[ Page 2705 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Heroin Treatment Act (Bill 18) Second reading.

Mr. Barnes –– 2705

Mr. Macdonald –– 2709

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2710

Heroin Treatment Act (Bill 18) Amendments.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2717

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (Bill 40) Committee stage.

On section 2.

Ms. Sanford –– 2717

Mr. King –– 2719

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 27l 9

Mr. Gibson –– 2721

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2722

Mr. King –– 2724

Division –– 2725

Heroin Treatment Act (Bill 18) Second reading.

Division on second reading –– 2726

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: With leave, may I just make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I do not normally introduce my wife, Lillian; but she's here this evening to celebrate our 22nd anniversary, which is today. If she can put up with me for 22 years, I think she deserves recognition for that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, the child bride indeed has amazing staying powers, and I would like to join in the great welcome of the minister to his wife.

With leave, I move the House proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 18.

HEROIN TREATMENT ACT

(continued)

MR. BARNES: I'd like to ask leave to table a petition containing 9,000 names opposed to this bill. Many of the signatories are people from the minister's riding of Langley.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: I made most of my remarks this afternoon, and I will be very brief. I don't intend to belabour the points I've made. I suggested that the bill was contrived by the minister and his advisers as a politically expedient and opportune document to advance at this time.

I would just like to read a few comments from the programme at the conference last Saturday - the ad hoc committee on the compulsory addiction treatment plan - which stated as follows:

"Few subjects in recent years have attracted as much attention as drug addiction and the use of illicit drugs. By making available an enormous amount of so-called data on these subjects, the media have turned each of us into experts on dangerous drugs. But do we really know why people take drugs? Do we ever stop to consider the moral and political implications of our drug control measures?"

Dr. Thomas Szasz, who is the professor of psychiatry from the state of New York, throws some light on this timely subject by stating:

"The use of certain drugs fills a basic human need for ceremonial participation in social congregation, and the persecution of certain drugs and their users now fills the equally basic human need for sacrificing scapegoats. By identifying drug abuse as a medical problem, we have overlooked its profound religious and political significance. In the name of helping some people and protecting others, our politicians and physicians have denied us our civil rights at home and undertaken a new form of colonial control abroad."

This, states Dr. Szasz, is our real drug problem. Drug abuseology. The creation of drug abusers and drug addicts and their persecution by means of treatments is a flourishing business. In New York state alone the state government has spent more than $6 billion in the past half dozen years -not counting federal funds - with the wholly predictable result that the drug problem is now said to be worse than it has ever been.

"In the 19th century, when there were no drug controls, there was no drug problem. The people, as the grand inquisitor so well understood, love being entertained and terrorized by campaigns to save them from enemies and are eager to embrace their leaders for offering to lift the burden of freedom from their shoulders. In each case, of course, the people were told and felt that they had no reason to doubt that it was so, that their leaders were only protecting them from witches and pushers and were saving them for God in health."

Mr. Speaker, I think that this will be a difficult battle for those of us who are trying to fight for people's rights and justice because, unfortunately, many people are prepared to use scapegoats.

I wonder if the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) would leave the chamber while I carry on with my debate in this very serious discussion. I find it very disconcerting to try and concentrate on this matter while they're carrying on their private caucus. I would hope that they would at least recognize the seriousness of what this government is attempting to perpetrate upon the

[ Page 2706 ]

people of British Columbia. It is nothing but a sham and a fraud.

There is absolutely no treatment programme; there are no treatment programmes. There won't be as long as this government fails to recognize that they are talking about lifestyle, not a medical problem. They are talking about lifestyle, something that affects smokers, alcoholics, shoplifters, people who cheat on their income taxes, people who manipulate the stocks and do all kinds of other things, like getting inside deals to make money of taxpayers through friends in the government and so forth. We're talking about lifestyle; we're talking about a fairly complex problem, Mr. Speaker. I'm just suggesting that while I'm opposed to the adverse effects of this particular affliction, I certainly don't think that the government should be allowed to get away with making a grand statement that they're going to rid the public of the drug problem, when, in fact, the problem is ourselves, our system and the values that we place on this system, and not those individuals.

I would like to suggest that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) picked upon a very good gimmick in saying that he is going to treat drug addicts and rid the public of this affliction, but I would challenge the minister to stand and tell the House what he intends to do about the professional addicts -the doctors, the nurses and the people who have access to various drugs legally.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Name names.

MR. BARNES: I don't think we need to name names. We've got the documents; we've been studying them all the time. The Narcotic Addiction Foundation is filled with documents on professional addicts. You don't need to name any names; you know that it is a fact.

There are many people who are using drugs who are being maintained by doctors, by medical people. In fact, there is no law right now against a doctor maintaining a drug addict. There's no need for this law. Every doctor in the province of British Columbia could prescribe drugs and maintain a drug addict. The minister knows that. But he's playing politics and suggesting that he's got some great new idea. If the medical profession were to face its responsibilities and challenges, they could take on drug addicts, people who are trying to withdraw, and they could maintain them.

I'm asking the minister: what is he going to do about these people who are using drugs?

These people who may legally be in possession of drugs are certainly drug addicts. Are we talking just about the guy on the street who has a high profile, who is visible and whom everybody can see, or are we talking about the closet drug addicts? Are we talking about the people who are being maintained on pep pills? I think that it's a sham and a dishonest attempt to create a problem by describing only the tail when there is a whole animal there - a real, big animal - one that I think is serious, one that I think we all should be concerned about.

I'm not opposed to an attempt to try and resolve this problem. That's not why I'm standing here. I'm standing here because the minister is attempting to get away with a contrived, deliberate kind of deceptive device. He calls it a heroin treatment programme, one that is going to help drug addicts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. We cannot, we have not and we shall not permit the word "deceptive" in this House, if it's attached to any member of the House.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the term if it's objectionable to the minister, but I would suggest that he is being dishonest, because, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. You've selected another of the words which we cannot permit and I'd ask the hon. member to withdraw the word "dishonest."

MR. BARNES: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. If the minister will stand when he's closing the debate and say that he has no ulterior motives in mind when he suggests that he has a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.... He's suggesting that people on drugs can be treated for a physical problem when we know that it's a psycho-social problem, when we know that it is a problem to do with lifestyles. How are you going to withdraw someone from a substance that is less than 3 per cent pure heroin? There was a time when it was 10 per cent, but it's not anymore.

People are buying a card into a club. It's a lifestyle. It's a form of protest against hopelessness, against a society that seems to turn a deaf ear to their concerns; a society that builds in an unemployment rate of 10 to 15 per cent and says it's normal; a society that turns out university students with no place to go; a society that turns out all kinds of qualified individuals, technicians and so forth - and you know the people who are walking the streets and many of them are

[ Page 2707 ]

looking for some alternative.

All this minister can say is that we're going to pick out one of them that seems to be popular and we're going to attack them. You could attack cigarette smokers, you could attack the socialists and maybe the time will come when you will lock us up. I haven't used alcohol because, you see, that's the one we save until last. Alcohol is all right. Alcohol is okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know?

MR. BARNES: Well, just look around. We're all enjoying it and we're not having any problems. I've used it for years. Until this government decides it's going to come in with a project and a programme to eliminate alcoholics and people who use alcohol, I suppose most of us are safe. But if the day ever comes that alcohol is in vogue for politicians to make miles, we'll all be in trouble.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I don't want to labour the point. I wanted to say one thing and the one main point that I wanted to make is that this is a political program . It is an attempt by this minister to get on the popular bandwagon. And I think he may succeed because, unfortunately, many people, because of their circumstances, are angry, they are overtaxed, they are overburdened, they are having a very difficult time. Not only the Minister of Health but also the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) recognizes that when people are uptight and oppressed economically, you can sell them a bill of goods. Hitler was able to realize this when he suggested to people that he had an alternative to unemployment and so forth and to the lack of a strong foot in economic circles across the world. So the people bought his game, only to find themselves in purgatory later on because you do have to pay. Now he's asking everybody to sacrifice civil rights, the basic due process that everyone should be entitled to. He's saying: "That's not important; we're going to get those drug addicts." I say let's deal with the problem, sure; but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. I've always enjoyed the freedom that I have in this country. I feel that we fought hard for it.

Many people have given their lives for their freedom. We've been able to walk the streets freely and now he's suggesting that doctors will be turning against their patients and police will no longer have the confidence of people in the communities because they may be turned in. Social workers will be suspect. What confidence will there be for people who are seriously trying to withdraw and deal with their problem, if they are afraid they're going to be locked up without trial? This is what I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not opposed to finding solutions. I think we need to find solutions. But I think we should look at the implications of what this minister is suggesting. We should take a look at the problem as it really exists. How can this minister seriously say that drug addiction is wrong and that the people who have fallen prey to drug addiction are any different from people who are involved in alcoholism, which is one our biggest sources of revenue? This is an absolute sham. It's hypocritical and it's disgraceful in a free society and in a society of responsible legislators.

I find it appalling and incredibly unbelievable in this day and age. It boggles the mind. You have a Minister of Human Resources who says that we will run everybody out of town if they don't have a job and take them off unemployment insurance.

MR. KEMPF: Withdraw!

MR. BARNES: Withdraw, the member for Omineca says. Let's see you stand up and make your points. You'll have an opportunity. I think its about time that the people of this province realize what this government is intending to do. They want to rule with an iron hand. This is just a beginning. They're going to erode something as serious as our basic human rights and they're going to say it's all right. This is not social legislation, it's criminal. It is something that should be held by the federal government. If they want to amend the Criminal Code, that's fine. What he's coming up with now is violating all the basic human rights. He's telling people that they've got to be uptight to walk the streets. There are any number of situations that are going to be open to Exploitation and misuse by unscrupulous police and other officials, taking advantage of individuals.

This is a serious matter. It has nothing to do with solving the treatment problem. He's not going to solve any problem. We have all the facts. We know the Matsqui experience. We know the experience of the Narcotic Addiction Foundation over the years. We know that all they ever learned is that drug addicts are people addicted to drugs, like chocolate and Coca-Cola, and they like their lifestyle. But that's no different than so many people who go down to the pub, where we give them the right to drink beer until I o'clock at night. It's

[ Page 2708 ]

no different, but it's legal. That's the only difference. Now we're trying to create an issue which is a disservice at the expense of $14 million of tax money. This minister is going to invest in the perpetuation of what is obviously a sham.

Mr. Minister, how many people who work in jails have you heard of being charged for assisting those persons who are incarcerated to get their hands on illicit drugs? Do you think that your institutions will be any different? Do you think that drug addicts will not get drugs? No institution has ever existed where a drug addict or a person using drugs couldn't get them. They are very clever, and very capable of doing what they want to do.

MR. KEMPF: It's about time it was stopped.

MR. BARNES: Well, what would you suggest? Auschwitz? What would you suggest, Mr. Member for Omineca?

MR. KEMPF: What would you suggest?

MR. BARNES: I would suggest that we deal with these people on the voluntary basis that has been suggested by all responsible practitioners, and by people all aver this country and all over the world. No one is suggesting that you can start shooting people, throwing them in jail - it's a joke, and it doesn't work. If you had a solution, if it would work, fine. Are you going to have the jails full of people? They're all going to be "high" in jail, and you're going to have more people in jail assisting them. It just doesn't work. And besides, let's deal with the facts. How many drug addicts are there in this province?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: How many?,

MR. BARNES: I doubt if there's over 6,000. How many alcoholics are there? And how many people use alcohol in this province? How many people smoke and abuse themselves and end up with emphysema? How much expense do you have, Mr. Minister of Health, with people who come in with complaints that are related to abuses in some other form besides drug addiction?

All I am suggesting is that there is a social problem; there is a problem of lifestyle. But I think the minister is trying to use this for his own political mileage, and I hope it will backfire on him. I hope the people of the province of British Columbia will see through this.

MR. KEMPF: You hope it will backfire! That's a disgrace.

MR. BARNES: I hope it will backfire because, if it doesn't, we will all see the day when it will be someone else.

MR. KEMPF: You hope it won't work!

MR. BARNES: You know the rules of this House; you should be quiet, take your seat in this House and, when your opportunity comes, you can make your speech.

I think that shows you the kind of people we have making the laws over there, Mr. Speaker -no respect for the Chair, or the Queen, interfering and interrupting when a member is on his feet trying to make a point. He has every opportunity to stand up and speak. He spends all his time yelling across the floor.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I will just close by saying that I think it's a sad day for the province of British Columbia. This minister thinks that he's taking an initiative that will be duplicated by other jurisdictions. I would suggest that, if the minister is sincere, he will hold his head in shame. All he's got to do is look at the facts. And I'm sure the director, Mr. Bert Hoskin, who is a man of many years of experience in this field himself, has to admit that there is no proven treatment programme for drug addicts. Drug addiction is not the primary problem. It is a problem for the individual, but it is also a problem for society that goes beyond the use of drugs. It never has been that, and it is unfortunate that the public is not being given a clear picture of what the real problem is. What they're going to do is say: "Well, there is a government that is doing something, that's going to get rid of those no good so-and-sos." I'm saying to you that it is a small segment of the people who are abusing themselves and abusing the system and abusing society.

I would like to feel that the public will understand. I have faith in the public's ability, hopefully, to not see the immediate gains that may happen by pulling a few drug addicts off the street at the expense of their civil rights, their civil liberties, and the danger of losing other rights. I think that's about all I can say on it, Mr. Speaker. I feel that it's a very gloomy day for us in the province of British Columbia, and I think that this minister knows it. I think he knew it when he came up with the idea. He's desperately trying to get on the bandwagon of something that will be popular. But history has shown that there's always been somebody to whip, there's always been some affliction -whether it was epileptics, orphans, or any group throughout history - there's always been

[ Page 2709 ]

somebody for politicians to jump on the bandwagon and misuse and distort, and that's all this is. If I'm wrong I'd be glad to come before this House again and say: "There is a programme that works." We'll see.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to speak for three minutes or so on this bill.

Point 1. It's a very serious problem we're dealing with. Whether it's 6,000 addicts or 10,000, it's very hard to determine; there are no real figures on that. It does destroy lives - there is no question about it. This particular habit does lead to crime in other sections of society. So do others, like alcoholism. But it is a very serious social problem and I believe that more money should be given to the CLEU programmes and to the police forces in terms of their drug squads to clean up the supply and force up the price so that people do not proselytize and try to persuade their friends to become hooked. I would rather see that $14 million - although we don't need that much - added on to the very successful efforts of the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit to cut down - they haven't been able to stop -the flow of hard drugs into this province of British Columbia.

Point 2. When it comes to children, I have kind of a soft heart. We do have the Protection of Children Act. We do have the ability of the courts of the province to declare a child to be on probation or a ward of the superintendent, if necessary. When you talk about young people who may get hooked, and sometimes deliberately hooked, in order to turn them into carriers to make the flight to Toronto or to deliver this and to do that, and then find themselves dead at the age of 25 or 26 or 27 2 1 have no hesitation in saying that a case can be made for protective custody of those youngsters before they get hooked. I think our existing laws do provide that opportunity, and if there have to be changes in terms of the protection of children, I would be in favour of making them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: How?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I think that the courts should have the right to decree protective custody as a term of probation where a child is addicted or in that kind of company so it constitutes delinquency. There may have to be improvements in the realm of the protection of children. Those ones might be salvageable because they're young and they have not got fully hooked.

In terms of the programme itself, I would say that it's not going to work. I hope it would work. Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear that I would hope this programme would work, but I don't think it will, because I think to take a number of the people who've been hooked on heroin and put them into Brannan Lake, say - we're talking about the custody aspects of this bill - and have them discuss their experiences in the drug scene there.... They're a bunch of people who've been on the hard drugs, and they're all gathered around and they'll talk about nothing but drugs and just wait till they're out for the first shoot-up. I hope it will work, Mr. Speaker; I just do not think that congregating these people in a single prison - maximum security, minimum security, be it what it will - is going to work. I don't think its treatment. I think it's $14 million, in that respect, down the drain in trying to turn a prison into a medical treatment centre with no known treatment in sight.

The only other thing I was going to say was that the minister has behind him a very distinguished judge in the province of British Columbia, Justice Les Bewley. I was going to attack the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) for his gimcrackery law which he was kind enough to deliver to the House not too long ago when he spoke on this bill. I'm not going to say much more. The minister says: "I'm not worried about the sections of this bill and the right to consult a lawyer and all that." That was the first point he made. The point is, you pick somebody up off the street for 72 hours. I always thought that habeas corpus from the year 1601 of Elizabeth I provided - and that's our practice in this province - that somebody at least sees a judge within 24 hours. Now I think that's a fundamental breach of the rights of our citizens and I think it's totally unjustifiable. I hope that that kind of a breach of the basic legal rights of the people of the province, which is quite unnecessary in terms of the objectives of this bill, would be taken out.

The other thing that minister talked about was the onus section. I think it's kind of amusing to read what Mr. Bert Hoskin says about that onus section. He was asked in an interview: "Why does the appeal section of this bill put the onus on the individual to prove he does not need treatment, rather than requiring the panel to prove that he does?" The answer of Mr. Bert Hoskin, after reference to legal counsel, was the following. He said: "After a professional panel has determined that the person needs a treatment, the person has the privilege of launching an appeal to a

[ Page 2710 ]

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." Well, there is no other section of our law in the British Commonwealth of Nations or Anglo-Saxon traditions which puts the onus on the accused. They had a trade union trial in the United Mine Workers' Union and Silvy Barrett was the presiding United Mineworkers' officer. The accused said he wasn't guilty of these trade union charges and Silvy said to him: "Well, if you're not guilty, why are you here?" That's the kind of legal nonsense that we're getting into in this bill. It's totally unnecessary.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) goes on to say: "There is onus upon the person who has been committed to appeal" - the poor guy or girl is in jail at that point - "and to bear the onus that all appellants bear." What nonsense to come from a lawyer and a member of this assembly! And then he goes on. "But even if one were to assume that is reverse onus, look at the reverse onus in possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking or even the simple matter of the possession of stolen property."

That is not an onus on the accused. The minister is all mixed up and has been giving ridiculous law to this House. There is a presumption when you have possession of stolen goods that you are required to come forward with an explanation as to how you got them into your possession, but the onus is still on the Grown. For a minister of the Crown here, a minister who is a lawyer, to stand up and give that kind of legal nonsense to the House is too much. It's just a ridiculous exposition of the law.

Basically what I say is that I'd like to see anything that will attack this problem be successful. I would like to see it work, but this won't work. It is a tragedy that the government is not directing its resources in a way which would be more effective in protecting our people from hard drugs.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I won't go over some, of the philosophical questions which love already spoken about in the opening of this debate, as I don't think that's necessary, but I will try and answer some of the questions which have been raised by the members who have spoken in this second reading debate. You will forgive me if I miss some of them because there has been some little interval in between, but I did make notes and I hope that my memory is fresh enough to answer most of the questions. Some of them I won't be able to, or perhaps I won't wish to.

I'd like to thank the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) for a rational statement on a serious problem, and I certainly accept that from him. We think the programme will work. You think it won't.

I'd like to comment on the remarks he made with regard to the so-called roundup of addicts in congregation in Brannan Lake, but I'll do that later when I talk about some comments that were raised in the same vein by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , and also the official Health critic for the opposition (Mr. D'Arcy) . I'll try to lump those all together later.

On the matter of more money going to CLEU, of course more money needs to go to the Criminal Law Enforcement Unit and other police agencies around the province in order to attack this problem. I assume, Mr. Speaker, that that member has talked to the people from CLEU. They'll say with all candour that in effect they are beating their heads against a wall because the attack on the supply side of the heroin problem is literally at a dead end because there is nothing being done to eliminate the demand problem which exists as well. So it cannot be a single attack. It must be a co-ordinated effort. To that end the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and myself have made two trips to Ottawa and have seen for the first time in the history of this province four senior ministers of the federal government come to British Columbia to talk with this government about ways in which we might attack on a joint basis both the supply and the demand side at the same time. There is great progress being made there.

Mr. Speaker, I won't comment on the second member for Vancouver Centre's (Mr. Barnes') remarks or the member for New Westminster's (Mr. Cocke's) . The member for Vancouver Centre seemed content to read from an old program of some meeting that was held in Richmond on the weekend, and the member for New Westminster seemed content to read from some old reports of the 1940s and the 1950s, in which he concluded that Lexington, Kentucky, and Matsqui, British Columbia, were failures. Those conclusions were made a long time ago and we concur with those conclusions. That's one of the reasons we are taking a different approach, Mr. Speaker.

There were a number of other members who spoke in the debate, but I did want to make one reply to a comment that was made early on in the debate by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) . That member quoted excerpts from a letter from the president of the B.C.

[ Page 2711 ]

branch of the Canadian Bar Association, Mr. Brian William . 1 think it would be great if when a member is quoting from a letter - and I know it is not possible all the time - perhaps the whole letter could be quoted. That doesn't happen in this House, of course.

I would like to quote some of the passages that were left out by the member for Burnaby North in the letter to myself from Mr. Brian Williams, the president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association. In the letter he talks about some press coverage he got which he wasn't too happy with.

"What I did say in correcting that press coverage was that your government should be commended for endeavouring to find innovative solutions to the complex social problem of drug abuse. I went on to say that the treatment for heroin addicts is a matter of government policy and not one which the lawyers should become involved in.

"The fact remains that the legislation which you propose may very well be quite acceptable to the citizens of the province, including the members of my association. The compulsory treatment may very well be the most satisfactory method of accomplishing the solution to this awful problem. Indeed, when matters become serious enough, there are instances when a government is justified in invading the rights of individuals."

Those are relevant statements in that letter from the president of the Bar Association.

MR. GIBSON: Read the rest of it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't have to read the rest of it because the rest of it was read in this House by the member for Burnaby North and by yourself, Mr. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, whoever read it, 1 would just like to fill in the blanks with the stuff that was left out - the good parts.

The second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) spoke in this debate. That member has a great deal of experience in this regard, but his association with this problem has been one of failure. The failures with which he has been associated have, unfortunately, turned him into a totally negative pessimist, like so many on the other side of this House, just as most people whose contact is totally with failure turn out to be pessimistic. That member for Vancouver-Burrard wants more studies. That's all we ever hear - more studies. There are no suggestions of ways in which we might approach a serious problem. I haven't heard one suggestion on the other side of the House, except one - which I might get to later - from the second member for Vancouver-Burrard about more studies.

For far too long, we have given in to the problem of drug addiction, looking upon it as a problem too complex, too difficult to understand and incapable of solution. This government has taken the position that, to the contrary, the drug problem is both understandable and capable of solution.

I would now like to reply to some of the questions which were raised by the critic for the official opposition, the member for Rossland-Trail, because I believe that he raised a number of questions which were also raised by other members. Perhaps we can deal with them all at once. However, most of the debate by that member had nothing to do with the principle of this bill and can be dealt with in committee. The member did misquote the police chief from Saanich. I Just to make sure that people also know what that person said, I would like to deal with that question as well. I'll get to that in just a minute.

As part of his debate, the member also said we had no discussion with the medical profession before we brought in this legislation. I'd like to say right now that that is absolutely untrue. There was full discussion with the medical profession. The medical profession was part of the deliberations that went into the development of this bill and, as a matter of fact, came out in strong support of the measure that we are debating today. For the benefit of those members, perhaps I shouldn't ask them to take my word for that, but should instead read from the letters I have received. First of all, here is a letter from the registrar's office of the College of Physicians and Surgeons:

"Dear Mr. Minister:

"I am writing to express to you the appreciation of the council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia for your attendance at their meeting on Thursday, March 16. It was a privilege and pleasure to have you attend with your deputy minister, and to be able to discuss with you the ramifications of this programme.

"I have been instructed by the council to convey to you their approval of the programme as outlined that day. It was their recommendation also that heroin addiction be considered as a notifiable item.

"It was the council's wish that this

[ Page 2712 ]

expression of approval be conveyed to you so you may be aware of their feelings in this regard."

I might say that these letters came as a result of a presentation which I made to the college and to the British Columbia Medical Association of the full programme and the full bill with all of its ramifications and all of its parts.

On April 4,1978, the British Columbia Medical Association wrote to me:

"Dear Mr. McClelland:

I am instructed by the board of directors to make known to you the following board motion which was passed unanimously: that the board of directors support the programme of direction into treatment for narcotic addicts proposed by the government of British Columbia.

"The board was extremely impressed by the excellent presentation made by yourself and Mr. Hoskin. The board discussed at length and in detail the compulsory aspects of the programme and the possible implications of the loss of human rights and civil liberties. The board, in its deliberations, compared this problem to that of the mentally ill, who enter compulsory care by reason of being a danger , to themselves and the public. There are other precedents with regard to the reporting and treatment of disease. By reason of the magnitude of heroin addiction in British Columbia, and the problem it presents to both the addict, who loses all dignity of mind and body, and the public who lose both in the economic sense and in the weakening of our fabric of society, the board felt that your proposal should be accepted and supported in its entirety.

"The board are sensitive to the courage your government displays in taking this action, which, no doubt, will be the subject of some criticism. Mr. Gilmour will be in touch with Mr. Hoskin to co-ordinate a support-communication Programme throughout the province.

Yours sincerely,

Norman Rigby, M.D.,

Executive Director."

So there was consultation, Mr. Speaker, at all points, with the medical profession of British Columbia. That consultation resulted in what I'm sure you'll agree, Mr. Speaker, is a pretty strong letter of support.

The member, and other members, keep referring to all those institutions that we're going to set up under this programme. The member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) was the latest one to refer to the problems that we'll have with institutional care, and particularly the congregation of addicts in one place. We accept that, Mr. Speaker. That's why there will be only one in-patient, unit of 150 beds in a programme which we fully expect will see 2,500 people per year taking part -150 beds of that kind is all there will be in the whole of the province of British Columbia.

MR. BARNES: Will that solve the problem? What about the rest of them?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, that member who shouts across the floor now seems to want to us to build institutions all over the province. That's what they want and we know that does not work. Our out-patient programmes and community clinics are the backbone of this programme. The community is the foundation upon which this whole programme is built and upon which our hopes are built, just as the hopes for that member for Vancouver East will be built on it. To say that we're establishing some kind of a jail system for addicts, is not only without foundation; it is wildly imaginative.

MR. BARNES: Wildly, period.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The only thing we've heard from that side of the House is: "Let's quit. Let's not try. Let's not do anything. Let's give up." That's the attitude that those losers have had all their lives. "Let's give UP

Mr. Speaker, the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) said the heroin problem is an industry. I think that's the way he put it. Well you can bet your boots its an industry. It's the fifth largest industry in this province, generating probably in total $400 million to $500 million in illicit money per year.

I'd like to just take you through a quick scenario, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell you about what happens to heroin and how this industry develops. It costs $7,500 to buy a pound of heroin, 30 per cent pure, in Hong Kong. Add $8,000 to the courier and you find that you have a pound of heroin that can be sold in British Columbia for as much as $42,000. So for an investment of just over $15,000, the importer makes a profit of $26,000. The distributor who buys the pound of heroin from the importer for $42,000 adulterates that purpose. After stepping on and cutting the original heroin twice, he has four pounds of a weakened product which he can sell for $4,000 an ounce.

[ Page 2713 ]

MR. BARNES: Compare that to how we handle alcohol.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: This will earn him $256,000, Mr. Speaker - $214,000 above that initial investment of $42,000. The middleman., buys heroin at $4,000 an ounce and is able to sell it at $400 for a bundle of 25 capsules'. With 12 bundles to the ounce, the original, pound, cut twice to make four pounds, can now be sold for $358,000. The potential profit at this level, after the payment of $256,000 to the distributor, is aver $100,000. The street-level dealer buys a bundle of 25 heroin capsules for $400. Individual capsules are sold at different prices in the province, depending on where you are. But the cheapest price in Vancouver is about $35.

So if all 22,400 capsules that are yielded from that original pound were sold at the lowest price, the income realized would be $784,000. It could be higher. The minimum profit after the outlay of $358,000 is deducted is $389,000. The total potential profit generated by one pound of imported heroin is therefore over $730,000. You bet it's an industry. That member went on to say there is little justification for this bill.

With an industry like that, is there little justification for this bill? Sixty per cent of the crime in British Columbia is heroin related. The chief of , police for the city of Vancouver in a television statement .the other day said that probably $1 million. a. day. is being stolen in Vancouver to support the heroin habit. Little justification? What kind of crimes are being committed to justify a bill of this kind? More than 60 murders and 24 attempts that the police of this province can tell you about.

He called prostitution a victimless crime. Well, I suppose it is a victimless crime in some ways. But it sure isn't a victimless crime for the prostitute who is on the streets at the mercy of a pimp who is forcing that person to prostitute her body so, that she can get $100 or $200 or $300 a day in order to maintain that pimp's habit. That's not, a victimless crime, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARNES: Not in Vancouver. They don't need pimps anymore. Don't you know the law?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: And what's the solution offered by 'that member, Mr. Speaker? Let's make heroin available at bargain- prices so everyone can have . it. The member for Vancouver-Burrard and others have commented about the, British system and what's happening in Europe. The Leader of . the Opposition has called for a heroin maintenance programme.

I can tell you that right now the whole European situation is at a critical point. Since Britain is part of that network for international heroin transshipment, its fate is inextricably linked with that of other countries with a heroin problem. London is now a major centre for heroin abuse and Liverpool, Manchester, Brighton and parts of Scotland now have pockets of heroin users where there were none before.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard asked us where we got those figures from Britain. We got them from the Home Office - from the horse's mouth, Mr. Speaker. And the Home Office in London now today finally admits to a minimum of 10,000 heroin addicts in Great Britain. There are only about 1,900 of those addicts actually registered with the Home Office. There is, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sorry to have to tell this to the opposition, no treatment system in Great Britain none whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, if there are 10,000 heroin addicts in Great Britain, then there are only 19 per cent of them seeking any kind of treatment. We have also learned from a Home Office official in London that about 1,300 of those 1,900 who are registered are not being maintained with heroin at all. They are now being treated with methadone. The Washington Post, of April 24,1977, claims that there'are only 83 heroin addicts in Great Britain today receiving heroin maintenance - 83! That's the great British system. There is no system in Great Britain and there is no heroin maintenance programme anymore in Great Britain because the government of that country stooped the programme because it has failed.

So that solution to make heroin available at bargain prices is no solution. And you know, there's lots of debate about the relationship between heroin addiction and alcohol addiction. Nobody denies on this side of the House that the worst social problem that we have in our society - in the world - is alcohol addiction. Nobody at all denies that. The list of social problems that are caused by the abuses of alcohol, the time lost by what were formerly productive workers because of the abuses of alcohol, and the broken homes that are caused because of the abuses of alcohol are common knowledge.

Mr. Speaker it's tragic that we have to stand in a House like this and admit that perhaps one in five of our population suffers from some form of alcohol abuse. Maybe the reason we are in that kind of dilemma is that we made it so easy for people to get alcohol; we made it such a socially acceptable drug; we

[ Page 2714 ]

made it such a glamorous drug; we had advertisements in our newspapers - and we see them on our television stations from the United States - that, if you want to be a man, if you want to be a real he-man, if you want to be a football player, then make sure you drink the right kind of rye or rum or scotch or vodka. Maybe that's our problem, and if that is what you want to do with heroin or any other kind of drug, well, I'll have no part of that. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the comments that have been made on every side of this House regarding the protection that we must build in to any legislation that we have for the young people of our province. There isn't any doubt that the young people are the perfect setup for drug addiction because - and the psychologists and social workers could probably say this better than I - in adolescent turmoil a young person often cultivates a drug habit for social or psychological reasons, only to discover later, of course, that he or she has developed a true, physical addiction. There is a song, which was, I think, written by the Beatles, in which it is said that, at that stage, there is then no hope but dope - and the youngster finds his life pinned to the end of a dirty needle.

Mr. Speaker, we are trying a new approach today. We know the problems, of treating heroin addiction are far more complex than even, perhaps, finding a new vaccine for some of the diseases that we have. But we can beat this most serious problem only if we try, and the stakes are very high.

I want to quickly make a couple of comments about the remarks made by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) . First the member for Oak Bay.

I appreciated the member for North Vancouver-Capilano's calm and rational approach in this House to a most serious problem, but I won't accept that Bill 18 is a denial of the rights of anyone in our society.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano said that it was time for the government of Canada to stop passing the buck, and I think the indication is there that they are about to -we hope. We've had - and I must say this again, in all fairness to the government which, I believe, has passed the buck for 50 years and has taken no action when it had the opportunity to act on a number of occasions -some indication that the present government is willing to act. And we've had some very productive meetings with a number of ministers, as I mentioned earlier. One of the problem we have is that the ministers keep changing so fast we don't know who to go see next; but, hopefully, we will pin them down, and we do expect good co-operation on all fronts from the federal government.

I want to correct one comment that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano made. I did not say that coercion will scare people off - I think that was the my he put it. I hope the member has read Hansard since that time. That isn't what I said. I have no intention and this government has no intention of using the coercive aspects of this bill to scare people to other places. And, as a matter of fact, we don't think that will happen.

While I am on that subject, mention was also made, I think, by the tall member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) , that we had hoped that other jurisdictions would perhaps follow our lead in passing this kind of legislation. I'd just like to read you very very quickly - and I'll only take a second here -an item from an Act called "An Act to Provide for the Compulsory Treatment of Persons Addicted to the Improper Use of Opium and Other Narcotic Drugs." It says in this Act:

" 'Addict' means any person addicted to the improper use of cocaine, opium or their derivatives, or any other narcotic drug that is included in the schedules of the Narcotic Control Act of Canada or in any schedule or Act replacing that schedule.

" 'Officer' means any medical officer of health...."

Then it goes on to say:

"Where an officer" - a medical officer of health - "is credibly informed that an addict is resident within the province, he may give notice in writing to the addict requiring him to consult a legally qualified medical practitioner and submit himself for treatment within such time as the officer may prescribe in the notice, and to continue the treatment until cured."

"Not two years, or 10 years, or 50 years, but to continue the treatment until cured."

Where does that Act come from? It was passed by the government of Manitoba. It's the Act that is in effect in Manitoba, and it was passed by a great socialist government.

Mr. Speaker, I talked about the ways in which you keep drugs out of institutions, and the best way we'll keep drugs out of institutions is not to have institutions, because we will not be using jails in this programme. Mr. Speaker, we do accept that member's and other members' comments about the need for increased policing and heavier sentences. Of course that is out of our hands and we're not able to look after that problem ourselves, but we will be appealing to the federal government to help us

[ Page 2715 ]

out there. Mr. Speaker, I like the constructive aspects of the debate that came from those two members of the House.

I want to say quickly that we did all we could with this bill to make sure that people had the opportunity to give us input. We published a paper very early on in April, 1977 -more than a year ago. We published it with the hope that it would - and it did - stimulate wide and deep public discussion of the very serious problem of narcotic drug addiction in this province and how to best deal with it. Hon. members on all sides of this House and members of the public obviously realized the difficulties inherent in drafting this kind of legislation that will require heroin addicts to undergo treatment in an effective manner while, at the same time, preserving their civil liberties.

The rights of those victim who have become the victims of drug traffickers and who have assisted in their own victimization by persistently and illegally seeking out and consuming clearly illegal drugs have had to be placed in balance with proper regard -to the rights - civil and otherwise - of the rest of society, whose safety, property, peace of mind and, yes, tax money, are all seriously affected by the spread of narcotic addiction. It's not an easy matter to strike a proper balance, and we understand that. But the wide discussion that we invited has assisted greatly, as have the debates in this House, and I think that can be recognized by the form in which the bill now appears.

The deep desire for justice and the determination to protect and preserve the liberties of all citizens is from the outset, and always has been, Mr. Speaker, the concern of those involved in the preparation and presentation of this bill. And despite some suggestions to the contrary, we have sought out the most informed, experienced and, indeed, the most independent legal advice obtainable. The advice we have received is that Bill 18, as it now stands, despite assertions to the contrary, is in accordance with the constitution of this country, and certainly within the jurisdiction of provincial powers and the competence of this Legislature to enact. The legal advice we have received also says that this bill does not, in fact, amount to a denial of what has been referred to as "due process of the law."

However, Mr. Speaker, because of the many useful and constructive suggestions made from sources both inside and outside of this House, and full consideration of these suggestions, I believe that the purposes to be achieved by this Act, and the efficiency of the plan proposed under it, and the rights of all citizens directly and indirectly affected by it, can best be achieved and improved by certain amendments to Bill 18.

Chief among them, Mr. Speaker, is a provision that any person whom the evaluation panel has recommended to be committed for treatment will have the opportunity to have that recommendation confirmed by the courts. Under the proposed amendments, the area director may commit a person to treatment without any application to a court of law only where that person consents in writing to the treatment programme. In the absence of such written consent, the director then must apply to a court for an order declaring chat the person is in need of treatment. That person then may be committed only by an order of the court and, if such an order is made, the person affected has the right of appeal, of course, to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that persons will, of course, also have the right to be represented by counsel and the protections normally involved in the judicial process.

In proposing this amendment, we also have in mind that the medical doctors of this province who, through their association, have expressed the strong support that I read to the House in the letter from the British Columbia Medical Association, do not properly as doctors wish to be put into the position of judges, nor should they be, and this amendment will see that they will not be. Their function will be solely to make medical determinations and offer medical advice, and the judgments will be made by judges. If follows, of course, that section 8 of the bill, which gave the person committed the right of appeal to provincial court and placed the onus on him to do it and to show why he should not be committed, will be removed.

Members of this House and others concerned with portions of this bill are on record as being in general agreement with the principle behind this Act and the need for it. The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano ended his remarks the other day by saying: "If you clean up this Act in due process form, I will vote for it." The due process, I guess, that he requires, should be now available.

The hon. member for Oak Bay, it seems to me from his remarks, and with a number of other reservations, would want to agree.

Hon. members, these amendments that I hope to be able to present to this House in a moment represent the constructive input and provide the opportunity for everyone to support this Act, which in turn will provide the opportunity for those people in need to be

[ Page 2716 ]

helped. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 18.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the debate in this House has raged around civil rights and the due process of law. The minister has indicated amendments to the bill that change the very principle around which the debate has raged. We would ask at least for time to study the amendments before the vote is taken on second reading.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There are no amendments in.

MR. SPEAKER: We are in second reading and all members know that we cannot introduce amendments in second reading, although privilege is extended to a minister to suggest that amendments will be filed with the House during committee stage.

MR. GIBSON: On that same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the House is placed in a very difficult position. We are being asked to vote on a bill on second reading which is before us in a certain form, and yet we have just heard from the minister about what he indicates will be some very consequential amendments affecting the principle of the bill. This, as I say, is very difficult for members of this House. We can't know exactly what we're voting on at this stage. I would like to express great goodwill to the government in terms of the proposed amendments they, seem to be making. I would like to be supportive if I could see the detail. I wonder if there isn't some way of postponing this particular vote until we can see what we're talking about. I really say that as an appeal rather than as anything else' to the government.

MR. SPEAKER: I sympathize with the member. Just to comment, it has been suggested that perhaps the principle of the bill has been affected by the amendment. It's just an observation, certainly not a ruling, that it's not the principle that has been affected; it has been the mechanics of the bill that have been affected. We are voting on the principle of the bill as we have it before us and all members are now cognizant of an intention for the filing of an amendment. I think on that basis....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if this would be acceptable to the House. I have certain messages before me that I would like to place before the House and I wonder if there is some way in which we can ask for permission of the House to delay the vote on the principle of this bill until later this evening - 10 to 11 or something like that. At that point I would undertake to deliver those messages which I have - or at this time, if we can have that leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the solution is this. We do have a motion before us and the Chair is bound to act on that motion. However, if the minister wishes to withdraw the motion and adjourn debate on the bill until a point later on this evening, the members could at least have notification of the amendment.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The government is quite prepared to accommodate all members along the lines stated by my colleague, the Minister of Health, providing we have an understanding between the members that we can call that vote at 10 to 11, because we will be debating another bill. As all members know, it's not really possible to move from that other bill back to this one, so I would request the undertaking of the House on that point.

MR. SPEAKER: It appears to the Chair to be clearly a courtesy both ways. I would accept a motion to adjourn the debate until later this evening.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, with every respect, if we could have two House Leaders....

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. minister, we can't do the Whips' work on the floor of the House.

MR. GIBSON: No, but by leave we can have a little chitchat. It's certainly agreeable to me.

MR. LAUK: If the minister could move adjournment of the debate of this bill until later this evening, that motion will be acceptable.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is open.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until 10:50 this evening.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps, hon. member, we could leave it more flexible by saying "later this evening."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Sometime between 10:45 and 10:55? (Laughter.) I really want to trust

[ Page 2717 ]

them, Mr. Speaker. Make it prior to 11 o'clock this evening.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McClelland presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to Bill 18, intituled Heroin Treatment Act.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask leave to move that the said message and the accompanying amendments to the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 18.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 40; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On section 2.

MS. SANFORD: Just before we adjourned last night, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) gave us some explanation as to why the government felt it was necessary to bring in these amendments which will prohibit, in the case of section 2 of this bill, the Hydro employees from bargaining collectively for their pensions. The reason that he gave is that he wishes to bring the Hydro employees into line with the B.C. Government Employees Union. Mr. Chairman, I tried to indicate at about two minutes to 11, just before, we adjourned last night, that this is a spurious argument which doesn't stand up to any kind of analysis. What this amendment does is to illustrate chat this government is intent on ensuring that civil servants and Crown corporation employees do not achieve the right to bargain for pensions, period. Prior to 1972, for a number of years the government Employees of this province attempted to attain collective bargaining, but the old Socred administration saw to it that the Employees were denied the right to bargain for anything.

It wasn't until the change of government in 1972 that the government employees finally got the right to bargain collectively for wages and working conditions. The minister is quite right in saying that at that time the right to bargain for pensions was not granted to the B.C. Government Employees Union.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There was a specific prohibition against it.

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Labour says that the Higgins report recommended against it. Right. And the legislation prohibited it -that's correct. Last night the minister indicated that the Higgins report recommended that the employees. be denied the right to bargain collectively for their pensions. But the minister didn't tell the whole story. This is why his argument just does not stand up to any scrutiny. I would like to refer to the Higgins report that the minister referred to last night.

The Higgins report suggested to the government of the day that when granting the right to the government employees to bargain collectively, the scope of bargainable issues should be as broad as possible. Another recommendation that he made was that the subject of superannuation be excluded from the collective bargaining process. The minister was correct in saying this last night. As a result, the government of the day did exclude the government employees from bargaining collectively for pensions. But what the minister did not tell us last night was that the Higgins report then said: "This situation should be reviewed after a reasonable period of time." It was initially that they were not to have that right to bargain collectively as the government employees of the province, but that issue should be reviewed.

What this government should be doing is expanding the rights of the government employees, looking at the recommendations of the Higgins report with a view to making the issues that come up for bargaining as broad as possible. That is what Mr. Higgins said in his report. But instead, through this amendment, the government chooses to justify the move they have made, because the government of the day followed the recommendations of Higgins and did not initially include the right to bargain for pensions.

What the government should be doing is again following the Higgins recommendation to look at that situation now that the BCGEU has been established and now that it has been functioning, with a view to expanding the areas that are up for negotiation.

There is absolutely no anomaly here with respect to the amendments they are bringing in. What they are suggesting is that they take away rights that have already been granted to employees under the Hydro bill, rights that are incorporated in the legislation and rights that have been verified not only by the Labour Relations Board but by the courts of this province and by the highest court of the land.

[ Page 2718 ]

It's there. Now they wish to take that right away and to prohibit these employees from bargaining as far as pensions are concerned. That is contrary to the whole concept of the Labour Code.

They don't believe in collective bargaining; that's what the problem is. It's an attack on the whole collective bargaining process and it's certainly an attack on the employees who are currently employed by Hydro, WCB, BCR or ICBC.

Why do not they allow the government employees the same rights that are allowed in the private sector under the Labour Code? What are they afraid of? Are they afraid that their own Crown corporations are unable to sit down at the table and carry out the process of bargaining in good faith? Is that what they are worried about?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I have carefully read section 2 of Bill 40. 1 would just caution you that we are in committee stage of this bill, and you are getting somewhat beyond the scope of committee and back into the much wider scope of debate on the whole subject of the Labour Code and Labour Code amendments and all sorts of other items. I would ask that you restrict your debate to that area that is up for discussion at this time.

MS. SANFORD: The right to bargain for pensions is inherent within the Labour Code. This is a subject that can come up for negotiation in the private sector, but this government wishes to remove that right from the employees in those four Crown corporations.

It's a retrograde step. They are moving in the wrong direction. Instead of moving ahead, as the Higgins report suggests, they are moving everyone back and denying those employees the right to bargain for their pensions. Do you want me to quote the Higgins report for you?

From the summary of recommendations of the Higgins report, section 3 says: "The subject of superannuation should be excluded from the collective bargaining process. This situation should be reviewed after a reasonable period of time." Instead of reviewing that situation, they are simply denying the rights of other employees to bargain collectively and are using the example of the B.C. government employees as their excuse for doing so. It's an attack on the collective bargaining process. They should be ashamed.

Under the Labour Code as it is now written there is an excellent opportunity to achieve relative labour peace in this province, but with this kind of amendment you attack that whole process. As a result of the Labour Code, the climate in this province right now has never been better in terms of relatively smooth industrial relations. When the government brings in amendments of this type, they endanger that climate and they upset that delicate balance. I'm not even sure if they know it. I don't think they understand what they are doing in this amendment. I think they are running the risk of destroying the whole climate and inviting labour disruption again in this province. I think this amendment is a harmful, destructive move.

They must know it's been difficult to reduce the mistrust that existed prior to 1972. How can they bring in an amendment like this which runs the risk of upsetting that delicate balance again? Every year they bring in some back-of-the-hand move which again builds up the distrust between labour and management in this province. Why bring in an amendment, Mr. Chairman, which will inflame the employees and ensure that they become second-class citizens in this province, because they're not guaranteed the full right to bargain in good faith?

Maybe the government should consider giving a course to the management of Hydro. I'm talking about Hydro now because that's section 2 of the bill. If they feel that Hydro management is unable to cope with bargaining in good faith over pensions, then perhaps they should have some kind of a course which will teach them what the whole bargaining process is all about. Just because employees make requests at a bargaining table doesn't mean they're granted. I think the government is making that assumption by bringing in this heavy-handed move to deny that basic right to the employees, in this case, of Hydro.

Mr. Chairman, this right to bargain for pensions has been upheld by the Labour Relations Board, two courts in this province, the Supreme Court of Canada and at least one court in this province. This government comes along and brings in an amendment because the highest court in the land has said: "Yes, you should have the right to bargain collectively according to our reading of the Labour Code and the Act which governs the Hydro employees." That has frightened this government. It's panicked them, I guess - they're used to getting panicked. It's panicked them into bringing in an amendment which denies basic rights again. But we're used to that too - one bill after another one section after another denying rights to people in this province.

Mr. Chairman, they're inviting distrust and disruption in this province by bringing in

[ Page 2719 ]

amendments of this type. I think the government is making a serious error which will adversely affect the whole of labour relations in this province. I think that, the government should at this time consider withdrawing these amendments, looking at the possibility of extending privileges to the B.C. Government Employees Union to bargain collectively for their pensions, and leaving these four corporations and those employees alone at this time. We do not want to run the risk of the kind of disruption that we saw in the province prior to 1972 because of one piece of antilabour legislation after another. Withdraw it, I say, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, last evening the Minister of Finance, in response to a query by my colleague for Comox (Ms. Sanford) , indicated that the reason this amendment is before the House is that the B.C. Government Employees Union have not been granted the right to bargain their superannuation provisions. So I would like to ask the minister if that is the only reason. What other reason did he have for introducing this amendment tonight?

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if the minister hasn't got the interest in an amendment that he has before this House to stay in the House and listen to the questions put forward by the opposition, then I guess we're going to be here a long time. Perhaps the minister needs help with the answers. I can understand that. But I simply asked: why did you introduce this particular provision, other than the reason that you gave last night - a particularly lame reason - that the B.C. Government Employees Union had not been granted the right to bargain their pensions when they were first granted collective bargaining rights in this province? I ask the minister to explain that to me.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I think I answered that last night to the best of my ability. It brings these Grown corporations, insofar as their pension plans are concerned, into a situation parallel with that which pertains to the superannuation plan of the public service.

As was mentioned by the member across and myself last night, the recommendation of the Higgins report in 1972 was that pensions not be the subject of collective bargaining insofar as the public service is concerned. This preceded legislation introduced by the former government, which put that into effect. At this stage there are nine other public utilities in Canada, only one of which has collective bargaining with relation to pension plans. I think, therefore, that it would be premature to introduce this aspect into the Crown corporations that are mentioned in this Act.

I would like to say also that the matter of all pension plans is of concern to this government insofar as their funding and their growing unfunded liability. We are trying to deal with this problem - and it does bear on this whole situation - as well as the fact that we are studying pension standards as such, and doing an intensive study into this matter of both private pension plans and public pension plans, insofar as their contribution requirements, their impact on employees, their funding, their investment policies and so on are concerned. I think this is perhaps overdue in this province, but we are studying this matter with the possibility of pension standards legislation. I just say that by further explanation, as a background to what we are contemplating here.

These amendments are not etched in stone and we are not trying to circumvent employee recommendations and concern over matters of pension plans. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that when you examine, for instance, Hydro's pension plans, their benefits are at least as generous as all major public sector pension plans in this province, which is the result of the situation that has pertained for years. Secondly, the contribution level, at the same time, is lower than is the case in the superannuation pension plan. Let us say that this is the result.

I think the concern by those that are concerned with this in unions - I discussed the matter with them today - lies in some of the investment policies. They wish to have more input where that is concerned, and naturally we will consider that matter. In the meantime, because of the matters which I have just explained, we do wish to proceed.

I think, in general terms, that answers the questions you have raised.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, it's really an incredible concept that the minister outlines. It really is an absolutely incredible concept. It's retrogressive, it's reactionary and it states clearly to this Legislature and the people of British Columbia that here is a government that has no confidence in the collective bargaining system.

I'm particularly perplexed that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) would sit idly

[ Page 2720 ]

and sullenly by and watch this kind of concept grow. Section 27 of the Labour Code of British Columbia, which covers the people working for Crown corporations in this province, states the aims and objectives of the Labour Code and the Labour Relations Board in this province. I just want to quote section 27 (a) and (b) for the edification of the House, Mr. Chairman, referring to objects and policy:

"The board may exercise the powers and shall perform the duties conferred or imposed upon it under this Act in accordance with the following purposes and objects:

" (a) promoting effective industrial relations in the interests of achieving and maintaining good working conditions and the well-being of the public; and

"(b) encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely chosen representatives of employees."

But here is the government saying: "Well, that's all very nice. That's the aim and the objective, but we want to play the pensions a little bit closer to our vest. The unions might ask for too much. We're concerned about funding for the pension plan, and inasmuch as we have no confidence in the free collective bargaining system, we're not going to allow this particular issue to be bargainable." It's a complete repudiation of the concept of free collective bargaining.

it's true that many unions - indeed most unions - lacked the ability to bargain their pension plan for years. It's only in the last decade or so that the right has been growing across the length and breadth of this nation of employees to have vesting rights in their pension fund and the right to bargain at the bargaining table. It was largely the abuse by employers - some, indeed, in the public sector - of pension funds that accelerated the demand of unions for the right to bargain.

It was not too many years ago that one of the major corporations in this nation manipulated the stock market with the Employees pension fund, created an accelerated run on certain stock, and then bought that stock with their own private investment company and reaped the windfall profits to their own private investment company after manipulating the stock market with the very significant pension funds of the employees. It's that kind of shoddy, seedy practice that the unions are trying to circumvent by having a voice and the right to bargain the security and the policy of investment with respect to pension funds.

Here comes a minister in with the pallid, anemic excuse: "Well, because the B.C. government employees haven't got it, we're going to take it away from yet a greater number of workers." How completely hypocritical, Mr. Chairman. The B.C. government employees in this province did not have the right to bargain anything when we came to off ice in 1972. Indeed, there were employees who had worked for this government for as long as six and eight years who had no permanence of tenure. Indeed, some of them were below the wage level of welfare in this province.

We gave them the right to bargain. We did not in a condescending fashion say that we as the politicians will decide what is good and fair for you. The minister says B.C. Hydro employees have got a fair pension. Well, isn't that ingratiating and nice of him? The point is not whether it's fair in your judgment, Mr. Minister; the point is that employees in this province should have the right to decide for themselves through the collective bargaining system whether they have a fair pension fund or not.

This is the most hypocritical, retrograde step that I have witnessed by this government yet. It shows a complete contempt for collective bargaining, which doesn't surprise me among the majority of the "right to work!' clan, but how a former Liberal Labour minister can sit in that particular coalition, that particular crew, and sacrifice his principles when he knows better, and allow this kind of denial of collective bargaining rights to workers in this province to go by the board is beyond me. That is a new low in terms of compromising and closing the door on one's principles; it has to be. It's in violation of the very statute that he is charged with administering; it's in violation of the stated principles of that Code and a complete repudiation of collective bargaining.

How can he preside over collective bargaining if he has no confidence in it? Talk about hypocrisy. And then to come up with the pallid excuse that the B.C. government employees don't have it....

I want to tell you that it did cost a lot of money to the taxpayers of British Columbia when our government granted full collective bargaining rights to the B.C. government employees. The reason it cost so much money was to make up for the backlog, the lag in wages and conditions that an autocratic, authoritarian government under the previous Social Credit Premier had held aver the heads of the workers in this province for years, never allowing them the right to bargain collectively and hence presiding over a system where some of the workers in the public service were below the welfare rates in this

[ Page 2721 ]

province. Are you proud of that?

But because in one fell swoop we didn't give them collective bargaining rights and full rights to bargain pensions, now that is used as the rationale and the justification to step back into the darkness and take away from the unions that operate under the Labour Code of British Columbia rather than the Public Service Labour Relations Act rights that many of them have enjoyed for years, rights which some of them have won through the Labour Relations Board and the courts of this land. That is not only contemptuous of the Labour Code, not only contemptuous of collective bargaining, it's contemptuous of the Labour Relations Board that ruled in their wisdom that employees should have the rights to bargain pensions; its contemptuous of the courts of this nation that came to the same conclusion. For this government to try and brush it aside as standardizing conditions with the B.C. government employees is really an Exercise in hypocrisy that embarrasses me. One can only have a hide like a rhinoceros to use that kind of rationale and sit there and hope that it will slip through without comment.

Mr. Chairman, shame on this bunch. They should be thrown out with a resounding crash in the next election. I do not think I've ever seen such a hateful government, such a vindictive government in terms of respect for the rights of working people in this province. It's shameful indeed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 2 pass?

MR. KING: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ayes have it.

MR. KING: Division, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GIBSON: There are two ministers on their feet, and one member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. In view of that 1 will recognize the member for North-Vancouver Capilano. He has the floor.

MR. GIBSON: Well, the ministers aren't standing now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The observation of the Chair is that there always seem to be several ministers standing at any one time. I'm not sure that they want to participate in debate.

MR. GIBSON: You should keep them under control, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN. I make every effort to do so, and a perusal of the Blues will indicate that that effort has been made by the Chair.

MR. GIBSON: It's terrible the way that cabinet is up and down all the time.

Mr. Chairman, I think there can be no doubt that pensions are a time bomb in our society. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , I guess, knows that better than anyone else. The way the future entitlements are building up without the funding being in place is some thing which is going to be an enormous tax on future generations in terms of the ability to pay and in terms of the change in the dependency ratio. The number of people, in other words, that are working compared to the number of people drawing pensions is going down and will be going down, as far as we can see, for decades into the future, so that fewer and fewer people will be supporting more and more people in their time of pensionable life.

It's also a case that very of ten at the bargaining table concessions on pensions are more easily made than concessions on current sorts of payments. In other words, it may be easier to say that somewhere down the line we will sweeten the pension package as long as we don't have to give you that extra few cents per hour today. There's a temptation to be unwise, or at least uninformed, in bargaining in those kinds of areas.

But that said, that concern ranges, it seems to me, all across the economy, whereas this section, of course, applies only to one group and this statute as a whole applies only to four or five groups, including ICBC and the BCR and a couple of others. It does not target the general problem in the British Columbia economy. It singles out, for particular attention, special groups.

Hydro is a particular case. The Hydro pension plan has in past years been underfunded and found by actuaries to be such. I think it was some $40 million, but I stand subject to correction on that. Hydro has agreed to make payments into that plan aver a period of 25 years, I think it is, to bring that fund up to actuarial propriety. But there are other funds in this province that are nowhere near that situation. So I can understand why the Hydro people would say they have committed to bring their fund up to actuarial sufficiency, and why should they be put in an adverse position in terms of collective bargaining, as opposed to others in this province.

When you look at some of the other funds within the public sector, when you consider the totality of the general public service group of the teachers and the municipal

[ Page 2722 ]

employees, I think in total there is something more than $1 billion underfunded in actuarial terms - a bill that has to be paid one of these days on the retirement of the people concerned. Let there be no doubt that bill will be paid one way or another, but it's got to come out of the hide of the taxpayers of tomorrow.

So this is a terribly serious problem, but I am bothered about the fact that this particular statute singles out individual groups in the economy of British Columbia rather than an across-the-board approach. Moreover, these are groups that the government more or less controls already. And if the government feels this way about Hydro, then the Minister of Finance, who is speaking to this clause and who sits on the board of British Columbia Hydro, should carry that message to the board and say that in collective bargaining of this Crown corporation, it is the opinion of the government that Hydro should take this stand. The member for the day of the government on the board of the British Columbia Railway or ICBC should say the same thing, if that's the way they want to convey the message, and hold tough in that regard in collective bargaining, if that is the view of the government.

I'm quite prepared to listen further to the various ministers on this, but it seems to me at this stage that to impose a discriminatory impediment on the collective bargaining of particular groups, without doing it across the board, is not really proper. A general policy on pensions in the province of British Columbia....

HON. MR. WOLFE: It is across the board.

MR. GIBSON: Well, it is across the board with respect to B.C. Hydro and all the Crown corporations, but not the economy of the province generally. That's the point. You are reaching into a jurisdiction that you already substantially control through your membership on the board of these Crown corporations, and yet not touching the rest of the economy. You are putting one Section 1n an adverse and discriminatory position as compared to the others.

A general policy on pensions in the province of British Columbia and all of Canada is urgent. The province of Ontario, as we know, has commissioned a royal commission into this subject and they have been at work for many months now - perhaps years, for all I know.

It's been going on for a good length of time and it had a lot of very complex submissions. I hope their report will come in soon because it will provide some guidance to British

Columbia, I hope. I believe as well that the Provincial Secretary has commissioned some kind of survey into the pension system in British Columbia, and that too will help us in our deliberations.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Ontario is completely unfunded.

MR. GIBSON: Ontario is completely unfunded? I wasn't aware of that, Mr. Minister - all the more for them to worry. But in the meantime, we- will be able to benefit from whatever their commission comes up with and whatever the Provincial Secretary's study canes up with. As I say again, a general policy on pensions is urgent. But until then, a partial freeze, to me, doesn't really seen to be acceptable. If you wanted to say now it would be across the entire British Columbia economy, I don't know how I would come down on that. I would say, well, let's think about that. But a partial discriminatory freeze on the face of it seems to me to be wrong, and unless I hear something from one of the ministers, I can't accept it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to respond, if I could, to some of the quite proper questions raised by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano. In so doing, may I say that if I ever had any doubts as to the appropriateness of this amendment, those doubts were dispelled by the contribution made by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan. As in every case when he's wrong, he falls into the kind of personal criticism that one has come to expect from that member, who unfortunately seems to have forgotten what he must have learned when he was Minister of Labour or perhaps he makes it clear that as Minister of Labour he didn't understand what was taking place with respect to collective bargaining and the public sector, certainly as it applies to pension plans.

None of the plans presently under the jurisdiction of the superannuation branch of this government is bargained collectively. These plans cover public service employees, teachers, municipal and hospital workers, college faculty and staff, Workers' Compensation Board employees and B.C. Railway employees, as well as B.C. Hydro employees.

While none of the plans is presently bargained, only in the case of the Public Service Superannuation Act is there a specific prohibition against bargaining. That prohibition, as the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) has so clearly pointed out, was a prohibition introduced when the public service was given the right to bargain collectively in this province

[ Page 2723 ]

in 1973, following the recommendations of the Higgins commission.

It is true that the Higgins commission recommended that the matter of the bargaining of pensions should be the subject of review. As the Minister of Finance has already indicated, such a review is to be undertaken by this government. Mr. Howard Forrest, the superannuation commissioner, is being instructed to make just such a review. That review, I am pleased to announce, will be broad enough in scope to embrace many of the problem which have been identified by the member for North Vancouver--Capilano (Mr. Gibson) with respect to private sector plans as well. While the essential purpose of the review will be to consider those matters which should be recommended to the government in establishing for the first time in this province pension standards legislation, it is to be hoped that in the course of the review some of the serious difficulties mentioned by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano will become clear - the actuarial soundness of pension funds in the private sector, and perhaps in the public sector as well, upon which the employees presently working and the beneficiaries of those plans are entitled to rely.

How great the impact will be from such study is something about which it would be dangerous to speculate. I think it is clear, from what has been made available by many persons who have examined plans, that the whole pension programme in this nation is in some dangerous difficulty. Of course, it isn't related only to this county. Such is the case elsewhere in North America and in the world.

When I was recently in Japan, we had the opportunity of being briefed by an industrial relations person from one of the universities in Tokyo, who made it quite clear that one of the major problems facing the government of that nation is the unsoundness, if not the bankruptcy, of their national pension plan, upon which the workers of that nation must depend.

It is for that very reason that the government at this stage considers it wise to extend their prohibition against collective bargaining in these four limited areas.

As the member for Revelstoke-Slocan must know, to bargain collectively for improvements in pension benefits in these public sector areas, which are presently covered by statutes in this province, can in itself be illusory. Having bargained collectively and produced by way of agreement the possibility of change, no change can take place, and, therefore, no collective agreement can be concluded until action has been taken by this Legislature.

Hence the collective bargaining process, to which the member pays such great homage, can itself be frustrated by the existence of the legislation in this province which governs these various plans. I refer specifically to the teachers' pension plan, which would require statutory amendment for any change, the municipal superannuation plan, the college pension plan and, of course, the public service superannuation plan as well.

So far as B.C. Hydro is concerned and the Workers Compensation Board, while statutory amendment wouldn't be required, it requires action on the part of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Therefore the prospect of positive results from collective bargaining would not have the immediacy that the bargainers might themselves think appropriate. If such were the case, this Legislature would be placed in the position of making decisions not upon the wisdom of statutory amendment placed before them in this House, but instead as a result of bargaining which takes place between the representatives of the union and of management. I'm not to say that that bargaining might not produce the proper result, but surely it must be clear that in the moment of bargaining, in the trading off that takes place among the several propositions placed before the bargainers by the union or by the management, the likelihood that pension changes would be used in order to reach a settlement might not necessarily produce the cautious, sound judgment which is necessary in the adjustment of benefits under plans and the contributions which have to be made to those plans, both by the employer and by the employees.

I can't help but note the grunting that's taking place from the members across the way, particularly from the member for Revelstoke Slocan (Mr. King) . I think that he shows his ignorance of the seriousness of this whole problem - that is that in the careful adjustment of pension programmes, the necessity to be cautious to ensure that actuarial soundness is not accidentally lost is something which cannot be assured in the midst of the heat of the moment which so often accompanies collective bargaining as we know it in Canada today.

MS. SANFORD: Do you ever think the employees might be helpful in this process?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's quite right. I also recognize what the member for Comox has said, that the employees might be helpful in this process. But that is not the issue about the collective bargaining for pension plans. That's a question as to whether or not the

[ Page 2724 ]

representatives of the employees, together with the representatives of the employers, should not be engaged in matters associated with the administration of these plans. That's not the collective bargaining process.

Where there is no collective bargaining with respect to pension plans, there is the opportunity by which employers and employees t07 &ether can be jointly involved in the administration of plans which are to their mutual benefit. That is one of the matters which will be the subject of the examination by Mr. Forrest, the superannuation commissioner.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the members of the committee that you shouldn't be led astray by suggestions that this government is destroying the collective bargaining process. As a matter of fact, what the government is attempting to do at this particular time is to ensure that a situation of stability is allowed to continue until such time as the examination, which was forecast by Mr. Higgins, can be carried , out and a proper adjustment of public sector pension plans in all of the areas can be brought about.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of being accused of engaging in a personal attack -which I would never want to do - I have to review some of the minister's comments. And I guess I have to reiterate some of my initial comments, because the minister has certainly proved my observations to be true.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the minister.

Interjection.

MR. KING: I hear Rudolph down there, spoiling my key again, Mr. Chairman - the parachutist.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Minister of Labour about the need for a review of pension plans in the province, both in the private sector and in the public sector. I'm sure the minister well knows that such a review was under way in the private sector when he assumed that office.

Interjection.

MR. KING: In any event, we'll proceed without the minister's gracious acknowledgment, Mr. Chairman.

But I certainly agree that reviews are necessary. The only thing that perplexes me is why, the minister cannot conceive of a review taking place on a joint, co-operative basis, between the employers, the government and the trade union involved.

The minister talks about the teachers, and I suggest the teachers are a poor analogy. The teachers, you know, are a little bit professional and a little bit trade union, and they have a special Act for their particular brand of collective bargaining, which is separate and apart from any other group of working people in the province of British Columbia. They, for instance, have repudiated the right to strike for many years, and they subjected themselves by statute to compulsory arbitration as a matter of choice - so that's a pretty poor analogy.

Yes, the taxpayers have to be concerned about the actuarial funding and effectiveness of pension plans, the contributions of members, the formulas for providing benefits and, of course, the capital fund which guarantees pensions. But for the Minister of Labour to suggest that this can only be done by statutorily barring trade unions from participating in the process is really a statement by the Minister of Labour that he has absolutely no confidence in the collective bargaining system.

Then he accused me of ignorance. Mr. Chairman, I made the point when I was speaking previously that many unions still have not won the right to have a clause in their collective agreement covering pension plans. That's in large part because of the resistance from employers. But there has been no question about them having the right to bargain in these matters. The reason they haven't got provisions covering pension funding and so on in their collective agreement is simply the resistance of their employers.

Now the Minister of labour is saying: "Because they haven't got that, I'm going to statutorily bar them from even bargaining this issue." He tries to' justify that in the name of stability. I want to ask the Minister of Labour; if he becomes concerned about the rate of inflation in this province again, or about our relative situation on world markets, is he going to conclude then that we would be in a much better financial position if collective bargaining were suspended altogether and hence wage rates were stabilized in this province? That's the natural conclusion. That's the natural projection of what the minister is saying. Really, it's an elitist view that holds that working people are not quite good enough to participate in these heavy decisions. It's an authoritarian view that only the government has the wisdom and the interest in terms of "holding the line until we can make our own internal examination and decide what you might be entitled to." Absolutely an elitist view.

It was Marie Antoinette who said, "Let them

[ Page 2725 ]

eat cake, " because she didn't think the poor people were entitled to the same goodies as the rich. I think there were other things that she thought the poor people should not be entitled to as well. Perhaps that former Liberal minister has some reservations about working people enjoying all of the same biological functions that he enjoys. But to express the view in this Legislature in the most elitist, snobbish way that working people should not have the right to bargain this issue until the minister in his ivory tower, in his authoritarian wisdom, makes -an examination and determines what level of pensions are affordable, and to what degree working people should be allowed to have a say in that important condition of their security flies completely in the face of any dedication or any confidence in collective bargaining. The minister is saying collective bargaining is fine, but it's not nearly sophisticated enough to recognize the need for responsibility. That's what the minister is saying, and he can squirm and he can wiggle and he can weasel as much as he wants, Mr. Chairman, but. that is the inevitable conclusion one must draw from his elitist position. I know he's very uncomfortable, but then I'd be uncomfortable too if I had to sit in that kind of coalition. I'd be most uncomfortable.

This has to take the cake, Mr. Chairman, and the minister's statement of tonight is going to be spread far and wide across this province. I think all of the working people of British Columbia should read it. It will make my task much easier, facing the next election.

MR. GIBSON: Just responding very briefly to what the minister said, which I thought was a very well thought and well reasoned statement of tile government point of view on this, I still have to come back and say I have some differences. The minister had two essential points, and I think one was that the heat of the moment of collective bargaining is not always the right time to deal with pension questions. That may be an argument for an across-the-board prohibition, but, as I say, I'm not sure on that. I can't forget, for example, the good that the IWA was able to do for their former members on pensions, in collective bargaining just a few years ago, so I think that's still an open question. I say, though, that a partial application does not seem just to me.

The minister went on to say that he would not want those involved in the collective bargaining situation to be misled as to the reality of any negotiations they might undertake, because legislative action or order-in-council action would be required. I think that is a fair approach. It seems to me that it could be properly addressed without. a change in law, but simply by a statement by the government that it proposed to instruct its negotiators to follow this position with respect to the public service, Hydro, the WCB, the BCR and the ICBC. In respect of its order-in-council action, it would, not take such action; in respect to legislative actions, it would not recommend such action. Then the government's position would be abundantly clear and known to all of those at the bargaining table. It would seem to me that would serve just as much purpose as this legislative prohibition which personally I still can't support, although I do appreciate hearing the minister's arguments.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 24

NAYS - 18

Ms. Sanford requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

The committee, having reported progress, was

[ Page 2726 ]

granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 18.

HEROIN TREATMENT ACT

(continued)

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I move second reading of Bill 18.

MR. GIBSON: On a very brief point of order, I want to make it clear that my vote will be cast in light of the amendments introduced in the last hour by the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a point of order. Every member votes according to his conscience and does not need to explain to the House.

MR. STEPHENS: On a point of order, I would like to identify myself with that non-point of order. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members - just so that it doesn't escape the notice of all hon. members - I should read standing order 16 (2): "Upon a division being called, the division bell shall be rung forthwith. Not sooner than two nor longer than five minutes thereafter Mr. Speaker shall again state the question and amendment (if any) . No member shall enter or leave the House during the stating of the question, nor leave the House after the final statement of the question until the division has been fully taken, and every member present shall vote."

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 28

NAYS - 16

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

Bill 18, Heroin Treatment Act, read a second time and ordered to be referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom files the annual report of the corrections branch and the annual report of the Justice Development Commission.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:02 p.m.