[ Page 2245 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Restriction of the Use of Spring Traps Act (Bill M 217) Mr. Gibson

Introduction and first reading –– 2245

Oral questions.

Retailing of beer by breweries. Mr. Macdonald –– 2245

Energy Commission natural gas inquiry. Mr. Gibson –– 2246

Eligibility of war disabled for full homeowner grant. Mr. Stephens –– 2246

Funding for study of independent schools. Mrs. Dailly –– 2247

Location of Premier's staff. Mr. Lea –– 2247

Patient care at VGH- Mr. D'Arcy –– 2248

Heroin Treatment Act (Bill 18) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2248

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2252

Mr. Gibson –– 2258

Mr. Stephens –– 2271

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2275

Mr. Levi –– 2277

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KAHL: Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure for me today to introduce Miss Andrea Eng. Andrea will be representing Canada in the Miss Universe contest in Mexico City later this month; she's also Miss Canada. Would the House please make her welcome?

Accompanying Andrea is her kissing cousin, Willie Eng, and two friends of mine, Frank Lee and Gil Wong. Would the House please make them welcome?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it would be nice if hon. members would undertake to have their guests seated in the members' gallery. That way the Speaker could also welcome them. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, while I hope, the person I am about to introduce will pardon me for saying he does not share the glamour of the person introduced by the hon. member for Esquimalt, I will say that I would like to draw to the attention of the House the representative of some 20,000-plus British Columbians, the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, Mr. Pat Brady.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, my secretary, Dorothy Sage, has visiting with us today her mother, Mrs. John Smith, her sister, Mrs. Florence Low and, visiting from Scotland, her two cousins, Mrs. Kathleen Taylor and Mrs. Mary Marr. They're from Banchory, Scotland, and I would ask the House to welcome them all.

MR. BARBER: On behalf of my colleague, the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) , I would like to recognize in the precincts today a group of 15 elementary school pupils in grades 1, 2 and 3, from the Kokish Elementary School, and their teacher, Darlene Yu. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. DAVIS: In the gallery today we have Mr. White and members of North Vancouver Senior Secondary. I'd like the members of the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In the gallery today we have two visitors from the state of Connecticut, Mr. and Mrs. David Newton, who formerly were residents of Vancouver. They're accompanied by my wife Jean, affectionately known as "Mean Jean." Also in the gallery today are Mr. Sam Kee and Mr. Gim Huehn from Vancouver. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

MR. STEPHENS: It's my pleasure to introduce in the galleries today students from the environmental studies class at Mount Douglas Secondary School. This is the other part of the group introduced by the second member for Victoria. I was pleased today to have had the opportunity to speak to this class and to balance the scales after the member for Victoria had had first shot at them. I'd like you all to welcome this group.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I have the honour to introduce and ask you to welcome Mr. and Mrs. John Gilchrist and Ray Gilchrist, and their friends from Glasgow, Scotland, Fiona Skellan and Cecilia Handley.

MR. HADDAD: In the Speaker's gallery today we have visiting with us Mr. John Giovanetto, who is the manager of the Cominco operations in Kimberley, which I believe some of you realize is one of my holdings. John comes from the Bavarian City of the Rockies. Would you please make him welcome.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, please excuse my delinquency. I forgot to introduce with these students their very important teacher, Mr. Earl Hawkin.

Introduction of bills.

RESTRICTION OF THE USE

OF SPRING TRAPS ACT

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill M 217, Restriction of the Use of Spring Traps Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

RETAILING OF BEER

BY BREWERIES

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. A little bird told me that the minister has been speaking informally with the breweries and conducting studies with a view to taking the retailing of beer out of the government liquor stores and giving it to the breweries. Is there any truth at all to what the little bird told me?

[ Page 2246 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: If I thought the member could shoot, I'd advise him to get a gun and shoot that bird.

MR. MACDONALD: The bird I'm after is a buzzard, and there he sits. It's a serious question. Is this matter under consideration?

HON. MR. MAIR: If the member is asking the question of me, the answer is no.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary, have there been studies with a view to the retailing of beer through the breweries and, secondly, wine through the wineries - outside of the government?

HON. MR. MAIR: The wineries have been selling wine directly out of their wineries for over a year. As to the breweries, the answer is that, to my knowledge, there is no study - no study authorized by me, certainly -into the possibility of breweries selling beer out of their own establishments.

ENERGY COMMISSION

NATURAL GAS INQUIRY

MR. GIBSON: My question is to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. On June 5 a report was presented to the B.C. Energy Commission's natural gas enquiry and was then withdrawn by order of the minister - this report was submitted by his ministry. It included a section which proposed a return to what is called a traditional royalty system, which would have had the effect of disbanding the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. Had the minister seen a copy of that report before it was presented?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, if the minister had seen that report before it was presented, had he personally endorsed that report in all its terms for submission to the B.C. Energy Commission?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It was suggested that that section be removed.

MR. GIBSON: On a further supplementary, did he suggest that that section be removed before it was presented to the B.C. Energy Commission?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. GIBSON: On a further supplementary, who's in charge of the ministry? If the minister suggested it be removed, why was it submitted with that section still in?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It was submitted in advance.

MR. MACDONALD: To the Minister of Mines: as the brief was withdrawn from the B.C. Energy Commission and the Premier withdrew his from the National Energy Board, both of them were caught with their briefs down - they want a policy open to the wind. Who prepared the brief?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Which brief?

MR. MACDONALD: The one to the B.C. Energy Commission.

HON. MR. CHABOT: If you're referring to the brief that was submitted to the B.C. Energy Commission, it was prepared by officials of the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources of British Columbia.

ELIGIBILITY OF WAR DISABLED

FOR FULL HOMEOWNER GRANT

MR. STEPHENS: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I would like to ask the minister if, in view of the fact that one of his constituents is in receipt of a 70 per cent war disability pension - which was increased by 3 per cent by the federal government this year - and in view of the fact that that pensioner is also faced this year with an increase of $160 in his homeowner tax, he would consider allowing this man and others like him to qualify for the additional homeowner grant.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, when an hon. member is dealing with a specific such as this, I think the only fair and correct response is to say that, as minister, I would be very happy to examine the specifics and determine precisely what can or cannot be done for the constituent to which the hon. member has referred.

MR. STEPHENS: As a supplementary, I would like to ask the minister why veterans who have disabilities of such an extent that they cannot work are not entitled to the full homeowner grant, whereas people on the war veterans' allowance are.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall that the hon. member for Oak Bay participated

[ Page 2247 ]

in the debate on the homeowner grant amendment, a bill which was approved and given royal assent in this House just a few short days ago. Again, if you wish to discuss the specifics and questions which flow out of that, I would be happy to discuss them with you -

MR. STEPHENS: On a further supplementary, I wish to make it clear to the minister that I'm not here to discuss the specifics. I've asked him a specific question as to why he will not extend this particular homeowner grant to these people. Whether or not I participated in any debate is really not of any concern to the people who do not receive this money.

MR. SPEAKER: The member stood on a supplementary question.

MR. STEPHENS: The question is: why does the minister not allow people who are on these disability pensions and unable to work to participate equally with war veterans' allowance recipients?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, I will examine the matter with dispatch. I take it as notice.

FUNDING FOR STUDY

OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Education. Is the minister going to place $80,000 of the B.C. taxpayers' moneys into a U.S.-sponsored survey on Independent schools which has already been repudiated by two private schools and half the school districts in this province?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is mistaken in the number of the allegations that she made in her question. She is referring to a request on the part of the Educational Research Institute of British Columbia, a very reputable organization that was funded by her when she was the Minister of Education, as it is funded by the present government. As far as I know, the Educational Research Institute of B.C. is a highly reputable organization. We have funded them this year, and there is a request before Treasury Board now for an amount of $78,330 to provide funds to the Educational Research Institute of British Columbia to conduct a study of consequences of independent school funding in British Columbia.

MRS. DAILLY: Is the minister then telling us that he has not to date approved this study?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Education does not approve or disapprove of any of the studies that the Educational Research Institute of British Columbia undertakes. It's a completely independent organization and one that is highly competent. So we would not be approving or disapproving of any project. Treasury Board may or may not fund this particular request of the ERIBC.

MRS. DAILY: On a supplementary to the hon. minister: is it not a fact that if you or the Treasury Board does not approve the $80,000, the study will not take place?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, that's something that the member would have to ask the Educational Research Institute of B.C. I would take it, though, from the story, which, I might say, was a most irresponsible story in the Vancouver Province this morning, that the study is underway.

MRS. DAILLY: A final supplementary. If the study is now underway, does this mean that the minister has asked for approval of the $80,000?

HON. MR. McGEER: Again, Mr. Speaker, the Educational Research Institute of British Columbia made a request of the government for support for the study, but whether or not the study is contingent an that support is something only the ERIBC would be able to answer.

LOCATION OF PREMIER'S STAFF

MR. LEA: Can the Premier tell me whether any of the following staff from his office -Messrs. Brown, Roach, Tozer or Arnett - since being appointed to government service by order-in-council, some of them, and others appointed to his office, have been based at any time anywhere other than the city of Victoria?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure I understand the question. Could the member elaborate on that?

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if any one of these people - Brown, Roach, Tozer or Arnett - at any time in their government service has had his home office anywhere other than Victoria.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Not to my knowledge. But for accuracy's sake, because I am not familiar

[ Page 2248 ]

with what went on during the early formation of the government, I'm certainly prepared to take the question as notice.

PATIENT CARE AT

VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to remember to spell Chilliwack with an "h".

To the Minister of Health. Two weeks ago in the debate on the estimates of the Minister of Health I asked the minister a couple of times whether or not he was convinced that there was no problem of patient care worthy of his attention in the Vancouver General Hospital. He indicated that in his opinion there was not. Since that time there has been the firing of three clinical directors.

Interjection.

MR. DARCY: Well, since that time of discussion there have been firings. Also there have been discussions among the board of the hospital and the nurses at the hospital and the RNABC. In view of the apparent breakdown of that inquiry, which was initiated out of those discussions into patient care, my question to the minister is: is he still convinced that there is no problem of patient care in, the Vancouver General Hospital worthy of his attention in even a peripheral way?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what breakdown of what inquiry the member for Rossland-Trail is referring to. As members of this House know, during the time of my estimates I suggested that the proper solution to this problem is one which is followed in every hospital in our province and should be followed with the board of administration of the hospital dealing with its employees in a fair and practical manner. 1 lent the support of the office in order to attempt to make sure that full meetings were held between the Registered Nurses Association of B.C. and the board of Vancouver General Hospital.

As a result of that latest meeting between those two bodies, Mr. Speaker, an inquiry panel was set up, consisting of two members of the Vancouver General Hospital board and one independent member whose credentials are beyond question, I would say. That is the former appeal court justice, Angelo Branca.

It's my understanding that those inquiries under Justice Branca began only yesterday and are being carried on at this moment into the firing of the nurses to whom you refer. The hospital board has moved most expeditiously in my opinion to move to attempt to resolve some of the other problems with which it is faced. That includes an expansion of its management committee to ensure that nursing representatives are on that committee, certainly until such a time as a new vice-president is appointed to the Vancouver General Hospital board. It also is a commitment from the hospital board that further inquiries, if necessary, will be carried out on a very independent basis by someone who will be acceptable both to the hospital board and to the nurses' association and to the employees involved in the hospital.

I believe that this situation is following the course it should, and that is frank and open negotiations between the parties involved.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move the House proceed by leave to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Second reading of Bill 18, Mr. Speaker.

HEROIN TREATMENT ACT

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to take my place at this point to move second reading of the Heroin Treatment Act. And in doing that, I would ask that all members put aside personal prejudices and preformed conclusions and address themselves to this medical, social, legal and psychological phenomenon which has plagued our society since the late 1800s in the case of opium and since 1911 in the case of heroin abuse in British Columbia, a problem which has caused immeasurable human misery and degradation, and an intolerable burden to the citizen in regard to health, social and criminal justice system costs.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us as British Columbians to give leadership and to resolve this problem which has plagued our society for at least 69 years and to stop the buck-passing between all levels of government. The time has come for us to give leadership to a problem which in relationship to ocher serious problems our society faces such as alcoholism, cancer, heart disease and others places a burden on our people out of all proportion to the numbers involved.

It amazes me that those in the community who have been so vocal in their condemnation of this health entry plan for heroin users in the time that has passed since the plan was

[ Page 2249 ]

announced in August of 1977 have, as far as I can determine at this point, anyway, never once offered any alternate proposal to alleviate the plight of the user, other than some vague references to some other systems in some other countries.

The criticism in many cases is completely negative - so negative, in fact, that it would seem that the main desire of at least some of the critics is to see that the plan fails. It would seem, too, that the individual caught up in a degrading and a debilitating lifestyle is to become a pawn in a game in which we debate success or failure of a system, when our total purpose should be to offer to the individual a genuine opportunity to achieve a meaningful and rewarding lifestyle and to relieve our society of an intolerable burden.

I make no apology for giving the protection of society as high a priority as the plight of the user. First, Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we as government, as opposition and as the general public understand that we are not dealing with a local situation, but an international conspiracy and drug network that now reaches into almost every major nation, with control and distribution networks on every continent. I doubt that there is anyone in this House who could doubt that statement in view of the evidence brought forth at the most recent conspiracy trials, particularly here in Vancouver.

Surely it is to our national shame that Vancouver has an international reputation second only to Amsterdam as a major entry holding point and transfer point for heroin shipments. Surely it is also to our national shame that for 60 or 70 years Vancouver has been known as the drug capital of Canada. Western European nations which formerly looked askance at North America now have heroin abuse epidemics as illicit heroin floods across their borders as well.

By the year 1977, the identified heroin user population had increased almost 1,000 per cent from 9,000 in 1973 in Europe to 88,000 in 1977. In Italy, it grew from fewer than 1,000 in 1975 to 7,000 in 1976. West Germany, with a growth rate of 15 per cent per year, has an identified population of 40,000. Sweden grew from a few dozen in 1973 to 1,000 in 1976 and 2,000 in 1977. In the Netherlands, 7,000 users are now in treatment and one death per day is attributed to drug abuse in Amsterdam alone. The United Kingdom today has an admitted population of 10,000. So we all face a situation in common with other countries of the world which cannot be allowed to continue.

Just recently we have been reading or hearing in our own province that the number of heroin users is decreasing, that the crime rate is dropping. To the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I have with me the latest report on the federal-provincial drug strategy committee, and this is what is really happening. Heroin offences in British Columbia increased 90 per cent in the first quarter of 1978 over the first quarter of 1977 - 230 offences versus 121. Unduplicated identifications of heroin users done painstakingly over the past few months, and so far incomplete, as of May 10,1978, stand at 6,293, an increase of 379 since September, 1977 - and that does not include any heroin addicts presently incarcerated. The Bureau of Dangerous Drugs directorate's records of Ottawa as of the end of 1976 show the B.C. population at 6,500 and some odd.

I don't doubt whether there can be much doubt any longer that the total heroin addict population of British Columbia must be in the very near neighbourhood of 10,000 addicts. All statistical sources maintained since 1964 show that the known user population of this province has exceeded 60 per cent of the national total. The only other provinces with any significant user population are Ontario, with approximately 17 per cent and Alberta, now with 10.6 per cent of the national total.

Our crime rate in British Columbia is still the highest in Canada. Crimes against property, a traditional method of financing a heroin habit, have increased so far in 1978, over the same period in the year 1977. Breaking and entering is up 8.6 per cent - 11,000 cases in 1978 compared to 10,000 cases in 1977 during the same period. Theft over $200 is up over 27 per cent over 1977 in the same period.

I must return again, Mr. Speaker, to my earlier remarks concerning criticism of the plan and the almost complete lack of any alternative approaches being offered. Somehow, no one chooses to consider that we are offering the user a realistic and compassionate - yes, compassionate - plan which will give him or her a truly genuine opportunity to achieve a meaningful and rewarding lifestyle, an opportunity which will enable him or her to experience the very civil liberties that you and I today enjoy. Surely no one in this House can argue that the life of misery and degradation the user now lives enables that individual to exercise anything like the civil liberties that we as free and unaddicted individuals enjoy. And haven't we all in this House over the years heard many appeals from distraught parents for help - from relatives and from friends, on behalf of adolescents caught up in this vicious dependency - help which we haven't been able to give, given the current conditions that we have, as their

[ Page 2250 ]

youngsters slipped into a life of crime, into a life of prostitution, into a life of disintegration? One has only to check with the police departments of our province, with our coroners or with the emergency departments of a general hospital, if any such confirmation were even needed.

It is appropriate to me, during this second reading debate of Bill 18, to review somewhat at least - and certainly this will happen further during committee stage of the bill - to what lengths we are prepared to go to offer the user a comprehensive treatment programme which is unique, which covers the whole spectrum of support, devaluation, treatment, community support and supervision in terms of after-care for the user.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most over-riding concerns that has been expressed to date, at least, of those opposed to this proposed health legislation is the infringement upon the civil liberties of known heroin users. I can't repeat this often enough, but anyone with any knowledge of the nature of narcotic dependency is fully aware of the lack of normal civil liberties to which narcotic dependent individuals now have access. What kind of civil liberties can be enjoyed in a world where one is forced to raise, through obvious means, up to $1,000 a week to support one's habit while simultaneously worrying about being apprehended by the police, robbed by one's friends and having to deal with the inevitable failing of one's physical health? What kind of civil liberties can a person enjoy in those kinds of conditions?

Mr. Speaker, this plan is designed to help individuals reattain a state of being where the same civil liberties that most people ordinarily enjoy are accessible. Those who have some familiarity with counselling drug dependent persons are very much aware of a very high client dropout rate in this area - a dropout rate which generally, if not always, frustrates any real progress. It is not difficult to realize why this is, as such people by nature generally operate under a premise of immediate gratification. But treatment cannot be immediate. The complicated process of becoming predisposed to drug dependency and then actually becoming a drug-dependent person takes time. It may also often take considerable time to come to terms with such problems. This places an unfamiliar and difficult burden on the user because a sincere desire to improve one's lot in life is paired with an insatiable thirst for immediate gratification, and it provides the user with a paradoxical situation. Dropping out, then, is often the only bearable course of action for that individual.

Mr. Speaker, the coercive aspect of the heroin plan would immediately address and remedy this dynamic. I should add that it is my belief that such control to individuals who have little in the way of inner control will most often come to them as a great relief. The task, then, is to help an individual replace that immediate gratification syndrome with something which is more mature.

Mr. Speaker, in a study conducted by Dr. H. Boudin of the University of Florida, legal coercion was found to be positively associated with treatment duration, thereby being indirectly beneficial to treatment effects. In that study, when total drug abstinence, 50 per cent gainful employment and no felony convictions were used as the criteria for success, treatment in that case was estimated to have a net success rate of 57 per cent for all admissions to the programme and more than 70 per cent for those people who graduated from that programme.

Mr. Speaker, voluntary rehabilitation programmes historically have demanded exceptional indications of resourcefulness and of motivation as criteria for accepting individuals into treatment. Consequently, most individuals seeking help have found themselves simply unable to avail themselves of those programmes being offered because they couldn't meet those rigid requirements of either motivation or commitment.

In addition to compelling people to stay in active therapy long enough to derive true benefit, the health plan is committing itself to working with each and every individual at their own level without making them, particularly at the initial stage, demonstrate inner resources that they simply cannot display. You see, Mr. Speaker, this is not just a one-way commitment that we are seeking from this House in this bill. Rather it is, I believe, that individuals can be successfully coerced into bettering their lots in life, but, simultaneously and with as much depth, I must stress the need for this government to commit its agencies and its agency personnel to just as binding a commitment to those individuals who come into our programme.

Under the present situation, almost invariably heroin-dependent people have little alternative - perhaps no alternative - other than to find themselves in prison or penitentiaries for varying lengths of time throughout their lives.

One who has a familiarity with heroin users may well realize that when people become habituated to heroin, in a very real sense they stop growing. They limit their world to

[ Page 2251 ]

issues that rotate almost exclusively around the narrow drug scene. For this reason they may remain immature. Emotionally, they remain childlike. As such a quest for well-defined external definitions and boundaries is embarked upon, circumstances wherein the name of the game is clear and the roles within it laid out becomes a desperate priority for the heroin user.

It is for these reasons, perhaps, that there exists such a constant parade of heroin users from the street into the criminal justice system. It is for these same reasons, perhaps, that upon release, almost invariably, individuals arrange in very short order to return to incarceration.

It is felt that the compulsory aspect of this plan will offer that same kind of parenting to individuals. The main difference, however, will be that within the context of this plan individuals will be availed of the kinds of skills necessary for a degree of healthy self -actualization without the need repeatedly to return to a prison or a penitentiary situation.

It's been stated more than once that no treatment has been evaluated as being of substantial benefit, and therefore this effort we are debating today will be an expensive dead end. It is true that in the expensive shotgun approach to treatment that has existed so far, very few treatment programmes have demonstrated themselves as being very beneficial for a great number of people. This is one of the great advantages of finally having an actual system in North America. The treatment aspect of this health entry model contained within the Heroin Treatment Act represents what is, perhaps, the most ambitious effort at providing a truly integrated system of care yet attempted anywhere in North America. This model will combine the most sensitive of assessment procedures with an assortment of time-proven treatment approaches. In addition, careful evaluation will be given to new innovative approaches that appear to hold some promise in this whole matter.

Given those treatment approaches, it is highly likely, Mr. Speaker, that the experience of the next number of years in British Columbia will provide the national and international treatment community with information which is not obtainable now. The unifying philosophical thread which runs throughout the entire system of care is perhaps best reflected in the varying perspectives which will be lent by each of the participating treatment programmes. But in general terms the services of our plan may be viewed as being a basic health attainment for the user; comprehensive individual assessments to develop individual needs and programmes for those needs; teaching of life skills, particularly communication skills; vocational training on a very large scale; and improvement of family, social and personal relationships.

I should at least make brief mention, Mr. Speaker, of the actual treatment units which the health entry plan proposes. There will be a street unit established in the downtown core of Vancouver. In essence, this unit will be a case-finding unit operating at the street level where heroin use is most prevalent. It will operate from a house capable of accommodating up to 100 people, 22 of them on a residential basis. It will thus provide an emergent shelter for drug users experiencing stress related to their drug abuse, and who wish to consider alternatives. Through linkages with community resources and emergency medical services, it will be available to manage the repercussions, particularly in emergency ways, of drug abuse. Residents will otherwise be active - as active as they are capable of being - in the detailed running of the house. Counselling will be focused on clarifying current drug use and referring from there to appropriate community resources.

A system of community volunteers, Mr. Speaker, is incorporated with the staff teams and is an important aspect of our whole programme. This resource will be particularly effective with patients who have little in the way of social resources for criminal justice referrals and to those clients whose drug abuse is related to particular anxieties. But the objectives again of the residential treatment centre, which will be a 150-bed unit, will also be basic health restoration, orientation to treatment, individual assessment and, further on, referral to a community clinic or a therapeutic community.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there will be two therapeutic communities planned for our province, each being able to accommodate up to 100 residents. These two therapeutic communities will differ somewhat in duration and intensity, but will have in common an intensive, live-in, social skill-building programme, which again will be complemented by vocational training, physical health building and community responsibility orientation.

(Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The health entry plan also proposes the establishment of a special resource centre. This centre would take on the responsibility of examining the many and varied approaches which different groups around North America

[ Page 2252 ]

and around the world, for that matter, are promoting. It is our hope to establish the efficacy of each such approach and determine who is most likely to benefit, if anyone, from each one. Acupuncture, biofeedback, megavitamin therapy and hypnotherapy are examples of approaches warranting such evaluation.

I must stress, Mr. Speaker, that this special resource centre will be, in effect, outside of the plan and no attempt will ever be made to coerce individuals into any such programme unless it is with the express and clear willingness of the client to participate. Within the context of our compulsory treatment programme, participation in any of these special programmes - and I can't stress this enough - must be entirely voluntary.

It is expected that a preponderance of heroin users - up to 96 per cent of those involved - will attend community clinics located strategically throughout the province, many of which are already in operation. These clinics will generally be designed and staffed to operate on a 12-hour basis, six and a half days per week. These clinics will provide a comprehensive service based on an individualized assessment of patient need and potential.

The final aspect, Mr. Speaker, of the health entry treatment system which bears mentioning is the community support and follow-up mechanism. Each of our clinical teams will be liaisoned by a co-ordinated team of community workers. The community worker will be responsible for assuring that each patient respects the rules which govern his therapy within that open community, while simultaneously providing the kind of support which will assure, to whatever extent possible, the successful completion of the objectives of the programme. In other words, the role of the community worker will be to travel the path of the open community with each patient, providing the treatment system with data which will be essential to the evaluation of the entire programme eventually. The most important role, however, will be to be present, to be there to offer support as circumstances decree and to offer strength for the user in times of high risk. It will be an actual community treatment liaison, the like of which is unique on this continent.

In closing, allow me to reiterate that the health entry plan is based on the premise that heroin dependency is at once a legal, medical and psycho-social problem, a problem whose cost to society has reached an intolerable level. The plan is designed to accommodate these concerns, but recognizes that the key to the solution lies within the realm of treatment which will provide the kind of support necessary for each individual to come to terms with this debilitating problem and become a self-sufficient person.

The plan recognizes that such treatment and support can only be effective if it is offered within a well-structured and consistent programme designed to involve each individual for a sufficient period of time in order that the programme can be effective. We know that addiction consists of an acquired set of behaviours learned over time under specific circumstances within a certain environment. It is our conviction that many individuals can be treated in such a way that they may unlearn and do away with drug-related activities and, through acquiring new terms of reference, become self -responsible, addiction-free individuals. By virtue of the provision of the services which I've summarize quite briefly, the health entry plan will have a tremendous impact on our community by dramatically reducing the number of problems related to heroin abuse.

This plan offers important relief to two segments of our community. First of all, it offers the user something better than an inescapable round of addiction, criminal activity and imprisonment. Secondly, it offers our community something much better than the tremendous financial and social costs that have accrued from a disproportionately large heroin-using population.

It offers our community the chance to take the lead, rather than taking the back seat for 70 years and becoming known for those 70 years as the narcotic capital of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I'm extremely proud to move second reading.

MR. D'ARCY: I rise in opposition to the principle of this bill on a number of grounds. Initially, I wish to discuss the total unconstitutionality of it.

MR. STEPHENS: On a point of order. The Minister of Health opened this debate by asking all members to keep an open mind. I accept that proposition; we are dealing with the most serious bill perhaps ever to come to the House. I would suggest that the members of the government accept the Minister of Health's warning on that and allow the members to participate in this debate in a very open-minded fashion as he has suggested.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps hon. member, when seeking the floor on a point of order, you would state the number of the standing order which you find offended.

[ Page 2253 ]

MR. D'ARCY: On the constitutionality of it I want to note to the house that the bill does provide for voluntary commitment of heroin addicts. On the surface, that would seem reasonable. It also provides that a person can be directed to the treatment centre by a judge in lieu of a sentence, and in its simplest form that would be acceptable and also similar to a condition of probation. However, the bill seem to have contemplated as well the new federal legislation, Bill C51, which provides for such treatment centres in a voluntary way. I gather that Mr. Basford had some comments about that recently.

Of course, the controversial part is the third method, and that is the one which is going to be open to criticism and question in this House and, I am sure, abuse when the programme is functional. In the third method, a peace officer or the director of an area co-ordinating centre - a frightening term, in my opinion - can issue a notice that a person must appear at a treatment centre, and compliance must be within the subsequent 48 hours. Assuming the person stays within the proxy order, the police can then prosecute under what must be assumed to be the Summary Convictions Act, which has a basket clause that would always give the police the powers of arrest under such conditions.

Mr. Speaker, once the case comes to court, it can be assumed that the scenario would be that the Crown would offer the argument that the legislation is valid under section 92 (16) of the BNA Act. That is the pith and substance of the Act - health is a purely local matter. Moreover, it can be assumed that the Crown would point to the Mental Health Act or the communicable diseases Act, which seem to parallel the Heroin Treatment Act, and certainly the drafters of the Heroin Treatment Act had a good look at these legislations.

However, in my opinion, it is at this point that the statute before the House begins to fail rather miserably. It is no doubt based on legislation which, if you repeat it out of context, is taken as the letter of the law but certainly is not the spirit of the law. Imprisonment or incarceration or treatment -whatever the minister wishes to call it -under the Mental Health Act is a bad example of law-making. It has been abused and is clearly a minority piece of legislation which deals with people who have little chance to fight back and, in many cases, probably have no idea what their civil liberties are. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Mental Health Act has some holdovers of much evil and unenlightened thinking at its base, which should be resolved by this government or any government in B.C. as soon as possible.

However, we know that the Crown counsel at some point in the future is going to argue that this is health and, because addiction is a health matter, it calls for an examination rather than a hearing for those who will be treated., And here is where the thing begins to get fudged as between a health problem and a problem of law enforcement and the Attorney-General. What I suspect is that the examination should be a judicial and not a medical matter. It is in reality a hearing and is called an examination - a hearing without charge, a hearing without any known crime having been committed. In my opinion, this Act is going to fail before any court. Mr. Speaker, I find it rather interesting that at a time when the juvenile detention Act of last year is under appeal on the same grounds - it is ultra vires, unconstitutional under provincial legislation - we are apparently going ahead with this Act, willy-nilly.

At least, I would think that, as I believe the lawyers of B.C. have pointed out, if there is to be an examination of the constitutionality of this Act before the courts, let's not blow any money on it until we have that decision. What an utter waste of time it would be, Mr. Speaker, for us in this House to be spending public money debating this issue and for the minister to be proceeding as far as he has with the development of detention centres at Brannan Lake and Lord knows where all else, if only a few months down the road we are to find that the entire Act and the spirit of the Act is declared unconstitutional. Surely the minister should have had time to discuss this with the medical profession; he has not. Surely he should have had time to discuss this with the legal profession; he has not - by their statement. Surely he should have had the fiscal sense - let's forget the moral or the medical responsibility - to consider getting it tested before a court before millions of dollars of public money was committed to the programme.

Now I know that there are other aspects of it which most people who are familiar with actions of detention would find reprehensible. It does not specifically state that the accused may or may not be present during the examination - in other words, he is not necessarily in a position to face his accusers. I know the minister has already said there is an appeal procedure. But, of course, the appeal procedure places the onus on the individual to prove that he is not an addict rather than on the government and the agents of the ministry to prove that that individual is. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there is a basic change-around in our

[ Page 2254 ]

principles of justice in this country - and in the United States and in all western democracies - whereby the onus is on the state to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt rather than on the individual to prove that, in a one-sided way, he is not guilty of something which cannot be defined. In this regard, I consider the appeal procedure as laid down in the Act as a sham, and it should be attacked on all grounds.

In this Section 1 would also like to note that there is considered by the ministry a parallel to the other Acts which the government has under the Health ministry, particularly the Mental Health Act and the communicable diseases Act. I would note, however, that addiction can best be described as a physical and personality disorder. It is certainly not caused by a germ which is contagious nor is it, initially at least, the result of the mental aberration such as psychosis or schizophrenia. Drug dependency or psychic dependency is a very illusive term, and I challenge the minister to make any sort of realistic definition as to what drug dependency really is.

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the main objections I have to a bill that says it's going to treat addicts in a compulsory way. I would like the minister to tell the House - and he's been asked on many occasions - exactly what the treatment is going to involve. And one of the difficulties starting with that - and I've discussed this with many medical people - is how the heck you define what an addict really is. Which drugs cause dependency? How do you identify somebody as a heroin user? Medical evidence has it that heroin is absorbed very, very quickly into the digestive system and broken down almost immediately by the liver into morphine. How is it possible to tell someone who has evidence of drug use as to whether they have just had injection of heroin or whether they've had an injection of morphine? We also know that drug addicts will take any mind- or mood-altering drugs, and they might prefer heroin. But morphine is fine; barbiturates are fine; almost any drug which comes under the general heading of a psychotropic drug is fine.

We also know that there has been a reduction in the amount of heroin and the quality of heroin which has been used over the past five to 10 years. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is not entirely the result of police actions - I think it is partly the result of better police action through CLEU and other agencies - however, I'm not convinced -that that's entirely the reason. I think the primary reason that we have seen a reduction in the quality and the amount of heroin in a fix over the last few years has been that the suppliers to the market have been showing good old-fashioned monopolistic tendencies. What has happened is that there is less competition in the distribution. The little guys have been caught or pushed off the street; there have been the usual games that have been played where the RCMP, after years of painstaking work - and it must be very frustrating to the individual constables and officers involved -will make a major drug bust and they will catch a whole lot of people in a big net. The suppliers simply go out and recruit a new marketing team in very short order.

And what has happened is that there are, in all probability, very few real suppliers out there any more. The result is that the average cap of heroin is now being cut with strychnine and talcum powder and Lord knows what all else. It's very, very low in quality and the price has gone up four or five times - a typical monopoly tendency. I would like to think that it was all police work and I wish it was, but unfortunately I think that there is just a natural shift in charging what the market will bear and a lowering of the amount of competition at the street level.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of other drug addictions. We know that methadone, for instance, used as a treatment for heroin, is in fact highly addictive and with rather difficult withdrawal symptoms. We also know that there are numbers of people out there, as far as usage goes, you might say addicted to valium. We noticed in a particular publication of a study in The Financial Times of Canada which indicated that in some cities as many as 14 per cent of the public are receiving regular and constant prescriptions by their physicians for valium. If that is not an addiction, I really don't know what is. We certainly cannot define easily what an addict is because he may or may not be using heroin; he may or may not be using other drugs. It may be extremely difficult to identify exactly what drug is being used.

I believe that one cannot criticize an Act such as this one which can be attacked validly in many ways without suggesting some methods other than better police action. I will say this, Mr. Speaker. I do believe jail sentences and penalties for people involved in the importation and distribution and pushing of drugs should be much heavier than they are today.

There is substantial evidence that many of the people who are selling drugs even at the street level are not themselves addicts, although some are; but there is substantial

[ Page 2255 ]

evidence that most of the heavies involved in the drug trade are not themselves addicted. I believe that if we had heavier sentences -much heavier than we have today - we would see not only a reduction in the recruiting of street pushers and addicts, but also we would go substantially towards protecting future generations from being infected with this rather serious social and public problem.

Mr. Speaker, I also believe that, in many cases, an addict or a potential addict is someone who has a basic personality problem which could probably be identified rather early in life. When I say "rather early in life, " I don't mean in young adulthood or even as a teenager, but at a very young age. There is increasing evidence of a significant dependency on alcohol and even alcoholism amongst 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14-year-olds. There is evidence that emotionally and physically it is much easier to get addicted at a very young age to alcohol or other types of drug than it is when the body has matured. I think it is very important, not only in identifying those who need to be assisted in coping with life, but in identifying those who would be susceptible to drug abuse or alcoholism at a very early age. I think it is a question of nurturing, a question of work with parents, a question of work within the home and within the schools.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I think we must consider the rather harmful effects, I believe, of certain societal influences on young people, and on those of us who are into our adulthood as well. On every hand we see addictive influences, we see liquor advertising, we see people popping pills for stomach upsets, taking Bromo Seltzer and aspirin. We are told that you are really not with it or living right or showing the results of living a full life unless you need some kind of assistance during the day. I would suggest that the sorts of things we see advertised on television and in the newspapers, which are not basic nutrition and which are not things which one would normally consider contributing to a healthy life, are making an overall pattern of bad influences on individuals whose personality is still maturing as well as on those who, hopefully, have reached some form of adulthood.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to go on to what I see as a possible and rather frightening scenario of this particular bill, and this programme if it is in effect. One of our senior law enforcement officers, the chief of police in Saanich, made a statement recently that "we should try something; anything is better than the present revolving door policy." What he failed to mention was that what

w e have here is another, more complex and more expensive revolving door policy. This is going to take a little bit longer to revolve, and it's going to cost $14 million a year, but it is going to result in the same thing. There is no evidence - and the minister has not presented any evidence - that anyone is going to be cured by this programme who wouldn't have been cured by conventional means. The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) has said that one of the results of this bill may be that addicts are going to leave the province or leave the country before they can get picked up. There is a possibility that British Columbia might lose some addicts that way - I don't think very many, though.

What does frighten me, Mr. Speaker, is that ... let's assume that the minister does get a significant number of addicts off the street. Let's assume that he does get them into one of his treatment farms or institutions - I know he doesn't like them being called jails or internment camps; but I gather you can't walk away from them, so I don't know what else we can call them. Let's assume that he is successful and his assistants are successful in doing that. As has been pointed out in the House, there is absolutely no evidence that he's going to be successful in keeping drugs out of those institutions. If you can't keep drugs out of maximum security institutions like the B.C. Penitentiary or Oakalla Prison Farm, how in the world is anyone going to keep drugs out of less security-conscious institutions?

So we can assure that that by itself is not going to dry the market up. However, it's going to be a captive market - I suppose that's a bit of a play on words. But what really bothers me is that in my experience with economics - in anyone's experience who's observed the way the marketplace works - if you've got a product to sell - and the underworld certainly has; it's worth, perhaps, $250 million a year to them - you're certainly not going to let it go on very long without having your basic street market. What concerns me is that it is conceivably possible that with no street market or a reduced street market, there would be substantial attempts to recruit new users, attempts which are not going on today because of the low quality and the high price of the heroin that's available.

When you have that kind of profitable business going you certainly aren't going to go on very long without looking for a new market -or many new markets - particularly, as I indicated earlier, with young people when they are, according to the best medical and psychological advice, physically and psychologically

[ Page 2256 ]

most vulnerable. That's where those new markets would be developed. That would be a terrible side-effect of this bill and this non-treatment programme. It would create two markets: the captive market and the new market out there. No one with that kind of product to sell for that kind of profit is going to sit around waiting for people to be discharged two or three years down the road. They are going to create their own new market - you better believe it. I would even suggest introducing a loss-leader principle into the sale of heroin, which would result in higher quality and lower prices, to make it available to that potential market which is there.

The Minister of Health has failed to give evidence in this House of the kind of crime which is being practised related to the drug trade. He has said that drug-related crimes are higher than ever before. What is he referring to? Does he have a report from CLEU or from the Attorney-General's office? What kind of crime? Is he referring to someone being mugged in the park? Is he referring to shoplifting? Is he referring to victimless crimes, such as prostitution? What kind of crime is he referring to? Is it crime against the individual? Is it crime against the retail corporations? Or is it victimless crimes of a social nature? I would be very interested in having that kind of information from the minister if he has it, with some kind of validity attached to it based on a report of a prestigious, believable organization such as CLEU or the judicial system of British Columbia or the prison system of British Columbia -some kind of backing other than hearsay.

I do believe that his ministry should be looking at whether or not it is significantly possible to assist a person who has been a drug addict for a number of years and who has developed a psychological and physical dependency on it. I'm less concerned with the addict of today than I am with the addict in future generations. I do believe that if you could remove the criminal element in producing and selling drugs, a great deal of the romance and a great deal of the crime surrounding drug addiction and the supply of drugs would leave us. Certainly alcohol is a serious drug problem. As I've said, I believe that valium, barbiturates and even cocaine are serious drug problems, but they don't have the crime attached to them for the simple reason that they are more readily available without committing a crime. I believe that the heroin problem in B.C. and in other parts of Canada is an industry. It continues generation after generation because it is a very profitable industry. If the Minister of Health is serious about dealing with that problem, I think he should be looking at ways of taking the very high profitability out of that industry. You are not going to cure drug addicts that way, Mr. Speaker; but we hardly have the crime problem surrounding other forms of drug addiction in our society.

I want to talk a little bit about what this particular treatment programme may mean at the general practitioner level of the medical profession. Right now we have drug addicts visiting a doctor on occasion. In many cases the doctor attempts to treat the addict: he monitors him; perhaps he prescribes methadone; there is a free discussion - presumably well known to be confidential - between the two of them. It's the traditional, basic, ongoing doctor-patient relationship. Everybody really knows where they stand. Where are we going to get to under this bill? With this bill in effect, what addict in his right mind - we're not just talking about the street addict-, we're talking about a person who could hold a regular, straight job or even be a professional or business person - known to have a dependency on any sort of mood-altering drug is going to have a discussion with any doctor on a voluntary basis with the knowledge that that information could end up in an ex parte hearing against him. This is a hearing without the normal rights of habeas corpus; it's a hearing where the appeal procedure places the onus on the individual to prove he or she is not dependent on a mind-altering or a mood altering drug. There will be no likelihood of a frank and open doctor-patient relationship anywhere in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss a bit deeper what I feel is most definitely one way to reduce the likelihood or the probability of new addicts being recruited among young people. I would suggest that even at the kindergarten level the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education and possibly the Ministry of Human Resources, because they have some excellent people in their line staff, get together and make an attempt to identify those children who may be potential drug addicts, who may have the kinds of susceptibility, either because of their environment or their background or their home life, who may have personalities that could lead to a susceptibility to drug addiction.

At that level there could be identification made of probability, and those symptoms treated at that stage in a human, compassionate, sympathetic way. I'm not suggesting for a minute that we have a kind of 1984 analysis of personality problems at an early age. What I am suggesting is that those professional

[ Page 2257 ]

persons who have considerable experience, knowledge and access to background and back-up information use their professional efforts in a sympathetic and positive way.

i Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we have learned about adult drug addiction is that the professionals, in their efforts to treat the problem, by and large, have failed. I suppose it's that knowledge that in some way led the minister to introduce this rather heavy-handed bill. There has to be an admission out there that the medical degrees and the masters and PhDs in social sciences and social work and psychology have not been successful in treating drug addiction in British Columbia or anywhere else in Canada, North America, Britain, Japan or anywhere else.

But one thing we can do, Mr. Speaker, is deal with addiction in a preventive way. The second thing we can do is reduce the criminal profitability of heroin addiction. As I said earlier, that means increasing the controlled availability of certain substances in the same way that most other addictive substances are available. It also means very, very heavy penalties for those involved at any level in the trafficking of heroin.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that there is no amount of money that can be committed to this programme or any other that is going to cure an addict who does not want to be cured in the first place. I would like to once again ask the minister when he makes his closing remarks on this bill what new ideas he has to treat addiction or cure addiction that have not been tried and failed in the past, and what new there is in this programme other than simply a roundup and getting people off the streets. I do believe, as a police chief in Saanich has said, that we have a revolving-door policy, and this is a much more elaborate, much more expensive and much more costly and timewasting revolving door than what we've had to this point. It is not going to prevent people from becoming addicts. In fact, as I've said, it's going to give a much greater incentive to recruit new addicts because the industry is going to see part of its ready market dried up. It's going to see part of its street market dried up. But it's not going to have its institutional market dried up because this minister and the Attorney-General and every other attorney-general and health minister everywhere else in Canada and in the United States have all failed. In every jurisdiction they have failed to keep hard drugs or soft drugs or alcohol out of any institution. It doesn't matter whether the walls are 40 feet thick.

The Minister of Health, for all whatever good intentions he may have, is not going to keep drugs out of Brannan Lake or out of any other treatment centre that he may establish.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we have a societal problem here. I think we have a question of people who need assistance, perhaps in order to cope with society as we have it. I don't find society a jungle, but many people do. One of the things they have turned to in order to cope with society is a dependency on many different types of drugs. Only one of those types of drugs, though, Mr. Speaker, has a serious criminal element attached to it, a serious organized crime element attached to it, and that's heroin. In fact, it has been so successful that there are many people involved in the importation and distribution of heroin who are very legitimate now. They may or may not still be involved in the trade, but they have used their earnings to establish themselves in legitimate businesses, and they operate legitimately in those businesses. As such, they are not likely to be touched by law enforcement, even when they are identified and known.

Because there is so little justification for this bill in terms of an effective cure, I really wonder about the statements that have been made by the minister and the fact that he has failed to answer so many of the basic questions put outside this House not just by the civil liberties organizations but also by the Law Society. It has been suggested in certain areas that the legal profession perhaps has a vested interest in wanting to keep the question of addiction before the courts. Well, I personally don't know of any lawyer who got too rich defending a heroin addict, simply because the heroin addict doesn't have any money to pay him. He's probably on legal aid. So how we can see that that may be a vested interest, I really couldn't say.

We do know, though, that the lawyers of B.C., according to the report from their meeting in Penticton, were unanimously opposed. I can't quite believe that, knowing lawyers and how they all seem to have two or three different opinions on everything and, like other citizens, belong to all shadings and types of political parties and have various beliefs. I find it difficult to believe that they could be unanimous. But I presume there is near unanimity, and this would seem to indicate that they've all had time to think about it and they have all had time to consider in their personal experience what it may mean.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 2258 ]

Towards the end of my remarks, I would like to call attention to a story in the Vancouver Province of about a week ago by a writer named Ruth Pinkus. The headline of the story is: "Heroin Act Could Jail Aunt Jean for Aspirin." Some of the subtitles indicate that as the Act now stands, patent drugs could qualify as narcotics. Further on it says that if the Act were law, Betty Ford would be considered an addict. Also there is the notation that the evaluation panels could be staffed by a miscellaneous assortment of people. In the final analysis of the decision making, only one of those need to be a medical practitioner, and that practitioner, of course, would not be the individual's own physician. It's interesting to note that just as with lawyers, there are a great many different shades and points of view within the medical profession.

I also want to call attention to numerous editorials on this matter, which I'm sure the minister has read or people in his office have read. I would note that the minister has claimed that the Act is constitutional, even though it has not been tested and a number of constitutional experts have said that it is not. I would think it should be noted that what we want to make sure of is that the programme and the Act is justified and that the Act can be made effective before the minister goes ahead and commits a great deal of money to it.

I would like to see some commitment from the minister that he is going to support an increase in support for the police services in this province. I would like to see some commitment from the minister that he is going to work with the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Human Resources, as well as with the Attorney-General's ministry, in having a look at those tendencies which can be identified in individuals at a very early age to possibly determine probability of potential susceptibility to addiction, not just of heroin but of other types of drugs, as a way of heading off this problem and to protect not only our children but our children's children from this kind of hazard. Lord knows, it's difficult enough to grow up, and there are enough hazards getting through school, getting through training or university and establishing oneself in an occupation, profession or business without quite literally being hassled by individuals who wish to sustain and expand an industry which in this province is worth several hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I am very much concerned that in the event that the minister's programme is at all successful in removing people from the streets - not in curing them, but in removing them from the streets - that industry which is itself not addicted will go out and find new people to sell their products to.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the minister has either acted on a programme, the very basis of which is fraudulent, or he has had some extremely bad advice on this matter. I prefer to believe that he's had some bad advice and he has not had much thought on it, because I simply cannot at this time in our province I s history, when this government has been taxing people more every year either with direct measures through the Finance minister, indirect measures through the Transit Act or the actions of the Ministry of Education regarding the school mill rate.... At a time when we have those kinds of actions in social and health services, to have this minister saying we have $14 million to $20 million to work on something which he himself has presented no evidence is going to work to the extent of curing one addict or preventing any new addicts from being so addicted....

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I will first review the remarks of the Minister of Health. I want to start by congratulating him for something. I want to congratulate him for outlining well in advance through a White Paper issued by the Alcohol and Drug Commission in April, 1977, the basic plan that he's bringing before this House in legislation today. He has since that time explained it and defended it, as have the members of the Alcohol and Drug Commission, and I believe that they have given the public in this province the basis of a good dialogue on this most important question. I wish that more of the critical pieces of legislation that come before this House could go through that process.

Now the time has arrived for the Legislative Assembly to consider the matter in definitive bill form. I hope the minister will not mind if I say that I want to question his proposals in, I hope, a constructive way. He will appreciate that his bill has aroused some controversy. He has many supporters in the province. I do not doubt that for a minute. They include the peace officers' association, which came out very strongly last week. I think they said, in fact, that this was the most important piece of social legislation in many years. He has among his supporters, I assume, the Social Credit caucus.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Ninety per cent of the people.

MR. GIBSON: He apparently has among his

[ Page 2259 ]

supporters Ron Basford, I understand, through a news report today, though I don't quite understand where the feds stand because back in August, 1977, Marc Lalonde was on the other side. There's a newspaper clipping here quoting Lalonde as saying he doubts that the level of heroin addiction is as high as B.C. thinks. He also said he's concerned about civil liberties aspects of compulsory treatment and questions the effectiveness of trying to treat people against their will.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: He didn't say that.

MR. GIBSON: He didn't say that, Mr. Minister? You mean you're telling me the newspaper was wrong?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

MR. GIBSON: I can't believe it. Other people who have clearly opposed it are The Province, the Sun, the Times and the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The Province is waffling this morning.

MR. GIBSON: Well, no, The Province had a good idea this morning, but I'll come to that later on.

The former Chairman of the B.C. Police Commission, John Hogarth, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, what seemed to me to be a fairly critical letter from the Elizabeth Fry Society, the Narcanon Society, the Alcohol and Drug Commission itself back in 1974.... Most interesting of all, Mr. Speaker, in view of the remark of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) that 90 per cent of the public of British Columbia supports this bill, it's my understanding that at least 7,000 citizens of the constituency of Langley are opposed to it. I suppose the minister is aware of this petition which is being circulated in his constituency. I was truly astonished to hear of it; it was phoned into my office this morning. Apparently this is what is being circulated:

"We, the undersigned, humbly petition your honourable body that we oppose the narcotic treatment Act, Bill 18, on the grounds that the first year operating cost of $15 million is a total waste of public funds and similar programmes instituted elsewhere proved to be total and costly failures.

"Further, as voters in the Langley constituency who believe in a democratic society, we will not condone the introduction of such totalitarian legislation and, should our representative in the British Columbia legislature, R.H. McClelland, attempt to force through this legislation, we respectfully request his resignation, and that our petition herein may be granted."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They're not from Langley.

MR. GIBSON: I'm just reporting this to the minister for his information. I'm told so far there are 7,000 signatures. I don't know.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Table the list of names. I know them all.

MR. GIBSON: The minister may be interested. You know all those names out in Langley, Mr. Minister? That's not even your constituency.

MR. LEA: Yet!

MR. GIBSON: Redistribution is going to do that?

Now getting around to the specific remarks of the minister, I agree with him that this bill is addressing a terribly serious problem and I agree with his sentiments that it is time for the government of British Columbia to stop passing the buck and give some leadership. I would say at the same time it's time for the government of Canada to adopt that posture on this problem as well, because the government of Canada has a very definite responsibility in this regard. As we have seen for so many years, Part II of the Narcotic Control Act has remained unproclaimed.

The minister went on to say - I think I have his words quoted reasonably - that the main desire of at least some of his critics is to see that the plan fails. Now, Mr. , Speaker, I don't think that's so. I think that most British Columbians very much hope that this plan works if it goes into effect if it's passed by this Legislature, because if it works then it will have dealt with a very important problem.

The minister went on to say that there is an international conspiracy in the drug trade. I have no doubt there is. He mentioned incredible increases in drug usage in the various countries of Europe in the last decade, which leads one to believe that we may not be doing so badly in British Columbia. But even in British Columbia he gave us some recent figures which indicated that hero in-- related offences were up and that unduplicated lists of drug users were up, if my arithmetic is

[ Page 2260 ]

correct, some 379 over the past eight or nine months. He concluded that section by saying that he's satisfied that there are 10,000 addicts in British Columbia. I'm not sure whether he means addicts or users, but addicts was the word that he employed. I assume in that case he is relying on RGMP figures, which tend to be higher than the others.

He moved on to the field of civil liberties, and at that point his argument began to puzzle me. He stated that if one is concerned with the civil liberties of the addict or the user, surely any improvement in their state in a health sense cannot but increase their civil liberties, no matter what means are employed to bring that about, because the degradation and style of life involved in being a user or an addict is such as to render that person having very few civil liberties indeed. But surely, Mr. Speaker, civil liberties are indivisible in our society and surely the civil liberties that apply to one class of citizens ought to apply to all. If another consequence of the heroin problem in the province of British Columbia is to be the diminution of the civil liberties of all, then that is another cause to weep for this heroin tragedy.

The minister entered into what I see is the core of the philosophic basis behind the government's programme when he said the following kinds of words, and I hope I have the quotes down reasonably well. He felt that the coercive aspect of the plan will scare off a person who would otherwise try heroin and drugs. No? You're shaking your head. That was my understanding of your words, Mr. Minister. I beg your pardon if I'm not correct.

I am sure I have this quote down: "Individuals can successfully be coerced into bettering their lot in life." That's more or less a direct quote. Now, Mr. Speaker, this may be the case, but the minister brought forward no data in his remarks to substantiate that and to me it's a wildly unsupported statement. Have life penalties or the possibility of life penalties scared off traffickers in this province? Has the Criminal Code scared off those in possession in this province from being in possession of heroin? The answer in both cases is no. As far as I know there is not a scintilla of evidence for this particular approach, but I say this to the minister: if you want to try this approach and if you use due process in applying it, then I won't stand in the way with any objection, but this question of due process is critical.

The minister went on to say that other programmes have failed, and that his commission will succeed by an integrated system which, he said, would include a sophisticated assessment system and an assortment of what he called time-proven treatment approaches and innovative approaches. I'd be grateful if the minister would tell us in closing second reading what he means by "time-proven treatment approaches, " because just before that Section 1n his remarks he had finished describing how all other programmes had failed. I don't quite understand what he means by those approaches that are time-proven. I'd be glad if he could elaborate on that.

I would be glad if he could say as well how his programme will overcome that aspect that has been one of the difficulties of all other programmes on the continent, to my knowledge, and that is: how do you keep drugs out of the institution? The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) spoke on this question the other night in another form, in another context, on another bill, far more eloquently than could I, but I have no doubt the minister will have read that particular talk. It's a serious question. Since no one else on this continent has found a way to keep drugs out of institutions, how is it possible that that is going to be done, even in the voluntary, reasonably secure residential centre, let alone the other volunteer programmes?

The minister went on to describe a group of programmes that his ministry or the commission will mount: a street unit, a residential treatment centre, two therapeutic communities, special resource centres, community support programmes and so on - more or less the kinds of things that the Alcohol and Drug Commission spokesmen have been describing in various parts of the province in recent months.

With those remarks, the minister sat down. There are a few things that he, in my humble view, failed to canvass, things that are of great, importance. First and foremost, while it doesn't touch the policy of the bill, I really think the minister should have said a little bit to the Legislature about the constitutionality because of the great consequences to the province, to the taxpayer and to the user population if the assessment of constitutionality provided by the government's lawyers turns out to be wrong.

What will be the consequences if the bill turns out to be unconstitutional and we don't find out until some time after it is scheduled to start up on January 1,1979? The consequences will be that something like $9 million or $10 million will have been spent preparing the programme and the facilities at that point, according to estimates in his department. The consequences will be that a user population

[ Page 2261 ]

will have been ready for a programme of treatment that all of a sudden falls to the ground as a result of court action. If the constitutionality is successfully challenged - because the minister may be very certain that on January I or January 2 or January 3, whenever the first user is collared under the provisions of this bill and assessed and evaluated and committed, . an appeal will be filed - the appeal will first and foremost proceed on the grounds that Bill 18 is beyond the constitutional authority of the Legislature of British Columbia. If it turns out that a court finds that, as a court found with the youth containment legislation that we passed last year over similar warnings about lack of constitutionality, then we are back to square one. We have lost time, we have lost ground and we've lost $10 million.

I say that anyone who has been a party to that kind of potential waste of taxpayers' money, if it eventuates that the money is lost, should resign. I include in this the Minister of Health and the Premier and the Attorney-General, because the three of them are all jointly responsible for warranting to this House that this piece of legislation we're talking about now is within our powers. If it is not within our powers, the circumstances are so grave that failure to discover that at this time, it seems to me, is proper grounds for resignation. The Attorney-General or the cabinet has only to refer to the B.C. Court of Appeal under the Constitutional Questions Determination Act as to whether or not this law is within the powers of the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's not an Act.

MR. GIBSON: You can refer a bill to the Court of Appeal and you can refer a statute to the Supreme Court. You can do one or both; you can go either route. One is under section 93 and the other is under section 11.

So is there a substantial constitutional question on this bill, Mr. Speaker? Normally the people who would express opinions on such matters are the lawyers. The Canadian Bar Association last week endorsed a paper which said the following about constitutionality:

"One of the major areas of concern to the Canadian Bar Association is the question of whether Bill 18 is essentially criminal or punitive legislation in the guise of health legislation. If it is, then it is ultra vires the provincial government. This question is not easily determined from a review of the legislation, although an examination of the paper which formed the basis for the bill, "A Plan for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Heroin Users, " prepared in April, 1977, by the Alcohol and Drug Commission, would indicate that its primary concerns are in the area of crime prevention.

"The issue is further confused by the Canadian experience regarding legislation in the field of narcotics control. The Narcotic Control Act, federal legislation, was obviously designed to protect the health of the citizens of Canada. Before possession of this substance was made illegal, the only logical concern of government must have been the detrimental effect of narcotics upon the health of potential users. Yet the Narcotic Control Act has been considered criminal law and within the powers of the federal government to enact. Ironically, we now appear to have come full circle to the point where legislation in the guise of health legislation is proposed to control the effects of having made heroin usage a criminal offence in the first place.

"Bill 18, which appears to be related to destroying the illicit market in heroin, clearly function of criminal legislation, is presented as health legislation. The title of an Act or even its stated or implied purpose, is, of course, not entirely determinative of the true pith and substance of the legislation. Heroin use as evidenced by the possession of heroin is not a crime under the Criminal Code of Canada. It is prohibited by the Narcotic Control Act. But in examining the means by which the purpose of the Narcotic Control Act is to be carried out, the courts have had no difficulty in concluding that the Act was, in fact, criminal legislation. It may well do the same with Bill 18."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that that kind of a message was such a clear warning to the minister and to the Attorney-General, who is responsible for giving legal advice, that they would have stopped and said: "Whoa! Wait a minute. We had better check the law out here in some definitive way through the court system before proceeding further." I say they have a responsibility to do that. To fail to do that is a failure of their duty to the taxpayers of this province.

I have just one other reference. While I won't read it, I would refer the minister to page 11 of the Standerwick report which was also prepared for the Bar Association which also cast doubt on the constitutionality.

I would then refer the minister to a state-

[ Page 2262 ]

ment by Mr. Bert Hoskin as reported in The Province of June 10,1978. This is an article headed up by Bert Hoskin, so I assume the words are all his. He's reacting to an earlier article done by Ms. Pinkus on the Aunt Jane matter referred to by the hon. member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) . He's referring to how the courts operate. He says: "The second cardinal rule of the courts is that where the statute may have penal consequences, it must be given its broadest interpretation in favour of the accused or persons charged under it." These are Mr. Hoskins words, and I bring your attention to exactly what those words were. He speaks of a statute having penal consequences. He speaks of an accused. He speaks of a person being charged. These are all words that we in this country have come to associate with criminal proceedings rather than health proceedings. You don't speak of penal consequences under a health law. You do not speak of the accused under health law. You don't speak of people being charged. Yet here's Mr. Hoskin, who is presumably the expert on this matter, writing in his own words in the Vancouver Province and using these very words with respect to the statute we are being asked to pass. I say to you, sir, there is a very great question about the constitutionality of this bill.

I want to pass on now from the constitutionality to the underlying problem. I suggest that every member in this House agrees that there is a very severe heroin problem in this province. There are other serious problems as well. other members have mentioned the alcohol problem, for example, which in dollar terms, perhaps, surpasses even the heroin problem. Certainly in terms of the number of people it directly affects, it surpasses the heroin problem, but some steps are being taken in the field of alcoholism. For the moment we are talking about drugs. The agreement as to the existence of a serious problem does not mean that there is agreement as to what are the dimensions of that problem or the underlying trends.

I refer now to another story in the Vancouver Province. It's an important story filed by the Province's Victoria bureau, which is apparently quoting a report prepared by the federal-provincial task force on heroin epidemiology. I'll quote some of the items from this story. It's based on a study begun the previous spring involving various levels of police, B.C. drug agencies and the federal Bureau of Dangerous Drugs:

"Almost all the indicators showed increases until 1972 or 1973, followed by constant steady decline. Treatment data, law enforcement data, and data from miscellaneous sources all show the same trend."

That's a different message than the minister has given us, in general.

"The bureau listed 6,517 heroin users in B.C. in 1976."

We might compare that with the minister's figure of 6,293 in May, 1978.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Actually counted.

MR. GIBSON: As far as I know, these were unduplicated lists in both cases.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: My list is.

MR. GIBSON: I believe the other one is an unduplicated list too. It goes on to say:

"A combined RCMP-Vancouver Police list showed 5,914 last July.

"The study suggests that heroin use in, B.C. has been stable or even declining in the past three or four years. The conviction rate in 1976 for drug possession was the lowest in eight years and the traffic conviction figure was the lowest since 1969.

The story ends up: "Interestingly, the proportion of admissions for theft that involved narcotic users was very low, averaging 8.6 per cent over the four previous years and declining." It also says: "The bulk of criminals involved with heroin are jailed on sex and morals charges, such as prostitution and other victimless crimes." That is of interest.

Also of interest is a document called "Highlights of Crime Statistics Report, Province of B.C., 1977." The crime statistics report is derived from data collected by the Uniform Crime Report System of Statistics Canada. Here we have: total drug offences in the province -10,665 in 1977, down 2.4 per cent from 1976. But, of course, most of those total drug offences are marijuana and the like. Total heroin offences were 620 in 1977 versus 850 in 1976, down 27 per cent. Again it's apparently contrary evidence.

The B.C. Corrections Association people prepared a report in September, 1977, of which I have obtained a copy and which refers to the percentage of admissions into the B.C. correctional system who are drug users by various categories.

I want to say that to the best of my understanding the way that drug users are identified on admission into the B.C. correctional system is either they are saying in response to a question that yes, they are drug users, or by identification of needle tracks and so on. The absolute value of these figures is a

[ Page 2263 ]

matter for some debate, but the trend is of very great interest. Even the absolute value would seem to be reasonably close because, for example, under the sex and morals category, in 1973, 45.6 of the admissions were admitted users. In 1974 it went up to 52 per cent, and that's a pretty good fraction. It would indicate that that particular net or measurement is catching a large percentage of the users in the system.

Here are the interesting figures. The percentage of theft admissions who were drug users went from 18.5 per cent down to 14.4 per cent in 1976, and for other property offences, the percentage who were drug users went from 18.4 per cent down to 15 per cent in 1976. Again, something of a downward trend. The point is not to argue that this is not a serious problem. The point is to ask whether it is of such alarmingly escalating proportions that it requires the infringement of certain civil liberties in this province. That's the debate, I think, that has to be carried when you talk about the statistics.

I think that pretty well everyone in this House is agreed as to the needs of users. The very serious degradation of the lifestyle, to use the words of the minister, even though it is very often a freely chosen lifestyle, doesn't make it any better. There is a great need to help and to provide facilities to help, especially for young people. I think for the seasoned addict that may not be a feasible matter, but especially young people lightly addicted is something that every member of this House should have - and I think has - a great concern for. The needs of the user are one thing; the needs of society are another.

There is a need to attack this problem for the prevention of crime of all kinds, and other damage to our society that goes beyond crime, including the influence of organized crime and the reinvestment of profits in ways that touch our lives in ways we can't measure. We know that there is some of it there, and some of this is financed by the drug trade, and that is very serious to all of us. I think that probably the average British Columbian is more concerned about the effects of the heroin problem on society than on the user.

There is no question that there is a very great political incentive to do something. If something is to be done, what are the options? One of the options, I suppose, is to carry on more or less as now, which, with all its cost and all its messiness, does seem to have the problem reasonably in containment. But we would all like to do better than that, so what are the other options?

One is that of increased policing and heavier sentences, as raised by the hon. member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) , the opposition spokesman on this. I support this; unfortunately, that is nothing this House has any jurisdiction over. The setting of the sentence limits is up to the federal government. The imposition of the sentences themselves is up to the court system. But the policing is certainly provincial and can be intensified by the provincial government. And the prosecution, I suppose, and its vigour, and the demand for higher sentences, is also something that can be influenced by the provincial government, and I think that should be done.

A third option is some combination of voluntary treatment for those who wish help and rehabilitation, and some kind of maintenance for those who wish to go that way. A fourth option is compulsory treatment where necessary, and voluntary treatment where possible, which I think is a fair way of putting the minister's programme. All of these have problems; all of them have a considerable record of failure. Whether a fifth alternative of a long-term, truly serious educational effort could make any dent in the problem I don't know. I think it has in the field of tobacco addiction; I think it will in the case of alcohol addiction. Whether it can in the case of hard drug addiction - I don't pretend to know the answer to that.

In facing these various alternatives, as I see it, the government has to face a series of jurisdictional problems. I have sympathy for that to the extent that in what is sought to be addressed as a criminal problem, British Columbia is helpless. In other words, this Legislature is powerless to say: "It's a crime to be an addict, and we're going to lock you up for that."

To the extent that it's a concentrated health problem, that is our responsibility. And to that extent, too, I say we deserve federal help in the health field related specifically to drug use and drug abuse. Because it is a simple fact of life that most of the drug users are congregated in British Columbia, British Columbia deserves special attention in that regard. We do receive considerable federal help on the policing side, but I think we should have more on the health side.

Still in the jurisdictional area, there is an inadequacy of law. I spoke earlier of the Narcotic Control Act, Part II, which is a way that the federal government could assume responsibility for heroin treatment if it wished to do so- I think probably that Part II needs some amendment before proclamation, but

[ Page 2264 ]

it is in principle a way that the federal government could assist us here in British Columbia, and I think that they should give active consideration to that. A law to make the use criminal, which the Parliament of Canada could pass, is probably unlikely, and it would be a disturbing one, too, because it would be another one of the victimless crimes that, in principle, are always worrisome.

In jurisdictional terms, British Columbia has a problem with which other provinces sympathize, but I think it's fair to say, Mr. Speaker, they want no part of the problem. If I may make a forecast on the results if this bill becomes law, other provinces are going to share that problem, whether they like it or not.

So with this jurisdictional approach, let me try and review, as best I can understand it, the thinking of the government by saying some of the things the minister said and some of the things that perhaps he would have not thought it politic to say. First of all, something must be done for society and for users -that's a starting point. Apparently the federal people are not about to move, but nevertheless some improvement is possible provincially through our jurisdiction over health even though health is, strictly speaking, a question and a problem only of the individual user. But by properly tailoring our law, we can perhaps isolate users and especially criminal users from society by one of several options: by treatment and cure, should we be so fortunate; by containment; and by giving incentive to the user to leave British Columbia and go elsewhere.

The thinking of the government, as I see it, is that the user is a sick person and that the sickness is of a type which destroys judgment, and judgment of others must be substituted where necessary. That's putting it in my words, but I think it pretty well coincides with the minister's own words with respect to the efficacy of what he calls a coercive approach. If you take that route, the sickness must first be identified, which is a medical problem as to the diagnosis, though interestingly most of the references will come through the criminal justice system and the police forces. Once the diagnosis is made, treatment becomes essential for the good of the "patient." It's also essential for society, but that is for reasons of criminal rather than health law and therefore beyond our jurisdiction.

And by that train of thought the government comes to the usefulness and validity and justification of compulsory treatment. The government may as well justify its thinking by analogy to other laws. On ' e of the laws that is most frequently cited in this regard is section 64 (a) of the Summary Convictions Act which deals with the detention of chronic alcoholics. There is an important difference between section 64 (a) and the bill we have before us, because under section 64 (a) the committal must be made by a judge in the first instance, not by an administrative panel or evaluation group. So that's a very important protection in section 64 (a) , dealing with chronic alcoholics.

Another Act that is often cited as justification for Bill 18 is the Mental Health Act, which provides for involuntary committal upon an application being made and supported by two independent doctors, in which the doctors must certify that the person is mentally ill. Now this to me has always been a terrifying Act, the Mental Health Act, and I do not think that we should use it as a foundation or jurisdiction on which to build anything, because it is again an avoidance of due process.

Once the government comes to the conclusion that there should be compulsory treatment, there are most assuredly some pitfalls to avoid and some of them should be put on the record. The most succinct description of the United States experience that I have found is the Consumers' Union report that publishes Consumers' Report in the United States, entitled Licit and Illicit Drugs. At page 76 they say this:

"By 1966 the federal programme at Lexington, the California Rehabilitation Centre programme, the Riverside Hospital programme and the New York state special narcotic project Programme had firmly demonstrated that neither incarceration alone, nor incarceration plus treatment nor incarceration followed by intensive parole supervision accomplishes much of value for more than a handful of addicts, and that costs per addict are very high. Despite these demonstrations, New York state in 1966 announced a mammoth new programme, the largest and costliest in history, based on precisely the principles that had so often proved a failure before.

"A total of 4,500 addicts and alleged addicts were to be inured in 26 new institutions. These institutions, as in California, were called rehabilitation centres rather than hospitals or prisons. Aftercare was also provided for and the official in charge of New York state's special narcotic project programme, described above, was placed in charge of this aspect of the new programme. The cost for the first three years was pegged at $200

[ Page 2265 ]

million, most of it in the purchase of old buildings and the construction of new ones in which addicts could be locked up.

"At the beginning of 1971, the gargantuan New York state programme was still spending money at the rate of $150 million a year. It had failed to publish any statistics from which its success rate could be calculated."

The report goes on to state that two outside reports did become available. One of them reported that 18.4 per cent had completed the after-care phase of the programme without relapsing. The Consumers Union said:

"This does not mean, of course, that 18.4 per cent were cured. It meant that only 18.4 per cent were not on the street without supervision. The other 81.6 per cent had already relapsed or absconded. Previous programmes would have given reason to believe that most of the 18.4 per cent did in due course too.

"By 1970 even New York Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller, who had launched this mammoth programme amid high hopes in 1966, was ready to concede that it had failed."

I want next to quote British Columbia experience and the Alcohol and Drug Commission special report of 1974. As to the commissioners is not the same today as it was in the old days, but perhaps some of the officials are still there. This is in the form of questions and answers in the special report.

"It appears that you are opposed to compulsory treatment, that this seems to be one subject in which you will not experiment. Why won't you give it a chance too?"

"Others already have and it hasn't worked. In Lexington, Kentucky, and in California, and in New York state compulsory treatment has been in force for years. It simply hasn't worked. The latest evaluation of the California Rehabilitation Centre shows that 80 per cent of the patients transferred from confinement to supervised out-patient status return to drug use within three years. This is one of the most expensive programmes in the United States.

"The compulsory unit at Matsqui in this province did even worse. Indeed, in a long-term comparative analysis between inmates there who received treatment and those who received none, the latter group did better in terms of drug use, criminal behaviour and employment. The treated group simply became more effective drug users. This is reason to wonder whether a failure rate of this order would justify launching such a complex programme in

B.C., to say nothing of the social, moral, civil liberty and financial costs involved." .

Later on, the commission asks itself:

"What is your position on compulsory treatment?"

"At a meeting in Victoria on November 8 and 9, the commission and representatives from enforcement, judiciary, educational, treatment health and social agencies discussed a; agreed to the following statements:

"1. Chemical dependency is a medical social problem.

"2. Possession and use in the absence of other criminal offences or drug trafficking should not be dealt with in the criminal justice system."

They come to speak of non-voluntary methods and they say this:

"Non-voluntary methods of managing drug abuse should only be implemented if and when the above-described programmes have showed to have failed."

The above-described programmes speak of community-based structures, access for drug dependent persons to medical, social and educational facilities and so on. This is a description that sounds not unlike some of the programmes that the minister would like to see put into place under his bill. But the interesting thing is that in 1974 the Alcohol and Drug Commission wanted these programmes applied in a voluntary way to see how it worked. In 1978 the Alcohol and Drug Commission wants to jump in without any tests at all.

Well, if that's to be the case, Mr. Speaker, what are to be the ways and means? The minister gave us some of the details and we'll be able to question him in greater detail on second reading. But I want to describe a little talk that Mr. Russell gave to a group the other day. He was speaking to, among others, members of the John Howard Society. A John Howard Society member asked him what physical restraints would be used to keep addicts at the residential treatment centre.

The question was:

" 'When the Canadian penitentiary service says the only way you can restrain someone is by having 40-foot walls and guns to back up, what do you intend to use?'

" 'Neither, ' responded Russell, adding the only thing that will deter someone from leaving the treatment centre is the certainty he'd be charged with an offence punishable on summary conviction with a maximum of a $500 fine or six months in

[ Page 2266 ]

jail.

" 'But people are escaping from jails all the time and they face far more serious penalties than that.' "

Well, Mr. Russell's answer was: "I think our programme will be more attractive than jail."

I hope so, but I would like to know more details.

We have here the benefit of a interview by Tony Eberts with Mr. Hoskin, dated June 5, in the Vancouver Province. Now isn't it an interesting thing that in the passage of this bill into law, the Vancouver Province can get an interview with Mr. Hoskin and members of the Legislative Assembly can't? I don't think we're going to have a chance to have him before a committee of this Legislature. I think it would be a good thing, but quite frankly, on the record of this government, I don't think we are going to get him there.

So Mr. Hoskin was asked some questions:

"Question: Why does the appeal section of the bill put the onus on the individual to prove he does not need treatment rather than requiring the panel to prove that he does?

"Answer (after reference to legal counsel) ": - I can well imagine - "After a professional panel has determined that the person needs treatment, the person then has the privilege of launching an appeal to provincial court.

"Since he has initiated the appeal, the onus is on him to show the court why the panel's decision is wrong or invalid and why his appeal should be upheld. There is a similar onus on anyone launching an appeal against any order or conviction.

"If the panel were launching an appeal, it naturally would be up to the panel to support that appeal by proving its case."

Well, now, Mr. Speaker, Catch-22 indeed. I can hardly believe that in a democratic country within the British system of justice we could see those kinds of words. The person would not have been convicted by due process in a court of law. There's no conviction being appealed. Reverse onus is wrong under this bill. There is just no question. Later on Mr. Hoskin was asked:

"Do you think there's much substance to the fears expressed by police and health department people in Alberta and Manitoba about Bill 18 scaring addicts out of B.C. to cause problems in other provinces?"

Well, now, Mr. Hoskins answered:

"The minister ... says the opposite should be the case - addicts should come to B.C. for the first really comprehensive care programme in Canada."

Now that's not what Mr. Hoskin said before. Before he said they were going to go to Alberta, and I'll quote that one later. Here he said: "I realize that it raises important matters of principle and a lot of public interest, but the enforced committal alternative is a very small part of our overall plan."

Well, now, Mr. Speaker, in the name of God, if the committal alternative is a very small part in the overall plan, and it's the one that's causing all of the problem in this province, why don't they drop that part and proceed with the rest of it, and treat people who want to be treated and who have a greater chance of successful treatment and who will more than fill the available beds? I'm just very puzzled about this.

What is going to be the treatment technique for people who are there against their will? -Now the minister says if they're there against their will and unless they give approval he won't hypnotize them and he won't stick them with needles - acupuncture needles, I mean. I don't know what other kind. What I say is: how can you change people's lifestyle without their co-operation? Where is the data saying that whatever kind of treatment is going to be used has worked somewhere else?

The Ontario Addiction Foundation - now that's a worldwide repository for treatment data. Have they been consulted, I wonder? What model is there for this treatment?

I would like to ask the minister how the facility will look different than a prison. Look at the Matsqui prison treatment centre experience. How will this new facility look different than a prison?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, it may be painted in different colours, Mr. Member. If it does look different from a prison, how does one prevent drugs from getting in and people from going out?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's not interrupt the man who has the floor.

MR. GIBSON: What is the built-in monitoring programme, Mr. Speaker, so that the public of British Columbia can say whether or not this very expensive experiment is on track and is working? Are there going to be uses of chemical antagonists - in other words, those chemicals which when mixed with illegal injections of heroin make a person violently ill - and

[ Page 2267 ]

will these antagonists be administered against the wishes of people in the prison? I would say probably not, but I'm asking the minister. We need more details on what this treatment plan is exactly going to look like.

You know, back in 1975 Mr. Hoskin put out a report, and my clipping here is from the Province, February 27. The report says:

"For a vocal number of heroin addicts who say that heroin maintenance would solve their problem, Hoskin proposed a one-year, once only experiment. These users would themselves participate and under eyes of researchers be given all the heroin they requested. The heroin would be administered by a doctor or a nurse, however. The experimenters would be allowed to have a normal life, but under no circumstance should any party attempt to influence the participant, be it in relation to job-finding or retaining daily dosage or any other matter. Only complete impartiality would allow this controversy to be resolved once and for all. Personally, says Hoskin, he feels the use of heroin therapy would be 'disastrous'."

That's an idea that he had back in 1975. Was that perhaps going to be part of the treatment programme? Somehow I doubt it but these are previous statements of the person who is apparently designing this programme.

I really wonder about the people who designed this programme, Mr. Speaker. I don't say this unkindly. I know they believe in what they are doing, but what kind of a thought process would lead one to send out to people who are currently on methadone maintenance what can only be described as a threatening letter? This particular one is dated May 30,1978. Let me read a couple of paragraphs:

"However, should you drop out of the programme or abuse your voluntary programme, you will then become liable for assessment under the new plan. If found to be a heroin user in need of treatment, you will then be obliged to enter the plan under the same conditions as any other new entry, i.e. participate in the three-year programme."

"All current clients should understand that methadone maintenance will not be a treatment option in the new health entry plan for new patients or for current clients who drop out of treatment and subsequently enter the programme."

That's a direct threat. It just tells you a little bit about what is going to be the mentality inside this new treatment centre. It is saying that people who may have been reasonably successful on one particular form of treatment up to now, if they fall off for a little bit, are not going to be able to get back on that particular stream, even if it happened to be the best one for them.

What kind of person sends around the letter that I tabled in the House one day that really gave a pretty strong suggestion to members of the Alcohol and Drug Commission that unless they went along with this programme they would be well advised to try and find jobs elsewhere?

What kind of group comes up with some of the Draconian procedures that are set forward in draft 14 of this bill, which was transmitted on April 13,1978, by the legislative counsel to the chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission. Draft 14 says, among other things, in section 4 (l): "A medical practitioner shall maintain a record of every person coming to him for treatment for narcotic use or addiction and shall report the name and description of every such person to the commission in manner prescribed by regulation." This little section says, in other words, don't go see a doctor. I don't know what they were thinking of; I don't think they were thinking of present-day British Columbia.

Section 5 (l) says:

"Where a peace officer or person designated by or of a class designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council believes, suspects or is informed that a person uses, or has been using or has recently used, has a dependency on or has through use developed a desire for a narcotic, he may (a) by written notice, or (b) without warrant take the person forthwith to an area co-ordinating centre or to a hospital where.... "

Under this section, a person attends or is brought to an area court in any centre. The commission may detain him for up to 72 hours, and no court has or shall exercise any jurisdiction to question or interrupt the defence during that period.

Later on, this draft 14 says that there is an appeal but it makes it quite clear, quoting again: "But until the appeal and all further appeals in the matter have been heard and decided, the committal for treatment shall remain in force and the person shall be subject to treatment." So you're there as long as the appeal process is going on.

"Section 12: Where this Act authorizes or requires that a patient be confined, a peace officer, or a person designated, or of a class designated under section 5, may without warrant take him to a treatment centre where the-commission shall keep him in confinement." That's the kind of thinking that's going on at

[ Page 2268 ]

the official level. Thank God some of the worst parts were taken out as it went through the political level, but let us never forget that it is the official level that is going to be operating this institution. I think it is important that the people of the province of British Columbia should understand that.

Mr. Speaker, what is there to be in the way of programme evaluation and review? What is there to be in the way of patient evaluation and review? Where is the minister? He hasn't been here for 15 minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame on him!

MR. GIBSON: I'm not surprised, Mr. Member. Perhaps it's a little bit embarrassing to answer some of these questions.

There is a board of review provided for in this bill, Mr. Speaker, but it is a very curious board of review. It is a board of review which has the power to extend the sentence beyond six months, and in six-month doses up to three years. It is a board of review that the patient or prisoner - whichever word you want to use - has no access to; only the director has an access to this board of review.

What is the commitment process? Even under the existing legislation, let alone the 14th draft, how is it that you get in there? Do you have a right to medical or legal counsel? No. Let me read what the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association has to say about this kind of commitment treatment where you are picked up and evaluated by a panel, and then the panel makes a recommendation to the director, and then the director commits you. You have not as yet seen a court and you have been committed for six months, extensible by terms up to three years. What does the Bar Association say about this kind of thing?

"Regardless of the decision of the courts as to the true pith and substance of Bill 18" - in other words, is it constitutional or not - "two of its fundamental characteristics are that it involves compulsion and the potential confinement of citizens by the state without an offence being committed and confinement being imposed without due process of law.

"As governments enact regulatory legislation with its attendant administrative tribunals and bureaucracies, limitations have been placed upon the extent of the application of due process of law."

For example, Workers' Compensation Act, the Labour Relations Board, et cetera.

"However, to date none of these pieces of legislation have given their tribunals powers of confinement of the person. Penalties of non-compliance with these and similar Acts have always required conviction in a court of law for an of fence convicted under the Act before sanctions affecting the liberty of the person can be imposed. But under Bill 18 the initial power to confine has, in fact, been delegated to the administrative tribunal.

"In British Columbia and in Canada, as in most democratic states, the power of the state to confine its citizens has traditionally required that due process of law be a condition precedent to the imposition of confinement. It must be remembered that the courts are not part of the legislative or executive arms of government. Judges have tenures so that they may act independently of government in determining whether the state has established sufficient cause to show why an individual citizen should be confined. (The administrative tribunal will not have independence of government; they will be employees of government.)

"It is this circumvention of the judicial process, together with the extraordinary powers given agencies of government established under the bill, which are seen by the Canadian Bar Association as setting a dangerous precedent."

A dangerous precedent it is, Mr. Speaker. Imagine that any of us are picked up in the appropriate way and given a notice to attend, and imagine that we are sampled and evaluated, and it is decided that we may have committed no crime but we are in need of treatment, for vague reasons. Then suppose you or I say: "But that's not true, I do not feel in need of treatment. I would like to appeal." This bill then says: "Very well, you may go before the court."

But do you know what you have to do when you go before the court? You have to prove you don't need treatment.

Now I don't know how many of us in this House could prove that we don't need treatment for something.

It is just incredible that the onus should be reversed. The centrepiece of the British justice system - I think it is fair to say of the western justice system - when it comes to criminal law, as it has developed aver the centuries, has been that when it comes to confinement of the person it is up to the state to prove its case. It is not up to the person to prove himself innocent; it is up to the state to prove that he should be confined. This reverse onus is not only absolutely objectionable; it is also an absolutely unneces-

[ Page 2269 ]

sary feature of this bill. What I cannot understand is why the minister has retained in this bill features of a minor usefulness to him and yet a major attack on due process.

So an appeal is given to a court from the tribunal. Courts are very often reluctant to judge the propriety of decisions reached by a tribunal acting according to law. The courts, of course, are interpreting the law and they often feel it's their duty to find out whether or not the tribunal acted lawfully. But the question as to whether or not it acted properly or morally is one that the courts of ten decline to review. So this may be a protection; let us hope it is, but it should be much, much stronger. If there is to be any committal of this kind, it should be made by a judge, by a court, as in section 64 (a) of the Summary Convictions Act with chronic alcoholics. The committal should not be made by a bureaucrat.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. GIBSON: There are serious information disclosure defects in the bill. Any treatment programme must be based on mutual trust. If the commission has the power to disclose information, as it does for administrative reasons of the commission, then how can any person who applies for voluntary treatment feel secure that his or her name may be kept a matter of private record? How can any person discussing the confidentialities of their daily life, as they must for useful treatment to take place, feel confident that this kind of information will not jeopardize their friends and associates who may have been related in the drug world with them?

The bill has a couple of clauses in it that I call the "Off to Alberta" clause. The first one is the one that says that after you are served with a piece of paper, you have 24 hours to appear. The second is the one that says that immediately on appeal, you're out. Now I don't disagree with these clauses, but as far as I know there's no provision for bail or anything like that. Moreover, there is a very definite incentive for a person at that stage to leave the province. That helps solve British Columbia's heroin problem, I suppose, but let's not try and hide it. Let's not try and say that that's not the purpose.

Here's Bert Hoskin again, May 16,1978, speaking in Edmonton, for goodness sake.

"Bert Hoskin, chairman of the British Columbia Alcohol and Drug Commission, said today: Heroin users in the province are expected to move to Alberta if a controversial law calling for their compulsory treatment is enacted in B.C. next year. 'People will be going over the border to escape this law.' "

Now not just Mr. Hoskin. Here is the minister, on Tuesday, October 18,1977, in the Vancouver Sun:

" 'An exodus of junkies could be a side benefit to the B.C. government's decision to proceed with the compulsory treatment of heroin addicts, ' Health minister Bob McClelland said Monday night. At the same he acknowledged that such a dispersal would be detrimental to other parts of Canada if they do not respond to the heroin measures with legislation of their own. 'Ottawa has been forewarned of this possibility, ' he said."

Now the minister lately has been saying people are going to rush into this province to get treatment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's right.

MR. GIBSON: Come on, Mr. Minister, we're big boys and girls in this Legislature. We happen to think that the predictions given by Mr. Hoskin in May of this year and by yourself in October of last year are rather better predictions of what is going to happen. Let's just understand that; let's not try and obscure it.

The law does not provide for any information to be sworn by the arresting officer. It provides, as I said earlier, by committal by an administrative tribunal and not by independent judiciary. Only the independent judiciary is the guarantee of the liberties of' the individual against the state. No administrative tribunal can do that.

It's such a shame, because the minister didn't have to amend his programme very much to get rid of the major objections to it. Now this is perhaps the time in the session when one gets a bit discouraged, but I've made representations over the past year to the minister and to the Premier with respect to this legislation because I could see it coming up on the basis of the White Paper.

I made representations on two grounds. First, put in due process. It won't cost you much, maybe a little inconvenience, but due process has always been judged in our society to be worth it. Begin your plan with voluntary entry and court diversion entry, and then you can have a trial period that nobody will object to, and we'll hope it will work well. But, Mr. Speaker, these things have fallen on deaf ears and I confess I don't understand why.

What are the alternatives: A lot of people would like to think the so-called British

[ Page 2270 ]

system or the British experience is an alternative; maybe it is. I do accept that British Columbia can't go it alone on that one. At least a national and, perhaps, an international agreement is required if that kind of thing is to be tried.

I wonder if the minister or Mr. Hoskin is going to try the proposed 1975 Hoskin experiment on a limited number of users. It might be something of interest.

The report produced by the Alcohol and Drug Commission on the British experience with narcotic dependency has some interesting data in it. Without going into the detail, some interesting counter-data was produced in a critique by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association dated May, 1978. 1 would commend anyone who is interested in the subject, who reads one document, to read the other.

What are the alternatives at this stage? The minister has said that he hopes his programme will receive about 2,500 addicts a year, and that it will be complemented by increased efforts to crack down on heroin traffic.

Let us look at the drug-user admissions to the provincial correctional facilities in recent years: 1973 - 2,797; 1974 - 2,226; 1975 - 1,898; 1976 - 1,971.

Yes, they've been dropping. The four-year total was 8,892. The source of this is the B.C. correctional system document I described earlier.

How about admissions then to probation programmes? In 1973 - 418 drug-user admissions; 1974 - 348; 1975 - 279; 1976 -208. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I'm told that a judge can put just about any condition on a probation order that he wants to. If a suspected heroin user is put on probation, there could be a condition that he refrain from using heroin, for example, or that he report to a treatment centre. I also understand that a judge can send a prisoner to compulsory treatment, provided the treatment centre is designated as a jail and properly gazetted as such for whatever portion may be required.

The average number of heroin users admitted to provincial correctional facilities over the period 1973-76 was 2,223 per year. If the minister wants to set up his residential treatment programme and all the other treatment programmes, why would he not start with an appropriate fraction of these individuals and prove that it would work with these individuals before he starts moving in on the field of civil liberties?

If he wants to set up a compulsory treatment programme using out-patient facilities, I wonder if he couldn't arrange with the Attorney- General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) to have those heroin users entering probation - an annual average of about 313 aver that 1973-76 period - to have as a condition of their probation that they report to a treatment centre. Since the minister is so convinced that the majority of those to be treated will come forward voluntarily, let him set up his programmes to do that and receive the people who come forward voluntarily who are motivated at the beginning to receive treatment.

To embark on these proposals he doesn't need the provisions of the Heroin Treatment Act. He could hold off on the compulsory aspects of this for a couple of years. If he can show that the kind of programmes he is developing are effective in treating heroin users, then that's wonderful. If he can show that it still doesn't work and he needs the drastic last-resort measures provided in this legislation of compulsory treatment, then he can make a case with some data to go on, which he does not have now.

If we proceed with this bill, as I have no doubt the government will do, we will have one more small erosion of freedom and due process, which I guess won't be the end of the world. I don't oppose it on that ground as such. It is sometimes necessary to infringe upon due process. Any society not tough enough to protect itself against internal enemies doesn't deserve to survive; I understand that. Society has to be tough to survive. It has to be just too, Mr. Member. It has to be as justly tough as it needs to be. That case has simply not been made here.

The argument of compassion for the user is a case that has, to some extent, been made, but it has not been made in overriding due process. For the user for whom you feel compassion, you can give them the additional feature of due process of the law: committal by a judge; no reverse onus; proper appeal system.

In a sense I am telling you nothing new today because I've been advancing to you for a year these kinds of ideas. Clean up this Act in the due process sense and I can vote for it. I tell you very sincerely, I want it to work. Even in its present form I desperately want it to work, and I think every British Columbian does. But I simply cannot support it with this unnecessary infringement of due process retained within the bill. It is simply the latest in a long line of injuries that drug abuse has forced on our society, namely, at this point, an important erosion of British justice.

Mr. Speaker, no doubt this bill will pass in due course. After that happens I would hope

[ Page 2271 ]

that the government would refer the bill to a committee so that we might have the opportunity of talking to people like Mr. Hoskin and Mr. Russell and others of the commission as to exactly how they propose to proceed, and perhaps even give them some good ideas or hear some interesting observations; to people like CLEU and the Vancouver city police and so on as to exactly how they are going to. be the intake network for this legislation; and to doctors, the non-medical use of drugs people and other health people. I think it would be a very useful thing for this bill to go to committee. I don't think there is any need to be naive. We don't get many bills going to committee in this House and I don't expect this will be one either.

I think the government is in a hurry to pass this legislation, so let me make another suggestion that I hope the minister will give some thought to. After you pass the bill, would you refer the subject matter on a continuing basis for the next few months to the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Welfare, to be able to audit the process as it is being set up, to be able to satisfy themselves that it's developing in good order and with proper understanding? I think that would remove a good deal of concern if the minister were prepared to do that.

In summary, I say again that I support the intentions of this bill. I wish it well. I wish the minister and his people well. I have given what I believe to be some warnings. If you would clean it up in terms of due process I could vote for it, perhaps with some skepticism but with every good will in the world. Failing the due process, I simply must oppose it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, in the opening remarks of the minister on debate of this bill, he invited this House and all members of this House on both sides to keep an open mind. Since that time, there have been certain statements made concerning the minister's conduct. It has perhaps been suggested that anything said to him is falling on deaf ears. I've heard the comment made from this side of the House that he is stubborn.

I think, Mr. Speaker, since we are now dealing with a bill which, for the first time in the history of this province, will put into the hands of a bureaucratic agency the right to deprive a citizen of his liberty, we should set aside all references to anybody having a closed mind or anybody being stubborn. I think, in this particular bill, it is essential that we do not take any political advantage or make attempts to make any political points.

I am quite prepared to take the minister up on his offer to keep an open mind. But I will presume that this is a two-way street, and I will presume that the minister will listen to what is being said in this debate. I hope that he is courageous enough that if he sees at least some merit in the arguments put forth, he will consider setting aside this bill for further consideration not only by this House but by other members of the community who have a lot to contribute and a lot to say. This may simply be done by adjourning it after the second reading and just waiting to see what happens so that we can have more input.

The bill as I see it deals basically with three important points. First, there is the constitutionality which the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has referred to. I only want to say on this that I agree that this bill is risky constitutionally and that it would be most unwise for the government to embark upon an expensive campaign in putting this bill into effect until it had been satisfied that it is going to stand up to the test of the courts.

Secondly, this bill deals with the question of the effectiveness of it or the workability of it. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion the provincial government finds itself somewhat forced into a corner on this bill because of the total failure of the federal government to act in an area over which it clearly has the constitutional right. I'm entirely sympathetic with this government's attempt to do something in the absence of the federal government recognizing its responsibilities. My concern about the effectiveness of this bill comes from reviewing some of the reports and statements made by people with a considerable amount of experience in this area. I hope that the bill will be effective, but I have very serious doubts.

I'd first like to refer to the report of the commission of inquiry into non-medical use of drugs of the national Ministry of Health and Welfare. In that report, under the heading of "Evaluation, " the following words appear. I should say that this report is dealing with the civil commitment in California. It's a thorough study and report on that plan. It says:

" 1n the treatment report we made some reference to critical evaluation of the California civil addict programme. John C. Kramer, who was chief of research of the programme for three years, was severely critical of it when he wrote in 1970. His general conclusion was that the programme was essentially one of imprisonment under

[ Page 2272 ]

the guise of treatment and that it did not appear to be more successful in rehabilitation than the regular prison programme for addicts in California."

That, to the minister, Mr. Speaker, is something that I think he no doubt has already considered. No doubt many of the plans that he has for this programme are patterned after either the successes or failures in California. I only mention it because when we are going to set aside certain civil rights and liberties, we have to weigh that against the anticipated benefits that we're going to receive, and those benefits are clearly in doubt.

The Elizabeth Fry Society has written to the minister in a letter dated June 1,1978. This society has had a good deal of experience in working with and treating heroin addicts. Part of this letter says:

"As a society which deals extensively with drug abusers and which is concerned not only with their health and well-being, but with the health and well-being of the greater community, we welcome any programme which is directed towards the betterment of both these groups. However, we cannot support the compulsory aspect of the government plan and we are very concerned about its apparent extremely narrow focus. Compulsory segregation of addicts reinforces their already strong subculture. The concept of treating involuntary and voluntary patients together does not appear to have been successful at Twin Maples or other institutions. From our observations the inherent antagonism between the two groups makes it difficult for them to work together for their mutual benefit.

"From our experience, self-motivation is the single most important part of any treatment or support programme. Without an inner motivation to change not only their drug dependency, but also equally their total lifestyle, it is unlikely that heroin addicts will benefit from forced treatment."

Again, I'm sure that the minister is aware of those problems and has considered them. But because of the many doubts still facing us in this programme, we should go very cautiously about taking away civil liberties before we have a higher degree of certainty that we're on the right track.

On the workability and the effectiveness of the plan, Mr. Speaker, the minister has my total support, and hope that he is right. I have made statements in the past that I doubt that it will be successful, and I have never wanted to be more wrong about anything in my whole life. I sincerely believe that you are motivated in the right direction, but there are some serious matters that we have to consider as we go along. Those serious matters come in the third part of this bill, and that is when we talking about civil rights and civil liberties.

The Canadian Bill of Rights has set forward some very, very basic principles of our freedom in this country. Now I'm aware, as most lawyers and most other people are, that this particular bill certainly has not been applied to provincial statutes. I'm not using the Bill of Rights as a legal opposition to this bill; I simply think that we've never had in our country a better statement or definition of what our rights are. I would ask the minister to very seriously consider these matters in this debate.

First of all, the Bill of Rights in section says:

"it is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist, without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms:

1) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof, except by due process of law."

Further on down it says:

"No law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to:

"deprive a person who has been arrested or detained of the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, or of the remedy by way of habeas corpus for the determination of the validity of his detention, and for his release if the detention is not lawful; authorize a court, tribunal, commission, board, or other authority to compel a person to give evidence if he is denied counsel, protection against self-incrimination, or other constitutional safeguards;

"deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations."

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt whatever that this particular bill that we are now debating infringes each and every right of those basic freedoms that have been set out and recognized

[ Page 2273 ]

by this country since it began.

In dealing with some of these matters in a more particular fashion, I would suggest the minister give serious consideration to allowing the person who is detained to have counsel at his side when he comes before this bureaucratic agency which will decide whether he has the right to remain free, or whether he is going to be detained. That is a simple request. I can see no reason why this bill would suffer if a person had at his side counsel, particularly these people that the minister has described who are so hooked on this drug that they are not capable of forming proper judgment. These people, above all, need some help when the question of their liberty is being discussed. It is not good enough to say: "We will discuss it later, after we have made the decision to confine him." He should have that right initially. Because if he does not have that right initially, all his rights before that commission or that agency disappear - all his rights to remain silent, all of his other rights to protect himself from the possibility that what he says there may lead to a prosecution in a criminal court. There is nothing in this bill or in the law that I can see that would prevent a prosecution of a drug addict, and, in that prosecution, the use of the evidence that he might be required to give before this hearing.

Perhaps there should be put into this bill -and there has been an attempt to restrict the information to some extent, but I suggest it should be made completely clear - that whatever is said to the doctors by this addict or person in treatment should have the protection of law that it cannot be used against him should he subsequently be charged with a criminal offence. That is for two reasons: one, to recognize the inherent right to protect yourself from self-incrimination; and, secondly, for medical reasons. I do not see how the minister can expect a doctor who is going to be treating this addict to gain the confidence of the patient if the patient fears that everything and anything he says to the doctor is likely to be used in a prosecution against him. We must remember, Mr. Speaker, that we are dealing here with people who have proved to be totally untrustworthy in many cases, people who are very deceitful at times, people who distrust the police and the justice community. It will be difficult enough for the medical profession to break through this distrust if they are still faced with the possibility that what they say may be used to lock them up in a criminal trial.

"Due process" is a terra that we throw around a lot, but I ask the minister to keep in mind, as I said earlier, that never before has a bureaucratic agency had the authority to take away the liberty of a citizen in this fashion. This is the first time. The danger of doing it once is quite serious. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) said: "Well, it may be just a small encroachment." Mr. Speaker, I think it's a gigantic encroachment. The great danger is that somewhere down the road another government is going to pass another bill, and in support of that bill they are going to say: "Well, it's been done before - look at the Heroin Treatment Act." It becomes much easier to do it the second time. If we can't stand up and fight with everything we've got for that one basic freedom, then we're in great difficulty.

I suggest that this government should not take on its shoulders the responsibility for the destruction of this very important principle in our society. It is a very, very serious matter, and I would ask you not to rush into this without further consultation, not only within your own ranks but within the community generally.

Let me go directly to the Act. Section 5 says: "A director shall develop programmes for the treatment of patients and the programmes may be designed for the treatment of patients generally or for the treatment of an individual patient." Mr. Speaker, I'm concerned about this section not only because it quite clearly gives the director tremendous power, but also because he's actually compelled by this section to develop programmes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, section by section debate would actually be better done in the committee stage of this bill. We're really on second reading.

MR. STEPHENS: I agree. But I think I must generalize at least on this; I won't particularize upon it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would appear to me that I'm going to have to listen to it one way or the other; but, just the same, it would be best discussed in committee when we get into the sections.

MR. STEPHENS: I'll do the best I can with that instruction, keeping it clearly in mind.

The minister talked about this generally. He said that - and I think he was referring to special programmes - no patient will be forced to participate in any of these special programmes unless he shows a clear willingness to do so. Now I'm very concerned that we have no definition of "special programmes." Where do

[ Page 2274 ]

we find the definition of special programmes? In other words, Mr. Speaker, when does a patient move out of a regular programme and into a special programme? When does a man or a woman under this treatment have the right to say to those people treating them: "No, I will not take this treatment because it's special treatment." What power does the committee have and the director have when an addict refuses to take the programme or take the treatment? I notice that there are some enforcement sections. But when are we dealing with experiments? When do we stop treating a man in a normal fashion and begin to experiment with him? Is hypnotism an experiment, or is that a regular treatment programme? When can they say no to these other methods of treating addicts?

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the minister should build into this Act some solid rules which the treatment people must follow - or, at least, some limitations beyond which they cannot go - because, if he allows the agency and the people working in it to make the rules as they go along, it's going to be very difficult for anybody under treatment to know when they have the right to refuse treatment and when they don't.

Who will make the rules as to what treatment shall be taken? Who can change those rules and how frequently can it be done? I realize that, in treatment facilities, it's necessary for the doctors and medical people to have a certain amount of control over this because every addict has to be treated somewhat differently. But surely the Act could build in some guidelines and some restrictions and some limits on these people who will be offering the treatment.

(Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Another matter I'm concerned about, Mr. Speaker - and I would ask the minister to consider this - is that at the outset, I would guess, the first people who will come under the compulsory treatment aspects of this bill will be the known addicts - that is, the people that the police generally know by sight and by their criminal record and by their past conduct as addicts. It's these people that we will zero in on first. They will no doubt -some of them, at least - be confined under this Act. But as the known addicts are captured, where do we go from there? Do we then go to the household of the known addict and say: "Well, we now have reasonable grounds to believe that because the husband is an addict, the wife may also be an addict"? How do we find these people? What restrictions do we have on the police and on the people who are administering this Act? Where do they draw the line as to what is reasonable and what isn't?

I've noticed that the Act has - for some strange reason or perhaps deliberately - eliminated the usual phrase, "on reasonable and probable grounds, " and speaks only of "reasonable grounds." I wonder if this is deliberate or just an oversight because, when you remove the word "probable, " you open up a whole new ballgame for the police to embark upon. I would suggest that you consider that phrase, Mr. Minister, when you're looking at this bill further.

Another question is: when shall a person be confined and when shall he not be? What rules will this agency function on? Where are the limits for confining people and where are they not? I believe that some guidelines - outside limits beyond which they cannot go - should be laid down for this agency or for this commission or board by the minister.

I'm concerned about the powers of search. There are no rules defining this. If somebody is entering an institution, quite clearly there should be a power of search as far as drugs are concerned, but what limits are there to those powers? I know they are in the Act, but what limits are there? If somebody comes into the institution as a visitor, are there any limits? This question was asked on an open-line programme of one of the minister's people in the commission. The answer was, "Oh, well, if you're just coming for a visit you probably won't get searched, " or something to that effect.

My concern is that surely there must be some guidelines laid down so that when people come to visit this hospital, or whatever we're going to call it, we know what is going to happen. Are they going to be frisked from top to bottom? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this also requires some very serious consideration and some guidelines, not only for the people in there but for the visitors.

What access will anybody confined in the hospital have to counsel if he or she requires it? Will there be contact? Will they be permitted to make contact with a lawyer if they require it? Supposing an innate of one of these institutions finds that his rights are being taken away from him, not to do with heroin, but other rights. What access does he have to counsel and what access does he have to the courts?

Mr. Speaker, there is another matter too that I am concerned about. This has been dealt with in California but does not seem to have been dealt with here or considered here. That is, what do we do with a heroin addict who is on treatment and able to function in society

[ Page 2275 ]

while on treatment if this person should commit an offence against the law with the possibility of being charged? Is the commission going to allow this addict then - particularly if he is making reasonable progress - to be yanked out of this treatment centre and put back into the jail system? Is there any arrangement with the people responsible for prosecuting addicts to consider the possibility that the addict, particularly if it is a minor offence, may respond well to continued treatment rather than going to jail?

I notice in this report that I read earlier of the commission of inquiry into non-medical use that it states that in California outpatients who are apprehended for committing a felony are often returned to CRC without being prosecuted. In such cases, district attorneys are apparently prepared to forgo prosecution if the out-patient is returned to CRC. I would like the minister to answer whether he has considered that particular aspect and, if so, what arrangements have been made.

I would also suggest that the minister might consider the possibility of releasing a patient before the compulsory three-year period. There is no doubt that as this programme goes on, some younger addicts and some who no doubt will not be really hooked on the stuff may respond very quickly to treatment. But so long as they remain under the control of this commission, it could have a detrimental effect on their employment and on their recovery and rehabilitation. So I would ask the minister to put his attention to that particular aspect as well.

Mr. Speaker, in summing up, I sincerely hope that this programme will be successful, but I would suggest that it has no hope of being successful at all if it is rammed through in its present shape. Give it a little time. We have been living with this problem for a long time. You're on the right track. Let's straighten this bill up a little bit and I think that you will really have something going for you.

HON. MR. MAIR: First of all, before I give my views on the bill itself , I would like to refer, if I may, -to a question raised by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) on the Constitutional Questions Determination Act. I don't pretend to have looked into this at any great length, but I understand that the member holds the view that we can refer a bill to the courts. I believe that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) shares this view and that they can determine the constitutional validity of the bill. I must say that on first reading of the Act one would get that impression, but I think if the members would examine both section 3 and section 5 they would see that that is not so.

Section 3 says the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may refer to the court of appeal or a judge for hearing or consideration any matter that he thinks fit to refer. Now one would think that "matter" would include the word "bill", and I think that's where the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) takes his strength. But it goes on in section 5 to say:

"In Case the matter so referred relates to the constitutional validity of any Act passed by the Legislature or some provision in any such Act, the Attorney-General of Canada shall be notified of the hearing in order to be heard if he sees fit."

Now if one were to say that a bill could be so referred under section 3, then you could have the situation arise where the court of appeal could rule that that bill was indeed constitutional, have it referred back to the Legislature where it would be enacted, and then the Attorney-General of Canada would be debarred from any further proceedings because it would already be res judicata. Now I offer that only as some assistance to the members who may be concerned about that particular aspect of it.

I must say personally, Mr. Speaker, that when this bill passes, as I am sure it will, I hope it does receive judicial review very quickly. I think if we're going to have an Act such as this on our books, and for it to have practical effect, it must have the cleansing that only the courts can give it so that it can be administered for all time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that when my colleague, the Minister of Health, first brought the question of this type of legislation to my attention about two and a half years ago, my initial reaction was one of great concern. I don't think I'd be overstating it, Mr. Speaker, to say that my reaction was one of opposition. My opposition was expressed much along the lines that has been expressed by my friends for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) and North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . I might also say, Mr. Speaker, if I was still opposed to the bill along those grounds, I would oppose it in this House. If anybody doubts that I would go against the government on a question of principle, they don't know me very well.

I have spent a lot of time dealing with the bill, Mr. Speaker. I spent a lot of time with my colleague, the Minister of Health, and I spent a lot of time looking at other laws and looking at what other jurisdictions have done.

[ Page 2276 ]

Quite frankly, I've done a lot of searching in my own soul to see whether or not this is the breach of civil liberties that has been suggested - if not suggested in fact, suggested as a fear.

1 recognize, Mr. Speaker, that one of the dangers we have in our parliamentary system is to yield to the temptation by the bureaucrat to subvert fair play to convenience in the name of a good motive. I recognize that is more and more a concern of all of us who hold democracy dear. Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, and for reasons that I will go into in just a little more detail in a moment, I am prepared to support the bill in principle and in philosophy and, I believe, in good conscience.

Mr. Speaker, in short answer to the member for Oak Bay on one point that he makes, this is not the first time that a person's liberty has been taken away or deprived in British Columbia through operation of the bureaucracy. I don't say that in defence of the bill, because if the Mental Health Act is wrong then this Act is wrong. But for many, many years under section 23 and other sections of the Mental Health Act, the liberty of individuals has been taken away from them by bureaucrats. So at least to the extent that the member says this is the first time, he is in error.

But let's examine, if I may, Mr. Speaker, the principle of the Act and see where it gets us if we take it step by step. I suggest the first thing, of course, that we must look for is whether or not there is any real need for this type of legislation. I'm not going to repeat what my colleague, the Minister of Health, has said because he said it well and he said it thoroughly. But I think we should reflect on one or two salient facts, Mr. Speaker, and we should ask ourselves one or two important questions.

Is heroin addiction a disease? Is it, by any common definition, a disease such as venereal disease, such as any other disease we consider to be a very serious detriment to the wellbeing of our people? I'm convinced from all of the definitions that I've heard from the medical people, and certainly from all of the experience I have had practising law in the courts for approximately 20 years, that if heroin addiction is not a disease, then there is no such thing as a disease.

I well remember an incident in my practice about seven or eight years ago, perhaps 10 years ago, when along with other counsel I defended four or five people who were charged with the possession of heroin for the purposes of trafficking. Not one of these people was over 30. Each one of them was incarcerated for no less than a year; each one of them was drug-free for that one year by their own admission; each one of them left prison and took the nearest route to the source of their supply; and each one of them took heroin within an hour or so after leaving jail. The last part of that story is that not one of them is alive today. If that's not disease, I don't know what is.

It would be one thing if the disease was something that was confined only to the person who was immediately afflicted. If it were just something that was confined to the individual I'm not so sure that I could bring myself to believe that the problem was so serious as to warrant the action taken by my colleague. But I don't think there is any question that heroin addiction is one of the most communicable of all diseases. I don't think there is any question that the one thing that a heroin addict must have is company. He must have the social benefits of other people sharing his habit with him. Once again, I think I can speak from my experience before the bar, as many in this House can, in saying that that is a fact. If there is one thing a heroin addict can't stand, its the lack of company with the same habit.

If I've made my case for the proposition that its a disease, and that it is a communicable disease, is it of sufficient seriousness for the government to interfere in the same way it has with mental health, venereal disease and other diseases which cause so much social problem? I hardly think that that proposition needs articulating. Surely to goodness heroin addiction, with the possible exception of alcohol addiction, is the greatest social evil we in this province, and indeed in the world, face. So I have no trouble now in saying that I am convinced that the first criterion has been met. That is that the problem with which we are dealing is a serious communicable disease which must be dealt with by society in the manner that it deals with other matters of such enormous importance.

If that is so, the next question I have to ask myself as a lawyer, as a parliamentarian, as a citizen and as a human being is whether or not the person charged - if "charged" is the word; I don't think I can use that word -the person who is going to be affected by this legislation is going to be provided with the appropriate safeguards that all of us are entitled to. Will he have, as the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) has indicated, that American theory of due process? There's nothing wrong with that being an American theory, but it's one that comes rather late

[ Page 2277 ]

into our jurisprudence.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: I agree it is a good one, Mr. Member.

Will he have those safeguards? First of all, upon being given notice of his presence being required, will he have time to see counsel or to seek advice or to seek all the help he can get? Will his counsel then have time to do all the things necessary to protect the individual? I must say, upon reading the provisions of the bill - and indeed, if I may say so, having had some part in drafting them - that indeed he does. As a matter of fact, I think he has many more safeguards and much more time than other people who are charged with other crimes in our community.

After he has been taken into custody, does that due process continue? Does he have the rights of habeas corpus? Does he have the right of appeal against a finding which he believes to be adverse? When I read section 8 and section 13 of the bill - something which may not have been read for some time by some members of the House or may have been read so long ago that they have forgotten all of the safeguards therein - I find that a person who is apprehended under this bill is given every opportunity to instruct counsel, every opportunity to be heard and every opportunity to appeal.

Having said that, I do not pretend that this is easy legislation. I don't pretend that the Mental Health Act is easy legislation. I don't pretend that the sections in the Criminal Code requiring a person to give a breath test are easy pieces of legislation. I don't pretend that they do not in some way erode what we consider to be the pure civil liberties to which we are entitled. But to the extent that it varies from those principles, I am convinced it is justified in light of the ill that we seek to cure.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the onus section?

HON. MR. MAIR: There is no reverse onus section. There is onus upon the person who has been committed to appeal and to bear the onus that all appellants bear. But even if one were to assume that that is reverse onus, look at the reverse onus in possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking or even the simple matter of possession of stolen property. Much lesser crimes and much greater crimes than this have reverse onus in them.

I cannot find myself troubled by those things. I have given this matter a great deal of thought. I want to tell the House that whether they agree with me or disagree with me, I hope they know me as a person who does have honour, who is a serious professional in my own outside profession and who takes my duties in this House seriously. I want to assure the House that I have looked at this entire bill with great care. I participated in its drafting and have looked at all sections with a great deal of temerity. I can now stand unhesitatingly in support of the bill.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) made a pretty valiant attempt to associate heroin as a disease, presumably as a rationale for the kind of legislation we have before us. I would point out to the minister that in a document that the minister's Alcohol and Drug Commission published in April, 1977, on page 50 it said: "Contrary to the opinions of some, the heroin user does not suffer from a disease in the traditional sense but in fact accepts and in some cases enjoys his dependency."

There has been a constant argument over the last 25 years, to my knowledge, about whether in fact heroin is a disease or a sickness. Well, we know it's a very serious social problem and I don't think it's important how we define it. But if the minister insists on defining it and then tells us that within the Act there are adequate safeguards, then I must disagree with him. I'm not going to go into any depth in terms of the civil liberty issues, because I think as soon as the Act comes into force, as soon as the operation gets going, it's going to be very interesting to stand in the court registry in, the courthouse in Vancouver and watch the 100-yard dash with the lawyers going down to make applications. It's going to be an incredible sight.

I don't know just how knowledgeable the minister is in terms of dealing with addicts. I would suspect, based on the kinds of speeches he used to make in this House in 1974, that he probably has as much knowledge now as he had then, which is virtually nothing.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Yes, he was. I'm talking about the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) now. We used to call him "the minister of bombast." because he used to get up and he used to make the most outrageous statements about the Alcohol and Drug Commission. He used to attack the individual commissioners. He even accused the chairman of the commission of being pro-drug. Yes, he actually said that the

[ Page 2278 ]

commissioner was pro-drug.

Now the thing is that if the minister were serious about wanting to do something about the heroin problem - and it needs to have something done about it - why does he place so many obstacles in front of him in respect to the programme that lie wants to achieve? Why, for instance, does he get himself into a mess publicly about the whole civil liberty issue? Why does he get himself in a mess with people who are professionals who say to him: "Tell us about the programme"? When he introduced the bill this afternoon, I can assure him that he sounded exactly like Davie Fulton did in 1961 when he made some amendments to the Narcotic Control Act, and when he talked about setting Matsqui. He talked about an institution, he talked about treatment, he talked about having counselling. He talked about after-care; he talked about vocational training. We know all that. That's the kind of thing that has been tried in Matsqui for four years, and I can remember the debate with the minister four years ago when I quoted to him the report by Brian Murphy on the Matsqui operation. First of all, he hadn't even heard of it and, because he hadn't even heard of it, he decided to make a comment on it and say that it wasn't scientific.

Well, if the minister is going to tell me that this document that he has produced called "A Plan for the Treatment and Revitalization of Heroin Users" is in any way scientific, then there must be many, many sick scientists around because it is not scientific. That's the great problem with the minister. He has the kernel of a good idea. He wants to do something about heroin treatment. But he does insist on creating hurdles for himself with the law, hurdles for himself with the professionals. He produces no documents for this House so that we can have a worthwhile debate. He has yet to tell us of one treatment programme that is different from anything else that has ever been tried.

In 1974 the minister was enamoured of one programme. He was a great fan of the Japanese cold turkey treatment programme. He used to talk at great length in the House about how we've got to go the Japanese route. That's the way to deal with it. In fact, he was so enamoured of it that he took the chairman of the commission with him and went to Japan. He spent five days there, came back and we never heard another word about the Japanese treatment method - not another word. He's never reported on it and yet there are some elements in this legislation, in the programme that he wants to introduce, which are similar to the Japanese method. At least, that is what he would have us believe.

I just want to quote something to the minis ter, Mr. Chairman. This is from the United Nations Economic and Social Council commission on narcotic drugs. It is dated February 10, 1977. Mr. Motohashi, the Japanese delegate, is making a statement. He says:

"Japan is experiencing a serious problem of drug abuse caused by the prevalence of stimulant drugs. Cannabis, heroin, medicinal narcotics and LSD were also abused but to a lesser extent than stimulant drugs.

"Doctors and law-enforcement officials were obliged by law to report to the governor of a prefecture the name, address, age and sex of a narcotic addict or probable addict. Between January, 1976, and November, 1976, 27 addicts or probable addicts had been reported. In an attempt to control the abuse of stimulant drugs the Stimulant Control Law was amended in 1973. Penalties against violators have been strengthened and legal control of stimulant materials has been tightened. The number of persons violating the law, however, continued to increase in 1976."

He goes on:

"In Japan an attempt was made to deal with the problem of drug abuse from the point of view of demand as well as supply. Illicit use of drugs had been made a crime and the mere possession of illicit drugs was also a punishable offence. The laws have been actively enforced, and in 1976 more than 20 per cent of those charged with violating the laws on narcotics and stimulant drugs had been charged with an offence of illicit use of drugs."

I just want to get to the part that I want to bring to the minister's attention specifically.

"Although illicit drug use was a crime in Japan, the importance of rehabilitating drug addicts was recognized. Under the narcotic control law a system has been established to cater to addicts from the time of detection to compulsory hospitalization.

"There were nine special hospitals providing treatment for addicts. Hospital charges were shared by the state and the prefecture but patients could be required to contribute in proportion to their income.

"As a rule, criminal procedure took precedence over compulsory hospitalization. In practice, however, criminal investigation was conducted while the patient was undergoing hospital treatment."

The minister is aware of that. He was in

[ Page 2279 ]

Japan. He looked at their programme and presumably, except for the one small element that they have in the compulsory treatment end, he decided to adopt that. I would ask the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether he had taken the trouble to look at Part II of the Narcotic Control Act which was passed in 1961. Part II was never proclaimed. But in that section they lay out a procedure by which they have in mind the committal of addicts as an offence. What they were doing, Mr. Speaker, was to adapt some of the procedures that were used in the habitual criminal proceedings and what subsequently came to be called the dangerous sexual offender proceedings. But it was all done within the law.

It is laid out in the Act that an offender who had been arrested for an offence and convicted of an of fence would be served a paper and within seven days he would be taken before a judge and informed that proceedings were being taken to find him to be a drug addict. Then there were some requirements about two doctors coming to state that he's a drug addict, and there would be other evidence brought to bear from the police, and then he could be committed. Their legislation, which was never proclaimed, committed him up to 10 years.

All the years that we've had the problem -most certainly from 1961 up to 1978 - that section of the Narcotic Control Act was never proclaimed. There were a number of reasons for it. One of the reasons was that, in the debate in the House in 1961, they did envision that doing something about drug addiction would rest in the provincial field, not in the federal field, because that's where the administration of health is properly done, and under our constitution it is done that way. All right. It may very well be that the minister looked at that section, along with his advisers, and they decided they will do a health entry plan, which is within the jurisdiction of the provincial government.

But then, as I said earlier, he gets himself into this terrible problem of the civil liberty thing. It's got a number of problems related to it. What is going to happen is that, once addicts are aware that there is going to be a way out, they are going to use it. And suddenly our courts are going to be plugged up because this appeal process is apparently going to take place in a provincial court. They are going to have to go before a provincial judge, as I understand it, in the terms of the appeal process.

Now I can tell you from my experience of some 17 years in the field that if there's a process they can use, they'll use it. Addicts have been prepared to sit out in the west wing of Oakalla, and because they felt they were wrongly done by and pleaded not guilty to charges they were obviously guilty of, have decided to go for judge and jury and have cost the taxpayer an enormous amount of money; and, when that was over, they went through an appeal process. So what the minister has done, in fact, is to provide the addicts with some kind of exercise, something to take up their time. They have a system to beat.

Yet if he had wanted to do it, he could have done it quite differently. He could have found a way through the judicial system, and then he could have addressed himself to the programme. We don't know what the programme is, but he talks in glowing terms of something that's different. So that's the hurdle he put in his way.

Now let's deal with the programme for a minute. He has yet to stand in this House and tell us who the people are who advise him, other than Mr. Hoskin and possibly Dr. Schwarz. Who are the other people? It is my understanding that no member of the Alcohol and Drug Commission staff, other than the person who is now a commissioner, , us ever consulted about the programme. He's never denied it. But if that's different, I want the minister to get up and tell us who he did consult with within the Drug and Alcohol Commission who had experience. Certainly the day I left office there were innumerable people in there who had long experience, who remained in the Alcohol and Drug Commission.

Subsequently some of them left, Mr. Speaker, because they had been told by a memo that if they didn't agree with the programme, they would make other arrangements for them to work elsewhere.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Who did? Oh, you didn't do that? It was done by the staff. The staff were not told that if they didn't agree with the programme ... well, we'll get to that in the committee. We won't get into an argument.

The staff were told: "If you don't agree with the programme, we'll arrange for you to work somewhere else." Now the point I'm trying to make about the staff is that you never consulted with them. You never even went to the people who had experience and asked their opinion. You listened to the opinion of Hoskin, and I don't know whether you had Dr. Schwarz in there. But that was something you got committed to back in 1974 when Hoskin and Schwarz and Matheson did their report in which they recommended compulsory treatment.

[ Page 2280 ]

We knew where you were going four years ago on this thing.

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

MR. LEVI: We knew where they were going, Mr. Speaker. They were going all the way down. There was going to be compulsory treatment. I don't know what he sold those people over there on how it was going to work. Then, above all things, he sells them the idea that he should have it in Brannan Lake.

Well, the one thing that that's achieved -and Frank Ney better listen to this.- is that that idiotic move by the government to put it into Brannan Lake is going to get the member for Nanaimo re-elected. The Minister of Human Resources knows, I know, and other ministers before us know what kind of problems we had with Brannan Lake with young people escaping.

Now he's going to put 150 addicts in Brannan Lake behind an eight-foot chain link fence, and he's going to say to them; "If you escape, it's going to cost you $500, " and that's going to keep them in. That's what's going to happen, and what has he done? He's put it in near Nanaimo, and you know what you're going to get in Nanaimo? You're going to get the same kind of thing that they got in Abbotsford, in Mission, in Agassiz, and in William Head. You're going to get colonies of addicts, and you're just going to make the situation worse - no doubt at all.

They take $14 million and put it into a programme. The minister said he had no suggestions. I'll give you a suggestion: take the $14 million and put it into cancer research. I'm absolutely amazed that with all the social priorities that exist in this province, this minister has convinced that cabinet that he's got to spend $14 million on a programme.

I say this to him: if you want to do a programme, if you want to try this thing that you want to do with addicts, why can't you do a pilot project? Why can't you do it with a dozen or 20 addicts and see whether it is possible to do the kind of thing you want to do? Everything that you've said in your opening remarks about the kind of treatment you want to do can be done, but not with 100 people in a hospital.

Do you know what the staff are going to be doing most of the time? They'll be standing by the beds frisking people, doing body examinations to see if anybody has brought in the drugs or if anybody threw a tennis ball over the wall with drugs in it. He has some unrealistic idea that that programme is going to succeed at Brannan Lake. It's incredible.

Nobody is saying that you shouldn't try a programme, but you take $14 million of scarce resources that can be put into cancer research, or with children - the battered children syndrome - or anything, but not $14 million for drug addicts. And don't tell me when you answer that somehow this is what is going to help solve the heroin trafficking problem. As the minister says, we've got over 10,000 addicts, and he's going to be dealing with 150. If you're going to do a programme you should have done it in terms of a pilot project.

Mr. Levi moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.