British Columbia Hansard — Monday, March 5, Afternoon (30th Parliament, 2nd Session)

30p 02s 730305p

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

1973 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

MONDAY, MARCH 5, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 971 ]

Routine proceedings

Ambulance Service Act (Bill No. 106) Hon. Mr. Cocke. Introduction

and first reading — 971

An Act to Amend the British Columbia Railway Act (Bill No. 112) Mr. McGeer.

Introduction and first reading I — 971

British Columbia Auditor General Act (Bill No. 113) Mr.

Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 971

Oral Questions

Withdrawal of government bills. Hon. Mr. Bennett — 972

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 972

Sale of poisoned lettuce. Mr. McGeer — 972

Provincial election. Mr. Wallace — 972

Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline. Mr. Richter — 972

Logging in Skagit Valley. Mr. Brousson — 973

Social Credit League, Mr. G.H. Anderson — 973

Copper smelting facilities. Mr. Chabot — 973

Condominium conversion. Mr. Curtis — 974

RCMP centennial celebrations. Mr. Smith — 974

Red Cross Vietnam representative. Mr. McGeer — 974

Committee of supply: Department of the Attorney General

estimates.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 974 Mr. McClelland — 993

Mr. McClelland — 976 Mr. Williams — 994

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 977 Mr. Fraser — 994

Mr. Williams — 977 Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 995

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 980 Mr. McClelland — 995

Mr. Dent — 981 Mr. Smith — 995

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 982 Mr. Fraser — 995

Mr. Gardom — 982 Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 996

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 985 Mr. Curtis — 996

Mr. Smith — 985 Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 996

Mr. D'Arcy — 986 Mr. McClelland — 996

Mr. Smith — 986 Mr. Curtis — 997

Mr. McGeer — 986 Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 997

Mr. Phillips — 989 Mr. Wallace — 997

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 991 Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 997

Mr. Brousson — 992 Hon. Mr. Barrett — 998

Automobile Insurance Act (Bill No. 35) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 998

Mr. Smith — 1004

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, last week the House agreed to

approve in principle the use of television, but reserved the

manner of its use in this chamber. Today I ask your leave on

what I think is an historical occasion of our first question

period, to permit television on the floor for the 15 minutes of

that question period. The reason I seek that permission is

because we would like to preserve that historic occasion on

film for our provincial records. Have I your leave?

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

AMBULANCE SERVICE ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke moves introduction and first reading of Bill

No. 106 intituled Ambulance Service Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 106 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY ACT

Mr. McGeer moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

112 intituled

An Act to Amend the British Columbia Railway

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 112 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

AUDITOR GENERAL ACT

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

113 intituled British Columbia Auditor General Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 113 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would also ask leave of the House

to withdraw notice of Bill No. 11 standing in the orders of

the day, being

an Act to Amend the Small Claims Act , the

Government having brought in similar legislation.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Mackenzie.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, we have in the

galleries today 25 students from the Texada Island Secondary

School accompanied by their principal, Mr. Don Spragge and his

wife. Also in the galleries are my wife and two daughters.

Please join me in welcoming them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to draw the attention of the House to two municipal

colleagues present in the galleries today. Mayor Jim Quaife of

the City of Duncan and Alderman Mrs. Margaret Robertson of the

municipality of North Cowichan.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Delta.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, today everyone has a

Havana cigar on their desk. This is the result of an addition

to the socialist hordes. More particularly, the Hon. Member for

Delta (Mr. Liden) has had a new son on the weekend.

Correction, Mr. Speaker — it's the Member for Richmond (Mr.

Steves) sitting in front of me. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: I wish you would clear that matter up.

The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: …for the wife of the Hon. Member.

Oral questions.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker,

I am very glad to return to the Legislature after a short

holiday. Last August the people of British Columbia said,

"Bennett, you should take a little holiday." So I took them at

their word and I took a little holiday. I had some telegrams

the other day saying, "Please come back." So here I am, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your question?

[ Page 972 ]

WITHDRAWAL OF GOVERNMENT BILLS

HON. MR. BENNETT: The question is this. I am glad you, Mr.

Speaker, are so anxious to hear it because I am sure the people

of the province are anxious to hear it as well.

This question is addressed to the Hon. Leader of the House.

the Premier: Since your budget address, Bill No. 102 — the

Development Corporation Bill, Bills 34 and — the Insurance

Bills, Bill No. 42 — the Land Bill and Bill No. 44 — the Mining

Bill call for many millions of dollars of new expenditures. All

these bills, many think, will cause hardship on our people

throughout the province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Would the Premier agree to withdraw all

these bills?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. On a point of order, the question is

inadmissible. You will note in Beauchesne at page 148 that no

question may anticipate an order of the day or other matters

that are appointed by the House. Those questions appear to do

so.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Then, Mr. Speaker, I'll ask a

supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: You can't ask a supplementary if you can't ask

a main question.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Then I want the people of this province to

know that we have closure! We have a dictatorship! Those are

sick things!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The only master I serve in this

House is the House itself and the rules.

The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

SALE OF POISONED LETTUCE

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

a question for the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich).

Would the Minister of Agriculture state whether any poisoned

lettuce from California is being sold in British Columbia food

stores?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I thought you

said poisoned letters and I haven't looked at the addresses.

(Laughter). Not to my knowledge.

MR. McGEER: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the

Minister of Agriculture aware that 10,000 cases of lettuce had

been seized in the State of California because of excess

Monitor 4 and Phosdrin on them, and that these had been shipped very

widely through North America and possibly to British

Columbia?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, I'm not aware of that.

MR. McGEER: Second supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Minister of Agriculture check into this matter and

find out whether appropriate tests are made on agricultural

products coming into this province.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I've already started writing a note to my

Deputy to check it right away.

MR. SPEAKER: I may point out to Members that matters

should relate to something known to the Members within British

Columbia and affect our jurisdiction. The Hon. Member for Oak

Bay.

PROVINCIAL ELECTION

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

Premier if he has any information to give the House on the

subject of the pending provincial election? (Laughter).

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I wish to thank the Member for

the first question that I can answer in this House as Premier,

and also to inaugurate this new freedom service that we've

never enjoyed in the past.

I want to tell the Hon. Member that to my knowledge there

have been no resignations of any MLA due to any reason

including absence. (Laughter). As far as the Government itself,

we intend to govern as the people of British Columbia chose us

to do on August 30. We'll stand or fall on our record over

those years.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

VANCOUVER ISLAND

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to direct a question to the Minister of Commercial Transport.

Has the Government any plan to immediately construct a natural

gas pipeline to Vancouver Island? British Columbia Hydro at the

present time is refusing new connections for service in the

greater Victoria area even to the extent of refusing new

connections for an interrupted service.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs, Minister of Commercial

Transport): At the moment these matters are all under review. There is a

[ Page 973 ]

report coming from the PUC (Public Utilities Commission)

which has not yet arrived. These matters will be looked into

when we have more information on it.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, supplement. In view of the reply

by the Minister, I would like to ask what instructions has the

Government given the Public Utilities Commission to bring in an

immediate recommendation for the construction of the Vancouver

Island gas pipeline?

HON. MR. LORIMER: As you probably know, Mr. Member, there

was an inquiry and we're waiting for their report on the public

inquiry.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano.

LOGGING IN SKAGIT VALLEY

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker,

I'd like to address a question to the Hon. Minister of Lands,

Forests, and Water Resources. Is there presently any logging

taking place for coniferous trees in the Skagit Valley in the

area that has been designated for flooding?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources, Minister

of Recreation and Conservation): To my knowledge, no.

MR. BROUSSON: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. I'm advised by

letter — and I believe the Minister has received a copy of the

same letter within the last 10 days — that observations have

been made of such logging. Perhaps the Minister would advise as

to what action he has taken the investigate this?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I might say I'm unaware of the letter; it

hasn't arrived on my desk. But we'll pursue it forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Kamloops.

SOCIAL CREDIT LEAGUE

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd

like to ask the Attorney General as the Minister responsible

for consumer affairs if he has any knowledge of why, in the

recent two weeks, value of membership in the Social Credit

league has dropped by 75%. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order. You can only ask the Member something

that has to do with his administrative responsibility in the

House. The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

COPPER SMELTING FACILITIES

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister

of Mines and Petroleum Resources. Has the Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources made plans to get copper smelting

facilities established in British Columbia to replace the firm

proposals which were in hand at Kimberley?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): The question

of a copper smelter in British Columbia and the details are in progress.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. You state that they're

in progress; I wonder if you're prepared to announce to the

House a construction

schedule for a copper smelting facility in

the province. We all realize the importance of these facilities

to the general economy and the high rate of unemployment in the

province …

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Can you give us a construction

schedule at this

time? Unwilling to answer?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Not at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: I might point out that you cannot embark on a

statement of policy too large for a question of this kind under

standing orders and page 148 of Beauchesne. The Hon. Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to ask the Hon. Attorney General, being his responsibility

and portfolio, if the Government plans to initiate any action

this session on a report of the Law Reform Commission

concerning expropriation laws in the Province of British

Columbia.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): The answer is not at

this session.

MR. GARDOM: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it

contemplated for the fall session?

MR. SPEAKER: I'd like to point out to the Hon. Member that

you can ask a question such as you did in general terms. But

under Beauchesne in note BB, you cannot ask the Government's

opinion on matters of policy. The Hon. Member for Saanich and

the Islands.

[ Page 974 ]

CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I

trust this question is in order. On Friday, the Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) raised a matter with

respect to a threat to tenants in a building about to be

converted into a condominium. The Attorney General expressed

concern at that time. May I direct a question to the Attorney

General to determine if further action has been taken by his

department in the interval since Friday afternoon?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes; and with cooperation with the Hon.

Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound, I believe the immediate

problem has been solved. The larger legislative problem remains

and will be dealt with at this session of the Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

RCMP CENTENNIAL CELEBRATIONS

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to address this question to the Hon. Attorney General.

As we all know, this is the centennial of the RCMP — the

celebration of 100 years of service in Canada. Has the Attorney

General any plans for a major celebration to commemorate 100

years of service by the RCMP, formerly the Northwest Mounted

Police, to the Province of British and the Dominion of

Canada?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I know there will be a gala

banquet in the City of Victoria honouring the occasion and, of

course, I and other people will try to be present. It's a very

good question and we should think in terms of some other

recognition in addition to what I've just suggested. I think

it's something that the Government should take under

consideration.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question then, Mr. Speaker. I take

it that the Attorney General will take this under advisement to

see if we could get a large celebration within the province to

commemorate such an anniversary?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, we will. There are some plans for

it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey.

RED CROSS VIETNAM

REPRESENTATIVE

MR. McGEER: A question to the Minister of Health Services

and Hospital Insurance, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister plan to

get in touch with the returning head of the Canadian Red Cross

team with respect to the proposed medical aid to Vietnam on the

part of the British Columbia government?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Yes, Mr. Speaker, through you. We have an appointment on Wednesday to meet with

that returning head of the Canadian delegation to the Red Cross.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the Chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 16: Attorney General's office, $74,004.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Chairman, when

the committee rose on Friday noon I was caught with a number of

answers down following the speech of my friend, the Minister of

Rehabilitation (Hon. Mr. Levi), and I'd like to try and catch

up very briefly with the questions that have been raised in

committee.

Now, in terms of future Government legislation, I don't

really propose to answer those questions.

The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom)

and the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) inquired about

legal aid. I would like to say — and perhaps this will save the

time of the committee when we reach that particular vote — that

we are engaged in expanding very rapidly our programme of legal

aid at the present time. The planning has advanced to the stage

that the Legislature will be asked to vote additional

funds.

There will be a federal contribution which I think the Hon.

Members are familiar with. The formula is 90 per cent or 50

cents per head, whichever is the greater. Ninety per cent of

that is actually spent on criminal aid — only criminal.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, no. Everything's beautiful in the

province. (Laughter). The farmers are sowing their fields. The

people are happy and contented.

Mr. Chairman, we're proceeding on the basis

[ Page 975 ]

of new area offices. This is a new concept — supported by

legal aid funds. We have had what you might call a storefront

legal aid office in the City of Vancouver.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): There he goes.

(Laughter).

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman — I'm going to say this

rather quickly. We propose to open area offices, or if you want

to call them storefront legal clinics — walk-in legal offices — which I think can be of great advantage to a community, in

Prince George, Victoria, northern Vancouver Island and

hopefully Kamloops and the lower Fraser Valley. Those are the

initial stages.

Staffed as they will be, we hope, with two lawyers each and

two to three secretaries, their duties will be to interview

applicants for legal aid and to perform the service of duty

counsel. This means that hopefully there will be a lawyer on

duty in the criminal courts, so that somebody coming in with a

summons or a legal question can get ready advice as to the kind

of case it is there and then; or as to the availability of

legal aid; or as to the availability of bail, if it's that kind

of a case; and possibly some cursory opinion as to whether he

should plead guilty to the charge or get a lawyer and fight the

case.

That's a very important new concept in the field of the

administration of justice. It has been tried in the City of

Vancouver very successfully and we hope to expand it.

There will be in these neighbourhood-type clinics referral

of cases to practitioners — both civil, now that we're moving

into the civil field, and, of course, the criminal. The legal

aid clinics will take some cases themselves for applicants.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, we're financing the civil side

from the additional moneys that the Legislature will be asked

to vote. There will be minimal tariffs of fees to be paid to

individual lawyers taking civil cases that are referred to them

from the Legal Aid Society or these offices or the area

directors throughout the province.

We will concentrate the expenditure of our legal aid civil

funds in the field of family and domestic law to begin with,

such as custody matters involving a child, Protection of

Children Act , Equal Guardianship Act , Family Relations Act

insofar as defences of an individual are concerned charged

under that Act, divorce, and matrimonial matters.

We will try to expand in the lower mainland area the

excellent services that are already being offered by CLAS — Community Legal Assistance Society. We hope that they will have

a budget of $40,000 plus other funds from other sources. I may say that not only is

this group doing excellent in the field of law for those who

can't pay for the advice or take cases, but they also

occasionally take test cases and sue the Attorney General to

establish some new point. So I'm in the anomalous position of

agreeing to extend funds to a group that may sue the Attorney

General.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That will be a separate question.

In the field of criminal legal aid, I think the system is

working very well. Now that we're paying by the case, rather

than by the adjournment and the court appearances, we estimate

that the cost overall is about $100 per criminal case when you

average it out, which I think is a very good record in this

province.

As I said, we intend to expand the role of duty counsel.

I've already told the Legislature about our plans for court

workers as an experimental project in areas where there is a

native Indian population to begin with. I can say that in

addition to the $100,000 that is in the estimates, since I

spoke in the budget debate the federal government has agreed to

match that figure.

There are a number of questions about consumers' affairs,

which again I'll deal with quite briefly if I may. I think the

Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Brousson) and

some others asked about the size and our plans for our Consumer

Affairs Office. Let me say to begin with that the present

staffing is pretty comparable with, say, Ontario. Ontario

includes many other things in it. They've got 13 people but

when you look at some of the things that are under them, such

as the Horse Racing Act, censorship of moving pictures,

real estate and insurance, it's very difficult to compare

province by province. Our five people, I think, compare

favourably at the moment with the other provinces of Canada,

including Manitoba which has been mentioned.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, the Manitoba office is bigger but

it includes landlord and tenant matters, which they've entered

on a big scale. We have five, including the counsel, Mr. Mel

Smith, in my own department, who actively assists as the

director of consumer affairs. I include him in and I realize

that one of them is engaged in hearing aid work. But I don't

want to be part of presiding over a mindless, burgeoning

bureaucracy at the expense of the taxpayer.

MR. GARDOM: You'll have to resign. (Laughter).

[ Page 976 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Much as we'd like to, we can't have

somebody at everybody's elbow when they make a bad deal. But I

would also ask the committee to bear in mind that with the

opening up of our legal aid offices and freer availability of

legal aid, we are strongly reinforcing, throughout the

province, consumer protection as well.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Let me say this. There will be two

conferences in this field as we chart the future. One will be

interprovincial in Quebec in May or early June. The host will

be Mr. Tetley. Following that, I expect to hold in the Province

of British Columbia a round table of people knowledgeable in

this field, including, I would hope, Prof. Neilsen from Osgoode

Hall who is a recognized authority in the field of consumer

affairs.

It will help us to chart our future course in this province:

the relationship between the consumer branch and the legal aid

offices; the possibility that we might go into consumer testing

of products; the possibility that we may consider a consumer

advisory council; the question of our total staffing and

whether it should be expanded usefully to the taxpayer and to

the consumer. So all of these things will be charted, I would

hope, after fruitful discussions before July of this year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I have about

four separate items I'd like to talk about and ask the Attorney

General for opinions on.

First of all, I wonder if the Attorney General might take up

the cause of the British Columbia musician in the next short

little while. The musicians are actually working in a depressed

industry because of some of the liquor regulations in this

province. They not only work for substandard wages, Mr.

Chairman, but they also work on a very erratic schedule, mostly

because of problems with regard to liquor regulations.

Generally, it's because we have watering holes or drinking

holes instead of friendly places to not only drink but have

entertainment as well. What we need — and we need it

immediately I think — is live music in our hotels instead of

constant and enforced guzzling. Let's put some musicians to

work. I realize that this Government, Mr. Chairman… I beg

your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll drink to that.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll drink to that too.

I realize, Mr. Chairman, that the Government has said that

there is no priority on changes in liquor regulations but I

think that this is one area in which there should be a priority

and as quickly as possible.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There is.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you.

The next item, Mr. Chairman, has to do with a probe in

Surrey regarding one of the aldermen in Surrey, who has had his

house searched under warrant by RCMP officers. I want to ask

the Attorney General if this probe was ordered by the

department in Victoria and if any charges are to be laid or if

any charges have been laid.

More important, I'd like to comment on one of the aspects of

this particular probe, Mr. Chairman. That is, at the time of

the RCMP raid on this Surrey alderman's home, the alderman in

question and his wife were away on a holiday in Mexico. His

children were home alone at the time, when the RCMP broke in

very early in the morning. I shouldn't say "broke in" because

they had warrants, but it was very early in the morning — something like 6 o'clock. The children were very frightened

because of this turn of events and had to phone their parents

in Mexico, as I understand it, and let them know what had

happened.

I'd really like to know, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney

General, if we could have some kind of assurance that this

isn't the usual procedure for these kinds of probes and

searches and, if it is, that it wouldn't happen again. I think

that in a case such as this, where really there was no

earth-shattering event happening, it could have waited perhaps

until the people in question came home, instead of harassing

the youngsters in that family. Perhaps just a statement about

general policy from the Attorney General, along with those

part I'd

like to comment on — "As there is a warrant outstanding for his

arrest, there is nothing more that we can do at this time."

I assume that the man cannot be found, and I would like the

Attorney General's comments. Is it simply a matter of not

enough staff? Is it the fact that to have enough staff to cope

with this kind of problem hardly makes it worthwhile? What is

the explanation?

The fact is that here is a man who has had an order against

him of so much a month to support his family. He isn't doing

so. There's a warrant out for his arrest, and apparently he is

able to defy the warrant.

As a sort of a supplementary question, I would be interested

to know to what degree we are encouraging weekend jail

sentences on a man like this. I think there's an undercurrent

of feeling. Why put him in jail? It costs the state money to

put him in jail and he's not supporting his children while he's

in jail. So there seems to be an increasing attraction, shall

we say, to the idea that that kind of person could perhaps

serve his 30 days by doing two days for 15 weekends and working

while he's out of jail. I believe I've read in the Press of cases where this has been done.

I'd be interested in the Attorney General's comments.

On a similar subject, there has been quite a bit of concern

over the handling of juveniles. I was surprised to find that,

contrary to public opinion, conviction in juvenile courts does

carry a record. The information is not generally available to

the public, Ms. Chairwoman. I realize that, but it can be

obtained apparently by future employers such as the armed

forces or the immigration authorities or the police forces. I

understand that it's not uncommon in adult court for a person

on trial to have juvenile convictions taken into consideration

when the adult sentence is being arrived at.

I thought that the word "juvenile" implies that they are

immature and require a different approach than the approach to

adults. It would seem to me that this is not what is generally

understood by the public at large to be the case.

Now, Ms. Chairwoman, I also know that a bill was introduced

into the House of Commons about two years ago, which would have

given young offenders the same rights and safeguards as apply

to adults. Unfortunately this bill federally was never

proceeded with. I'm wondering if the Attorney General has any

comment to make on this whole subject.

The other point is that a juvenile apparently is not charged

with a specific offence. He is charged with delinquency,

whether he has stolen a candy bar or whether he's killed

somebody. There seems to be some reason to promote the idea

that juveniles should be charged with a specific offence.

The matter of land registry, Ms. Chairwoman: I mentioned

this last year, and I'm delighted to see that the Minister has

allowed for 47 additional staff — I think that's the number — in the Land Registry Office. This is much to be encouraged,

because again I understand that in such transactions as buying

a house, the individual can sustain substantial expense in

delay and time in the Land Registry Office. More than that, the

person who doesn't happen to live too near a land registry

office has some distance to travel, referring particularly to

the Lower Mainland and the Okanagan, where apparently they have

to go either to Kamloops or to New Westminster.

Perhaps, Ms. Chairwoman, the Attorney General would care to

tell us whether, in addition to more staff, there are to be

more offices opened in other parts of the province. Or are the

staff simply to be added to those offices that presently

exists?

The whole matter of land registry apparently can do with a

modernizing, in terms of more use of microfilming and some of

the modern hardware that would help not only to make the

department more efficient but to speed up the service to the

client. Of course, the more that the client is delayed, I

presume the more time the lawyer spends on the case, and

the

[ Page 980 ]

more time he spends, the more expense to the client. So

that, all in all, there seem to be tremendous benefits to be

gained by speeding up and modernizing the land registry

department, and we would welcome the Attorney General's

comments on that.

In passing, we would like to add from our party in the House

that we certainly support what has already been said about

abolishing the fiat system, and that we would approve of the

right to sue the government. On that note, I would also like to

ask, with respect, Ms. Chairwoman, the Attorney General whether

the Law Reform Commission is just a bit of window dressing in

this province, or whether it really means anything. I'm

particularly concerned. My only personal connection with the

commission has been the expropriation study which was carried

out, and then last year at this time I was on the standing

committee of this House which studied the expropriation

report.

The report was produced in 1971. It is now 1973 and the

Attorney General has told us today that there is nothing doing

this year on rewriting the expropriation statute. For the

benefit of Members, you'll probably recall that there are

about 60 separate statutes in the province which involve

expropriation. The very central theme of the Law Reform

Commission report was to write one expropriation statute.

Two years have gone by and it looks like another year is

about to go by. What really is the purpose of the Law Reform

Commission, if it puts this kind of deep study and earnest

consideration and public hearings and so on that takes a great

deal of time and effort to produce what 1, as a layman, thought

was a very reasonable document, and here we are with nothing

done and nothing about to be done?

Perhaps the Attorney General would answer in the debate. I

know when he was asked this afternoon in the question period,

it was a simple answer to a straightforward question, but

talking about his department, I would hope that he would feel

ready to say a little more than he said earlier on this

afternoon about action on expropriation.

The Law Reform Commission, of course, also talked about the

right to sue the government. It's interesting to read their

comment, Madam Chairman. They just state that the present

system has little to be said in its favour and much to be said

against it.

We now share the questionable honour with Prince Edward

Island and Newfoundland of being the only other province of the

10 which does not allow the individual to sue the Crown. Some

arguments have been produced in the past that this would lead

to a rash of frivolous actions. This has not occurred in the

other provinces. Perhaps I could just leave it on that note and

hope that the Attorney General will comment.

I think it should be mentioned in regard to expropriation that we had the Cline

Report in 1964 and nothing was done about that. Now we have the Law Reform Commission

report of 1971 and nothing's been done about that. It does seem to any objective

observer that this Law Reform Commission is just some kind of window dressing

to give people in this province the feeling that the law will be reformed. But

nothing is done when they come forward with recommendations.

Certainly the whole question of law reform, I think, could

gain tremendously from this kind of body, particularly if we

could involve the public to a greater degree. Certainly in the

few years that I've been an MLA, with people coming to me with

problems such as the family court and the problems of juveniles

and the problems of drugs and so on, it's very obvious that any

commission of any kind whose purpose is to reform the law

should certainly be very close to the public in terms of public

hearings or other forms of exposure by the commission to listen

to the problems encountered by the people at the periphery.

I think that it's not unreasonable to say that many people

feel that the law is not only archaic but complex and difficult

for the ordinary citizen to understand. In many cases, because

of lack of understanding, the individual finishes up in a more

complex situation than need be the case and also is subjected

to additional expense.

We welcome the comments regarding legal aid, but I don't

know if the Attorney General answered as to whether or not

civil suits would also be encompassed in the enlarged

programme. I don't know if that was asked or not.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer is yes.

MR. WALLACE: Good. This is something we would favour.

Finally, Madam Chairman, we would just like to comment upon

whether or not there is any thought on the part of Attorney

General to simplify the rules of court. The individual citizen

sometimes only goes into a court once in a lifetime, or seldom,

and the whole system could be modernized. Could it not only be

made more understandable to the individual, but could it be

speeded up? Could we hope that maybe here again is an area

where we could ask the Law Reform Commission to give us some

up-to-date ideas?

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Madam Chairman, I might answer one or

two things. I may say that we're — it's fine with me if it's

fine with the Chair — straying over a number of votes, such as

land registry and correction. Now if that saves the time of the

committee in total, and it's all right with the House, it's

fine with me. But we have been doing it, and I've

[ Page 981 ]

been doing it too. It may be that you'll want to use your

gavel at some point and say, "Wait for this vote," but

I'm not pressing the point.

I shall answer some of the inquiries of the last Member.

William Head: We try to keep the new Solicitor General informed

of these things, but it is a federal institution. Oakalla: Task

force report, quite soon, I hope, and a very good report. I

hope that we will be able to chart our course in corrections as

a government in the reasonably near future.

The backlog in the courts: We've asked the federal

government for the following judges at the present time, with a

very good prospect of the request being granted. I think the

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey mentioned this too. The county

court of Vancouver badly needs two — there is a terrible

back-up on the criminal side. Victoria-Nanaimo needs a county

court judge. Yale-Cariboo needs a county court judge. We

believe those four will be granted very soon. One more is

needed in the court of appeal. The supreme court will be

expanded but later in the year. That has not reached the point

where it is a pressing request. But the other ones, we

consider, are.

Non-support: You know in the family court you can collect up

to 70 per cent of your support orders. That is pretty good. You

can't get blood out of a stone, and you can't get blood out of

a man. You can jail somebody sometimes who is determined not to

pay or determined not to work. But that is a very high

percentage. Sometimes I see a report that they've collected up

to 77 per cent of their orders in a given area, and I think

that that is fantastically high.

We're trying to improve that. We now have a full time chief

judge, and one of his functions is to inquire in all of these

fields. How is the administration of justice going in this

respect — non-support for a wife and children? We favour the

principle and will encourage it. We have, through the judicial

council and new chief judge of the provincial court, a better

means of bringing to the attention of the judges, through the

district judges and conferences, things that we as a

legislature or government as a matter of policy think are

important. The decisions are out there but they like to know

what we think in terms of policy.

Juvenile offences: That is the federal Young Offenders

Act which was introduced in Ottawa and withdrawn. I'm not

sure if it has been re-introduced. But that should deal with

the whole matter, including the question of the juvenile

records.

Land registry: I can only say that I agree with the Hon.

Member's remarks.

Law Reform Commission: Some very good practical things. For

example the debt and harassing of debtors legislation which is

now before the Legislature is the direct result of a study by

the Law Reform Commission. Another one that may be introduced

at this session, if we have time in terms of legislative priorities, is "seize and sue" legislation, to

prevent somebody's car being picked up under a finance contract

and then sold off by the finance company at sometimes a

ridiculously low price. The debtor has not only lost the car

but he is then sued for the deficiency, as it were. There have

been some really great injustices in that field. Good work by

the law reform commission. They are now working on the

administrative procedure and appeals, which was brought up by

the Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) the other

day.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No that is one of the subjects that they

are actively working on — small claims and the use of an umpire

at the courthouse door to possibly settle things without taking

up the time of a full hearing.

Personal property legislation and the family court which was

also mentioned in terms of trying to bring all of the domestic

matters within one unified, informal, non-adversarial, well

staffed and complemented with social workers and matrimonial

advisors and so-forth, court. I think it is going to have to

be, if we have that kind of court, through our provincial

system. Because we are out there in all of the parts of the

province. I would hope that, as a result of this study, at a

certain point some of our provincial judges will be designated

by Ottawa so that they also have, say, divorce jurisdiction. It

could all be done locally, without too much expense and delay

and in an informal procedure.

I think that brings the questions up to date.

AN HON. MEMBER: The expropriation question?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, expropriation. That's a matter of

legislative priorities. It's a big subject, but we intend to

bring it up. I wouldn't like to say October because I can't be

certain of that.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. Member for Skeena.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman. Today we

are considering the estimates of the Attorney General's

department. That is, we are being asked to provide the

necessary funds for the Attorney General's department. Before

we actually vote on these estimates, each MLA is allowed to

offer comments, to ask questions, and even make comments about

the philosophy of the department. I would like to address

myself to that latter part.

I believe that we must strive to establish the right balance

between public justice and individual justice. That is, we must

ensure that the rights of the public are adequately protected

from abuses by individuals

[ Page 982 ]

or groups; while at the same time, doing all that we can to

safeguard the rights of the individuals and these groups that

make up society.

Just as an example, drug traffickers are a menace to the

public good — that is to all of society as a whole. The same as

a cancer is a menace to the human body. Just as a cancer can

destroy a human body, so the cancer of drug trafficking can

destroy the society in which we live — as we know it.

Just as a surgeon must be ruthless and precise in applying

his scalpel to remove a cancer from the human body so that it

might survive, so that the human person might live — I believe

that the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) through the

actions of this department must apply the necessary measures,

and if necessary ruthlessly, in order to control and cut out

this cancer of drug trafficking as well as other criminal

actions that might get out of hand in our society.

But we must not only be concerned with society as an

organism. We must be concerned about the individual. This I

believe has been the tradition of justice in B.C. and in

Canada, and is partly from the Christian tradition that we've

had in this country and in this province. As an example I would

quote these words: Jesus Christ said, "I have come to seek and

to save that which is lost."

He meant individual sinners, or criminals, or whatever you

want to call them — people who were contrary to society. A good

example is the thief on the cross who represented just before

death because of the compassionate concern of Jesus who also

had another cross right beside him. I believe that this kind of

concern of one individual for another is the same thing that

must occur in regard to the operation of justice in our

province by the Attorney General's department.

Therefore I would ask these questions. In regard to public

justice what measures does the Attorney General anticipate

bringing in or using as a means of ensuring the protection of

society as a whole from such things as drug trafficking? For an

example does he anticipate changing the form of our police

services, enlarging them or whatever — providing more

assistance for these particular problems such as the drug

problem?

Does he anticipate developing more co-ordination with other departments such

as education and so on? I think for example that our young people — and I've

talked to many young people — simply do not have an understanding of the importance

of maintaining law and order. And I don't think this is a right versus a left

issue. I think it's something that concerns everyone in this place, throughout

the province, and even throughout the world. Our young people must develop a

positive appreciation of the importance of respect for law and for order in

our society. Otherwise we lose the benefits we are now enjoying. I would ask

the Attorney General what measures is he proposing in order to meet that need

now?

The second

part is the concern for the individual and this,

I think is equally important. Does he anticipate an improvement

in the probation services and parole services? Again in

co-ordination with other departments such as rehabilitation and

social improvement and so on, to try to assist individuals in

being genuinely rehabilitated into out society — not only for

the good of society, but for their own happiness as well.

It is my view that we must safeguard society as a whole, to

the maximum, in order to guarantee the safety and rights of

each individual in that society. We must also save the

individual — and I mean literally save the individual — in

order that he might achieve happiness and also guarantee

permanently the safety and rights of society. This is a big job

I agree, Mr. Attorney General, and I'm sure that you can't do

it alone. But I would like you to answer these questions.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Ms. Chairwoman, in answer to the Hon.

Member for Skeena. I may say I agree that the rising crime

figures which are referred to are a reality. They were referred

to by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). And we can only

combat that by co-ordinated action between justice department

activities, education and even health and rehabilitation. It's

a many-pronged attack that will be needed if we are to succeed.

It must include improvement and building up of our probation

services and our parole services. Because really, jail does not

rehabilitate.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey.

MR. GARDOM: This afternoon the House is in a very pleasant

mood. The Hon. new Premier looks a little paler than the Hon.

Premier, but it's nice to see the happy wanderer back to

Camelot I suppose. I find…

AN HON. MEMBER: Be charitable.

MR. GARDOM: I am indeed sir. When I think of you I am always

charitable.

I'm thinking though, Madam Chairman, when the Member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace) was talking about the expropriative

proceedings that we have in the Province of British Columbia,

it drew to memory a quotation by Mr. Justice Thorsen who was

formerly of the Exchequer Court of Canada. It was a very, very

brutal statement that he made.

He said that save and except in the Soviet Union, we find

more arbitrary modes of expropriation in Canada than anywhere

else in the free world. And he

[ Page 983 ]

was particularly referring to British Columbia.

Then we had the Hon. Attorney General this afternoon talk

about the legislative priority. Well, it would seem to me, Ms.

Chairman, that the greatest statutory bulwark for the

preservation of individual and citizen rights is the right to

sue the Crown.

When the Attorney General was talking about the opening of

these legal aid offices — which we indeed commend him for doing

and which is a step long, long overdue — he said, "by gosh I

may be giving the right to sue me." It should not be "may" be,

but "shall" be giving them the right to sue you. We must,

without any question of a doubt, have in the Province of

British Columbia the citizen's rights against his government,

the same way that the government has against him. Make no

mistake of that — these are fundamental pillars of individual

rights.

When you're talking about legislative priority, it's very

strange to me that you can come up with some of the suggestions

you raised this afternoon and you did not mention the right to

sue the Crown and fair expropriation laws in B.C., all of which

still are nonexistent.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Put a bill on the order paper.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, I'm delighted to put a bill on the order

paper again. Will you accept it?

In the field of expropriation, Ms. Chairman, there is no

established set of rules in the province; there is no

established mode of hearing; there is no established method of

determining fair compensation. The expropriative power of any

government is always a sinister kind of a cloud that is

lurking over individual rights.

I would tend to say in view of the very confiscatory type of

legislation that this Government is introducing now — and I

can't refer to the specific bills — that we should have a fair

compensation Act. We should have the right to sue the Crown in

the Province of B.C. so we can have the citizens go to the

court. The court may be their last resort against the

bureaucratic thumb that will be pushing them down here. And

that does worry me a great deal.

I liked some of the remarks of the Deputy Speaker, when he

spoke over there on law and order, and the attitude of the

young to law and order. He didn't, however, go too much into

the meaning and the function of the police. I would very much

like to make a couple of comments here, and hope that I would

receive favourable response from the Attorney General dealing

with this aspect.

I think we should have some allocation of time and money by the Government

to public education and a public relations programme concerning the meaning

and the function of our police forces in their various branches and in their

activities — specifically with a view to better informing the youngsters in

our community.

We are living in a day of the permissive society and it

seems a fantastic amount of publicity is given to the

anti-police situation. An unbelievable amount of publicity

given to the anti-police situation. Their public image insofar

as the Press is concerned — and I'm not criticizing them, they

have to print the news, and maybe this happens to be news — but

the police's image is certainly not as good as it is and it's

certainly not as good as it should be. I would very much hope

that the media could do a little more day by day routine

reporting of the function of the police and the assistance they

provide, the very good work they do, and the help they furnish — attending accidents and fires, putting out domestic

outbreaks. Taking care of the innumerable number of tragedies

which are of so infrequent occurrence to the general public,

but are day by day routine to these officers. They should be

looked upon, which they are, as the friend of society. I think

that we've got to have a campaign to try to get this message

properly across to the general public.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Well, personally, my friend, I don't take any

exception to the police. I was brought up to believe that they

were the friends of society and any experiences that I've ever

had with them I've certainly found that they have well

qualified that definition.

If there happens to be an excess insofar as police action is

concerned — they are servants of the government, servants of

the state — surely to goodness those types of excesses can

readily be stamped out.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): In which part of town were

you raised?

MR. GARDOM: Well, if you happen to be a police hater, my

friend, that's your prerequisite. It's not mine.

I would like to mention one item dealing with coroners in

this province. I recognize that there's a bill here and I'm not

transgressing upon the bill. But, Mr. Attorney General, as you

are aware these are the only jurors in the Province of British

Columbia who do not receive compensation?

They have a job that is mighty unpleasant, and for such

tasks as viewing the body and hearing the grief and witnessing

the bereaved there is no reason why coroners' jurors should not

be entitled to compensation; exactly the same kind of

compensation that other jurors in the province receive; namely

$10 a day for the first 10 days and $20 a day thereafter. Now

the Canadian Bar Association has recommended that

[ Page 984 ]

that be increased to $25 a day.

There's no question that it is a responsibility of citizenship to sit upon a coroner's jury. But surely to goodness it's

a responsibility of the state to be fair. We've not had that

situation continuing on here, which is too bad.

I'd like to say a couple of words about driving. I do hope

that the Attorney General can come up with a little more than

the former administration did dealing with this specific topic.

I think that we should have a six point programme.

(1) I would recommend that we have compulsory driving in all

of our British Columbia high schools. This could be a

well-documented course with as much audio-visual as possible.

It could cover the whole aspect — road condition and repair of

vehicles, traffic rules, accident causes and consequences.

There could be practical courses phased in as electives.

I understand — and if I'm incorrect in this the Attorney

General or his deputy beside him could correct me — that we've

not yet proclaimed the amendments to the Motor Vehicle

Act of 1969 which was to the effect that, except with the

consent of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, no person

under the age of 18 years could drive a car unless he happened

to pass a certified driver-training programme. My understanding

is that that

section has not been proclaimed and I think it

should be.

(2) I would suggest to you, Mr. Attorney General, that for

the more interested students and adults, and certainly insofar

as the chronic driver or problem drivers are concerned, the

present eight hour defensive driving course should be

programmed into every community in the Province of B.C.

Getting back to the age situation, if I would have the

attention of the Attorney General, I do believe California

happened to be a very path finding area in the world dealing

with that. There, in California, if driver-training courses are

not taken, licences may not issue until the age of 18 years.

Otherwise they can issue at the age of 16 years.

(3) We must have province-wide compulsory motor vehicle

inspection and testing. Now this seemed to be a problem of

structures, I gather. The former administration felt that they

would have to build stations everywhere and so forth and so on.

I've never accepted that theory. I couldn't see why this

couldn't be done on a county basis throughout B.C., utilizing

existing public structures such as schools or firehalls and so

forth, or even programme it into local garages.

I'm not too sure how many mobile testing units we have. A

year or two ago we had one in the Province of B.C., and it cost

about $25,000. But we're finding a default situation — or a

rejection situation is a better way to express it — of between

30 and 40 per cent of the cars that are tested.

We're only having about a third of a million cars tested. Say we've got two

million people — that's one million cars in the Province of B.C. So of the third

that we are testing, 30 to 40 per cent of those are f ailing.

Now think; you've also got another 600,000 or 700,000 cars

untested in the province which would at least fall into that

kind of a similar category. Quite frankly it's just like

looking down the barrel of a gun. I cannot see for the life of

my why we don't have province-wide motor vehicle inspection and

province wide testing.

(4) Another good thing to do would be to have a complete

review of the traffic rules and regulations and, I think, a

solicitation of public opinion to update those. We need more

divided highways in the province, and that is a question of

dollars and cents. But we should be pushing to more divided

highways and more one-way routes and, I think, a rather close

look at the privileges of the pedestrian.

We do find many pedestrians who unfortunately will walk

right smack out into the largest stream of traffic and think

that every driver is 100 per cent alert and is going to stop.

That's not happening and we're having far, far too many

fatalities as the result of that,

(5) One of the earlier Members this afternoon, I believe the

Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) said

something about the consumer's side. I think there should be a

consumer protection bureau and it would be your responsibility,

Mr. Attorney General, to set minimum safety standards for the

commercial sales of all new and used cars in the province.

(6) A final word about the ghastly problem of drinking and

driving. I mentioned this before — and I would very much

appreciate your answers on these six points. I would commend to

you that you've got to advertise and bring home the fact that

we mean business in the Province of B.C. If you drink don't

drive — just as simple as that.

I think that you should post in all of the bars, in all of

the liquor outlets and the beer parlors and the liquor stores

and in every gas pump in the province — and indeed on every

bottle of liquor for that matter — "Don't drink and drive." Let

the people know. Let everybody be totally aware of the

penalties that will ensue.

A coroner in Nanaimo a couple of years ago did a very good

thing, in my view. There was a fatality and he insisted upon

morgue attendances in the situation. I believe he insisted upon

more than one of them. There was a lot of criticism taken of

him by virtue of the step that he took in this, but I think it

was a very good thing.

Maybe in this particular field there could be some kind of

social agency custody outside of the provisions that are

available under the Criminal Code. Maybe these people should

have to ride shotgun with

[ Page 985 ]

a traffic officer in a traffic car. Maybe they'd have to

spend some time in the emergency wards or some time in the

morgues in the province. Because the message has got to be got

across. So far it hasn't.

Before I sit down I'd like to cover one final item here, Ms.

Chairwoman. This deals with quite an anomaly in the law, but

it's an historic one. It deals very much with the rights of

women and more particularly the rights of married women. You

can have this situation: a husband and wife, say, are separated

and the husband comes to see the wife to pick up the children

or to have a discussion about maintenance or maybe a discussion

about divorce — whatever it may be. We can get into a situation

where tempers become short, they become very acrimonious and

the husband loses his temper and he strikes the wife and he

breaks her jaw. Right! Under those circumstances he can face

criminal proceedings.

But does she have any property rights against him? Can she

sue him for damages for assault in the civil field? The answer

is "No." If he'd done it to someone else, certainly, that

person would have been entitled to damages for civil

assault.

Under the same circumstances if he had gone to see the wife

and, say killed her dog or had broken her furniture — under

those circumstances she would have been able to sue him for the

value of the animal or the value of the broken furniture.

A wife cannot sue a husband in tort except insofar as it

goes for the protection of her separate property. The law has

never considered her body to be separate property in that

sense. I think this is a grave injustice and I think that we

could readily have an amendment to the statute this session to

take care of it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Possibly this session, but if not, very

soon.

MR. GARDOM: Good. Would you like to answer some of those

questions?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Answering the Hon. Member's questions

that were not rhetorical — because his rhetorical questions

answer themselves — may I say that in terms of driving

inspection stations we now have Victoria, Vancouver, Richmond,

Burnaby — and under construction Nanaimo for this year. Trouble

in Surrey because the location is in the Green Timber area and

there is local protest. Duncan, we have land. Haney and

Kamloops are also on the line but they're in the planning

stages.

Coroners should be paid: that's a rhetorical question and

it's a very good rhetorical question. I think, under the…

MR. GARDOM: Coroner's jurors.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Coroner's jurors, yes. I think under the new legislation there will be leeway to deal

with a situation like the Quilt inquest. But we have not

tackled the question at this time of an actual per diem.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, we haven't tackled that in terms of

legislation. The Hon. Member has made a good point. I think

I've mentioned that the anomaly with respect to married women,

Madam Chairman, is something that should be erased quickly from

the laws of the Province of British Columbia.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for

North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Madam

Chairman. I'd like to deal with one specific matter and refer

to the Attorney General in his capacity as chief law

enforcement officer for the Province of British Columbia.

The matter I have to raise this afternoon comes about as a

result of an item published in the February 23 edition of the

Beaver Valley Bulletin published at Montrose, B.C. I'd

like to quote from an

article contained in this particular

publication: "Chris D'Arcy is going to keep NDP office open all

the time, and guess where it's located? Right across from the

Kootenay Hotel. Cool man! Old Bertie Willie Harding could never

afford it to keep an office open across from the Kootenay

Hotel. How come?"

In that respect, I say that it's of no concern to the

Attorney General because any MLA who wishes to keep an office

open within his home constituency should be complimented. But

the following few lines of the

article give me cause for

concern and perhaps they will the Attorney General as well.

"D'Arcy also has an executive assistant, a Mr. Tom Fox. I

always thought Tom Fox was the ruddy sheriff."

In checking with the provincial office in Nelson, I find

that Mr. Tom Fox is the sheriff in that particular area. It

occurs to me, Mr. Attorney General, that if an MLA is involving

or compromising a civil servant by involving him in party

politics then that person is exceeding political integrity to

say the least.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but you say "if".

MR. SMITH: I say "if". This is what I'm asking you to do,

sir.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, stick it out.

MR. SMITH: If this is right then the man has exceeded

political integrity and should resign. If, however, this is a

matter that the party is involved in

[ Page 986 ]

and they are knowingly involving civil servants of this

province in a political manner, then that is something that the

Attorney General himself should look at. He should question his

ability to sit in this House as Attorney General if that in

fact is taking place within the NDP within the Province of

British Columbia.

There is no way, Mr. Attorney General, that any of us in

this House should back away or divert from a tradition that the

civil servants of the province should not be involved in any

way in party politics, regardless of what the party is.

If this is an NDP policy, I'd like the Attorney General to

state it; if it's not, I'd like him to come out and say what

the policy is. If that

article is correct, then it places a

cloud over the head of every civil servant in this province who

does not allege to be a supporter of the NDP.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sheriff of Nottingham.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I recognize the Hon. Attorney

General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, even the Hon. Member is

not saying it's correct, so the thing is totally hypothetical.

But if you want to write and have that investigated, I'll be

glad to. I know nothing about it. And apparently neither do

you.

MR. SMITH: The supplemental question to the Attorney General is this.

I'm not taking responsibility for that statement; the man who wrote it is taking

responsibility for it. But I ask the Attorney General as the chief law enforcement

officer of the province, if I put this matter in his hands, will he investigate

it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for

Rossland-Trail.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Chairman, anyone with

the surname of the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith)

should be aware that there can be many people named Smith. It's

also possible that there can be many people named Fox. I

suggest that your allegation is a slur on a very competent

member of the civil service.

The gentleman in question who has been working very hard for

me is a native of Vancouver and Powell River. He is a radio

announcer in the City of Trail. He has never, now or at any

time, worked for any department of the provincial government,

the federal government or the municipal government.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Point of

privilege.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of privilege.

MR. McGEER: I ask the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr.

Smith) to withdraw every remark he made with respect to the

Member charged.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. SMITH: In no way do I withdraw any remarks that I have

made. The Hon. Member across the floor (Mr. D'Arcy) has stated

what he thinks to be a fact. The fact is that the man who is

the sheriff in Nelson is named Tom Fox. He is indicated to be

the man who this

article suggests is acting as an executive

assistant.

The further question to the Attorney General, then, is this:

Is the government of this province in the process of providing

executive assistants for all the backbench Members of the NDP

within the Province of British Columbia?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is no point of privilege.

I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, there's been some fairly foxy

manoeuvering here. I'd appreciate changing the topic for a

moment or two to go back to an extremely serious issue which

was raised on Friday by the Attorney General, the Minister of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) and the

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

I refer to the discussion about drugs and the suggestion

that at some future time consideration might be given to making

heroin freely available to registered addicts. I appreciate

some of the comments made by the Minister of Rehabilitation and

Social Improvement and agreed with both him and the Member for

Oak Bay in two respects.

The first of these is that there are no cures for the heroin

addict, which means that once a person is addicted the medical

profession has little to contribute at the present time. The

second is that there is nothing being accomplished by the

jailing of the small-time addicts. It serves as neither

prevention nor cure.

But, Mr. Chairman, I disagree as deeply as I can with the

judgment that at some future time we should make the tragic

error of making heroin available to registered addicts. I say

this because we have already made tragic errors in this country

with our permissive attitudes toward drug use of all kinds.

[ Page 987 ]

Many of us warned publicly of what the consequences of this

permissive attitude would be. Our warnings were not heeded but

the consequences have been beyond what even the most

pessimistic of us might have believed.

We have in Vancouver and in British Columbia a full-scale

heroin plague. It's a matter of the greatest public urgency

that proper and effective measures be instituted to bring this

plague under control. It's in this respect that I want to make

some suggestions today to the Attorney General with the hope

that some of the things that we've been saying for years will

begin to be heeded.

Mr. Chairman, the first and most important principle to

recognize is that drug abuse follows absolutely the

epidemiological characteristics of an infectious disease.

A century and a quarter ago, it was impossible to get

doctors to accept the notion that diseases were spread by

microbes. There are many famous cases of doctors holding out

against others in their profession who refused to accept the

evidence of communication from person to person. Now, with drug

abuse, we have evidence from many countries around the world of

the spread of such use by personal contact.

It's always suggested that the man who is to blame is the

pusher. We can completely absolve the person who is the user;

he merely becomes the victim. But that isn't the situation, Mr.

Chairman, and this is the part that needs to be recognized,

because until it is recognized we aren't going to make progress

in reversing this dreadful trend.

The first country I would like to cite as evidence for the

Attorney General is in Britain itself. Between 1970 and 1971,

the number of arrests for drug abuse — the use of illicit

heroin brought in from outside the country — doubled.

There has been one of the best epidemiological studies ever

performed with drugs in the small town of Crawley in Great

Britain that one time was completely drug free. Now there is

one of the highest incidences of drug abuse in that particular

town of any in Great Britain. The entire epidemic can be traced

to two individuals who were the source of infection for the

remainder of the people. There is a published report showing

how the development of addiction went from individual to

individual in that town in the typical tree-like fashion which

is characteristic of the spread of disease.

In the country of Sweden in the late 1940's, a group of

bohemian poets introduced the idea of injection of speed. From

this small group, an epidemic involving 12,000 individuals grew

up over a period of time. The numbers doubled every 30 months,

a typical geometric progression of infectious contact.

From Stockholm were deported 11 prostitute addicts to Norway. These 11 commenced

an epidemic of heroin addiction in the country of Norway.

In Japan after the Second World War, there was a similar

epidemic of Methedrine abuse. Japan is the one country that has

managed to eliminate this problem. It expanded very rapidly

until very strict measures were introduced in that country

which included three years for possession, ten years for

peddling. In 1954, there were 55,000 arrests in Japan for

abusing these laws. In 1955, there were 32,000. In 1958, there

were 271 and the epidemic was cured.

The Stockholm board of health took a different course when

the amphetamine problem was expanding in that nation. In an

experiment, they made amphetamines and opiates available to

addicts. Within 12 months in that country the numbers had

doubled. Police surveillance was increased and the numbers

immediately decreased and when they were relaxed again, the

numbers increased.

Mr. Chairman, more examples could be cited, but I think

these from several countries around the world are sufficient to

make the fundamental point that the person who uses drugs is

just as much a carrier of disease as is the person who has

typhoid.

Therefore, if we are to give some protection to those who

are not affected then we have to take this fact into

consideration. We do know that among our secondary school

population in British Columbia there is exposure. I would say

that today there is virtually 100 per cent exposure of our high

school students to drugs in one form or another.

Even six or seven years ago, heroin was almost completely

restricted to a one square mile area in downtown Vancouver. Now

it is a significant if not a major problem in every sizable

community in British Columbia. It has broken out from the

geographical confines that made it a tolerable problem, to the

whole of British Columbia where it is now an intolerable

problem.

A consequence of this is the almost universal exposure of

high school students in the Province of British Columbia to

drugs. Just as has been experienced everywhere else in the

world, a certain number of those who are exposed will come down

with this disease of addiction and become a tragic life and a

treatment problem for the Minister of Rehabilitation.

While this disease has been spreading, wreaking havoc in the

young people of British Columbia, we have failed to make

progress against those who are the suppliers of these drugs.

And part and parcel of the permissive attitude that we have

freely chosen to adopt in British Columbia and in Canada has

been the silent encouragement of those who have been the

suppliers. We have handicapped the police in their efforts to

track down those who are annually making millions and millions

of dollars out of this trade.

So the second great principle, Mr. Chairman, that I think

needs to be appreciated by the Attorney General is that since

there are no cures, the only

[ Page 988 ]

prospect of rehabilitating those who are now affected, in

the absence of research that will bring new techniques to such

treatment to the medical profession is the elimination of the

sources of supply. I'd like to make specific proposals to deal

in turn with each of these principles.

The first one is in the apprehension of those who are the

suppliers. I would submit that the staff of the D squad should

be sharply increased, quadrupled if necessary, to provide

surveillance and detection of those who are importing the

drugs.

What we found, Mr. Chairman, is that to catch even one or

two people who are involved in the drug trade at high levels

can take the police four or five years of effort. You get those

two behind bars, two or three others take their place. Unless

we develop better methods, it's going to take four or five

years to apprehend those because we continually fall behind.

The supply of the infective agent itself continues to be easily

available and even to enlarge in British Columbia.

More policemen are essential, but also are more advantages

placed in the hands of those policemen. I personally think that

wire-tapping should be made available to all people involved in

drug detection work. If we want to withhold that police method

for those engaged in other activities I don't think anybody

would complain because there is an implied interference with

civil liberties. But nevertheless, if any evidence is obtained

that a person is involved in the drug trade then immediately it

should be possible for the police to engage in wire-tapping and

any other advantages that they require to get the necessary

information regarding these people and to put them out of

commission.

That falls entirely within your jurisdiction, Mr. Attorney

General — to give the police the advantages they need. I would

think that an implied point of view on the part of the general

public.

I would hope the media as well is to provide moral support

to the people who are undertaking this task, Because they are

doing an extraordinarily valuable job for society, one that is

a form of protection for every parent in this province. The media in my view have made a great mistake in

glamorizing drugs over the past few years. They've done a

disservice to themselves and to the public generally. They have

created attitudes by this glamorizing of drugs that have made

it hard for common sense people to get through to the general

public and advocate the measures that will really be effective

in turning this dreadful situation around.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, with regard to dealing with the

addicts themselves, I want to suggest something which I would

like to see debated and considered. Perhaps to do this well we

should invite to this province people who have had experience

with the drug addiction problem in other countries.

An outstanding Swedish psychiatrist, Dr. Nils Bejerot, has

been advocating as the only measure, isolation of drug addicts

in drug-free, therapeutic villages. He has suggested for his

own country islands in the Swedish archipelago. This method has

been employed in Hong Kong, where an opium war was once fought

and where today it's said that one in eight is an addict. They

have a drug-free island off the coast of Hong Kong.

Perhaps if this is a way if isolating infective people, then

a drug-free island of this kind somewhere up the coast might be

considered. I am not suggesting that we attempt anything as

seemingly bizarre as this without first having invited people

who've had direct experience with this to British Columbia as

consultants.

I certainly feel that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

and the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon.

Mr. Levi), in initiating debate about making heroin available

to registered addicts, should not have offered this without at

the same time having first invited to British Columbia people

who have had experience with the British system and understand

the dangers of that course. Certainly Dr. Bejerot of Sweden

knows what the dangers are.

I have a letter from a Member of the Home Office in Britain

which has to do with the drug addiction problem there. He makes

it quite clear in this letter that the increase in offences

involving heroin — from 281 in 1970 to 580 in 197 I — represents a difficulty of that British system, contained

though it was in that country for some considerable time

because of the very small numbers and the especially selected

drug community that they had.

We should have these people here, because some of them have

been in touch with the experienced hands in British Columbia

with a view to switching over to the methadone programme, which

has not been successful in British Columbia but may have staved

off, for all we know, something far worse.

In connection with this method of treating the untreatable

addicts, inviting some of these people…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: I said methadone may well have saved us from

something far worse.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier may wince at all of this about

methadone. But one of the difficulties — and everybody who has

been associated with the free heroin programme in Britain will

tell you the same thing — is that every addict tries to dictate

his own treatment programme. The nirvana for the heroin addict

is free heroin. If they can persuade the doctor to prescribe

eight caps for them when they need only two, that's six for

them to sell. This has been one of the reasons why there was an

escape from the controlled treatment programme in Britain and

why

[ Page 989 ]

they, like us, now have a spreading heroin population.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should get the facts.

MR. McGEER: I was disappointed, Mr. Chairman, in the

conference that the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) called in January, because there

was not a single educator present, nor a single researcher.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you there?

MR. McGEER: No, I wasn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why do you mention it?

MR. McGEER: Because I've had reports from a number of people

who were there, Mr. Chairman. I just record that

disappointment. The Attorney General will have an opportunity;

he has latitude under his discretion not only to beef up the…

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's not even his…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: I'm offering an opinion. The Attorney General

may not share that opinion. His responsibility, Mr. Chairman,

lies in the field of enforcement of the laws. If the laws are

to be changed so that heroin is to be made legally available to

registered addicts, then it would fall within his province to

make those changes in the law. The Attorney General, Mr.

Chairman, should be privy to all of these discussions. While in

the final analysis it's his responsibility to supervise any

changes in the law…certainly to enforce the law as it now

exists.

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

to deal with administrative matters only and not proposed

legislation, please.

MR. McGEER: I am, Mr. Chairman. Surely the surveillance of

the crime problem in British Columbia — and drug abuse is the

number one source of crime in this province — falls within the

Attorney General's area of responsibility. Therefore, it isn't

for him just a question of enforcing the law or participating

in programmes that might involve drug-free villages. For him

too the responsibility of education and research must surely be

part of the portfolio.

I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that this problem extends over many departments

in the government. The Attorney General's is just one. But in our debate of

the Attorney General's estimates on Friday, we had a report tabled by the Minister

of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) — for a time I thought

we were on his vote. We had extensive comments ranging far beyond law enforcement

by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). We've been invited to initiate a debate

on this question and I've certainly so far laid down some of my views.

The principal one of these, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney

General, is that I would think the most tragic error possible

in judgment in British Columbia would be for us to contemplate

the dispensing of heroin in any form to anybody at any

time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Does the Attorney General want

to answer the Member first? He had his back turned,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Go ahead.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to agree

wholeheartedly with what the First Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer) has said, even though he stole all my topics.

I am also pleased to hear that maybe some of the Members in

this chamber are going to take a firm stand on the way that the

cancer, which is the drug problem of British Columbia, should

be handled.

Maybe, if some of the Members in this Legislature come out

and state what they think in the way this matter should be

handled, maybe we'll get some backing from the general

public.

I was interested in the comments of the Member for Skeena

(Mr. Dent) when he said we should get out the scalpel. He

didn't say what form that scalpel should take. He said we

should "cut this cancer out of our society," but he

talked in generalities. I'd like the Member maybe at a future

date to explain what he meant; what form this scalpel should

take.

We have the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the

Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr.

Levi) agreed on how the problem should be handled but they did

not offer solutions getting at the root of the problem.

I would like to start out by saying that I do not think the

RCMP should be used for road patrol in British Columbia. I

think this has been going on far too long. I think it degrades

the RCMP. I don't think we need to use those men who are

trained in Regina to catch criminals. To catch innocent drivers

who just happen to go a little past the speed limit which is

posted on many of our roads.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many points have you got?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm quite able to stand in this House to say

that my driver's licence is quite free of all marks and has

been for some 20 odd years now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Touch wood.

[ Page 990 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll touch wood on that. However, my dear wife

who is a very peace loving soul …

AN HON. MEMBER: They attacked his wife?

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right — they attacked my wife.

(Laughter). They hide behind hedges and they come out like she

was a common criminal with sirens blazing and track her down.

The use of all the modern conveniences such as radar.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They always catch their woman.

(Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: They always get their woman. That's right.

Well, my wife doesn't very seldom get mad but, I'm telling you,

she gets pretty mad about that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: A couple of times. The point I am bringing up

here, Mr. Chairman, is that here we have these RCMP officers

who are trained and supplied with cars and pistols and radar

equipment so they can even drive down the road and tell how

fast you are coming. I don't know whether they have wiring

tapping services to know if you are in a hurry to get to the

airport to meet your plane and send a guy out to catch you. I

don't know this.

I know they do catch a lot of innocent victims. A lot of

people lose their respect for this great police force when they

are chased down like common ordinary criminals just because

their car just happened to slip past that speed limit, just a

little bit sometimes — sometimes only three or four miles an

hour.

I'll tell you, when you see those old red lights going in

the rear view mirror and that siren on, you wonder if you have

a dead deer in the trunk…(Laughter)…or what law you

have broken.

AN HON. MEMBER: Out of season.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, out of season. That's right.

What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that while this goes on — chasing down these innocent victims — heroin and other drugs

pour into British Columbia like they're going out of style. I'm

serious about this. It just doesn't seem to add up somehow. I

don't think it takes too much intelligence to realize that it

just doesn't add up.

We recently had a war in Vietnam and we had people parading

and we had people having demonstrations about how the innocent

people of Vietnam are being killed. We had the Greenpeace that

chased and fought against the explosion of an atomic bomb while

right here in our own backyard, in British Columbia, we have

atrocities going on that I would say make Vietnam look like a

baseball game. Right in our own backyard while we sit and do

nothing.

I don't see all of these great people who were concerned

about people being injured making any demonstrations against

the importing or the bringing into British Columbia of heroin

or the other drugs. Where are they if they are so

concerned?

I'll tell you I'm concerned and I'm concerned about the

youth of British Columbia. I think it is a cancer in our

society and I think, as many of the other Members have said,

it's time society took a firm stand.

Then we hear from a couple of the Members in this chamber

that we should provide heroin for the addicts. Well, I'm not a

medical doctor but I consider myself a practical man. I think

if we are going to provide heroin for the addicts then we

should provide free drugs for everyone who needs them in

British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Socialism — I didn't recommend it. I said if

we are going to do it, what of the old age pensioner who has to

go down and pay for her drugs every day? What is she going to

do? What is she going to think of us providing free heroin for

addicts? What is the person who has sugar diabetes going to

think who has been buying his drugs for years? What is he going

to think when the Member for Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement recommends free drugs be supplied for these dope

addicts?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I haven't suggested this.

MR. PHILLIPS: I hope you certainly do something about it and

I hope, Mr. Attorney General, through you, Mr. Chairman, that

you don't recommend it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's part of the cabinet.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, you're part of the cabinet. That's

right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think we

have a drastic situation and it may take drastic measures. I

would recommend that dope pushers have the death penalty.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You may not propose

legislation; you may only make changes in legislation. Deal

with the administrative matters.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is an administrative matter, Mr.

Chairman, and I'm not recommending legislation; I'm proposing

to the Attorney General that he get on his way to Ottawa, if

this is a federal matter. I recommend the death penalty — and

these are strong words — I recommend the death penalty by the

firing

[ Page 991 ]

squad.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right. I'm talking about the people who

are at the root of this problem: the pushers. I am talking

about the pushers.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member get to

the point?

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, we've got lots of specialists and

these specialists have had their say. I happen to have the

floor now and I'm telling you what I think. This is all very

well and good for all the specialists down in the city ridings,

where this problem is prevalent, to be cautious. I can

understand this. But the ordinary man in the street takes a

different view. I think you will find the ordinary man on the

street will give some support to this programme.

It is not only the lives of those who are the present

pushers I'm concerned about, but it is the lives of the young

children who haven't yet been introduced to drugs. Many good

minds and many good bodies will be ruined — many thousands of

them — by the use of drugs in this province while we stand idly

by with our "ho-hum, namby-pamby" attitude that we can't harm

these people who are pushing this product. Right under our nose

the cancer grows.

When the communists took over Singapore after the war, they

cleaned up the problem in two weeks. They shot the known

pushers on the spot. I don't recommend we do that; I think they

should be given a fair trial. (Laughter). But when they are

proved to be pushers, then they should be done away with. Maybe

this will serve as a lesson to those would-be pushers that are

coming along. Maybe we can get at the root of this problem.

British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, has a special problem

because it is a coast province. It has a very long coastline

and is accessible to the Middle East and is accessible to

anyone who has a fast boat. The same at the other end of the

country is true of the Port of Montreal. It is much easier for

these drugs to which I am referring to come in anywhere in

British Columbia through its various ports or on the coastline

anywhere.

When you realize the amount of money that is being made by

the people who head up this drug traffic in the world then the

means that they have at their disposal far surpasses any the

RCMP have to deal with them. There again, I must agree

wholeheartedly with the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) when he says the RCMP and a police enforcement agency

should be allowed to use any means at their disposal to deal

with this problem.

Everyone in this province is susceptible to being touched by the drug problem.

I say get at the root of the problem; it can be done. Why isn't wire-tapping

used at the present time to seek out the heads of these organizations?

Yesterday morning I listened with interest, Mr. Chairman, to

a United Church minister in the City of Victoria who said that

we live, basically, in a fearless society today. He was

referring back in biblical times to when there was fear of

starvation; there was fear of being prosecuted; there was fear

of assembly; and there was direct fear of the government. He

went on to say that none of these fears are prevalent

today, I say, Mr. Chairman, that there is a lot of fear in British

Columbia today. Every parent who has a child, some time during

the course of a 12-month period, has a great fear that that

child will become addicted to drugs. Parents of children who

live out in the rural areas are almost afraid to send their

children to lower mainland institutes of learning because they

know of the prevalence of drugs in the city. They know that

drugs are going to be pushed on their children, So there is

fear in British Columbia today.

There is fear among those who are on drugs at the present

time — fear of having to go out and steal or commit some other

hideous crime to get sufficient money to maintain their habit.

Mr. Chairman, there is fear among the pushers who can't get out

from underneath the criminal element that they are involved in.

Deaths, murders — you read about it in the paper. The headline

usually says "drug traffic feared involved."

I say there is fear in British Columbia today, Mr. Chairman,

and I say there will be a lot more fear in British Columbia

unless we come to grips with this, one of the greatest problems

that faces our society. Mr. Chairman, it's a drastic situation

and it requires drastic action. I think we frustrate our police

force by not giving them anywhere near sufficient manpower,

tools or support to do the job that has to be done. It's like

sending out four firemen to put out a five-acre bush fire. They

get it out in one place and it springs up somewhere else.

If we, who were elected to govern this Province of British

Columbia, do not do something about this problem, we will not

in any way be fulfilling our obligation to the people who sent

us here. Mr. Attorney General, yes, I'm going to ask you to

stand in this Legislature and say that something concrete, in

positive terms, is going to be done to get at the root of this

cancer, of this octopus that has its tentacles out to every

facet of our society.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, briefly, my friend had a

little bit of fun about the traffic situation. You've got to

bear in mind that the fatalities on B.C. highways last year, 71-72, were 656 people. So the little speeding offence can

become a little death. So let's not make too light about — no,

I'm not suggesting you were. But it's an important

[ Page 992 ]

area of law preservation. Now, if we can withdraw at the

same time trained RCMP people from traffic enforcement, good.

That's a good suggestion.

The other thing I can say to you is that if you look at the

estimates, we're increasing the RCMP personnel in British

Columbia by 58. We've met their full request because we realize

the seriousness of some of the other things you've been talking

about. That's in the estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver Capilano): Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. As I said Friday, I want to repeat that we're

certainly gratified that the Attorney General indicated on

Friday, and perhaps a little bit further this afternoon, some

of the moves he proposes to make in the area of consumer

affairs. I was a little disappointed that on Friday he

indicated that he felt that I had dodged some issues as far as

the mortgage brokers are concerned.

I don't really think that's true, Mr. Chairman. If anyone

has dodged some issues in this area, I think perhaps the

Attorney General has. I've certainly spelled out very clearly

some suggestions for the amendments to the Mortgage Brokers

Act . I've suggested the names of some people who, from the

evidence I gave the House, were breaking the terms and

regulations under the Mortgage Brokers Act because they

were advertising as private citizens even though they were

mortgage brokers, and a variety of things of that sort.

I indicated some people whose ethics I felt were in very

serious question and who were getting renewals from the

Registrar of Mortgage Brokers over the last month or two. I

felt sure that if the Attorney General was receiving those as

new applications, he would not care to accept them without a

good deal of investigation and discussion. Yet their

applications are being and have been accepted for renewals. I

spelled that out very clearly in the House in the last couple

of weeks, including the names of those concerned, so I don't

think I've dodged any issues there at all, The Attorney General went a little further this afternoon

and he talked about the storefront-type of legal aid or legal

advisory service that he is considering across the province. He

indicated that there would be some use of those services for

consumer or, perhaps, financial advisory services. He also

indicated his intention to provide financial support to the

Legal Assistance Society. But he didn't mention — and I want to

repeat the name and perhaps he would refer to them and indicate

whether he is prepared to provide any assistance to the

Consumer Action League, which I think is providing a very

valuable service. I'm wondering if he would like to use their

facilities and expand their facilities, much as he apparently

plans to use the Legal Assistance Society.

Mr. Chairman, the Attorney General also made no comment with reference to the

question I raised on Friday regarding his responsibilities under the Fire Marshal's

Act . I explained the suggestion without going into it at great length. But I

explained the suggestion I've made for several years, that the problems of propane

and oil-burning appliances would be preferably operated under the administration

of the safety services division of the Department of Public Works. I was hoping

the Attorney General would comment on that.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I have just received this letter in

the afternoon mail today from a member of my own constituency.

It's a copy of a letter which has been sent to the Attorney

General. In view of the subject that is raised, I'd like to

read some parts of the letter to the Legislature and perhaps

ask the Attorney General for his comments on it.

It refers to a tragedy off Christie Island in Howe Sound on

December 9, 1972, when a Miss Shelley Cook drowned during a

scuba diving tragedy. There was an inquest in Vancouver on

February 26 and 27 last, just a week or ten days ago. The lady

who has written to the Attorney General — and I raise this

because of her extreme interest in this particular matter — is

a Mrs. Mary Hunter of North Vancouver. She is the mother of a

young lady who was involved in the accident and fortunately did

not herself drown. She could very well, perhaps, have drowned

in that accident. Her mother writes to the Attorney

General:

"Dear Sir: Re Jury recommendations as the result of the

inquest held in Vancouver on February 26 and 27 last into…"

AN HON. MEMBER: When is the letter dated?

MR. BROUSSON: February 28, 1973.

"into the death of Miss Shelley Cook, who drowned off

Christie Island in Howe Sound December 9, 1972.

"The jury recommends that 'legislation be sought by the

province to govern rules, regulations, certifications and

safety requirements for the instruction and use of scuba diving

equipment.' Mr. John Quail, chairman of the scuba diving

section of the B.C. Safety Council, testified he had had

correspondence with you" — meaning the Attorney General — "in

regard to legislation governing scuba diving.

"I urge you to get some legislation in force as quickly as

possible, please. With summer approaching, more people will be

diving and they must be protected from themselves and possibly

negligent or incompetent instructors before more accidents

occur.

"It would be to your advantage to read the statements and

testimony of the instructors and students, not only of this

inquest but at the first inquest of this drowning, which was

held at Squamish on February 1 and 2, 1973, and which was

adjourned at your request. I believe you will find

discrepancies and lack of feeling for the students.

[ Page 993 ]

"Imagine an instructor saying that it is the responsibility

of the student to check his own equipment and to put it on

correctly. This equipment has been rented from the instructor's

diving school. Imagine an instructor not knowing where half of

his class is for 15 minutes. Imagine a student, surfacing,

finding both instructors on the surface, leaving the novice

class in 30 feet of water, unattended.

"Imagine the instructors, on the way to pick up another

student, leaving that student in the water, alone and

exhausted, without sending someone into the water to be with

her, passing her with only the words, 'We'll be back.'

"Imagine the instructors not seeing that the exhausted

student, whom they later picked up and gave artificial

respiration to, was taken home by one of them instead of

sending her with two students, who informed a very worried

parent due to the lateness of the hour that, 'She's had a very

unfortunate experience and needs rest.'

"Imagine an owner-instructor saying that the ability to swim

was not necessary for scuba diving. What happens if after

surfacing the student's gear failed — gear which has not been

checked by an instructor as it's the student's responsibility — and that student surfaces a distance from the boat?

"My daughter, Lorraine Hunter, could also have died that day

as the result of exhaustion from trying to aid Miss Cook. There

could have been three deaths that day instead of one.

"Negligence? Incompetence? Lack of regulations? Having

considerably released some of my feelings on this matter I

again urge you to please enact some legislation concerning

scuba diving now. Safety is an important matter. A copy of this

letter is being sent to Mr. Brousson, a Member of the

Legislature for Capilano.

"Thank you for listening to me. A very concerned

parent."

As I said, that just arrived on my desk this afternoon, Mr.

Chairman. I am sure the Attorney General hasn't had time to

read it yet. But I think the matter has been around for quite a

while, and I'd be very interested in hearing his comments on

the possibilities of legislation in this field.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I have not had a chance to

review the inquest, which should be done. I certainly will do

that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wasn't going to ask any further

questions of the Attorney General, but I did receive a letter this afternoon

that called to mind another item that's been of concern in my area for some

time. That has to do with the lack of provision for the custody of juveniles

who are charged with crime, and specifically a remand home in the area.

The Langley Family and Children's Court Committee has been

concerned about this for a number of years, as have the two

councils in the Langley area. None of the things that we have

tried to do in order to provide a remand home in that area have

seemed to work. We used to have no problem at one time because

private individuals came forward and offered their homes and it

worked very well. Rather than either sending a child all the

way in to that huge regional centre in Vancouver or perhaps

even sending him to Brannen Lake in between trials, we had a

place then for them to go and for them to be held in a homey

atmosphere rather than an institutional atmosphere, which was

of course what we wanted.

In the past two, or three years I would say the restrictions

placed upon the choosing of these remand homes have been almost

unbelievable. Many good offers of homes have been turned down

for one reason or another. I recall, Mr. Chairman, in one

instance where an RCMP officer offered his home as a remand

home, primarily because of his interest in children. He didn't

want to see them trucked into Vancouver overnight or for three

days or for four days. However, the probation branch felt that

there was something terrible about a youngster being held in an

RCMP home for that day or two or whatever it was. My own opinion, Mr. Chairman, through to the Attorney

General, would be that I couldn't see any better method of a

youth and a policeman having some kind of a relationship

outside of a jail cell or outside of a police car. Why not give

them that opportunity perhaps to get to know one another as

human beings rather than as an officer and a juvenile

delinquent?

This brings up perhaps a wider question with regard to

society's relationship with the police. It seems to me that

it's time, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney General, that we

started to get the RCMP onto the streets again and out of their

cruise cars. We've got to get that personal relationship going

again or we're never going to be out of the problems that we're

in now.

You indicated earlier that you have approved 58 new

policemen in the estimates. But the problem is that we won't

get those 58 new policemen in the upcoming year for which that

budget has been approved, because they don't have those

policemen and they're not attracting policemen to the force. It

may be, Mr. Chairman, years before that quota is filled.

We've approved policemen time after time after time in our

local areas — and told that we could have them and we're

prepared to pay for them — but in the long run we don't get

them because they just aren't there. Well that's a fact, Mr.

Chairman, through to the Attorney General.

[ Page 994 ]

The policemen are not being enrolled fast enough to fill

these quotas. The quotas are filled from Ottawa, not from

British Columbia. Ottawa decides where the policemen will go

and when they'll come. We've had instances on many occasions,

Mr. Chairman, of waiting three years for those policemen that

we've been perfectly willing to pay for and that we've been

perfectly willing to put to work.

One other item, Mr. Chairman, has to do with traffic. I was

going to hold this off, but since the Attorney General brought

up some problems of traffic I would like to ask him if he would

consider doing some kind of study or survey through his

department with regard to motor vehicle, accidents before and

after the legal drinking age in British Columbia was lowered;

and whether there is any significant difference in the number

of younger drivers involved in accidents which have to do with

drinking.

The reason I bring this up, Mr. Chairman, is because of an

article in the Christian Science Monitor recently whereby the

Chairman of the National Safety Council in the United States,

Mr. P

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30p 02s 730305p
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30p 02s 730305p
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d3918e3d9b056efe0abb5bf62c8607d27a18b29f

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).

British Columbia Hansard — Monday, March 5, Afternoon (30th Parliament, 2nd Session)

HANSARD

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

MONDAY, MARCH 5, 1973

CONTENTS

AMBULANCE SERVICE ACT

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY ACT

BRITISH COLUMBIA

AUDITOR GENERAL ACT

WITHDRAWAL OF GOVERNMENT BILLS

SALE OF POISONED LETTUCE

PROVINCIAL ELECTION

VANCOUVER ISLAND

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

LOGGING IN SKAGIT VALLEY

SOCIAL CREDIT LEAGUE

COPPER SMELTING FACILITIES

CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION

RCMP CENTENNIAL CELEBRATIONS

RED CROSS VIETNAM

REPRESENTATIVE

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

part I'd

Document details