIT in this matter? Would he accept that as sufficient evidence to convince him that this section shouldn't be proclaimed?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be very foolish for anybody to be limited by the criteria that might be established on the spur of the moment by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano. That would hardly be a rational way in which to make a sound educational decision.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, however, that I do not share the trepidation that the member expresses with respect to the future of BCIT were it to be before a funding council. Contrary to the member's opinion, I think BCIT's record would speak very well, so they would have an easy time competing. But I can understand, perhaps, the member's concern that BCIT might not be able to. I don't share his fear; I have full confidence in BCIT. But apparently some of the members opposite do not.

I think, Mr. Chairman, the future will speak for the judgment of the Ministry of Education, which thinks so well of BCIT that it considers that it will succeed very favourably.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, might I also say with respect to the proclamation of this section that it's not simply a matter of funding. It's a matter of other ongoing procedures and ways of institutional governance that have been developed at the institute. For example, I was visited in my office this morning by two very fine young men who are leaders of the student body out there who are terribly concerned that once the BCIT Act is repealed, once this Section 1s proclaimed, their possibility of input into the governing procedure of that institution will be gone. And it has been working very well. Why, again, would the minister wish to disturb that? Let well enough alone, I say again.

I have another specific I want to ask him about under this transitional section which not only abolishes BCIT whenever it is proclaimed but also, on a date of proclamation, appeals....

HON. MR. McGEER: It doesn't abolish BCIT.

MR. GIBSON: It abolishes the BCIT Act. It abolishes the independence of that institution.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, it doesn't do that either. It's your paranoia; it's your lack of confidence in BCIT that keeps showing up.

MR. GIBSON: It has a seriously adverse effect on BCIT when it is proclaimed. The same section will abolish Part XI of the Public Schools Act. That will have some consequential impact on colleges currently organized under that section. I want to ask the minister in particular his plans after that proclamation for the several branches of the Vancouver Community College.

As the minister knows, there is the Langara. campus, there is the Vancouver Vocational Institute and there's the King Edward campus with its special programme division in English language and basic skill training and so on. Vancouver Community College, as I understand it, is organized from a point of view of faculty into two bargaining units. One of these is the Langara Faculty Association and the other is the Vocational Instructors Association. The number of faculty, I'm advised, ranges between 800 and 1,000, which is a bargaining unit of consequential size.

Upon implementation of this section the right to have two bargaining units disappears unless it's the intention of the minister to split BCC into a college and an institute. Could I ask the minister, is it his plan to split it? Or does he plan, upon the proclamation of this particular section of the abolition of Part 11 of the Public Schools Act, that things will continue as they are, with the exception, of course, of the number of bargaining units?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the member is quite right about the number of bargaining units. Each institution will have only one for its

[ Page 5481 ]

professional employees. I think this is certainly a matter for consultation between the administration and BCC. It might well be that it would be better divided, but we'd certainly consider very favourably their wishes in this respect.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to hear that assurance of consultation. I wonder if the minister could tell us a little bit about the mechanics of such consultation. How and by whom will it be implemented? This applies not only to BCC but to all the colleges, and very much to BCIT, and so on.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, as soon as the bill has been passed ministry officials will be in the field consulting with all of the institutions that will be affected by this piece of legislation. Over the course of the ensuing months there will be undoubtedly many visits by ministry officials to each of the institutions. That, of course, would include BCC, but until the pleasure of the Legislature is known with respect to this bill, the ministry officials have appropriately been staying close to home -some right here - to help the Legislature consult about the meaning of the various sections. I expect we may get favourable consideration even this afternoon. Perhaps that's too much to hope for. In any event, as soon as the Legislature has done its work with this bill then the ministry will commence theirs with the colleges.

MR. GIBSON: I've just one further question on this section, Mr. Chairman. The minister has indicated that there will be a goodly period set aside for consultation. Could he give us some approximate date as to when - and I'm not talking about the BCIT section, I'm talking about Part 11 of the Public Schools Act right now - this might be proclaimed? Is he looking at least a year ahead or six months ahead, or something like that? I'm very anxious there should be this time taken for this kind of planning.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, we certainly plan to take adequate time to prepare the ground well. We're not going to dally, but we are going to spend considerable time in in-depth consultation. It won't be possible to set up the various councils overnight. Even when they are set up, institutions will be declared independent corporations one by one. It isn't as if the thing is not going to exist one day and then exist in its entirety the next. We'll be feeling our way a little bit.

I hope by the time the House meets again, presuming we ever finish this session, that we'll have some progress to report. I can't really give the member a timetable because we can't predict at this time how rapidly the groundwork can be prepared, I can tell you that the ministry will bend every effort to see that it's put in place as soon as possible, but we haven't set firm target dates that we would try and keep come hell or high water.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, as the minister has called for a division I think perhaps we should give it to him, because it's quite obvious that we could stay here for the next three or four months. He's not going to change his mind. The matter of consultation after the fact, though, I do think should go on the record, Mr. Chairman. This is the way that this minister operates. He's just announced that, after bringing in a bill which has met with great disagreement from all over the educational community. A bill in which obviously he did not consult ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're discussing a section.

MRS. DAILLY: ... and bringing in the repeal of the BCIT Act. I'd like to know whom he consulted with. Whom did he consult with? Now lie says, however: "Don't worry, we're going to go out and consult now." After the Act is proclaimed and brought in, then lie will consult. I think it should go on the record that this is the way this Minister of Education operates. I think it's shameful, it's shocking and it's an arrogant way to handle your ministry. Mr. Chairman, we have nothing more to say on this.

Section 83 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 23

NAYS - 14

Mr. Cocke requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals Of the House.

Sections 84 and 85 approved.

[ Page 5482 ]

On section 86.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say just one word on the proclamation section of the bill. The minister has had, as he admits, really no consultation with those people directly or indirectly involved in education. He has read a few reports. He has decided not to accept those reports as being important enough to act upon. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the minister not proclaim this bill for at least a year or two and give himself an opportunity to be consulted with by those people directly and indirectly involved.

Section 86 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 82, Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act, reported complete with amendments.

Leave granted for a division to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. McGEER: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 82, Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 24

NAYS - 16

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 62, Mr. Speaker.

LAND TITLES ACT

HON. MR. GARDOM: In my introductory remarks, I would mention that which will relate also to Bill 64 and 60. As earlier indicated by myself publicly and to members of the House, it will not be the intention of the government to proceed further than my remarks today, and I'll be moving adjournment. I would like to specify why, and also inform the members of some of the high points that are contained in these three companion pieces of legislation.

The reason that we're taking this route, Mr. Speaker, is in order that those people who are interested in real property law and conveyancing practices in the province, as well as members of the House, will have a full opportunity to consider these three bills. I think the hon. members will recall that a similar procedure was followed in 1973 when the new Companies Act was introduced, and also last year by myself when the Societies Act was introduced. It was found to be a very helpful modus operandi.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that by way of background that has resulted in these amendments, I would mention that in the latter part of 1973 the revision of the Land Registry Act was discussed within the ministry and subsequently prioritized, and in 1974 it was placed into the legislative programme. An in-depth study resulted in a preliminary draft about a year later by Mr. Dicastri, who was the director of legal services and a former registrar or titles, together with the assistance of all of the registrars of title in the province - Messrs. Carlow, Groves, Hooper, Kennedy, Raven, Schooley and Sturch. Eventually subcommittees were formed to assist with the revision and there were extensive consultations with officials of the ministries of the Environment, Highways, Public Works and Municipal Affairs and Housing.

In June of last year, Mr. Speaker, these proposals were outlined and presented to the real property section of the Canadian Bar Association and also to some 22 separate bar associations in the province. There were a variety of meetings with notary groups, with representatives of the Corporation of Land Surveyors of B.C. and officials of the various ministries.

[ Page 5483 ]

So you can see that even to this point in time, Mr. Speaker, there has been an abundance of research and consultation. Once again, nevertheless, by virtue of the fact that so many people in the province are so greatly affected by our land laws, I'm proposing to follow the procedure that I stated at the outset.

On the first bill, Mr. Speaker, the Land Titles Act, I would say that this statute was really an offshoot of our first one in the province in 1860. This resulted from a sort of compilation of the Australian torrens system of land registration - the security of title. Then, following the union of the colonies in 1869, the Land Registry Ordinance of 1870 was enacted. But it wasn't until 1906 that the indefeasible principle was introduced in a practical manner. Even at that time it was left optional to an owner whether he would take an indefeasible title or content himself with the "owe absolute fee." The latter was only prima facie evidence of title and not conclusive.

Then the advantage of a true torrens system became evident after the 1906 Acts had been in operation, and in 1911 the Legislature went a step further and made provision for the gradually compulsory adoption of indefeasible title throughout the province. After 1906, Mr. Speaker, the next major revision was 1921. 1 would say that the 1921 Act has indeed stood well the test of time. But in order to consider computerization of the system, we also have to take a very careful look at the statutory vehicle under which it is to operate, and hence the reason for these three bills.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the cardinal principle of the torrens system is security of title and, anticipating the computerization of the land-title system, a provision is made for the creation of satellite offices which would be under the control and direction of the present registrars. What is envisaged is a terminal at a satellite office - say, for example, Surrey - having access to computer records in the New Westminster land titles office, which would permit both searches and registration. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, we would be able to end up with a procedure much like that which is now followed by the banks with their automatic savings account passbook system. The satellite office would have computer terminals to the parent office and microfilm records of all relevant documents deposited in the parent office. I think fast and direct service would be available on much more simple application, and obviously the satellite approach would provide an enhanced direct access to land titles offices for many, many more communities.

Considered in the bill is a compulsory form of transfer which is a step towards making dealings with land easier and would complement the proposed computerization. What is suggested is a compulsory single-page form of transfer to cut down on paper volume and eliminate a lot of redundancy. There would be a land titles survey fund which would provide compensation for certain areas and assist owners who have run into very, very extensive survey costs by virtue of having to have a survey extend beyond their own perimeters in order to determine exactly the information that they happen to require for themselves. The fund would be developed to assist those people who would suffer some misfortune and loss as the result of improper survey. That fund would be operated on a discretionary basis.

There is further provision to enable a saving of costs and a resealing of probate of small estates, and of the power to dispense with the resealing of a grant of probate made outside of the province where the estate within the province would not exceed $50,000. Efforts are going to be made to encourage other provinces to follow this particular amendment and enter into reciprocal legislation.

It's also proposed that tax certificates would be eliminated. This present requirement has been one, I think, of considerable annoyance to the public because of the delays or description error in obtaining tax certificates. It has also been of annoyance to the municipalities because of the continually rising costs of processing. It is suggested that every purchaser will now have to make his own enquiries of a municipality or taxing authority as to the state of a tax account. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, the requirement for a tax certificate for land outside a municipality was repealed several years ago.

It is also proposed to eliminate duplicate certificates of title. There are provisions within the Act to empower an individual who has the responsibility of administering an enactment to request a registrar to lodge a caveat to prevent improper dealings with titles resulting from apparent breaches of those enactments. There is a suggested new procedure dealing with the registration of judgments.

the proposal is that the judgment register, as it now stands, would be done away with and registration in a lands title office would be permitted only where a judgment debtor is the registered owner. There are approved protections for subpurchasers and court vesting orders where purchasers are unable to obtain transfers from the vendors. Damage claims would be available for those who happen to unreasonably have found caveats have been lodged against them. The method of Crown title to the dedication of highways is clarified. The Plans Cancellation Act and the Air Space Titles Act for convenience of reference would be included as part of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would therefore at this time move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

[ Page 5484 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 64, Mr. Speaker.

CONVEYANCING AND

LAW OF PROPERTY ACT

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I will be following the same procedure, but I would like to acknowledge the very valuable contribution of Mr. A.J.F. Johnson, who is an independent consultant. Prior to moving adjournment, I would say that some of the highlights in this bill are that the access to court would be much easier than it is at the present time by virtue of summary proceedings where disputes might arise concerning a contract involving land. There's a provision that a vendor would have to produce documents and description to a purchaser -namely, a registered instrument and a registerable description.

Some of the ancient rules would be abolished, Mr. Speaker. There would be free mortgage statements built into the legislation, and also production of discharges. A mortgagor or a mortgage company would now have to furnish a statement of the amount of moneys that are owing in a mortgage free of charge as well as furnish a registerable discharge when the mortgage has been fully paid, There is a variety of remedies for co-owners, a variety of remedies dealing with covenants to assume mortgages, priorities concerning mortgage advances, and so forth and so on.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is a bill that requires consideration, and I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

EXECUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. GARDOM: This is the last one that I shall be referring to, Mr. Speaker, which is second reading of Bill 60, the Execution Amendment Act. This is a trilogy statute and it will provide machinery for the new judgment registration procedures that I referred to a few moments ago. It also contains special provisions for judgments that would not receive renewal every two years - for example, matrimonial judgments. Administrative procedures are planned which will provide notice to holders of judgments and to the clerks of the provincial court, furnishing them with full information as to the proposed law,

Hence, Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate to the next sitting of the House. Before putting the motion, I would certainly request members of the opposition and those members of the general public to express their interest. If they have amendments or suggestions, it would be helpful if they could be in the hands of this ministry prior to December 15 of this year in order that we can process the same for the next session.

I move adjournment, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 67.

MINISTERIAL TITLES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the ministerial titles Act is a housekeeping Act which is a measure, as explained in the explanatory notes, to update the statutes. It makes no changes in the law.

As you will recall, the title "department" was changed to "ministry" by order-in-council under the Constitution Act on October 28 of last year. Some portfolio descriptions were also changed. For example, "Transport and Communications" became "Energy, Transport and Communications., , The object of this bill is to make the statutes both up to date and consistent with the changes.

I really believe that the debate on the bill and questions on the bill could probably be more properly answered in committee. However, may I just say that Schedule I changes the word "department" to "ministry" in various sections in over 100 Acts.

Schedules 2 to 7 and 11 deal with the change of title of various ministers to bring the references to them up to date.

Schedule 8 changes the definitions of "minister" in 25 Acts so that the minister currently appointed to administer the Act is meant.

Schedule 9 deals with cases where the word "department" had to be preserved because it refers also to such things as fire departments, federal departments, departments of municipalities and so on.

Schedule 10 deals with the titles of specific Acts.

Schedule 12 changes "Attorney-General" to "minister" in certain cases.

Schedule 13 changes various references in Acts to the Forest Act to the new title, which is "Ministry of Forests Act." The present Act is "Department of Forests Act."

Sections 14 onward deal with the amendments which are either few in number or so long that they could not conveniently be dealt with by a schedule.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a second time.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we have no comment on this bill.

Motion approved.

[ Page 5485 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer the bill to Committee of the Whole House to be considered now.

Leave granted.

Bill 67, Ministerial Titles Amendment Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

The House in Committee on Bill 67; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Sections 1 to 91 inclusive approved.

Schedules approved.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed -I Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 67, Ministerial Titles Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 67, Ministerial Titles Amendment Act, 1977, read a third time and passed.

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

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would just note that it is customary to debate this bill in committee, but the official opposition do wish to refer, I gather, to one section at this time and the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) wishes to refer to two sections.

MR. COCKE: The Attorney-General is correct.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Could I just interject for one minute? By virtue of the fact that this bill is composed of a number of specific items, it is the proposal that the minister in charge of the specific section would wind up the debate as opposed to myself. Satisfactory?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General is quite correct. We do normally debate what is called in this Legislature, for want of another name, the omnibus Act. Usually falling late in the session, the omnibus Act, or, as it's properly titled, the statute law amendment Act of the Attorney-General is one that is normally composed of departmental housekeeping amendments that are put forward and are not sufficiently important to be put to the Legislature as their own amendment to a ministerial Act or to a departmental Act.

Once in a while, Mr. Speaker, the government decides to sneak in a heavy in this particular Act late in the session, hoping that it will be overlooked. Mr. Speaker, they've done it this time, and they've done it in the fashion that I would expect from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , who has upon occasion in this House shown himself as our Minister of Health and as our Minister of Labour, particularly in this session of the Legislature. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is obviously subservient, as his Act is subservient to those Acts of the Minister of Education. I presume old Liberals don't trust one another.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk in a little detail in terms of what I consider to be an overriding principle that is being put forward in Bill 9 1, and I'll talk in a little more detail when we get to section 38 of the Act. That's the section where we find this overriding principle. But I just want to say this, Mr. Speaker: the overriding principle is where the Minister of Education has decided arbitrarily, in concert with his government, to deny faculties in our universities in this province access to the Labour Code of B.C. He says, from his elitist attitude, that they should be a professional organization and they should not be a "unionized" organization. Well, Mr. Speaker, all we have to say to that minister is as follows: if their wish is to unionize, that should be their perfect right in our society.

The minister says: "But they don't want to." He has it on good authority. I'll tell you, he has it on good authority that a straw vote was taken recently at the University of Victoria, and what did that straw vote say? That straw vote said that 60 per cent of them wanted to organize in the fashion that the minister is now outlawing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, whether they do or whether they don't should not be the question. I'm sure many of the faculties are saying: "No, we don't want to. But we do want this as an alternative. We do want access to the Labour Code as an alternative if we feel that it's necessary."

Mr. Speaker, I've had wires from all across the

[ Page 5486 ]

country. It's interesting that the minister has angered the Canadian Association of University Teachers from one end of this country to the other. We've had wires from universities across the country, from the head office of the CAUT, asking the question: what is the minister doing?

I want to say this, and I want this clearly on the record, Mr. Speaker. When the New Democratic Party is re-elected in this province, this will be one of the first statutes removed from the statute book of B.C., if this government persists on carrying this to a vote and proclaiming it. That is a definite promise ' from our caucus and from our party: this will be one of the first things removed from the statute book of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has been relatively candid of recent days. Having put this in in the dying hours of this session, he's been relatively candid. He's met with some of the people in the faculties of our various universities, and he's described how they can put together their associations. He's got a Catch-22 in there as wide as a truck, even as wide as one of those trucks that the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) might sell if he's lucky enough to have any customers after this session.

Mr. Speaker, they have to cross two hurdles. The first is that they have to have a majority decision to certify as a union. Then they must go to the minister, who will consider putting together a special Act, his own Labour Code.

Where's the Minister of Labour in all of this? Are these people not human beings? Should they be denied access because of an arbitrary Minister of Education? How come the Minister of Labour isn't fighting for the survival of his Labour Code? That Labour Code is under attack by one of his colleagues who made the move with him.

Incidentally, the rumour now is that it wasn't the Minister of Education who was Cassius; it was the Minister of Labour. He was the leader to that swim across the sea or that walk across the floor. I was surprised when I heard that. Anyway, that's the way it works. But he's not giving leadership now; he's not giving leadership to his colleague, the Minister of Education, who may not know any better.

The Minister of Education has his head in the clouds - always has, always will. He's a researcher and probably a good researcher, but he doesn't know anything about labour relations. We've listened to speeches in this House, year after year, where he's shown his ignorance.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said it. I wouldn't have said this, but since you've said it, I'll just repeat what he said for the record: "Worse than mine."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no. No, that's going too far. They were better and shorter.

MR. COCKE: Now, Mr. Speaker, I must confess that the member for Oak Bay does sometimes fall short in his understanding. But he's sure clawing for a better understanding all the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Try that one on for size.

MR. WALLACE: Damned with faint praise.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this. I find this most unfortunate to have to say a thing like this, but I have to. The Minister of Education is not alone. The Minister of Education has a nouveau deputy, and I'm sure that he is also clawing for an understanding, scratching to try to put together an understanding of this massive education system of B.C. He's found it frustrating at times.

But I have it on pretty good authority that he indicated to the UVic people that if somehow a vote was undertaken by their faculty association in favour of unionization, the Universities Act would be changed. That's what we find happening right this very second in the House. That was some time ago that he made that suggestion. Now that was a threat and the threat has been carried out. But it went even further. He suggested that if they didn't like it, they might wind up like public servants, punching a time clock.

Now you know, Mr. Speaker, there has to be autonomy in the universities. Oh, yes, we had problems when we were government. You do have problems with autonomous bodies. But an educational institute of the level of a university must have the kind of autonomy that they've always had. That's why, Mr. Speaker, they're such an important part of our society.

The attrition of autonomy that's going on, brought about by this Minister of Education, is one that's a real threat to our whole education system in this province. No one, Mr. Speaker, can be joyful at the thought of what's going on in our province today. It's only going on to satisfy what the minister sees as some temporary needs. He's blinded to the long-term needs of the people of this province in doing what he's doing. I'm shocked and I'm sorry.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is this. As a result of this overriding principle, on principle how can we be expected to support second reading of this bill? How can we? We have to listen very carefully to why the minister put this Section into a bill that is normally regarded as a housekeeping bill - a bill with innocuous housekeeping measures from different departments of government. Unless he has a satisfactory answer we're going to have to think over just exactly what we have to do about the whole bill. We will be discussing it in more detail when we come

[ Page 5487 ]

to section 38. I'm very sorry that we find this Section 1n Bill 9 1.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader introduced this bill by saying it is customary to debate it in committee. I say that's right, but it's also customary not to put into this omnibus bill controversial and fundamental points of principle. That being the case, it's not too surprising that the opposition wants to some extent to debate it in second reading. I can understand very well why the Attorney-General has elected not to close the debate. He'll let the other ministers who are directly involved close the debate, because there's no reason why the Attorney-General should have to carry the can for these particularly offensive sections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We've got 40 sections.

MR. GIBSON: There's a couple of real bad ones

Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Speaker. The first problem is section 2, which in my opinion is a massive breach of trust and confidentiality of a kind that government cannot afford to indulge in if it plans to keep the trust of its citizens. Governments, we know, in a democracy must govern by the consent of their people. If people, in any particular way, find reasons to distrust their governments in any way, it undermines our system. Section 2 does that. It makes documents that have been collected under a guarantee of confidentiality all of a sudden no longer protected by that confidentiality. Information collected by the Alcohol and Drug Commission on the basis that it would be held confidential - the amendment would change that. What the amendment would do is require files related to persons under treatment by the Alcohol and Drug Commission to be produced in court when they are currently explicitly not required to be, according to statute.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What other section are you going to be speaking to?

MR. GIBSON: To 38. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association has put the case on this matter very clearly in a letter to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) . I have no knowledge that the minister has answered them yet or not, but once he received this letter he should have seen his mistake and withdrawn this particular section from the bill.

Listen to a little bit of what the B.C. Civil Liberties Association has to say. Speaking of the change, they say:

"What's its justification? Surely it will have the tendency to undermine any genuinely voluntary schemes which are presently in operation, because it attacks trust relationships between the patient and those who are trying to help him, by removing the assurance of confidentiality."

I'm glad to see the Minister of Health just joined the House on this particular matter.

"Such schemes" - referring to voluntary schemes - "it would seem, will inevitably be poisoned by an atmosphere of suspicion. This guarantee of confidentiality is a cornerstone of the 1973 Act. We find ourselves surprised that such a major change of policy is being introduced in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act at the tail end of a legislative session."

I think that is putting it mildly as to the timing and manner of presentation.

The letter goes on:

"As matters presently stand, many drug users and alcoholics who have come forward for help have done so on the clear and explicit understanding that confidentiality would be respected. The proposed amendment, as far as we can see, puts at risk not only documents and information which will be collected in the future, but also those which were collected in the past when confidentiality was promised." Promised, I might say, Mr. Speaker, by statute of this Legislature. This would now break that promise with respect to documents already collected ' let alone those in the future.

Going on with BCCLA:

"We believe, therefore, that the amendment constitutes a serious breach of trust. That breach will not only make genuinely voluntary schemes difficult to work now, but it will also compromise the chances of their success in the future. The fact is that no drug user or alcoholic will have reason to do anything but distrust any assurances of confidentiality that are given to him at the time when they are made, because he will know that no one can really make such a promise to him."

That's all I will quote from that submission at this time.

I ask the Minister of Health, who is, I know, a sincere man doing his very best in a terribly difficult field, to give thought to the impact that this kind of breach of trust has in dealing with a section of our community that is basically concerned and suspicious and worried about those in authority. And when those in authority behave in a manner that changes the rules that they set down, it makes the relationship all the more difficult.

Mr. Speaker, the next principle espoused in this bill with which I must disagree is that related to the removal of the possibility of persons at universities from organizing under the Labour Code of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I would speak, first of all, of the manner in which this was

[ Page 5488 ]

done. There was no consultation whatsoever. And we have the word for that of the president of Simon Fraser University. We have the word of the heads of the faculty association. Not only, Mr. Speaker, was there no consultation; there was, in fact, a breach of promise. There was a promise that any amendments that came in relating to universities this year would be purely minor housekeeping items, which this most certainly is not.

So now the amendment has been introduced and what has happened? It has found unanimous opposition. I have a stack of Telexes here half an inch thick that have come in the last couple of days from associations that are opposed to this. The universities officially have pronounced their opposition to this measure. Why does the minister want to do it? There was a freedom of choice before - a freedom to organize under the Labour Code. Why should that be taken away? The minister pointed out that university associations in British Columbia had chosen not to organize under the Labour Code. But at some time they might. Why should that option be taken away, that very option that he gave to the college people in the bill we just passed this afternoon? How can he, out of one side of his mouth, say, "Yes, the college faculty should have the right to use the Labour Code if they want, " and, on the other hand, say: "No, the university people should not."?

Mr. Speaker, to me the Labour Code is a law of general application in the province of British Columbia - or ought to be. The minister has adduced no reasons whatsoever for withdrawing that option from those who currently have it. The minister may say: "Well, the associations haven't been making use of it." He should understand that the possibility of organizing under the Labour Code is one of the levers that is available to faculty associations in dealing with their boards, Most faculty people prefer to be in an association that is not under the Labour Code. But if they do not have the possibility of saying: "If you won't do business with us in a voluntary way, we do have a legal, sanctioned route of doing business with you through the Labour Code." If they don't have that option, that lever, then boards of governors need pay no attention to them at all. It's a useful option and its withdrawal, for no purpose whatsoever that I can divine, is one that changes the balance of power and relieves the existing associations of most of their leverage.

If the minister wants to bring in a law that says, "I believe that in the university context bargaining is better done under a different model and here are the ground rules for a different model" - a professional model, as he likes to call it - that's fine. But he's not doing that. All he's doing is taking something away, leaving no structure whatsoever in the professional bargaining field for universities.

Mr. Speaker, I deplore, first of all, that principle and secondly I deplore the inclusion of that kind of controversial subject matter in a Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act which should be an Act entirely housekeeping in nature. I'll have more to say on this at committee stage. I will sit down after one last point.

Section 41 of this bill contains another offensive principle, and that is retroactivity. I remember my three former colleagues, sitting over on that side of the House, when they sat on this side of the House, made the strongest conceivable speeches against retroactivity wherever it occurred. Retroactivity is the attempt to change the ground rules, to change the goal posts, after the fact and, in this case, to make things lawful that otherwise would not have been lawful. And that's not right. Again, it's an offensive principle.

Mr. Speaker, for these three reasons of principle and for perhaps the equally important procedural reason that matters of this kind should not be contained in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, I intend to vote against this bill in second reading.

MR. MACDONALD: What I had to say relates to the Minister of Health, who is momentarily absent and will be returning. I just want to say to begin with, though....

HON. MR. McGEER: Are we going to go into committee on this bill today? We are going to do the debate twice.

MR. MACDONALD: If necessary three times, because we now have three Ministers of Labour here. There's one back there, there's yourself and there's the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . We should go three times over these sections in deference to the fact that we have three Labour departments, although one of them is silent in these debates.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I agree entirely with the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) in terms of the Universities Act. Yesterday, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was extolling freedom of choice in terms of the colleges, but that was Tuesday. Today he is saying to the universities: "No, no freedom of choice in terms of forming a trade union organization and coming under the Labour Code of British Columbia."

I will come back to the other point when we get into committee stage, but the Section 1 rose to speak on is a very strange section - No. 2 - which, I agree, should not be in this bill. What it is doing has been described by the Liberal leader. In the technical sense it seems fairly minor, but it is making papers, records and files collected by the Alcohol and Drug Commission available to the police and to the courts.

[ Page 5489 ]

It's as simple as that. It's an amazing section that the Minister of Health has embarked upon. He has been going around the province, Mr. Speaker - and I pass this on to you because it should be known in this House - extolling compulsory treatment of heroin addicts. Frankly, he hasn't done his homework at all on that subject.

Now he comes in with this bill and kills the concept and the practice in this province of voluntary treatment and rehabilitation. I think that minister has to explain to this House just what he is up to in this section. A parent is not going to go with a youngster or a daughter of 15 or 16 who has been brought into exposure with the heroin scene to the Alcohol and Drug Commission for treatment and rehabilitation on a voluntary basis if possible. Some of those treatments work but they are not going to work with this section 2 because nobody is going to go if the records, including the notes that are taken down by the interviewer, are going to be available in a court. That's simply courting a charge of possession or use of heroin.

So with a little section of a bill that is ill-thought-out, this minister is killing voluntary treatment and rehabilitation of heroin addicts in this province. Now there is a limit as to what can be done through voluntary treatment and rehabilitation, we know that. There has to be a willingness on the part of the addict to begin with and, hopefully, family support before it is going to work at all, but it does work in some cases and it's not going to work if we pass this bill.

The bill is making it very clear that the confidential information received by the counsellor and the Alcohol and Drug Commission may turn up in court. It's as simple as that. To spell it out, it means that that will be available for the purposes of prosecutors, for the purposes of police officers. Nobody is going to seek voluntary counselling and rehabilitation on that basis. If the minister wants to kill the whole concept of the Alcohol and Drug Commission, which has done good work in a very difficult situation in terms of voluntary rehabilitation, do so. Don't do it with a little Section 1n the omnibus bill - section 2 - which just as effectively kills it. Come out and repeal the thing if the minister is hooked on compulsory treatment and putting people into jail with respect to this problem. As I say, he just hasn't begun to do his homework on that subject, and that's been very evident.

Why does he take this stand? Would you, Mr. Speaker, apply the same thing to a doctor-patient relationship dealing with heroin addiction? If you are going to do it here in saying that the records made by the counsellor of the Alcohol and Drug Commission can turn up in court as the basis of a prosecution, I suppose you might do it with somebody who consults their family physician because their youngster is....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You already can.

MR. MACDONALD: Okay, you say that those who will be available for....

HON. MR. GARDOM: They have been all through history. The only protection is the solicit or-client relationship. You know that.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, the protection was here in this Act. In fact, it isn't technically available to doctors, but in fact those records are treated as confidential. In fact, they are. They are not used as the basis for criminal prosecutions for users. So what's the purpose of this section? To convey a signal that if you go to the Alcohol and Drug Commission, you may end up in court. That's just killing the programme; that's killing voluntary rehabilitation. The minister owes the House an explanation as to why that section appears in this bill.

MR. WALLACE: I just want to be very brief and speak on two principles on second reading. It is an awkward bill to discuss in principle, as the Attorney-General said, because you're actually dealing with about 30 to 40 different subjects.

Having asked questions about the Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative in estimates, I just hope that perhaps the minister could clarify for me the principle involved in this bill in dealing with the section. In effect the figure of $3 million was mentioned in the original bill. Now that very persuasive word "deemed" is brought into the bill to say that we will deem the money to have been $5.5 million instead of $3 million. As I recall from our discussion in estimates the minister pointed out that it was a great deal more than $5.5 million which had been finally involved in this co-operative. Perhaps we can deal with it more accurately in committee, but I would just like to make this mention of the issue to the minister at the present time, although I notice he's deeply engrossed in conversation with the Attorney-General.

I just wonder whether the Minister of Labour would, either in second reading or perhaps when we get into committee, bring the House up to date with the precise financial status of the Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative, because the figures don't seem to correspond in this bill with the figures which were discussed in estimates earlier on.

The other principle I want to refer to has no doubt been covered when I was out of the chamber, and that relates, of course, to the principle of denying university faculties the freedom of choice as to how they will develop their relationship with their employer. Not only do I believe in freedom of choice but I think that in a matter of this importance, such as unilaterally taking away any choice to the faculty

[ Page 5490 ]

at the universities, surely that should have been done by a bill on its own, amending the Universities Act, and should have been done in such a way that the faculty representatives of our three universities should have had some reasonable time to discuss the whole issue with the minister concerned.

I notice that he also doesn't appear to be listening to the debate, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps we're becoming used to that, as indeed are the faculty representatives who were told that there would be nothing but minor changes to the Universities Act. Minor changes - like taking away their right to collective bargaining. If I can ask a question of any reasonable person, would they consider that to do something of this nature is a minor amendment, governing the very relationship they have with their employer?

I would think, Mr. Speaker, that to most individuals in our modem society, one of the most important elements in their whole life is the kind of relationship they have with their employer as it affects their working conditions, their remuneration, their fringe benefits, their pension plan and all these other important economic factors in the life of every single one of us. To suggest that you suddenly deprive a group in our society of their right to seek that relationship within the framework of the Labour Code, to suggest that that kind of denial is minor, is another affront and an insult to the university faculties in our province.

I have made some direct inquiries. Of course I noticed the quote of the president of Simon Fraser, Dr. Hewett, that she had been told some time ago that there would be no substantial amendments to the Universities Act. Now we find that at very short notice the faculties in fact are told that they will not have any access to the provisions of the Labour Code.

It's a further sign and a clear demonstration, Mr. Speaker, of the ambivalent nature of this minister. We just finished debating a bill where the minister was bragging that he was giving options to another group of educators and insisting that, contrary to the position presented by the NDP in this House, he in fact was enlarging the options which college and institute faculty would have in determining their relationship with employers. Doesn't it seem very strange that within 24 hours we're now on another bill where the minister is going in exactly the opposite direction, in a completely unilateral and authoritarian way, saying to another group of educators: "You won't even have the option of going seeking your terms of employment within the framework of the Labour Code."?

It's been said many times in this House that the minister is arrogant and authoritarian. I think this particular principle, if one can call it that, of denying the university faculties the option of being employed within the terms of the Labour Code is just the clearest manifestation of this minister's particularly authoritarian approach to government, particularly to matters affecting our post-secondary institutions.

Since the minister in earlier debates has emphasized his awareness of the importance of consultation, I would like to know if, in fact, at any time prior to tabling this bill he discussed with any of the faculties of any of the universities even the thought that he had in his mind of introducing this bill with this particular punch to it. Perhaps "kick" would be a more accurate term than "punch, " because it seems to me that the minister has just given the university faculties in British Columbia a kick in the teeth and told them that even if they want to bargain collectively within the terms of the Labour Code, he, as minister, has decided that shall not be allowed. It seems that is a particularly dictatorial approach to take from a minister who espouses a belief in consultation.

Could I just ask what consultation did take place on this subject with the three faculties? Could he confirm that he did tell the president of Simon Fraser that there would be only minor changes to the Universities Act at this session of the Legislature?

The minister is bound to be aware of the flood of telegrams that we opposition parties have received from a wide variety of university faculties, the different universities, provincial faculty associations and others. I've met with some of them. It's been in a very hasty way, admittedly, for the simple reason that this bill was only tabled a few days ago and we're now already debating it. I think they point out the fundamental idea I have. While perhaps the minister doesn't think it's a good idea to have trade unions among professional faculty in our universities, it is not important that at least they should be given the right to express their choice? Does that not seem to be something very basic in a so-called free society?

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to look beyond our boundaries and look at the famous piece of legislation which the very highly respected John Diefenbaker introduced at the federal level in the form of the Canadian Bill of Rights. Part I outlines the freedoms which this bill will guarantee to all Canadians. Under Part 1, Section 1 (e) is "freedom of assembly and association." Beyond our natural borders, Mr. Speaker, it's very interesting to look to the United Nations. In Article 23 of the United Nations Charter, subparagraph 4, everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, we're not suggesting that trade unions should be forced down anybody's neck; nor should anyone be thwarted from even having access to the machinery whereby they might join a trade union. All I'm saying is that in a "free society" surely the essential freedom is freedom of choice - the freedom to choose whether or not you

[ Page 5491 ]

want to be represented by a trade union. But for any minister to arbitrarily do as this bill does, and simply say to one group selectively - "You will not have access to the provisions of the Labour Code, period; end; final; that's it." - is a most authoritarian and arrogant step for a minister to take.

Now I suppose the argument we will hear in return, Mr. Speaker, is that many university faculty don't want to be in trade unions. That's fine. I don't think if I were a member of a university faculty I would want to vote in favour of a trade union representing me. But, Mr. Speaker, that's not the point at all. The point is: should they not have the right of choice, the freedom to choose whether or not they wish to do their job and relate to their employer in an agreement covered by the provisions of the Labour Code? That's the essential question. It's not the question of a small percentage wanting this right at the present time.

I have made some inquiries and I understand that a vote was taken not too long ago at the University of Victoria, where approximately 296 of the faculty are members of the association - there's a total on the faculty of 412 - which led to the fact that 60 per cent of those who were members of the faculty association voted in favour of a union. The net effect of that, Mr. Speaker, is that approximately 38 per cent of the faculty members were in favour of seeking to become unionized at the University of Victoria. That's more than a third. Can the minister take away the right of one-third of any group to choose in a field as important as their relationship with their employer?

It's very disappointing that the minister not only would deny university faculty members the right to choose, but also should put it in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act as though it was just some little housekeeping change that can be slipped through at the end of the session. I don't really think, Mr. Speaker, that the official opposition can even criticize the minister on this score. I remember another occasion when we talked about a 10-cent subsidy on a gallon of gas to pay for ICBC. That was slipped in under the omnibus bill. I know it's the practice of all governments. We've got 41 sections and there's usually one hooker. Perhaps that's not the right word. Perhaps I should say sleeper, although some of the problems in Vancouver suggest that maybe we should be finding better legislation to deal with hookers as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: What have you got against rugby?

MR. WALLACE: At any rate, there's always a sleeper, and who said hookers aren't sleepers?

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): None of that is funny, you know.

MR. WALLACE: I just think that the principle of denying the faculty the right to choose is fundamentally wrong. The manner in which the minister is doing it in this particular bill is wrong and I would hope, in the light of the very substantial protest which has emanated from the universities in the short time they've had to react to this bill, that the minister will still see fit to amend this part of the bill by deleting it.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 24

NAYS - 15

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 9 1 to Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 91, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 9 1; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. GIBSON: I was just hoping that at this point the minister might make some comments. There were points made in second reading and I was hoping he'd

[ Page 5492 ]

make some comments now.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, the comments made so far with regard to this section really overstate what problems might be perceived here. There's really no breach of confidentiality involved in this section. The member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) attempted to compare the patient relationship of a doctor with this amendment. That simply can't be done, because a doctor can also, by subpoena, be called before a court to give testimony about that same patient-doctor relationship. Certainly the bill doesn't in any way force a person into court. The person would be in court first before any subpoena would be issued.

The proposed amendments to this section simply restore the procedures that were in effect before the passage of the Act in 1973. Up to that time, Mr. Chairman, the staffs of the then Narcotic Addiction Foundation and the Alcoholism Foundation could be and were subpoenaed from time to time to give evidence in a court of law. Under no circumstances did a member of our staff at that time appear without having first been served a subpoena. No document, no information was ever divulged to any other person or any other organization. In the many years that the procedure was in operation, . Mr. Chairman, it was the defence in practically every case that issued the subpoena and made use of this procedure.

I might say that we've done a survey today and yesterday of those old cases. I can't give you total numbers because it would have taken us too long. But in the survey we found that it was ten to one that the subpoenas were asked for by the defence lawyers in a case before the court. The few subpoenas which were issued by the prosecution were to the foundation's physicians for medical evidence purposes only.

So I don't understand the real complaint, given the kind of evidence that we have from the past. The imposition of the Act in relation to child protection in particular has prohibited the commission's staff from providing evidence under the child protection Act and the Criminal Code, and has caused us repeated confusion. In child custody cases before the courts, we are often asked to appear. We're cited with the Protection of Children Amendment Act, 1974, section 7 (2) , which makes it clear that notwithstanding any claim of confidentiality or privilege that may exist or be made, an individual shall, where subpoenaed and called to give evidence in a proceeding, give such evidence of the circumstances as the court may require. However, when we are asked to appear on these cases, we're obliged to point to the current Act, our Act, which prohibits us from living up to the terms of the Protection of Children Act. That has caused us some serious problems.

The current Act gives the drug user or his personal representative the right to make use of any file, document or record if they so choose. It denies the court a similar right. I think this amendment will resolve the confusion between the current Act and other pertinent legislation such as that which I've mentioned.

Notwithstanding the amendment, Mr. Chairman, the Alcohol and Drug Commission will maintain at all times the strictest confidentiality in all other aspects excepting only court procedures.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I should defer to my learned friend here, because this is a pretty technical subject we've embarked on. Nevertheless, it affects the programme very substantially. The amendment is pretty broadly drawn, Mr. Chairman, because it says: "with respect to court proceedings." It take it that that includes everything from the prosecutor up, including police officers getting ready to give testimony. So it is broadly drawn.

The minister, I think, is right technically about the doctor-patient relationship, although there has never been any problem in the practice in that field. He's not correct in saying that the fact that the defence requests the evidence in court is a factor to be considered, because then the Act already provides that with the consent of the user or the patient, the evidence can be given.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm just citing the example.

MR. MACDONALD: In terms of child protection, the same thing applies.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, it doesn't.

MR. MACDONALD: Where the disclosure is at the request or with the consent of the drug user or alcoholic concerned.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's not the case in child custody cases very often.

MR. MACDONALD: No, the child of the family too can say: "We want this brought before the court, " beyond the fact that treatment is being taken. So there's no problem there. The problem is in those few cases that the minister has referred to where it's wanted for purposes of a prosecution. The fact that those cases can exist and will exist with the passage of this section means that people will not go to the Alcohol and Drug Commission with the feeling that what they say there will be treated in confidence and that it can't be used in court. It can be, under this section.

So the cure that the minister proposes is worse than the disease. You're killing voluntary rehabilitation with these few words. Leaving aside all

[ Page 5493 ]

questions of civil liberties, people will simply not go for rehabilitation when the notes that are made can end up in a court proceeding and they can be charged as a result of them.

So that's the problem. I think the original remarks I made that it's a shame that the minister who's gone so far in terms of talking about compulsory treatment should, while he's doing that, do a very serious harm to the some good counselling that is going on in terms of rehabilitation of people who are just on the borderline of getting into the drug scene in a very serious and irreversible way. There are people who can be saved, particularly young people. I think this Section 1s militating against that. I think it's going to make it very hard to persuade young people to go, or anyone to go, when you eliminate this protection of confidentiality.

MR. GIBSON: The practical matter that the hon. first member for Vancouver East raised as to the usefulness of these voluntary programmes once confidentiality is removed is a very important one. I support what he said. I want to address myself specifically to another question. That is the question of breach of trust.

Mr. Chairman, the state must keep its word. In 1973, whether the minister agrees with the law or not, a law was enacted that contained these words, with respect to these kinds of documents: "No file of this kind shall be disclosed to any person or be admitted in evidence in any proceedings." That confidentiality was imposed and guaranteed by law. For the next four years or so, documents were accumulated under the protection of that law.

Those documents are the subject of a promise by the government that they will be handled in a certain way. This amendment breaches that promise. At a very minimum, Mr. Chairman, the minister should guarantee that documents that were privileged in the interval between 1973 and 1977 should remain so. If he wishes to remove that privilege - the protection of documents that are accumulated from this day forward - that's another question. That then becomes a question of public policy.

But the breaking of a promise with respect to documents that exist is a question of public morality. I say that it is politically immoral for a government to go back on its word, to say that Linder an old law certain things were protected, but retroactively we are going to remove that protection and we are going to break our promise. That's a terribly serious thing, in the relationship of any sector of society with the government. They are entitled to believe, whether they agree or not with what the government says, that they can take it for granted that what is said is what is meant.

This Legislature said, in statute law in 1973, that evidence of this kind would not be subject to subpoena or production in Court. Documents were accumulated under that protection, and now it is proposed to remove that protection and to break the promise of this Legislature. I say that is very, very wrong, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 2 pass?

MR. GIBSON: Division!

MR. MACDONALD: Not a division-, we don't want a division. I'm speaking to the section.

MR. BARRETT: He called a division-, he's on his feet.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was not on his feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A division was called on section 2 of Bill 9 1.

MR. BARRETT: No, the member is on his feet and he wants to deal with this section.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, I understood the Chairman to have called for a vote, and that's why I called for a division. The Chairman, with respect, should not have called for a vote if the member was on his feet, so I would suggest we go back to that period.

MR. MACDONALD: Some of the older members should have a little more time in getting tip, Mr. Chairman. What's the rush suddenly?

The minister hasn't replied to the very valid point made by the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) . The way the words are spread in this section, it is apparent that the protection is being taken away retroactively. That, of course, is quite indefensible. This is a point that has been made, in addition to what we argued earlier. I think the minister really ought to reply to that. We've heard nothing, so give the minister a chance.

Seriously, Mr. Chairman, when these matters of basic civil rights come up in this House and the government just arrogantly sits with them.... Is the minister going to reply? Can this be used retroactively? Would this apply to records that have already been compiled when the law protected confidentiality?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The Section 1s clear.

MR. MACDONALD: It does.

AN HON. MEMBER: Of course it does. You know that t.

[ Page 5494 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Well, the minister is agreeing that it can be applied so that if somebody came in and records were compiled based on what they said, while the law protected the confidentiality of that disclosure, this government now says: "We will remove that protection retroactively." Now that is a disgraceful thing to be happening in this Legislature.

I thought the minister would stand up and give us his assurance that it will never be done retroactively and so forth, even though it states so in the bill. We have never had a government like this in the province of B.C. with less respect for civil liberties than that government we have over there. Here, retroactively to strip somebody of confidentiality which was protected under statute, is surely disgraceful.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, whether we agree or not with the programme, a great part of the programme is going to depend on trust - whether or not treatment is available on an open and mature basis. Now how in the world do you establish some sense of trust in a programme like this if you're going to legislate a different set of circumstances to apply to information that was gathered under the guarantee, as pointed out, that it would be confidential? How do you expect people to trust the programme if you're going to do that? I'm sincere. I would like to know how you're going to deal with those questions when the people who you want to cure of drug addiction -are going to ask that question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, it is a statutory provision which is being changed and there's no possible way you can guarantee that the change won't affect things that happened in the past under the old legislation. I can only assure you, as I've done already, that the Alcohol and Drug Commission will maintain the strictest confidentiality in all aspects, except for those aspects of court procedures. An addict today who may wish, for instance, to have someone testify on his or her behalf may not have that happen at the present time.

MR. MACDONALD: That was in the Act already.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, that's to deal with records and files and evidence, but it doesn't cover physicians whom he may want to have from the commission to testify.

Mr. Chairman, at any rate, there was no significant difference - in fact, there was no difference that I can determine - between the number of people on a percentage basis who attended the voluntary clinics during the time that this kind of legislation was in effect, prior to 1973, and the time from 1973 to the present. There just has been no difference. The addicts who are motivated to the point where they wish to come in for voluntary treatment will come in for voluntary treatment, as they have been doing for many, many years in British Columbia, with no change because of this Act and no change when the Act was first put into place in 1973.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister just finished saying that this change is the protection which is given to these kinds of documents and there's no way the government could avoid the fact that documents that were accumulated under this protection would be affected, but that's not correct. The government could very easily amend this section to say that the removal of this restriction applies only to those documents accumulated from this day forward. Then you can argue about the question of public policy, but at least the government isn't guilty of breach of promise.

That is so fundamental in a democratic society, Mr. Chairman, that I can't understand why that minister won't stand up and say: "Well, whatever the technicalities of it we'll find the words, and I agree with the principle." The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is sitting beside him. He has devoted much of his career in this Legislature to fighting exactly this kind of legislation. It's so easy. The minister can just agree to an amendment saying, "nothing in this part will affect documents accumulated under the protection of the legislation passed in 1973, " or however he might want to phrase that. Just bring that in and then at least we don't have the disgraceful performance of the government of the province of British Columbia introducing an amendment asking this Legislature to break the promise that it put down in the statute books in 1973.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the minister has given no reasons for this amendment that amount to anything. He says: "Oh, the programme of voluntary rehabilitation and treatment will go on as before, in spite of the fact that the records can end up in court." Now I say that's nonsense. He's killing voluntary treatment with these few words in a totally needless way.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): That's nonsense.

MR. MACDONALD: The Minister of Consumer Affairs says "nonsense." Would you go with a daughter, say, and disclose that she has been taking heroin, that she has had these contacts, and that you're going before the Alcohol and Drug Commission to make a full disclosure of what would be a criminal offence, and receive treatment, if you thought that the records would end up in court? Of course you wouldn't. That's it. You're just killing voluntary rehabilitation. I don't know what the

[ Page 5495 ]

minister is going to do. Is this the flag he's flying? After all these newspaper stories, is this his great answer to the problem? Is this all that we're going to see - just the end of voluntary treatment? Voluntary means there has to be confidentiality when you go to a government agency.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There will be.

MR. MACDONALD: Apart altogether from the question of stripping it away retroactively, which is disgraceful, the minister is killing the voluntary aspect, which is saving the lives of some people -particularly young people - in the province of B.C. at the present time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: Why spend a lot of money on the Alcohol and Drug Commission and then destroy confidentiality in it? You will have people saying: "I'm afraid to go there. I'm not going to a state agency where the confidential information I impart may end up in court."

So I ask the minister to withdraw this section and go back to the drawing board on this whole subject, because he's had some very hare-brained schemes in the press. If this is the beginning of his programme, I hope it's the end of it. It should be withdrawn.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know from the minister whether or not he consulted with the professionals who have to work in this field in terms of preparing files. Now when a medical practitioner meets with a patient and the patient discloses certain information to that medical practitioner, is there not a relationship between the patient and the doctor related to sharing of information - making notes on a patient's file? In past court cases, the doctor has been discretionary in putting the evidence, or the evidence is considered as hearsay in a court case. I know that in my own profession, as a social worker, when you're dealing with a client, as we do with drug addicts.... If a drug addict discloses to me certain information that is related specifically to his treatment programme, I am bound by a professional oath to maintain that confidentiality. I put it in the notes and social work records, knowing very well that those files are confidential files. If you're saying that you're asking professional people to violate their own professional code....

HON. MR. GARDOM: The court can. The court can at any time.

MR. BARRETT: Well, let the court decide. We're at the Legislature making the decision ahead of time.

The point my friend there is trying to make is that from 1973 on ' when those files were written, in any kind of relationship between a doctor and a patient or a social worker and a client, one of the things that would have been stressed as a professional responsibility is to tell them that the records are confidential. That would be a commitment made at the time by the professional in discussion with the client.

You're retroactively making that doctor, that psychologist or that social worker a liar, because that was a statute and that was the thrust that the condition of the file was written on at that time. Every doctor who sits with a patient and explains, "This is the situation you're dealing with, these files are confidential, " has given his professional commitment under the statute of the day that that indeed is the case. What you're doing is reaching back and destroying all of the confidence that was established during those interviews by changing the rules after the fact.

Now I'm not like the Clarence Darrows that they were when they used to be in the opposition. The Minister of Labour, when he was in the opposition, would be the first guy up screaming when anything smacked of any threat to confidentiality or loss of civil liberty.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten feet up in the air.

MR. BARRETT: Ten feet up in the air? He got so high he floated over there and forgot what he got up in the air about. The great freedom fighters!

Now you tell me how you're going to go back into the community and, as a government, ask the professional whom you are charging with this responsibility to believe you. Let's put aside the difference we have in the approach - and we do differ there. But how in the world do you expect this programme to work if you're asking the psychologist, the social worker or the doctor to sit down and be, in effect, a gatherer of evidence for what may go before a court?

Do you understand the drug culture? Do you understand the aspect of the drug culture that blends people together, and that part of the consequences of their bringing together is the actual use of drugs, and that the bonding of the peer group is more important than any kind of relationship that you may impose upon them or voluntarily seek out?

If the word gets out that if you open your mouth it's going to be used as evidence, do you think a 17-year-old or an 18-year-old kid is going to come rushing into your programme and say - "Yeah, this is who gave me the stuff; this is where it is, and I know all this and this." - when that goes in a court? Don't be stupid!

How many drug murders take place every year

[ Page 5496 ]

because people open their mouths? You're going to scare kids away from ever saying a darned word once they get hooked and they come for treatment. What about the kids who've already gone in for voluntary treatment, brought in by their parents who are deadly concerned about the fact that their kids are starting to get hooked? They went into the voluntary programme and said everything there was to say, so that the professionals could get on with their job. That stuff is lying there now in files. Maybe none of it is harmful, but the fear that something out of those files that was given in confidence is going to be used is going to shake a lot of people, Mr. Minister.

You're trying to launch a drug programme on the basis of confidence among addicts or near-addicts? Now I believe you want the programme to at least get a fair start. I believe that. But I don't believe the programme is going to work. But again I say, put that aside. How do you expect it to get a fair start if there is no feeling of trust? How do you expect a young addict to come into an office and bare his soul and heart about what his situation is if he knows that you're going to open the use of those files?

I'll tell you this: as a professional social worker, I would be prohibited from doing my professional duty under this kind of legislation, because the kind of confidence that we, as professional social workers, are supposed to give to our clients is absolute. If you turn social workers and psychologists and doctors into squealers - as they would interpret it - then you're destroying the programme.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) made a very important point. What about the existing files? There was a pledge given under the existing conditions of confidentiality between a physician and a patient, a psychologist and a patient and a social worker and a client. That's one situation, and the member is absolutely correct: any faith or trust in those files is now down the tube.

Can you imagine the buzz going through the drug community now? On the street is where you have to sell this programme - not on Jack Webster, not in this Legislature. And if you're going to sell this programme on the street, there has to be confidence among the addicts themselves that this is a way out. If you want confidence, the one thing you have to establish is that you keep your mouth shut about what's said if they are in a treatment programme. You bring in this bill and the addicts out there are buzzing that the files are going to be opened. Anybody who goes in voluntarily will be marked, before they even go in and open their mouth to begin with. Because within the peer group the buzz will get around, Joe, Harry or whatever his name is - or Susie - went in and may be blabbing.

Mr. Minister, if you are serious and sincere about launching your programme in the best of all possible atmospheres, you will not proceed with this, because this has the built-in seeds of the destruction of trust that is absolutely essential in any therapeutic programme. Whether we agree with your approach or not, no therapeutic programme and no voluntary treatment programme can work if you leave the person who has come in voluntarily with the idea that confidences they have given, as part and parcel of that treatment programme, will be violated for court purposes.

Now think about it. Think about it!

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolute nonsense!

MR. BARRETT: Absolute nonsense. Well, I have never had the experience of working in a classroom. I've worked professionally in prisons for some six years and I worked in after-care agencies. The only effective work that's ever done, and that I've seen psychiatrists or psychologists do, in terms of patients I've worked with.... They've nothing to do with politics, Mr. Member. It's simply a matter of trust. And if whoever you're working with doesn't trust you, or believes that the information that they are sharing with you may someday end up in court, you might as well forget any interviews you're doing with people who've committed offences, whether they are in prison or out of prison.

I don't know how it is in a classroom that you run, but in terms of my professional commitment that I made.... It was clear, in terms of my professional colleagues with whom I worked - lawyers included -that when things were said in confidence, they were given in confidence.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Twist, twist.

MR. BARRETT: Twist? I'm sorry that I even respond to that backbencher, because the stupidity of his comments indicates that he does not understand the seriousness of what is taking place in this amendment.

Now I'll go over it again - slowly. The government intends to launch a programme of what they consider to be drug-abuse treatment. We have not discussed it publicly, or had a debate on their approach or lack of it, or anything else.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You'll get the chance.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, we will have the chance. But whether I agree with your approach or not, it is professionals the government hires who have to administer the direction of the treatment approach. If those professionals believe in the programme, they will work hard at making the programme work. But regardless of the treatment method you use, you hamstring the professionals with the obligation - as they will have to have - to say to every client who

[ Page 5497 ]

comes in the door: "Be careful of what you say to me, because instead of having confidence in terms of our treatment relationship, what you are saying to me may be used in court."

Now of all the criminal offenders, bank robbers, counterfeiters - people with deviant behaviour -there is only one group that has a lingering social contact on a separate social structure, and that is the group of drug addicts. Bank robbers don't have a cult. Car thieves don't have a cult. Part of the aspect of drug addiction itself is the cult of the use of drugs.

And you are destroying here, sir, through you, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity of the professional dealing with that young person who is beginning to break away from the peer group pressure that drove him to drugs and the association of other drug addicts in the first place.... If you tell that 17- or 18-year-old girl who comes in looking for treatment, "From now on the conversations you have with a professional ma; be used as evidence in court, " that kid is going to shut up for self-protection. And if the kid doesn't shut up, then she isn't going to get much protection, because people do get beat up, Mr. Minister. Yes, it happens. And the threat of being beaten up, and the threat of being physically abused.... And, yes, when it comes to a higher level of dealership, people get bumped off.

Now how in the world are you going to build up trust with young people that you say you're going to give a treatment programme to with this kind of a curtailment on the professionals who are supposed to deliver the programme? You tell me that, Mr. Minister. What will your instructions be to the doctors, the lawyers, the social workers and the psychologists when they interview these clients? What will their instructions be? You know what they're going to have to say? "Be careful, I want to warn you that everything you say to me now may be used as evidence." If that isn't dumb in terms of trying to establish a treatment programme, then I don't know what it.

Mr. Minister, you haven't thought about it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, that was a fine speech by the Leader of the Opposition , but it really didn't deal with this section or the facts as they pertain. To start with, he made two wrong assumptions about his own opportunities for confidentiality as a professional social worker. Yes we contacted the professionals; we contacted a lot o; professionals before this was ever brought forward.

Mr. Chairman, the wrong assumption that the Leader of the Opposition makes is that he has any protection from the courts of the land. He doesn't. As a professional social worker he does observe a code of confidentiality, and that code must be protected. But it isn't protected from the courts. If that social worker is subpoenaed by a court, he has an obligation and a responsibility to appear and testify in the case in question. So does a doctor. A doctor doesn't have that kind of protection that you're talking about. A doctor has a patient-doctor relationship that is not protected from the courts. So the assumption is wrong right from the beginning.

I just want to ask you again if you can live with the problems we've been having in terms of the Protection of Children Act, which specifically makes it clear that notwithstanding any claim of confidentiality or privilege that may exist or be made, an individual shall, where subpoenaed, be called to give evidence in a proceeding and gives such evidence of the circumstances as the court may require.

The Alcohol and Drug Commission Act specifically overrules that Act and frustrates the opportunities of the courts to deal successfully and correctly with custody of children cases.

MR. BARRETT: This is not custody of children.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It certainly is custody of children, Mr. Chairman. It's a matter of fact that in a great deal of cases before the courts on custody of children, the very people who are covered under these Acts are involved in them. Mr. Chairman, it's for those reasons and others that this amendment is being put forward.

I've told you before that in the practice before 1973, ten to one of the requests for subpoenas came from the defence lawyers, and the only requests we ever had from the prosecution were regarding physicians who were asked to testify for medical reasons before courts. Any other physician in the community does that and there's no reason why a physician who's appointed by the Narcotic Addiction Foundation - the Alcohol and Drug Commission, as it's known today - should be any different.

So, Mr. Chairman, to say that this amendment will do anything to destroy the opportunity for voluntary treatment of addicts just doesn't pay attention to the facts.

MR. BARRETT: Just one short comment, Mr. Chairman. I ask the minister this question: does he have a letter from the British Columbia Bar Association, from the B.C. Association of Social Workers and from the College of Physicians and Surgeons verifying that he indeed discussed this with them and that they agree professionally?

Now don't come in here and say you discussed it with social workers, you discussed it with physicians and you discussed it with lawyers. On an important issue like this, I know those professions would put their opinions in writing. I would gladly hear the minister hold this over for 24 hours or get the file out and show us a letter from any professional

[ Page 5498 ]

organization that is dealing with drug addicts that agrees with this. You show me that, Mr. Minister, and I will no longer raise the question. But I do not believe, sir, that you have a single letter from any competent governing professional body that agrees with what you're saying here today.

Until you provide that evidence, I say to you clearly that in my opinion you are going to limit those professionals from delivering service simply because of the professional oath they must give. I don't believe you have a letter from any one of those associations saying that they agree with this legislation.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, you're wrong.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I think the Leader of the Opposition's question answers itself. It will be a frosty Friday in this province when the Bar Association endorses any of this kind of retroactive legislation.

[Mr. Kahl in the chair.

Mr. Chairman, there's nothing the minister can say that will change the fact that there is a breach of promise of a legislative statute. The only thing that can change that is an amendment to this section. Mr. Chairman, the minister is proposing that this Legislature should trample on civil liberties. I guess it depends on whose civil liberties are being trampled on, eh? If it's just a bunch of drug addicts, it doesn't matter so much, eh?

AN HON. MEMBER: Popular politics.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, when you attack the civil liberties of anyone in this society, you attack the civil liberties of all.

Let me try to give you an example that Social Credit might understand. Mr. Chairman, records are kept of party contributions. They are kept by fund-raisers, by corporations who donate, or trade unions. They are kept indirectly by tax collectors and banks, and so on. These are private records under our law. Now suppose the former government had brought in a law relating to party contributions and said: "From now on these party contribution records are going to be published." That's fine. That would be a matter of debate. Suppose, instead, the law had been like this one and said: "Party contributions for the last four years are public as of now." Is that a kind of trampling on civil liberties that the Social Credit members might understand? Does that hit them a little closer to where they live than the problems of drug addicts?

Mr. Chairman, to me there is nothing more transparently obvious than that this Legislature should not break its word. If the minister wants to change the public policy from here on, that's his business. We can have a debate on the subject as to whether or not this intimidates and inhibits people from seeking voluntary solutions to their addiction problems. We can have that debate on the legislation as it applies from this day forward. The documents that were accumulated under a promise of confidentiality from this Legislature must not be subject to a breaking of that promise. That's exactly what this section does, Mr. Chairman. I am absolutely appalled that any member of this Legislature could contemplate voting for a section that would break a promise in this Legislature.

MR. WALLACE: This section deals with the very complex problem of drug addiction. Since I personally believe that what we need is a medical approach to the problem, I have to stress the importance of confidentiality, whether the medical approach fails or not. I'm only too conscious of the limitations even of medical treatment in the problem of drug addiction, and I acknowledge that. I do feel that in any medical treatment of any condition, whether it's drug addiction or otherwise, the element of complete trust by the patient in the person to whom he is revealing his problem is so all-important that if this amendment in any way impairs the likelihood that a person will feel ready to confide in the medical advisor or the social worker or whatever, that is an unfortunate amendment.

I am willing to acknowledge that the degree to which medical advice and treatment can solve a problem of an addict is limited. Regardless of one's political posture on this hot, contentious issue no matter where you look in the world, the results of any kind of treatment of heroin addiction are miserable. I think it would be unfortunate if we got off on a separate kind of debate as to the best kind of treatment of drug addiction. I know that no one else has got on to that; I'm just making that comment to prevent us getting off the subject.

What is important in any medical atmosphere in the treatment of any problem, social or otherwise, is the confidential feeling that the patient has in explaining to the doctor, the social worker or the psychiatrist how they are in their situation and what crimes they may have committed in getting into it. Therefore I feel that the minister's possible explanation relating to how this interferes with the protection of children would be the only grounds on which I could accept this. I'm not familiar with the Protection of Children Act and its workings to judge on that.

MR. BARRETT: It's not necessary. Each case is an individual.

[ Page 5499 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Only one member may speak at a time.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, while I have some reservations about the precise impact of this amendment in relation to how it would affect potential addicts seeking medical advice - I think I have some doubts as to that - I can only support the Liberal leader in the strongest terms when I say that it is absolutely incredible to suggest, as the minister has done, that there is no way to prevent this amendment being retroactive.

If there is one evil in legislation that we've seen repeatedly in this session it's the evil of retroactivity. We've had taxation bills going back four years. I see right in the next section - section 3 - of this bill that we're going back to September, 1976. As someone put it not too long ago in this debate, it is completely immoral for a government to tell me as an individual that something which I did a year ago which was legal now turns out to have been illegal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: That is absolutely and fundamentally wrong. In this particular instance, whatever the impact on the patient of knowing that records might be divulged, at least give the patient a choice before they divulge the information and create the documentation.

But now that individuals, seeking help in the knowledge that the documentation could not be used in court, find four years later that indeed it might be produced in court I think this is totally and fundamentally wrong. I notice their legal friend from Kamloops looking very seriously across the floor. I'm sure that as a respectable lawyer, that member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) must feel very unhappy and distinctly uncomfortable to see this kind of retroactive legislation which so intimately affects the rights of an individual who is guaranteed something by law. He wasn't just guaranteed it by the doctor or by the social worker; he was guaranteed it by section 8 of the Act.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is saying: "Well, four years ago we told you that this was the case. Four years later we've just changed our minds. The government that gave you that guarantee is now out of office and we in turn are saying that records going back four years can be used in court."

It has the other very serious disadvantage, Mr. Chairman, that it limits the credibility and trust in this government as a total government, not just in this minister or on this issue. What else might this government make retroactive? There's no end to what might be done. I drew some rather exaggerated analogies when we debated another retroactive bill regarding taxation. But you know, Mr. Chairman, the more I see of the bills coming into this House, I'm beginning to think that some of my analogies were not quite as exaggerated as I thought at the time.

I must say that I'm not as convinced as to the impact on the treatment of addicts by the amendment per se, but I've no hesitation, no doubt whatever, in saying that it's fundamentally and totally wrong for this government to suggest that by changing the ground rules in this way, the change has to be retroactive. There must be many people today who provided information which could incriminate them over the last four years who should at least have been told: "Well, this is the guarantee we'll give you today, but we don't know that our government might make it retroactive tomorrow."

Not to be facetious, Mr. Chairman, but if this government or any other government went to the polls and said, "Well, we're going to pass this law today, but tomorrow we might make it retroactive and change the ground rules going back four years, " I don't think they would get elected. I really don't think so.

So in an area as sensitive as one dealing with an essential medical orientation - and I'm all in favour of that - the essential ingredient is confidentiality. If we're not to guarantee it by this amendment, at least, in all fairness to those who took the government at its word over the last four years, there is no way that it should be made retroactive.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the importance of this section must be viewed in the words of the minister, both with respect to the debate in these proceedings and in his press release and other comments made by him when this amendment was introduced and, indeed, when the so-called rehabilitation programme and registration of addicts programme was also introduced coincidentally.

Mr. Chairman, the minister argues - to be precise but also succinct, I'll paraphrase - that amendment is required to facilitate the detection, prosecution and committal of those persons who are found to be drug addicts.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: When did I say that?

MR. LAUK: Well, I'm assuming that is what the minister is amending this Act for.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Don't say you're quoting me if you're assuming.

MR. LAUK: There is no other reason for an amendment to this Act. It can't be for criminal proceedings because the evidence is already compellable. It has to be for the detection, prosecution and committal of drug addicts for their so-called rehabilitation under the minister's new

[ Page 5500 ]

announced programme. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Health knows that. This is part and parcel of the package that he's introducing.

There's no other reason for him to introduce the amendment, so let's assume that he will admit that that's the reason. The next step is that he will defend it. How will he defend it? He will say that this is the kind of evidence under these proceedings that is required by the court and that persons associated with the commission have been unwilling to provide such evidence by virtue of this section. He will say that this evidence is required, that we have to go on to the adversary system with respect to the treatment of drug addicts at the provincial level. What does the adversary system mean?

No longer does it mean that the addict out of desperation or fear or sickness turns for help to some agency of government. No. He's rejecting all those hundreds of addicts who have done that, whether successfully or unsuccessfully. He's reversing the scale. He's saying it's now necessary to do it by force. That's part of the concept. By force means having the commission and its employees called before court proceedings and compelled to give evidence of an intimate and highly confidential nature, so the public and the courts will know.

What are the dangers involved? The first danger has already been canvassed very carefully, Mr. Chairman, and that is that it will destroy the voluntary aspects of treatment. People who have worked with heroin addicts for 30 and 40 years have said that whatever success they have had - which is most unimpressive - has only been with those who have voluntarily accepted a programme of rehabilitation. There have been all kinds of programmes of compulsion which have not worked.

I want to leave that aspect for the moment and discuss with the committee the danger of destroying the confidential relationship between these employees of the commission and the drug addict who is compelled to go to the me for help. The very thing that will destroy the minister's programme -which has come under heavy criticism as being unlikely to succeed in any event - is a totally unco-operative drug addict. What else can he be, knowing that he can be convicted? He can be prosecuted by evidence given by these commission employees, compelled by this amendment.

It is also a dangerous encroachment into other so-called privilege situations that we as a society have traditionally recognized as being important for the health - physical and mental - of the people in our society and for their civil libertarian protection. The only sacrosanct privilege is that between solicitor and client. Traditional common law acceptances of privilege are the priest in the confessional, psychiatrist and patient, the medical doctor and his patient, the social worker and, in many cases, the parole officer. If you break down that trust you are systematically going to create the suspicion and breakdown of trust throughout the entire system. I know the minister does not understand what he's doing.

The third proposition is that this is another step on the road to Gulag - the boards of review for drug addicts. The compelling of people in confidential, fiduciary relationships to give evidence in proceedings remind me of the tribunals on euthanasia in other jurisdictions, in the so-called psychiatric review panels in the Soviet Union. There will be suspicion, fear and, finally, political abuse of this system to harass otherwise law-abiding people. Civil liberties are there for a reason, Mr. Chairman. Those privileges involving confidential relationships are there as an underpinning in support of the democratic system. They're not there to destroy it. Although some criminals take advantage of that privilege, that handful of cases is no reason to destroy the whole system, as this minister by this one amendment is doing. I'm sure he doesn't realize what he's doing, because he would have some care for these kinds of amendments. We know that the ministers of the Crown in this administration are not too careful about reading the amendments that are before this committee. We know that.

One of the ministers with the best reputation, the only pearl in a bucket of.... Recently he demonstrated that ministers of this administration are very sloppy in considering the ramifications of the amendments they're producing to this chamber. And this is another one. Another minister who has remained silent in the hope that his reputation would build on that silence now brings before the House an amendment, the impact of which he has not considered in the slightest way.

A complete breakdown of the confidential relationship between the commission staff and the drug addict. Is that the foot in the door, Mr. Chairman? How are we going to defend ourselves, those of us in the legal and medical professions, when people out of trust come to us for advice and seek our help?

The power of the state, Mr. Chairman, to solve the problem: "We're going to cure you of heroin addiction if we have to kill you. We're going to cure you of heroin addiction if we have to destroy the very fabric of confidential relationships in our society." This is the kind of single- and one-track-mindedness that is the same road to Gulag and Auschwitz. The same thinking. The road to efficiency is totalitarianism.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I urge this committee to reject this amendment.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I just want to add a few comments. I had not intended to speak on this

[ Page 5501 ]

section because it's obvious that the minister knows when he's got a good thing. I know that this sounds contradictory to my hon. colleague, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , when he said that the minister didn't know what he was doing. I think the minister knew exactly what he was doing. You were being nice, but I think perhaps for the wrong reasons. The minister doesn't know what he's doing in terms of the programme, but he knows what he's doing in terms of popular politics.

The Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act was an attempt to disguise an amendment to the Alcohol and Drug Commission Act that is pretty pessimistic in terms of this government's concern and care for people's rights, the things upon which this society relies to keep co-operation going - the sense of belonging, a sense of justice.

I'm not going to repeat the arguments that were made earlier about the problems that professional people will have in trying to provide services for their clients as a result of the authority being given in this amendment. Certainly it will impair relationships between professional people, lawyers, social workers and so forth.

The thing that I wanted to rise on was the plain and simple move by this minister of playing popular politics. This is the tragedy; this is the cynicism upon which this whole thing is based. This is the cynicism that I think was behind the move to create the heroin rehabilitation programme that the minister announced a month or so ago, in which he was going to have, through coercion, a programme of rehabilitation and treatment. I suppose he intends to modify the behaviour and personalities of persons who have been the victimized by a very hostile and inflexible society when it comes to the real problems of trying to find your place in a competitive, dog-eat-dog, exploitive environment.

The minister knows exactly what he's doing. He knows the record of places like the Narcotic Addiction Foundation and the experiment in Matsqui. He knows the problems as well as anyone else. He knows that you don't force people to do anything and expect them to love you for it, or to respond with a kind of compassion and enthusiasm for the society in which this force was brought upon them. It just isn't that way. That's not the way human nature is. You build an attitude of resentment, an attitude of fear, and you teach people to be more cautious in their endeavours. You just enhance the negative.

But in the meantime, let's keep in mind, when I said the minister knows exactly what he's doing, that he has observed that society is frustrated and desperate. He has observed that people have been victimized by not only the opiate derivatives but other kinds of substance of escape that are being peddled in all kinds of outlets to try and help people escape from the realities of what society has to offer - which seem to be less and less, because there's too big a price on everything.

Homes are breaking up and people are losing their sense of values. The traditions which they live by, Mr. Chairman seem to be threatened. Institutions are eroding. ~he confidence that was once a part of the heritage of people who pioneered in this country is becoming more and more difficult to promote in a new younger generation.

The impact of mass media is changing the whole value structure and the whole value system. People are falling by the wayside. People are losing out. We're becoming more and more insensitive to the human aspects of things.

This is why the minister knows what he's doing. He has a situation that's built for politics. He's going to go out and cure all these problems. If he doesn't he's going to get credit for having tried. It doesn't really matter about what has happened before. He himself has said that his government is taking action.

Mr. Chairman, he says: "Our government is doing something. We're not sitting idly by and crying on our shoulders and saying there's nothing we can do. We're going out-, we're going to take a positive step and we're going to make this amendment to the Alcohol and Drug Commission Act to give, those persons who you've authorized to treat these unfortunate individuals the power to do so, under all circumstances. Therefore any document that exists anywhere is subject to be used against that person."

Any confidence that may have existed between professional and client can be used. Any conversation really - between mother and son, sister and brother, or clergy and members of the congregation of whatever - can be used. What he has done is picked up on an interesting approach to popular politics. He's going to use social workers, the police, friends, neighbours - anyone - to act as a panel, to judge whether or not a person should be subjected to a treatment programme through force. In doing so, he's going to be able to draw on all of the documents that exist anywhere.

One of the things that he suggests in this programme is that people who have in the past had a habit or who in any way have been involved with drugs - it doesn't matter whether they are at the present time or not - are subject to scrutiny by this panel. It's pretty high-handed, but it sounds good to a lot of people these days. That's why I say he knows what he's doing. He's not going to create any new excitement among these people who are wanting to be citizens and wanting to try and participate, but he's going to give the appearance that he's doing that. The people who are frustrated and think that these drug addicts are the problem are going to be glad to see them attacked.

The drug addict is not the problem, Mr. Chairman. Sure the drug addict has a problem, and it's a

[ Page 5502 ]

problem for all of us in society to have to see this happen as a result of a system that exploits the things the drug addict A a victim of. Our television and news media, Mr. Chairman, promote this very lifestyle.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have allowed you a fair degree of latitude. I wonder if you could deal specifically with the amendment, please.

MR. BARNES: Thank you. You have done that and I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I agree that I have gone somewhat beyond the specifics, but the implications of this section are the same. I think the other members who have spoken tried to point out that by sticking this amendment in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act it gives the appearance of having no consequence and no significance, but it's a major move.

It's a move that is going to affect people's confidence in the system. It's an erosion of the democratic system. It's an erosion of civil liberties. It is an attack on victims of an unfortunate malady - of the pestilence in our society. It's something that, quite frankly, historically was once not a problem. It was not even a problem in the 1940s because the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act was not introduced. When it was it made addicts out of many British Columbians, as you know. Suddenly they became criminals, when at one time you could buy opium in the drug stores here in the province of British Columbia.

What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that what we are doing now is playing popular politics. It's a good gimmick but it is not solving the problem. The problem is our society. It's the kind of legislation this government brings in; it's the insensitive attitude that they have about people and their rights. People have no confidence. We have to accept an unemployment situation of some 10 percent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. Deal with section 2.

MR. BARNES: What happens to these people? Where are they coming from, Mr. Chairman, and who are they?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Deal with section 2, please.

MR. BARNES: Let's take a look at who these people are. It's fine to talk about curing the drug addicts, but we are not going to do anything about the pushers. We're not doing anything about the pushers. Furthermore, why do we want to pick on the drug addict and not do anything about the abusers of alcohol, for instance, and other kinds of depressants? The government's revenue comes from one of the biggest problems we have in society.

MR. BARRETT: Tell us where you bought the alcohol.

MR. BARNES: But I realize that the intent was to just have a central little Section 1n a very large omnibus bill that we just happened to notice. Now we're trying to put it into perspective. It really does have a place as a major debate. It ties up favourably with other things that the government has done. I would like to simply express my objections to what the minister is doing.

I think he has got a winner; I think he will get away with it because the cynicism that he knows exists in this society unfortunately will support him. There are people out there who are going to be happy that the minister is taking this action. He knows it and this is why he's doing it. I feel badly that the words that I'm trying to bring across in this Legislature are not popular.

Society believes it has a problem. It believes that your addict is a washout and a misfit who does nothing, the same as the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) feels that people who are unemployed are leeches and so forth. I think he's got a winner because he's going to go out and attack the victims. He'll do nothing about the problem, do nothing about the institutions, do nothing about the unemployment situation and the deception and the kinds of exploitive activities that go on where people are selling their bodies, their souls, their values, their morals, their principles -where you exploit through the media, take advantage of anybody, anything for a buck. I know he's got a good thing, and he knows he has, Mr. Chairman. Nonetheless, we've opened the issue. I know this isn't a popular position for me to take politically because I will certainly be accused of being on the side of those no-good so-and-sos. But I'll tell you, those are citizens of the province of British Columbia and they have rights. We may not form the government on this issue and that minister may keep his position because of making this an issue. Unfortunately, people have been conditioned to believe that the only thing you can do is a cynical approach. It's a cynical attitude, and that's the kind of attitude they are going to have to decide how much they can put up with.

I'm not going to forsake that government; I'm not going to be the one to come out with the arguments. The minister will stand on his own reputation. I think that he'll find out, when the professional people begin to respond negatively to this when they try and talk to their clients, that he will begin to get the letters from people. Then he will know.

We can be patient. He's trying to pull a fast one, and he almost got away with it. Now we'll just see how well he'll do between now and the next election.

[ Page 5503 ]

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 22

NAYS - 14

Mr. Gibson requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 3 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications perhaps could explain the need for section 9, particularly under 9 (6) (2) . The section, as the minister can see, gives the minister powers to make grants to a corporation as defined in the Companies Act, a municipality or a regional district that is authorized to (i) carry on a business, enterprise or activity, or (ii) provide a service, relating to transport or communications.

Fair enough. It authorizes the minister to make grants, but I would like to start this section with a specific question to the minister, and that, Mr. Chairman, is: if we are just now authorizing the minister to make this type of grant, under what authorization did he make grants to RivTow earlier this year and the latter part of last year to provide a service up in that part of the coast? Perhaps the minister could expand on the need for the section and explain it to us.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, as the legislation states, this does give explicit authority to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications to make grants under the transport and communications legislation - under that Act or under Acts dealing with transport and communications, as distinct from the Companies Act. It was really an omission in the original legislation. This is really an amendment of a housekeeping type, but it makes it clear that that authority to make grants does exist. Relative to RivTow: RivTow is a tug and barge firm that has been operating in the middle and upper coast area, carrying passengers and light freight for the last eight or nine months. RivTow has been compensated by the provincial government via the ferries legislation.

RivTow was contracted by the federal government and the province, and eventually the ferries corporation is compensated by the federal government for providing that service. In other words, that financial support to RivTow came via another legislation than that under the headings of either transport or communications.

AN HON. MEMBER: Balderdash!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I would like to know how much was paid in subsidy to RivTow Straits by the provincial government. What amount? Was it $100,000, $150,000? Perhaps while the minister is answering that question, he can tell us who he anticipates will be receiving grants for subsidies in terms of water transportation on this coast in the future. Have they been in contact with any private companies in terms of receiving those grants? What municipalities and regional districts does he anticipate giving grants to? I'd really like to know. I think the people on the coast would like to know as well.

[Mr. Veitch in the Chair. I

HON. MR. DAVIS: The question the hon. member asks relates to grants. No grants were made to RivTow and there's no expectation of grants being made in future to private corporations relative to the provision of ferry services. Contracts have been written in the first instance by the federal government in respect to RivTow. Contracts will be entered into with private companies to provide limited feeder services up the coast. The nature of those contracts is spelled out in tenders which currently are being called in respect to a service from Prince Rupert to Queen Charlotte Islands, for example. Bids are being solicited. The lowest tender will be selected. Payments will be made to bring the company up to a break-even position, in that the rates are set at a relatively low level to encourage local usage. The pattern is really the pattern established earlier by the federal government in respect to two services on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

I want to go back to my main point which I tried to make initially: they are not grants. We're talking here about grants. The kind of grant which is involved here would be a grant to a small municipality to install a television receiving dish in the north. These grants would not typically be made to commercial

[ Page 5504 ]

operations. They would be made to communities which, in the case of a remote community, could not itself finance television reception, and grants are not available from the federal government. The province may choose to make money available for that purpose.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm glad I asked the question. That's good news for some of the smaller communities up on the coast and in the interior of British Columbia. I'm sure that the minister will be receiving a number of applications in his office.

Perhaps when the minister gets up to answer, he could tell us who to send these applications to. Is it directly to the minister, or to someone in his ministry? I'm very sure that communities like Bella Coola, for example, will be applying for these grants.

I did mention Bella Coola, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps the minister could tell us if he is contemplating providing some financial aid to transportation companies to provide transportation services on the coast. Will he, as well, be providing aid to any transportation company that will provide transportation services to Bella Coola and to Stewart, which are presently not in the minister's plans, and who are presently without water transportation services in those areas? There have been numerous communications between the various elected representatives in those communities and the ministry, and perhaps the minister could explain to us if he contemplates providing transportation services to those communities.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The only transportation services that could be available to those communities through Energy, Transport and Communications would be by way of the ferries legislation. The directors of B.C. Ferries have already visited several communities on the coast and intend to visit the middle-coast area and the Stewart area. The directors may or may not see fit to recommend a feeder ferry service to that area. But again, grants, as referred to by this legislation, are not of the character of a subsidy to, for example, B.C. Ferries. They are grants for specific purposes, and basically to communities on a once-and-for-all basis.

Sections 9 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the opposition has always made mention of the way the government slips the odd heavy in, and I just didn't want the occasion to pass.

Section 15 approved.

Sections 16 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 19 as amended approved.

On section 20.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the Lotteries Act, I just wonder....

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's section 21, Scotty.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I'm sorry.

Section 20 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, if the House would permit a personal note, a Curtis offspring is celebrating her 14th birthday today, and I'm pleased that we have two and a half hours for the supper-hour adjournment. I did not request it. Perhaps the members of the House could just say happy birthday to Susan Curtis.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think we all hope that she will have the happiest and the best birthday dinner in town. I'm sure her father will generously attend to that.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

[ Page 5505 ]

APPENDIX

91 The Hon. G. B. Gardom to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No.

91) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1977, to amend as follows:

Section 19, line 3: By deleting "or hospital employee, " and substituting "or hospital employee acting in the course of employment as a hospital employee, ".