1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page

3809 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Police Act (Bill 91). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3809

Mr. Smith — 3811

Mr. Curtis — 3814

Mr. Cummings — 3817

Mr. Fraser — 3818

Mr. Dent — 3819

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3819

Mr. McGeer — 3820

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3821

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3824

Division on second reading — 3825

Mineral Royalties Act (Bill 31). Second reading.

On the amendment to postpone second reading.

Mr. McGeer — 3826

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move that we

proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 91, Mr.

Speaker.

POLICE ACT

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, in

introducing Bill 91, I want to say just a few words. It's a

small bill. It is a bill that is crowded with sunshine because

we've opened up to public view and let the sunshine in on the

hearings and sittings of boards of police commissioners in the

municipalities and in the New B.C. Police Commission that is

created by this bill.

I want to say a few words about the bill, if I'm not out of

order. I think it's very important that we recognize the value

of police services in a rapidly changing society, the changing

nature of their role. We have therefore over a period of time,

as a result of studies, established conferences and commissions

and studies — beginning in 1971, as a matter of fact — that

have led to this present enactment.

Wherever we have proceeded in terms of preparing for the

kind of actions we are taking we have consulted organizations

as disparate as the Civil Liberties Union, the Royal Canadian

Mounted Police, the B.C. police chiefs' organization, the B.C.

Union of Indian Chiefs and the non-status Indians and all of

those groups.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Since the Hon. Member has interjected,

let me say that there has been very little in the way of

canards about this bill in the community. But there are a few

things that I would like to set straight.

I'd like to set straight that it's got nothing to do with

the new sheriff service which will be provided by the

Attorney-General's department. It has nothing to do with that

whatsoever. That is not to be in any way a police force, or

carry out police functions in terms of police work as such.

They are officers of the court; they will serve the court. They

haven't ordered a lot of ammunition; they haven't ordered a lot

of guns. So I would like to put that kind of rumour at

rest.

They haven't ordered specially equipped cars or that kind of

thing. They haven't ordered truncheons and they haven't ordered

jackboots. They are officers of the court who will be relieving

police officers, it's true, in their court duties, in their

lockup duties and in the transporting-of-prisoner duties for

further service in our communities where the police officer is

trained and badly needed in those communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: How many what? Oh, the sheriffs' force

which was not under the bill. We would anticipate that it would

at some time be 200 or more possibly — less than 300, I would

say, but 200.

Hon. Members should appreciate that there are not going to

be 200 right away. It's a matter of training. It's a matter of

finding the personnel and it's a matter of integrating these

new officers into the court service. That will take time. I

would think we've had our first class so far as the sheriffs'

officers are concerned. It has been fairly small — I think

about 35. So there will be time involved here.

We're facing under this bill the opportunity to develop

minimum standards for the selection and training of police

officers, to assist in the coordination of the work of police

forces in this province, to determine the adequacy of police

services in the various communities of British Columbia. I am

amazed as Attorney-General — as I'm sure other people would be — at the difficulty of appraising the adequacy of these police

services.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right. Because there's a whole

body of data that we don't have in terms of the provision of

police services. We don't want to over-police, because that

leads to confrontation. It isn't the wish of police forces or

anybody else that we should over-police an area. I'm talking

particularly about the rural areas. But we don't want to

under-police either, subject to whatever financial disabilities

we have and the ability to train people.

We find that there are officers in some of the rural

communities in British Columbia today that are putting in long

hours of overtime because they have a detachment with seven or

eight men and a population of 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 people

to service. So we have to gather and study the adequacy of

police services in the community.

We are concerned about the question of civilian complaints

against the police, and we believe that a proper forum where

these complaints can be heard — and, I stress, heard in public

hearing — is in the interest of not only that person who feels

that his

[ Page 3810 ]

rights have been abused by police action, but is in the

interests of the police officer who today in many cases is

subjected to rumour and accusations without a chance to defend

his position, except perhaps by trying to give a press

interview, which is something rather new in the field of police

relations.

There will be no intention under this Act of phasing out the

RCMP in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Can we have that in writing?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would point out that the RCMP contract

has recently been signed and they go on for a further two-year

period up to March 31, 1976. That is the term in which the

federal government…. This is the federal terms that we have

just renewed. Now there'll be no intention on the part of the

Province of British Columbia to make a change in what is a

favourable financial formula and favourable police

services.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In 1976. But I would point out to

Members that the contracts do come up there at that time. There

are the suggestions from Quebec and Ontario that they are being

unfairly treated in terms of the financial formula. So I

suppose that negotiations, in terms of that financial formula — which is favourable to us and I don't want to give it at the

present time — might be undertaken in 1975. But as far as this

government is concerned, we're happy with the services that are

being provided, and we think that the choice as to whether it

should be municipal or RCMP should be at the local level.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll come to the studies we're making. I

would list some of the matters that are already under

consideration by the B.C. Police Commission, even though it has

not been established by this Legislature….

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …that this Legislature did in its

wisdom confer upon my department through the Justice

Development Committee. So we're able to do some advance

planning even before the commission is formed. We held our

conferences in terms of leading up to it. I want to pay a lot

of tribute to Dr. John Hogarth in terms of the planning that

has gone into the preparation of this legislation and the work

they will be conducting.

But the task forces that are already beginning to consider

their work I'll list very briefly.

MR. FRASER: How many task forces?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Six.

First, we've got training and manpower development, because

the quality of training of police officers in a rapidly

changing society is very important. We have the services in

this field of Inspector Bob Stewart, who is of the Vancouver

City Police. He was for a long time with the B.C. Federation of

Police Officers and is a well-respected police officer who is

taking an active

part in terms of training and manpower

development.

Assisting him as consultant will be a former bobby who has

become a professor — namely Professor Alan Grant, now of

Osgoode Hall, who is an expert in these matters. He was

formerly with the metropolitan London police force.

We'll be thinking in terms of a range of educational

institutions that could be used, from BCIT to Simon Fraser

University to community colleges. There will also be included

in this area management-development courses as well — including

the subject of police-community relations.

Secondly, a task force will be undertaken, I believe by

Assistant Commissioner Gordon Cunningham, to examine the whole

area of developing minimum standards of policing in the

Province of British Columbia in terms of the selection of

officers, their training, their equipment, their rank and

promotion opportunities and matters of that kind.

Thirdly, there will be a consideration of the kind of role

that police perform in the community. I would point out to the

House that today 80 per cent of the complaints that come into a

police station relate to non-criminal matters. They relate to

things that are basically in many cases within the realm of the

Department of Human Resources or other departments of

government.

Yet the police have to serve as intake officers, because

they're the front line in terms of receiving these complaints

and referring them out. The police role should not be that of a

social worker; nevertheless there has to be training. Theirs is

crime prevention and detection. Nevertheless, they have to be

knowledgeable in the kind of human problems where the complaint

arrives on the desk of the police officer.

Fourth: we are looking at the role of women in police

forces. We believe there should be career opportunities open to

women in the police forces of the province, not only the

municipal forces, but also the RCMP. We believe, apart from the

role they can play in police work itself, that they have a

special relationship, a special job to do, in terms of women

offenders, and in terms of women, the victims of

[ Page 3811 ]

crime.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): That's

happening.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's happening because of the

government, and only because of this government in the

province. Absolutely. We have established….

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, things are happening in this

province, Hon. Member, even before you pass this bill.

We have been able to obtain from Toronto Inspector Fern

Alexander, the highest ranking woman police officer in Canada,

to help as a consultant in terms of this work.

Fifth: we are concerned not only with the police function on

Indian reserves and the recruitment of Indians as police

officers on, I may say, and this is the policy of this

officers even though they may perform special functions in

terms of Indian reserves. We have some under the RCMP at the

present time and we intend to expand the role of native Indian

citizens particularly in areas where the population of native

Indians is predominant. Through our commission and with the

help of Chief Don Winterton of the Vancouver City Police Force,

we expect to see in the City of Vancouver a priority placed

upon recruitment of constables from minority groups in the City

of Vancouver. I include not only the native Indian people but

also, let's say, the East Indian community where there have

been problems in terms of law enforcement and protection of

these particular groups.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It could happen and will happen.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but the vehicle must be set up. I'm

surprised at the reactionary attitude of that Member who thinks

these things can happen without setting up any kind of a

vehicle in this Legislature to conduct the research and to

spark the developments that I'm talking about.

MR. CURTIS: Oh, sure. Nobody can do it but you.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Sixth: we will be conducting planning and there

will be a task force to analyze trends in crime on a provincial, regional and

local basis, and the kind of police response there has been to crime across

the province, and the impact of police activity on the number of cases going

to court or the cases that are diverted to community-based resources.

The whole question of crime prevention and detection has

been an area where we have not had the data or the studies.

We've just been, as it were, staggering from one problem to

another and waiting for the thing to happen before we think in

terms of prevention. There has been no attempt to analyse the

kinds of offences we're dealing with so that we can think in

terms of prevention and the kind of social programmes which can

lead to crime prevention.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, this is the bill — and throughout all

our task forces there is full cooperation, not only with the

B.C. Peace Officers Federation….

MR. CURTIS: You hope.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, let me say this to the Hon.

Member, because he's spoken up in this way and he's spoken up

before, I hope he does not…. I don't know whether he was in

the House when I laid to rest certain rumours….

MR. CURTIS: I was.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I hope the Hon. Member does not, without

checking the facts, repeat those things because some of the

things… They are just opinions expressed by a very small

group, or one or two people, and some of them are quite false.

You know, when you are embarking on this kind of programme,

which is of such importance to the community of British

Columbia, it's very important that we do so on a rational basis

and that we as legislators do not attempt in any way to panic

people, as on a few occasions has been done in this

province.

Talking about special police forces, that it's not really a

sheriff's force, it's really going to be a new police force and

we've got specially equipped police cars and this kind of thing

- I say that that kind of talk is destructive of the best

interests of the Province of British Columbia, and I hope it

will not be repeated in this Legislature without some

foundation of fact.

Mr. Speaker, I've spent a little time on the bill, not as

much, perhaps, as I should because I think it's an important

bill. I have pleasure now in moving second reading of this

bill.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I certainly agree with

the final comments of the Attorney-General in moving second

reading of this bill, that it is a very important bill, one of

the most

[ Page 3812 ]

important in many aspects to come before this Legislature

Assembly this session. There he and I, perhaps,

part company to

a certain extent, and I'm about to tell the Attorney-General

why.

It's been said by the Attorney-General that, really, this

was just a simple re-enactment of the Police Act which was

there on the books in the statutes of the Province of British

Columbia. Really that's not true because it is a new Act. I'm

glad the Attorney-General nods his head and agrees that this is

a completely new Act.

Certainly it's moving into the field of one of the most

touchy situations and the one that affects people more than

anything else, a very sensitive area with respect to the average

life of persons in the Province of British Columbia. I have to

say, Mr. Attorney-General, that there's a fair amount of

apprehension among the people of the province as to what your

actual goal is. I think you deserve to take the full brunt of

that apprehension because in this Act there are powers which

you can exercise without referral back to the Members of this

Legislative Assembly which does give you the power to create a

special police force within the Province of British

Columbia.

Regardless of how you might wish to walk around and tiptoe

around that particular aspect of the Act, it's there. It might

not be serious if we didn't see a number of other Acts in the

Province of British Columbia with many of the same provisions.

There are powers there, excessive powers, and the

Attorney-General knows that. They are there in matters of other

Acts which we have debated in this House.

It would seem to me that the total intent of the present NDP

government is to pass Acts in this Legislature which, when they

become law, will remove from the people, who are the elected

Members of the Legislative Assembly, the rights or the power to

do anything with respect to the direction that you wish to go

because you can do it then by your appointed commissions and

orders-in-council.

I agree that the Attorney-General will not initially or quickly phase out the

RCMP in the Province of British Columbia, and there's a very good reason for

that — you can't do without them right now. You can't do without them right

now because they are the only large nucleus of well trained enforcement officers

that you can call upon at this particular time. But that does not mean, Mr.

Attorney-General, that you will not have in two years time a body of provincial

sheriffs who could become the nucleus of the, then, new provincial police force,

and have them trained to the extent that you can slowly but surely, before the

next contract comes up for renewal with the RCMP, phase them out as the law

enforcement officers in the Province of British Columbia. It's there and you

can do it without doing anything more than exercising the powers that you have

given to yourself in section (16) of this Act — where we deal with the special

agreements or the agreements between the government and the RCMP.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That was in the previous Act — you've

got to do better than that.

MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Attorney-General, all the provisions were

not in that previous Act, you know that as well as I do.

There's nothing to prevent you from coming up with the type of

agreement that it would be impossible for the RCMP to live with

or to sign.

At that point you will turn to the public of British

Columbia and say: "Well, we have had no choice; we have to set

up our own provincial police force. Thank goodness we now have

the nucleus of that force in the sheriffs I was far-sighted

enough to appoint in the Province of British Columbia. It just

so happens that we do have a number of well-trained peace

officers now who can become the nucleus of our new provincial

police force."

It's there, Mr. Attorney-General, and you know it as well as

I do.

There's a feeling of unrest among the people of the

province, and with good reason. They've seen too many of the

other Acts you have passed in this House, and this follows the

same pattern for the Province of British Columbia. You have the

power there and you also delegate the authority of this Act to

an appointed commission.

It would seem to me that the appointments could be made on a

political basis. I'm not saying they will be, but it certainly

is possible, The Attorney-General must agree that it is

possible to make those appointments strictly on a political

basis. It wouldn't be the first time, Mr. Attorney-General,

that we have witnessed appointments of people to positions of

authority and power in this province that have been made

strictly on the basis of political preference. It has happened

before in the last 18 months and it certainly can happen

again.

I know the B.C. Federation of Peace Officers of the province

are concerned about the total ramifications of the Act and

they've expressed that concern to the Attorney-General, both by

meeting with him and by written brief to the

Attorney-General.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: This is a favourite ploy of the Members of

government now. Whenever a Minister gets into a corner, he

says: "Well, we've called on the public. We've called upon the

people of the province who are most interested in law

enforcement and

[ Page

3813 ]

they' ve helped us to write the Act."

Well, it may be true that they h ave given you ideas and

suggestions. It does not follow, Mr. Attorney-General, that you

have any intentions of following those ideas or suggestions. By

the very sections and subsections of this Act where you perhaps

on the surface go along with those suggestions initially, you

turn around and make it possible after the Act is passed to

completely circumvent any of those ideas or suggestions by

order-in-council or by direction to an appointed board or

commission. You know it, and so do I.

There is good reason for people to be apprehensive, even

though most of the people who do view this with apprehension

say quite openly and frankly that there are areas of law

enforcement in the Province of British Columbia which need

revision and change. But there is a great deal of difference

between revision and change and bringing into the Province of

British Columbia a state police force. There's a great deal of

difference.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't believe that.

MR. SMITH: There's a great deal of difference.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't believe that, do you?

MR. SMITH: The power is there….

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the

power is there, Mr. Premier, if you wish to exercise it. The

power is there.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're not saying that that's what we

intend to do.

MR. SMITH: I say at the present time you've renewed the

contract with the RCMP for two years.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not saying that we intend to create a

state police force….

MR. SMITH: Time will tell what your real intention is under

this Act. If I do nothing more than express to the

Attorney-General the apprehension of some people in the

Province of British Columbia, in growing numbers, then I have

accomplished a well worthwhile purpose on the floor of this

House this evening, Mr. Attorney-General.

That apprehension is there and it's there because of the

manner in which the Act is written. It's there because

excessive power is available through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council after the Act is passed. It's

there for the Attorney-General to exercise if he wishes to

direct the appointed board which will administer this Act.

I'm all in favour of taking a fresh look at law enforcement

in the Province of British Columbia and updating some of our

processes because this is a constant problem in every

jurisdiction in Canada. I think all of us must be concerned not

only about the enforcement of law but the image of the police

force generally in the minds of the public. There has been a

tendency on the part of some individuals to berate the force

for no justifiable reason. There is also a tendency in law

today to greatly reduce the power of those people who are

supposed to represent law and order, not only in this province

but in all parts of Canada. I think this is perhaps impairing

them in a job which they would like to perform for the average

law-abiding citizens in this province.

There are areas the Attorney-General should look into and

suggest improvements. But I say to you this evening if it is

your desire and your decision to exercise fully the powers

vested in you as the chief law enforcement officer of this

province under this Act, then you can do almost anything you

desire between yourself and the commission you appoint.

It is a very important bill and a number of people feel we

need a greater explanation than we've had so far. It's not good

enough to say you wish to let a little sunshine in. It's not

good enough to say that some of the recommendations in here are

from the Law Reform Commission, the B.C. Federation of Peace

Officers and all the other law enforcement bodies of the

Province of British Columbia. It's not good enough to try to

gloss over, in 10 or 15 minutes of debate in opening this

particular bill, some of the sections of the Act that give you

extensive powers. I think you owe more than that as the chief

law enforcement officer to the people of this province.

I would say that in closing the debate you should certainly

say in clear and unequivocal terms what your real intention is

with respect to the future of the RCMP and the law enforcement

body in the Province of British Columbia and what your real

intention is with the rules you have made in the general

overhaul of the judicial system in the Province of British

Columbia and what the real goal is with respect to the removal

of the duties that we were elected to perform from the

Legislative Assembly by passing Acts which put those powers in

the hands of appointed commissions or the Attorney-General

through passing Orders-in-council.

There is a need for….

AN HON. MEMBER: A straight answer.

MR. SMITH: Yes. We'll get the answer.

We must go through this bill

section by section, as

[ Page 3814 ]

the Attorney-General well knows.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: No. We'll discuss it in committee a

section at a

time, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. BARRETT: By that time you hope you'll find

something.

MR. SMITH: It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the

only answers we have so far from the Attorney-General or from

the Premier himself is ridicule. If that is their concept of

law enforcement in the Province of British Columbia we're

really worse off than I even suspected in this province.

I say the power is there, but you'll be doing a great

disservice to the Province of British Columbia if you exercise

that power to its fullest extent. That's not what we want in

this province. We want proper law enforcement.

We want the assurance of the Attorney-General that we will

update and modernize where we have to and that in the final

analysis the protection of the people of this province and

their property will be the main concern of the Attorney-General

and this government. Until we get that assurance many people,

including ourselves in the official opposition, will look with

great reservation on the provisions of this particular Act.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to

participate in this debate on second reading of Bill 91. I want

to assure you, and through you the Attorney-General, that I

have no intention of indulging in scare tactics or extremism to

allow people around the province to get the wrong impression of

what precisely is intended by this bill.

Nevertheless, I feel that it is important — it is vital, in

fact — for me to make a number of points and to do so with a

feeling of constructive comment, constructive criticism, to

point out some of the dangers which a number of us see in this

particular legislation.

I hope that the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker, is fully in

control of all the task forces, commissions and other

organizations and bodies which he has permitted to be

established or which he has in fact established since he

assumed the role as chief law enforcement officer of British

Columbia. If he is not, then he is an individual who will be

faced with a runaway vehicle, with something which I think all

of us have sincerely hoped would never come to British

Columbia: that is, a Ministry of Police.

I think there is a danger, if I interpret all that is possible within the legislation

and if others who have reviewed it with me are correct in their

interpretation,

that this province at some time in the future — not necessarily under this Attorney-General,

but with this law in the statute books — could have a new Ministry separate

and distinct from the Attorney-General's department.

One of the obvious consequences, of course, is an increased

burden to the taxpayer — that would be self-evident — and

increased paper load and increased work load imposed on many

already overloaded, understaffed major police departments.

Experience, I think, shows that whenever and wherever

governments create new systems, new structures, new

departments, naturally vast quantities of paper and detail work

follow. Even to move the paper from one desk to another desk

requires considerably more manpower — or I may say

"personpower."

Does the Attorney-General fully appreciate — and I believe

he does not — the power which is lodged within this Act — the

power to set up separate organizations, undercover agencies,

and in fact — I hesitate to use the term — police forces within

police forces?

I hope that in closing debate on second reading the

Attorney-General will tell us about the JFO, the Joint Forces

Organization, that he will tell us precisely what the

provincial police commission is doing. He's admitted that it is

already functioning.

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: He doesn't know what the JFO is.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: UFOs.

MR. CURTIS: JFO. It's not unidentified. JFO, Mr.

Speaker.

If he doesn't know, then our worst fears, the fears

expressed by the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), the

fears which I am sure will be expressed by other Members on

this side of the House, will be in some respects justified.

We want to know why there is this determination to

centralize police organization in British Columbia, whether it

be under the aegis of the RCMP or, as the previous speaker has

indicated, a provincial police force. It follows, of course, on

the basis of previous experience with this government, that

there is this tendency to centralization. But, with the

exception of some lack of co-ordination, Mr. Speaker, what is

wrong with the basic police establishments which we now have

and which, as far as I'm concerned, have functioned effectively

and efficiently and in the best interest of the majority of

citizens?

The Minister indicated that one of the beneficial aspects of

this legislation will be the introduction of minority groups

into the police forces. As I said in an interjection, we don't

need Bill 91 to achieve that. That has been happening in the

province.

[ Page 3815 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, sir. It hasn't been happening.

MR. CURTIS: Well, with respect, Mr. Attorney-General through

you, Mr. Speaker, it has been happening.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It hasn't been happening.

MR. CURTIS: Is has been happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: Show us, right now.

MR. CURTIS: Well, if you wish names….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Do you want a division on this

or will you address the Chair?

MR. CURTIS: If the Attorney-General wishes names, I'll be

happy to provide them to him at any time. Minority groups are

represented, perhaps not as far as the Attorney-General would

wish. But we didn't need an NDP government to introduce

minority group representation in police departments in British

Columbia. It started some time ago.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Name names.

MR. CURTIS: I'll name names very happily, but not in second

reading debate. I fear that the Attorney-General may have been

a party to creating a monster in Bill 91 which he will be

unable to control. I think there is a very real possibility

that this bill will lead us to the establishment of

behind-the-scenes police organizations which none of us want,

with the spectre of political intrigue at some time in the

future.

What concerns me more than anything else, I think, is the

removal of the control of police departments — I'm speaking of

city and municipal police departments — from the local

community in which they serve. Because the main thrust of this

bill without question and beyond doubt is centralization, as I

indicated just a few moments ago.

I am somewhat disappointed that a number of locally elected

people have not realized this since the bill was first

introduced. A few have wakened to the fact; one of them, the

mayor of New Westminster, Mr. Evers, has expressed concern

publicly and privately. He has pointed out that the present

setup as far as police commissions are concerned — the mayor

with one appointee from the provincial government and one by

city council; not an alderman or member of council — has

provided an efficient and effective administrative body for

many years.

Mayor Evers goes on to say that the proposed increase to five could prove cumbersome,

and that the majority appointees over the city does indicate an erosion of civic

authority — an erosion of civic authority, where traditionally the control and

jurisdiction for police departments has rested.

Mayor Evers goes on in his letter to say that every city has

its own problems and should have majority say on how they

should be controlled. If it is the desire of the provincial

government to enlarge the board, why not have two appointees

from each level, plus the mayor as chairman?

A very important aspect of this bill is the reduction of

authority and control at the city or municipal level with the

introduction of a provincial police commission. I submit, Mr.

Speaker, that that is at the very least, undesirable.

Now the B.C. Federation of Peace Officers has been

mentioned. The reading which the Attorney-General gets from

their comments and the reading which I have are not completely

compatible.

I think that policemen in this province — municipal policemen

in particular — can be forgiven for questioning much of the

content of Bill 91, but at the same time they would agree with,

they recognize the need for, and have indeed spoken in favour

of standardization of training, standardization of equipment,

standardization of recruitment, training facilities and all

that goes with that. But they are, I feel, justified in asking:

have those individuals who drafted this legislation studied in

depth the importance of local control of local or municipal

police departments?

Not every community in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, should

be patterned on the experience of Vancouver city or

metropolitan Toronto. I think that is essential to the

discussion in second reading on Bill 91. Not all the problems

which police experience are to be duplicated in a metropolitan

situation.

I think it is also important to refer to the United States

briefly in connection with this bill. The United States in the

1960s, Mr. Speaker, wakened to the fact that crime had become a

national menace and that many of their law enforcement bodies

were entirely inadequate or incompetent to cope with so-called

big crime. A detailed study was undertaken and in 1967 — I

emphasize the year 1967 — a report known as the "President's

Commission on law Enforcement and Administration of Justice"

was compiled — a massive document examining many aspects of

police, policing and the community. Insofar as I'm aware, Mr.

Speaker, little or no research was done outside the United

States, but the report was extremely comprehensive relative to

the American problem and I'm going to quote from it for just a

few moments.

Under grievances of citizens, as an example, and I

paraphrase from the President's Commission:

"The best way to deal with police misconduct is to prevent it by effective

[ Page 3816 ]

methods of personnel screening, training and supervision.

However, there will always be some citizen's complaints,

warranted and unwarranted, about treatment by the police.

"Formal machinery within every police department for the

investigation of complaints against police activity or

employees is an absolute necessity. It's also important that a

complainant be personally informed of the results. And if the

complainant remains dissatisfied with the disposition of the

case, there are other avenues of appeal outside of the police

agency — the local prosecutor, the Courts, elected officials

or the Attorney-General."

I continue to quote:

"While all of these are traditional institutions of legal

redress, they are frequently too formal, awesome or

geographically far removed from the bewildered citizen. Some of

them lack the resources to process grievances. Some can take

action only if the criminal law has been violated."

And still quoting:

"In going beyond the established legal procedures, the

commission finds it unreasonable to single out the police as

the only agency that should be subject to special scrutiny from

the outside. The commission therefore does not recommend the

establishment of civilian review boards in jurisdictions where

they do not exist solely to review police conduct,

"The police are only one of a number of official agencies

with whom the public has contact, and in some cases because

they are the most visible and conspicuous representatives of

local government, they may be the focus of more attention than

they deserve."

The President's Commission, Mr. Speaker, concludes with this

particular section:

"The commission recommends: every jurisdiction should

provide adequate procedures for full and fair processing of all

citizen grievances and complaints about the conduct of any

public officer or employee."

It's recognized, Mr. Speaker, that most of the larger Canadian municipal police

forces and, I believe, the RCMP have generally adequate internal disciplinary

procedures and codes for investigating complaints against their members. Frequently

a policeman will be dealt with more severely by his force than would a citizen

for committing a similar offence. If we could just look at the RCMP system of

investigation of complaints against its members, the orderly room or

summary

court proceedings were upheld by the Supreme Court in 1953 after a member had

appealed his conviction by the presiding RCMP officers. That was known as the

White case.

I further quote, if I may, Mr. Speaker, from an

article by

Professor James Q. Wilson of Harvard, who is a former director

of the Harvard MIT Joint Centre for Urban Studies. In writing

on the subject of police reform, he says, and again I

paraphrase slightly:

"The rise of demands for community control of various public

services, including the police and schools, has placed the

problem of order on the political agenda.

"Whether the problems of managing disorder can best be

handled by turning city governments over to neighbourhood

groups is a complicated question. Provisionally I would argue

that the war becomes more, not less, likely when a political

system is Balkanized.

"The current anxiety about crime in the streets continues to

lead some to define the police task as wholly or chiefly one of

crime deterrents. This is unfortunate, not because this problem

cannot be left solely or even primarily to the police, acting

as if it could raise false hopes among the citizens and place

unfair and distorted demands on the police.

"At least as much attention to the courts and correctional

systems will be necessary. Crime deterrents and law

enforcements require or are facilitated by specialization,

strong authority, improved mobility and communication, clarity

in legal codes and arrest procedures, high standards of

integrity and the avoidance of entangling alliances with

politicians."

Quoting from Professor James Wilson:"… the avoidance of entangling alliances with politicians."

Some of us see Bill 91 as laying the foundation for the

re-establishment of a provincial police force, and the previous

speaker has already referred to that. Whether this is good or

not, depends a lot upon one's viewpoint. I submit, Mr. Speaker,

that it depends upon the motivation behind such a move

politically as to whether or not such action is in the best

interests of the public in terms of costs and efficiency.

Again, there are some good features about the bill,

particularly in the realm of public police relationship, the

handling of grievances.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there may be those on the other side

of the House who will see any criticism of Bill

91 as a law-and-order speech. That is not why I am on my feet

tonight. I'm concerned.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What's the reverse of that?

MR. CURTIS: Well, I indicate law and order in the

unfortunate sense, as has been used elsewhere and I think the

Attorney-General knows what I mean.

[ Page 3817 ]

I had a number of years as the chairman of a municipal

police commission, recognizing the importance of maintaining a

strong and responsible force, growing year by year as the

community grew, aware of the occasional shortcomings of

individuals in the police department, shortcomings with which

we dealt, with which we were certainly capable of dealing.

Discipline was used when it was necessary, but we saw this as a

municipal police department responsible to the municipality

within the framework of existing provincial and federal

statutes.

What is proposed in Bill 91 is the centralization and the

resultant weakening of that municipal community-police

relationship. This is what distresses me most about the

proposal.

Again, I have to ask if the Attorney-General really, clearly

understands the monster that he may have let loose in British

Columbia and I say "may." Is he aware of the task forces? Does

he have them fully under control as a responsible, elected

official in B.C.? Are they under your thumb? I hope so.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh! Well, this other Member thought I

was controlling too much. You say I'm controlling too little.

You're supposed to be a united party.

MR. CURTIS: I'm speaking of the task forces. The

Attorney-General knows full well that is my reference. I hope

he has them under control.

One of the excuses used for this is the need to put together

a super-force or to control major crime — crimebusters. The

drug situation obviously looms large in discussions relating to

Bill 91 and what the Attorney-General is attempting to do. But

I submit the centralization indicated in this bill is not

necessary in order to combat the drug menace in British

Columbia.

In the greater Victoria area the Attorney-General knows, I

hope, that there is a drug squad with members drawn from more

than one municipal police department as well as from the RCMP.

They work as a team. They are able to move freely from

municipality or community to community with no problems

respecting boundaries or jurisdiction. We don't need Bill 91 to

strengthen them.

What is good for metropolitan Toronto and metropolitan

Vancouver may not be in the best interests of the smaller

communities of British Columbia where many of our citizens

live.

I hope the Attorney-General, when he concludes the debate in second reading,

will at least acknowledge the existence of the RCMP national crime intelligence

unit, which, I understand, is funded by the federal government in cooperation

between the RCMP and municipal forces. I want to ask the Attorney-General what

the relationship is between this, which has been operating for a good number

of years, to some of the agencies or task forces or groups which are to be established

or which, in fact, have been established under this Act. This unit is operating

now and does not need Bill 91 to support it.

I hope the Attorney-General will be able to deny that law

students are travelling to various parts of North America now

to presumably investigate major crime. I wonder why this is

necessary. Are some of them, in fact, travelling as far afield

as California and Florida under the aegis of one of the

agencies which has been established.

It is my information that 25 senior Vancouver city

detectives have been taken into a special force and their

replacements are going to be financed by the provincial

government, if in fact that has not already taken place.

This kind of thing distresses those of us who are reasonably

happy with the kind of policing we have had in British Columbia

in the past.

AN HON. MEMBER: You shouldn't be.

MR. CURTIS: We shouldn't be. There's always room for

improvement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right!

MR. CURTIS: I said "generally happy," I believe.

There's always room for improvement but there is not the need

for this massive upheaval of policing in the province, as

proposed by Bill 91, in order to correct the faults which will

be found in any organization, police or civilian.

Again, at the risk of being repetitious, I hope the

Attorney-General clearly understands what he has unleashed,

who is doing what and where, and that it is in the interests of

citizens of British Columbia and not in the interests of a new,

centralized and, perhaps in the extreme, unreachable police

organization which could prove a threat to the liberties which

bring us to this chamber.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I rise to

support this bill. There is one little

section which I am

slightly mystified about and I would like to touch on it. This

is the inquiry respecting the municipal police when a complaint

is lodged against them. There is one little thing that bothers

me.

For example: a policeman, if he is being charged, can be

found innocent of the charge, guilty of the charge, and guilty

with no disciplinary action. To me this smacks of an old

verdict in Scotland called "not proven." I don't think it is

fair for a policeman to be subjected to a possibility of this

charge, "not proven guilty." I feel if the evidence is that

weak, the charge shouldn't have been brought in the first

place. The embarrassment to a respected policeman brought

[ Page 3818 ]

before….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! May I point out to the Hon.

Member that this would be more appropriate in committee because

it deals with a specific matter which you apparently oppose.

Therefore, it should really be reserved for that occasion

unless you have an amendment.

MR. CUMMINGS: I'm going to switch right now to the verdict

"not proven." And if you think this is going to get through

this chamber, I've got news for you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CUMMINGS: I don't even think this part should be in

here. I can't see any reason for it.

Interjections.

MR. CUMMINGS: Mr. Speaker, laws are too precious to be

trusted to lawyers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CUMMINGS: They were won not by lawyers.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure you will probably object if a lawyer

tells you that you should deal with that in committee, but I

must do so.

MR. CUMMINGS: Well, just in general, one of the first things

they teach a young lawyer is that ignorance of the law is no

excuse — but send the bill anyhow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: But it's a great excuse in this chamber, I'll

tell you.

MR. CUMMINGS: All we need is a hostile Speaker. We've got a

hostile….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I really must point out to the Hon. Member that

you're dealing with a specific section.

MR. CUMMINGS: If I can get back, I really don't think the

verdict "not proven" should be allowed in this or in any law in

British Columbia.

MR. FRASER : I just have a few remarks to make on this bill.

First of all, I am very apprehensive about it. I think maybe we are leading to a police state here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRASER: There is nothing in this bill that says we are

not. What I'm concerned about is the RCMP. I have the highest

regard for the RCMP and I think they are the best police force

in Canada. They have a contract now with the Province of

British Columbia to police the province, particularly in the

rural areas. Then they have subcontracts with the

municipalities. I would like to hear the Attorney-General in

the windup of this debate say, which he said earlier, that they

will have a preferential position when negotiations come in

Are we going to create a police commission here and

undermine the RCMP between now and 1976? If we are, I would

like to hear from the Attorney-General. I am afraid this might

be what is happening and I would like to hear the

Attorney-General state most emphatically that this is not going

to happen because….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's not going to happen!

MR. FRASER: Well, you can say that in the windup, Mr.

Minister. (Laughter.) Get it on the record.

Thinking about RCMP contracts with municipalities, under

this bill the municipalities will have to live up to a standard

that they can ill-afford to live up to if they want to go

another route for policing. I would like to hear the

Attorney-General on that point inasmuch as there are some

municipalities that have their own police forces other than the

RCMP.

I might say that there are other municipalities in the

province thinking of going the route of having their own police

force other than the RCMP.

For economic reasons. I think in this bill it provides for a

very high standard. I haven't anything against that, but maybe

this will stop any economies which the municipalities might be

thinking about. I would like to hear from the Minister on that

point.

My main concern, Mr. Speaker, is: is this really a bill to

eliminate the RCMP from the Province of British Columbia? The

Minister said earlier in the debate that their contract is up

in 1976. The reason I say this is because a lot of RCMP

officers have asked me — they are concerned. If this is the

intent, where do they stand? They would still like to stay in

British Columbia. Will their seniority continue if the RCMP is

eliminated? Will their present seniority in the RCMP continue

on with the new B.C. police force which it seems to me is

indicated here. Certainly this bill gives the authority to do

that. With those few

[ Page 3819 ]

remarks, I'd be happy to hear the Minister's reply.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of

the bill, and I would congratulate the Hon. Attorney-General

for grasping the nettle in this case. I think this is a very

difficult undertaking in many respects simply because it's

going to be misunderstood by people who think somebody's under

the bed.

Interjection.

MR. DENT: I say it's bound to be misunderstood by the kind

of people who always think that there's somebody underneath the

bed, and they're afraid to look.

AN HON. MEMBER: There always is with you guys.

(Laughter.)

MR. DENT: You're proving my point.

There are a number of purposes outlined in the bill — in

section (5) on the functions of the commission. I was reading

through these and I fail to see what the alarm bells are

ringing for. The purposes of the commission, as outlined, are

just briefly: research assistance, nothing very ominous about

that; advice and information to local police forces and other

communities, people involved with law enforcement; setting

standards for police training and for police; training

programmes; promoting harmonious relationships between the

public and the police; coordination between the various police

forces, hardly an ominous thing at all.

Then, of course, in

part 2 of that section, the regulation

of the proper use of firearms and other functions are clearly

consistent and would be consistent with these approaches.

I just want to refer to one of them very briefly — the

standards for police. Police forces have come down through the

centuries as having sort of a traditional role of being the

cops who look for people doing wrong things or bad things. Many

people still see them in that light, still see them in that

sort of thing. They see the police force locally as the cops

who will make sure that the kids don't shoplift, don't do this

or don't do that and so on, and as long as they sort of keep

the lid on things, that seems to be the standard they expect of

them.

But in my experience when I was in the ministry, and I worked with the police

a great deal, I found that not so much because of their training but because

of necessity, they were performing a great number of services in the community

which are not, you might say, the cops-and-robbers type of thing. This is increasing

and it's quite clear, and it has been clear to me for a long time, that a much

higher standard of training is required and a much more capable and better educated

policeman is required in order to perform the very sophisticated jobs that have

to be performed today.

I would congratulate the Attorney-General again on grasping

the nettle and facing the realities of the modern world and

trying to bring the whole standard of policing in this province

up to date. Thank you.

MR. L. A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

I wanted to say a few words in this debate, and I wanted to

associate myself with the remarks from the Hon. Member for

Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis). I can't help but

recognize from the Hon. Member for Skeena, who has just taken

his place, the real concern that I feel about this

legislation.

As he read the functions of the police commission and said

that they were really so innocuous he didn't know why anyone

would object, I would have thought that he would have

recognized, as I do, why have this police commission if indeed

its responsibilities are to be so simple? We could solve all

this by handing it over to a community resource board under

Bill 84. Really there is nothing here — and if there is nothing

here, Mr. Speaker, why are we debating a bill which is long and

is as important appearing as this one?

I suspect, as has been said by other Members, that what we

have is the beginning of centralization of police authority in

the provincial government, and I happen to be opposed to

it.

The Member for Saanich and the Islands said that his wasn't

a law-and-order speech in the normally accepted meaning of that

phrase. I don't have any such concern; if I am making a

law-and-order speech, then I am prepared to stand by it because

if there is one thing we need to have in this province and in

this society it is a respect for and a response to law and

order which, in far too many cases, is lacking in our

communities today.

It's all very well to talk of police forces and police

commissions and police boards and so on, but I happen to be

concerned about the individual police officer. When it comes

right down to it, Mr. Speaker, that man in his day-to-day

existence is the last bulwark that exists between law-abiding

citizens and those elements in our society who will be prepared

to destroy it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: We have had the City of Vancouver

referred to as the murder capital of Canada. How many people

are proud of that? We've had it referred to as the drug capital

of Canada. How many people are proud of that? Yet, you know Mr.

Speaker, the law enforcement officer, the policeman — constable, corporal, sergeant or what-have-you — is

[ Page 3820 ]

the man who we expect to go out, begin his shift every day

and put in his whole working day standing between us and those

violent elements in our community who carry on those

activities.

It's all very well for us to sit in the safety of this

building and talk about these problems, but when it comes right

down to it, Mr. Speaker, it is the cop who has to go in on the

drug pusher, kick in the door and suffer the abuse. He does it

for us. It is no credit to us that we know, and I'm sure the

Attorney-General knows from information which comes through his

department, that there are 35 major drug units functioning in

the City of Vancouver which are completely beyond control. They

are completely beyond control because the police forces of the

community are not being supported. This is major crime.

How about the minor crime? How about the harassment that

takes place in all of our communities by young men and young

women who don't care about the law, who force cars off the

road, who break into houses and commercial establishments and

do as they wish? It is the policemen who we expect to stand up

and protect us from individuals in our society such as

that.

I think it is a crime of the highest magnitude that the

government of the Province of British Columbia would employ as

its principal provincial force the RCMP and permit the officers

of that force to be as badly paid as they are. For years the

government of British Columbia….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Their pay is set by the federal

government.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I think it is a crime that the

Attorney-General in the Province of British Columbia would

permit the federal government to pay the policemen in the

province as badly as they do.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They're paid by the federal government — it's the Solicitor-General's department.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I think, Mr. Speaker, if that is the

Attorney-General's position, he should be ashamed. He should

say that the law enforcement problems in the Province of

British Columbia are serious enough that we want properly paid

police officers to carry out the responsibilities that

they are expected to carry out in the Province of British

Columbia.

What is the extent of this? The Hon. Member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) said it is unbelievable. Do you know,

Mr. Speaker, that after 18 years in the force, rising to the

rank of sergeant, you can barely expect to get paid over

$15,000 per year? Does the Member for North Okanagan stand for

that?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): No, but if….

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If you are a superintendent of the RCMP,

do you recognize that you get paid less than an MLA in this

Assembly? That is true. I've got the information, the most

recent statistics: a superintendent of the RCMP is paid between

$23,100 and $25,000 per year. That is the pay scale.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Some security! You've got the security

Mr. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) of going out any

day and getting your can beat off by some crook, or shot at by

some hood. That's the kind of security we offer to the police

in our society.

Under this legislation we find that the social workers in

our government are going to introduce local committees which

will have the power to adjudicate on the performance of police

officers when a complaint is raised. Not only are they

subjected to the law, not only are they subjected to the

discipline of their own force but they are now going to be

subjected to the discipline of some local committee of bleeding

hearts. This government supports that kind of activity. We can

certainly see this occurring in the City of Vancouver.

I happen to support the police officer. I happen to believe

that he should be supported by the government and by the people

of this province. This legislation is not designed to produce

that result.

The Hon. Attorney-General has not given one single solid

reason for bringing forward the centralization of control of

which he speaks in this legislation.

Earlier in the session we had the Attorney-General making

announcements with regard to crime-busting task forces that he

was going to have. We all applauded the announced appointment

of the then prosecutor, Mr. Stewart McMorran, who is now a

judge of the county court of the province. That appointment

didn't come about. It is regretful that it didn't come about,

Mr. Speaker, because following his appointment to the bench His

Honour Judge McMorran said that he was sorry, he wished he

could have told the truth about the problems of crime in

British Columbia. Truly it is unfortunate.

The legislation which we have here is not going to approach the solution to

the problem. What we need is legislation which will support the police forces

and the police constables, and ensure that they are assisted in the fulfilment

of their responsibility, not attacked and centralized as this legislation provides

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I want to make

a few remarks about the

[ Page

3821 ]

problems of law enforcement in British Columbia, perhaps in

a slightly more conciliatory tone than my colleague for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). I can tell you that I

share his views….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: So does Archie Bunker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Does that make you Meathead,

Alex?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, if I have to be characterized as a

redneck or an Archie Bunker to stand up for law enforcement in

British Columbia, then I am happy to be characterized as a

redneck or an Archie Bunker.

Just this week I paid a visit to the morgue in the City of

Vancouver. Laid out on the table was a young man of 21 who was

the fourth death this week from an overdose of heroin or

whatever people are shooting up this week in the City of

Vancouver. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that although it is not

in our newspapers, one of the major causes of death in British

Columbia today among young people is mainlining heroin and

other drugs of abuse.

In British Columbia today we are averaging one contract

murder every 10 days. Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General knows,

and if he doesn't know he can find out, who the back-end men

are, who the connections are and who the major people are in

all the drug rings of British Columbia.

British Columbia is the drug capital of Canada, the murder

capital of Canada and the crime capital of Canada. It is these

things because we have failed to stand behind the police forces

of this province.

Mr. Speaker, the government does not stand behind them, the

courts do not stand behind them, the politicians do not stand

behind them. With all these people failing to support law and

order we are letting down the public of British Columbia. If

this were a law-abiding province, if we did not have major

crime in British Columbia, it would not be necessary for me or

for the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound to stand up and

champion law and order even at the risk of being characterized

by the Attorney-General as Archie Bunkers.

The Premier looks quizzical, Mr. Speaker, but I advise him

to do what I have done and pay a visit to our city morgue and

see our young people being killed off because of the drugs that

are available on the street.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right. Go and see what happens in

Coquitlam.

MR. McGEER: Go and talk to the police about the people who are being

murdered in British Columbia. They run about three a month. Ask them if they

are people who are known to be associated with the drug trade in this province.

They will find out that they are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Coquitlam is one of the worst areas right

now.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, we would be derelict as Members of

this Legislative Assembly if we turned our backs on what are

obviously the facts.

Mr. Speaker, it is also a fact that people who have been

arrested on drug charges, sometimes after months of undercover

work by representatives of the RCMP and the city police, are

turned out on bail the very next day and continue on with the

crimes that had them arrested in the first place. Of course

it's true, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to place yourself in the position of

the police who are risking their lives every day, pitting

themselves against the business that brings the top man in the

province $5,000 a day, against their $15,000 a year and ask

yourself what your attitude would be if you were expected all

alone to pit yourself against these forces in the face of

indifference on the part of the politicians and the opinion

makers in the province.

I want to tell you that I'm not indifferent to what is going

on today. I'm broken-hearted by it because I think the average

law-abiding citizen of this province is being given a bad deal

by the people who should be exerting their influence to see

that British Columbia is cleaned up.

Mr. Speaker, it is possible to clean up British Columbia. It

is possible to get drugs off our streets. It is possible to end

the most despicable business that has ever been invented in

human civilization and which runs rampant in British Columbia

as in no other place in Canada and few other places in the

world.

I've spoken many times, Mr. Speaker, of the necessity of

British Columbia coming to its senses to realize the situation

that we have in this province and begin to move decisively to

bring it to an end. All of these speeches have fallen on

completely deaf ears. I only tell you that this week I visited

the morgue and saw the fourth victim — a young man — this week

dead from drug overdose. That's what is going on in the streets

of British Columbia today and in heaven's name I appeal to the

Attorney-General to take the steps necessary to end it all.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know just

what the emotion and the harangue we have had from the Member

serves in terms of purpose of finding good peace and law and

order in this province.

[ Page 3822 ]

MR. McGEER: Your job is to clean British Columbia up.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's exactly the kind of cliché

that I am asking about. I hope it is sincere anger. I wouldn't

want to believe it was feigned. That kind of speech is so void

in rational content in terms of alternatives to a very serious

problem. That kind of harangue is in terms of clichés — "Clean the province up. Stop the contract murders. It's all in

Coquitlam."

The tragedy of our society doesn't know geographic bounds.

Unfortunately there are young drug takers in West Vancouver,

downtown Vancouver, the Fraser Valley and all through this

province. The federal government has attempted to grapple with

this problem sincerely. The previous administration tried to

deal with this problem. We're trying to deal with it.

If that Member knows any single formula other than the

cliché that he has espoused tonight, he has a duty to

all the people of this province to tell them who the master

operators are behind the crime ring.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Attorney-General should know. If he

doesn't know, then he should resign.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, the Attorney-General should know. He

should have all the information, and break the international

drug ring. And he's a failure because he doesn't have all that

information….

Do you mean to say that the RCMP is not telling the

Attorney-General that they know who these people are? Are you

alleging that the Attorney-General of this province is in some

way stopping charges against people that the RCMP know about

and have told him about? The Attorney-General should know?

Mr. Member, do you know how stupid that statement is?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Surely to goodness, if there are 35 known

drug units, surely the police will ask us to press charges. Do

you mean to say that the police are not asking us to press

charges?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Member, the move is through

a better police force. That's exactly what the bill is all

about.

But for me to stand in this House and somehow have a government tagged as being

responsible for the problem of drug addiction…! If you really mean that,

then you've reached a new low in politics. If you really mean it. If you're

just playing games, I understand. But if you are alleging that this government,

or any other government, is deliberately withholding some magic solution to

the problem of drug abuse, then that is pretty low. Very low!

To allege that because you visit the morgue and see four

dead bodies gives you some mystical approach to understanding

this complex problem is beyond me — especially coming from a

scientist. I've made many speeches in this House on the same

subject. My speeches have been borne out to have been more

right than yours, Mr. Member.

I remember the hysterical harangue you gave one night on LSD

in this House. I want to tell you, Mr. Member, that I sat and

witnessed that kind of speech — which is inflammatory, not

designed to solve any problems, not giving any positive

contributions to any of these social problems.

You are a scientist who is always talking about the value of

research. Every single scientific researcher has come up with

conclusions absolutely contrary to the position you took that

night on LSD. Every one! University people!

You know, Mr. Speaker, at that same time we discussed the

establishment by the federal government of the Matsqui

institution. I stood in my place in that corner of the House — and the former Attorney-General, Mr. Bonner, agreed with me — and said that Matsqui was a blunder. Matsqui was the hard line

that you believed…. Oh, yes, that's the way it was sold

originally. The former Attorney-General and I agreed on this

floor that the Matsqui institution would be deemed a failure.

We catalogued the reasons why.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Maybe not for the same reasons.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, for the same reasons: because I had

worked for that department before I came into government — before I came into this House.

I must say that the former Attorney-General….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sure, I'm a failure. Blame all the drug

problems on us.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: We're not talking about users; we're talking about

pushers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Speaker, most pushers are

users. The people behind the drug scene who are really the

money-makers never get out on the street and hustle drugs.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not users.

[ Page 3823 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, they're not users. The allegation is

that somehow this Attorney-General knows who those people are,

but is protecting them.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, if he knows who they are

and if there is evidence to convict them, they will go to

court.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Have you asked him if he has ever asked

the police? You have not. You have come into the House and made

that kind of speech in an attempt to gain some kind of

political manoeuvering which I do not understand.

The statements around Coquitlam and all this jazz are

deliberately inflammatory, in my opinion.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has taken more time

than anyone else in this House to find out what the drug

problem is all about. As a medical practitioner he became

alarmed because of the number of young people in his own

constituency who were involved. He gathered more information in

about three months than some of you seat-warmers who don't show

up for half the Legislature have done…. And you come in and

make those kinds of speeches!

You have contributed absolutely nothing with that kind of

speech. Is there any kind of attempt to define that somehow the

NDP is soft on drugs and the Liberals are hard? That's stupid.

There isn't anybody of any political party that's soft on the

use of drugs. All of us want an end to the abuse of anybody's

body.

But nobody has a monopoly on genius, and nobody has a

monopoly on wishing to solve the problem. The federal Liberal

record….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, an all-out war. The federal Liberals

went on an all-out war with Matsqui. I stood in my place over

there and warned and stated over and over again that Matsqui

would be a failure. And I was proven right within six

years.

There was no Hansard , but there are newspaper records

of the speeches that I gave. I catalogued the research. I

quoted the Lexington experience. I read Dr. Cawlf's research

papers in this House. The only reaction I had from the good

doctor, who is also a researcher, was an emotional attack that

night. And now there's another emotional one tonight.

All research in North America indicates that the directions in which we've

gone, especially in institutions like Matsqui, are failures. The federal government

duplicated the failure; and now everybody is groping again. No simplistic harangues

around a war against drug pushers….

MR. McGEER: What are you doing today?

HON. MR. BARRETT: What we are doing today is more, in terms

of long-term results, than anything else. We closed the

Willingdon School for Girls, for one thing. Now let me tell you

the consequence of that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll tell you what it's got to do with it.

One-third of all the women offenders in Kingston came out of

the Willingdon School for Girls. There were no preventive

programmes in this province to head off the epidemiology of

drug offenders. The Drug Foundation of British Columbia did the

research on the basis of epidemiology and indicated that the

traits, in terms of young offenders, came out very early in

terms of drug users.

Okay, you asked us what we've done. We haven't done

spectacular head line-grabbing speeches like that, saying: "War on the Drug Pushers." But we have cut off the kind of

situation that created psychological frameworks that allow

people to get to become drug users.

Willingdon School for Girls was a classic example. When we

came in there were over 200 boys in Brannan Lake School. We

have got that figure down to 70. I'm telling you that the lack

of that kind of experience will guarantee a diminishing of the

odds of young people showing up with the kind of severe

problems that exist now.

There are no simplistic answers. We are trying to create a

network between education and Health Services and Human

Resources to a preventative programme in this province.

Prevention is the biggest thing we need.

But I see no useful purpose served with that kind of speech

by that Member. It's the kind of cliché harangue that

solves nothing, has no positive alternatives and is, quite

frankly, filled with ignorance.

To stand up and rant and rave about a war on drug pushers

and law and order…. The greatest law-and-order man in North

America was Spiro Agnew.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that was his line. Its true. Every

time he was in trouble, he used to make that kind of speech;

but the substance was never there. And there is no substance in

that Member's speech. If he is withholding from the people of

this

[ Page 3824 ]

province the information that he thinks he knows — or that

the Member for West Vancouver (Mr. L.A. Williams) knows — about

who the drug pushers are, their names and their rings, then

they are doing a public disservice.

If they are withholding from the people of this province

information that they think they have….

MR. McGEER: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. BARRETT: What do you mean, "Come on!"? I sit here

and listen to that kind of nonsense….

MR. McGEER: You're not going over. You're not selling.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, to come in here and presume,

because you have been to the morgue and seen four dead bodies,

that you are an expert in drug problems in this province is a

little bit thick.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Premier

to relate his remarks to the principle of the bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am responding on the

basis of what he said. If he is allowed to do that, then I'm

certainly allowed to respond.

I want to tell you that the drug problem is not a political

problem associated with any party. It is a social problem.

MR. McGEER: It's your job to clean it up.

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Horse manure," says the Member.

It's the NDP's fault.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It's a law-enforcement problem.

HON. MR. BARRETT: A law-enforcement problem. His attempt

through this bill is to bring better law enforcement to this

province.

MR. McGEER: There's only one government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to say this, Mr. Speaker: to leave

the impression that that group knows all about the drug problem

and knows all the answers is to give false hope to the people

of this province.

He knows the answers? He does not know all the answers to

the drug problem.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, what do you think he's doing? You

know, to hear that speech and to give the false impression that

there's some easy answer to a very complex social problem is

just sickening, absolutely sickening.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like

to, perhaps at the expense of a little repetition, refer to the

things that have been said.

The sheriffs are not and could not be the nucleus of a new

police force; they haven't got the training. They have sheriff

training, court officer training. I don't think I have to deal

with that any further.

Appointments will not be made on a political basis, and have

not been made on a political basis, in this department in any

of the police commissions with which we have had to do at the

present time.

What will be the future of the RCMP? Mr. Speaker, the RCMP

contracts are very favourable in terms of British Columbia

because we get 51 per cent this year of the cost of the

provincial RCMP force and 50 per cent for the first five men,

when they are municipal, and 25 per cent of the cost thereafter — that's about a $23,000 contract, so it is very favourable. I

would wholeheartedly hope that we could renew, as these

contracts come up every two years, on that kind of favourable

terms, the kind of contracts we have with Ottawa with respect

to RCMP policing. That's my attitude in answer to that

question.

MR. FRASER: But you wouldn't guarantee it, would you?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, if we could get the renewal of that

formula, we would sign up. The answer is yes.

MR. FRASER: Thank you.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I mean it's a very favourable thing in

terms of the service they give, the kind of people they have

and the financial costs. Of course, we'd be glad to renew the

contract on that basis. Frankly, Mr. Member, I don't think we

are going to be able to have it on the same basis because, as I

say, of the protests of Quebec and Ontario.

Now the next question which came up was centralization, and

one Hon. Member said that I was going to take control of

everything, another Hon. Member said that this was a monster

that would be out of control. Well, it's neither.

But we are creating a provincial police commission not

unlike the Ontario Provincial Police Commission, except theirs,

I suppose, is a more significant body because there's an

Ontario police force there for the Province of Ontario, and

we're similar in many

[ Page 3825 ]

respects to other provinces.

In terms of the speeches which have been made from the

Liberal Party about organized crime, let me say this: for the

first time in the history of this government we are forming — although it is not under this bill — the CLEU programme. As we

go along with that programme, the development of the personnel

and facilities — and the work is proceeding apace — and the

selection of the advisory committee, we will keep the public

informed because it should be visible to the public in that

sense.

MR. CURTIS: What does "CLEU" stand for?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit …

drawn from existing forces and whose task will be to accumulate

the evidence to engage in the detection and to prosecute

organized crime.

MR. McGEER: C-L-E-U — that doesn't spell clue!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Nevertheless it's called CLEU. I'm sorry

for the Hon. Member, but that's the way it's referred to at the

present time.

So, we are doing something about the kinds of things that

are being talked about by the Liberal Party.

Now, in this bill which we proposed to the House I would ask

the Members who have said that we are not doing anything to

support the police to consider whether they are prepared to

vote against improved training standards for policemen, which

all of the police forces recognize as long overdue. That's No.

Are you prepared to vote against minimum standards of police

equipment personnel and recruitment? That's No. 2.

Specifically, this government is prepared to undertake

that.

MR. CURTIS: You very cleverly tied the two together.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All right. You'll have a chance to vote

against this if you wish to, Mr. Member. I'm just telling you

what you're going to vote against if you do: you are going to

vote against these training provisions, which all the police

forces have asked for for a long time, and their cries have

fallen on deaf ears. You're going to vote against these

standards.

Are you prepared to vote against for the first time looking

at and supporting the adequacy of police forces in all of the

areas of British Columbia? — which is a prime job of the

Provincial Police Commission.

Are you prepared to vote against, under this B.C. Police Commission, the kind

of crime prevention research which will be one of the main objectives of the

commission?

Are you prepared to vote against increasing coordination of

the police forces in the Province of British Columbia?

So I say, Mr. Speaker, that this bill supports the police

forces as they exist in the Province of British Columbia. I say

that the vast majority of the police officers in the Province

of British Columbia welcome the fact that for the first time a

government is in office which is prepared to do something about

the standards and training, is prepared to give the police

officers greater standing both in the community and in all

other aspects of their work.

I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Gardom

NAYS — 14

Chabot

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gibson

Wallace

Curtis

Bill 91, Police Act , read a second time and referred

to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting after today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Record it.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

HON. MR, BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second

reading of Bill 3 1.

MINERAL ROYALTIES ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, we were on the amendment to Bill

31, on the motion of the Hon. Member for South Okanagan (Mr.

Bennett) that the word "now" be deleted and substituting

therefore the words "six months hence."

[ Page 3826 ]

Is anyone prepared to debate further on the amendment?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of very

excellent reasons put forward as to why Bill 31 should be

postponed for six months. I want to say that I support that

proposition.

Like many Members, I've had a surprising amount of

correspondence, extremely well thought out, by people from

British Columbia who come from all different walks of life but

whose livelihood will be jeopardized in the most serious way by

the Minister and his government. It is because of the

widespread and deleterious effects of this proposed legislation

that I support the amendment that it be hoisted for six months

while a re-evaluation takes place.

I expected and, I suppose, as the Minister and as Members of

the New Democratic Party suspected, there would be detailed

submissions from the large producing mines of British Columbia.

One always gets these kinds of analyses whenever legislation

that is not favourable to an industry appears and one tends to

discount the importance of such submissions.

But the point really came home to me, Mr. Speaker, when a

citizen of the constituency I represent telephoned me one

morning and said: "I have a problem; what do you suggest I do?

I had invested $180,000, my life savings, in some properties in

the Highland Valley. I can't ask my family to make any more

sacrifices to hold on to the claims I now have which are

adjacent to producing property. In order to retain my claims

and keep them in good order, I am going to have to spend about

$20,000 more. All of my partners have deserted me. There is no

way I can sell the beneficial interest on my claims. I either

have to mortgage my home and place my family in greater

jeopardy or abandon my assets."

Mr. Speaker, what advice would you give someone in that

position? There is no prospect, none at all, of new producing

mines being developed in British Columbia. Because there is no

prospect of new producing mines being developed in this

province, there is no point in exploring for new properties.

Because there is no point in exploring for new properties, the

mining exploration industry in British Columbia — not the

mining industry but the mining exploration industry in British

Columbia — is dead.

The Minister of Mines either knows that industry is dead or

he has been derelict in his responsibility to learn what is

going on in the industry he represents. I'm not a mining man,

though members of my family have devoted their lives to the

mining industry. I've been given information which absolutely

shocks me as to the state of the mining industry in British

Columbia today.

In order to illustrate this, I brought into the chamber this

evening a graph which shows the claims staked in British

Columbia in the four-month period, January to April, for each year between 1969 and 1974,

selecting four of the most important mining exploration

districts in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, look at that graph! It shows you that the

claims staked in mining in this province have taken a nosedive

in 1974. That is since Bill 31 was introduced. We're only into

the first quarter. I predict that the precipitate decline will

continue the death of an industry.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) or the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) or perhaps

even the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

Nimsick) have any idea of the seriousness of this data which is

being accumulated by the civil service and by that Minister's

department. During the first four months of this year only

3,836 claims were staked compared with 8,405 only a year ago.

That's a decline of 54 per cent.

If one takes only four of the mining districts in British

Columbia…and this is the sample that I've been given which

includes Nanaimo, Cariboo, Atlin and Omineca. One of these was

Omineca, and when I read the figures for that area you will be

able to understand why the people of Omineca have gone to the

extraordinary lengths of circulating a petition asking that

their Member (Mr. Kelly) resign.

In the first four months in that area only 241 new claims

were staked, but 1,359 were allowed to lapse. That is out of a

total of 2,073 held, for a net reduction of over 58 per

cent.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Members realize what is

involved in allowing a staked claim to lapse. These are claims

not held by the big mining companies — they can afford to pay

the extra rental charges, they can afford much more than the

average prospector to go out and spend the money to do the

exploration. And if individuals let their mining claims lapse,

of course, the big fellows are in a position to come in and

snap them up. Little people who go out and do the dirty work of

hunting for mines in British Columbia have done the work and

have paid for these claims to the provincial government. All

their work and all their efforts has been undone by the

thoughtless and vicious legislation of that Minister and his

government.

I think vicious is a more appropriate term than thoughtless,

because it takes a lot of guts and effort to go out in the

wilds of British Columbia and hunt for the mineral wealth of

this province. There is not a single producing mine that brings

in all the wealth to the province, which these people insist be

spent on their luxuries and privileges, including MLAs

salaries, that hasn't first had someone who was prepared to

work hard and risk his savings in order to locate those

minerals.

Look at this, Mr. Speaker. Claims staked, 1969 to

[ Page 3827 ]

1973. Do you see that drop? That drop there marks the future

mining industry of British Columbia. Where did the mines come

from that we're counting on today to bring in the royalties?

They all came from claims that were staked in previous years

under governments that had a lot more common sense than this

one.

MR. CURTIS: By ordinary prospectors.

MR. McGEER: They were staked by ordinary people.

Mr. Speaker, I hear the stage whispers from the socialist

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams). He's never been out staking any claims.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): In his white jacket he

wouldn't.

MR. McGEER: No, sir. That's not his style. His style is to

make his money on real estate deals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: Yes, sir!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Less personal references, and on

with the six months advisability….

MR. McGEER: I am going to have a lot to say to that Minister

when the disclosure bill comes up because I've been in

politics, not as long as that Member, but a fair number of

years, and I think I've only been really unfairly attacked once

in all that time and it was by that Minister.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

I wouldn't do that.

MR. McGEER: Well, I'm afraid that you would, Mr. Minister.

You've done it before and you'd do it again. But that's beside

this particular debate.

This particular debate concerns the future of the second

most important industry in British Columbia. It is an industry

that is dying. And the claims staked in the first four months

of this year prove quite clearly that is the case. If no other

information were available other than what has happened during

the first four months, that would be enough in itself to

justify the hoisting of this bill for six months while the

Minister dug into his department and learned for himself what

was going on.

Mr. Speaker, that Minister, first of all, has to become

aware of the realities of mining in British Columbia today and

then he's got to go in and tell his socialist friends in caucus

what the facts of life are.

You know, I dare say that if the Minister doesn't change his

tune, not only will he be out of office, but the old job he

used to have as a warehouseman for one of the mining companies

won't be there any longer.

MR. CHABOT: He's retired.

MR. McGEER: Well, that might be the happiest proposition

that's been put before our second most important industry in

British Columbia in many a year.

Mr. Speaker, there's a second important reason why this bill

should be hoisted for six months. It is the prospect of

conflict between the federal and provincial governments

regarding tax jurisdiction which has pitched the economic

future of even producing mines into doubt. The Province of

Manitoba — and you will have read this in the newspaper this

morning, I know — withdrew their mineral legislation for a

period of time even though it wasn't nearly as harsh in its

concepts as Bill 31 introduced by this Minister. That's a

socialist province, Manitoba.

But even a socialist province can see the light. If the

Minister cannot take his advice from his well-meaning

colleagues in this House on the opposition side, then he should

get in touch with his socialist cousins in Manitoba and seek

their advice.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): They

have more convincing speakers on the opposition side there.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister suggests that the

opposition speakers were more convincing. I don't think that's

true. I think the opposition speakers in this House are without

peer. What they had was more perceptive Ministers. They didn't

have the kinds of handicaps in Lands and Forests and other

portfolios we might mention. That's the reason for the glimmer

of intelligence in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, they may even have

had a Minister who checked into his own department and learned

what was going on.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Do you suppose, Mr. Speaker, that key executive

assistants in the Province of Manitoba were so busy in the

federal election campaign that they didn't have a chance to

examine the implications, and decided to postpone it for that

reason? I could even see some virtue in members of

[ Page 3828 ]

the provincial civil service acting as campaign managers for

federal NDP candidates if I thought that their absence would

cause the government to postpone this bill until it could study

it more closely.

Mr. Speaker, you know, the Minister is a thoroughly

delightful person. I think he's an example of Peter's

principle, but I sense that in the first two arguments I'm not

quite getting through to him, and maybe in this argument I

will.

I'm not going to present points with the deliberation of the

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), but I am going to

make a genuine effort.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, it might be very easy, but you know, the

opposition people aren't given the kind of responsibilities

that allow them to do the sort of damage that the cabinet can

do by bringing in legislation that isn't well thought out.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: In the case of Bill 31…. Well, Mr. Speaker,

the Minister of Lands and Forests is descending into personal

attacks again and I'm not offering any opinions of my own, I'm

merely reiterating for the Minister data that's appeared from

other jurisdictions. He's got all the data regarding staking of

claims in his own department. He can only telephone the

Province of Manitoba if he thinks that they really haven't

lifted their particular legislation.

I know he's received a brief, Mr. Speaker, from Professor

Lew Evans of the University of British Columbia, pointing out

in quite logical facts that the higher you place the royalties

on operating mines, the less revenue the government gets.

I know that that sounds a little paradoxical, Mr. Speaker,

but it's really quite simple and logical. I think that if the

Premier or the Minister of Lands and Forests were to look at

this thing, that it's really not too difficult to

understand.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No, as a matter of fact, they didn't, Mr.

Speaker. This one is from a business editor, Mr. Bob McMurray

in the Vancouver Province Page 24, Monday, April 8. Here are

the graphs right here…

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: This is a graph right on my desk, Mr. Speaker,

and the point that this professor of mining, and he's got no

axe to grind for the industry…

AN HON. MEMBER: Show us the other graphs.

MR. McGEER: …Mr. Speaker, what he points out is that the

higher you set the royalties, the less return the government

gets because what the mine is forced to do is to abandon

low-grade ore in favour of high-grade ore, thereby producing

less funds in the way of total sales and less return to the

government.

The logic of this argument, Mr. Speaker, isn't simple

mathematics because simple mathematics would lead you to

believe that all ores are of the same grade, and that a mine

will continue to operate on the same basis regardless of the

taxes that are charged. Anybody who does an economic analysis

of mining knows that this isn't true and you only have to

examine to see that the returns to government will be less.

You know, one of the things that's come out of the studies

of Russia, and I think that this will maybe get through to some

of the Ministers, is that when they ran the concentration camps

in Siberia, they found the prison guards used to take some of

the wood away from the prisoners who brought it in. They found

that if they took more than half the wood — and this has been

written up by accounts that have slipped out to the west — the

prisoners wouldn't go out and cut it anymore, they'd sit around

and stay cold.

This is what you're doing by trying to extract more from the

industry than it can bear. Even the producing mines, Mr.

Speaker, will return less to government and the mines

themselves that will come on in the future, under your

leadership, will be zero.

Everyone understands that to get a producing mine, and

there's no question that the ones that make it and do succeed,

become very wealthy. I daresay the people who are the major

shareholders and the owners of these mines become a little bit

arrogant, but it's a little like sending salmon fry down the

river. You've got to send buckets and buckets down to get a few

great big fish back.

What the Minister has done with this legislation is to

eliminate all the small fry going down the river. If you

eliminate that, there ain't going to be any big ones coming

back. The claims are gone and those are the fish fry that go

down the river. You think you're getting at the big producers.

They are going to keep going. They will high-grade the ore, but

the people you have destroyed are the little people in British

Columbia. More than that, you've destroyed a whole series of

industry that depends on the exploration activities….

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: I won't be long. No, no. I'm going to wind my

speech up because I think one can't add more than to say, Mr.

Speaker, when you get a letter

[ Page 3829 ]

of complaint from Jones Tent & Awning saying that their

business is going to fold because people aren't going out in

the woods anymore to hunt for mines, things have got to a

desperate state.

The Minister has got the message. The mining industry has

folded its tents in British Columbia. It is number two in this

province and one doesn't have to stand for big business to

condemn what that Minster and his government has done. One only

has to stand for the little people of British Columbia who have

worked their guts out to develop the second largest industry in

the province, to stand up and say Bill 31 is a disaster.

Mr. L.A. Williams moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1974, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada