1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd 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)

TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3305 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Body-shop surcharges on ICBC rates. Mr. Hall –– 3305

BCHMC policy on separated couples. Mr. Lea –– 3305

Telephone operator services. Mr. Mitchell –– 3306

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Pre-building of Alberta-U.S. border

section of the proposed Alaska gas pipeline.

Mr. D'Arcy –– 3306

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. Mr. Mair)

On vote 114: minister's office –– 3307

Mr. Cocke

Division on a motion that the committee rise –– 3311

Mr. Levi

Mr. Barber

Mr. Lockstead

Division on a motion that the Chairman leave the chair –– 3319

Mr. Howard

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Pre-building of Alberta-U.S. border

section of the proposed Alaska gas pipeline.

Deputy Speaker rules –– 3329

Division on Deputy Speaker's ruling –– 3329

Appendix –– 3330

TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a lifelong friend of mine, the

former mayor of Williams Lake, the stampede capital of the world, Mr.

Herb Gardner. I'd like the House to welcome him here today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome some young Richmond residents to the

galleries today: Sandra, Melissa and Joshua Chamberlain, and Kevin and

Heidi Cohen.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In the gallery today

is the very beautiful wife of my administrative assistant and her

parents, Orville and Marion Pederson, from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. I

hope the House will help me make them welcome.

MR. LEA:

I ask the House to join me in welcoming a businessman from Vancouver

and a person who has business interests in my riding, Ken Saunders.

Oral Questions

BODY-SHOP SURCHARGES ON ICBC RATES

MR. HALL:

I'd like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture in his

capacity as a director of ICBC. This is a continuation of the problem

we discussed yesterday. Have any negotiations been planned or dates

fixed for discussions between ICBC and the Automotive Retailers'

Association to put an end to motorists having to pay surcharges to body

shops for repairs to their cars?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HALL:

In view of the minister's statements during estimates regarding an

open-door policy, has the minister decided to meet with the Automotive

Retailers Association to investigate the cause and the source of this

financial burden on the motoring public?

HON. MR. HEWITT : With regard to the body-shop rates, we have had

discussions and meetings with representatives of that organization in my office.

That organization has met with staff of ICBC and the new president of ICBC.

The matter of body-shop rates was reviewed for a second time, at my request,

at senior management and board level. The end result of all those discussions

was that we could not see justification for increasing the rates beyond $25.60

per hour. We did increase them from $23.60 to $25.60, effective April this year.

I'm sure the second member for Surrey recognizes that when increased rates

are put through, the only party that incurs additional cost is the, motoring

public.

MR. HALL: In view of the minister's answer yesterday that the claims

centres would direct motorists to body shops charging the supposed ICBC rate

and because the ARA and ICBC admitted today that claims centres are no longer

able to supply this information, what steps has the minister taken to ensure

that motorists needing repairs to their vehicles now know where they can be

obtained without having to pay a surcharge?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, the motoring public is advised about this surcharge that

has been charged — but not by a majority of the ARA member body shops.

They are given advice to the fact that there is a possible surcharge

and they of course can seek out or have assistance, if it is given,

from the staff of ICBC, in order to go to an autobody shop that charges

the rate of $25.60.

I just would like to comment that the

cost of body-shop repairs, if it is increased, of course reflects in

the premium of the motorists; therefore all motorists would have to pay

increased premiums to cover this increased cost. We did review it. We

review it annually. The rate was adjusted after a Woods Gordon study

was done and after examination of body-shop rates relating to the ICBC

autobody shop, and we think the rate is fair. I'm not just sure how far

down the line we can go until we have to take a stand, which is being

done by management in the board of ICBC.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon a hand delivered message was sent from

ICBC to the group representing the industry that deals with the

customers. It said that no more negotiations could take place this

year. My questions are not on behalf of the Automotive Retailers

Association; my questions are to ascertain what can be done to protect

the public who are now having to pay two bills instead of one bill.

What I'm trying to do is to elicit from the minister what actions the

government is taking to try to prevent double billing not only in this

field but in other fields, as they appear to be quite complacent about

that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, just to advise

the member, ICBC staff is doing whatever is possible to ensure that the

motorist who has a damaged automobile goes to a body shop that charges

the $25.60.

BCHMC POLICY ON

SEPARATED COUPLES

MR. LEA: I have a question for the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. On April 15, 1980, the British

Columbia Housing Management Commission passed a policy that basically

says this: if a marriage breaks up while a couple is living within B.C.

Housing Management Commission housing, neither spouse can apply for

housing within the commission unless he has the written permission of

the spouse whom he left. Could the minister tell me whether he, knows

of any other landlord in the province with such a policy?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, needless to say, I am not aware of the policy of all the

landlords in this province. Therefore I would have to take that

question as notice and bring a reply back to the member.

MR. LEA:

Could I ask the minister what the government's present policy is in

regard to this matter? Does the minister, speaking on behalf of the

government, agree that when one applies for accommodation within the

B.C. Housing Management Commission he must have the written approval of

the spouse whom he left? Does the government agree that that should be

the case?

[ Page 3306 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, we have a board of directors administering the affairs of

the B.C. Housing Management Commission. They have certain rights and

liberties to establish certain policies. As I said a little bit

earlier, I will have to take that question as notice and get back to

the member. I will see whether the policy is one with which I am

familiar and on which I can have a frank discussion to see whether it

is the right policy. Maybe there is a need to give certain directions

to BCHMC, but I don't want to interfere with the freedom of the board.

Nevertheless, I will take the question as notice.

MR. LEA:

If, after the minister looks into this and finds out what policy an

agency of his government has.... I'm surprised that he doesn't know

already. But after he looks into it and finds out that this in fact is

the case, is the minister prepared to direct that commission to follow

the direction of government in this matter?

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, the member is asking me to identify what further action

the government proposes to take. Until such time as I am able to

acquaint myself with any directives that have been issued by the board

of directors, and see whether the statements being made by the member

for Prince Rupert are accurate and correct, it is very difficult for me

to answer that. Future action will perhaps be taken, depending upon the

information I am able to uncover from the board.

MR. LEA:

I would just like to ask the minister: does the minister feel that his

government...? Let'me rephrase that, because in order to feel you have

to have a heart. Does the minister feel that his government has the

power, if the government feels it's necessary, to direct that

commission to follow government's orders?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the member is asking me for a legal opinion. I think he should consult his colleague to the left of him.

TELEPHONE OPERATOR SERVICES

MR. MITCHELL:

My question is to the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications. Yesterday I asked the minister if he had decided to ask

the CRTC to hold hearings in the communities of Vernon, Cranbrook,

Nelson, Williams Lake, Dawson Creek and Terrace on the question of

withdrawal of operator services. The minister told us that B.C. Tel was

not under B.C. jurisdiction. On behalf of the members on his side of

the House, I would like to thank him for that piece of redundant

information.

I would like to ask him if he is aware that

when B.C. Tel institutes their new TSPS system and withdraws operators

from these communities, people calling for emergency help by dialing

zero will be cut off after a 15-second silence, which will not enable

the call to be traced. If he is aware of that, has he decided to make

representation to the CRTC opposing the implementation of this system

by B.C. Tel?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot verify the accuracy of the member's assertions.

MR. MITCHELL:

For the benefit of the minister's information, if he would read some of

the literature that comes across his desk from the various systems,

he'll get it.

On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

make another suggestion. Bell Canada implemented a similar system in

Quebec at a cost of $36 million. The operator response time became

slower overall. B.C. Tel has stopped recording the operator response

time, so there is no way to prove that there would be an increase in

service quality as the company claims. Has the minister decided to

oppose the TSPS system before the CRTC until such time as B.C.

Telephone becomes accountable and can come up with the information that

is needed to see if it is better?

HON. MR. McGEER:

The B.C. Telephone Company is a regulated company and is accountable at

the present time to the CRTC. It is the policy of the British Columbia

government that the B.C. Telephone Company should become accountable to

a regulatory body within British Columbia, but that's not the

circumstance today. In the meantime, however, I am confident that the

B.C. Telephone Company can do better than Bell in giving service to its

customers.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to bring to the

attention of the minister that the government of British Columbia is

accountable to the people of British Columbia. It is the responsibility

of the minister to give leadership in opposing something that is going

to be a detriment to the people of this province. I have had....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Does the member have a question? This is question period, hon. member.

MR. MITCHELL:

Yes, I have a question, Mr. Speaker After twenty-some-odd years of

service I have found many, many, many people have cried for help by

dialing zero on the telephone. Is the minister aware of the number of

calls for assistance that are put through the telephone company by

dialing zero and the danger and catastrophe that is going to happen to

our emergency service if this is allowed to go in before we have a 911

service put in?

HON. MR. McGEER: I want to concur

with the member that the government is accountable to the people of

British Columbia. That is precisely why the member is opposite where he

belongs. Apart from that aspect of accountability I would be very

pleased to do what I can to elicit information with respect to how many

emergency calls are placed over the system at the present time and

bring that information to the House.

MR. MITCHELL: On

a point of order, I would like to bring to his attention that we all in

this party are opposite where we belong, but we will be back on the

government side.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of standing

order 35 to ask leave to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing

a definite matter of urgent public importance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member state the matter?

[ Page

3307 ]

MR. D'ARCY: This week the National Energy Board will make a decision

on the pre-build of the Alberta-U.S. border

section of the proposed Alaska gas

pipeline. This pre-build is advantageous only to Alberta at the expense of the

interests of British Columbia and of Canada as a whole. This pre-build will

result in Alberta gas displacing B.C. natural gas in our traditional U.S. markets,

which will lead to large losses in B.C. government revenue and a decline in

economic activity in B.C., as gas exploration and revenues concentrate in our

neighbouring province of Alberta.

The

B.C. government has made no effort to protect the interests of B.C. by

way of making a public declaration of opposition to the pre-build. I

therefore ask leave, under standing order 35, to discuss this matter of

urgent public importance in the Legislature.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, I will take the matter under advisement without prejudice

to the member's urgency aspect, and bring a report to the House at the

earliest opportunity. I thank the member as well for advising me of his

intention to raise the matter under standing order 35 prior to the

House.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: With leave, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce a guest.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure for me today to introduce a very

good friend of the Okanagan Valley and education. Seated in your

gallery is Mr. John Watson, bursar of Okanagan College. Joining Mr.

Watson in the House with us today are his wife Sandy and their two

young children, Patrick and Heather. I would ask hon. members to

remember the presence of these young children in the gallery and also

to join me in making them feel welcome on business and a holiday.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have two guests from Norway, Mr.

and Mrs. Tore Oveson, who are guests of two constituents of mine, Mr.

and Mrs. Thor Sollien. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

On vote 114: minister's office, $165,162.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want my vote to pass without

the opportunity of answering further a question from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. King) yesterday. I know they're very anxious to have the vote passed,

but I thought perhaps I should discuss just for a moment, if I may, the question

of Armstrong, which was dealt with at some length. Because I'm not familiar

with all the areas in British Columbia to the same extent that others might

be, I thought that I should look into Armstrong and see just how deprived it

was in terms of medical services, because I felt that the member left the impression

— I'm sure quite unwittingly — that Armstrong was some very remote community

that was starving for health services.

There

is no question that the member wants to have a new community health

facility, and I already gave the answer in a letter to him and to

others last fall that, while I desired that to happen, it did not come

to pass. But I thought that I should let the chamber know just what

health services are available.

Mr. Chairman, you may be

interested to know that there are four physicians resident in Armstrong

with privileges at their hospital; there are two dentists in Armstrong,

five Vernon-based physicians have consulting privileges at Armstrong

and Spallumcheen Hospital in Armstrong; three Enderby-based physicians

have courtesy privileges at the Armstrong hospital — Enderby,

incidentally, is 10 miles away, Vernon about 15 miles away. A

specialist consulting service in radiology is provided from Vernon; a

specialist consulting service in pathology is provided from Kelowna.

You might be interested also, Mr. Chairman, to know that the Armstrong

and Spallumcheen Hospital is a community hospital with 16 adults' and

children's beds and five bassinets. As I mentioned, a little under 15

miles away down the road is Vernon Jubilee Hospital.

Now the

community health services provided in this area: first of all there is

full-time public health nursing; three-quarter-time home-care nursing;

visiting public health inspection at one day per week, and clerical

services are provided on a part-time basis.

Mr. Chairman,

yesterday one might have got the impression that there were no services

provided in Armstrong. I want the chamber to know that these services

have been provided in the past and will be provided at the present time

and into the future. Of course, it would be nice indeed to have the new

facility that the member wants; I supported that a year ago and I

support it now. I want the member to know that when the opportunity

arises for me to make that case, I will make it again. If I don't do a

good job, I'm very sorry. But I rather think that I have reason to be

optimistic that the next time around both the member and I will be

happy with the results.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman,

today I want to deal for some time with that scandalous event that was

created by the former Minister of Health: the Heroin Treatment Program.

wonder if the current minister has the annual report for the Alcohol

and Drug Commission before him, because maybe it would be wise for him

and me to study the annual report of this commission and find out

whether there is any conflict or contrast that we can draw from it. I

wonder whether the minister has the same two copies of the annual

report that I have. I have the original, and I have the new one — the

one that the minister tabled in the House. The original is identical to

look at from the outside, but when you get inside, Mr. Chairman, there

are quite a few changes.

It's fortuitous, isn't it, that the

Alcohol and Drug Commission have their own printing press, so they can

go ahead and waste people's money — as they have in every other aspect

of that commitment they have to their treatment program — and they can

even waste people's money in the printing of two conflicting and

contrasting reports.

[ Page 3308 ]

Here

we are with the original report that I received some time before this

one was tabled in the House. When I got this one that was tabled in the

House, I thought I would leaf through it as well, thinking that I had

covered the report. But I found that the minister hadn't seen the

original report, possibly. In any event, the minister who was

responsible for this particular development is the one that signed this

report. Let me say that the minister at that time was the Hon. R.H.

McClelland — "Minister of Health," it says on both reports.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me take you to page 2, if the minister would look at his report.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm just getting mine, Dennis.

MR. COCKE: I hope that the minister has access to both, as I have.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Let me read for the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser): "The annual report of the Alcohol and Drug Commission, 1978-79."

HON. MR. FRASER: Let's see it.

MR. COCKE: "The annual report of the Alcohol and Drug Commission, 1978-79."

AN. HON. MEMBER: Same report.

MR. COCKE: Same report.

AN HON. MEMBER: Different content.

MR. COCKE: Different content, but the same report.

Now,

Mr. Chairman, while the minister is waiting for his report so that we

can go over some of the changes, I would like to point out that in 1976

there were hints.... I had many hints in 1974-75 that the then health

critic had some ideas about how he was going to save the world in terms

of the whole heroin problem in B.C. In 1976-77, when a White Paper was

produced, we indicated that that White Paper in and of itself indicated

that the approach was dead wrong; that the whole approach to the

treatment of heroin addicts had failed. It had failed as close to here

as Matsqui. It certainly had failed in Kentucky, California and New

York, using the compulsory treatment program.

I suggested at

that time to the then minister: "For heaven's sake, attack heroin where

you should attack it: on the street, not with a compulsory treatment

program for a health problem. Find the source and dry it up." Mr.

Chairman, let me read to you what has occurred, because fortunately we

do have the police working on this problem at the same time. "B.C.

Heroin Use Drops." That's a headline on May 26 in the Victoria Times .

"Buried

in the latest statistics about rising crime in British Columbia is the

startling information that the illegal heroin problem is on the way

down.

"There have been no banner headlines, no optimistic statements

by the government or the police, no assurances that the law enforcement agencies

have found the key to what has in the past been described as B.C.'s greatest

social evil. Yet the number of heroin offences dropped last year by a whopping

70.5 percent...from 824 offences to 243...."

the minister's White Paper, before they brought in this treatment

program by law, what did he say? In the White Paper, if he had cared to

read it himself at that time, it said that the heroin on the street was

so diluted that there were hardly any people in this province hooked on

or addicted to heroin. We pointed that out to the minister at that time

and he chose to ignore it. He chose to expend millions and millions of

dollars of taxpayers' money on a loser. The taxpayers are poorer; the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) comes out and indicates that he's

going to have to curtail the hiring of staff. I contend a lot of the

reason for that is because of this government's bungling ways of

handling virtually everything they touch. The best example I can find

is right here in this particular program.

I will talk about

— as some of my colleagues will later this afternoon — some of their

programs — for example, the Brannan Lake program. We'll talk about some

of the other aspects of this Cadillac program, and it is a Cadillac

program wherever it goes. It is the program that's well financed and

draws the staff. The other drug-related programs are left destitute as

a result of the way they're handling this program. I think it's just a

shocker, I really do. We'll find in communities like Kelowna, for

example, there are three parallel programs: the local agency, the

alcohol and drug program itself, and the heroin program. The heroin

program is there proselytizing other drug addicts — that is either

alcohol or barbiturates, or whatever other drugs people become addicted

to — as part of their program in order to justify their existence.

Senior management in that program are encouraging treatment of

non-heroin users. Why is that? It's because they cannot find the heroin

users to treat, that's why. They want to beef up their figures. I get

this from a number of sources, from a number of communities wherever

this program is running.

We find $2 million funding — or

thereabouts — for Brannan Lake, with 150 staff and roughly 35 patients

on an average. It's been increased slightly lately because of the fact

that they're trying to expand the program to take in others. I'm

pleased with that aspect, and to some extent I'm pleased with this

minister's attitude toward the whole program, as he seems not to be

bound up by what can best be described as the "Hoskin's syndrome."

That, Mr. Chairman, was that all you had to do to cure a problem was

put them behind bars, keep them there for three years, and when they

came out they'd be cured.

HON. MR. MAIR: Hoskin would agree with you anyway, Dennis.

MR. COCKE: I was pleased to see that. Again, we both know what we're talking about.

The

provincial coordinating centre on Broadway is doing all their research

with their further $2 million budget. Their print shop in Vancouver

creates two separate distinct runs of an annual report. They are all

part of this disaster, of this wasteful, silly attempt to elicit public

support for this government. How that minister sold this plan to his

colleagues in cabinet is beyond belief. At that point I have to hold

the minister somewhat responsible because he was part of the government

that brought in this disastrous program.

I also contend that

they need an audit. I believe that when the transfer was made from

Human Resources there were some funds there that should be checked. I

also suggest that

[ Page 3309 ]

should look at the figures on treatment — figures that I saw, not in

this report but in another report floating around; figures of the

contrasting numbers of people treated or helped in some way by the

Alcohol and Drug Commission. On the alcohol side 14,000 people were

treated; 14,000 people were treated on the heroin side, in a roundup of

the real heroin addicts. Yet where is the budget? All you have to do is

look at your estimates. That program is the major user of funds. We'll

go into some of those figures later. I am just using this to show how

wrong we were to have accepted — and we on this side did not accept

lightly — that silly approach, that silly measure taken in the name of

health care. It was a disgrace and continues to be a disgrace. It is a

bit of a scandal when you consider that they can't even put out one

annual report without having to print a whole new edition in order to

get out some of the more controversial aspects of the report.

also want to ask a question about Pacifica in New Westminster. Pacifica

is the name of a new alcohol and drug treatment centre. It will be run

by the Fraser Valley Alcoholism Society. They have been running a

program in the New Westminster YM-YWCA. They have a residence attached

to the New Westminster YM-YWCA. That residence is no longer serving

transient youth. As a matter of fact, it never did, because by the time

it was built transient youth had decided to live elsewhere. What has

happened is that the ministries of Health and Human Resources and other

governmental agencies in the province have used that facility, and used

it well.

I see no economic, sensible reason for moving out

of the New Westminster YM-YWCA, where they had a program that was going

relatively well, as far as I understand. But no, they had to build a

new edifice. They are not even building it. A major real estate firm in

New Westminster, Wolstencroft Realty Corp., owns the land, is building

the building and no doubt has a long-term lease with the Alcohol and

Drug Commission. What kind of a sweetheart deal is that, when the very

same commission in Kelowna with its Crossroads Society built their own?

Why should it be built by a very supportive — incidentally — real

estate company in New Westminster?

I checked to see who

we're dealing with here. The Fraser Valley Alcoholism Society,

incorporated on August 2, 1977 — 13352-6 — has the following directors:

Mr. Edward Eakins, Joseph Frances, Ralph Muir, Mary Jane Mulligan,

Kathleen Stubley, Brian J. Monks and Fred Bokenfohr. They are

registered at 180-6th Street in New Westminster with no encumbrances.

This

society decided, because of government suggestions, that they should

set up the kind of program that I outlined. I charge that they could

have done it equally well where they were, and they needn't have put

the government to the expense of long-term leasing of a brand new

edifice when something was properly in place. Now, Mr. Chairman, the

government is going to be running around trying to find out how to fill

those rooms with some other problem group.

I guess I could

read into the record the directors of Wolstencroft Realty: Walter Webb,

James Tutton, George Waterfall, Patrick Doyle, Gordon C. Cameron and

William C. McConnell. Their office is at 317 Columbia Street in New

Westminster.

I don't think that Wolstencroft Realty should be developing a health program

for this province. I see no necessity for it, particularly when there was a

non-profit society in New Westminster known as the YM-YWCA providing adequate

service using the drug and alcohol people.

that is part of this whole situation. The minister probably has his

report by now, but I do Want to contrast just for a second, again, just

for the record, the Kelowna situation. In Kelowna you have Crossroads,

a non-profit society. You also have the Alcohol and Drug Centre in

Kelowna run by the Alcohol and Drug Commission, and you have the

Cadillac program, the Heroin Treatment Program coordinating centre. The

last two are staffed with public servants. They are competing for

people with drug-related problems. Imagine that, three funded services

competing in one area — and this isn't true of Kelowna alone; it is

true of the entire province because of this silly Cadillac program that

had access to the money while the other programs did not have that kind

of significant access. I am pleased the minister now has somebody in

there taking a good look. But I hope he digs very deep about that New

Westminster problem, and about a number of these other situations.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

Just

so I don't lose time on this particular aspect of the debate, let me

take the minister to page 2. Does he have both volumes?

HON. MR. MAIR: No.

MR. COCKE:

He does not. He has a volume that on the top of page 2 says: "Heroin

Treatment Program — subheading, "Introduction." I don't have that. I

have: "The most important event in the development of the Heroin

Treatment Program was the passage of Bill 18, the Heroin Treatment Act,

by the provincial Legislature on June 28, 1978. The act was proclaimed

into law on July 27, 1978." It goes on and on. He doesn't have that. He

just says that the Heroin Treatment Act, Bill 18, was passed by the

provincial Legislature on June 28, 1978, and was proclaimed into law on

July 27, 1978. "The act allows for free means of entry into the

program." Mine goes on to say: "The Heroin Treatment Act provides for

the confirmation that a person referred to the program is in need of

treatment for narcotic dependence. Once this is confirmed, it then

provides for a period of three years of required treatment." His

doesn't say any of that. "The act provides for procedures to refer the

individual assessment by evaluation panels, committal treatment and

sanctions for failure to comply with the requirements of the act."

Then

he has another paragraph. It is headed up "Referral." His says:

"Individuals may enter the program." Mine says: "Individuals may enter

the program when they come of their own volition, when they are

referred by the courts for assessment or when they are given a notice

to appear by a police officer." That happens to be out of the one the

minister tabled in the House. Also, there is a whole paragraph in mine

that talks about referral by police. I don't see any heading on page 2

that talks about that at all. That is here for the record. As a matter

of fact, I have made a number of copies if anybody wishes to take a

look at them individually.

On page 31 see "Committal" and

three paragraphs on committal. I am not going to read them out. Here on

page 31 see no such thing. I see nothing at all related to committal.

Then

we go on to page 6. On page 6 of the minister's copy he has a lovely

picture of a lady sitting at a window. On page 6 I don't have that lady

sitting at the window. I have "Geo-

[ Page 3310 ]

graphic

Distribution" and in "Geographic Distribution" — which you have on the

former page — I have a change. "An evaluation panel will be appointed

for each centre." I don't see that in this one. Because of the fact

that the virtues in this one required more length to explain, they had

to substitute a picture in the new one. Just in case the minister needs

to look again, there they are — both the same report, except that I

have a check mark on one to remind me which is which — which I got

first.

HON. MR. MAIR: How do you know which one you put the cheek mark on?

MR. COCKE: I know which one I put the cheek mark on, because I got that long before yours came out.

HON. MR. MAIR: You've got that written on your hand.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I have that one..."Note here."

Mr.

Chairman, I wanted to bring this to the knowledge of the minister, and

I'm going to reiterate that I feel rather sorry for this minister

getting involved in this situation. There's no way we can withdraw our

criticisms, but I do feel rather sorry that the minister has to carry

the can for his predecessor, who was warned and warned that he was way

over his head and was taking terrible advice. He now has the government

in a terribly embarrassing position.

Mr. Chairman, do I

recall any absences or anybody on the government side not voting for

that Heroin Treatment Act when it came through? They all listened to

the warning. Now some of them wish that they had taken the other course.

would just like to suggest that, when the minister is doing his

investigation of that whole program, he go across the province and find

out whether or not the large funding that has gone in there has

adversely affected his own alcohol and drug treatment programs and also

those programs that have been provided by non-profit societies. If he

finds that, I hope that the Alcohol and Drug Commission very quickly

swallows that program, gets rid of it once and for all and gets on with

the treatment that people in this province need — and that is treatment

for other drugs. Alcoholism. We're the purveyors of alcohol, and

alcoholism is far more wasteful, damaging and costly in every respect.

You

see, Mr. Chairman, what that previous Minister of Health thought was:

"I've got a sexy political proposition here." And with that sexy

political proposition he went hell bent for leather, and he carried the

government with him on a program that has set back treatment for people

who are ill — people in this province who are addicted to any number of

drugs.

Mr. Chairman, later on, after some of my colleagues have spoken, I'm going

to bring you an experience of a friend of mine who had this terrible pain and

lived with that pain for some years. It became increasingly worse and finally

they found what it was. It was a benign tumour behind his ear. When they got

rid of the pain they got rid of his first problem. But he was totally addicted;

he took 18 capsules a day of a prescription drug. When he went to the Heroin

Treatment Program in both Vancouver, on Broadway, and in Surrey, he was handled

like a criminal. And that was criminal. If that's the best that our Cadillac

program can do for people in this province, then the minister has to take a

real hard look at it right now, and the quicker the better.

HON. MR. MAIR:

In looking at the volume I have of the annual report — and I don't have

the benefit of the one with the check mark — I think, from what the

member has read, and perhaps he can read me some more to show where my

theory has gone wrong, that what happened was that the Schneider case

came about after the original draft of which he has a copy. As I

recall, an arrangement was made at that time that the program would

only deal with two methods of entry as long as the case was being heard

— voluntary entry and referral from the criminal courts — which in

essence meant that the dummy that my colleague from New Westminster has

was no longer accurate and that a better summation was that contained

in the one that I tabled in this House. If there is some material

departure — by that I mean if there are statements of fact which are

alleged in the one that he has and are changed in the one that was

tabled — well, that's another story and I'm sure he'll tell me about

it. I think that is probably the explanation for it. As I say, I don't

have a copy of the one that the member refers to — the untabled

document. I do have a copy of the tabled one, and it seems to me that

that is probably the explanation, that it was changed as a result of

the decision made in anticipation of the Schneider judgment, which, of

course, is now on its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In any event,

if that's not a reasonable hypothesis I'm sure that the member for New

Westminster will tell me about it.

Dealing very briefly with

the question of Pacifica, I don't have an answer to the question he

raised. However, I'm asking the staff to look into it. When I have it,

then I will bring it to the chamber.

Regarding the question

of the program itself, Mr. Chairman, I think that I should tell you

that as the member opposite knows, there is a new man in charge, Dr.

Bonham. Unfortunately he's not with us at this particular time, but I

want you to know that he's been instructed by me to look into the

entire question of the Alcohol and Drug Commission — not just the

Heroin Treatment Program but the entire commission. Don't raise your

eyebrows, Mr. Member for Victoria. I don't want to anticipate any

decisions, but I have asked him to report back to me as to how we can

best treat, in British Columbia, what is. a multi-drug-use problem,

without any preconceived notions, and to report back to me by the end

of July. I understand that he's on target with that report, and I'll

have that assessment at that time. I am taking it, from my personal

prejudice to be sure, from the point of view of it being a multi-drug

problem. Now whether or not that implies criticism of anything that's

gone on before, or anything that I have said before, or anything that

anybody's said or thought before, is for you to judge and to make of

what you will. But I am telling you what my position as health minister

has been since I took over the ministry, and what it is now. The

problem is a multi-drug problem. It is alcohol. It is heroin. It is

cocaine. It is soft drugs. It is pep pills. It is prescription pills.

It is a great number of things.

One of the first things that

impressed me when I became minister, in visiting some detox centres,

was finding'out that the same individual who came in on heroin the day

before yesterday is in on alcohol today, and will probably be in on

some pills he's conned out of the doctor in a couple of days' time.

That obviously means that we have to assess the program, not because

the programs in the past necessarily were wrong, but perhaps times have

changed. Perhaps the very thing that the member for New Westminster has

talked about has effected that change. There's been much better police

[ Page

3311 ]

work,

and it is very much more difficult for people to get either a supply of

their favourite drug or a supply of sufficient strength in order to

satisfy their wants in the past. In any event, my instructions have

been that there is to be a complete assessment on a multi-drug-problem

basis by the end of July. When that assessment comes to me, of course,

we look at it in the ministry and I'll make recommendations to the

government. No doubt policy will follow from that point.

think that that pretty well touches all of the matters raised, unless I

have an answer on the Pacifica. Have you got that? Perhaps what I'd

better do, rather than try to read my deputy's notes on Pacifica — his

handwriting is somewhat analogous to my own; it's indecipherable — is

sit down and let somebody else speak for a while and I'll decipher the

answer and be pleased to answer other questions as they come up.

MR. COCKE:

I certainly understand the embarrassment of the Heroin Treatment

Program, and the Alcohol and Drug Commission as a result of that

program.

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, this report was tabled

recently. As a matter of fact, the two reports were both printed

recently. In any event, as far as the dates are concerned, just so that

the minister has an opportunity to have a look at the two contrasting

reports, I'm going to have a Page hand them to the minister, and while

the minister's reading them, Mr. Chairman, and thinking over the whole

problem, I move the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to

sit again.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. LEVI: I would have hoped that the minister would have taken the

opportunity in this part of the estimates to tell us a little bit about some

of his thinking with respect to the particular program which has been under

debate: the Heroin Treatment Act. He did answer by saying that what he has done

is to ask Dr. Bonham, who is, I think, one of his assistant deputy ministers,

to give him an overview and report back on what can be done in terms of the

multi-drug problem. I would remind the minister that when the idea of the Alcohol

and Drug Commission was first conceived back in 1973, there was a report that

was tabled in the House and then in the first annual report.... I would

refer the minister to the first annual report because in that annual report

they talked about the aims and objectives of the Alcohol and Drug Commission.

I don't think it is good enough for the minister simply to say to one of

his deputy ministers: "Well, go out and do a report. Evaluate what is going

on and come back to me." There is nothing too new under the sun about what

has gone before yesterday. The main thing is that you've got to have some

movement. I would like to refer the minister to the annual report of December

31, 1974. I quote from page 7 in the introduction:

"On April 17, 1973, the Legislative Assembly of the province

of British Columbia passed the Alcohol and Drug Commission Act empowering the

commission to do the following: (

a) operate programs, entering into agreements

with departments of government, hospital, agency, university and laying out

the general parameters for that provision of service; (

b) provide financial

assistance for any persons or organizations mentioned in clause (a); and (

c) conduct or arrange and fund programs for the dissemination of information."

June of 1973 some commissioners were appointed to serve the pleasure of

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Six of those appointees remain on

the commission; one has resigned. That is the now first member for

Victoria (Mr. Barber). We appointed commissioners who had some

experience in the field. Not all of them, mind you, but certainly four

of them had actual work experience in the field and that, we felt, was

important to bring to the decision-making, to bring to recommendations

for the government people who actually had worked in a street setting

with addicts, with young people as well as the older addicts, those in

institutions. That was the way the commission started to do its

business.

It was predicated on an idea that the commission

will initiate whatever takes place; it was really not prepared to fund

any kind of service in respect of doing something that had already been

tried and failed. That was a basic tenet of the operation of the

commission. We are not interested in trying something that somebody

else tried and that failed. You 6d to look for some new programming. We

spent quite a bit of time discussing how we would deal with the heroin

treatment problem. It is not something that we literally galloped into

any more than galloping into the alcohol problem. As a matter of fact,

if you look at the kind of innovative work that was done in terms of

the alcohol thing, probably the significant program was not the

provision of detox centres, where there were all sorts of zoning

problems, but rather the provision of a small operation — and I

emphasize the word small — operating out of the Oak Bay Manor, in which

the desire was to provide a treatment program for people who were

working but who stood a very good chance of losing their employment

because they had an alcohol problem. That was the one basic innovative

move that was made in terms of the alcohol problem. The provision of

buildings is another matter entirely, but that's what we did in terms

of that. In

[ Page 3312 ]

looking

at the Heroin Treatment Program, there were a lot of problems with

that. All sorts of innovative programs had been tried in British

Columbia and the rest of the United States, and some even in places

like Holland and Sweden, in a very small way. What I want to say to the

minister is this: the key to the operation of the Alcohol and Drug

Commission had to be in terms of whatever program you were going to do;

it had to be small and capable of some kind of operation and getting

into gear, not a large program which required an enormous amount of

bureaucracy to make it happen.

When the former Minister of

Health brought in his act for heroin treatment, not only did we do for

him a very practical analysis of the kind of problems that he was going

to run into, but we'd hoped, in the course of that debate, to get from

him some answers about what he had in terms of new, innovative ideas

for dealing with heroin. That's what we kept asking him. In such a

serious subject.... I remember the debate; it was very fiery. What we

tried to do was to avoid some of the one-liners and get the then

minister to see that he was walking into a minefield. We on this side

could not understand why it was that he was impelled to do what he was

doing. Why did he suddenly want to get into that minefield of the

terrible problem of heroin treatment almost as soon as he'd taken over

his job?

We'd had prior warning about it. It wasn't new; we

knew the minister had something in mind, because when he was over here

in the opposition he was part of what I characterize as that red-necked

group over there that wanted to go for compulsory treatment. He was

part of that group. There were four of them. There was the minister

(Hon. Mr. McClelland), the member for Langley; Dr. Matheson; Dr. Conrad

Swartz; and Mr. Hoskin — four people who met quietly, early in 1974, at

a Vancouver hotel. Nobody was invited; everybody was excluded.

AN HON. MEMBER: Plus Les Bewley.

MR. LEVI: Yes, they had a legal adviser, and they were going to advocate the compulsory treatment of heroin.

Interestingly

enough, a few months before that meeting there'd been another meeting.

That meeting was held in the Empress Hotel. I spoke to the chairman of

the Alcohol and Drug Commission and the commissioners and said: "Look,

why don't be bring together a lot of the people that have a real, deep

interest in this problem? Let's go all over the place in terms of

people with experience." So we invited people from agencies, and the

member for Oak Bay, who was a doctor and had a serious interest in it.

We invited a man that I and the Leader of the Opposition worked with

for a number of years in the private agency, the John Howard Society.

We invited former members of the RCMP drug squad. We asked them to come

and make a contribution. We invited the assistant commissioner of the

RCMP and the Vancouver police.

They met all day, over in the

Empress. The object of that was to try and develop, if you like, a

justice system statement — I say justice system because a lot of them

were policemen — as to what the government should do about drugs. They

issued a statement which I later on read in the House, and they were

very clear about it. They said: "Let's look at it as a medical problem;

it's not a criminal problem."

Okay, we got that kind of an

agreement and we moved on from there. There were no easy solutions to

it. I had said at one time that if we could not find the right kind of

treatment programs the people in this province, down the road — I said

this in 1973 and we're now in 1980 — would have to look at the

possibility that what we'd better do is to find some mechanism through

which we give the addicts the drug and stop spending hundreds of

millions of dollars trying to beat the problem at what is really the

wrong end. We went through all of those debates. It's now fairly

reasonable to suggest that heroin addicts may eventually have to have

the drug. Seven years ago it was almost like heresy to say it, but

people do say that now. People say: "Well, it's something we should

think about." Yes, it is something we should think about, because if it

costs somewhere between 60 cents and 70 cents a dose to give somebody a

drug, why do we have to have somebody chasing around the streets trying

to gather $35 to pay for a cap?

We know all the figures

about how much it costs, how much money is made, the fifth largest

industry — the figures have been used in this House — $250 million to

$300 million made from the drug trade, and literally hundreds of

millions of dollars of police, court and penitentiary costs. I asked

the question once of the former Attorney-General. I said: "If you

people have ever taken the trouble to examine through the banking

system, or to talk to somebody in Ottawa, how much of this money is

pushed through the banking system?" After all, where is all this money?

Well, it was not something he was terribly interested in. We didn't

really go very far with that one.

So what we were doing in

those days — I talk about '73, '74 and '75 — was to try to think the

problem through a little bit. The former minister wasn't in government

more than 10 minutes when he announced that he had the solution.

Somebody had whispered in his ear: "You know, we can make these guys

take treatment and it'll work. We know that because they do that in

Japan." The former minister took a trip to Japan along with Mr. Hoskin.

They went over there, they came back, and we never heard another word

about the Japanese compulsory treatment program. They didn't report and

didn't tell us what was going on there.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wonder why?

MR. LEVI:

Well, one of the reasons — although he didn't say so at the time — was

that the International Narcotic Control Agency in Geneva was receiving

information in their annual reports that the Japanese were having some

problem with young people on heroin. There were some problems. It was

not quite as straightforward as it appeared. It's still a problem. But

he grasped onto this particular mechanism. He said: "We're going to try

compulsory treatment."

Now we have offered a number of

suggestions over the years. We've heard a lot through this long session

so far.... We keep hearing from those people over there about "negative

opposition." I can think of scores of positive proposals that have been

made from this side. I particularly remember that during the debate on

the Heroin Treatment Act one suggestion to the minister was: "Go make a

reference to the supreme court and test the constitutionality of it. Go

find out what it's all about. After all, what does it cost?" "No, we're

not going to do that." So you went through the whole business of having

an appeal, bringing it in and having it heard by the supreme court; it

had been thrown out. Now it's okay again and we're going on to the

Supreme Court of Canada. So we've got an incredibly interesting

intellectual and legal exercise which doesn't lend itself in any

[ Page

3313 ]

way to the treatment of heroin addicts. The only

people who benefit from the whole program are the lawyers, either those

lawyers who were hired to do the business and get all sorts of money

from the government to appear in front of the courts, or the lawyers

who work in the Attorney-General's department who've been told: "You

can't write the act this way; you've got to write it that way." To the

heroin addict it doesn't make any difference. There was a whole

diversion from the original problem.

Then, of course, we

made another suggestion. There was no suggestion on this side that we

disagreed with a program of treating heroin addicts. We didn't

disagree. What we were arguing with the minister about was for him to

first take a look at the legal side of it, but if you're going to do

it, do it on a small workable scale.

The irony is that at

the end of this great debate that's taken place for three years on the

Heroin Treatment Program they have as many addicts in the program as we

suggested to them they should start with: take 25 addicts; spend $1

million or $2 million; do something innovative with short-term

achievable goals; don't build a massive bureaucracy and then daily have

to argue from a position in which your knowledge is practically

worthless. I'm talking about the former Minister of Health; what he

knew about drugs was pitifully small. But somehow he felt that there

was an opportunity to gain some political points. I would suggest that

in the 1979 election you probably had people turn away from your party

because of the mess he made with that kind of program. I'm still

confounded as to why he did what he did. The only reason I can suggest

is that he was gullible, he got sucked into it, he got very worked up

about it and said: "We're going to do it." He kept saying, "We're going

to do it," did it and fell flat on his face. It has cost the taxpayer a

great deal of money and — as a result of that expenditure of money —

deprived many other worthy patients, victims of other forms of drug

addiction, of the treatment they should have been getting.

MR. KING: He had a weak Premier that he bulldozed into it.

MR. LEVI:

Well, I think they looked, Mr. Member, and they saw what they

interpreted as a piece of political opportunism. But he's got to

remember that a lot of those people who kept yelling about this thing

were voting for them anyway. They didn't buy the idea.

But

bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that we did not object to the idea of an

attempt at a program. And what did we go through here? I hope we don't

go through the same thing with the minister. We tried to get answers

day after day: "What are you going to do there? Are you going to take

over the centre? What are you going to do?" The only thing that we

could get that was concrete, in the midst of what was a serious debate,

actually developed into a bit of a giggle in the chamber. The only

thing we could find out from the minister was that somebody was going

to learn to play the guitar there. That was the tragedy of the kind of

debate that we attempted to have on a fairly high level.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There

are a lot of people in this Legislature on this side who've worked —

many of them — all their lives with that, and it is frustrating to have

to see that kind of thing when adequate amounts of warning.... It's not

improbable from the point of view of the government, if they seriously

think that it's possible, that there are ideas on this side which have

validity and which they should pay attention to. I don't get that

impression at all from over there that they're prepared to give any

kind of credibility to the ideas that come from over here. That's the

kind of battle we fight. Day after day we can do the opposition thing,

and from time to time when very serious issues come up there has to be

a meeting of the minds; we can learn from them occasionally. You know,

we can stop the great big across-the-floor thing and really look at

programs, ideas and policies that are very serious. That's what we

attempted to do when we had the debate on the Heroin Treatment Act.

Now

here we are today, and we're again looking at the Heroin Treatment

Program. I know he's a new minister, but I would have thought that he

might have armed himself with a little bit more knowledge so that he

could talk. He hasn't talked generally. Last Friday I asked him

questions which were, I suppose, somewhat philosophical: what has he

got in mind for the health system? Or I can ask him now what he has in

mind in terms of alcohol and drugs.

He's got some good

guidelines. The early work of the development of the commission is well

documented. Many of the ideas that were envisioned were not carried

out. We were not prepared to hurtle ourselves into all of these

problems and somehow come up with hit-and-miss solutions. I asked the

commission when I was the minister to really actively consider looking

at all sorts of options. We looked and they developed a paper, for

instance, on the possibility of heroin maintenance programs. They did

other things too, but I asked them to do that one thing. I had

discussions with the federal minister about it, they weren't ready at

that time. If they're not ready, then you obviously don't launch it;

you've got to take the public with you on this.

In the midst

of all this, after that discussion, we've gone through four years of

looking at an attempt by a badly informed minister to deal with heroin

treatment in some way. It's clothed in some democratic way but really

based on the idea that you can compel people to take treatment. Here we

are in 1980.... Perhaps the minister will tell us: there are maybe 35

or 40 patients in there. I'm pleased that the number of drug

convictions is down; it would seem, anyway, that there was that kind of

tendency going on three or four years ago. I gather, and I think it's

still the case, that in terms of dealing with addicts, the addicts

don't go through the horrendous withdrawal problems that they went

through.

We spent the past hour in this House talking about

heroin, and I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that heroin is an extremely

small and frankly rather insignificant problem when we look at all of

the misery that comes out of alcohol, and the new kind of misery which

has been with us for 25 or 30 years, which is prescription drugs. But I

think, as my colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said, there is

something exotic about the idea of talking about heroin in this

Legislature. The first thing that one has to do when you involve

yourself in the whole business of heroin treatment is to stand in front

of the mirror and admit to yourself how little you know about the

problem, not to come up with quick, fascinating ideas that somehow

there are some solutions down the road. There aren't any.

I've

been associated with this thing since 1955, when I worked with young

people who were drug addicts even at 14 and 15, and later on, when I

became a parole officer, I saw in the penitentiary the same young

people I'd worked with

[ Page 3314 ]

through

the court system. Certainly it was worrying in those days — the

virulence of the problem was apparently far greater. Then we went

through the sixties, which was the whole multi-drug use problem, and we

still go through serious problems. We have a cocaine problem; we still

have an MDA problem. I'm informed that we have serious problems in some

of the drugs that we thought we'd got rid of, and they're coming back

again.

But the question that I would like to ask the

minister.... I would like him to try, if he can, to give vent to his

feelings a little bit and think about it; we won't nail him to the

wall. We want to find out what he thinks of the problem in terms of

heroin. Where does it fit into the scheme of things in Alcohol and

Drug, and what has he got in mind?

We couldn't deal with the

other minister. He was totally closed off to listening to anybody. He

wasted public money and he really, in many ways, left the province, in

terms of other provinces in Canada that had the problem, with a badly

scarred reputation. We still have that. They talk gently about "those

nuts on the other side of the mountains who think that they can do what

we haven't been able to do in 20 years." Then he brings in a compulsory

Heroin Treatment Program and then backs and fills and eventually goes

down to what is really nothing more than a voluntary admission program.

All

of this could have been accomplished without all of the noise or cost

if there was an opportunity for somebody to do some thinking and start

out in a very small way. That's the option that the minister has. I

don't know how far afield he's going to go to get the information

that's going to give him the varied opinions he's going to need to make

decisions. I would hope that he does go to people who are involved in

the field, as well as other people who were and are not but have had an

opportunity to view the system. There are many capable people in this

province and in other provinces who should be utilized if he's going to

do that kind of review. If it's the kind of review just to save time,

so he doesn't have to deal with it right now.... Then he's going to

come back and tell us that we're going to something else. You've got to

be very candid about what you do, because we want a great deal more

candour about the major problems in terms of drug addiction, in terms

of alcohol and prescription drugs.

As I understand it, it

was the minister's idea. I read a quote once that there was an

opportunity to use part of Brannan Lake for people who have

prescription drug problems. If we do that — if we are going to tackle

the prescription drug problem — then we better look very closely at

some of the problems related to the sale of these drugs and the

practice in terms of the medical profession, not just tackle it from

one side. There are a range of things that have to be dealt with with

prescription drugs. It's not simply attempting to withdraw people from

some kind of drug that they've become addicted to, but rather what the

prescription practices are. That's a serious one too.

That

has been debated. I think that two years ago the former head of the

Canadian Medical Association made that very point when they had their

annual meeting out here. I see there are problems there, but you can't

deal with them in isolation. You can't just have as a possible solution

that somehow we have a place where people can go and withdraw, because

that only deals with those people. It doesn't have anything to do with

all of the other people who are becoming addicted out there because of

the use of prescription drugs. We had the case recently of Roche — of

people dealing with a drug — and they were fined. There are serious

problems in that area.

It would help, I think, if the

minister were prepared to talk about it — if he's thought about it —

and to get some views from the opposition about this, because,

interestingly enough, this is one area, among some others, in the

estimates of this minister, apart from what we've had from my colleague

from New Westminster, in which you have five or six people with a great

deal of experience in this whole area of drug addiction who can make

some contributions in terms of the debate. But if the minister is going

to tell us that he's got it under review, then we're not going to get

very far. But we still have to get our ideas across. Certainly in terms

of programming in the alcohol and drug field, small is beautiful. It's

beautiful in business. It's certainly beautiful in terms of the

approach, of the innovative ideas of that treatment. There is no need

to spend large amounts of money. It's possible to have one or two small

programs operating at the same time, perhaps, using entirely different

techniques.

The innovation is that now, after seven years of

the Alcohol and Drug Commission.... Where it's gone, I suppose, if we

were to look at some kind of political perspective from the left way

over to the far right.... What happened in 1975 and 1976 was that they

cleaned out everybody who was there before. They brought in the

hard-liners, and they accomplished nothing. Now there should be an

opportunity to do some kind of synthesizing. Mind you, I'm not overly

optimistic about those people who were the hard-liners. They don't

change their minds that easily.

For the future, I would say

to the minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — that what happened over

the past three years in your ministry, in attempting to deal with a

problem like heroin, was the sad story of what's always happened over

the years in terms of this problem. It makes good headlines. Some say

it makes good politics. I don't think so; I don't think it makes

particularly good politics at all.

But if you're going to go down into the future, do it in a small way. Look

at something innovative and let's try to stay out of the courts, because

it's too costly to have to go through the court procedures. If we're

going to have to wait for the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on this, we may

be debating this in 1982. But I suppose that should not stop that depart ment

from doing something about the problem of heroin and the other one. I'd

like to have something to say about that later on.

MR. BARBER:

This is, I suppose, a bit of a we-told-you-so day for the opposition

and it is easy enough to fall into that trap. I will try to avoid it as

best as I can. It is at least humanly understandable why members of the

opposition might want to observe just for a moment in today's debate on

drug abuse that a number of us attempted to point out as forcefully and

as articulately as we could three and four years ago what was wrong

with compulsory treatment and why it simply could not work in our

culture. As regrettably and tragically as that fact may be, it is a

fact nonetheless. As I say, it is kind of a we-told-you-so day for the

opposition because even the Minister of Health, to his credit, has

stated publicly that he too believes there are serious problems with

the compulsory treatment program. He too appears to acknowledge that

the Brannan Lake scheme is a failure.

I don't mean to put

words in his mouth, but we can listen as well as anyone and read

between the lines as well as almost anyone. It is clear that this

government has conceded that the program simply does not work. It is

even more clear that the

[ Page 3315 ]

government

has conceded via the senior authorities who formerly operated that

program that it can no longer work within their jurisdiction. They have

quit; they've resigned; they've gone away; they have been frustrated,

They have failed and so has the program. This is the last time I'll

tell you that it's a we-told-you-so day for the opposition.

is refreshing that at least the government is not attempting to

contradict the obvious and demonstrated record of what was said three

years ago, who said it then and who predicted — as it turns out

knowledgeably, scientifically and accurately — what would happen two

and three years later. What we predicted has happened. What we

prophesied has come to pass. There are some reasons for that and I want

to go into that briefly and then make a number of positive proposals to

the government. We do so in the spirit that recognizes there is a new

Minister of Health who has a new attitude. We do so on the basis of the

information we are given today that the minister is conducting a full

review of all the programs and interests and ambitions of the Alcohol

and Drug Commission. We do so in a positive spirit that wants to put

forward in a conciliatory way some practical and serious alternatives

to a program that clearly has failed to date.

I would like

to point out to the minister, if I may, that I have a very strong

personal interest in it, but I've not much spoken on this in the five

years I've been a MLA. As my colleague points out, I was appointed and

was proud to be appointed as one of the first commissioners of the

Alcohol and Drug Commission. In fact, for the first 15 months I also

served as its manager and did so without pay. I accepted no extra pay

for that job because my own interest in public administration was such

that I wanted to help it be set up as well as I could. So I acted as

manager and commissioner in the first year and three months. I had

also, for five years previously, worked for a group in Victoria called

Cool-Aid, a self-help youth organization in the capital city which was

initially terribly unpopular and extremely controversial. Everyone

hated it. We were fire-bombed twice, our staff were regularly beaten up

and it was a difficult moment for the first couple of years. Cool-Aid

gradually became respectable and Cool-Aid in recent years has won a

number of awards including international awards from the British

Commonwealth itself. The staff of Cool-Aid won the Commonwealth award

for outstanding youth service among the 32 nations of the British

Commonwealth in 1975. Our organization was nominated for that award by

dealing with disturbed and disaffected young people, many of whom use

dope and alcohol, all of whom had problems and came to us. We managed

to help a few in our day.

I've strong feelings about it

because I worked with those kids for five years. I had two people die

under my own hands in Cool-Aid, one guy whose heart I was trying to

pound back because, you see, his so-called friends had dropped him off

on the front porch and sped off into the night in a fast car and said:

"Look after him. He's OD-ing." He died. He was 17 years old. I had

another guy also, who was much older, dying from alcohol. They both

passed away right in front of us. We couldn't do anything about it.

have very strong personal feelings about this but I haven't spoken much

at all in the last five years on this subject until today. I am

persuaded today that it is possible to persuade the government to

consider some new options. It was apparently not possible before, but I

have some confidence that the new Minister of Health is prepared to

take a new look. It is in that conciliatory spirit that we put forward

this body of argument that we present today. It is for those reasons

that I speak now for the first major time I've spoken on the matter.

want to refer for a moment to a fundamentally religious problem. It is

important, I think, occasionally to review public policy in terms of

the religious aspirations, by which I mean that sense of animated

spirit that some people find coursing through human life and which

occasionally instructs us in a valuable way. I want to quote from the

best of sources, Augustine, who wrote a splendid book, the title of

which in translation is The City of God .

Augustine, in that seminally important work — important not just for

the church of which he is now a sainted member, but for anyone

interested in the history of western religious thought and philosophy —

basically postulated in this context one important thing, Augustine

said that without God options are limited; without God choice is

diminished; without God impulse is restricted.

What

Augustine argued is that without some spirit, some authentically

animated force, we lose choice and we lose option. Members of this

House may or may not believe in a literal, named or codified God.

That's not the issue I'm trying to push. What I'm trying to do is

demonstrate that for 1,500 years the greatest thinkers of the western

world have recognized that without some motivation of heart and spirit,

some command of desire and enterprise felt, things are diminished and

lack success. Augustine was not the first, but he was certainly one of

the greatest writers to point out that important principle of human

ambition. I think he was correct, and it is that principle, expressed

in a religious context that is appropriate today, that I want to raise

for a moment.

Without that will, that personal command,

inspired however you may believe it was inspired, things of a difficult

order cannot succeed. Or so it seems in our culture. They may succeed

in other cultures. I don't know; I've never lived in any other. But I

do know that for our own, the finest thinkers and the deepest

authorities who examine and remedy human behaviour have pointed out for

centuries that in the case of this issue, if no voluntary, inspired,

pushing thing moves you, you hardly move anywhere at all. So if that

happens to be part of the nature of western civilization, then you have

to ask whether or not the contrary force called compulsion — the force,

the fate and the weight of the law — has any relevance, bearing, or any

possible import. Let me talk about why, just maybe, it might not.

Another

of the arguments that you find when you read The 0 (y of God is the

argument that tells us that human success is limited for other reasons

as well, including the reasons put forward by some persons — usually

described as original sin, but. I think, in more modern, precise and

sensible awareness it might simply be called human flaw or original

flaw. It seems to be a difficult thing for a lot of us — I certainly

include myself absolutely — to admit that it is just theoretically

possible there are problems that have no solution.

It's a

difficult notion for western people because we've always presumed that

if we work hard enough, apply the capital, energy, wit and imagination

of our people, we can build any object, succeed in any field, do what

we want and tame the planet to our will. Only in the last couple of

decades have we begun to realize that man can't do that without

poisoning the planet and abandoning any possibility for future life on

it. We've now learned you just can't do all those

[ Page 3316 ]

things;

we're limited in that way. It seems what we have yet to learn in a

profound way is that it is just possible there are certain human

problems that have no apparent remedy.

Let me illustrate in

a crude and obvious way. We have, as yet, no cure for cancer of the

liver. When the cancer has started to metastasize, when the metastases

are pursuing their course in the lymph and the blood, it's game over.

There's no known cure; no-one survives, except maybe occasionally by

some intervention. But that's a fluke and a lucky miracle; it hardly

ever applies. Science has no cure for cancer of the liver. We have no

way to reverse kidney disease or emphysema. These are human conditions

for which we find no present remedy. Sometimes people in the medical

field will stand up and freely confess: "Yes, it's true; we can't do

anything at all. The only thing we can do is hold your hand as you die

and make it as comfortable for you as possible while you do so." It's

hard for people to say that. I was talking about that just yesterday in

another context — the palliative care unit at Victoria General. It's

hard for us to admit that sometimes we can't do all the brave and

necessary stuff that we'd like to.

It may be just possible

that there are certain addictions that are not apparently curable. The

worst of them, in terms of being commonplace and widespread, is

certainly addiction to alcohol. Heroin pales away into nothingness

beside the massive problem caused by alcohol. Nonetheless, as my

colleagues for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and Maillardville-Coquitlam

(Mr. Levi) have pointed out, heroin grabs the headlines, so we have to

talk about it, because people want to make sure that we're interested

and, as their representatives, concerned. I'm going to offer the

possibility that the two premises, the historical route for which you

can find in, among other works, The City of God , are just possibly still correct today.

First,

without inner animation and spirit your choices are limited. Secondly,

it may just be that there are some human conditions of great and tragic

misery that we cannot reverse no matter how hard we wish it and how

much we try. We just can't.

Now if those two things are

possible, which it seems they are, then the problem of policy becomes a

very delicate thing. I want to refer to that for a moment now and talk

about what our administration did.

Our government

basically.... I wasn't a member of that government, for the information

of the minister. I wasn't even a member of the NDP; I didn't join the

party at all until 1975. Nonetheless, our government — because I

identify with it pretty darned strongly — made two basic cases to the

people of British Columbia, and they were these: first of all, in

regard to illicit drugs, we will create the Coordinated Law Enforcement

Unit, and for the first time in an organized way attack and break the

back of organized crime in British Columbia. Our Attorney-General had

the guts to create CLEU, to pull together the Joint Forces Operation,

and to establish in a very powerful way a commitment on the part of the

government that we will attack organized crime at its roots, and that

most certainly includes organized crime involving trade of the opiates.

That

was the first major statement made by our government, and it was

important, necessary and highly successful — highly successful by any

standard. That's the first thing the New Democrat administration did.

The

second thing was to create an Alcohol and Drug Commission which, as my

colleague has already said — but let me put it in my own words, as one

of the members of the commission, and as its manager for a while — was

an attempt in an integrated and small way to coordinate and pull

together a lot of programs in three ministries — those of Education,

Health and Human Resources — and to act outside the bureaucracy, not

having to waste a lot of time bowing to bureaucrats, pointlessly and

stupidly, because that didn't get the job done. Instead, in as

tough-minded a way as we could, making mistakes along the way, no

doubt, we attempted to coordinate those three basic instruments of

government that dealt with the human condition called alcohol or drugs.

That's what the Alcohol and Drug Commission was about: small, separate

and coordinating — able to go directly to the ministers involved

without worrying for a moment about the red tape, the protocol or the

politics.

I was pleased that anytime I wished I could phone

up my now colleague from New Westminster or my now colleague from

Maillardville-Coquitlam and say: " I need half an hour; I want you to

give it to me. Here's the problem. I've got to come straight to you."

Now if I were simply an on-line public servant — an A03, managing a

commission, or some hack in a bureaucracy — I would have had to work

through my superior, and he through his, and his through his, and

finally it would get to the minister six months after it had to be

done. That was stupid and a waste of time. We didn't bother with that

approach. Instead we said the Alcohol and Drug Commission would operate

in a really remarkably independent way in regard to presenting options.

The government of the day was willing to hear us directly and

personally. We did. I don't know how many times I met with Norman —

dozens and dozens of times — when he was minister, to make the case as

best I could, together with my colleagues on the commission.

urge the minister to consider this. If, for whatever reasons, the

Alcohol and Drug Commission is not at the moment operating in such. an

independent way, don't consider that the remedy is to remove its

independence. Consider instead that perhaps some new statement and some

new commitment to that independent role could be valuable to you.

In a field as changeable, difficult, tough and political as is alcohol and

drug abuse in this province, don't tie down the people who are trying to

deal with it by yanking them into the public service and the bureaucracy. If

you do, you will cripple them; you will bore them; you will enervate them. If

you do, you will make it difficult for them to do their jobs. Keep it separate

and apart, and give them as much liberty as you can to move as rapidly as they

can as times and things change. That's important. That was, I think, one

of the fundamental advantages of the approach taken by our administration, and

I hope you keep it. If you have to strengthen it, do so, and you'll do so

with our support. Because it worked, I think, for us. We got a lot of stuff

done in a very short period of time. We did it at relatively little expense.

The first budget was — what? — $2.1 million; the next was $3.2 million.

did so in a way which, I think it can be demonstrated, continues to

form the burden of what success the commission has had. To the best of

my knowledge, every single program currently operated by the Alcohol

and Drug Commission that succeeds in any way is based on a program that

we started — now five and six years ago. The only one that has failed

is the program that we rejected; that was compulsory treatment. All the

rest is based on the initiatives taken by our administration. So I'm

boasting; I'm proud. It worked. But it didn't

[ Page 3317 ]

work

because we were especially able to do it. It worked because many had

done it before and we learned from their experience and their success.

We rejected their failure and put it together as best we could.

was a good thing that our commission had the liberty to go directly to

members of cabinet when we wished, to make our case as well as we

could. It was a good thing that we could go and say: "Look, here's

what's slowing it down in the bureaucracy. Here's how the red tape is

bungling it again. Here's what's wrong with the traditional way of

doing it, and here's what we propose in its place. Now that you've

heard us, will you agree?" Sometimes they agreed and sometimes they did

not. Nonetheless, they always listened and we didn't have to waste time

tripping and tracking through the bureaucracy.

Another aspect of the then policy that was important and that I commend to

the minister was this: it was appreciated and stated by our government that

it was a combined effort, particularly on the parts of the Ministers of Human

Resources and Health, but also to some extent Education, because we were concerned

about drug abuse in the schools, and the opportunities to use the public school

system to provide education directly on site to kids who may be able to take

some advantage of it. That was important. But it was a combined and integrated

approach within cabinet. I certainly remember making representations to my two

current colleagues and as well the then Minister of Education, Mrs. Dailly.

They were all interested.

Once

again, I urge the minister, when he's examining the matter, to consider

the possibility that that second basic aspect of structure, the

coordinating and integrating role of those three agencies of

government, Health, Education and Human Resources, is just possibly a

good thing that needs strengthening and not simply abandonment because

for different reasons under a different minister it doesn't appear to

have worked. I think it's just possible that it's basically a sound

approach.

Let me reiterate and then move on to something

else. The two basic arguments made by our administration were: "First

of all, we will enforce the law to the hilt and we will attack

organized crime in the drug industry wherever and whenever we can."

That's why CLEU was created and the Joint Forces Operation was put into

place. That's why today we have, I think, far less prevalent a problem

than we did eight or nine years ago in regard to the total numbers of

persons addicted to the various opiates in B.C. But it's still not

perfect and, of course, dope still gets in. Nonetheless, it was better

than doing nothing. The second thing we did was establish the Alcohol

and Drug Commission and give it as much free rein as possible within

government. That was a good thing, too.

When one debates

health policy one has to conclude that the only reasons for advocating

this or that policy are, firstly, scientific reasons, and secondly,

political reasons. As far as I can tell there's no other opinion that

has weight. Your argument is fundamentally, originally and factually

scientific in nature and/or it is political. None of us is going to

criticize a government for being political, because that's your

business. But we have yet to find even one piece of scientific data

that gives any stature or credibility and offers any scientific basis

to the program announced by the former Minister of Health. We can't

find one.

Is there more evidence required that it doesn't

work? May I say it again? In California it did not work and they spent

hundreds of millions of dollars in order to fail. In Lexington,

Kentucky, they carried on a program for almost 20 years that did not

work, again at a vast public expense. They made the same mistake most

recently in New York State, where it is now not working. Why is it not

working? Let me reiterate. Maybe it's just because Augustine and the

other great philosophers were correct. If you're not motivated to

change you don't change; if you don't feel it within you it doesn't

happen; if it's not inspired, voluntary, deliberate and personal it

doesn't succeed; and if it is imposed and compulsory in our culture it

will not work, as regrettable, tragic and miserable as that conclusion

may be.

So it didn't work in California or Kentucky and it

isn't working in New York State and sure enough it's not working in

B.C. What would a rational person conclude on the basis of all those

observations and that scientific data? You might conclude that it isn't

going to work, or you could, I suppose, for reasons of the other

evidence, which is political, try to pretend that it will work and that

you have an answer to a problem that no one has yet been able answer in

any Nuith American jurisdiction. In none of 50 states and 10 provinces

has a single workable answer yet been found. What does work? The

members of AA know what works — the 12 steps work.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: My colleague says he's at step 18 and it still hasn't worked. Try again, Don.

The

steps work because Bill W. was right. In the forties in New York, where

he put it together, he understood what human motivation counted for and

what voluntary spirit was required. When Bill W. put together the AA

program he understood the discipline that would have to be obtained

through peer and group pressure in order to sustain the initially

personal and individual motivation, how the group could support the

individual and that principle of human interaction. AA is the single

most successful drug-abuse program in the world.

How much

did it cost the taxpayers of British Columbia last year for the single

most successful program that does work? Zero. Nothing. We do contribute

to the Al-anon clubs and affiliated organizations — Alateen and the

rest — but for AA itself.... There are some 30 groups in my own riding

and I've had a chance to attend some of their meetings. I'm terribly

impressed by what they do, because they care, their feelings are

authentic and the group succeeds. It costs the people of B.C. precisely

nothing to enjoy the benefits of the most effective drug-abuse program

in the world, which is AA.

What did it cost us for

compulsory heroin treatment at Brannan Lake, which may or may not be

legal? The budget was $14 million in the first year. But what has it

actually cost so far? Two million dollars, was it?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER:

Well, we don't know. My argument isn't primarily budgetary. It is on a

different order, and my argument, repeatedly, is this: it is apparently

the case that where human motivation is not found, human remedies

cannot be applied. That applies to booze, prescription drugs and most

certainly to opiates and their derivatives. It didn't work in

California; it isn't working in New York State; after 20

[ Page 3318 ]

years of trying in Kentucky they finally shut it down and admitted it didn't work; and now, of course, it's not working here.

There

is another problem, which is consistency. One of the things that

bothered me about the doomed-to-failure, compulsory Heroin Treatment

Program was the fact that the government, for whatever reasons — aside

from having no scientific evidence whatever to support its position; at

least, the then minister had no scientific evidence — chose to ignore

two far more crucial problems. Why, for instance, did the government

not introduce a compulsory alcohol treatment program? The number of

abusers is far greater; the human toll and tragedy that results is far

more profound; the costs in hospital and long-term care, the costs in

days lost at work, are far, far larger than with heroin. Maybe it was

political. It would be hard for a government to bring in a compulsory

alcohol treatment program, because that, of course, is a disease that

is terrifically more acceptable in Canada than is the disease of heroin

addiction. But if the government wanted to be genuinely consistent and

arguably tough-minded about it, they would have brought in a compulsory

alcohol treatment program. However, it may just be the case that they

didn't want to lose the election. They couldn't possibly build enough

facilities, in any case, to contain the tens of thousands of people who

would end up being locked up as a result of that Program. So they

didn't take that approach; but if they were philosophically consistent

they would have.

There is another problem too, and it is

dealing with what are pharmaceutically called the hypnotics — Darvon

and Valium and Librium and all those other trade names that describe

drugs which in their physical consequence are more damaging than heroin

and in their human consequence are at least as damaging as heroin

because of what they do to the family life of people who become

addicted to prescription drugs. No, there was no compulsory treatment

required for people who are addicted to hypnotics. Instead, for

political reasons only, the most notorious drug was chosen and that was

heroin. For political reasons, a program was set up that everyone knew

could not work — with all respect — because it had never worked where

human motivation was lacking. Where motivation is pres'nt you don't

need a compulsory program. That is a tautology, eh? You don't need a

compulsory program where the person is inspired to seek help. So much

for the tautology.

I would like to conclude by asking the

minister today to accept the spirit of our proposals and the body of

some of those proposals which will be made at greater length later on

in this debate. I would like him to join with us in stating on behalf

of all the people, through this Legislature, that both parties are

concerned about drug abuse, both sides are concerned about alcohol

abuse and both sides want to find a remedy. Both sides should surely

choose a body of remedies that has some chance of success, however

marginal. Unfortunately, the compulsory heroin treatment remedy had a

less than marginal chance of success. We want you to make a new start

with the Alcohol and Drug Commission. We commend you for the review. We

offer observations about why it worked when we set it up and why it

could work again, and we offer, in a spirit that is positive and

conciliatory and non-partisan, some specific proposals to make a new

start and get it going again in the interests of all the people of the

province.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I will be brief, because

this topic that I'm about to discuss relates exactly to what the

previous three members have discussed — the Alcohol and Drug Commission

problems. I want to tell the minister that while I will later, during

the course of his estimates, be dealing with other problems in the

province and in my riding, I am going to stick strictly to this one

topic at the present time.

I think I should open my remarks

to the minister by stating that the problem I am about to discuss

relates to one community, but it is symptomatic of a problem that is

happening to most other rural communities in British Columbia. I chose

this particular problem because the people have documented the case so

well over the past two years. It relates to a detox centre for the

community of Bella Coola. While I don't ordinarily believe in lengthy

quotes from correspondence, I am going to quote this into the record

because they so well and concisely documented the problem. What really

bothers me about this, Mr. Chairman, is that while that government and

that minister wasted millions of dollars on a program that appears to

be illegal — and it's certainly not democratic in any event, in my view

— requests for funds for a service like the the proposed detox centre

for a community like Bella Coola, where they have severe alcohol

problems, as they do in many small communities for a variety of

reasons, are ignored in spite of phone calls, personal discussions with

people within the ministry, the minister himself and the Alcohol and

Drug Commission. Most of my correspondence is acknowledged, but that's

about as far as it goes. All of my pleas and requests for funding

through the Alcohol and Drug Commission and the ministry have been

ignored. They say they haven't got the funding.

I could go

back over the correspondence on this one item for the last two years. I

won't do that, but I'm going to read you — just so it's on the record —

a quote from this document from the Bella Coola alcohol and drug

services committee, which also, by the way, includes the Bella Coola

General Hospital board of directors and the United Church of Canada.

I'll just read the one

section of this brief to the ministry and to the

Alcohol and Drug Commission:

"A. The problem.

"Bella

Coola is an isolated community located in the northern region of the

commission's provincial breakdown of services. It serves as a centre

for a catchment area of Anahim, Nimpo Lake to the east, Klemm, Bella

Bella, Owikeno, Ocean Falls, and Shearwater to the west. Williams Lake,

300 miles to the east, has the closest out-patient counselling service,

but cannot serve this area. Vancouver, 300 miles by air, 600 miles by

road, has all types of facilities, as do Prince George and Kamloops,

but is also a great distance away from the Bella Coola catchment area.

"Travel costs in this area are prohibitive."

At the time this letter was written, it was $210 return by air to Vancouver,

and that has risen dramatically over the last couple of months.

"...$10 return airfare to Williams Lake, etc. "

They go on at some length about figures.

"But

not only that, these facilities are used spasmodically and often after

a wait of one or two months for an opening. The alcohol and

alcohol-related problems are evidenced in court convictions, repeated

hospital admissions and out-patient treatment, school

[ Page 3319 ]

dropouts, family breakdowns, child abuse and neglect, gang rapes,

suicides, unemployment and job instability.

"The

use of other drugs — marijuana, LSD in conjunction with alcohol — is

also increasing. It is a vicious circle of prolonged drinking, crises,

suicides, severe illnesses, hallucinations, etc., admission to hospital

and treatment, then back to the same environment and routine."

effect, what they're saying, Mr. Chairman, is that these people they

admit to hospital are dried out and then go back into the same old

routine — no facilities whatsoever,

I'm not quoting here,

but the minister may recall — on second thought, it may have been the

previous minister whom I discussed this with — that when we were

discussing the construction of a new hospital — which is in progress

for the Bella Coola area at the present time, by the way — we asked

that a part of that unit or an addition be for a drug and alcohol

centre because of the severe nature of the problem in that area. Once

again, Mr. Chairman, the answer was no, we don't have the money.

They've got money for bridges and tunnels to keep some member elected

here because he threatened to resign; they've got money for all of

those things. We've got money for ministers to travel to Europe and

Asia and around the country; and they don't even table a report on

their return, because they didn't do anything. But we haven't got money

for the treatment of our own people. What a government!

Anyway, to get back to the quote here:

"Often they will request or agree to treatment while in

the crisis stage; but by the time arrangements can be made to attend a treatment

centre — often one to three months — the patient is again back in the cycle

and lost until the next time around. Of course, expensive travel only adds insult

to injury. Therefore we feel sure the commission will agree: with no program

or facility designed to specifically meet these needs, the gap in service is

obvious even to an outsider."

And, Mr. Chairman, I must say the gap in service must by now even be obvious to the minister.

This

is really a genuine and severe problem. Two years we've been battling

on this particular problem, and quite frankly, these people are doing

their work, they're competent people. We've got nothing from the

ministry while they squandered multi-millions on a program that nobody

wanted or needed, isn't working and is probably illegal.

received further correspondence on July 7, 1980, a copy of which went

to the minister and the Drug and Alcohol Commission, from the Bella

Coola detox committee. I'll just quote one or two short paragraphs of

this very recent correspondence on this matter:

"Enclosed is the Bella Coola detox proposal for 1980. Our

proposal for last year was rejected, as you know, but the need has not changed.

The situation in our area is still critical, and while we do not have the resources

to do an in-depth statistical study of all alcohol-related suicides, hospital

admissions..."

By the way, a good friend of mine, the chief counsellor,

committed suicide last week; it was alcohol-related. Again that was in

one of our communities in that area of the coast.

"...police and court cases, child abuse, industrial

accidents, school dropouts, unemployment, etc., the problem is a very real one,

and one that is being ignored by the ministry."

A copy of this letter went to you, so I'm sure you will reply.

"We

have had a total lack of cooperation from the Alcohol and Drug Commission in

trying to develop a program of alcohol rehabilitation."

I could go on and on, but I think by now the minister has the point I'm attempting to make here.

I've

talked about one community which happens to be in my riding, but I have

visited many, many small communities throughout British Columbia with

similar problems. A minister should not, in my view, get up in this

House today and say, "We'll look into it," or, "We'll consult and do

another study," because we're being studied to death. Get up in this

House today and say: "We'll give Bella Coola that money; we'll provide

funds; we can do without a fixed link to Vancouver Island." Nobody

wants it anyway, at $3 billion minimum, maybe $5 billion or $10 billion

— who knows? Work for people a little bit, try a little bit; that

wouldn't hurt you politically either. You're not going to get many

votes out of that fixed link to Vancouver Island, but you're going to

get a lot of votes out of working for people, Mr. Minister. I'd hate to

get you re-elected, but if you do a good job I might vote for you.

Finally,

since there doesn't seem to be a great deal of interest, and we do have

an emergency motion before this House which should be dealt with, I

move that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Chairman, no doubt there will be a short pause while those who wish

to leave can leave. I think perhaps it might be best if I just waited

for a moment. I wish everybody who wants to clear out would clear out.

MR. MACDONALD: You can empty a House. Can you fill one? [Laughter.]

[ Page 3320 ]

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to deal with the remarks of the

member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead). Contrary to what he wants me to

say, I am going to say that I will look into it and re-examine it. But

in saying that I want him to know that I am aware of the problems that

prevail not only in that community but in a great many other

communities. If I could just be light-hearted for a second, I haven't

been to Bella Coola for about 20 years, and the fact that it is now a

catchment for Anahim Lake and Nimpo Lake must be a great credit to the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). It certainly

wouldn't have been 25 years ago, unless you consider people who fell

off the road on the way down from Anahim as being caught falling into

the catchment. In those days one did not consider Bella Coola to be in

any way a neighbour of Anahim Lake, that's for sure. It was a journey

filled with stark terror. It may have changed since then. If it has, no

doubt the sport fishing has suffered as a result. In any event, yes, I

will take another look at that and see if I can do anything,

particularly for Bella Coola.

I would like to tell the

members of the chamber something about what I've done in the relatively

short time I've been in the ministry, with respect to the question of

health delivery services to natives, because I think that's implicit in

what you were talking about. One of the basic problems in Bella Coola

relates to Indian health. It is the same problem as in Alert Bay and a

great many other areas.

To give you an example of what we

are up against, when the situation in Alert Bay reared its head the

last time and I knew that Dr. Goldthorpe was coming down with his

report, I took the opportunity of going back to Ottawa to talk to the

federal Minister of Health and Welfare, Monique Bégin, because it

seemed to me that the whole thing was rather silly. Here we were

giving, I think, despite all the debate that one hears in the House,

darned good health services to the people of British Columbia. Yet

somehow we got into a cross-fire every time it involved natives, and

particularly every time it involved natives who are status Indians.

I went back to her and said I recognized there was going to be quite a

brouhaha when this report came down. Dr. Goldthorpe admitted when he

came out to British Columbia that he had come from the other side of

the Rockies, didn't know what he was doing, and was going to learn as

he went along. He knew that when he brought down his report there were

going to be a lot of bruised feelings and unhappy people, and not too

many solutions.

With that in mind, along with my senior staff I met with Monique Bégin and

suggested to her that we take a joint approach to the whole question of delivering

health services to native people, including, for example, detox centres in some

areas, D&T centres in other areas and hospitals in others. If they insisted

on being in the game, if they felt they had a constitutional or political obligation

to be in the game, or whatever it might be, for goodness' sake, if they

weren't going to get entirely in the game and deliver the health services

entirely themselves, then either let us do it — and I undertook that we would

do it, subject to suitable financial arrangements being made in consideration

of that — or, if we couldn't do that, let us approach it jointly. Let's

get together and have a joint federal-provincial committee set up, and let's

involve the native people in each area. Let's start off with a pilot project

at Alert Bay, because that happened to be the place that was most immediately

in everybody's mind. We agreed to that. As a matter of fact, we worked out

a press release that this was exactly what we were going to do.

want to tell you Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, I'd scarcely

got off the airplane back in Victoria before the good minister had

announced that she was going to do it all entirely by herself, that the

federal government had an obligation to do all of these things and she

was going to take care of it unilaterally. I sent her a telegram asking

her what went wrong with the agreement, and haven't received an answer

to this day.

Sure, I know you're going to say: "Well, all

right, you're going to have to grab hold of the problem yourself if you

can't get help from the feds." But, you know, and I'm sure your

colleagues when you were in government knew that it just isn't all that

easy. I'd rather know that the feds were on the other side, instead of

thinking that they were on our side until it came time to pony up with

the money or pony up with the help. I'm not trying any Ottawa-bashing,

I'm just giving you one example of a cabinet minister in British

Columbia going back to Ottawa to try and get some cooperation in this

particularly difficult area so that we could actually deliver services,

not just a lot of rhetoric and a lot of talk to make some mileage with

constituents, and do some good. I'm afraid I was very disappointed

indeed.

In any event, in answer to your question, yes, Bella

Coola has got a particularly difficult problem, as some other areas do,

but I'll take another look at that. I'm sure the member for Mackenzie

(Mr. Lockstead) knows that the new hospital will contain ten acute-care

beds, three extended-care, and three beds currently labelled as

intermediate-care. If there is a priority for detoxification, which I

think is one of the problems that you specifically raised, then there's

no reason why these beds could not be used for that purpose. I don't

think that solves your problem entirely, but it's a start. So we have

been thinking about you, and have been concerned about the problem.

I'd

like to move back to the remarks made by the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) — I've got it right, finally! — and

I'm going to accept his invitation. I hope that when I accept this

caveat extends to the remarks I make in answer to the request of the

first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) that they be fairly casual — not

be etched in stone, not be taken as government policy, past, present or

prospective, but as just some of the ideas that I have relative to this

problem. It may very well be that I'll come up with some different

ideas when I'm better informed or, perhaps, differently informed, but

if you wish to know some of the thoughts I have, I'd be very pleased to

discuss them with you.

I think that I did talk a little

about some of my thoughts a little earlier. I don't believe in 1980 —

and I'm not even sure that it was ever true, although that's with the

benefit of 20/20 hindsight — that it's a uni-drug problem, or even just

a dual-drug problem, or even just a three- or four-drug problem. I

think the problem is one that involves a great many chemicals, and I've

often wondered whether or not the choice of the term "alcohol and drug"

is really a good one, now that we think about it. It seems to separate

one from the other. All it does, I suppose, in one way is emphasize

that the most dangerous and the most devastating and costly in every

imaginable way — monetarily, psychologically, and all the rest of that

— is alcohol. If the purpose was to set alcohol aside to make it sound

worse, that's probably not a bad idea. But I rather suspect that most

people think that it's....

[ Page 3321 ]

MR. BARBER: That's exactly why we did it in the name.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Well, I rather suspect that the general public doesn't look at it that

way. I think that they sort of still think that the alcohol problem is

something that really is a much nicer problem, in the sense that it

doesn't happen to the kind of people that the drug problem happens to.

I don't believe that, Mr. Chairman, through you to the members

opposite. I happen to feel very strongly that the chemical dependency

problem — which is probably a better way of putting it, although

perhaps not as sexy — really knows no class, race, creed, or financial

boundaries; it touches every segment of society. There's no real

difference between the housewife, if you will, or the businessman who

pops some pills, and the person on Gore Avenue or Cordova that

mainlines it. There's really no difference at all. They've both got a

problem. It may even be that the reasons they have that problem are

very similar, even though they're very different in terms of their

background.

So I feel pretty strongly that it is something

that's got to be approached on a multi-chemical basis. In saying that,

it's more than just my own thoughts. While I don't have the experience

in these matters that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) does,

I did spend my youth and the times I was in my late years in high

school and throughout university, in the summertime, working in an area

that was a very serious drug area. If you're wondering, I worked at

American Can Co. — you know where that is located in Vancouver, I

presume — and that was, at that time, the centre of the recognized drug

problem. In those days we didn't recognize a drug problem other than

the people we threw in jail for either distributing or trafficking in

heroin, or taking it. We didn't recognize it as we do today.

at least I grew up in an atmosphere, for part of my years as a youth,

where the drug problem was very much before us. As a matter of fact, I

remember working at American Can with a very interesting fellow, who

the lawyers in this room may remember, if there are any in the room

right now: a fellow by the name of Bill Henderson, who was very unique

because he was involved in that shoot-out on the flats in Vancouver

back in about 1946 or 1947 where Ledingham and Boyes were the two

policemen killed. As I recall there were three people apprehended and

all three were sentenced to hang, including Henderson. Henderson was

acquitted in the Supreme Court of Canada by dint of the efforts of a

former member of this House, now a judge. The basis of his acquittal

was that before the shooting took place he had already been apprehended

and was under control. He therefore was able to escape the gallows. Jay

Gould was the lawyer — now a judge — who defended him. The point is

that I remember watching Henderson being hounded by the authorities

every year thereafter. No matter where he went he was always hounded,

always pushed up against the wall of the old Hadden beer parlour and

searched for drugs and so on.

While I don't pretend to be an

expert at all because I didn't have anything to do with treating drugs,

I certainly didn't grow up in some glass house where I was sealed off

from these problems. I guess like most lawyers I've thought about the

problem a lot. I've read a bit about it and I must say that since I've

become Health minister I've read more.

I took the

opportunity when I was in Britain — shortly after I was sworn in as

Minister of Health — to go and see the people in the Home Office in

London. I had a very interesting day — not just an hour or an afternoon

but a day — with a Mr. Spear who, incidentally, if you're going over

there, goes by the rather interesting nickname of Bing. He won't tell

anybody why he's called that. He must have sung songs at some time or

another. We spent a whole day talking about what I perceived to be

their attitude towards heroin and other opium derivative addictions and

what I thought their program was. I found out that my thoughts and most

of what I've read in Canada about their program were clearly wrong. It

was a much different situation than I had been led to believe. I

certainly came away with the impression that they had a pretty good

handle on the older addicts in Great Britain but they had no handle

whatever on the young Kensington crowd. They were now getting taken in.

certainly became very aware that while we had done a great job in

Canada, and in British Columbia particularly, in the police area in

bringing the supply of heroin under control, we are in great danger of

that going out of control again. The Iranian situation was one of the

contributing factors where people, instead of taking money out of Iran,

are taking heroin out because it is a lot easier to smuggle out and

there is a great profit in taking out a very small quantity of smuggled

goods. I recognize that while we can take great solace at this point in

time by reason of the enforcement success of the various city police

forces — the RCMP in particular — we have no reason to be overly

optimistic. We may be right back into the problem again very, very

quickly and if it does come back it'll come back like lightning. It

won't come back gradually. It will all of a sudden be there. So, as I

say, in coming up with what thoughts I'm going to try to articulate

this afternoon, I don't come with any great expertise. I do, however, I

think, come with some sort of sympathy for the problems as I have seen

them and some little understanding at least. I guess in trying to

analyze the problem from my point of view, I find myself asking myself

more questions than being able to come up with any answers.

think the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) articulated a lot of

the things that concern me. Is there a right way to approach this? Is

there some answer that is out there somewhere? Or is it perhaps just

that it's a constant matter of experimentation to try to find the best

method of not getting rid of the problem but of dealing with it and, as

best you can, controlling it. Maybe it's not something where we should

have optimism that the problem can be solved, much less even brought

under real control. Maybe there will always be a Davie Street like

there's a Picadilly, like there's a Canal Street in Amsterdam. Maybe

it's not a question where we can ever really see the end of the problem

but all we can really do is do the very best we can to (

a) contain it

and (

b) prevent people through persuasion from getting into that system.

[Mr. Nicolson in the chair.]

Maybe

it isn't even a health problem. I've thought about that long and hard

because here it is my responsibility and I certainly don't wish to

escape it, but maybe it is a societal problem that goes much deeper

than health. Maybe health is simply the treatment of the problem and

not really area where we should be addressing it. Maybe it is more

through education. Maybe it's through something we haven't even thought

about. I don't know. All I know — I certainly yield to those here and

elsewhere who have a better handle on the situation than I do — is that

it is a very perplexing problem indeed.

[ Page

3322 ]

As I say, it certainly blankets all political systems. You can't

look to the communist system or to a fascist system or to even a much

more primitive system that still exists in some places in the world and

say: "Look, it doesn't exist there so we can get our help there." It

does exist there. It may not be heroin that exists there, but something

exists there to take the place of heroin for those who, for perhaps

psychological reasons, find they must depend upon something extraneous.

I am not a hard-liner by nature. I would like to find some way that is

going to best accommodate all of society's aspirations in this matter.

don't know that it's going to do the chamber or this debate any good,

or add anything to the proceedings, if we redebate the Heroin Treatment

Act. We can if we wish. I think you've already done that to some

extent. I suppose if .you want me to join into the debate you expect me

to expound a number of mea culpas and that'll make everybody feel

better. But I don't know that I want to do that, and I don't know that

it's particularly necessary.

I think, really, what we have

to do is to keep looking, trying and hoping that there is a better

solution. Some of the things that you have said are very impressive and

I don't mind saying it. I don't say this in the silence of this room

because everything that's said in here is taken down. I can't escape my

colleagues when I say to you that I think a lot of what you have told

me today does impress me very much as things we ought to look at. I do

think that perhaps sometimes we make our judgments in terms that are

too traditional — using maybe a thing like Brannan Lake, for example.

Once again I'm just thinking out loud. Maybe there ought to be a

Brannan Lake, even if it's very, very expensive, so that there is some

beacon that's held out for mothers and fathers, for example, who may

want to turn their kids in without turning their kids in. You know, you

could call up somebody and say: "Look, my son's in trouble. My

daughter's in trouble. I want him to have an opportunity to be treated.

I don't want the police to get involved. I do want a doctor to get

involved, I do want help. Have you got somewhere he can go that is away

from this neighbourhood and his friends?" and all the rest of it. Maybe

you have to spend a lot of money to have that beacon in the sense that

the money per capita is not particularly well spent. Maybe you don't

have many people for the dollars you spend, but maybe the hope that you

hold out by having that does some peripheral good that's very difficult

to measure. I don't know, but those are the kinds of things that I

think we have to think about.

I mentioned earlier that I

have Dr. Bonham under very strict instructions to come down by the end

of July — and I hope he's on target. I know he's on holiday right now.

I hope that's not going to affect the target date, but I don't think it

matters because it's only a matter of a few days. He'll give me a

broader overview of the whole situation. As I said a little earlier, I

hope he will give me an assessment that is a complete assessment. I

hope that it addresses some of the things that you did today, Mr. First

Member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), even though they may not come up with

the same conclusions.

While you were talking I thought your

arguments were very seductive, that the commission ought to be

something outside of government and not in a position where they have

to go through a long line of bureaucrats in order to get to the

minister. Well, maybe you can do that within government too if you