[ Page 2727 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Presenting reports

Liquor distribution branch annual report and financial statement. Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2727

British Columbia Buildings Corp.' annual report. Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2727

B.C. Systems Corp. annual report. Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2727

Ministry of Health annual report. Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2727

Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act report. Mr. Speaker –– 2727

Oral questions

Location of Hydro metro services division. Mr. Macdonald –– 2727

Natural gas field discovery. Mr. Gibson –– 2728

"Sneaky and devious" practices by municipalities. Mr. Barber –– 2728

Funding of independent schools. Mr. Cocke –– 2729

Student summer employment in Cowichan area. Mrs. Wallace –– 2730

Tall ships race. Mrs. Dailly –– 2730

Heroin Treatment Act (Bill 18) Committee stage

On Section 1 as amended

Mr. Gibson–– 2731

On section 5 amendment

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2731

Mr. Stephens –– 2732

On section 4 as amended

On section 7

Mr. Gibson –– 2733

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2733

On section 4 amendment

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2734

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2735

On section 5

Mr. Barrett –– 2735

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Mr. Stephens –– 2740

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2740

Constitution Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 38) Committee stage.

Division on third reading –– 2748

On section 7 amendment

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 40) . Committee stage

On section 9

On section 16

On section 19

Mr. Gibson –– 2746

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2746

Division on third reading –– 2747

Mr. Cocke –– 2749

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 2749

On section 10

Ms. Sanford –– 2749

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 2750

Division –– 2751

On section 14

Mr. King –– 2752

On section 17

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2752

Division –– 2753

Presenting reports

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 2754

Mr. Nicolson –– 2755

On section 18

On section 24

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2757

Mr. King –– 2757

Hon. Mr. William –– 2758

Ministry of Environment annual report. Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2759

Select Standing Committee on Agriculture; two reports. Mr. Bawtree –– 2759

Appendix –– 2760

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf I would like to make an introduction to a couple that are in your gallery today. From the State Assembly of the State of Utah comes the senator for the district in and around Provost, Utah. Senator and Mrs. Dean are your guests in the chamber. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

I noticed today in the galleries and in the precincts a group of young men and women from Squadron t35 of the Royal Canadian Air Cadets. As someone who finished service with that group in 1957, it takes me back a long time. I was a corporal once and there are some sergeants here today. I won't bother saluting, but they got me started in the aviation business. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. MAIR: I have the great pleasure to introduce to the House two of my constituents, Mr. Vern Wilson and Mr. Sandy Sandiford, both of whom are fishing camp operators in the interior. I'm going to have the opportunity on Saturday, I believe, to find. out whether Mr. Sandiford is as good as I am at throwing a fly line. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today visiting from Ladysmith, which is presently in the constituency of Cowichan-Malahat, is Mrs. O'Sullivan. She is here together with quite a large group of Venturers. In the gallery with Mrs. O'Sullivan is Mr. Moffatt from Nanaimo, together- with his son, Don Moffatt. In the precincts as well are 15 Venturers from the city of Montreal, Quebec, and another 14 Venturers from Vancouver Island. They are presently at the Museum with Vera Campbell, who is the adult escort from the Island, and Mrs. Crewe and Mr. Willscroft from Alberni. I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I have four guests today in the House. Mr. George Milne is the pro-shop manager at the University Endowment Lands golf course in Vancouver. Accompanying Mr. and Mrs. Milne are friends from Northolt, London, England, Mr. and Mrs. Roy Garwood. I'd ask the members to welcome them.

MR. HADDAD: I'm honoured today to have a very dear friend visiting me from Kimberley, Mr. James Davis. Accompanying him is Mrs. Davis, and also Mrs. Grace Leighton. They are here today as a delegation of the Kimberley senior citizens researching for a book on the history of Kimberley. This book will have the title "Mountain Treasures, " and is expected to be published in 1979. 1 would also like to add that Mr. Davis was my constituency secretary when I was elected. He did a very fine job indeed. Would the House please make them welcome?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I see today that in your gallery, sir, we've got two visitors from the B.C. Teachers Federation: Mr. Pat Brady, the president, and Mr. Jurd Kirby. I wonder if the members would make them welcome.

Presenting reports.

HON. MR. MAIR: I have the honour to present the annual report of the liquor distribution branch for the year ended March 31,1977, along with the financial statement for the same period.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the annual report of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation for the year ended March 31,1978.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first annual report of the B.C. Systems Corporation as at March 31,1978.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to table the 1977 annual report of the Ministry of Health.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the report of the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act.

Oral questions.

LOCATION OF HYDRO

METRO SERVICES DIVISION

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance, who is the director of B.C. Hydro. My question is: why has the minister, as a director, approved the leasing by B.C. Hydro of space at 1265 Howe Street for the metro services division of Hydro, even though senior management had first told Metro Services to go out to the empty B.C. Hydro office building at Lougheed and Boundary, just inside Burnaby - it's still standing empty -

[ Page 2728 ]

that was purchased from Dominion Bridge company for $10 million? Did the minister approve the decision that Hydro should spend this rental money for a premises for the metro division on Howe Street?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I don't have that information before me. I will have to take the question as notice and bring the information back.

MR. MACDONALD: To the Minister of Finance again: in view of the fact that the minister apparently doesn't know about that, has approved the plans that Hydro is pursuing and spending money on, to create a new $67 million office building in beautiful downtown Vancouver, when the two-storey office building in Burnaby, at Lougheed and Boundary, stands empty and has stood empty for the past few years?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MR. MACDONALD: I just want to be clear on the minister's answer. He has not approved the proposals for the working drawings and so forth that are now going ahead by B.C. Hydro, and they're just doing it on their own, are they? That's another question, a supplementary. Do they pay any attention to you at all? That's my question.

NATURAL GAS FIELD DISCOVERY

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. There was a very interesting thesis put forward yesterday to the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists' conference meeting in Calgary which suggested that a major new gas field, which they call the "super giant, " has been identified straddling the British Columbia-Alberta border. The suggestion is that at the present time up to 50 trillion cubic feet could be recovered. This, if verified, is a very important development. I would ask the minister if he has any information on this and if he can tell us what percentage of this field lies in British Columbia.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, about 50 per cent of that Deep Basin from Elmworth is in B.C., going to just east of the Grizzly Valley into Dawson Greek and up to Fort St. John. This year, there will be between 60 and 90 wells drilled in Alberta and British Columbia to prove up additional reserves of this Deep Basin region. It's an area that has a tremen-

dous potential. It has some difficulties as well. The difficulties are in the formation. Unless they are able to drill- in a conglomerate combined with sand, then it is not always possible to economically extract ore. In fact, it is not possible at all to extract the gas reserves that are identified below this basin.

MR. GIBSON: The minister indicated that about half of this basin is within British Columbia, which would indicate that, if there are 50 trillion cubic feet in the entirety of it, there might be 25 trillion cubic feet in British Columbia, which would be a multiple expansion of our reserves. Is the minister at this time able to say whether these numbers are anywhere in the ballpark, or are they pure speculation at the moment?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That information stems from the Canadian Hunter Exploration press release, I assume. They have had tremendous success in this Deep Basin, which is 50 per cent in British Columbia, but most of their exploration has been done on the Alberta side. They have drilled 26 successful gas wells on the Alberta side, and they have established half a trillion cubic feet of proven reserves, one and a half trillion cubic feet of probable reserves, and three and a half trillion cubic feet of potential.

As I said before, we'll know a little bit more later on in the year, because there are going to be between 60 and 90 wells drilled this year, probably 50 per cent in British Columbia and 50 per cent in Alberta, and we'll know what effect it will have on the increase in our reserves. I'm fairly optimistic in this regard.

"SNEAKY AND DEVIOUS PRACTICES"

BY MUNICIPALITIES

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Many days ago the Premier laid a very serious charge against local government in this province. He accused unnamed municipalities of "sneaky and devious practices" related to the release of information on tax matters in those local governments.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, this subject has been fairly well covered in previous question periods. I hope the member has a new question. Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: My question is to a new minister, Mr. Speaker. I earlier asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 2729 ]

Curtis) - he's not here - and now I'm asking the Premier. It was a serious charge, we may presume, with serious evidence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would like to correct a misunderstanding that the member may have. Questions cannot be repeated, even if they are redirected to another minister, according to our standing orders. Please proceed if you have a new question.

MR. BARBER: I think you will hear that it becomes a different question to the Premier. Is he willing today to name the municipalities whom he accused of "sneaky and devious practices" or, if not, will he apologize to them for having slandered every one of them across the province of British Columbia? Name them or apologize today, before the session ends.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker - through you to the second member for Victoria - the other day, when the question was asked, I explained in the Legislature that, in my discussion of assessments in the hall - and I remember the member being here, so perhaps it has slipped his memory - I gave a clarification of the statement that was made in a single news report, in which I was explaining assessment and mill rates in relation to the taxation bill.

The member for Vancouver Centre wants to hear it again. I'm sure the reason the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) didn't get the answer the last time is that the member for Vancouver Centre continually interrupts and makes it difficult for those serious members to hear what has to be said.

I gave that explanation then, as well as explaining the responsibility the school trustees have in setting their budgets. The number of teachers they hire in relation to a declining school population and the costs they incur are what sets the budget, the cost of which is paid for by government and local taxpayers.

I also said that the Assessment Act was moving towards 100 per cent assessment, not to increase the total assessment figure, but to reallocate where some had been too high or too low and move towards fair and equal assessment for all people. I said at that time that any municipal government that would use the assessment change to put up taxes would be sneaky.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a quick supplementary to the Premier, which I hope will promote a quick response.

Is the Premier aware that the basic mill rate for schools is set by his government - by any government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I'm aware the basic mill rate is set by the government.

MRS. DAILLY: Is the Premier aware that it was through his own government's policy that the basic mill rate imposed on school boards was raised from 26 mills to 39 since they came in office?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, what I am aware of is that in some school district such as Coquitlam, where the student population dropped by about 2,000, they increased the number of teachers by 26. That's what affects the cost of education in that area.

FUNDING OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

MR. COCKE. I have a question I would like to ask the Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education told all the world that was listening that he was bringing in new money to finance the independent school system. I would wonder if the minister would tell us where that new money came from. Would he also tell us what part of the budget that $9 million for separate schools came from?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the funds for independent schools came from the same source as the funds for hospitals, for welfare, for highways, for universities and for all other public service costs - namely from the taxpayers - the only place it can come from.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, is the minister now telling us that this was actually a portion of the education budget and therefore the rest of the education system had to put forward their share and cough up for that particular purpose?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the funds for the independent schools, as I have explained to the member, came from the same source as all other funds of government, namely the taxpayer. The policy of the government was well laid out in the legislation.

Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, this policy is to provide for good educational, good economic and good social policy. I say good educational policy because these people are receiving, according to the inspector of independent schools, a good education. It's good social policy because it provides some equity for taxpayers who've been paying twice for their education, and good economic policy because

[ Page 2730 ]

the cost to the taxpayer of educating those individuals in independent schools is approximately one-quarter of the cost of the public school system.

MR. COCKE: On a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact - whether the First Minister knows this or not - that the Minister of Education has raised the basic mill rate 50 per cent since he's been in office, is it therefore the decision of this government to place the costs of independent schools on the local taxpayer by having increased their participation in the public school system?

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

IN COWICHAN AREA

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. The budget for student employment was approximately doubled, I believe, this year from last year with the additional increase to $78 million that was added in; there was some money in that. In the Lake Cowichan area, Mr. Minister, last year they applied to hire five students for the regional district and they received five; this year they received none. The district reapplied for five and received none. The Cowichan tourist booth asked approval to hire two and has received none. In fact, instead of 13 summer students in the Cowichan area, there are only two. Can the minister explain this cutback when, in fact, the moneys in the budget have been increased?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if the member would look at the budget for last year and the budget for this year, she will find that the budget did not increase, and therefore the premise upon which her question is based is wrong. I'm not aware of particular problems that may arise in the Cowichan area. I'll be happy to look into the matter and report back to the member.

TALL SHIPS RACE

MRS. DAILLY: This is a question directed to the acting Provincial Secretary, whoever that may be. Mr. Speaker, a Mr. and Mrs. Solnit of Portland, Oregon, had a letter published in the Victoria Times charging that the tourist ministry perpetrated a fraud by luring them and other U.S. tourists to Victoria by falsely advertising in U.S. papers as late as June 19 the mythical tall ships visit.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mythical? We just had two of them.

MRS. DAILLY: I mean the mythical tall ships race. I'm asking the acting Provincial Secretary if they would look into the tourism ministry to see that action is taken to advertise in U.S. papers apologizing to the American tourists for this false advertising.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS; On behalf of that very best minister of tourism that this province has ever known, one who has done more for tourism to promote this great province than anyone before, I will be very happy to take that question on notice.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, can I have leave to make an introduction which I neglected to make at the start of the sitting?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce the wife of one of our reporters in the press gallery, because of my warm relationship with all of the members of the press gallery - the wife of Phillip Mills, and her mother, Mrs. Brenda Robertson, who is visiting from Eastbourne, England. I might point out that Mrs. Mills is the news editor of the Delta Optimist, and I would ask the House to bid then welcome.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, could I ask similar leave for an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. GIBSON: I would like to welcome back to the House one of our most faithful attendees, Irmgard Macmaster, after a period of some illness. I'm very glad to see her back in the gallery. I ask the House to welcome her.

Reading and receiving petitions.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Report, off ice of the Clerk, June 28,1978, in the matter of the petition presented to the House on June 27,1978, by the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) .

The said petition is irregular in that it is not addressed to the Legislative Assembly, it does not contain a prayer, and it is not in accordance with the form provided for in standing orders, and accordingly may not be received. See Beauchesne, 4th edition, p. 256.

All of which is respectfully submitted, 1. M. Horne, Clerk of the House.

[ Page 2731 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not sure that this opens it up for any debate.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, the petition was presented as a document for presentation and tabling, and not presented as a petition. It was clear in the Blues. Why the Clerk is still compelled to pass judgment on it is beyond me.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we call upon the Clerks from time to time to give us assistance and to berate them in this House is certainly not permitted.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I made a point of order. The petition....

MR. SPEAKER: It doesn't matter whether that berating comes under a point of order or whether it comes under a motion. It is not permitted in this House.

MR. LAUK: Does Mr. Speaker understand what I'm saying, with great respect, under a point of order? A petition was tabled. It was described as a petition; it was not presented under the routine proceedings as a petition. That's the point of order. It was tabled by leave of the House.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I ask leave to proceed with public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 18.

HEROIN TREATMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 18; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

on Section 1 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions here. My first question could be handled under this question and it could be handled under section 4. I'd ask the minister to give me guidance on this. It relates to whether or not this act covers juveniles or persons who might ordinarily be covered under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. It could come under the definition of "patient" or it could come under section 4, where there is reference made under the proposed amendments to a "person."

What I want to ask the minister is whether or not persons under 19 years of age are covered by this Act. By analogy to the Mental Health Act they are not, and there has been some speculation among the legal fraternity that a person under the age of 19 cannot be covered by this Act. I'd like to ask the minister that question, and I seek guidance from him as to whether this is the right section - or section 4 - under which to ask.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, if the Chair has no objection, perhaps I could try to answer the question here rather than moving on to someplace else. I guess about all I could do is give the legal advice that we have been given in drafting the bill.

The opinion we have been given is that, first of all, the bill does not intrude upon federal jurisdiction under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. Also, juvenile courts are provincial courts. They have only the jurisdiction which is clearly given to them by the statutes of the province and do not have any other jurisdiction beyond that statute jurisdiction over persons, as do the federal courts. It would then seem, according to the legal advice that we have, that the juvenile courts would have no jurisdiction over a juvenile under this bill, except where the juvenile, once he come into contact with this programme, was perhaps charged perhaps with one of the summary conviction offences which are contained in section 16 of this bill. Then, of course, I would assume that that juvenile would go to juvenile court.

MR. GIBSON: If I understand the minister correctly, persons under 19 are covered by this Act equally with persons over 19 - if that is the essence of his answer.

I wonder then - and I appreciate it is not up to the minister at this point to explain all the other Acts that he administers - why the Mental Health Act does make that distinction between under 19 and over 19. It seems a somewhat similar circumstance, and I'm wondering if the provision was made there for the constitutional reason.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I can't answer that question specifically, Mr. Chairman; but

[ Page 2732 ]

I can say that we sought a ruling on the constitutionality of this, and that's the advice we have been given.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a series of amendments - of which I have sent notice to the minister - that I would like to move at various stages of this bill. The first amendment is really a consequential one to a substantive amendment later on, but it does have impact on section 1.

I would move that in Section 1 the definition of "board" should be deleted. The reason for this is that later on I will propose that the powers given to the board of review should instead be exercised by the court.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we will have to hold your amendment until such time as we have dealt with the other amendment which is already on the table.

AN. HON. MEMBER: We've already dealt with it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall this amendment pass?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Is it in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the difficulty with your definition is that if in any other place in the Act the word "board" is referred to, then the rest of the Act itself becomes out of order. Therefore your amendment is out of order.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a few remarks concerning the definition of "treatment" as it appears. I have had the opportunity of discussing some of these matters with Mr. Bewley and I think some of these things I will be talking about through the committee stage of this bill will probably require some amendments. I think it would be impractical to put those amendments before you now, but I would ask the minister to take note of my comments because, as he knows, many of these bills require amendments later on in order to make them more effective.

Insofar as the definition of "treatment" is concerned, I am certain that it is not intended - at least I hope it is not intended -that peace officers or police officers should be included in that definition. In other words, I hope that it is not the minister's intention that a peace officer shall be considered part of the treatment team.

The definition is quite wide; it means one, more or all of direction - supervision. 1 suggest that the word "direction" is broad enough to capture a police officer who in his duties under this Act is picking up a patient who may not have reported and directing or detaining him and bringing him back to the centre. if an overzealous policeman felt that he came within the definition of treatment, he might think he had the right to make the demand under section 10, such as a demand for a urine sample or a blood sample. I'm sure it's not the minister's intention that a policeman should have that authority. I would suggest an early amendment to clarify that situation to make sure that a police officer does not have the authority to take those samples.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: If that became a problem, we would accept that naturally there would need to be an amendment. If the member for Oak Bay could read the rest of the bill and see the way in which direction and supervision are referred to throughout the bill, I think it will become very clear that that direction and supervision is only able to be exercised on behalf of the director or the staff of a treatment unit. It's our intention, of course, that once the police have done the initial job of serving a notice, that will end the police involvement in the programme, except for the fact that a policeman may be required at some point to transport a person from one place to another.

MR. STEPHENS: I accept the minister's statement that that was not the intention, but you do not interpret a definition section by looking at the rest of the Art. In fact, you interpret the rest of the Act from the definition section. If you want to be clear on your intention.... I'd leave the suggestion with you that you may run into a problem on that later on.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing on the order paper in my name.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

On section 4.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move

[ Page 2733 ]

the amendment standing on the order paper in my name.

Amendment approved.

On section 4 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: First of all, I would like to congratulate the minister for bringing in this amendment, which has made a tremendous difference to the due process part of this bill. I want to go into some of the details of it.

Subsection (5) of section 4 refers, to the case where a person being examined consents in writing to treatment. I am concerned about the case where a person might consent in writing to treatment and later on decide that he or she has made a mistake and wishes to withdraw that consent. Before moving a specific amendment in that regard, I would like to ask the minister what his policy will be in such a case.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: First of all, perhaps I should thank the member for North Vancouver-Capilano for letting me have advance notice of the amendments he was considering. It has helped considerably.

The question of consent and the withdrawal of that consent was discussed quite thoroughly when we were discussing the amendments to this section. There is no doubt in our minds, and the legal advice we have been given is that it is possible for a patient to revoke consent. I think there are a number of examples that could be given now in which people who give consent can later revoke that consent. However, it's our feeling that in this case, should the revocation of that consent come, the person who has given the consent in the first place will have been.through the evaluation process, and in all likelihood there will be a recommendation for treatment from the evaluation panel. It would be our opinion that at that point, should revocation come, we will have to revert back to square one and go back for a court order based on that recommendation that was given. The legal advice we have is that the inherent right to withdraw that consent is there already, simply based on the practices and application of the law as it now stands.

MR. GIBSON: I thank the minister for that assurance, which is very welcome. Would he then have any objections to the amendment I propose which would codify that by adding to section 4 (5) subsection (5) (a) , which would state: "The patient shall have the right to withdraw his written consent at any point during the treatment programme."? That seems to me to put into the statute what the minister says is already the right. I have an amendment written out, so I might as well move it, Mr. Chairman, and obtain the minister's response.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I just want to speak briefly against the amendment. I certainly understand the sense of it and the reason that the member has put it forward, but it isn't necessary. Since everyone involved in this programme will have that right and that right will be quite clear, I think, in legal terms, there might be a reason, however, for it to be not wise for us to put this forward. Again, I've sought as much legal advice as I could possibly get. The advice that I have is that because of the federal legislation, which provides that at any time in the proceedings in respect of a Criminal Code offence the court may, if the accused consents, order him to be examined re addiction and then sent to an institution, the amendment could pose some real problems for a judge. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I must ask that the amendment be voted down on that basis.

Amendment negatived.

MR. GIBSON: One of the things that the minister said during his remarks in closing second reading was that the person under consideration would have the right to counsel, but I think he was talking of the right to counsel at the point of committal by a judge. I am concerned, as well as certain persons in the legal community, with respect to the right to professional advice during the 72-hour period when the person is being examined and decisions are being made by the examination panel and the director. It would seem to me, in addition to the proprieties under this legislation, that a person should have a statutory right to professional advice from his lawyer, or a family doctor, or both, during the period of this examination. Therefore I would move the following amendment to section 4 as follows: by renumbering subsection (3) as subsection (3) (a) and adding subsection (3) (b) as follows: "Every person being examined under this section has the right to have either his lawyer or his family doctor or both present during any examination conducted under section 4 (1) of this Act."

[ Page 2734 ]

On the amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I must speak against this amendment as well. Here again, this has been one of the considerations given over many, many hours of debate on the drafting of this bill, and we've come to the conclusion that there is no possible way that that consideration can be made without completely destroying the procedure of the plan. There simply is no logical or practical way this could be done.

Where, for instance, does that representation come - in the examination room? Is a lawyer present there? Is the lawyer present at the time your analysis examples are taken? There are so many facets to the medical examination that's to be provided under the evaluation that it would simply be impossible to make this determination.

We have attempted to make absolutely positive under the provision of the bill, however, that all of the material that will be gathered at the time of the evaluation will certainly forthwith be made available to the patient so that that material can be studied and examined quickly by the person's lawyer or doctor or whoever it is who would wish to have it.

And the other question, of course, which compounds this slightly is that there aren't 72 hours available in that period, there are only 60 hours, which compounds the very practical problems even more. I might also remind the members that this right is not given under other statutes of this nature, which provide for the same kind of procedures - Summary Convictions Art and Mental Health Act - or examination for benefit under the proposed federal legislation, which is now being proposed by the Minister of Justice and is before parliament at this present time.

MR. STEPHENS: While the amendment is not worded quite as I would have worded it myself, I think in principle it should be supported. My concern about this is that the hearing - or the medical examination, which is in its very nature a hearing - will be conducted in secret. It will be conducted by the members of the treatment centre who are responsible for the activities. Of course the patient must be present, but he evidently has no right of access to counsel. That's totally contrary to the spirit of the Bill of Rights of this country, and it's contrary to the spirit of the law of this land.

The minister says that, in fact, that right does not apply under the Summary Convictions Act or under the Mental Health Act. It's not excluded. So far as I know, anybody who is being proceeded against under those Acts does have the right to have access to counsel. What you've done here is not only said that counsel cannot come into the treatment centre and observe, but the patient cannot have access to counsel and cannot consult with counsel. I think that's a very dangerous situation.

It is dangerous for two reasons, the first being the one I've mentioned. Secondly, what you must keep in mind is that when the examination is completed, there is certain evidence that will have been gathered by the doctors and the medical people conducting the examination. That evidence will have been conducted in the absence of anybody observing on behalf of the patient. The patient, if he does not volunteer for treatment, is now given the opportunity of going to the court and saying that he should not be committed for treatment. But when he goes there, the deck is stacked against him. He has nobody there even as an observer who can say that the practice or the procedures followed in that examination have been correct.

There's the possibility that a urine sample could have got switched; that the patient's urine sample may be wrongly labelled; that he may have somebody else's sample there. 1 think if there is somebody there to speak on behalf of the patient in court and to take a position and say, "Well, I was there and I saw what happened; 1 didn't like what happened for the following reasons..." Because the new amendments that the minister has brought in state that, in effect, all that the commission has to do is present a copy of the report. Evidently it's not even going to be necessary in this court hearing to afford the commission to call witnesses. You simply have to file a report signed by an official, and that's prima facie evidence of the contents of the report.

I think in the absence of that, it's a very dangerous situation. I am aware, Mr. Minister, of the problems that might be encountered, the practical problems involved. But I think we've got to consider not only the problems of the commission, but the practical problems of the patient himself when he does get into the courtroom.

A little step further: what about juveniles? I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there are going to be some very serious problems not too far down the road when juveniles - particularly young teenagers aged 13, 14 or 15 - are served with notice and are required to make an appearance before the examination board. They may not bother, for one reason or another, to advise their parents that they have in fact been required to appear before this board. So you have a juvenile in a secret situation,

[ Page 2735 ]

without even the juvenile's parents being aware where he is or why he's there. I suggest that there's going to be a great outcry - in many cases a justifiable outcry - by parents saying: "What are you doing running my child through a treatment centre without my knowledge and without my opportunity to come to the aid of my child, and at least be with him and help him and maybe get him some advice through counsel?" I think you're going to run into a great deal of difficulty on this, probably more difficulty from that side than you would ever find in the administration of the section by keeping people out. So I think in spirit that this is an excellent amendment and it should be supported.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to speak again and just quickly comment that we do not want this medical exam to be a hearing, Mr. Chairman. It is a diagnostic procedure, and we wish at all costs not to turn it into a trial. The opportunity is available later, of course, if we require further amendment as time goes on. I think there's lots of opportunity for the court to invoke its powers, to call as witnesses members of the evaluation panel or anyone else that it needs if it decides to do this to make sure that it is satisfied in all respects that the order should be made.

MR. STEPHENS: 1 was not suggesting that it should be turned into a hearing of any kind. I was suggesting that there's a very- great danger in holding an examination in secret without some representation. Now I'm not saying that counsel or parents should have any right to make submissions or have any right to ask questions, but simply to be present. Surely its not too much to ask that a 13- or 14-year-old child should have his mother or his father at his side during this examination - just somebody to be present.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We'll attempt to do that.

Amendment negatived.

Section 4 as amended approved.

On section 5.

MR. BARRETT: With the indulgence of the House, I just have a few questions to ask the minister and a couple of statements to make. This is to me the most important section of the Act and one why I oppose this Act more than any other reason.

The first question I have to the minister is this: could the minister tell me who he has hired so far to run this treatment programme? Could you tell me who you have hired? Could you also tell me what their professional background is? Could you tell roe where they have practised the treatment that you intend to impose upon these people, where they have practised the treatment before and where the treatment plan has been implemented before? Could you tell me the professional publications and other particular background of the treatment 'people that you have hired that would justify your confidence in their ability to deliver this treatment programme?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the programme will be operated by the British Columbia Alcohol and Drug Commission under the auspices of the Ministry of Health. Hiring of treatment personnel is not yet complete. We are hiring people from many parts of North America and from at home as well, or we're looking at people at the present time. We have not yet been able to put all of our programmes together, because we haven't had an Act. We have a bill which we hope to pass in this House very shortly. At that time, we will be able, of course, to move along with our proposals.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not clear on what the minister is saying. He's saying that he hasn't put the programme together, yet the bill is purported to be a bill to enable this programme to go into effect. Are you saying to the House that you really don't know what the programme is yet?

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

MR. BARRETT: Well, you just said that you haven't put the programme together yet. So would you tell me who the people are that you have hired, what their particular professional background is, what particular programme they will be implementing under this section?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The programme begins, as it says in the bill, on January 1,1979, and by the time 1979 is here, of course, the programme will be fully ready to go. If the member for Vancouver East wants to have a list of the number of people who have been hired to date and their names and qualifications, I would be happy to receive correspondence from him and I will answer as best I can. Mr. Chairman, there is no way that I can provide that list in debate at this point, and I think the member from Vancouver East obviously knows that.

[ Page 2736 ]

MR. BARRETT: MR. Chairman, this is the appropriate time to ask these questions, not through correspondence. The government has staked a position out through this minister that they are going to have a heroin treatment plan. A member of this House is entitled to ask clearly who you have hired, what is the treatment programme and what you are committed to. If you are suggesting that on January I you will be able to tell us what the treatment programme is, then I suggest you hold up the legislation until that time. Why should we buy a pig in a poke? Do you have a vaccine? Is that one of the treatment programmes? Is there a vaccine to cure heroin addicts? I don't know. Do you have some witches to exorcise the evil devils out of these people? Would you tell us that? Is that a treatment programme? Is it Pavlovian? Is it Freudian? Is it reconditioning? What is the orientation? Is it group therapy, individual therapy, case work, psychiatric counselling? Any professional who works in the field would surely be able to tell you that. You say that the programme is not fully finished yet. Would you tell me what is finished, what treatment programmes are complete and what mode they take, in what form they are delivered and what professional staff deliver them?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition refer to the comments that I made in Hansard on opening debate on second reading of this bill.

MR. BARRETT: I heard all of that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would appreciate it if he read that. Since the member for Vancouver East, the leader of the official opposition, for some reason wasn't able to take part in the second reading debate of this bill . Mr. Speaker, for reasons I'm sure he will have to explain to his own followers, he can certainly read all of the comments I made about treatment programmes and procedures in second reading debate.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I didn't participate in second reading, simply because I was waiting for the debate on this section. I listened to everything you said and now Iove waited for my turn to participate in committee of this section, which interests me more than anything else. Here I am, alive and well, asking you these questions simply and clearly. Who have you hired? What is the treatment mode? What is the philosophy behind the treatment? Is it Pavlovian? Is it Freudian? Who are the technicians? Surely you would not dare risk leaving this House without having those answers available for the people. If you don't have those answers, you leave yourself open to the charge that you don't know what you are doing.

Name one specific treatment programme that you have completed - as of this date, while you've asked for passage of this bill - that is going to be appropriate. Is it spanking, lecturing, vaccine, counselling or what? Name one. I'd be happy to hear just one specific programme you intend to use as a treatment programme. Vitamin therapy? Anything. I would like to know just one that you use to justify everything else that is in this bill.

MR. KANG: It's $14 million bucks worth.

MR. BARRETT: That $14 million is going to be spent and the taxpayers out there would like to know what you are going to do with the money. Are you going to hold hands, use mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, gum-beating, admonish them for using drugs? What is it? Now be fair, Mr. Minister. This is committee. This is the treatment section. These questions are absolutely appropriate here. You're the responsible minister - through you, Mr. Chairman. You tell us and the taxpayers of this province just one - not a whole range -specific treatment programme that you intend to use on the young, new addict. Tell me that.

This is where the bill breaks down. The only time the minister has been silent about this bill - or any aspect of this bill, in terms of all of his statements throughout this whole province - the only time we've received silence from the government bench is when the minister is specifically pinned down to a simple question: what is the treatment plan?

The minister has admitted that they're not yet fully ready to tell.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I didn't say that.

MR. BARRETT: Then will you tell me what you have ready now? Would you tell me that? Could you tell me what you have ready now? You make the judgment.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That's sort of a puffed-out sigh.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, you're on your feet.

[ Page 2737 ]

MR. BARRETT: Are you prepared to answer? Tell me what you have done.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would refer the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Prior to recognizing the minister, I must remind the members that when you are on your feet and have the floor and the attention of the House, you are required to make a speech. But you cannot ask other members across the floor if they are prepared to stand at the discontinuation of your speech.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would direct the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) to have a look in Hansard at the speech I made on opening debate of this bill.

If he wishes to know the number of people that we've hired and who we have hired, I would be happy to receive correspondence from him, give him their names, give him their qualifications, give him their background and the work that they have done in the past. I say again that all of the people have not been hired, all of the programmes have not been put together. The programme starts on January 1,1979. If there is any further information he needs, I'd be glad to hear from him about those specifics and I'd be glad to make that information available.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the minister said all of the programme s have not been completed. Did I hear you correctly? I'm not asking about the uncompleted programmes. Would the minister tell me what the completed programmes are? Would he tell me one of the completed programmes, if any are completed? Are any completed?

I don't want all the names of everybody. Would you tell me the name of the chief clinical person who is hired to supervise all of the treatment programmes? Surely you must know the answer to those two questions. What single treatment mode is now complete and ready for delivery?

You're asking for $14 million and you've spent a lot of time on television and radio in propagandizing this bill. The media has broadcast that there is some treatment programme for narcotics addicts. Parents out there may have narcotics addicts. They may welcome this bill. There may be people who are anxiously looking forward to this treatment programme. Would it not assist in encouraging the volunteer aspect of this programme if the minister would announce for the public and the addicts exactly what the treatment programme is? If he did announce that, some addicts might find it attractive and a reason to volunteer for the programme.

I am simply asking the minister: would he please inform this House and the people of British Columbia what work he has completed to this date, to this moment, on what treatment programmes?

The minister is struck dumb, because the minister does not know what the treatment programme is, and I stake my seat on that. I have never been more serious in all my years in this House. The minister doesn't know one whit of what he's talking about when he talks about treatment for drug addicts. There is no treatment. He has no mode. If he did, he would, for the sake of decency, stand up in the House this very moment and say what the treatment is.

This bill is a fraud. This is nothing more than a political move to spend taxpayers' money to somehow convince the citizens of this province that that minister has in his own pocket wisdom beyond the scope and knowledge of the leading professionals in the world who have dealt with this problem for generations. The minister is condemned by his silence. Decency demands that the minister stand up in this House and tell us what the treatment programme is. He doesn't know. Is it Freudian? Is it Pavlovian? Is it magic? There is nothing, and you know it. Having made that point very clear, I want to go on to some other points that have to be made under this section, and made clearly.

Every institution in North America that deals with drug addicts has as a chronic problem the infiltration of the security systems of those institutions by drugs. No one of us in any jurisdiction in North America is able to point the finger at any particular government, any particular politician or any particular political party in terms of the responsibility of running those institutions. But today I point the finger at that minister and I say clearly in this House that within a matter of three months - once Brannan Lake is open and housing drug addicts - there will be drug parties in that institution and the person responsible for those drug parties will be that minister. I do not make this charge lightly, Mr. Speaker. I tell you that it is a matter of record that every institution that has housed drug addicts has had drugs come into that institution.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What a sick person! You're sick.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Minister, if you think

[ Page 2738 ]

that's sick, then you stake your seat on it. You guarantee to everyone in this province that there won't be drug parties in that institution in Nanaimo. You stand up and give that guarantee. Don't call me "sick." Prove me wrong. Personal attacks, Mr. Minister, don't justify the lack of information to this House. You can call me all the names you want, you can give me a diagnosis of my approach all you want; but you can't give us a diagnosis of the treatment programme and you cannot guarantee that drugs won't come into that institution. I tell you that three months after that institution is opened, there will be drug parties in that institution among those drug addicts.

We have, as a reason of history, pretty well localized the drug problem to the core area of downtown Vancouver. The second charge I make -and I make it very clearly - is that once that institution is opened in Nanaimo, the trafficking in drugs will follow the existing chronic recipients, the chronic drug users to the institution, and Nanaimo will be a focal point of the influx of drugs.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What do you think it is now?

MR. BARRETT: You think it is now?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I said: "What do you think it is now?"

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Minister, you tell us. You're the one who has all this knowledge; you're the author of this bill; you're the parent of this fraud; you tell us. You can't say one single word in this House on a specific treatment programme; you cannot give the House the name of one person who's responsible for the treatment programme, and you cannot describe, at this stage of the bill, one particular type of treatment. I say the bill is a fraud. You do not even know what you're doing. You say that you hope to have it together by January, but you have not named one specific treatment programme.

Nanaimo will become the secondary centre of narcotics and heroin users in the province of British Columbia within a short period of time. Who is the custodial officer to be responsible for design of the custodial security of the institution? Can the minister tell me that? Can the minister tell me the name of the security officer who will be responsible for securing the institution? He can't tell me that either. There isn't anybody in the corrections branch, with either five years' service or 25 years' service in the province of British Columbia or in the

Dominion of Canada, who can run a holding centre and guarantee to the minister that drugs won't get in there. If he knows of such a person, I'd like to know the name. This bill is a fraud because the minister doesn't have the ability to inform this House who's running the security, how they're going to keep drugs out of Nanaimo and what kind of treatment programme is going on.

Sit there, Mr. Minister; stonewall, Mr. Minister; play politics with the bill, Mr. Minister; but it is ultimately your responsibility, in spending taxpayers' dollars, to tell us how you're going to spend them. And you're telling us today that you want this House to buy a pig in a poke. You want members to vote on this bill - $14 million - on the fear that the public is alarmed that somebody's got to do something about drug addicts.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The House has already voted on the bill.

MR. BARRETT: No, there is third reading.

The government has deliberately ripped up as a political issue that they are on the righteous side of law and order against heroin addicts. We're all against that evil, Mr. Minister. But it becomes even more evil when a government deliberately uses a major social problem for a primarily political purpose, rather than demonstrating that it has, beyond all party lines, a commitment to a treatment programme that is understood, accepted and sold to the community.

I'll make a challenge to the minister under this section. Mr. Minister, I challenge you that if, in one year after this programme is going, there isn't a drug party in the Nanaimo treatment centre, I'll resign my seat. But if there is, you resign yours.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, for the last few minutes you have been in what would best be described as second reading.

MR. BARRETT: No, no. "Treatment" - read it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has read the section dealing with treatment, but the statements have been much broader than the specific reference to the treatment programme. I would not want to have to refer you. to standing orders about being strictly relevant in committee.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have never been more relevant in a Section 1n all my years in this House.

[ Page 2739 ]

MR- CHAIRMAN: I see nothing in here about members staking their seats on a particular section of a bill.

MR. BARRETT: This section deals with treatment. This section says: "...where a director so directs detention in a treatment centre ... 11 That's what I'm talking about, the treatment centre. And I'm adding a description that is commonly known as a challenge. Put up or shut up is the challenge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps later on you'll have a chance to read the Blues and -find that you were just slightly out of order. Please continue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if there's anything out of order in this debate, it is the fact that the minister has not got the ability to stand up today and give even a five-minute, specific statement on what a treatment plan is under this section - not five minutes worth. He's attempting through this section to tell the people of British Columbia that there is a treatment programme. It will be imposed by law on an addict, when we don't have it.

Perhaps a checklist will do under, this section. Is it an injection by way of violence, yes or no? Is it spanking people, yes or no? Is it admonishing them not to be evil drug users, yes or no? Is it by witchcraft, yes or no? Is it by Freudian psychiatry, yes or no? Is it by Pavlovian approach, or reconditioning, as used in totalitarian states, yes or no? Is it by sugar cubes? After 25 years of studying these exact same programmes at Lexington, Kentucky - an expenditure of $60 million on treatment programmes - they discovered two things about drug addicts: 1) they have an insatiable desire for drugs; and 2) they like chocolate cake. Will the minister give them chocolate cake?

I've never seen that minister stuck without words. Here is the greatest proponent of this bill. Here is the greatest tub-thumper, exponent and arguer for this great bill. Here is the man who has made speeches on hotlines and in the corridors, saying: "We must have treatment for drug addicts." Now, when given the opportunity in this quiet chamber, asked by members to outline one single treatment plan, he's struck dumb.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Acupuncture? Come on, Mr. Minister, through you - Mr. Chairman - stand up and tell us one single treatment programme, one single professional you've hired and what that professional will do as a mode. Come on!

Dr. Guy Richmond, who spent 25 years working in the penal institutions of this province, is an ultra-cautious, ultra-conservative man of the highest professional standing in Canada -outside of the province of Quebec, where his peers are still operating. Dr. Guy Richmond is not the kind of person who rushes off to demonstrations. Dr. Guy Richmond is not the kind of person who gets involved in politics. But Dr. Guy Richmond said this weekend that the government doesn't know what it's doing. Prove Dr. Guy Richmond is wrong, Mr. Minister.

You are uncomfortable, Mr. Minister, because you know deep down you can't even give this House one single name of one treatment person who you've hired who will give a specific treatment programme. You cannot even give us one specific treatment programme.

I hope that the newspapers and the radios and all those people out there, and the chiefs of police who say they want this bill, will be made aware that the minister, when asked what the treatment programme was, wasn't able to answer. I want all those policemen out there who have to deal with this problem - and one of the chronic aspects of this problem is the inherent hostility of the drug user and the even greater dangers of the policeman's job caused by increased hostility created by this kind of legislation - to understand that that minister is solely responsible.

I don't make these statements lightly, and I don't have to beat them around the ears to convince them.

But I'll tell you this: deep down the minister knows that he is not right; deep down he can't give a single answer to the questions I've asked. Deep down he knows, through the warnings he's had, that there will be drug parties in any treatment centre. Nanaimo will become a secondary drug centre in this province, and there will be a direct increase in the number of young new addicts because of a temporary withdrawal of the existing market.

As the wave of emotion goes across this province in 80 per cent support for "do anything" for drug addiction, let it be said that I stood with the 20 per cent. I'm not afraid of losing votes for what I say. I'm not afraid of facing any audience or any citizen in this province on what I say. I tell you loud and clear that this is a fraud and will only lead to further frustration that the total community has in dealing with this very serious problem.

You don't know what you are talking about. if you did, you would stand up and give some answers. You are going to be responsible for the mess that is going to be created in

[ Page 2740 ]

Nanaimo - you and that government.

MR. STEPHENS: I have been one of the people who has attacked this bill from the outset. There have been two approaches to this. One has been the legalistic approach and the other one has been the treatment approach, just dealt with very effectively by the second member for Vancouver East. There has been a lot of discussion about the need for this particular treatment section. I don't think anything more needs to be said about the fact that there is a serious problem in British Columbia; all of us accept that. I think that anything said in that regard now is a waste of time and contributes nothing to this debate.

I've worked very hard on this particular bill because, as I said in my earlier debate, I think it is the most important bill before this House in this session. I was very pleased to see that the minister had made the amendments on the hearing side of it, and I approved the bill in principle in second reading.

But I am now a little concerned because I had taken the minister at his word. I felt that there was no effective treatment for this and that the minister had given me. some assurance that his plan did have an effective treatment. On that basis I was willing to take the chance that perhaps I didn't know everything in connection with drug treatment, and that you people involved in this thing deeper than I am have a better grasp of it and that you had something to give me. But after listening to the member for Vancouver East and after observing the minister's refusal to answer some very basic questions that I too would like to have the answers to, I'm becoming concerned.

I'm going to ask the minister to please get up and back up the basic concept he has sold me - that he does have a method of treating drug addiction. I will feel very, very uncomfortable if I find myself supporting this bill on the basis that this minister gave the world the understanding that there was a method of treatment here that was going to work or had a reasonable chance of working, when in fact he has no such plan. So I think it is a very reasonable request that has been made by the second member for Vancouver East for some particulars of direction that you have in mind. I would ask the minister for those same answers.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I appreciate that and, again, I wish that some of the members had listened to the debate that I made in second reading of this bill. It would be foolish of me or anyone else to stand in this House and say that anybody in the world has all the answers to the heroin addiction problem. Nobody has those answers. Nobody has any magic bullet. Certainly the magic bullet, if there is one, is not what the second member for Vancouver East advocates - legal heroin for heroin addicts. That's no magic bullet and it's not one which we will accept in this province. It's certainly not going to be accepted by the federal government of Canada. It's simply unacceptable to all thinking people in this province.

We have hired people and we will be hiring people. As I said before, if you wish to have their names made available, write me a letter and I will make them all available to you. People stand up in this House and harp that nothing has worked; it isn't true. There have been programmes that have worked and there have been programmes which have kept people free of heroin for varying lengths of time.

There is a programme which has been operating in British Columbia for many, many years providing methadone maintenance and which has seen people free of heroin for periods up to 15 and 20 years. They're doing a job, being productive members of the community and not mixing in the heroin subculture. There are alternative programmes in Montreal which have worked with numbers of heroin addicts. There is a Narcanon programme which has worked with some heroin addicts. There are Narcotics Anonymous programmes which have worked with some heroin addicts. There is a compulsory programme, which has worked in Florida and has kept people off heroin and out of jail. There are programmes which have worked. We intend to take the best of them and put them together and attempt to deal with individuals on an individual basis.

I've said before that the community is the backbone of this programme. Almost every patient who comes into this programme, Mr. Chairman, will cone in on a community basis. The director of this programme and the people involved will have the maximum flexibility to tailor this programme to the individual's need, and every effort will be made not to disrupt the employment of the individual during that treatment programme.

There will be psychological programmes developed and used that have been proven successful over many, many years in the treatment of all kinds of attitudinal problems among people. That member over there, who has had apparently, Mr. Speaker, some experience in these kinds of programmes, should know that those programmes can work, given the right kinds of opportunities.

[ Page 2741 ]

Mr. Chairman, we intend to make those opportunities available to the people who come into these programmes. They will be developed on a individual basis as much as possible, as I've said, and they will be developed in the community, and they will be developed with the objective of full community support, backup and aftercare made available to the people who are taking part in the programme.

Nobody knows all the answers. Nobody has all the answers. But for that member to stand up and advocate free heroin for heroin addicts as the magic bullet that will cure this problem in our society is....

MR. BARRETT: You're deliberately distorting what I said.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, that member from across the way was throwing down some challenges. I'd give the same kind of challenge. Did you stand up in this House today and say that you are against free heroin for heroin addicts?

MR. BARRETT: I will be drawn aside for one moment, and then come back to the original argument.

I have said clearly that it is time for us in North America to consider in co-operation, and only in co-operation, with the United States government and the Canadian government a treatment programme that includes heroin maintenance for older addicts, as Great Britain has done. I've said it, and I say it again - in co-operation with the United States government and the Canadian government, a maintenance programme of heroin as is in power in Great Britain for older addicts.

Do you want me to say it a third time? I'll say it a third time. It cannot be done in British Columbia alone, it cannot be done in Canada alone. I repeat, it must be done in co-operation with the United States government.

One of the treatment programmes the minister has said has worked is methadone. Let's deal with that. All methadone is is one drug dependency changed for another drug dependency. The state provides methadone, which is a legal drug dependency, so that -they can't get the illegal heroin.

MR. COCKE: It's synthetic heroin.

MR. BARRETT: There is absolutely no difference in the psychological problems, absolutely no difference in anything about dependency. The only difference is the state provides methadone, the black market provides the heroin. So don't try and tell me, Mr. Minister, that methadone is a successful treatment programme. If you believe that, why are you bringing in this bill?

That member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) , who wants to be an arbitrator in this interesting debate, perhaps wishes he didn't walk into the House today to hear this exchange. Nonetheless, he is trapped. You represent Mr. and Mrs. Normal British Columbia, who are concerned about this very evil problem, desperately want government action, but are also cautious about knowing what they are buying. I think that pretty well puts into a nutshell what your problem is. You have no particular love of the government; you have no particular love of the socialists. So on that basis you can be neutral.

Mr. Member, you've put the question to, the minister. Can he, in five minutes, tell us one specific treatment supervisor's name, or that of the director? Give us the name of the director. Tell us that director's background. Tell us what his professional experience is. Tell us what his success rate is, and tell us what the treatment programme is going to be in B.C. One person, one programme. Is it attitudinal, as you described? What is this Florida thing? Tell us. You tell us what you are going to do. Don't call me names. Don't attack my professional competence. If you don't like my opinions, I'm not the government. I'm asking you, through the Chairman, to tell us what you are going to do. Name one name of a treatment director that you've hired. Name one programme that is in place.

I know you don't have any magic answers. I'm not asking for magic answers. I know you've said already here that you don't have all the programme fleshed out or filled out, whatever it is. But name one director you've hired with one particular programme you intend to go forward with at this point. It's a very simple question - one director, one treatment mode. Mr. Chairman, through all the rhetoric and all the time we've taken on this we've come back down to right where we starred three-quarters of an hour ago with a simple question that the minister refuses to answer.

Now, Mr. and Mrs. British Columbia, what do you think of that? Is it not a fair question? Name one person you've hired and one particular treatment programme you intend to pursue. Is that not a fair question to ask on behalf of the taxpayers of this province?

I say to you that the answer has been silence. That minister cannot answer that question. He does not know the answer to that question nor will there be such an answer to that question. I repeat again that this bill

[ Page 2742 ]

is a fraud and you will not use political or emotional hysteria to sway my opinions in asking for facts, facts, facts - not rhetoric, not grandiose speeches, not whipping up the people. It's just a simple question: name a treatment director and name one particular treatment mode, please.

MR. GIBSON: My remarks are largely on something of a different tack. I don't want to interrupt this particular flow of the debate if the Leader of the Opposition and the minister would like to continue it.

MR. BARRETT: I'm satisfied that 1 am not going to get the answer. I am satisfied and I don't intend to pursue silence any further. Ninety-nine per cent of the people of this province won't know that that's where the debate ended between the minister and I, but let it go on the record for my own personal satisfaction that when the minister was asked, the chips were down and the question was simply put - name one person you've hired and name one treatment programme - he sat in silence. That's enough for me to make up my mind.

MR. GIBSON: One of the particular frustrations of the system under which we work has been evidenced by the dialogue between the minister and the Leader of the Opposition that has just been completed. It would be far more useful if we had the opportunity to call before a committee of this Legislature other than a Committee of the Whole House those persons from the Alcohol and Drug Commission who are responsible for the design and operation of the programme, in order that questions of this kind could be asked of the technical experts of the officials who are going to be in charge of the programme, so that members of this Legislature could satisfy themselves whether or not there was at the official level a plan, an understanding and a thrust that was worthy of the support of this Legislature.

What the government basically has been saying to us, it seems to me - and members of this House will either have to accept it or not - is that the government is asking authority to make an experiment. The government believes it has basis for making this experiment, and we will see. We hope the experiment will work. Speaking for myself, I hope the experiment will work.

I think that the questions put by the Leader of the Opposition are very properly put. I think that should it turn out a year from now or two years from now or however far down the road these things may become obvious, whether they become obvious by grounds of turning out to be unconstitutional or whether they become obvious by virtue of the hoped-for curative effect simply not being realized, then the record will be very clear. The people will, I hope, judge the government on that. As I say, I hope the experiment will succeed.

I want to move on to another question on section 5. 1 am concerned with the language of section 5, again returning to my particular area of concentration, which has been the question of due process. I an concerned with a number of matters and have written them all out in one amendment. The minister might wish to sever portions of this amendment or the Chair might feel that portions should be severed. I have drafted one amendment and will put it in that way. The thrust of the amendment is that some differentiation in treatment programming should be made for a person who has consented to voluntary treatment under section 4 (5) as opposed to persons who have been committed to involuntary treatment by a court.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

It seems to me that there should be an opportunity, in essence, for a person who is agreeing to voluntary treatment to more or less design their voluntary programme with the agreement of the Alcohol and Drug Commission, if they can reach agreement. That, presumably, would lead to some better kind of hope for such a programme being successful.

Accordingly, my proposed amendments are to section 5 (2) , and they are as follows: in line one, by adding before the words "a treatment programme, " the following: "Except for persons being committed to treatment under section 4 (5) ."

Section 5 (2) (a): by deleting the words "a director" and substituting "the court." This would make clear that it is the court that makes the committal for involuntary treatment.

Section 5 (2) (b): by deleting "a director" and substituting "the court", and the same in section 5 (2) (c) - deleting "a director" and substituting "the court."

By adding to section 5 the following subsections (5) and (6): subsection (5) - "Where a person is committed' for treatment under section 4 (5) , the treatment programme un, t be specified in writing to the person prior to the signing of the consent under section 4 (5) "; subsection (6) - "The director may only alter the treatment programme referred to in section 5 (5) with the consent of the patient." The intent of this amendment, as 1 say, is to provide a specially tailored and mutually

[ Page 2743 ]

agreed treatment programme for those persons who agree to voluntary commitment. As I say, it seem to me this would give a greater possibility of that commitment being entered into in the first place and being successful during its currency.

I would so move. As I say, Mr. Chairman, you may wish to sever parts of that amendment or move it all together. It's up to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak against the amendment and say, first of all, that the first three amendments substituting "the court" for "the director" really are not acceptable. They completely remove the right of the director to decide on any kind of a treatment plan and invest that responsibility in the court, asking the judge, in other words, to become an administrator or a trustee of the plan. That couldn't possibly be considered, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure no one really wants that to happen. There are many built-in protections that will allow the director to choose the kind of treatment which is most suited to the individual.

The addition of subsections 5 and 6 on the final amendments would seen to me to be somewhat superfluous. If the person, under those conditions, doesn't agree with the kind of treatment that is being given, I suppose that person could then withdraw his consent at that time, and the programme would then have to take whatever action would be necessary at that point, by applying to the court, I assume, to develop a treatment programme. But it couldn't seriously be considered that we could abrogate the rights of the program itself and transfer those rights for treatment into the courts.

MR. GIBSON: Just prior to this amendment being voted on, and just with the possibility that it might not succeed, do I understand from the minister that at least there will be an opportunity for the person under consideration for voluntary committal to negotiate the terms and conditions of his treatment with the director or commissioner, as the case may be?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly think so. I think that opportunity is always there not only for the person who comes in as a voluntary patient in the programme, but also for those who are committed by the court or committed in some other way through the criminal justice system, or whatever. That opportunity will certainly be available for a person to meet with the evaluation panel, first of all, and, secondly, with the director of the programme in which they find themselves to decide on ways in which the programme will be most successful.

Again I must stress that this is largely a community programme. Just to mention one aspect of our negotiations which has been completed to date and which I've made public before, the Alcohol and Drug Commission has negotiated with the vocational training branch of the Ministry of Education for some 35,000 hours per year of classroom time to be made available exclusively for this programme. It stands to reason that that will be a vital part of treatment for many people who are caught up in the heroin addiction problem. There's no way that can be imposed, for instance, on a person; that will have to be done with consent and negotiation.

I would see that by and large the entire programme will be run as much as possible on those lines. However, I think there may be times when a person may not agree, first of all, with any treatment; secondly, with the kind of treatment that might be required. But it is the full intent of this programme that the treatment be based on the needs of the individual, and at the community level as much as possible. So I see that that negotiation is open, and that those opportunities are available to everyone who comes into this programme.

Amendment negatived.

MR. GIBSON: Just before we leave the main section, my understanding is that the Alcohol and Drug Commission has announced that one option that will not be available from now on is the option of methadone maintenance. I understand it's been announced that it may be, in many instances, continued for those currently successfully on the programme, but will not be a new treatment option. I would ask the minister why that should be. It's my understanding that in the opinion of at least several hundred British Columbians, this has been found to be a successful kind of treatment programme. The commission might want to approach it with some circumspection in the future, but I would ask why it should be ruled out of order entirely when it has had some success in the past, and the number of programmes that have had some success are quite small.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I mentioned before and

[ Page 2744 ]

the Leader of the Opposition and others have pointed out that methadone is really a substitution of something legal for a drug which is illegal, and there's no doubt about that. Nevertheless, there has been a small group of addicts in this province who have been able to maintain what for them are productive lives over a number of years through the use of methadone. We don't believe that this is a positive way in which to approach the future -simply by substituting one addiction for another. A perfect example of that came in a hotline radio programme some weeks ago, in which somebody who had maintained a job for 15 years, I think the person said, and was married with a growing family, and living a reasonable life, accused the government of addicting him to a drug. In many ways that's correct, because his story, as he put it at that time, was that he was not really involved in the heroin subculture when he came into contact with the criminal justice system and, rather than go to jail at that time.... The option, fortunately for him, I guess through a judge, was given to him to enter a voluntary methadone treatment programme. And I suppose it could be argued that if he had gone to jail he might have got in contact with that subculture which finds itself congregated in our prisons and would have been perhaps a hopeless case at this point. But anyway, his point was that, because he went on that methadone programme when he really wasn't a part of the heroin subculture, we addicted him and he had been addicted for some 15 years to a drug not of his choice certainly.

I don't think a case has been made at the present time for the continuation of the methadone programme in our treatment, and we're not alone in that. There is lots of talk about Great Britain, but Great Britain only has a handful of people on heroin maintenance at the present time. They have more people on methadone. Their approach now, through the Home Office, as I'm told, is that they wish to attempt to develop a drug-free programme as much as possible and drug free, of course, includes free of methadone as well.

But for those people, Mr. Chairman, who are successfully maintaining themselves, to their minds, on a methadone maintenance programme, it would be cruel and inhuman of the government to interrupt their lifestyles at this point, and we have no intention of doing that.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, my only point is that of retaining maximum flexibility. I would assume that the individual described by the minister would not be thought suitable for a methadone maintenance programme by the present day Alcohol and Drug Commission. All I'm saying is that there may be some cases where this would be a reasonable course to follow, and it seems to me unwise to rule it out entirely.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I'd just like to say in response to that, Mr. Chairman, that the legislation certainly doesn't rule anything out, and our flexibility and capability are there to include that as part of the treatment, if that becomes desirable and necessary.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I indicated I didn't think section 6 should pass and I will say in section 7 why I think not.

This is the power of this board of review to extend a confinement if, in the view of the board, that is necessary, by six-month periods, on the application of the director, for up to three years. I believe that under this section, as under the original committal section, measures that are taken to either deprive one of liberty in the first instance or to continue such deprivation beyond the terms stipulated in the first instance should be made by a court.

The minister has agreed to that proposition with respect to the initial committal. I believe it should be continued through the extension process as well, and therefore I would move an amendment of section 7 as follows:

In section 7 (l) , line 1, by deleting the word "board" and substituting the word "court." In section 7 (1) , line 2, by adding after "and the patient" the words "and any other person."

In section 7 (2) , line 2, by deleting the word "board" and substituting the word "court." What this would do, in effect, would be to leave it up to the courts to extend the period of compulsory committal and also give the court the opportunity to hear any other person, in addition to the director or his representative and the patient. And again, I so move.

My batting average isn't good today, Mr. Chairman, but I'm trying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, regretfully I must speak against this amendment as well. The compulsory treatment programme and

[ Page 2745 ]

the compulsory committal to the programme is three years. That's the treatment programme length. The board of review has been set up not for the convenience of the Alcohol and Drug Commission, the director of the treatment programme, or for anyone else except the patient. The board of review has been set up to hear cases in which the proposition might be that some period in the residential treatment Centre longer than six months would be beneficial to treatment, for many reasons, and they could be completely related to the persons physical health which may in the fifth month, for instance, deteriorate and require that the patient be held, for the treatment of some disease or deterioration of health in one way or another, longer than six months.

We did not wish to give the powers to extend that time to the director of the unit. We did not wish to give it to the Alcohol and Drug Commission and we certainly did not wish to give it to the government. That's the basic reason that the board of review has been set up. It is not unlike the boards of review that function under the Mental Health Act, primarily for the same kind of purpose. Again, it is not the duty, as we see this Act, of the court to make this determination in regard to the length of treatment being given in one part of our programme or another.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the House oppose this amendment.

MR. GIBSON: Just two brief comments, Mr. Chairman. The first is that it seems to me that making use of the existing courts might avoid the setting up of a new type of machinery, the special board of review, and therefore it would be more economical. It seems to me it would certainly be better protection for the individual, and I can't understand the minister's statement that the board is set up for the convenience of the patient rather than the commission, because access to the board is only through the director. Rather than to apply to have his term of confinement extended, which is how the director may apply, the patient has no right to apply to the board and say: "Hey, I think it should be shortened." So it really seems to me this board is more for the convenience of the Alcohol and Drug Commission, though I still maintain that my amendment would be a useful addition.

Amendment negatived.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper.

MR. GIBSON: It is a first-rate amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I won't stand here and allow that to go unopposed.

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

MR. GIBSON: I have a proposed amendment to section 16 (f) , line 2: deleting the words "a board of review or by a director, or by an officer or Employee of the commission!' and substituting the words "the court." I should say incidentally I have the same objection to subsection (h) but I'm making my point with respect to subsection (f) here.

I think that creating an offence punishable under the Summary Convictions Act for the simple disobedience of a rule of the director or some officer of the commission, which might be as simple as, "go over to that chair and sit down, stop talking so much, " is inconsistent with our ideas of the way the law ought to work. The law ought to be reserved for relatively serious offences. We see in subsection (h) , for example, a person creates an offence who is "a patient who contravenes a rule or regulation applicable to him as part of the programme of treatment." That would be similar to suggesting that an MLA commits an offence for breaching standing order 43, let us say.

I think members in this House would be rather appalled to think that they might be subject to the Summary Convictions Act for that kind of infringement of the rules. So, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this section ought to be modified in that way and that offences, particularly of the nature specified

[ Page 2746 ]

under subsection 16 (f) , should only be those created by the. court and not by the bureaucracy.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, for many of the same reasons I gave before, I would oppose this amendment as well.

Amendment negatived.

Section 16 approved.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

On section 19.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, while I have no specific amendment under this section, it bothers me a great deal. I would ask the minister to give us some undertakings as to the application of this section.

In treating people it is necessary to gain their confidence and, to gain their confidence, it is necessary to have the patient feel that he can confide in the person administering the treatment, without fear that the items he discloses will redound injuriously upon him or upon his associates. Now it would be natural, for example, that one might discuss his associates in the drug subculture, which discussions, were they to become known to the authorities, might prove injurious to the associates of the person under treatment. So if the person under treatment is in fear that he cannot talk freely, it seem to me that that makes the process of treatment more difficult. That is the first general category of information, I would suggest to the minister, that should be given some kind of privileged position.

Next I would draw to the minister's attention the case of a person who voluntarily commits himself for treatment under this plan. Let us say that person is someone not generally known to his neighbours and associates to be a person addicted to narcotics of any form. Such a person would be much less likely to put himself into the hands of the commission if tie thought there was any possibility that his name might become known to the public in any way as a result of that voluntary bringing of his problem to the commission.

Finally it seems to me that any information given in confidence prior to the passage of this bill should also very definitely have a privileged position. I put those comments to the minister and I ask him, as well, how widely this section (a) should be read, where it permits disclosure of information that is It necessary for the administration of this Act" - which could be very wide indeed. There is a series of questions in one for the minister.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the matter of the scope of the subsection: I could say that the disclosure would only be necessary in making assessment or verifying progress in treatment of people who are in treatment. The disclosure of information to the police would only be made to ensure that individuals who are on the programme are not unnecessarily referred again for evaluation and to ensure that the police are able to report on the progress of people in treatment in the community.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, on the matter of instructions re a sort of grandfathering of the confidentiality of other things, I can only say to the member, Mr. Chairman, that I would undertake to give that kind of instruction to the staff of the Alcohol and Drug Commission. And I might say - just in passing - that those instructions have already gone to the staff some months ago in terms of another debate that we had in this House that that member was concerned about, and I think he would find, if he was to look into that, that those concerns were taken care of. I would say the same thing could happen here. The other thing I might mention, to attempt in some way to ease some of those concerns - is that the record of the Alcohol and Drug is pretty good in terms of keeping treatment information in the strictest of confidence. I don't have any recollection, in the years in which that organization has been operating - both as the Narcotic Addiction Foundation before and the Alcohol and Drug Commission now - that there has ever once been a breach of that confidentiality, and I would hope that that record would continue.

MR. GIBSON: Just to follow along on something the minister said, he suggested names might be given to the police in order that they might be able to advise on how well treatment is coming along. Does this mean that any person committed for treatment under this programme would routinely be the subject of an advice to the police? Or what would be the criteria for this? Could the minister perhaps advise?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, that's not the intention whatsoever, Mr. Chairman. That information would be for identification of whether or not they're in the programme and

[ Page 2747 ]

how long they've been in the programme - and whether or not they're subject and for how long. It's not the intention that the police be, as I mentioned earlier, any part of the treatment process.

MR. GIBSON: I think my question may have been obscure. If someone is committed for treatment under the programme, will the police receive routine advice that Mr. or Ms. X has been committed for treatment under the programme?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that it would be a routine information that would normally go to the police; the information would be available, however, if the police asked the commission.

MR. GIBSON: Perhaps I might ask for another kind of undertaking Suppose that Mr. X came along to the director of the programme and said: "I'm in trouble with heroin; I need help. It's not, generally speaking, known to my neighbours and associates. I want to come into your programme, but I want to know that under no circumstances will anyone outside of the programme, including the police, have access to my name.

Will it be the policy of the commission or the director to maintain that kind of confidentiality? It seems to me that that would be a very necessary part of obtaining voluntary admissions.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't know how that could be done, Mr. Chairman. That goes far beyond, I would think, the capabilities of that kind of confidentiality. Even the persons name.... A doctor cannot even do that. A doctor can be asked by the court to give that kind of information, for instance.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, by the court, yes.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: As much as possible. I'd like to say yes, but I may be on shaky legal ground here, and I'm not sure that I can answer that question.

Section 19 approved.

Sections 20 and 21 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 18, Heroin Treatment Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

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

Leave granted.

Bill 18, Heroin Treatment Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 29

NAYS - 16

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 38.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

The House in committee on Bill 38; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

[ Page 2748 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 38, Constitution Amendment Act, 1978, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 27

NAYS - 15

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 40, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

(continued)

The House in Committee on Bill 40; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the members of the committee to note that in the reprinting of Orders of the Day with respect to Bill 40, there have been omitted, in error, two amendments of which notice was given in previous orders. If members will refer to Orders of the Day for Tuesday, June 27, under this bill it will be noted that following section 2, there were two amendments - section 2.1 and section 2.2. By reason of this omission I now have pleasure in moving on behalf of the Attorney-General the identical amendments by adding section 2.1 and section 2.2.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's an addition of two sections after section 2. It's not an amendment to section 2. The amendment to the bill is by adding two additional sections - 2.1 and 2.2.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment to section 2 we're talking about, is it not? And the vote has not yet been taken on section 2.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The vote was taken on section 2 last night.

MR. KING: There was a division, and now the minister is moving an amendment to a section that's already passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: these are two different sections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was some confusion with the Queen's Printer, hon. members, and that has been pointed out by the House Leader for the benefit of all members.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: So it's perfectly clear, Mr. Chairman, I restate that the bill as was proposed originally is amended by adding two new sections: section 2.1, which deals with the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Act, and section 2.2, dealing with the Children of Unmarried Parents Act. These are two separate and distinct amendments, and not associated with the matters in section 2.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, as a follow-up to the statement made by the Minister of Labour, I'm wondering, since we did divide on this section 2 last night, whether or not that division will be recorded as was requested last evening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you.

Amendment approved.

Sections 3 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move the amendment to the bill standing in the name of the Attorney-General to insert, following section 7, section 7.1, pertaining to the Gas Act.

Amendment approved.

Section 8 approved.

[ Page 2749 ]

On section 9.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister in charge of section 9 a couple of questions. The first is the definition of the "authority." I gather this is expanding the nature of the authority, or is it just clarifying it?

No. 2. In subsection (iv) he talks about "includes a qualifying pupil as defined in the regulations." Now what do you mean by "defined in regulations"? Does that empower the executive council of the day to expand to include any child that would not necessarily fit in with the basic concept that we have had - that is, British subjects or Canadian citizens?

HON. MR. McGEER: To answer the two questions, Mr. Chairman, first of all the reason why the "authority" definition needs to be expanded is because some independent schools that have been operating in the province for many years and therefore fall well within the intent of the Act have not been incorporated as societies or incorporated under private Acts. Until that can be done, then they would be left out because of the way the Act was drafted. So this gives the inspector of independent schools the opportunity to extend to these three or four schools that fall into this category the financial aid that the government intended should be given.

Now with respect to the definition of "a qualifying pupil, " the limitations on the inspector and on the executive council would be those that extend to all statutes of British Columbia, namely being not inconsistent with the definitions that are included under (i) , (ii) , (iii) and (iv) . If I can give an example of a place where regulations would need to be drawn up, it says, for example, at least 135 days related to the school year. Now if the youngster is enrolled and pays tuition for 135 days or more, but is ill with measles or chicken pox and doesn't attend for the full 135 days . but is receiving homework and it is being marked, then he should qualify. Without having a little bit of flexibility under the regulations, that sort of interpretation is not possible.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the minister clarified the first point. In other words, one or two of the schools for prof it or elite schools could be included now where they couldn't be included under the old Act.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Vancouver College is one. There are four schools, I think.

MR. COCKE: I would suggest possibly St. George's and others.

HON. MR. McGEER: No. I could get you the names. I don't have them, but I know Vancouver College is one.

MR. COCKE: As much as I am fearful of of this whole question, I don't see anything wrong as long as it is not abused. If you can, however, change the day situation to bring it in line, then it strikes me that there may be other areas that would have to be very closely monitored. I hope the minister over the years will see to it that this is not a section that can bring about abuse to the system.

HON. MR. McGEER: If it is any reassurance to the member, we have chosen as the inspector of public schools a man who was a former deputy minister in the government during days that were acknowledged to be the skinflint days in British Columbia, and I think that he's pretty careful with the public's money. I again would like to pay him a compliment for a job extremely well done.

MR. COCKE: I'd like to pay the minister a compliment for blowing a little bit of smoke into the chamber. The fact of the matter is that when you make laws you don't make them around a public servant; you make them so that they will be there to serve the public for ever and a day.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, section 10 does for the workers at ICBC what section 2 did for the Hydro employees. I would like to make the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) aware, as the minister responsible for ICBC, that this is a denial of one of the basic rights that the people of this province should be enjoying. Free collective bargaining is something which we in this province value, which we must uphold and which we must do everything we can to support and promote. To prohibit the employees at ICBC from collectively bargaining for the provisions of their pensions makes those employees second-class citizens.

Mr. Chairman, there was no justification by either the Minister of Finance yesterday or the Minister of Labour, when section 2 was under discussion, for the move to prohibit employees from bargaining for their superannuation provisions. This section proves that this minister also has no confidence in that

[ Page 2750 ]

collective bargaining process or he would not be the author of this amendment that we have before us today. Does he not have any faith in the management of ICBC to be able to carry out the process of sitting around the table and discussing a provision that will affect the future of all. of those employees?

He just paid $80,000 a year to bring in an expert from the United States to head up ICBC. Surely $80,000 a year should bring in the kind of management that would have the background knowledge and the ability to go through the collective bargaining process, including the matter of pensions.

I was alarmed yesterday when I suggested that perhaps the employees of these various Crown corporations could make a contribution in terms of discussing future pensions of the employees at ICBC, WCB, B.C. Rail and Hydro. I was alarmed when I heard one of the back benchers, namely the MLA for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) , shout across the floor; "What do employees know anyway?" That's what he said, Mr. Chairman. That typifies the attitude of this government towards employees and collective bargaining.

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment as I was opposed to section 2 yesterday. I think this amendment is a travesty and I think it is a real danger to the whole process of collective bargaining for all employees in this province.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to recap for the member opposite or for you or for the public of British Columbia all the arguments that were voiced in respect of the companion amendments that have already been voted upon by this Legislature. But, Mr. Chairman, I can't help but observe that when people who sincerely believe that the only way any pension at all, much less a fair pension, will be produced for workers in the province by the confrontation process associated with collective bargaining.... The people who believe that needed that member opposite very badly at the time the NDP government introduced a provision removing that right from the public servants of British Columbia who, I can tell you, number more than 10 times as many as ICBC. And yet when those people needed a spokesman to speak for their cause, perhaps they weren't going to find it in the Social Credit and Liberal and Conservative opposition of that day because those people might just have believed that better pensions could come from sound negotiations outside the confrontation process.

The people who really believed that only the confrontation of collective bargaining would produce any result at all, despite ample evidence to the contrary in the public service and quasi-public service of British Columbia, needed the member opposite then, when she was a member of government, to stand up for her convictions, to make her view known, and to speak up against the government of that day and the cabinet ministers who now so piously speak out in favour of the workers. But then they brought in the very legislation that is contradictory to their principles.

14r. Speaker, that opposition is hypocritical. We never stated that we believed the only way to get adequate pensions was by this method. I tell you, you only have to look at the situation of the B.C. Teachers Federation in this province to realize that far more generous and equitable pensions can be achieved without strikes, without lockouts, without confrontations, but by common sense. There's an ample record of achievement, and a better record, I might say, than some of the unions of the province have achieved through the very method that this member espouses.

But that's a difference in point of view, Mr. Chairman, and it can be expected in society that people with different points of view will express them from time to time. One has to look at the record of achievement to make a reasonable assessment as to whether these views are right or wrong. It's my belief - looking at such examples as the B.C. Teachers Federation on the one hand, who get their pensions without negotiation, and some of the trade unions in the province on the other hand, who get their pensions through negotiation - that the confrontation and strike and lockout process doesn't always produce the best results.

But that's not the fundamental point, Mr. Chairman. The fundamental point here is hypocrisy, and the hypocrisy is expressed by that member. When she should have been expressing the view, when she was in a better position to influence the result, her speeches and her vote didn't express the opinions we hear now. We wait until a time when no responsibility is involved and then we hear the truth from that member, a truth that she was afraid to express when she was a backbencher for the government. That's what I call hypocrisy, Mr. Chairman.

This statute expresses a genuine and honest belief by myself and members of the government that a better result is going to be achieved this way.

I might say that I have complete confidence in the management of ICBC, and I can tell you the management and the responsibility that is being experienced and demonstrated by that

[ Page 2751 ]

corporation today is a vastly different circumstance than when this government had to take over the rags and tatters and disorganization that was the dowry of that party over there. It wasn't just pensions; it was the whole management of that corporation. I can tell you that results in this, as in all matters, will be achieved, but not with the help of the group opposite. They had their turn in power; they had an opportunity to demonstrate responsibility in management; they failed to do that. They had an opportunity to demonstrate their true beliefs when it came to the matter of pensions. And what did they do? They took them away. That was their record when they were in power. And now, Mr. Chairman, when they're in opposition we get this continual hypocrisy. Well, vote against this section, Madam Member, but remember what your record was when you were in power and had a responsibility to do something about it.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, we've had the usual, arrogant performance from that minister. He's saying that he knows best in terms of setting up pensions. This is something -the whole provision of superannuation and pensions - that can be imposed better than it can be negotiated. His comments just now demonstrate more than anything else that he has no faith in the collective bargaining process at all - none. Perhaps what he is going to do - because he knows best - is to set the wages that people should get in this province, or the working conditions that people should get in this province. Maybe that's what he wants to do, because he knows best, as he clearly demonstrated this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, what arrogance that minister always portrays in this House. When he calks about hypocrisy on my part, he just does not know what he's talking about. He does not know what the Higgins report is about; he doesn't know the provisions of that Higgins report, which suggested that the government of the day not provide superannuation provisions as a negotiable item, but that it should be looked at within a reasonable period of time. That's what we're asking for, to have it looked at and not to remove the right which has now been established, at least as far as the Hydro people are concerned, through the Labour Relations Board, the provincial courts and the highest court in the land - that it is negotiable.

Mr. Chairman, I think that this minister typifies the comments made yesterday by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf): "What do workers know anyway?" Collective bargaining:

he talks about confrontation and strikes over the matter of pensions; he has no confidence whatsoever in the ability of workers to understand what the pension provisions might be, or to understand what the collective bargaining process is about. He has no confidence in them or in the system, and, as a result, I think that labour relations in this province are going to be in deep trouble again.

MR. KING: I want to speak just very briefly to add to what my colleague for Comox has said and to set the record straight, which is necessary because of the erroneous remarks made by the Minister of Education.

Mr. Chairman, the New Democratic Party government did not, at any time, proscribe or remove the right of employees in this province to bargain their superannuation provisions. They had that right, subject to some statutes in this province, which were ultimately tested in the courts and found not to prohibit the right of employees to bargain their pension rights in Crown corporations. The only limitation that was put on any workers' rights to bargain pensions was with respect to B.C. government Employees. Our government provided to the B.C. government employees, for the first time in the history of this province, the right to bargain collectively, period.

The minister is trying to use that restriction as justification for his retrogressive steps to now deprive in a statutory way employees of the ICBC, B.C. Hydro and various other Crown corporations the right to bargain their pensions. My colleague said it demonstrates a lack of confidence in the collective bargaining system. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that it suggests something more than that. It suggests an underlying hostility to free collective bargaining. It suggests to me an elitist viewpoint that the working people of this province are neither good enough, intelligent enough or responsible enough to understand what is in their own best interests. The minister says in his typical elitist, centralist fashion that the best pension plans are not developed through free collective bargaining. You know, that is the totalitarian approach. Only he, as the elitist, egghead minister, knows what is good and best for the workers under his aegis. What a benevolent dictator, Mr. Chairman! hat snobbishness! What elitism!

This particular Section 1s a shame. It's a scandal and the government will pay for it come the next election, Mr. Chairman.

Section 10 approved on the following division:

[ Page 2752 ]

YEAS - 25

NAYS - 15

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, aren't the doors supposed to be locked while the vote is in progress?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The vote had been taken. We were just having a reading of the division list, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: I count 27 people in here right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Clerk said 25.

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

Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

MR. KING: I'd like to ask the minister responsible for B.C. Railway - I believe that's the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) - whether or not any discussions took place with the various unions on the British Columbia Railway with respect to this particular amendment. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that a short time ago a council of trade unions was formed on the British Columbia Railway, and there is a greater degree of cohesion among the employees of that particular enterprise at the moment. I wonder to what degree the minister and the board of directors, if they were involved in the development of this amendment, consulted with the employees, and whether or not the unions agreed to this kind of amendment which restricts the matters that can be bargained for at the collective bargaining table. Can the minister give me that information, please?

Mr. Chairman, the minister again is struck dumb, and apparently is not prepared to answer. I presume this particular amendment stands in the name of either the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) or the Minister of Economic Development. I don't know which one would accept the dubious responsibility for this particular section. But I want some information. Employees of those four Crown agencies are deprived of the right to bargain on the important matter of their pensions.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Fine, if that's a point of view. That does not happen to be my point of view. I think, perhaps, when any employer goes around the province preaching that he is more concerned with the employees' security and rights than their own freely chosen bargaining agent, then I find that a bit suspect. That is the mentality of the right-to-workers, and I know we have a difference of opinion on that matter - fair enough. But what is the minister saying? Just a simple yes or no: was there consultation or none at all? Were the unions even contacted? Were they made aware that they were going to lose their right to bargain pensions through a stroke of the legislative pen in this session of the Legislature? Can the minister answer that, please?

Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it if the House Leader could indicate to me which minister has charge of section 14.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The list that has been provided to the Chairman would indicate that it is the Minister of Finance. However, this may be inaccurate, but that's the list I have.

MR. KING: Fine. If it's the Minister of Finance, can the minister answer that simple question for me? Was there any consultation, or was this particular provision which deprives unions of the right to bargain the important matter of their future security, their old-age security, taken strictly in the cabinet precinct, in total isolation from the people that it affected? Surely the minister can answer that question. It's very simple, and he should be able to rise to that height.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't propose to recount all of the arguments and debate that we went through last night associated with the amendments covering the pensions of Hydro and, more recently, connected with the pensions of the employees of ICBC. We went through the present plans of the government in reviewing pension

[ Page 2753 ]

standards, and the necessity to parallel this to the same Act that governs the superannuation plan of the B.C. government employees, a far greater number of employees, as we all know. So I see no point in repeating all of those arguments again for the benefit of the member.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the minister. I didn't ask him to recap all of those arguments, nor am I making the same arguments for my opposition to this rather reprehensible provision. I'm simply asking the question: was there any prior consultation with the people who are affected by this section? Did the cabinet just decide, in their own wisdom, in the isolation of the cabinet room, that this should be done, or did they consult with either the management or the employees of the railway? Now this is a different matter altogether, and I would appreciate the minister responding to the specific question I'm asking. Was there any consultation whatsoever, or did the employees learn of this provision only when the bill was introduced into this Legislature? It's a very simple question.

I don't mind disagreements and philosophical differences; that's what this Legislature is for. Those differences have been, I think, articulated in this debate. But surely it's the height of arrogance for the minister to sit silent and refuse to answer a question of the nature I'm putting to him.

One of the criticisms that all governments receive, including our own when we were in office - indeed it was a criticism levelled at us by people who are now sitting on the government side - is that there should be a maximum amount of consultation before government brings down dictums from on high that regulate the life and security of people in this province. If the minister is now so arrogant that he refuses to even answer or acknowledge the need for that kind of dialogue, then this is a new degree of arrogance in this province. All I ask from the minister is a simple answer to the question: was there any consultation? I suppose we'll find out from the unions, eventually. But does the minister have such contempt for this Legislature and the role of the opposition that he refuses to answer a question of that nature? Please, answer the question.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, we are certainly open to discussion with members of the unions concerning this matter. To my knowledge, there has been no discussion with them up to this point on this particular matter. This is parallel with other sections governing other Crown corporations on the same matter.

I had a meeting yesterday with several representatives of the Hydro unions and others who visited members over here, including myself, expressing concerns over the legislation. As far as your specific question with regard to the British Columbia Railway and this particular Act is concerned, I'm not aware that there have been consultations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, perhaps I can take this opportunity to remind members of two things. One is that it says in standing orders that not less than two nor more than five minutes are to be taken for divisions - and many members have some difficulty finding their way to the chamber in five minutes. On another matter, sometimes there are objections raised with the Chair which the Chair cannot hear, nor can the Chair sometimes hear members say aye or no to a vote. I would ask that they speak up, because it is very difficult to hear over the dull roar which pre-empts this chamber.

Section 14 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 25

NAYS - 15

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

Section 15 approved.

On the amendment to section 16.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On be-half of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) I move the amendment to section 16 standing in his name

[ Page 2754 ]

on the order paper.

Amendment to section 16 approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

On section 17.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of rather controversial aspects to section 17, an amendment to the Public Schools Act, such as the question of tenure and the appointment of principals. I want to ask the minister whether or not this refers to principals who are already under appointment or just to new appointees. Is it a pilot project, or just what is he doing?

The second thing I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, is exactly the same situation as every other aspect of this government's attitude towards any group that negotiates. Immediately they decide a course to run, they do so arbitrarily and they do so without consultation.

Has the minister consulted at all with the B.C. Teachers' Federation and the B.C. School Trustees' Association around this question of arbitration, around this question of zonal bargaining, around the whole question, indeed, that we have before us?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, to answer the member's questions with respect to the term appointment of administrators, " this will not affect people who are currently in the system. They'll be grandfathered by the old arrangements. It is our opinion, Mr. Chairman, that the highest calling of a teacher is that of being a teacher and not an administrator, and we would like those who assume administrative duties, whether it is in the classroom or as superintendents, to regard that period as a tour of duty, much as a university professor would regard becoming the head of a department, a dean or a president or perhaps even a Minister of Education as temporary and be expecting one day to return to that higher calling. That's the philosophy behind it.

From a practical point of view we think it will give a much broader scope both to school districts seeking superintendents and to individual schools seeking administrators, because neither those who do the hiring nor those who are hired will regard this as an irreversible step of unlimited duration. Now with respect, Mr. Chairman, to the zonal bargaining, I don't think that there is any issue which divides the B.C. Teachers' Federation and the B.C. School Trustees' Association more than the question of bargaining. No minister can satisfy both of these groups in a matter that has such a wide diversion of opinion. The best one could hope to do is to equalize unhappiness in this respect, and to perhaps give a little bit of solace to the taxpayer who ultimately has to foot the bill, for the process of arbitration itself as well as the results of arbitration.

We think that this will be a very workable scheme. It still gives the B.C. Teachers' Federation tremendous freedom in the matter of seeking individual agreements and arbitration on individual items, but at the sane time it cuts down the number of arbitration boards and avoids the sort of circumstances that occurred at Trail and Courtenay that we would never, ever want to see repeated in British Columbia again.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has difficulty answering the question. I asked whether or not there had been consultation. Obviously, by his lack of attention to the question, there has not been consultation.

Mr. Chairman, in this kind of sensitive area there must be consultation in order that people know where they are going. I can do nothing more than oppose this section just on the basis. I can see where there are some attractive aspects to zones or to larger groupings of people in negotiations. But that's, I believe, something that they should decide. They should have an opportunity to consult upon that. On the other hand, there are those who feel the very opposite. They should have every opportunity to suggest where they are going.

So I say, Mr. Chairman, that this is completely unacceptable just on the basis that the government is arbitrary again and continues along their arbitrary course.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not having adequately answered the member's question but perhaps I can make another try. The issue that we are dealing with with this amendment is not one that can be settled by mutual agreement between the BCTF and the BCSTA. They are simply too far apart for any meeting of the minds to be possible. As I say, all that one can do is to strike some kind of compromise that might bring a little bit of solace to the person who pays the bill.

Now with respect to consultation, we are meeting regularly with both the B.C. School Trustees Association and the B.C. Teachers Federation. This is something which the ministry has established as a standing consultation that takes place at regular intervals throughout the year, something that the NDP never did

[ Page 2755 ]

in their years in office. There has never been more consultation between the ministry and between these two groups than is taking place today. To say that there is no consultation is just to ignore the facts.

Just this afternoon I met with representatives of the B.C. Teachers Federation for an hour and a half, consulting and exchanging views. Now this matter here is one that has been discussed in general principle, but it is not one that can be satisfied by mutual agreement without the leadership of the provincial government. I hope that the members opposite won't take too much offence if just now and again the Ministry of Education, which pays most of the bills, shows just a little bit of leadership.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, surely if the B.C. Teachers Federation camp to meet with the minister and they certainly did not come to meet with me they must have pointed out to him that under section 17 where section 140 would be repealed and replaced by a new section.... Section 140 (3) says: "where the minister has not received a nomination to a salary arbitration board under subsection (2) by November 22, respecting a member, or by December 7, respecting the chairman, the Minister of Labour shall appoint a single arbitrator or a board consisting of two members and a chairman to serve as the salary arbitration board for the zone." They must have pointed out that if one party wishes to subvert the arbitration process, wishes to throw things into the lap of the Minister of Labour, all that they need do is not appoint an arbitrator and then the whole thing, the whole choice is left to the Minister of Labour to either appoint a one person arbitration or a three-person arbitration.

That is to say that if one of those sides wanted to have the Minister of Labour Act, they could force the other side's nominee to be appointed by the Minister of Labour.

If the minister will look at page 8 - and I would hope that he would really consider this - subsection (3): "Where the minister has not received a nomination to a salary arbitration board under subsection (2) by November 22, respecting a member...." So that is where both sides are supposed to come up with their own nominee and, hopefully, as has normally happened, those two nominees get together and agree upon a mutual chairman. It has been very infrequently necessary for the Minister of Labour to appoint a chairman.

Now if one party were not to appoint a nominee, it would leave the Minister of Labour with no choice but to appoint either a one- or three-person arbitration board. I think this is an error. If the minister would consider the old Section 1n the Act which deals with this - which I believe is section 140 - where a matter is submitted to arbitration and one of the parties fails by November 22 to appoint an arbitrator, the Minister of Labour, on the application of the other party, shall, not later than November 27, appoint the arbitrator who shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be appointed by the party that failed to appoint an arbitrator.

For the sake of argument, and since I am a teacher, let us say that the teachers fail to name an arbitrator. Then the school board side could apply to have the Minister of Labour appoint an arbitrator for the side that failed to appoint. But now we have a situation where one side can really frustrate things for the other side, and I don't think that is the intention of the ministry. As it is spelled out in the Act I think it is very clear that's what could happen.

I do have an amendment here, but I would be loath to .... I would read the amendment, but I don't like to see amendments made on the floor of the House. I've only just considered it this very moment, but if I were to submit an amendment, I would submit one to the effect that section 17 would be amended by deleting 140 (3) and substituting:

"That where a matter is submitted to arbitration and the minister has not received a nomination to a salary arbitration board under section 2 by one of the parties by November 22 to appoint an arbitrator, the minister of Labour, on application of the other party shall, not later than November 27, appoint the arbitrator who shall, for the purposes of the Act, be deemed to be appointed by the party that failed to appoint an arbitrator. Where a chairman has not been appointed by December 7, the Minister of Labour shall appoint a chair man by December 10."

That's signed by myself.

I would like to have some expression from the minister as to whether or not he agrees with my interpretation of the Act and sees this. Perhaps this is the purpose, to allow one side to sort of frustrate the other side's appointment of their own arbitrator. If that is the purpose, then I suppose there would be no sense in my even trying to submit a remedy. But I don't think that is it. It's quite natural that when you change an Act.... And this is something I have dealt with, Mr. Chairman. I have been an advocate before in arbitration on a couple of occasions under this section of the School Act and I can't,

[ Page 2756 ]

for the life of me, imagine that this is the intention. I see the Minister of Labour is also reading.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, this amendment introduced by the Minister of Education is the result of lengthy discussions between officials of Education and Labour. And while the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) has identified a problem, he has not identified the entire problem. The existing legislation is ineffective, because it offers the opportunity of the same result, which the member has just referred to, of being frustrated by the actions of one of the parties. But it can also be frustrated by the actions of both of the parties if there is a failure to give the particular notice or make the requirement that the Act presently provides.

Therefore the member will note the amendment now makes it obligatory on the parties to notify the Minister of Education by November 22 of the appointment of a member, and on both parties to notify the minister by December 7 respecting the chairman. Failure to do so automatically brings into play the balance of the section on notice from the Minister of Education to the Minister of Labour. It doesn't depend upon some of the vagaries that may result from leaving it to one of the parties. As a matter of fact, we've only had two instances where parties - either by accident or otherwise - have found themselves in this situation.

The present legislation also does not take into account the possibility of delays or error in the communication, and this can be equally dangerous. Therefore this amendment is one that has been more carefully considered to cure this problem.

Now the member raised an interesting point as to whether or not, under this legislation, one party could frustrate the whole process or attempt to by failing to nominate. I think if you consider the penalty that may result from failure to nominate, this should be sufficient to deter anyone from attempting to act in that way. Anyway, they lose their right to nominate' a person of their choice and they are left with the possibility that the Minister of Labour may appoint someone who might be other than favourable to the person who doesn't nominate. Therefore I think that there is every encouragement for the parties to deal properly, as is their responsibility.

There is in the same amendment section 142 (l) , which is proposed, dealing with the salaries that are paid. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, that's where the difficulties have principally arisen. The parties can agree on persons, but the game-playing takes place with regard to how much money they're going to pay the chairman. This amendment likewise takes care of that problem.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm quite aware of some of the problems and I'm not discussing a matter with which I personally disagree, which is the further move toward entrenchment of zonal bargaining. I think that will create more problems than it will provide solutions. I'm just trying to relate, as 1 see it, a technical error here.

I'm not going to dispute the intention of this section or the intention of this change. But as I see it now, the teachers could technically prevent the school board, who has appointed its arbitrator, from having their choice sit as arbitrator. Or conversely, the boards could prevent the teachers' associations from having the person who they nominated as arbitrator; they could prevent that from happening.

It would then be up to the Minister of Labour, as an act of good faith, to recognize that one side had, indeed, appointed Mr. X and therefore say: "Well, that will fill part of the arbitration. We'll appoint Mr. X as an action of good faith, then I will appoint the other two positions - the chairman and the other side."

It does become an act of good faith of the Minister of Labour. I do think it should be spelled out, and if it will not be done, I would move the following amendment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the member has very clearly and lucidly explained the problem and the solution. We think that the legislation as it is presently presented will meet the problem that he describes. I think that any party, be he a representative of a board or of the teachers, who wants to play games with this opportunity that they are given will not gain from it.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'll accept this from the minister, but I would ask the minister to consider this problem, which I believe is a very serious one. At present, it would be a matter of good faith, one side having appointed and nominated Mr. X by the proper deadline, and the other side having failed to operate, that the minister should appoint that person.

I wouldn't want to see an amendment which I think is probably correct but which I drafted in about five minutes' time. I know the problems that can result when amendments drafted on the floor are accepted by the government

[ Page 2757 ]

side, when they're of any complexity whatever.

1 would ask the minister to give an undertaking that he would consider clarifying this in next year's legislative programme so that it could be spelled out, so that one side, having made a nomination, would be guaranteed that not just on good faith but under law.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, if these amendments provoke unsatisfactory practices from the parties, maybe the government will amend, but may I point out to the member that if one of the parties nominates a member for the allocation board and the other does not, then you absent both the second member and a chairman. Therefore we have left with the Minister of Labour the authority to appoint a single arbitrator, and that single arbitrator may be the person who has been selected, and that should be sufficient, I would think, to encourage the other party to take the opportunity which the statute provides.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask what the significance is of the change before January I in the new PSA section, 142 (2) .

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know. It gives you one more day.

HON. MR. McGEER: I think it had to do with Christmas week, and the problems that were occurring in meeting deadlines.

MR. COCKE: I just wanted to know the significance.

HON. M. MAIR: December 31 is my birthday. That's the significance.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

MR. KING: I think this is the Minister of Health's section, referring to the nurses. I'd just like a few words from the minister in terms of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would indicate on our list that 1 referred to earlier that it is being held by the Provincial Secretary.

MR. KING: It's a transfer of the RNs' jurisdiction. I would appreciate it if the Provincial Secretary could just expand on the section a little bit, and what the intent is.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Section 67 of the Public Service Act, as it now stands, sets out the jurisdiction of the public service adjudication board. It is this section of the Act, which, when the board commences its work, will define what that work will be. Under the section as it now stands, the government and the B.C. Government Employees Union have agreed that this is the board to arbitrate their disputes when the board becomes operational.

Article 9 in paragraph 901 of the collective agreement gives effect to that agreement on the utilization of the adjudication board. The collective agreement that I refer to is the one concluded late last year and now in force. This legislation will confirm and continue that appointment. In subsection 1 (a) , the bill before you re-enacts what is presently in sub-section 1 (c) , with this variation: the present provision was enacted with the words "subject to jurisdiction being conferred upon the board pursuant to a collective agreement as defined in the Public Service Labour Relations Act."

Those words are deleted and the subsection accordingly, by legislation, will confirm and continue the appointment of this board. I understand that the board is now ready to undertake its duties as defined in subsection 1 (a) . I might add, Mr. Chairman, that the B.C. Government Employees Union also have been in agreement and have assisted with the makeup of the board to which I refer.

I think I have given you sufficient information, unless you wish to have more.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move the amendment standing in the name of the Attorney-General, adding after section 19, new section 19.1 standing on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 19.1 approved.

Sections 20 to 23 inclusive approved.

On section 24.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, again I'm not going to inflame and incite the House by restating all of the arguments that have been put before the government with respect to the hypocrisy of repudiating the collective bargaining system by denying employees of Grown corporations the right to bargain collectively and issues relating to their superannuation plan, their pension plan and their long-term security. But I do have to comment when I find that the

[ Page 2758 ]

Workers' Compensation Board has been treated in this fashion by none other than the Minister of Labour under whose jurisdiction they reside. He happens to be the minister of the government responsible for the promotion of collective bargaining as the preferential vehicle for regulating the relationship between employers and employees in this province.

Maybe just once, briefly for the record, I would point out that collective bargaining is not some concept that the NDP has invented and supports in a unique fashion. Collective bargaining and the degree to which it is granted to workers in any nation is the hallmark upon which the United Nations adjudges the democratic process of institutions and government in different nations throughout the world. The World Council of Churches also measures the degree of democracy, the degree of freedom and the degree of progress in democratic society on the basis of the degree to which working people enjoy free collective bargaining. Free collective bargaining does not imply restraints upon the matters which are normally bargained for at the collective bargaining table, nor does it imply restrictions upon their right to withdraw their labour, should they not agree with the offers that are made in a market economy by their employer.

Here we have a Minister of Labour who is sworn by his very portfolio to uphold the concept of free collective bargaining as the preferential way for workers and Employers to regulate their relationship. It's true that sometimes there is conflict, but not always. The ideal is for conflict to be minimized and for good will and harmony to be developed. But unless you trust people to enter that process and be responsible for that process, then I say that the system will never grow in sophistication or responsibility.

The minister is, by this particular amendment, demonstrating his lack of confidence in free collective bargaining, indeed, his under lying contempt for the system and his mistrust of it, that will work to inflame the attitudes of working people throughout this province. Not just the workers of the Compensation Board, but all workers will look askance at this kind of measure and say: "Well, how secure are my rights under the collective bargaining regime when the Minister of Labour himself has no confidence in the system and no commitment to it?" It's a fact of life - and I want to say that this is not a viewpoint unique to the New Democratic Party - that this is a standard by which organizations that are certainly not partisan in any way measure the effectiveness and the freedom and the democratization of a nation. And for a Minister of Labour who used to be a Liberal, and who was involved in political machines that sloganeered on the basis that the "Land is Strong" and.... What was that other thing? What was Pierre Trudeau's, the Prime Minister's great slogan? Participatory democracy. He must have some pangs of conscience over this. Indeed he must, Mr. Chairman, because this is regressive, it's arbitrary, it's reactionary. Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the minister must be ashamed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, there is no need for me to repeat the remarks I made last night in debate on a similar matter under another section of this bill. It is not a denial of the rights of collective bargaining in this province. As a matter of fact, it is an attempt by this government to ensure that those rights which the workers have won through collective agreements are not lost through incautious actions which may arise during the activities of concluding collective agreements.

The steps to be taken by this government with respect to examination into matters of pension plans were clearly outlined yesterday, and I do not accept in any respect the comments from the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) .

Section 24 approved.

Section 25 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, there is some question whether I correctly called section 19, so I call it again. Shall section 19 pass?

Section 19 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 40, Statutes Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

[ Page 2759 ]

Hon. Mr. Wolfe files answer to question 40. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. Nielsen files the annual report of the Ministry of the Environment for the year ended December 31,1977.

Mr. Bawtree from the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture presented two reports, which were taken as read and received.

MR. SPEAKER: I have received a message for all hon. members, and I think you'll welcome this:

"On behalf of all of the Pages from Victoria Catholic independent high schools, we would like to extend our sincere thanks. During the past three months we have gained not only a greater knowledge of the government, but we have gained many new friends too. We have been given a job opportunity and very much kindness and understanding. For this we sincerely thank you. Enjoy the summer." It is signed by the the St. Andrew's legislative Pages.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Just before closing the House, I'm sure that the Speaker will respond to the Pages on behalf of all members of the House. I think that would be suitable.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

[ Page 2760 ]

APPENDIX

18 The Hon. R. H. McClelland to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 18) intituled Heroin Treatment Act to amend as follows:

Section 1:

(a) by inserting the following definition after the definition of "commission": "court" means the Supreme Court; ,

(b) in the definition of "dependency" by deleting "psychic" and substituting "psychological", and

(c) in the definition of "narcotic" by inserting "that is prescribed by regulation" after "morphine-like properties".

Section 3: (a) by deleting subsections (I ) and (2) and substituting the following:

"3. (1) The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall compile for each area co-ordinating centre a list of persons consisting of medical practitioners, psychologists registered under the Psychologists Act and other persons who shall be eligible to sit on an evaluation panel, and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall designate one person on the list to act as chairman and one as vice-chairman of the evaluation panel.

" (2) An evaluation panel shall be formed at the call of the chairman or vice-chairman from the list referred to in subsection (1) and shall have a membership of at least 2 medical practitioners and one other member, and may, but need not, include the chairman or vice-chairman designated under subsection (1) ."

By deleting section 4 and substituting the following:

"4. (1 ) Where a person attends at an area co-ordinating centre for examination, an evaluation panel for the area co-ordinating centre shall forthwith conduct a medical and psychological examination of him and may detain him for a period of 72 hours, or such lesser time as the director in charge of the area co-ordinating centre orders.

" (2) Within 60 hours after a person is admitted to an area co-ordinating centre for examination, the evaluation panel shall report in writing to the director in charge of the area co-ordinating centre as to whether the person is or is not in need of treatment for narcotic dependency and where, in its opinion, treatment is needed, make recommendations to the director respecting the treatment.

" (3) In an examination of a person under this Section 1t is not necessary for all the members of the evaluation panel to personally examine him, nor is it necessary for those members who examine him to be all present at the same time, and in forming their opinion and making their report and recommendations under this section they may rely on analyses and tests carried out at the direction of a member of the evaluation panel by an employee of the commission or another person.

" (4) The director in charge of an area co-ordinating centre shall forthwith on its receipt give a person examined a copy of the report and of any recommendations made by the evaluation panel.

" (5) Where a person examined consents in writing to treatment, the director in charge of an area co-ordinating centre may commit him to treatment forthwith without an application to the court.

" (6) Where the members sitting as the evaluation panel have unanimously reported that a person examined is in need of treatment and the person is not committed under subsection (5) , the director in charge of the area co-ordinating centre shall apply to the court for an order declaring that the person is in need of treatment for narcotic dependency.

[ Page 2761 ]

APPENDIX

" (7) Notice stating the time and place of the application shall be served personally on the person who is the subject of the application.

" (8) On ex parte application, the court may

(a) grant an exemption from the requirement to serve notice under subsection (7) , or

(b) direct who shall be served with notice and the manner of service, including substituted service.

" (9) Where on hearing an application under this section the court is satisfied that the person is in need of treatment for narcotic dependency, it shall commit him for treatment.

" (10) In proceedings under this section

(a) a certificate signed by the director in charge of the area co-ordinating centre that he gave a copy of the report and any recommendations of the evaluation panel to the person examined is prima facie proof of that fact without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed the certificate, and

(b) a copy of the report and of any recommendations of the evaluation panel, signed by a member of the panel, is evidence of the statements contained in it, without proof of the signature or the official character of the person appearing to have signed the copy."

By deleting section 8, and substituting:

"8. An appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from an order of the court under section 4."

Section 12:

By deleting "section 4 (3) (a) , but he shall have no right of appeal under section 8." and substituting "section 4 (9) , but he has no right of appeal under this Act."

40 The Hon. G. B, Gardom to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 40) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 to amend as follows:

By inserting the following as section 7. 1:

"71. The Gas Act is amended in sections 2 and 3 (b) by striking out '690 kPa' wherever it appears and substituting '700 kPa'."

Section [6: By deleting "three thousand feet" and substituting "three hundred feet".

Section [9: By adding the following section after section [9:

"19.1 Section 12 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act is repealed and the following substituted:

"Exclusions from collective agreement

"12. (1) A collective agreement concluded under section 9 or 10 may exclude from its application certain employees or classes of employees.

" (2) Employees or classes of employees to be excluded from the collective agreement may be determined by negotiation between the par-ties, but where the parties are unable to agree, either party may refer the matter to the board for a final and binding decision.

" (3) In making its decision under subsection (2) the board shall exclude those employees or classes of employees who are

(a) employed to exercise the functions, and do exercise the functions, of a manager or superintendent in the direction or control of employees, or

(b) employed in a confidential planning or advisory position in the development of management policy for the Government, or

(c) employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations or personnel."

[ Page 2762 ]

APPENDIX

43 Mr. Gibson asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

Pages 14 and 15 of the 1977 Budget include the following quote:

"Administrative costs have become extremely high in comparison with benefits paid. During 1974-the last year for which results are available-all levels of government in Canada spent a total of $23.3 billion on some of the most obvious income distribution schemes; such as federal Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplement, family allowance, unemployment insurance and Canada Pension programs and the comprehensive Provincial GAIN program. This is equal to the total Output of the three prairie provinces combined, or one and one-half times the production of the entire British Columbia economy. However, the disturbing thing is that out of every $100 paid out in benefits, another $25 must be paid out in administration."

How did the Minister arrive at the figure of $25 in administrative costs for every $100 in benefits?

The Hon. E. M. Wolfe replied as follows:

"The information was based upon internal B.C. Government analysis in December 1976. A review was conducted on income redistribution programs from all levels of Government based on data available for selected publications of Statistics Canada, Public Accounts Canada, and Unemployment Insurance Commission from 1973 to 1975. The analysis indicated that in 1974 on a Canada-wide basis, administration costs for implementing income redistribution programs amounted to approximately one-fifth of the total benefits paid; that is, for every $100 paid out in benefits, an additional $25 is absorbed in administration."

40 Mr. Skelly asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

With respect to lands purchased by B.C. Hydro and Power Authority in the Peace River Valley in areas to be affected by the proposed Site C dam-

1. What is the legal description of each parcel purchased?
2. What is the area of each parcel purchased?
3. What is the name of the owner of each parcel purchased?
4. What is the price paid by B.C. Hydro for each parcel?
5. What is the lease rate for each parcel leased back and the name of the lessor of each parcel purchased by B.C. Hydro?

The Hon. E. M. Wolfe (Minister of Finance) stated that, in his opinion the reply should be in the form of a return and that he had no objection to laying such return upon the table of the House, and thereupon presented such return.