1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page 1067 ]

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 12, 1974

Night sitting

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General

estimates.

Mr. Steves — 1067

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1068

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1070

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1071

Mr. McClelland — 1071

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1078

Ms. Brown — 1079

Mr. Gardom — 1082

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1087

Mr. Curtis — 1088

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1089

Mr. Wallace — 1089

Statement

Motions on the order paper. Mr. Speaker — 1091

Mr. Chabot — 1092

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1974

The House met at 8 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF THE

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 11: Attorney-General's office, $79,652.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise

in support of the comments made by the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) before the dinner

adjournment. It seems that the opposition didn't like them too

much, and I'm sorry that there is so much defence of the

landlord class and that they have not too much regard for the

tenants and their problems.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House and of

the Hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) some of the

correspondence that I have had in the last couple of days about

the plight of the tenants, and I would like to read some of

this to bring it to the attention of the House. I had one

letter from an old-age pensioner who is blind and disabled and

in very difficult times. I'm not going to read the entire

thing. It's a very sad letter, in which the person suggests

that myself as a backbencher and the lot of us as government

have not done that much in the area of trying to control the

rents. I will read part of it to give you some idea of what

some of these people are up against. The letter says:

"What the (blank) good is an increase of $5 in my

pension

when the rent increases are as high as 60 per cent? I receive a

blind pension of $214.85, and now pay $165 a month rent for an

apartment. So I am left with $48.85 to eat on and clothe

myself. Perhaps you will go and suggest that I get a

bed-sitting one room and pay an average of $22 a week for it,

and end up eating in a restaurant. Why isn't there something to

get landlords off our backs, eh?"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention

of the Hon. Member that there is a motion on the order paper

standing in the name of the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Barnes) to deal with this subject. Also, this is not, strictly

speaking, within the administrative responsibility of the

Minister.

MR. STEVES: I think, Mr. Chairman, that the Hon.

Attorney-General is responsible for looking after the

Landlord and Tenant Act . There

are some amendments or

some suggestions on rent controls….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point is that this would

involve matters of legislation rather than administration.

MR. STEVES: Well, perhaps I'll deal with it in such a way — I

have written to the Attorney-General on several occasions,

and presented letters to him, and I would like to present that

one to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Table the letter.

MR. STEVES: I would like to deal with rent problems as well.

I would like to mention this one letter. The person talks about

a rent increase from an apartment….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would again draw to the

attention of the Hon. Member that any matter concerning rent

controls, et cetera, is a matter of legislation. Therefore it

is not in order.

MR. STEVES: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I haven't been

suggesting rent controls, but there was a very liberal,

discussion earlier this evening on it, and other people were

not brought to order for going into these areas.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The Chair rules according to the rules,

not according to what took place previously.

MR. STEVES: Mr. Chairman, I would hope then that the Hon.

Attorney-General would be able to look into these matters,

whether it is a matter of rent controls or not. I suggest that

he might be able to look into the matters that I am presenting

in this correspondence. I am not suggesting here that I am

asking him at this time to rule tonight whether we are having

rent controls or not. I am simply asking him to look into the

matter, Mr. Chairman.

The other matter I was mentioning is partly to do with

rents, and partly to do with parking and extra charges for

Hydro in car ports. I think that this is something that the

Attorney-General should be aware of that is happening to the

tenants out in my community and throughout the greater

Vancouver area.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Just read the letters.

MR. STEVES: These are letters that I haven't sent

[ Page 1068 ]

to him. I am just suggesting that I will be passing

these

letters on to him. I have passed on about two or three hundred

others that the Attorney-General has been looking into and I

would like to congratulate him for the attention that his

department has been giving to them.

The other thing that I would like to draw the attention of

the House to has nothing to do with rent controls, but it has

to do with the Law Reform Commission. I am a bit disturbed, Mr.

Chairman, at the philosophy of the Law Reform Commission. I

would like to draw your attention to page 294 of the Law Reform

Commission's report, where it states that in the area of

landlord and tenant relations the remedies of self-help ought

to be discouraged if other means of solving disputes can be

found. I am a bit concerned that by adopting that particular

philosophy, we are ruling out a lot of the options that might

be open to us. I hope that in considering help for the tenants

the Attorney-General will consider areas where the tenants are

able to help themselves, rather than strictly following the

legalese and the type of strict, rigid law reform that the Law

Reform Commission is imposing.

They have come down against self-help on the part of

tenants, they have come down against collective bargaining on

the part of tenants, they have come down against the rent

review boards, and so on. I hope that the Attorney-General, in

considering the philosophy of the Law Reform Commission report,

will consider that basically there may be some area in landlord

and tenant relationships where self-help is perhaps a good

philosophy and a good area that we should allow them to operate

within.

I am very much concerned that we should not be rigidly

imposing things upon people, and that there should be some

areas where they can negotiate and work together to help

alleviate the problems that the tenants are facing.

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

I think it has been an interesting debate in the last few

moments. Quite honestly, the NDP caucus has decided to put the

Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) in his place

for having leaked all the caucus secrets with regard to

landlord and tenant problems. I notice he is not here this

evening, and I am sorry he can't be here to defend himself.

Maybe this is a way of getting an emergency debate before the

House — that is, to breach your rules, Mr. Chairman, which I

don't intend to do.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Breach and run.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise something

which is clearly within the area of the responsibility of the

Attorney-General. What I want to know from the Attorney-General is when

the women of this province are going to have equality before the law in

British Columbia.

There are some tragic situations occurring in the province,

and the women are bearing the brunt. It is because of an

unwillingness on the part of the Attorney-General to see that

they are properly looked after.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): No unwillingness.

The spirit is willing.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, but poor old Britannia is apparently

heading for another dose of socialism, and that she doesn't

need.

I would just like to draw the attention of the

Attorney-General to an

article that appeared in The

Vancouver Sun of Wednesday, February 27, 1974. The headline

is: "Payment Defaults Cost $384 Million." It's a story from

Canadian Press out of Ottawa, and it says:

"Taxpayers may be paying roughly $384 million annually

welfare payments because of separated or divorced parents who

neglect to make court-ordered support payments."

We have those cases right here in British Columbia — cases

which have been drawn to the attention of the Department of the

Attorney-General, without solution. Not only is this a

burdensome cost to the Province of British Columbia in respect

to welfare payments, but it is casting an unbearable burden

upon mothers and wives who have been deserted by their

husbands, who have sought justice before our courts, and

haven't received any.

I want to bring one specific case to the attention of this

committee. It is one of 30 emanating from the Province of

British Columbia. I have the authorization of the woman

involved to give her name so that the Attorney-General can

locate this file — Mrs. Gwen Battle. She was deserted by her

husband in November, 1972. She is very well named, Mr.

Chairman, because she has been in a battle ever since November,

1972, and she hasn't had any success yet. Deserted by her

husband in 1972, leaving her with two children, she sought

redress in the courts of this province, and in February, 1973,

she obtained an order from a judge in British Columbia for the

payment of $917 a month for her support and that of her

children — $200 for each child and $517 for the wife.

The only security that was available to enforce the order

was certain shares in a company that belonged to the husband.

The judge ordered that those shares be held as security for the

payment of this obligation. But, Mr. Chairman, the husband upon

leaving this woman and her children went to the Province of

Quebec. Under the reciprocal legislation which we

[ Page 1069 ]

have in this country, the order, made by a judge in

West

Vancouver, was sent in April of 1973 to Quebec, and by the

month of May had reached the Superior Court in the City of

Montreal.

Due to some difficulties in the administration of their

proceedings in the City of Montreal, nothing was done until

September when the matter was finally placed in the hands of a

lawyer in Montreal. He then asked for the material which

apparently had been lost in the interim. As a result of this

request, a complete set of the records from the Province of

British Columbia was sent to this lawyer in Montreal. Then, lo

and behold, negotiations started with the husband — negotiations which

were designed not to perfect the order made

by a judge in British Columbia, but indeed to resolve this

matter by settlement.

Then there was silence. Nothing was heard at all. In January

of 1974, Mrs. Battle, having received no assistance whatsoever — by

this time the matter had been fully referred to the

Attorney-General's department — wired the lawyer in Montreal

saying she planned to come down to discuss the matter with him.

She was advised by this lawyer not to come, but suggested

instead that she choose a private lawyer. She engaged somebody,

at her own expense, to handle her affairs in the Province of

Quebec.

Mind you, here's a woman who all these months had been

without the support of her husband; living on welfare to

support herself and her children; borrowing those moneys which

she needed for expenses over and above welfare; receiving no

assistance from the Department o f the Attorney-General, except

their willingness to try and ensure that the law was

enforced.

In order to get some results, she's now hired her own lawyer

in Montreal. She is obliged to go at the end of this week to

Montreal, at her own expense, for the purpose of instructing

her lawyer there. Her husband has now indicated that he's

willing to settle — settle, if you please, Mr. Attorney-General — the

order made in British Columbia in February, 1973, at a

reduction to $800 a month, but he refuses to pay any arrears.

More than a year this woman has been without support from her

husband, and the husband is now offering to settle.

It seems to me, Mr. Attorney-General, it's a clear case that

there is one law for the men, and one law for the women. By the

inability of the Attorney-General's department to see the

enforcement of orders made by courts of competent jurisdiction

in British Columbia, you can get away with this kind of

nonsense. What is the end result?

So far as the Province of British Columbia is concerned, they've

paid to this woman and her children $3,180 in welfare. In addition, to

assist her in a matter of an emergency which occurred because of

flooding which took place in West Vancouver, they've loaned her, from

welfare, $350. She's had to borrow money for her medical coverage,

dental expenses and the like. Her total loans from the bank are $2,500.

She's borrowed $500 or $600 from her relatives.

During her marriage, during the time she and her husband

lived together, he apparently was able to encourage her to sign

a note at the bank so he could buy a boat. The boat has since

been seized and sold, but there's an outstanding balance on

that note of $600 or $700. And this is still a liability to

this woman in the Province of British Columbia. She's being

charged with the interest on this loan.

Now, in order to get some relief in the Province of Quebec,

she's obliged to spend between $300 or $400 to travel down

there this weekend in order to instruct her lawyer. She's

already paid this lawyer $100 to retain him. She's incurred

legal expense in the Province of British Columbia of about

$1,500 which she hasn't paid in order to assist her in getting

this private legal advice.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: To Mr. Kowerski?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. I'm glad the

Attorney-General knows about the case.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I try to keep up with these

things.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, you should keep up with these kind

of cases. Why didn't you give this woman some assistance?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I just keep up with it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, keep up with it!

AN HON. MEMBER: He'll have to ask the Minister of Finance

about it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: When it's all over, Mr. Chairman, if this

woman is able to go to Montreal, and through her own private

lawyer to get some redress in the Province of Quebec, and to

force her husband to pay the order that was made in the

Province of British Columbia more than a year ago, she'll still

be married to this guy, and she faces the problem of a divorce

after all these difficulties.

What I cannot understand is — because this is only one of 30

cases of a similar kind — if there are difficulties in the

Province of Quebec in getting them to fulfil their

responsibilities under the reciprocal legislation we have, why

the Attorney-General's department hasn't seen fit to instruct a

lawyer in the City of Montreal to handle all these cases coming

out of British Columbia — to resolve these difficulties.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, for the welfare

[ Page 1070 ]

expense alone for this one woman, they could have

hired a

solicitor in the City of Montreal to resolve all 30 cases. But

no, we've been 13 or 14 months in this one particular case

waiting for the Province of Quebec to fulfil its

responsibility. Because of some procedural problem there, some

disorganization in their legal aid situation, nothing has been

done all these months. And this one woman, in order to get her

own redress, has now had to go to this kind of expense.

No wonder that the total for Canada is $384 million in

direct welfare expense as a result of situations such as this,

if this woman's case is anything like an example. We have this

one case, involving her own borrowing, her own losses, and the

welfare expense exceeds $7,000 or $8,000 in one year. Multiply

that by 30 and you're already into astronomic figures — figures

that could be saved if the Department of the Attorney-General

would ensure that the laws of this province and the orders of

judges in this province are enforced.

If other provinces are not prepared under the reciprocal

arrangement to fulfil their part of the responsibility, don't

wash your hands of it, Mr. Attorney-General, do something. Hire

somebody if the people in the other provinces aren't prepared

to do their job. Then when you have your meetings with the

other Attorneys-General from the provinces, when your Deputy

Minister meets with them, solve the matter at that level. But

don't cast the burden on the individual citizen. Don't cast the

burden on the deserted wife and mother, who with all the

problems that situation alone creates has to face the

responsibility to go on welfare, the obligation to borrow

moneys — all the while having to raise her family by

herself.

Now, the thing that makes this case so shocking is that the

husband is a person of means. In November of 1972, which was

the last concrete information that this woman had concerning

her husband's income, he was receiving an income of $24,000 a

year plus bonuses plus an expense account from his company,

plus a free car and free gasoline. The shares in the company,

which are supposedly held for security for the payment of this

obligation, are worth $250,000. This is not a man who doesn't

have the means to fulfil his obligations; he has lots of

means. He just doesn't have the willingness to meet his

obligations, and unless the orders of the courts of the

Province of British Columbia can be enforced, people of this

kind will continue to fail in their obligations.

While we can criticize the individual, so far as the

Province of British Columbia is concerned, it's a complete and

utter failure on the part of the Department of the

Attorney-General to see that the laws of this province are

enforced for the protection of all our citizens.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we enforce the laws as

best we can here in the Province of British Columbia. We

establish legal aid offices as quickly as we can; the latest

one we hope to establish is Campbell River, not Montreal.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Everything's up to date in Campbell

River.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's asking a bit much, it seems to me,

when we have a reciprocal agreement with the Province of Quebec

for the enforcement of these judgments, that we should enforce

the judgments of people because they happen to be in British

Columbia and the Province of Quebec. That's a very big order.

If we do that, then I suppose that if somebody's husband takes

off to Timbuktu we'd have just as much an obligation to employ

a lawyer for that person. Now maybe it's fine idealistically,

but where does it end?

AN HON. MEMBER: Within the borders of Canada.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You limit it to Canada; well, that's

something. But let me point this out: Quebec has a legal aid

scheme; British Columbia has a legal aid scheme; Quebec's

scheme has denied this lady legal aid because they maintain

that she has means of her own.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, no.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't know the truth of that. Well,

they rejected her, didn't they?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: They did not.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, she applied to legal aid and then

she has to go to a private lawyer at the present time.

This is the way I understood the case: that she had applied

for legal aid to enforce her B.C. judgment in Quebec, and she

had been denied legal aid in the Province of Quebec.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's not true.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Therefore, when I heard about that, I got

in touch with Mr. Robert Norman, who is the Deputy of the Minister of

Justice there, and I asked him to intercede on her behalf to see that

she gets legal aid in Quebec to enforce her judgment. But if a Quebec

deserted spouse sought to enforce a judgment in the Province of B.C.,

and qualified for legal aid, that person would get legal aid in this

province. On the other hand….

[ Page 1071 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, in Quebec they do. Anyhow, our

legal aid scheme is open to people outside of the Province who

qualify and who have got a good case in this province. I expect

the same of Quebec. I expect them to accord the same privilege

to our citizens under their legal aid plan. And that having

broken down, I have written — I think we wired at one point — to Robert

Norman and asked him to intercede.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I don't like to correct the

Attorney-General, but his facts are wrong. It was sent down to

Quebec to be dealt with by legal aid, and was sent to Montreal

to be handled under their legal aid system. In the summer of

1973 the advice came back that the Montreal legal aid system

was in the process of restructuring and they weren't able to

handle any cases, and this and the other 29 or 30 cases from

British Columbia were stalled in the same way. Finally, the

lawyer who was then involved in legal aid in Montreal went into

private practice, and it was suggested that he take the case

into his private practice to handle. He has since chosen not to

do so.

Your department, Mr. Attorney-General, knew of these facts,

and I just can't understand your reliance upon a legal aid

system which breaks down, particularly when the Province of

British Columbia, out of its own pocket, is going to a $3,000

welfare expense to maintain this woman and her children on

welfare — not to say anything of the cost to herself. But all

this is excused because once you push it out of the

jurisdiction of the Province of British Columbia, it's supposed

to be handled under the legislation.

If it's not being handled, Mr. Attorney-General, it's far

more than just a breakdown as it applies to one woman. The

whole scheme has broken down. In order to ensure that the

orders of British Columbia are being enforced, and that our

citizens are being protected, the very least you could have

done for the temporary period of the few months that legal aid

broke down in Montreal was to engage your own counsel in

Montreal to handle these cases. But no, you haven't done it.

Now, this woman, after seeking advice in British Columbia and

so on, she has finally had to give in and hire her own lawyer

on borrowed money in order to get her rights.

I understand what the reciprocal legislation means. There's

no question that if it all works smoothly then all provinces

who belong to the reciprocal scheme can sit back and say,

"Fine, it's being taken care of." But when it's not, when it

breaks down, then it seems to me that the Attorney-General's

department has the responsibility to step in — not only to save

our money, but to help this woman.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, for the next

couple of hours I'd like to talk a bit about drug dependency,

drug addiction. I first want to say that it's to the sorrow of

British Columbia that all initiatives in attempting to solve

the problem of drug dependency and drug abuse in this province

seem to have come to a complete halt — particularly in

reference to the initiatives being maintained by the

Attorney-General's department.

The question that the people in British Columbia are asking

today is simple: what are you going to do about the terrible

problem in British Columbia of drug dependency? It's clear that

we can't wait any longer in this province.

I'd like to say before I go any further, Mr.

Attorney-General, that we're not prepared to accept any excuses

that the blame lies in the past because I know that's what

you're going to say. We're not prepared to accept any excuses,

Mr. Chairman, at all. No excuses at all. We're only prepared to

accept some answers.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just on a point of order. The

Legislature has established the Drug and Alcohol Commission

under the Hon. Norman Levi. This is a very important problem,

but should you not take it up in that way?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I intend to take it up at

that time as well. But this is a problem that concerns the

Attorney-General of British Columbia and he'd better start

acting on it, and I think it's time we brought it up under the

Department where it belongs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order, I would

rule that the Hon. Member may bring up matters in this regard

providing they relate to the administrative responsibilities of

the Attorney-General.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That's

what I was doing and that's what I intend to continue to

do.

What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that if we don't do

something now — and it's a problem which bears a direct

responsibility of the Attorney-General's Department — if we

don't do something now we're going to develop or allow a

destructive force to develop that will threaten our greatest

resource in this province. That, of course, is the people of

British Columbia and particularly the youth of this

province.

The Attorney-General said, I believe in the last session or

the session before, that the problems of juveniles in our

society and drugs would be the first priority of this

government as far as he was concerned — and certainly the first

priority of a task force which was set up to study a lot of

problems relating to

[ Page 1072 ]

correction, drugs, crime and its relation to the

community.

The Attorney-General said that that was his first priority:

juveniles and drugs. Do you agree with that? Right. That's all

very well to have that as your priority, but it doesn't mean a

thing if you don't do something and if you don't develop some

kinds of programmes. And I don't see any evidence of anything

happening, no evidence whatsoever.

The Attorney-General has had a report from one of his staff,

Dr. Matheson, a pretty comprehensive report about the problem

of drug dependency. What's being done about that? It looks like

nothing. Has that report been shelved? It certainly hasn't been

open to any kind of public discussion.

Has the Attorney-General's Department had the word from the

social workers in the government to lay off? Is the muscle

being applied to the Attorney-General's department, like it was

applied to the Agriculture Minister's department, to lay off?

Has it?

I'd like to know, and I think the people of British Columbia

would like to know, Mr. Chairman, through you to the

Attorney-General, whether or not he's made any recommendations

to the cabinet about the Matheson report.

I feel little but pity for the Health Minister (Hon. Mr.

Cocke), Mr. Chairman, who sits and laughs about the most

serious problem facing British Columbia today — sits and

laughs. What kind of a Health Minister are you? What kind of a

Health Minister is it that doesn't even care about the problems

that are killing our youth in British Columbia today? And you

sit and laugh. It's a serious problem, Mr. Chairman.

There's nothing in the budget to deal with drug dependency,

not in the Attorney-General's department. There's nothing but

cutbacks in the Health Department and nothing in any other

department of this government to deal with the problems of drug

dependency. Where is the money? There isn't any money.

The Attorney-General says that this is a top priority. If it

really is a top priority, Mr. Chairman, I'd say that it's time

the Attorney-General moved to stop the tug-of-war that is

apparently going on between the Attorney-General's department

and the Human Resources department. It's time that tug-of-war

was stopped because the problem that's concerned is too

important to allow that kind of thing to continue.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney-General had better

start to take a strong and public initiative in this whole matter,

because I believe in all of my heart, Mr. Chairman, that the chairman

of the Alcohol and Drug Commission will never ever approach this

problem honestly; and it must be done from some other department of

government, notably the Attorney-General's department at this time.

The commission so far has done absolutely nothing, but I

note with interest a comment recently in the newspapers, Mr.

Chairman, by the chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission,

who said that he "is working through the Attorney-General's

department with volunteers in the B.C. Pen."

Now I don't know for sure what the Attorney-General's

department has to do with the B.C. Pen, but nevertheless that's

the public statement by the chairman of the Alcohol and Drug

Commission.

It might help all of us in British Columbia to just take a

look at what form that programme is taking. It's called the

Drug Study Group and it's made up of members who are behind

bars, all drug addicts, admitted drug addicts, and there's

nothing wrong with that. I think that's a commendable

objective. But we should look at what they're doing and what

some of their criteria might be.

First of all, they must be 30 years of age or older in order

to get involved in this. They must be drug addicts; and one of

the criteria is interesting: it says "No B.S." That's not what

it says exactly, but I'll use the abbreviation — "no B.S. or

games to win short-term goals like passes, parole and the rest

of the carrots that have helped to perpetuate the myth that

most addicts want to quit."

One of their functions is to expose the myth of abstinence

being the only answer. Do you suppose this might be a loaded

committee?

When I talked about drugs in the House during the budget

debate I was sent this information along with a letter, and I

really feel that the government would be interested in what

I've received. One of the documents is called a profile of the

Drug Study Group, and I won't read it all — just some of the

quotes in it.

"All the so-called treatments have proven time and

time

again to be of no avail." Sounds like Mr. Stein. "We have

accepted the fact that we will always be addicts. We do not

advocate that being addicted to any opiate is a good thing or a

desirous habit. We are saying that for us in particular, and

for most addicts generally, there is no choice. We are

proposing an experiment and we are offering ourselves as

volunteers."

Then the letter, the personal letter that I

received, might

be interesting.

"Our group's reaction after reading your press

statements re

drug treatment was dismay at your total lack of understanding

of the current drug problem and your attack on Mr. Stein of the

drug commission. The one person who has taken the first

positive steps in 60 years is Peter Stein. His proposals for a

pilot study using maintenance would prove

[ Page 1073 ]

successful if given a chance, and one

successful pilot

study is worth a hundred plausible projects without practicable goals.

"History has shown us that while abstinence is

desirable, it

is never attained, and therefore is impractical as a solution

to our drug problems. Your labeling of Mr. Stein's theories as

irresponsible without testing them and at the same time

praising Malcolm Matheson's theories, which consist of a

treatment that no one will or can define, as being responsible, is in

itself

irresponsible and borders on the criminal. When you consider

that such thinking has been responsible for our present drug

problem…."

I won't read it all.

"Your statement that providing legal drugs will

achieve

absolutely nothing has not taken into consideration the

stabilizing effects it has had in keeping Britain's addict

population small and under control."

Some of the people involved in the addict problem

in Britain

would be interested in that and would find that a meaningful

statement.

"A maintenance programme attached to the larger

hospitals

across the country would eliminate your fear that all the

addicts in Canada would flock to B.C. This myth of a mass migration of

addicts is just another ploy to impede the only realistic

solution to drug addiction."

That's, of course, maintenance on the drug of their

choice.

"You describe Peter Stein as someone with no

experience and

no successes anywhere in drug treatment, but judiciously

refrain from mentioning any person or agency that can claim a success."

Later this evening I'd like to mention a person or

agency

that can claim a success.

"If Peter Stein is given the chance he will show you

what

success is. Your experienced Matheson, law makers and health

departments have experienced only one thing: failure. And it is

customary for these people to attribute poor results to

insufficient financing, and to use the evidence of a programme's

failure as an argument for expanding it. That is why today we

have failures expanding at the same rate as the addict

population."

Here's a most interesting comment, Mr. Chairman.

"Your proposal" — he's talking about me, of course —

"for

more drug education at the school level has proven to be

counter-productive and arouses an unhealthy curiosity in

inquiring minds as to the false glamour associated with the

addict's lifestyle. Legalized maintenance of addicts is the nemesis of

the

traffickers and people like yourself.

"Mr. Matheson and all the advocates of abstinence

could not

be more helpful to the drug trafficker. I know that you are not

in their employ but they would gladly pay you for expressing

your views as you ensure them an ever-expanding market. The

Drug Study Group of the B.C. Penitentiary would like to invite

you to one of our meetings."

Then they continue:

"We may not alter your opinions but we will educate

you in

the realities of drug addiction."

I'm sure they would. I have

no doubt that they would educate me, Mr. Chairman, in the

realities of drug addiction, and while that paints a fantastic

picture of maintenance as the only way, and heroin addiction as

a problem which really isn't of concern to Canadians, maybe a

short moment to read a letter to the editor in The Vancouver

Sun recently, might be in order. This letter is headed

"Back From the Dead," and it says:

"Sir, after using heroin for three years without a

break,

having anywhere from one to 25 caps a day, I finally came face

to face with something real that I couldn't fix away any more.

My wife and daughter were the real thing in my life and junk

was the unreal thing. I was faced with the reality that I had

to make a choice, something a junky rarely does, because junk

always comes first. No matter what, junk comes first.

"I think the only way I can explain it is if you're

watching

a really good show and you have to go to the bathroom. Your

body keeps sending you messages but you don't want to leave the

show. Finally you give in and go. When you're finished it's a

relief and you feel great, but when you get back to the show

you find you've missed the best part and you're sad.

"That's similar to what many junkies go through every

day;

only it's not a show they miss, but life. I've used every trick

and dirty thing a person can do, and if they didn't work to get

me my fix, I turned into a poor excuse for a human.

"Now that I'm clean I can look at what I did and what

I was

with revulsion and pity, but I know now that I was not that

person. That person was something made of junk, and I'm made of

blood and guts and meat and bones. When you're made of junk

you're nothing. You don't count. You're dead, because that's

what you want — death to everything but your heart. Your mind

no longer functions as it was meant to.

"Listen to me, world; I'm free. I'm happy. I'm alive.

I'm

made of flesh and bones. I'm a clean junky. Hooray! It's

beautiful to come back from the dead."

[ Page 1074 ]

That's the other side of the story, Mr. Chairman, that was

told by those people from the Drug Study Group in the B.C. Pen.

Those people told us in that letter that there's nothing wrong

with a maintenance programme — that a drug addict, given a

sensible and reasonable proportion of his drug, can function

normally. But that's baloney. It's baloney, Mr. Chairman. No

one functions normally while addicted to any kind of a

drug.

I was reading the other day in a magazine — I don't recall

which magazine it was — a description of the doctors who suffer

from drug addiction. This person who was writing the story was

telling us how to spot a doctor who has become an addict. He

said: "The doctor's efficiency begins to suffer. He becomes

irregular in his hours. He makes minor mistakes. He evades

authority figures. He tends to make his hospital rounds at odd

hours." And he went on and on.

The basic thing he was trying to tell us is that there is a

notable change in the personality of the addict, and that

personality change does not allow him to function as a normal

person. No way can he ever function as a normal person.

When I read that letter over and over again from the people

in the Drug Study Group, I remember the words I have been told

by people who have dealt with drug addicts time and time and

over and over again. The one thing they always tell me is that

addicts are great salesmen, fantastic salesmen. They're the

greatest manipulators, the greatest con artists going.

They have one goal and one goal only, and it comes out very

clear in that kind of a letter, that kind of a programme. That

goal, Mr. Chairman, is to be legally maintained on the drug of

their choice on their terms. They are looking for a source of

supply and not a cure. We must always remember that when

dealing with drug addicts, because right now, in the directions

that we're going in this province, we're playing right into the

hands of those manipulators.

With your indulgence for just a half a minute I would like,

Mr. Chairman, to just remind the House and the Attorney-General

of a couple of the comments that have been made by the chairman

of the Alcohol and Drug Commission, because I don't think that

we can separate the two. I've said that there's a tug-of-war

going on and it's time that that tug-of-war stopped, because if

we're ever going to arrive at some kind of a solution, that's

the only way we'll do it — working in concert, not in

competition with each other.

The Stein commission has said that they're calling on thousands and

thousands of volunteers to take over the job of looking after the drug

addicts in this province. In part that's all right because we certainly

have to return this problem to the community to some degree. We've got

to get the community involved or we're never going to solve the

problem, and I understand that.

But you've got to also ask yourself: how many doctors in the

community today are willing to work with addicts? I doubt, Mr.

Chairman, that the Attorney-General can name 10 who would

willingly take on the job of working with addicts, because

those doctors have been manipulated and conned for too many

years now, and they don't want any part of treating drug

addicts today.

I want to warn the Attorney-General that there is no way

that community groups — regardless of the kinds of thrust that

they have, regardless of the kind of feelings they have for the

problem — there's no way that community groups can cope with

this problem. If they are given the job and if there isn't any

back-up facility available, the addict population in this

province will spread like wildfire; that's a prediction.

The last person in the world, Mr. Chairman, to deal with an

addict is a naive and vulnerable community worker, a volunteer,

because the addict will manoeuvre his way into that volunteer's

life and twist that person's life and destroy the community

volunteer. It will happen just as sure as anything.

I think that the chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission

unfortunately has bought the addicts' story hook, line and

sinker, and it's time for the Attorney-General to bail him

out.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's a different department.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes it is, Mr. Chairman; it's a different

department. But I think, as I've said, that you had better get

together and find out where you're going. It's your

responsibility, through you, Mr. Chairman, to make sure that

that's done. The Attorney-General has that responsibility in

this province.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce): What's your solution?

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll tell you what my solution is in a

minute, Mr. Chairman, through you to the little fellow in the

back there. (Laughter.)

I want to warn the Attorney-General that the chairman of the

Alcohol and Drug Commission, in my opinion, is basically

pro-drug. Pro-drug!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the Hon. Member discussing the Alcohol and

Drug Commission at this time?

MR. McCLELLAND: No, I'm discussing the estimates of the

Attorney-General's department, Mr. Chairman, if that's all

right with you.

He says the treatment programmes won't work,

[ Page 1075 ]

nobody has tried them and nobody has listened.

Well, that's

not true, because a lot of programmes have been tried and a lot

of programmes have worked, all kinds of them, Mr. Chairman, but

we haven't listened. You, know, not too long ago they held a

seminar in Vancouver — I believe it was sponsored by UBC — at

which a number of people were called to talk about this problem

of drug dependency. It was in the Hotel Vancouver. I don't

recall the exact date, but it wasn't long ago. It was the day

on which the so-called Matheson proposal was made public for

the first time. It was a seminar in Vancouver. A number of

people were there, including Dr. Matheson of the

Attorney-General's department, Mr. Chairman.

At that seminar we were exposed — I was exposed for the

first time — to the programme in Japan, and it was very

interesting, extremely interesting. I want to read a couple of

the items from that programme that all of the legislators in

this House should read. It's contained in the task force on

correctional services and

facilities issued by the Attorney-General's department. I won't

read it all but I will read part of it. It points out:

"In 1961 and 1962 the number of addicts in Japan was

estimated at 40,000. Further to that, there was an abuse of

sleeping pills among teenagers. The seriousness of the problem

of heroin abuse prompted the Japanese government to take

decisive steps for effective suppression and control. By

all-inclusive counter-measures, the heroin epidemic subsided

rapidly. Since 1966 in Japan, few heroin addicts have been

discovered."

As a matter of fact, we were told at that seminar, Mr.

Chairman, that as far as they knew in Japan now, there were

only 100 heroin addicts in the whole of Japan, and those 100

heroin addicts were on Okinawa, which has just recently been

taken over from the United States. In Japan proper they

couldn't find any addicts, but there were 40,000 of them just a

few years previous — 40,000 and a terrible problem, Mr.

Chairman, with youngsters abusing pills of all kinds; and we've

seen that in Canada. That problem too was eradicated in

Japan.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did they do that?

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm glad you asked, Mr. Member. I won't

attempt to paraphrase this, I'll read directly from the report

of the people from Japan:

"The success experienced in Japan appears to be based

five major factors. The first was the promotion of

comprehensive and coordinated counter-measures. The government

established a firm and consistent policy that there would be no

drug-maintenance programmes allowed…"

Let's get that very straight: no drug-maintenance

programmes allowed

in the country.

"…and that the country was determined to rid itself

heroin and drug abuse. As a consequence of this policy, close

co-operation was developed between all agencies and Ministries

concerned with law enforcement and the movement of goods and

people. This included the Ministries concerned with maritime

control and immigration as well as health and law enforcement.

This in turn included a much tighter control being placed over

the manufacture and distribution of legal drugs, with a very

tight surveillance on their use by doctors.

"The second was the reinforcement of the police. There

was a

substantial increase in the size of the police staff assigned

to the control and suppression of the narcotic trafficking. And

through a thorough and sustained crackdown of the gangster

groups, the police exposed the relationship between illicit

narcotics and these organizations."

The third, and probably the most important is one factor

that people in British Columbia sometimes tell us that we can't

expect, but I don't believe that. I think that if given the

proper opportunity, we can expect the same kind of results in

this province.

"The third was the encouragement by the general public

for

the kind of programmes which the Government of Japan had

implemented. Through the mass media an extensive campaign was

launched against the crimes of drug trafficking. Public opinion

was aroused, demanding the eradication of narcotic crimes along

with the elimination of acts of violence. Along with the

development of public support for the actions taken against

narcotic trafficking a great deal of attention was given to the

education of the public in order to make them knowledgeable

about drugs and the dangers inherent in their use."

I want once again to hearken back to that letter I read from

the Drug Study Group which said that no way do we ever want to

start educating our young about the evils of drugs because

that's not good. Well, in Japan they found it was pretty

good.

"The fourth item was the strengthening of penal

provisions.

The courts handed out more severe sentences than before to

criminal addicts and drug traffickers. The law was revised to

provide a maximum of a life term and a fine of 5 million yen — I don't

know how much that is in Canadian money — for

trafficking in drugs. Severe sentences coupled with the

priority given to the police to narcotic offences acted as a

powerful psychological restraint to potential narcotic

offenders.

"The fifth of the entire programme was

[ Page 1076 ]

compulsory hospitalization of drug addicts.

Legislation was

developed to provide for compulsory hospitalization of addicts

for a maximum of six months. In the hospitalization period, no

methadone or heroin is used, and withdrawal symptoms are eased

with mild tranquilizers. This medical programme is made

possible with use not only of the general hospitals but also

nine special hospitals established for the treatment of

addicts. There are counsellors and supportive counseling

services as well. After release, the addict is kept under close

supervision in the community for a continuing period and

provided with the necessary support and controls to prevent his

return to the use of drugs."

I won't read any more. There's a lot more there. Of course,

there's more to it than that, but basically that's the

programme. The point is that heroin addiction in Japan has

virtually been wiped out. There isn't any. It's as simple as

that.

There's another approach here called the "Baltimore

approach." Rather than read that out this evening, perhaps all

of you would like to read it. It's as enlightening as the Japan

approach.

I'm not suggesting we adopt that approach holus-bolus in

Canada, but we're stupid if we don't learn from it. Stein says

nothing will work. We say things are happening, but nobody is

listening, including the Attorney-General. We have proposals

like the Matheson proposal. I mentioned earlier that that

report was made public at the meeting I talked about. Perhaps

it might be a good idea to talk about the Matheson proposal a

little bit and what it's all about.

It's fairly simple; it's a simple report, not complicated by

any means. Once again, I won't bore you. I respect your

intelligence, Mr. Chairman. I know you'll go out and read it in

the morning. Basically it recommends that public health

facilities be developed regionally around the province to allow

the non-criminal user voluntary access to treatment. It is

recommended that the addict who wishes to engage in a voluntary

treatment programme be dealt with as a public health problem

rather than being left until he reaches the stage where, in

order to support his habit, he enters as an offender into the

criminal justice system.

It gives a programme, first of all, of voluntary access to

the treatment system; the police serving notice on an addict to

report for treatment; the police being allowed to concentrate

on trafficking rather than possession. And something else: it

allows the police to serve notice on such cases as

glue-sniffing and things like that, which we don't have at the

moment.

The addict has to report into a treatment situation. If he fails to

report in 48 hours, the warrant can be served. Of course, the

detoxification facility is the key in the whole programme. Without them

we can't develop any type of a programme. It's with that kind of

urgency that I ask the Attorney-General to get on with those kinds of

programmes.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Alternative facilities are not in my

budget.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Attorney-General, the Matheson report is

sure in your budget. You commissioned the Matheson report,

nobody else.

Don't worry about it if we talk about drug abuse in this

chamber. You're the logical person to deal with it. I'd expect

that you would be the person who would want to deal with it.

We're talking right now about the Matheson report which was

commissioned by you, no one else. He happens to be one of your

Deputies. Say hello to him.

Dr. Matheson says it is obvious that "with the extended

period of control and treatment available, under the provisions

of the Criminal Code …."

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: He's still reading the affidavits.

(Laughter.)

I want to make sure everybody hears this quote from the

Matheson report. I'll back up just a bit; we have lots of

time.

"It has been estimated by Dr. Jaffe, the special

assistant to the President of the United States on

drugs, that if the drug offender can be kept on the street for

a year, there is a 40 per cent probability of his remaining off

drugs. If he can be kept on the street for two years, there is

an 80 per cent probability of his staying off drugs.

"It is obvious, then, with the extended period of

control

and treatment available under the provisions of the Criminal

Code allowing probation supervision, that the necessary

programme could be developed within British Columbia."

How do you relate that kind of positive statement with the

statement by Mr. Stein, the chairman of the Alcohol and Drug

Commission, that "nothing can be done, so let's not do

anything"? How do you relate those two?

Here's a positive statement by a member of your staff, Mr.

Attorney-General, balanced by the kind of statement we're

getting from the Alcohol and Drug Commission, the chairman of

which has decided already that this Matheson proposal will not

work. What does he offer in place of this?

He said: "My job is to set up a voluntary system of services only

for these people who want help." No compulsion — no way. If an addict

doesn't want help,

[ Page 1077 ]

then,"buddy, you're on your own." That's a quote

from that

chairman at that same meeting in Vancouver: "buddy, you're on

your own." Some solution. Some cop-out. And that's about what

it is.

Do you know that at that seminar at which the Matheson

proposal was made public for the first time, there wasn't one

member of the New Democratic Party in attendance — not one?

That's the kind of concern that party has for the problem

facing this province — not one member of the New Democratic

Party. Yet across the hall in that same hotel on that same day,

there must have been 30 of them sitting around talking about

atomic energy in a special meeting called by the Premier who

has already said we're not going to have atomic energy in this

province.

So they were all sitting across there, talking about atomic

energy, while not one was at the most important meeting of all,

not one. That's the kind of concern the NDP has for one of the

most serious problems facing British Columbia today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind the Hon. Member

that in the estimates it is not customary to make full-fledged

speeches, but rather to make comments and ask questions of the

Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, you allow complete latitude in

the salary estimates of any other Minister; I expect you to

allow me the same courtesy. I'm talking about a serious problem

in British Columbia which the Attorney-General has not as yet

seen fit to attack. I'm expecting that he will soon.

What else does that chairman say? Well, I suppose the

comment of the day at that seminar in Vancouver was by Mr.

Stein when he said: "In a year or two of fumbling around, I

might have a better idea of what to do." There is no way we can

allow that to happen. We've got to act today. No way!

I didn't plan this, but I wanted to bring a couple of quotes

before this House by another gentleman who is in the gallery

today. A fine and responsible jurist, Judge Les Bewley, who

said, "The Matheson report, commissioned by the

Attorney-General, is a very good start." It deserves the urgent

support of the government and the Legislature. Its

recommendations are necessary, workable, and practical. He was

talking about the report by Dr. Matheson, commissioned by your

department.

He also said, "Something must be done now for the social

health, peace and order of the community."

He also said, "In Vancouver alone, at least $1 million a day

is being lost to crimes directly related to drug

addiction."

He also said, "The Matheson programme could save hundreds of young

people from a life of degradation and could cut crime by 25 per cent in

a short time." He also said, "Too often we completely ignore the cost

the victim. Too many social workers haven't seen enough victims."

On legalization of drugs and a complete maintenance

programme, he said, "If these dangerous dreams come true,

addicts from all over the world will descend on B.C. and our

coat-of-arms will be the Dogwood with crossed hypodermic

needles rampant." Amen to that, Mr. Chairman.

Everyone seems to agree that addiction is a medical problem.

Why won't we treat it as such? Other dangerous and infectious

diseases call for quarantine. Why not addiction? We can't break

addiction unless we break the links in the dependency chain.

It's the only way it can be done, Mr. Attorney-General. We have

to isolate if we're going to stop the spread of the abuse, and

availability is one of the most common causes of

dependence.

No one disputes that British Columbia today leads the nation

in addiction problems. Why can't we lead the nation in

providing a solution? What's wrong with that? We cannot afford

another 50 years of philosophical debate on this question. We

can't afford it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Or even two years.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's right, or even two years, or one

year, or six months. It's time that the Attorney-General got

off his fat estimates and started to do something.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Member asked where do we go from here

and do we have any solutions? Well, if we first identify the

problems, I'd say the major problem right now is that we don't

have a national policy to deal with the problem of drug

dependency. We don't have at this time the adequate treatment

facilities which are needed. We must have them if a programme

is to be developed.

We also need facilities and a plan of some kind for other

drugs besides the true narcotic drugs. Those problems, I'm

afraid, Mr. Chairman, we're sweeping under the rug; problems

that I mentioned in the last session of the Legislature: the

mother's little helpers, the glue sniffing, the solvents of all

kinds, the many other exotic substances with which young people

in our province are experimenting. If you don't believe that's

a problem, I just commend the Attorney-General to ask any

parent in British Columbia who has been faced with a

nine-year-old or a ten-year-old sniffing glue and ask them

where they went for help. They won't be able to tell you

because there isn't any place for them to go for help.

I suppose if I was asked, I would say that's a far

[ Page 1078 ]

worse problem than even the spread of heroin

dependency in

this province. It's one that we can't seem to get a handle on.

We've got to develop some kind of a programme which deals not

only with narcotic drugs but with other substances as well.

Even the abuse of a potentially fine treatment, methadone, is

becoming a serious problem in this province.

We were sitting at breakfast right in these buildings the

other day and heard a story from a gentleman from Prince George

who told us of a youngster, I think of 17 or 18 years of age,

who had shot methadone mixed with orange juice into his veins,

as a new experiment, I guess. He lost his hair and went

blind.

We're hearing stories like this happening all over British

Columbia. It's no longer confined to that corner in Vancouver;

it's now in 100 Mile House, Kamloops, Prince George, Dawson

Creek and Fort St. John. It's spreading like wildfire. We had

better start to concern ourselves about that problem.

I could break down the needs into four areas: control,

research, education and treatment. But if it's ever to work, it

all has to be done on a national level. The Attorney-General

must with all urgency approach the federal government, if he

hasn't already, and demand that a national drug policy be

established, and as quickly as possible.

I'd like to commend to the Attorney-General a document

called "A Brief on the Need for a National Plan for the Control

of Drug Abuse in the Interim Period." It's a fine report, a

fine report. It's all there: a plan that will work if we only

have the nerve to try it. But I must insist again that it has

to be a national thrust.

Until permissiveness got out of hand in

British Columbia and

the Steins were allowed to take control, the number of heroin

addicts in this province was held at a fairly constant level.

But in the last few months, the last couple of years, that

certainly hasn't been the story in B.C. Now we're seeing the

cancerous growth among the young and the invasion of this

vicious infection into all parts of our province.

In the long run I believe that we have to strengthen our law

enforcement because it's a vital link into this whole problem.

I agree that our sympathy must always be with the

drug-dependent person because he's the person who is in

desperate need of help. But besides that, the person who

actively manufactures and imports and distributes and traffics

dangerous drugs deserves nothing but the severest of penalties — and we

must never forget that.

I mentioned when I was speaking in the budget debate that none of

this would work without education. I was disappointed that the Matheson

proposal contained no suggestions for a long-term educational

programme. We don't need some kind of a special programme or separate

programme which will be set up holus-bolus or willy-nilly in the

schools but a real programme which embraces all of the life problems

that youngsters face.

It's no good for us to come along and start that programme

in grade 8, because by grade 8 most adolescents in this

province have already been offered drugs of one kind or

another. We've got to teach them well and teach them early that

life is the greatest high of all. The most difficult thing that

we have to do is to counteract the pressures, the extreme

pressures from the youngsters' peers and from the other

external forces which they're faced with every day, to

experiment in these kinds of substances, starting I suppose

with simple experiments, the drugs they find around their

homes, progressing to other more dangerous drugs from

there.

We've got to convince the youngsters. I think this is the

most important task the Attorney-General has. He really must

address himself to it. We've got to convince the youngsters

that they cannot function while their minds are stretched and

warped and assaulted and abused by dangerous foreign

substances.

I recall again in the letter from the people in the B.C.

pen, when they told me, "Your proposal for more drug education

at the school level has proven to be counter-productive and

arouses an unhealthy curiosity in inquiring minds as to the

false glamour associated with the addict's lifestyle."

They don't want education. The addict, in his selfish

attempt to maintain himself at all costs, with a legal and

always available supply of the drug of his choice, doesn't

really want us to educate our young people.

Mr. Chairman, somebody with a lot more wisdom than I said

not too long ago that the enemy of drug abuse is knowledge. The

enemy of drug abuse is knowledge; its friend is ignorance.

I would just like to say once again to the Attorney-General

that we cannot wait any longer for a comprehensive policy, both

on the provincial level and, through your good offices, the

national level to eradicate the terrible problems we have in

British Columbia with concern of drug dependency.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, nobody wants to

underestimate that problem, as the Hon. Member says. However, I

have to point out that my jurisdiction is to enforce the

Criminal Code of Canada, which

involves the prosecution

of addiction and, of course, the prosecution of trafficking,

and the administration of justice, which involves the

investigation and detection of trafficking.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, my estimates do not show, and I have

never said, that my department

[ Page 1079 ]

does involve itself in the diversionary programmes

which we

want to see. We want to divert….

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, we've done studies — certainly we

have. But the policy of this department is that the addiction

problem should be taken out of criminal justice — I am not

talking about trafficking — and it then should be the

responsibility of another area of government, because it is

basically an illness. It is Human Resources, and the Drug and

Alcohol Commission. The question of alternatives and education

should be taken up under that vote.

In terms of the magnitude of the problem, though, it is a

law enforcement thing. The figures speak for themselves. In

1973 a street value of $30 million worth of hard heroin was

seized in the province. The RCMP estimate that that is 10 per

cent of the amount being distributed. I am mentioning the hard

stuff; I am not talking about cocaine, hashish, marijuana or

LSD.

So there is no question about the magnitude of the problem,

but there is a little question that under my estimates

alternatives to the criminal justice system are not under my

department, and should not be under my department.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I would like

to speak to the Attorney-General about some of the areas

affecting women under the law. We have been told, Mr. Chairman,

that women are people, like everyone else, and they should be

treated exactly like everyone else. The laws, as they exist,

would seem to belie this fact.

I want to start out, first of all, by talking about rape.

Does the Attorney-General know that within the first six weeks

of this year, in the municipality of Vancouver alone, the

police records show that rape was up 500 per cent over last

year? Does he also know that it is common knowledge that only

one-tenth of the amount of rape that is committed is actually

reported? What I am concerned about is what happens once a rape

is reported.

First of all, the maximum sentence for rape is life. As you

know, juries are very reluctant to sentence somebody to life

for this crime. What is the procedure involved in this? First

of all, the woman involved in the case usually does not have a

lawyer of her own, and so the prosecutor is supposed to be

acting on her behalf. The prosecutor spends no time with her,

does not become familiar with the victim, and, of course, when

he stands up to speak on her behalf, he has no real personal

knowledge of her.

The prosecutor has three responsibilities towards this woman. First

he has to prove: (1) that intercourse in fact did occur; (2) he has to

prove that it occurred with the accused involved; and (3) it has to be

proven beyond a doubt that it occurred without the consent of the

female involved.

I would like to quote from an

article which was in the

Canadian Journal of Corrections ,

written by a Dr.

McAldon, a psychiatrist at the Kingston penitentiary. He

says:

"In a sense, this places an obligation upon the victim

struggle physically with her assailant. It seems unjust for the

law to demand this type of resistance when it is a case of

sexual compliance on the threat of death. But this is not

required in the case of a robbery. It is not known how many

women have been murdered because of their physical struggle

with potential rapists."

What is the instruction that the judge gives to the jury in

terms of considering a case of rape? Under

section 142 of the

Criminal Code the instruction

is that there has to exist

material evidence to corroborate the woman's testimony. In

other words, it is not safe to believe her if there is no

evidence to show that she did not, in fact, consent to the act,

or if there were no witnesses.

When someone moves in to rob a bank, does the law ask a bank

teller whether she in fact did entice the robber? In what other

crimes than rape is the victim expected to prove that there was

no enticement involved?

Then what happens to these cases anyway once they go before

the courts? A year ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon.

Mr. Lauk), before he became a Minister, spoke in this House

about a case involving a young Indian woman in Quesnel who was

raped by two men. The jury of 11 men and one woman, who

deliberated for over four hours, found that they were not

guilty, because there was no evidence that she had resisted

rape. One woman was supposed to give evidence that she had

resisted being raped by three men. What happened to that case?

Those three men were acquitted. The Member at that time asked

the Attorney-General to take a second look at this case. We are

kind of interested in knowing what happened in that case.

Does it always have to be, no matter how many men are

involved, that the law always insists that there be evidence

that there was no compliance? In point of fact, the law does

insist on this.

What about the fact that the law also demands that the

reputation of the woman be such that it be pristine. She has to

be a virgin, or she has to be happily married, or it has to

occur at dark of night in an alley, or some such thing. No one

ever asks that the man's reputation or his past history become

admissible as evidence.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

earlier mentioned that there seemed to be one law for women and

another law for men. I would like to bring the law as it

applies to rape

[ Page 1080 ]

to the attention of the Attorney-General, because I

think

this is a perfect example where the woman involved is treated

quite differently by law than the man involved. The statistics

are even worse. The statistics show us that of the number of

men who actually come before the courts on a charge of rape,

only between 18 and 25 per cent of them are actually convicted.

"In most instances" — again I am quoting from this Canadian

Journal of Corrections — "when they are not convicted, it

is because once again there was no indication that the woman

put up a fight, and did not comply."

I can remember a workshop which I attended at the University

of Oregon a year ago. This was a workshop on self-defence, and

this was a Judo expert who was going to teach women how to

protect themselves against rape.

The first thing that the teacher said to us was: "You have a

choice if there is a rape attempted against you. You can try to

protect yourself and be beaten up and raped, or you can relax

and be raped." That was his advice to us. But in point of fact

the law says that unless we are first beaten up and then raped,

we do not get any justice whatsoever before the courts.

I don't want to go into, Mr. Attorney-General, the whole

business about the psychological impact, on what this actually

does to a woman, when it's all over with, because I realize

that this does not come under your jurisdiction. But I would

like to ask you very seriously to take a second look at the law

as it is practised under your jurisdiction and as it affects

women in this situation. And I would like to make a couple of

recommendations to you.

New York State has an all-woman police rape

squad to

investigate rape cases. Now in Vancouver we have no such thing,

but what we do have is a voluntary bureau known as the Rape

Crisis Centre. Who is funding this Rape Crisis Centre? Is your

department funding this Rape Crisis Centre? No, your department

is not funding this Rape Crisis Centre. This Rape Crisis Centre

is operating on…. One person is paid by an Opportunities For

Youth grant, and they have submitted an application for funding

to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke). He has received

this with a lot of sympathy and has promised that he will

assist in their funding.

But in point of fact, your department should also be

involved in this, because the police are actually referring

people to this Rape Crisis Centre. Did you know that, Mr.

Attorney-General? The police are already using this Rape Crisis

Centre. The police of Vancouver recognize the seriousness of

this, and I would like to suggest to you that you seriously

look into the matter of supporting and funding this Rape Crisis

Centre.

The whole business of education of the police force comes into this

too, because although the Vancouver police seem to have some kind of

understanding of what is involved, once we get out of the Greater

Vancouver area, we are still running into problems with the kinds of

justice — as I have quoted in the Quesnel case, and as the Member for

Comox (Ms. Sanford) mentioned earlier, about the kind of justice that

goes on in her area. I would like to suggest that education become a

priority issue with your department in this whole business of rape.

It is the fastest growing crime in this province. It is the

fastest growing crime in North America, and I think you have to

seriously address yourself to it.

There are a number of other areas, of course, Mr.

Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, which affect

women. Some of them are really so inconsequential I can't

understand what the hang-up is about them. And here I am

referring to the Change of Name Act .

It's a silly little

Act, a really silly little thing. In the spring we amended it

so that a woman who is divorced can apply to have her name

changed.

Why did we stop there? In point of fact, there is no law

that says….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe that this is under

the jurisdiction of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke).

This is to do with vital statistics.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I was under the

impression that the Attorney-General was responsible for

writing the laws.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, in that case we would consider all

estimates under the Attorney-General's estimates, and we don't

do that.

MS. BROWN: Oh, okay. Mr. Attorney-General, I would

appreciate it if you would approach the Minister of Health and

suggest that he….

MR. CHAIRMAN ; Order. I would point out to the Hon. Member

that it is not permissible to request one Minister to influence another.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Is the Attorney-General responsible for the Married

Women's Property Act ? (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: He's never heard of it. (Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: Okay. Now I realize and suspect that this Act is

being studied by the Commission on Family Law.

Is that another point of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member may not either

suggest amendments to legislation or propose legislation in

estimates.

[ Page 1081 ]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll read the relevant

section from

May . "The necessity for

legislation, and that includes

amendments to legislation, and matters involving legislation

cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply." That's page 766,

18th edition of May .

MS. BROWN: Is that Beauchesne ?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, May .

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A point of order.

I'll tell you, if you look in the statute dealing with the

Attorney-General, he's responsible for the administration of

the laws of the Province of British Columbia, and this is one

of them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He tried to amend this in a previous

session, and I think this is probably quite proper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member discusses the Act in terms

of its administration….

MS. BROWN: Yes. That's what I'm trying to do.

In point of fact, Mr. Chairman, the fact still remains that

the property Act, as it is presently administered in this

province, is just not fair to the married women in this

province. Whether it comes under the Attorney-General's

estimates or not, that is the one thing that I would very much

like to get out. I would like to see some real kinds of

changes, not only to the legislation, but to the administration

of the Act, and if in order to change the administration he has

to change the legislation, I'll go along with that too.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What happened to Bill 1?

MS. BROWN: That was a dreadful bill. Let's not discuss

it.

I think what I'll probably be able to do is discuss this

under the administration-of-justice

section anyway.

Is the Attorney-General responsible for the liquor

stores?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MS. BROWN: Okay, fine.

I'm dealing specifically now again, Mr. Attorney-General, with the

whole business of employment of women in the liquor stores. I read in

The Vancouver Sun of March 7

that there's now been one woman hired

part-time in Port Alice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Big deal.

MS. BROWN: But there are also, as you know, Mr.

Attorney-General, a number of women who applied. I actually

have on file 6 to 10 applications which were submitted to Mr.

Palmer, and we are still waiting to hear something from

them.

I know and I am sure that you are doing everything you can

about this, and I would ask you to expedite.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I believe that he probably is, and I would

really appreciate it if he would expedite.

The other thing about the Liquor Board, Mr. Attorney-General — and I

don't know whether this is under your jurisdiction or

not — is the stuff that's on the shelves. I wanted to once

again support the Members of this House who have spoken against

the South African and Portuguese liquor that you have on your

shelves, especially when it is so difficult to get some really

good West Indian rum on the shelves.

I want to complain, Mr. Attorney-General, that the liquor

store for once was bringing in really good rum. It really was.

There was one particular brand, Mount Gay, made in Barbados,

that was being brought in. It was so good that the word went

around, and everyone, including the Member for Comox (Ms.

Sanford) and various other Members here to whom I recommended

it, were purchasing it with the result that it is no longer on

the shelves anywhere. I would like to bring that to your

attention.

But in all seriousness, Mr. Attorney-General, I think

something has to be done about the stocks on our liquor

shelves.

In closing, I want to go back once again to the business of

the law as it applies to women in this province. What we need

is a systematic study of all the legislation that affects women

in this province. Now surely that comes under your

jurisdiction, Mr. Attorney-General.

It shouldn't be necessary for us to wait until the anomalies

show themselves, as in the ICBC legislation, and as in other

pieces of legislation. It is not until it actually affects

somebody that we see it. We need a systematic study of the

whole thing. Surely it is important enough that some kind of

person from your department can be seconded to do this.

We actually tried to do this on a voluntary basis. A number

of women students from the faculty of law at UBC tried to do

this on a voluntary basis, and it is a horrendous task. It

really is too big.

The national Law Reform Commission is looking at it on a

national scale. I would like to suggest that

[ Page 1082 ]

the provincial government make this one of its

priorities

through your department, so that we don't wait until the

anomalies show up and we don't wait until the discrimination

shows.

But you be the white knight in shining armour and move this

stuff out before it actually starts to affect our lives. Thank

you…and I said white knight. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: It's been a long evening, long evening, Mr.

Chairman….

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I've been listening to some of these

speeches in our caucus room and I had to turn a few up and I

had to turn a few down. I'll leave that up to you, sir, to

determine which I turned up and which I turned down.

I don't know whether or not the House has welcomed His

Honour Judge Bewley but he's sitting here tonight. He's a very,

very dedicated public servant and I would like the House to

acknowledge him.

I'm not going to go through all of this tonight, Mr.

Attorney-General. Have you had your seventh inning stretch yet,

or not?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

MR. GARDOM: Your streak?

You know, Mr. Attorney-General, the public in the Province

of British Columbia still look upon you as the fountain of law

reform. They do indeed.

You've got good advisers, you've got some very bright young

assistants, you've got an energetic Law Reform Commission,

you've got a wealth of precedent and all sorts of help from

committees for legal consistency throughout Canada, and you can

certainly gainsay some assistance from the existing legislation

that we find in the other western world areas, plus a multitude

of law reform commissions throughout this country and the

United States and England. In fact, there's a very fountain of

law reform and you, sir, are regarded as being that fountain — Fons

Macdonald. (Laughter.)

You have every means and every economic requirement and

untold resources right at your finger tips. You know what we've

struck in this province, Mr. Attorney-General? We've struck a

dry well. (Laughter.) We have struck a dry well — that's

right.

Fons Macdonald is an empty well, because there aren't any

effective checks and balances against the abuse of your

government's powers. It's your responsibility as the

Attorney-General to see that we have those particular

things.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Shame!

MR. GARDOM: Indeed it is, Mr. Member, and I'm glad that at

long last you're getting the message.

AN HON. MEMBER: The fountain has turned into a wishing well.

Throw a penny into it.

MR. GARDOM: Well, if a penny would produce results, I'll

tell you I'd put a penny into it right now — even more than

that, if it would produce results.

I'm going to talk about three specific areas that are

perhaps the most important of all in the field of law reform.

First, we don't have an ombudsman — a person who's independent

and impartial, free of political influence….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Wait till I write these down.

MR. GARDOM: That's right. Under the "O" — ombudsman. A

fellow, Mr. Attorney-General, with the right and responsibility

to blow the whistle on the abuses of the very, very widening

and ever-increasing mountains of red, red tape. Your mountains

are getting bigger and your tape is indeed getting redder in

B.C. Make no mistake of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. GARDOM: Oh! Granny's awake. Glad to see you here.

(Laughter.)

No auditor-general either, Mr. Attorney-General — that's

under the "A," or "A-G," if you prefer — a fellow

similarly with independent powers and impartiality free of

political influence, and with similar rights and

responsibilities to investigate and tell the people of B.C.

programmes and improper shortages.

Thirdly, Mr. Attorney-General,"L" — no province-wide legal

aid in the true sense.

You know, we're still burdened in B.C. with the age-old

criticism that there's one law for the rich and another for the

poor. It's a very, very brutal criticism, and it's not true

once one gets in front of a judge, but it is certainly true

insofar as access to the courts is concerned. I say that it is

high time that we had province-wide legal aid in the Province

of British Columbia for those in need — judicare for those in

need — and it should certainly cover all fields of law, civil

as well as criminal.

Mr. Attorney-General — the reformer, Fons Macdonald….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're beginning to sound like Bruce

Yorke! (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: I don't know whether you're trying to destroy me

or re-elect me with that

[ Page 1083 ]

statement. (Laughter.)

There are no laws against arbitrary expropriation. You know,

Mr. Attorney-General, you're in reports about laws against

expropriation right up to your ears — or elsewhere, depending

upon your point of view. We've had the Clyne commission, we've

had the Law Reform Commission — a terribly valiant effort. I

remember when you were sitting in opposition and how warmed you

were, how cheered, how encouraged. You were just like Prince

Valiant.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, I'm coming to that in a minute.

"At last!" you said. "By golly, we've got it! All I've

got

to do is convince Wes Black" — that's what you said — "and

we'll have a law against improper expropriation in the Province

of British Columbia." Now, don't tell me that you couldn't even

convince Wes Black. Obviously you couldn't, and you can't even

convince yourself. This is absolutely disgraceful, and quite

frankly, Mr. Attorney-General, it's time that you beefed up

your convictions instead of your backside, and stopped sitting

on these reports. You've been sitting on them for far, far too

long.

Another point, and an equally serious one — you are breaking

the law in the Province of British Columbia every single day. I

don't know what the proper penalty is for an Attorney-General

breaking the law, because he has to ask the

Attorney-General.

You are breaking the law and your government, and every

Member of your government — including the intense lady Member

for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) and that great fighter for

Indian rights, the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) and that great

fighter for civil rights, the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Barnes). All these champions every day are breaking the law in

the Province of British Columbia. No wonder you're suggesting

that incarceration is perhaps not the answer for cure. That's a

very valid premise you're raising now. I'll tell you how you're

doing this.

HON. MR. LAUK: What do you call Liden? (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: Don't pick on the little fellow, man.

(Laughter.) B.C. is a democracy, I'm told, and it's got to be

democratic for everyone, Mr. Attorney-General. We have to have

equal rights and we have to have equality before the law.

That's the philosophy surely to goodness, that we have to

unqualifiedly accept. Do you agree with that? Good!

Now, I'm going to read to you one

section of a statute that is

dominant over British Columbia statutes, and that is known as the

know very well, reads this way: "Any provincial law of general

application shall be applicable to and in respect of the Indians of the

province."

Mr. Attorney-General, you and every single, solitary member

of your government have not only turned a blind eye to that

law, but you're breaking it every single, solitary day of the

week — every week of every month of every year — because you

still deny, in the Province of British Columbia, reserve

Indians the same services that are available to all British

Columbians. Those services are available to all B.C. people and

they fall under the definition of provincial laws, and by

virtue of the Indian Act, Mr. Attorney-General, those

provincial laws which I just read to you have to be applicable

to Indians of the Province of B.C., but they're not.

Now, just a couple of economic facts dealing with that. The

Indian people are taxpayers. They contribute to provincial

revenues just the same way as everyone else. They pay their 5

per cent. They have to pay their motor-vehicle user taxes.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You've got me.

MR. GARDOM: Indeed, I have got you. They've got to pay their

gasoline tax, driver's licence, compulsory automobile

insurance, building material taxes, manufacturing tax, liquor

tax. They contribute to workmen's compensation, unemployment

insurance, and no end of other items. And they pay income tax

for their off-reserve of income.

The only tax haven for a British Columbia Indian, as you

well know, is that he does not have to pay income tax for any

income that might be earned upon an Indian reserve. As the

Member says, how much is that? Sweet-boom all. No levity at

this time of night. Boom all.

There's no tax shelter for the Indians in the Province of

B.C. They don't have to pay land taxes for their reserve land

either. We know that, but I tell you, Mr. Attorney-General, by

far the average Indian home…. . I would say about 95 per cent

of the Indian residents in the Province of British Columbia

would never have to pay a cent of land tax by virtue of their

monetary worth.

The homeowner grant would take care of it. Is there a

homeowner grant? No. They don't receive the benefit of that.

They don't receive the benefit of the same services that every

white man in the Province of British Columbia receives.

They don't see that every provincial law of general

application is applicable to them; it is not applicable to

them. You are breaking the law every single solitary day of the

week — and make absolutely no mistake of that. Mr.

Attorney-General, you have got to follow the law.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We changed that

[ Page 1084 ]

homeowner grant.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. GARDOM: You changed the home acquisition grant — tell

the Minister behind you — and you changed it because I brought a

bill in 1968, 1969 — 1970 I think I missed — 1971 and 1972, and

I'm glad you got the message. Congratulations! I'm happy to

hear that somebody thanked me here tonight — maybe myself.

Thank you.

That's the only thing that was done. In the last session you

extended the home acquisition grant to the Indian community on

Indian reserves. That was a most worthwhile measure and I

congratulate you for that. But all of the services that are

received by the rest of the citizens of B.C. are not received

by Indians on Indian reserves. Why shouldn't they receive the

per capita grant of $34? They need it! My God, they need it

more than anyone else in the province does. Bring them up for a

proper standard of living, give them the opportunity to cope,

equip them — that's what we've got to do.

You're carrying on the reserve system with the same kind of

punitive taxation that's always been followed in the Province

of British Columbia. It's no credit to you and, furthermore,

you're breaking the law every day of the week and I think

that's an absolute, categorical disgrace.

Now, what about a few other things? Let's see, we've got a

little bag of tricks around here somewhere or other.

Mr. Attorney-General, what are you going to do about

misleading advertising — honesty in advertising?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I am going to refer it to

the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young).

MR. GARDOM: Well, Mr. Attorney-General, since you are the

chief law enforcement officer of the Province of British

Columbia and not the Minister of Consumer Services, who's new

in the job, we find in tonight's Sun :

"CONSUMERS! GET SHARP! Have a refund coming?

Everybody

knows

AT BIG JOHN'S THERE'S MORE CASH for your TAX REFUND. Suite 4.

(Upstairs) 'It's worth the Walk.' 'Little Lawrence'"

— Le Petit Laurence. I don't know what he's

offering.

"Unattached." — oh, no, that's got nothing to do with it.

(Laughter.)

Okay, on the next page — "PACIFIC PAYS PLENTY. GET MORE for

your TAX REFUND'. No Bonus Needed. We Pay Most Cash for Your

Income Tax Refund."

"New Westminster Tax Buyers. Cash for Tax."

"A&R. Cash For Tax Now!! $15 Dollar Bonus on Tax

Refunds."

"Sam's All Cash Now."

"West End Tax Buyers."

"Free Pick-up Service. Special Rates When You Come and

Make

Your Own Deal. $10 bonus on purchase of your tax return when

you present this ad."

"We Still Pay the Highest. Phone 525-1684 for

Guaranteed

Rate." What's that? What's a guaranteed rate?

"Licensed and Bonded — Guardian Tax Buyers."

"Sue's Dating and Escort."

"I Can Teach You to Dance."

"Marriage Minded?"

Here's a lulu — "Need a Lift?" All it's got is a telephone

number — what does that mean? (Laughter.)

Mr. Attorney-General, what are we doing in this province?

You've talked about mortgage brokers and so forth and so on,

and this tax discount system procedure that's being carried on

today is a rip-off — make no mistake of it. It's not regulated….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's a federal problem.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, the old constitutional sidestep. "It's a

federal problem," he says. These offices I think are New

Westminster, Vancouver, North Vancouver and Victoria — and that

doesn't seem to be in Ottawa. It seems to me, Mr.

Attorney-General that if somebody is offering a discount at an

exorbitant rate, which is serious, you can't tell me that's a

federal matter. That's a B.C. matter.

Furthermore, it's misleading advertising and it's time that

we had in the Province of British Columbia, as I advocated to

your predecessor and to his predecessor, some check on the word

"guaranteed." It is used constantly and without any indication

whatsoever to back it up. Without knowing what is behind the

word "guarantee," a guarantee is worthless. Here's

another great example, in my view, of totally misleading

advertising. This is the British Columbia government news

release, issued by the Premier's office. "For release

immediately" — at public expense, March 8, 1974. You know, this

little NDP…

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Rag.

MR. GARDOM: No, I'm not going to use that word. The Member

for Cariboo uses the word "rag," but I'm not going to

use that word, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Get a better one.

MR. GARDOM: No, I can't think of a better one,

[ Page 1085 ]

but I'm not going to use that one. (Laughter.) But

this is

just a propaganda sheet. I remember years ago when you fellows

were struggling with the competitions between the leadership

and there used to be that little thing you put $1 a week into

and you got "NDP Calls," or "Homilies from the Caucus," or whatever it

was. Ernie

used to collect the money — I remember that. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: "MLAs at Work" — thank you very much. I'll tell

you, it wasn't as blatantly propagandist as this thing that

comes out of the Premier's office. He says: "It's been a crazy

week here in Victoria." At least he starts out with a good

lead. That's correct. He talks about the snow and the blossoms,

and then constantly through this thing is a deliberate and

shocking slanting of the news in favour of the socialists.

Why does it come out in this colour? It is the wrong colour — it

should come out in the colour of the Foulkes report, if

nothing else. Well, so much for it. (Laughter.)

Now, Mr. Attorney-General, can Mr. Brunsdon, or any citizen

on his behalf, sue your government or your Premier for

political interference with the egg board? Can he do that in

B.C.? Yes or no?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If he has a cause for action.

MR. GARDOM: Does he need a fiat?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It has nothing to do with fiats.

MR. GARDOM: They can't sue today, and you know that.

Furthermore, under the bill that you've introduced, which is a

toothless wonder, they won't be able to sue then either.

Is it possible today, Mr. Attorney-General, for the parents

of a lad who made his way to one of the higher stories in

Crease Clinic, and he leaped through an unbarred glass window

and fell four stories, and is in extremely critical condition…is it

possible for them to bring damages against Crease

Clinic for alleged neglect or improper supervision? It's not

possible today, is it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It will be, under the new bill which

we're bringing in after years of Social Credit and Liberal

Party neglect.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I much welcome the interjection of the Hon.

Attorney-General there. I think it only fair, Mr. Chairman, that I

should be entitled to respond — I really do. I understand the words

"Liberal neglect." I think the first Crown

Proceedings Act was

introduced by the late George Gregory, followed by now Mr. Justice

MacFarlane….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What about John Hart? He didn't do

it.

MR. GARDOM: John who? (Laughter.) I was in swaddling clothes

in the days of John Hart, for goodness' sake. Get up to date!

And under this toothless wonder that you're admitting, you

don't even permit jury trials and just about every kind of a

bill you wish to bring in to exclude actions against the Crown

that can happen. It is just a complete sieve.

Furthermore, Mr. Attorney-General, what about letting some

of the people who wish to initiate proceedings against your

government since you've taken power? Your bill is going to be a

proclamation bill.

Mr. Chairman, I forget the number of it. I'd tell you in a

minute, but I don't intend to carry on with the topic any

longer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope you'll take your own advice, then.

MR. GARDOM: That's right.

Mr. Attorney-General, was the decision taken by the Egg

Marketing Board correct when they made up their mind that Mr.

Kovachich owed $21,000? Was that legally correct? Mr.

Attorney-General, if it was, was it legally correct to reduce

it from $21,000 to $7,500 or was that ultra vires the powers of

the Egg Marketing Board?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're out of order on that …

MR. GARDOM: Oh, no, I'm not at all, Mr. Chairman. With every

respect, you've made your first mistake of the night, because

I'm not out of order. I'm completely in order.

I'm discussing the responsibility and the office of the

Attorney-General. I have come upon a breach of the law and I am

asking him what he is going to do about it, because he is the

chief law-enforcement officer, you see.

You know, Mr. Chairman, in the event that any of his cabinet

steps out of line, as he said, he is like Caesar's wife. He's

got to act, yessirree. I think we have got a case here, Mr.

Attorney-General. Are you going to investigate as to whether or

not this was a legal assessment, or as to whether or not this

was an illegal reduction? Because that's your responsibility in

this province, as the chief law officer of the Crown.

Another one: what happened to Mr. Bremer? He didn't just walk away

into the night — no sir. He

[ Page 1086 ]

wasn't an order-in-council patient or anything like

that,

not on your life. Mr. Bremer — did he get paid two years for

one worked? Did he really? He got paid two years for doing one

year's work? Legally? Mr. Attorney-General, how much money does

that amount to? And was that a legal payment? You don't

know?

I don't mind you shrugging your brow. By golly, I would

shrug more than that if I were you, because you had better find

out about that. Is the fact that Bremer received this extra

money…is that done according to the law of the Province of

British Columbia or against it? What gave you the power to go

ahead? It's like paying off football coaches.

How many more people are you going to hire for a year and

give them a two-year salary for one? You have unlimited

discretion to do that? Under what law? There are four sets of

the books of statutes there. Tell me under which one you have

the power to make that compromise with Bremer — just one.

Mr. Attorney-General, you were always a great proponent — and we

admired your advocacy and your charm and your salability — of bringing

the administrative process into the open. You

came out with the most significant bill of its kind. You had

Jack Webster clucking like a mother hen when you told him about

it (Laughter.): the sunshine bill.

It elected you, and then you pulled down the blind. There

hasn't been any sunshine since you got in. That's right. And

this was the strongest point in your whole platform. Mr.

Attorney-General, since this government has taken over, it has

compounded the administrative process like it has never been

compounded in the history of this province. The bureaucracy is

just overwhelming.

You have heard some very good speeches from the Member in

the far corner up there about the increase in the civil service,

admitted by yourselves. Your control is ever-increasing. That

is admitted by yourselves. You say,"We intend to regulate and

control and direct society." But what are you doing on the

other side of the coin to provide some checks and balances?

Nothing. And your sunshine law has proven to be nothing more

than a tongue-in-cheek sham, that's all.

There has been no credibility to that posture of yours.

There would be if you brought it in, and I'd commend you to do

it, and everybody in this House would thoroughly congratulate

you. And if your caucus won't back you up, resign and have a

secret meeting somewhere and go somewhere else.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Could I join that other party?

MR. GARDOM: Sure, certainly; go ahead, move around a little.

You would get an invitation from all sides of the House, I am

sure.

But, Mr. Attorney-General, today it is a fundamental and

basic requirement of natural justice that all of our

administrative procedures be under some degree of consistency.

We have got to have an administrative procedure law, Act or

bill, or call it what you will, whereby all parties whose

rights could be affected should receive a notice of a hearing;

where they should receive particulars of the allegations

against them, and the requirement of a proper hearing — a

requirement that decisions would have to be rendered, and by

those who heard the evidence — that there should be a right of

appeal; that there should be one simple form of application to

the court, if the administrative tribunal refused to exercise

its statutory power following an incorrect procedure; and that

power be granted for every tribunal to incorporate detailed

rules peculiar to its functions.

You know, I like this quotation, and I

am going to read it

again. I have mentioned it before in the House. It's one of Mr.

Justice Frankfurter's, and he said: "The history of liberty has

largely been the history of procedural safeguards." What we are

asking for here are just those kind of procedural safeguards

for administrative bodies, so one can define the ballpark, see

the game played — in the open with a proper set of rules and

with an impartial referee.

Let's go ahead and bring in a bit of the sunshine. Let's do

just that very thing. See that they conduct their business at

meetings open to the public at all times. Let the Egg Marketing

Board make their records, correspondence, decisions and awards

open to inspection by interested persons at reasonable times

and places.

That is the kind of B.C. we should have. It's not a Nirvana.

Something like this can always be changed and improved by man.

But you've got the responsibility to act. You've got an

enormous mandate here. You've got more money than B.C. has ever

seen. And really and truly, the performance of the government

to this point, in the field of law reform, has been pretty weak —

pretty darned weak.

When I was in my caucus room tonight, I listened to some of

the remarks by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) about

drugs. I thoroughly concur with what he said. It is without

doubt the worst, single, vicious, stinking, rotten business

that we have going in the province of B.C. — estimated at what? — $175

million a year. What we need is a total all-out war.

I am not at all inclined to hold everybody by the hand in

this drug business.

It's $300,000, my colleague says here; I don't know. But it

is an enormous amount of money.

There are no end of Mr. Bigs in B.C. Are they being tracked

down? Is money being spent to find them? Are we being able to

fight big crime in a proper manner, or are we going against big

crime in a

[ Page 1087 ]

horse-and-buggy fashion?

That is a pretty important thing. It is a darn sight more

important than a lot of things that we have been talking about

in this Legislature, both at this session and the last. And I

have not seen any improvement by any government, save and

except the fact that you have got a commission. I'm not

suggesting that there has not been improvement by everyone in

society to try to get down to the root causes. I thoroughly

agree with that.

But I'll tell you one thing: the fight against organized

crime in B.C. has been abysmal, over the past 10 years, and it

is worse. Big crime is growing, and the fight is not even

keeping close to where it should be. We are absolutely in total

neglect of the thing, and the public are screaming for

protection.

The lady Member was talking about rape. Rapes are up.

Muggings are up. Robberies are up. Vicious crimes are up.

Narcotic convictions are up, left, right and centre — and

barely enough. Have they come to B.C. because of lush fields,

lush areas? There was certainly every indication, when the

securities commission in Ontario started to crack down, that

all of these boys came over the Rockies, because they figured

B.C. was a soft touch. They parked in Howe Street, and they are

still there.

Mr. Attorney-General, the thrust of this talk on my part

tonight is this: we have not coped with crime. We have not coped

with it effectively as an opposition. You have not coped with

it effectively as a government. We can propose changes; it is

your job to do them. We can propose changes; it is your job to

do them. You are not doing your job. You are flunking.

Now with those cheering words, it is 10:20 p.m. and I shall

sit down, and thank you for the very respectful audience. Thank

you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to return to a

subject raised by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) and

then commented on by the Attorney-General. It was a subject on

which I thought he commented in most inadequate fashion, for

the following reasons: There is no question that the fight

against drugs, and the battle that I think we all would like to

see brought to a successful conclusion, was not touched upon

properly by him.

It is all very well to try to say that another Minister has

certain responsibilities and he has certain responsibilities,

and therefore he will say nothing. The fact of the matter is

that there are essentially two distinct points of view — two

philosophies which have been battling away at the civil service

level.

Whether it is exactly right or exactly wrong, I'm not sure, but I

can generalize by saying that on the one hand you have the wishy-washy

approach of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) — a weak

approach and an approach which I feel to be obviously the wrong one —

and on the other we had a few rays of sunshine from Dr. Matheson of the

Attorney-General's department. That came up at the beginning of

December in the conference at UBC, described so well by the Member for

Langley (Mr. McClelland). There are two philosophical points of view —

two distinct approaches — one represented by Matheson, and one by Stein.

Now, this perhaps is an oversimplification, but nevertheless

there are clearly two ways of approaching the problem, and the

government obviously is going to have to make up its mind which

to accept — indeed, whether it accepts either. It may accept

yet a third which we don't know about. But to try and pass the

buck and say — "Well, it's all the other Minister's

responsibility. I just enforce laws. I'm not too concerned

about precisely what is going to happen or what should happen

in terms of changes." — is a complete cop-out.

What we need at this stage is a statement by the

Attorney-General as to which point of view is winning in

cabinet. Is his point of view winning? Or is the point of view

of the Minister of Human Resources winning? All I can say from

listening to him this evening is that he seems to have conceded

the battle, because he's up against somebody who pushes a

little harder than he does, works a little harder, tries a

little harder. He apparently is not supporting Matheson because

he did not come out with one word in Matheson's support.

Now, if he's given up the battle, let's know it. Let's have

a clear statement that the Stein approach has won, cabinet has

gone for the soft approach, cabinet has gone for the permissive

approach, and the Matheson approach — which I hoped would have

been identified with the Attorney-General — is to be abandoned

because the Attorney-General doesn't want particularly to fight

that battle.

I don't know and nobody in this room — except cabinet

Ministers, presumably — know what has happened in debates in

cabinet on this issue. But it's perfectly clear from what

you've said tonight that you're not interested in pushing

Matheson's point of view.

Please don't fob us off with: "Well, I'm enforcing certain

laws, and my hon. colleague, the Minister of Human Resources,

has got his policy group." You know full well what the

situation is: on the one hand Stein and permissiveness; on the

other Matheson with first his reference to the Japanese

approach, which I think would be — I differ with my colleague

from Langley — too severe and tough for this type of society to

take. It takes an extremely cohesive society to take that

approach. Nevertheless, Matheson modified it, and he came out

at UBC with some very interesting proposals, some of which may,

in my mind, be quite acceptable in British Columbia, some of

which may succeed.

What we cannot do is continue dithering and have

[ Page 1088 ]

this,"After you, Alphonse," routine, played by the

Attorney-General with the Minister of Human Resources. Either

on the one hand we have Stein's approach or on the other we

have Matheson's. And all I can conclude by tonight's

performance by the Attorney-General is that he has abandoned

Matheson and that his hope that was held out in the beginning

of December — it's now early in March — has simply gone.

What is the situation? Is Matheson's approach the one that

is being given consideration, or is it not? Is Stein's approach

the one that is going to be given consideration, or is it not?

I agree with my friend from Langley — I don't think we can have

two more years of what was described by Stein himself as

bumbling. I think that Matheson's approach has some

promise.

I don't think we can go to the Japanese situation, but I do

think we can have some of the proposals put forward by Matheson

on December I and 2. I'd like to know from the Attorney-General

whether or not we're going to get that, or whether or not he's

going to continue failing to support Matheson and thus

conceding the battle to Stein and the Hon. Minister of Human

Resources.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Does the Minister

want to reply at this point, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, it just happens to be a

responsibility of another Minister.

MR. CURTIS: I hope the Minister won't tell me and the

committee that this is a responsibility of another Minister.

The hour is late, and I want to talk about a dead teenager. I

suppose this is perhaps not very dramatic, because this sort of

thing occurs in every riding represented in this House, in

every community, every few days. We tend to become rather jaded

when we're confronted with the death of a young person, male or

female, through alcohol and automobiles.

I want to say also how very pleased I was to hear the Member

for Langley (Mr. McClelland) touch at length on the question of

drugs. But I really hope the Attorney-General will have some

comments on the subject, which I don't think I'm quite

competent to cover adequately.

Not far from here at 1:15 a.m. on December 15, 1973, a boy

not yet 18 years of age, a grade 12 student, not a bad athlete,

well-liked in the community, very fondly loved by his parents,

apparently while impaired was driving a 1955 automobile on the

Patricia Bay Highway which was involved in an accident which

resulted in his death and injuries to others.

I've spent quite a bit of time since then in discussion with his

parents. I did not know the boy, although I met his parents a number of

years ago. If the Attorney-General would like them, I have a voluminous

file of letters from people who knew him, his employers where he had a

part-time job, someone who coached him in Little League and individuals

who had come into contact with him at school and in the community over

his seventeen-and-three-quarter years before his tragic and violent

death.

I think one of the most touching letters I've ever read was

written by his parents about a month later to the coroner, I

don't think it's a very lengthy letter but I would like to

quote from it.

"Last Monday at the inquest after many hours of

testimony,

when you asked if anybody had anything to say, I found it

difficult not to jump up and tell the jury and yourself what a

wonderful young man Mike had been. How different he actually

was from the picture that cold, factual testimony paints — the

warmth, the kindness, the depth of his questioning, the

reliability of his work at school, and so on and so on.

"Mike would come home and talk with us each night

after

work, or after returning from visiting friends. He would wake

us, if necessary, and there was never a hint of boozing. We did

talk about this subject occasionally, but far more we talked

about the drug problem."

I'll leave the letter for a moment to say significantly — and

without in any way belittling the drug problem — that this

boy was killed by alcohol.

"As a family we are very moderate in the use of

alcohol. How

surprised my wife and I were to find that Mike was able to

purchase alcohol at the liquor store and at a pub — places

where neither was he legally allowed to obtain alcohol, nor was

he legally allowed to be sold alcohol. In this regard our

naivety must be astounding and is completely irrelevant to your

inquiry. Our reason for writing you is our hope that the weight

of repetition will not dull your opportunity and the jury's

duty to consider ways in which we all can proceed so that such

accidents are at least less likely to occur. Responsibility, of

course, has to be born by the individuals themselves — Mike,

Bob, Susy, Jo-Anne, Shelley, his brothers and sisters, and, of

course, his parents. There is no escaping the terrible burden

of the many, 'what ifs,' however useless they may be. But

society in general, and our immediate community in particular,

also bears the burden of responsibility, and it is to this

latter responsibility that I would call your attention.

"In our opinion there are three major areas of concern

that

we, the people of this province, can and should do something

about. The first is

[ Page 1089 ]

in the field of driver training."

I won't take the time of the committee to go into

the

details, but there are some very helpful suggestions.

"The

second point is that of highway design." Perhaps I could again

refer this to the Minister privately, and to the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). They are general observations. But I

must quote from the next paragraph:

"The third and by far most difficult area is that of

alcohol — where to begin and what to do. Mike and those with him were

where they were and did what they did of their own free will.

To condemn only the government liquor store — for that is

apparently where Mike bought the mickey, and not from an older

friend — and the pub would be wrong. It's very true that they

should not sell to a minor and Mike was a minor. He had no

false identification on him and his appearance was definitely

in the 17-to-19 years group. There's no doubt that Mike should

have been challenged and he wasn't. There is far more care

exercised during the cashing of a cheque than in the purchase

of alcohol, a drug that is, in fact, a thousandfold more of a

problem than marijuana or bad cheques.

"The burden of determination of eligibility to

purchase

alcohol, or that point at which a customer should be served no

more because he probably is impaired, should not be laid upon

the waiter or the cashier.

"It seems to me that as individuals in total, we are

not

likely to wise up. We have not so far. Probably in this area,

Big Brother will have to be accepted. Maybe we need an official

to judge eligibility upon entrance to a government liquor

store, so that all customers inside are legitimate.

"Of course, this does nothing to stop bootlegging or

buying

for a friend who may be underage. Maybe we will require all

patrons leaving a pub or a nightclub to take a breathalizer

test and be cautioned not to drive if they are impaired. Of

course, they may still go ahead and drive, but as an individual

they would have been informed of their condition and,

hopefully, would be less likely to drive.

"But this would have no effect on those who wished to

get

drunk in their own home or a friend's home. We don't know what

should be done, but something must be done because impairment

too often results in death, heartache and varying degree of

physical and mental suffering not only to those impaired, but

also to innocent victims.

"I think we have to start at Sesame Street and perhaps

classes in school on drinking alcohol. As repugnant as that may sound,

I fear that out of necessity we will be forced to erode some freedoms

of choice we now enjoy, and that would be very sad indeed."

Now, Mr. Chairman, it's very tough to raise the question of

alcohol without appearing to be anti-alcohol, to espouse the

teetotal cause, to try to suggest that we should not make

alcohol available. I can subscribe to none of those points of

view. That is not the point of bringing this to the attention

of the Attorney-General this evening at this late hour. But the

carnage on our highways involving underaged drivers surely

must be something to which not only the Attorney-General and

his senior advisers, but all Members of this House must

continue to direct themselves.

This was no punk; this was no dropout; this was no failure;

this was no kid who had been in lots of trouble; this was no

youngster from a disadvantaged home. This was a boy who was

loved, admired by his peers and very highly regarded by his

teachers and others in the adult world who came into contact

with him. For some reason, in spite of moderation in the home,

in spite of direction in other areas, guidance, for some reason

or other, the boy got a mickey at a liquor store — perhaps not

the first time — and he was served in a pub. That is clear

beyond any shadow of a doubt. He was served in a pub.

Again I emphasize that I am not in any way criticizing the

staff or management of our beer parlours and liquor outlets.

But something must be done to tighten up the situation to

prevent this kind of tragedy from escalating, as I fear it

is.

Again, Mr. Chairman, if the Attorney-General would like this

material, I'd be happy to make it available to him. His parents

know that I was going to raise it and they gave me their

permission to use the family name. I've chosen not to; I don't

think that it would serve any useful purpose. But it may serve

as a reminder that while we get hung up on law reform and we

get hung up on a lot of so-called big issues, we still lose

fine young boys and girls through alcohol and automobiles.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I appreciate

what the Hon. Member's said. It's in Hansard

so I don't

think I need the file of correspondence, but I intend to make

an inquiry as to what safeguards they use in the vendor stores

and how strict they are about it in the case of minors.

MR. CURTIS: And outlets — not just the stores.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I would like to add my comments

to comments already made on the subject of how to handle in the

criminal system drug-associated crimes. Now I don't care if the

Attorney-General feels that we're in the wrong department. The

fact is that many crimes are committed for the sole, simple

reason that the person

[ Page 1090 ]

is using drugs. If it's going to be a semantic

argument as

to whether we're in the Attorney-General's department or the

Health department, I think that it would be ridiculous if this

House were to split hairs in this way.

I, like others who have spoken tonight, have the greatest

respect for the calm, objective, clever perception of Dr.

Matheson. I happen to have taken

part in two private seminars

where Dr. Matheson spoke — and the Minister for Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Levi) knows the two meetings that I'm talking

about.

With the greatest respect for social workers that I have, I

have to say, and echo the feelings that have been expressed

tonight already, that you can go namby-pamby around the

situation from a purely social point of view and lose the whole

point of what's involved for a great number of families and

young men and women in this province today.

I agree with others who have spoken that it would be nice if

you could sit down and talk to a drug addict that he or she is

on a somewhat dangerous and even inevitable course to disaster.

But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that because they are on heroin,

they are not their own physical or mental masters. They cannot

control their function or their action or their thinking.

Therefore, this argument was put forward when I tabled a

bill last year suggesting a measure of compulsion — that, oh,

dear me, we'd take away their freedom. We talked about people

this afternoon who are in Riverview who have lost their freedom

because they're carrying out criminal actions related to mental

instability, to use a vague description — but some mental

disorder.

Mr. Chairman, when you're dealing with somebody who will

steal from their own mother and commit any crime imaginable to

sustain their drug habit, is there not some mental instability

in this person? What is the difference? Granted the initial

condition is self-inflicted in the case of the addict who