1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 1974.

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2205 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 102). Hon. Mr. Barrett. Introduction and first reading — 2205

Oral questions

Legislation to control seller's price of houses.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2205

Propriety of Highways news release on summer jobs.

Mr. Smith — 2205

Supplementary grants to school boards.

Mr. Wallace — 2206

Hiring of Marvin Durning to observe FPC hearings on Skagit.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2206

Negotiations with BCFGA; approach to fruit industry crisis.

Mrs. Jordan — 2206

Talks on renegotiation of Columbia River Treaty.

Mr. Wallace — 2207

Government's position on Skagit agreement.

Mr. Gibson — 2207

Plans for Kokanee salmon production.

Hon. Mr. Radford — 2207

Preliminary surveys for rapeseed production.

Hon. Mr. Radford

— 2207

Negotiations for government option on Sukunka coal.

Mr. Wallace — 2208

Effective date for reduction in gas taxes.

Mr. McGeer — 2208

Applications under Farm Products Industry Improvement Act.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2208

Negotiations for Shuswap poultry processing plant.

Mrs. Jordan — 2208

Committee of Supply: Department of Human Resources estimates

On vote 113.

Mr. Chabot — 2209

Mr. Rolston — 2209

Mr. McGeer — 2212

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2214

Mr. Chabot — 2217

Mr. Fraser — 2217

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2220

Mr. Wallace — 2221

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2224

Mr. Wallace — 2226

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2226

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2227

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2232

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2234

Mr. Morrison — 2235

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2235

Mr. Morrison — 2236

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2236

Mr. Morrison — 2237

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2237

Mr. Gibson — 2237

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2237

Mr. Gibson — 2238

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2238

Mr. Wallace — 2238

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2238

Mr. Wallace — 2239

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2239

On vote 114.

Mr. Wallace — 2239

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2239

Mr. Wallace — 2240

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2240

Regional Hospital Districts Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 104).

Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 2240

THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have the

great pleasure today to welcome to the chamber Padre McDonald, who gave

the prayers today, and to say to the House that this gentleman did me

the great honour of performing my wedding ceremony in Revelstoke some

21 years ago. I hope the House will join me in welcoming him here today.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I hope that the Hon.

Minister's wife was present at the wedding ceremony. It was her

wedding, too, you know — she's a liberationist.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you'll be very pleased to know that we have

10 students in the gallery today from George Elliot High School from

that great area of the Okanagan, Winfield, where the beautiful peaches

and apples and apricots come from. They have largely earned their own

way to be here both by their attitude in school and by earning their

own money. They are with Mr. and Mrs. Young of Winfield, who are

community-minded citizens, and their instructor and the vice-principal

of George Elliot, Mr. David Aspinall. I hope all Members will be on

their best behaviour this afternoon and give them a warm welcome.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is

a group of students from Georges P. Vanier Senior Secondary School at

Courtenay. They are accompanied this afternoon by their teacher, Mr.

Leo Nepveu. And I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

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

I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Mrs. Ray Bryant from

Squamish, Mrs. Don Gow from Alta Lake and Mrs. Gordon Smith and Mrs.

Slim Fougberg from Pemberton. They are here visiting Victoria. Their

husbands are here as well, Mr. Speaker, doing some business for the

Squamish-Lillooet Regional District.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery is

Mr. Lea Cowan, a teacher, and Mr. Delabois, a chaperon, and Mrs. Jessie

Maisonneuve and the students from Ferndale Elementary School. I'd like

you to welcome them all.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome Mrs. Hilda Hackman, who has the distinction of being my mother-in-law.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure the behaviour will be much higher today.

Introduction of bills.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from the Administrator: a bill intituled

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1974 .

Bill 102 introduced, 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.

Oral questions.

LEGISLATION TO CONTROL

SELLER'S PRICE OF HOUSES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Premier in the absence of the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson):

may I ask whether the government intends to bring in legislation which

would have the effect of controlling the seller's price of houses?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am pleased that the Member asked me that

question. The Minister has already denied that we have any such

intention. I want to re-emphasize and re-echo the Minister's statement

— the government has no intention of bringing that programme.

PROPRIETY OF HIGHWAYS

NEWS RELEASE ON SUMMER JOBS

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question

is to the Hon. Minister of Highways. The Minister of Highways' office

has turned out a news release dated April 3, indicating a programme

which will employ some 12,000 students this summer. I wonder if the

Minister will tell me if it's a new policy of the Department of

Highways to issue news releases prior to the time that the bill

appropriating the funds is being debated on the floor of the House. As

I understand it, the bill just came into the House yesterday that will

make the funds available, Mr. Minister.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, it's a

continuation of last year's programme and there's no doubt in my mind

that we will go ahead. Even if this programme doesn't go ahead I feel

we have an obligation to hire summer students within the Department of

Highways. If I have to, I'll make funds available there from the vote

that's been passed.

[ Page 2206 ]

MR. SMITH: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker: do I understand you

to say that regardless of whether Bill 101 passes the House or not

you'll make the funds available that will employ some 12,000 students?

HON. MR. LEA: Every year the Highways department has hired students to do work during the summer months. We will continue that programme.

MR. SMITH: For 12,000 students?

HON. MR. LEA: Twelve thousand isn't the figure at all. There must be an error in the press release.

MR. SMITH: A further supplemental question to the Minister:

if the funds are available regardless of the passage or otherwise of

Bill 101, why do we require Bill 101?

HON. MR. LEA: I'm not saying that if the funds are not passed

here we would put the same intensive programme to work. We would be

hiring students.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary: perhaps in light of the

comments that the Hon. Minister of Highways made that he would hire

students, and a large number of them, regardless of whether this bill

passes, and in keeping with his press announcement, would he advise the

House, as he didn't in his estimates, under what vote he has

appropriated those funds and how many students he did intend to hire

and how much money there is available for them?

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it's under vote 100. These

questions are being asked, in my opinion, of the wrong Minister, in

that the programme that they're talking about is under the bill that

was introduced in this House by the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

King), which is a different matter altogether. And it's out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: It appears that Bill 101 is certainly not in the jurisdiction of this Minister in the House.

SUPPLEMENTARY GRANTS

TO SCHOOL BOARDS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Since this is the last question

period this week and since the Minister promised an announcement this

week, might I ask the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) with

regard to supplementary grants to school boards, if she can tell the

House whether the total amount of money has been decided and when the

details will be announced?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): We haven't decided on the total amount of money. All I can assure you is that boards will be informed before April 20.

HIRING OF MARVIN DURNING TO

OBSERVE FPC HEARINGS ON SKAGIT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources, Mr. Speaker: may I ask the Minister whether he has

retained the services of Marvin Durning, a Seattle lawyer, to observe

the FPC hearings on the Skagit Valley?

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

The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker, and I expect that next week we can have

more detailed statements with regard to the whole Skagit question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister whether it is the

government's intention, then, to support the March 15 federal

submission on the Skagit, which will be before the FPC at that time?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think it will become abundantly clear,

Mr. Speaker, that the Province of British Columbia has an independent

position that will make it very clear that we're very serious about the

statements of the past year with respect to the Skagit.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I

appreciate the seriousness, as we all know that the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald) is to resign if the valley is flooded. May I ask

the Minister whether he intends to request the Member for Port Alberni

(Mr. Skelly) to withdraw his motion on the Skagit from the order paper

so that there can be full discussion in the Legislature on this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: I think that question is inappropriate of this Minister.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH BCFGA;

APPROACH TO FRUIT INDUSTRY CRISIS

MRS. JORDAN: My question is to the Hon. Minister of

Agriculture. I would just comment that I am pleased as the result of

many requests and my request that he's met the need of the Swine

Growers Association. But I would ask him if he would advise the House:

(1) at what state of negotiations is his department in coordination

with the B.C. Fruit Growers Association for their income programme; and

(2) what steps is he taking in regard to cooling off the current almost

crisis situation in the fruit industry in the Okanagan at this time?

[ Page 2207 ]

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker,

with respect to the steps, there has been no meeting since the one when

the fruit growers announced that negotiations had broken off. At that

time I said that I would be making more calculations and then would

have a new position to advance. We're not ready with that yet because

we've been concentrating on another programme that should be available

within a few days, and then we'll be able to concentrate on the fruit

industry again.

As far as the problems in the fruit industry right now, I think they

can wait until we have our programme ready, in that it's not a case of

dealing with fruit that is waiting to be picked now. The fruit has all

been picked and is in storage waiting to be sold, all that's left. So

it's not the crisis situation that we had last fall when there was the

conflict about marketing approval.

MRS. JORDAN: Does the Minister not consider the fact that

fruit growers are going to jail in preference to paying fines a crisis

situation? Does he not consider the fact that negotiations have broken

down between the B.C. fruit growers and the government is part of this

crisis situation? If there was an effort on his part to bring these to

satisfactory conclusions…in fact an assured income could be helpful to

these producers in meeting their concern and cooling off this situation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the question is entirely argumentative.

TALKS ON RENEGOTIATION OF

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources, with regard to a report which the

government had prepared on the subject of renegotiating the Columbia

River Treaty, and due to recent publicity given to this subject: has

the Minister had any meetings with the federal government in a

preliminary way or are any such meetings planned?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There haven't been any meetings recently that I'm aware of, Mr. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Just one supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Could I just

ask if in fact the government has taken any action at all subsequent to

the receipt of this study which they authorized — the internal study by

the cabinet?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We're certainly developing our position,

Mr. Speaker, and have reviewed the report with well-informed people in

Hydro and elsewhere.

GOVERNMENT'S POSITION

ON SKAGIT AGREEMENT

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'm

a little puzzled by a previous answer of the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources. In view of his statement that an independent

position by British Columbia will become abundantly clear, as he put

it, will the Minister make it abundantly clear before the FPC hearings

which are happening in two weeks?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

PLANS FOR

KOKANEE SALMON PRODUCTION

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): In

answer to a question from the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson), wherein he asked me what are the plans of the department in

the increase in the Kokanee production, I would like to answer him by

informing him that this year 18 million Kokanee will be produced in the

Meadow Creek spawning channels on the Kootenay Lake. Five million will

be propagated in the hatcheries and will be planted in the Inonoaklin

River, which is a tributary to the Arrow Lake; and one million will be

planted in Green Lake and in other lakes throughout B.C.

PRELIMINARY SURVEYS FOR

RAPESEED CRUSHING PLANT

MR. SMITH: My question is to the Hon. Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Lea). Has the Hon. Minister or anyone in his department

conducted any surveys or studies concerning the potential of a rapeseed

crushing plant in British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: On which highway is this? (Laughter.)

MR. SMITH: That was to the Minister of Agriculture, I'm

sorry. What is the possibility or potential of a rapeseed crushing

plant in British Columbia?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion

about a rapeseed crushing plant in the Peace River. The feeling is that

if it goes ahead in Alberta — and it seems to be very close to going

ahead — this will be adequate to cover all of the rapeseed production

in the Peace River area. I said from the beginning that if the plans

for the one in the Alberta Peace did not go ahead, then the B.C.

government would be very interested in seeing such a plant established

in the B.C. Peace.

[ Page 2208 ]

MR. SMITH: Just a supplemental question. I understand the

location is still fairly flexible as far as the United Grain Growers

are concerned. I was wondering if someone in the Department of

Agriculture is pursuing the matter of a crushing plant in the B.C. side

of the Peace River block.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The latest report that I have, and it was as recent as yesterday, was that the location is now fixed.

NEGOTIATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT

OPTION ON SUKUNKA COAL

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Premier and the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), with the recent attention given

to coal in the province, if he could tell the House at what stage

negotiations are regarding the option which the government was seeking

on the Sukunka coal deposits.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Negotiations are continuing.

EFFECTIVE DATE FOR

REDUCTION IN GAS TAXES

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Could the Minister of Finance tell us when the reduction in gasoline taxes in British Columbia will take effect?

MR. SPEAKER: Are you taking responsibility for that as an assertion of fact?

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, there's been a reduction in

Saskatchewan and indications that there'll be similar reductions in

British Columbia. Would the Minister of Finance care to give us some

indication of British Columbia's position?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have no comment on that Member's policy announcements.

(Laughter.)

APPLICATIONS UNDER FARM

PRODUCTS INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a question by the

Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) as to whether or

not we had received an application under the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act

from Paradise Products, Ltd. We have. I just thought one line out of

the letter might be interesting to the Members. "I must admit that much

of the goings-on recently seem to be wasting your time as well as

others." And with that there is an application for some assistance

under this particular legislation. The letter was replied to today,

inviting them to send more information so that we could deal with it.

NEGOTIATIONS FOR SHUSWAP

POULTRY PROCESSING PLANT

MRS. JORDAN: Well seeing the Minister of Agriculture's so

talkative this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my next

question to him and ask him at what stage of negotiation is the poultry

processing plant slated for the Shuswap constituency, with particular

reference to the meat packing plant in Spillimacheen.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The site most actively being pursued at the

moment is one that is also being sought by the Department of Highways,

and that is some Crown Zellerbach property particularly well suited.

But we haven't quite resolved the discussion yet with the Department of

Highways.

The other sites we've considered so far just had too much going

against them. There's another site available in Enderby, privately

owned, that will be the second choice. It may be that we'll have to go

to the Spillimacheen site you speak of. The problem is to find a site

suited particularly from the point of view of the amount of sewage to

be disposed of and the fact that it has to go through at a very rapid

rate when the plant is operating. There is that particular problem.

MRS. JORDAN: Would the Minister please advise me if there has

been a thorough investigation of the meat packing plant. If so, why the

indications from the Pollution Control Branch that there would be no

problems on that site?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Coldstream Packing Plant has been

examined by representatives of the broiler board and by representatives

from the Department of Agriculture. They've all recommended against

that site, at least at this point. As I say, we may come to it later on

but it will certainly be at best a fourth or fifth choice.

MRS. JORDAN: Why?

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES:

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 113: Minister's office, $107,504.

[ Page 2209 ]

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I want to discuss very

briefly a sad situation which exists in my constituency, one which the

Minister is familiar with, one which I have discussed with him in the

corridor. I have made the details of this situation available to him by

letter as well, dated March 18, outlining fully this most unfortunate

situation.

I wrote to the Minister and told him that a foster child, a young

girl, had been placed in a home in Windermere, B.C. approximately five

years ago and that the foster mother at the time was a practical nurse

in the Windermere District Hospital when the child was abandoned at the

hospital by her rightful mother. There was some difficulty in finding a

home for the child because of the scarcity of Indian families in my

area. However, this practical nurse was willing to take on this Indian

child when no one else was willing to do so and she had no hesitation

in providing a good home for this child.

After this lengthy period of time, five years, there comes on the

scene a new social worker in Cranbrook who wants to review all the

files and rectify any shortcomings of the Department of Human

Resources. She has taken it upon herself to have this child removed

from this home. The reason she has given for this action was that the

child needed speech therapy because of a slight impediment in her

speech and that there was a possibility she might be attending the same

schools as her brothers and sisters.

I've discussed this quite at length with not only the foster parents

but with the social worker in Cranbrook concerned; I've discussed it

with the minister of the Anglican church in Invermere; I've discussed

it with the local physician, Dr. Martin; I've discussed it with Mrs.

Preddy, coordinator of adoption and child-care service of the

department. I've suggested in discussing it with Mrs. Preddy that I

would be taking it up with the Minister. I asked the Minister not to

make a decision until such time as I've had an opportunity jointly to

discuss the matter with Mrs. Preddy and the Minister.

I'm also informed that there is a speech therapist in the Invermere

district and, furthermore, that there is a speech therapist in the

community of Kimberley which the Minister could have insisted upon the

parents having the child attend. The parents would have been more than

willing to have the child submit to this kind of training, even though

her speech impediment was very slight.

I want to suggest that the two reasons given are not ample

justification for the action they have taken. First of all, this child

is living in the community of Windermere, her brothers and sisters are

living in the community of Wilmer, and that is a distance of about 10

miles. The other children are attending the school in Wilmer. When they

get into junior high, they go on to Invermere. This child lives in

Windermere so there's no danger whatsoever that there will be this kind

of problem which might develop because the children won't be in the

same school.

In discussing it with Dr. Martin of that community, he advises me

that the child is enjoying a good, warm, friendly, family relationship

in this home and that it would be an unfortunate traumatic experience

for the child to be removed from this environment. He suggested to me

that, if the need did arise, he would be more than willing to express

this point of view to the Minister. I personally feel at this late

date, after five years in one home, it is most traumatic to move the

child from its present surroundings.

It appears the decision is being arbitrarily made by one new social

worker who has come to the district and has reviewed the files and

feels the child should be moved on. I've asked the Minister to

personally become involved in this case so that a satisfactory

conclusion can be arrived at that will be beneficial to this child.

I've asked the Minister on several occasions, though briefly in the

corridor, that I was anxious to meet and discuss the situation. There

have been no meetings.

I called the foster mother yesterday morning. She answered the phone

and she was crying; she had been crying for four or five days because

they've taken her child from her. It was a very tragic situation to see

the child being removed from the only environment she has ever known.

She didn't want to go; she was holding on to her father and her mother;

she was concerned about leaving her two brothers, her dog and her cat.

I want to say that it's a very tragic situation and it certainly

doesn't speak very highly of the Department of Human Resources to put

this child through this most tragic experience. The foster parents have

indicated to the social worker and to the supervisor as well that

they're willing to adopt the child. They tell me that the speech

impediment is only slight, that it might correct itself, that they're

willing to subject the child to treatment if necessary in the community

of Kimberley.

I want to ask the Minister to show some compassion, to give these people their child back.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Next Thursday in Mission at 2

o'clock, the Hon. Norman Levi, as Minister of Human Resources, and

myself, as the Member for that area, and Mayor Bill Harris of the

District of Mission will take

part in a very exciting event in the

history of this province — something I hope will be in a sense a

prototype in this province. The three of us will take

part in the

opening, along with the senior citizens of the District of Mission, of

a building, the old Mission hospital building, which sat unfortunately

derelict for six years.

On Thursday next, a week from today, it will be

[ Page 2210 ]

opened officially as a prototype of what I think

will become kind of a community agency building, a community resources

building, and a building which will house the Department of Human

Resources, the Department of Manpower, native Indian affairs, my

offices, community services, legal aid, counselling services, day care,

fine arts and many other agencies. It's through the help of this

Minister who first got us the money to do the first feasibility and

engineering studies on the nuts and bolts of that building.

It was his interest a year ago when politically it was not that

popular at the municipal level to go into an old building, look at

renovating it and seeing it as a citizens' building — a building owned

by the municipality. It's a building which will bring together the fact

that there were a lot of jobs even in the District of Mission.

I understand there are 19,000 jobs per day in the Greater Vancouver

Regional District which are not being filled. Yet we have a lot of

people who are what we call people on social assistance who are the

employables, people who could, I think, with a bit of guidance, a bit

of direction and a bit of counselling find work.

On that same floor, a floor which has 9,000 square feet, there is

the Human Resources office with a very capable supervisor, Irene Harris

and her staff, also the Manpower office. Admittedly it's what Manpower

calls an "unmanned" office which seems a little strange. Yet, in that

office are many, many jobs listed on a great board where people can

direct dial to the Manpower office — often the same people who are

clients of the Human Resources services.

I bring this up because it's been my understanding, and I'd like

some direction from the Minister, that we have a seasonably adjusted

unemployment of 5.5 per cent. Yet in all areas of B.C. and it's very

noticeable on the lower mainland, there are many, many jobs just not

getting filled. It seems that sometimes people have to be brought to

these jobs. They have to be shown or guided. There is confusion; young

people have identity problems. It's hoped with this very, very skilled

supervisor and staff in Human Resources in Mission that we'll bring

together these people.

I know there is legislation that we'll be discussing later on the

whole concept of community resources. But I think that credit should be

due to this Minister and to Mrs. Kathy Marcellus, the chairman of this

community group which is called The Mission Memorial Centre Society. We

are bringing together often fragmented agencies, and it's the

leadership of the Minister's department that is helping this to happen.

I find there are many Indian groups that want to become more a part

of what's happening; it's their community. Rather than sometimes having

an office or having a programme that's somewhat separate, they can be a

part of us and we can be a part of them.Together we can work together.

It's no surprise that the Minister sent me a telegram even this

morning reminding me that he will be giving basic core funding to the

tune of $850 per month, effective April 1, for the community services

in Maple Ridge. Later, that will be increased. We have the core funding

for the Mission Community Services through Human Resources to the tune

of nearly $36,000 for the various agencies in Mission. Remembering that

a lot of these agencies were overstaffed, that there was a bit of

featherbedding through LIP (Local Initiatives Programme), there wasn't

the best buildup to the wisest use of people. They seemed to be largely

concerned about creating jobs and getting people working rather than

whether there was the wisest use of manpower.

I appreciate the federal government's initiative. Mr. Trudeau and

his grassroots democracy did start things happening, but now we're

getting into this. The Minister of Human Resources wished there was a

little better liaison and consultation between Ottawa and the

provincial Department of Human Resources regarding the transition from

LIP-funded programmes into programmes funded under his department and

presumably under other departments.

We're appreciative that last week it was announced there were $1,640

per month through Human Resources for funding for another up-to-now

LIP-funded programme, The Workshop, the citizens' rehabilitative

activity workshop — again a programme started by the people. A lot of

the programmes have been worked through, things have been shaken up and

are settling down now. There's a very good board with a good chairman

and, I believe, a really workable, operative programme for people who

want to be part of the community, who want to make a contribution.

For those of us who would like to be able to plant flowers in the

garden, it's these people who make the little boxes you put the flowers

in. These activity-workshop people, funded by the Department of Human

Resources, make what we call the flats — the cedar flats for putting

the flowers in. I could go on and on describing the products but I

don't think that's necessary. All of us, regardless of the disability

we have, want to make our own contribution.

I appreciate the openness. People could come from Mission last year

with often very little notice, arrive right on the doorstep and in the

office, in front of that great desk of the Minister of Human Resources.

I'd like to say something about Indian housing. We have some very

large, historic, very creative Indian reserves and chiefs in the area.

I think especially of Seabird Island and Chehalis which are nationally

known as very progressive reserves. It's my hope that these people, the

chiefs, the band managers and people like Keith Gladstone, who is a

kind of Indian

[ Page 2211 ]

coordinator for all the bands at the head of

Harrison Lake, can work a little more closely with the Department of

Human Resources in housing and special proposals they have.

They have a problem in that many of the Indian people, even in

Dewdney riding, have become urban people. Of course, this is obvious in

metro Vancouver. They don't have land, and they wish there was some

way, either through Human Resources or the Department of Lands, of

getting land so they could have some land for urbanized housing. Maybe

through land claims conciliation there can be some swaps made in land.

There certainly is a need, and yet they don't want to be guilty of a

ghetto housing situation; they want to be part of the community.

I needn't remind the Legislature that the largest Indian residential

school in the province is in Mission. Mission, of course, is named

after the oblate mission, going back 100 years. The first Indian

administrator in the province, tragically only appointed a year ago, is

Joe Alex, the administrator of the St. Mary's residence. These people

are working very closely with the help of the Department of Human

Resources and with the money that's going now to the non-status people

and the Indian Friendship Centre and various programmes, and are

relating very well to the community, giving leadership.

The young fellow called Stanley, whom we know through television fame last Christmas....

MR. CHABOT: My constituency.

MR. ROLSTON: Well, let's say we share him. He lives in Mission, but I'm sure you should take claim, Mr. Member.

He's going throughout the province on a provincially-funded

programme to bring the culture and the dignity and the beauty of the

Indian culture to these people, and especially to children in school.

Even as a government Member, I had some problems with the accounting

procedures of Mincome a year ago. There were some problems regarding

the whole PR and explanation of Mincome a year ago. There were some

very difficult and agonizing phone calls to a Mr. Jones and other

people in the Mincome accounting division. I am very happy that that

programme in a year, in the transition since December 1, 1972, has

really improved and given the dignity and the credibility to the people

who are giving it and also receiving it.

It is a form of income, a guaranteed income programme for all the

people. It's remarkably successful among the 121,000 people receiving

it. It doesn't have that stigma other government programmes might have.

There is a real appreciation and welcome. I know the Premier yesterday,

in speaking to senior citizens over in the Newcombe Auditorium,

received a tremendous response from these people as he did under

Pharmacare, another programme your department has started. Again, with

good leadup, you were able to really get support from the people.

I checked with various senior citizens' groups. Through you, we have

four senior citizens' counsellors: two in Maple Ridge, one in Mission

and one in Agassiz. Even checking this morning, I found very, very good

administrative procedures on Pharmacare and on Mincome. Also in

checking with pharmacists in Dewdney riding, there were some awkward

times accounting-wise back in early January, but now this is working

through. The pharmacists are getting their money and the programme is

being very well received.

I listened with interest to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

I'm not aware of any overuse. The senior citizens are not using any

more prescription drugs than before. Hopefully, we will use — I don't

know what medical terms we say — the usual, recognized, prescription

drugs. We won't get off into unusual and luxury drugs that really

aren't part of that programme.

I want to say something about the day-care programmes. There are

four day cares in Dewdney riding: one in Pitt Meadows, one in Maple

Ridge, one in Mission and one in Agassiz. Actually, one of the oldest

ones in the province is in Agassiz — nearly eight years now — and we

greatly appreciate this programme. Again, there is a great necessity

for the Department of Human Resources to help us in democratizing day

cares.

There are awkward moments where certain staff people, or certain

very domineering people on boards tend to dominate the programme. But

it is to be hoped that the recipients, the parents of these children,

are part of that power, that democratic process of running their own

programme.

I fail to see why even a deserted young mother can't be part of the

decisions that are made to run that day-care programme, even though she

is working sometimes eight hours a day. I realize that time is a real

problem. Yet it is very important that the programme remain democratic

and not something that is just simply client-oriented. These people

should be a part of this.

I understand that the handicapped coordinator is with us on the

floor of the House. Maybe the Minister could help me in giving me

direction regarding the handicapped people, especially in Maple Ridge.

There are some awkward moments where they tend to want to have their

own little building, or room.

We all understand the need for special facilities for handicapped

people: toilet rooms and ramps, and the straight hardware thing. But

some of us, at many levels of the municipality of Maple Ridge, can't

understand. Maybe we're wrong, but we would have

[ Page 2212 ]

thought they would want to be part of the total

recreational programmes, rather than having their own little building

off somewhere and being somewhat separate.

I gather that on "Webster" even yesterday my name and your name were

taken in vain by certain people in Maple Ridge who have been, I think,

overzealous in promoting a separate little empire. I would prefer they

be part of the community services programme and the Human Resources and

the parks and recreation programme of the District of Maple Ridge.

This, I must say, is an agony to pretty well any elected person in

Maple Ridge. Maybe you could give us some direction there.

The last thing I just want to say…. Of course, there's the whole

philosophy of human resources; the name is Human Resources. There are

resources in all people. It would be very tempting to go off and give

little illustrations of people who with various handicaps, physical and

mental, have made tremendous contributions to the community. We saw

only a couple of days ago in the paper the picture of the fellow

playing bridge with his feet — no hands — and, I gather, doing very

well.

It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister can continue the

programme of developing the resources in people who often through, I

suppose, as socialists we would say social reasons, social pressures,

are where they are. I also believe that it's sometimes an individual

kind of disease, or an individual catharsis, that puts that person

back. So I would hope that it's the resources of the people — the

employables, the unemployables, the severely disabled people, all of

the people — that we can truly see develop; that they don't need to be

that dependent on us; that whatever income they are receiving is due to

them due to the wealth of this province; that they are independent and

dignified people, often able to go largely on their own.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I just want to take up a few small points with the Minister.

During the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald'

s) estimates I

asked some questions about the X-Kalay foundation. I didn't do so with

any other objective in mind than to try to standardize as much as

possible the way provincial finances are handled — whether it's a

government department, the Minister's own department, whether it's a

Crown corporation, or whether it's an agency that is partially funded,

as X-Kalay is, by the provincial government.

The director of X-Kalay didn't take terribly kindly to the

suggestions I made. He wrote a letter saying I was cruel, malicious and

ill-informed. I thought those kinds of remarks were reserved for

Members of the government towards me. But I want to assure the director

of the X-Kalay and the Minister that it is not my intention to be

either cruel, malicious or ill-informed, though at times I may be all

those things.

Nevertheless, the director did confirm in his letter some of the

things which I said, namely that they had not been filing reports as

they are required to do. I understand they have taken care of that. The

financial statement, again, is not officially audited, but I understand

there are some difficulties with that.

But he does say in this letter, which was released to the press at the same time it was mailed to me:

"From August, 1972, until November, 1973, we employed

a business manager at the advice of our board of directors, a

representative group of citizens from business, social agencies and the

clergy. This man was incompetent and dishonest. He didn't suddenly

disappear. A full six months before he left our employ we discussed a

mutually agreeable parting of company."

I would like to the ask the Minister if indeed there was a business

manager who was incompetent and dishonest. I would like to ask the

Minister, with all respect, whether he is pursuing this investigation

with a view in mind to seeing that the X-Kalay foundation fulfils the

same standards that he would have in his department knowing that

members of the public accounts committee would be examining the

vouchers.

There's another subject I wanted to raise with the Minister. Other

people have said this, and I'll say it too: the Minister is a delight

to deal with for Members of the opposition side. He goes about his

business in a very aggressive but effective manner, and we appreciate

the frankness with which he deals with Members on all sides of the

House. I think that all those Ministers who do that find that they

quickly win the admiration and respect of those who are their political

foes, and it helps us all contribute to the business of good government.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): However….

MR. McGEER: However, Mr. Minister, you're soft on drugs. Not

everybody agrees with your approach to the drug problem. And your

commissioner of drugs is soft on drugs too. I think the Member for

Langley (Mr. McClelland) put it well when he said they were soft on

drugs.

Now there are lots of people who are soft on drugs. The commissioner

and the Minister aren't the only ones. There are plenty of them in this

province. I don't happen to be one. Unlike the Member for Langley, I

did go up and meet with the commissioner, and he couldn't have been

more pleasant. He has his views; we didn't entirely agree. I was there

for a particular reason: to persuade the commission to go into a tough

research programme, because I think one possible approach might be to

try and immunize drug

[ Page 2213 ]

addicts against their drugs of choice, so that they

no longer get the thrill from taking drugs. The commissioner doesn't

happen to agree with me, but that's his view.

What we do have to look at, however, Mr. Chairman, is performance,

and whether it is the Minister or the commissioner or an opposition

Member or the general public, we have to look at this drug commission

and its approach critically. It is costing a lot of money. We have a

terribly serious drug problem in British Columbia. The size of that

drug problem must decrease and decrease substantially or we must ask

the Minister and his commissioner to abandon their approach to drugs.

The Minister got up yesterday and explained that he held a meeting

in Victoria. There was unanimous agreement about the kind of approach

that he suggested. There may well have been; but invited to that

meeting were people of like minds to the Minister.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Not so! No, that's not so.

MR. McGEER: Yes, sir. And I'll say further, Mr. Chairman, that when the LeDain commission held hearings across Canada….

HON. MR. LEVI: He was there.

MR. McGEER: Who? The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)?

HON. MR. LEVI: He was there.

MR. McGEER: Well, he's changed his mind, I'm happy to say. I consider him a convert.

I repeat what I said before. I think that commission was mischievous

because they did no service in our country. When they came across

Canada I remember the meeting they held in the City of Vancouver.

Responsible people simply would not appear before that commission. It

was a love-in with drug users because of the obvious sympathy of the

members of this commission. They were picked by the Health Minister of

Canada for their sympathy towards the drug problem, not their realistic

attitude towards it. And the results bore out the preconceived ideas —

at least, what I submit were the preconceived ideas — of those

commissioners.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Is drug addiction a sickness or not?

MR. McGEER: Well, it's something which cannot be dealt with

in the same fashion you deal with sicknesses where people voluntarily

come to see a physician. You cannot deal with it like you can an ulcer

or diabetes or cancer. You simply cannot.

Mr. Chairman, while the LeDain commission was carrying on its

deliberations in Canada, in British Columbia we were experiencing a

fivefold increase in heroin users — a 500 per cent increase in this

province.

While people were trying to tell us that the use of marijuana by

young people would not lead to multi-drug use or to heroin addiction,

we had a breakout of the heroin problem from a relatively confined part

of Vancouver to every community of decent size in British Columbia.

That drug problem resides in those communities today.

Mr. Minister, you try and tell me that there is not a drug problem

in Castlegar or Nanaimo or Prince George or Prince Rupert or in the

Fraser Valley or in Victoria. There is. And it all exploded in this

time when the LeDain commission was going across Canada trying to tell

us that marijuana was not a problem.

That's what I mean by experience; it's been adverse.

Mr. Chairman, in the City of New York for a time — I don't know if

it still exists today — the No. 1 killer of people between 15 and 25

was drug overdose, mostly heroin. Because of that the State of New York

has taken a resolutely hard line towards drugs — the toughest in the

nation. They have reversed the trend taken by people who were terribly

well meaning, but who had helped, by their soft line, to allow hard

drug usage to escape from the bounds within which it had been held.

I think we must look very carefully in British Columbia at the

approach taken in the State of New York and whether or not it is

leading to reductions in the use of drugs. If it does, then I submit

that we should follow their course. At the same time we can compare the

experience of the State of New York with that of the State of Oregon,

where they've taken a very tolerant view of drugs and where some,

myself included, predict that there will be an unfortunate breakout of

drug use as a result of that permissive attitude.

I repeat what I've said before. The only countries that have been

successful have been those who have taken a much harder line than we

have ever adopted in North America. I include among those countries

Japan as a democratic state and Russia as a non-democratic state.

But whatever the style of government, the attitude toward drugs and

drug users is what counts in reducing the incidence. Everywhere you go

there simply is a percentage of the population that is at risk of being

exposed to hard drugs.

The Minister originates from a country that was the only country

successful in confining drug use by giving away free heroin. But, Mr.

Chairman, I think that even the Minister would admit that that is no

[ Page 2214 ]

longer working in Britain.

I detailed — and I'm not going to do it again this year — the

experience of a single town in Britain which was written up in a

medical journal. Three young drug addicts had moved in and had infected

others in that small town until the number of addicts had risen to over

200 and the town had the highest incidence of drug addiction anywhere

in Great Britain.

I'm not certain, Mr. Chairman, that we shouldn't — even in things

like methadone maintenance — be charging those who are receiving

methadone maintenance for their maintenance. I would certainly

absolutely rule out any idea at all of giving free drugs to addicts.

I'm not certain that methadone is a substitute narcotic. People have to

come every day to take their drug. They get it free. But to give you an

indication of how powerful the motivation is to keep taking narcotics,

a trustee at places like the Narcotic Addiction Foundation — only a

small percentage make it to the trustee level — is a person who is

given his drug three times a week instead of every day.

Even people who are well known to that foundation can't be trusted

with more than one or two days' supply. To me, this is the proof of how

willpower is eroded by the physiological experience of narcotic drugs

in that segment of the population which is at risk to this experience.

I think there are only two ways of conquering this. One is to

eliminate the source of supply to them completely. The other is to

develop some immunizing procedure or some method by which they will no

longer be able to derive the excitement of the drug's administration.

Mr. Chairman, you would never think of giving an alcoholic free

alcohol. I don't think that anybody would propose that. The universal

experience around the world is that the incidence of alcoholism is

directly related to the cost of alcohol. The old gin-mills in England

were causing havoc and death in England, because gin was so cheap. And

the taxes that were originally imposed for alcohol use were imposed as

a safety measure, a health measure — not to bring income into

government.

If we wanted to reduce the incidence of alcoholism, one way would be

to increase the price of booze. It would be an unpopular way, but it's

effective.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, you're continually moving toward that.

But the point about it, Mr. Chairman, is this: when the people on

the LeDain commission, and others, were telling us how bad alcohol was,

and how relatively mild marijuana was, the incidence of alcoholism in

Canada wasn't increasing — at least, if it was, not dramatically. But

the incidence of marijuana use and heroin addiction was increasing

alarmingly. We do have to develop new ways of going at the alcohol

problem. But I don't think that free alcohol would be an approach, any

more than I think that free drugs would be an approach. Frankly, I

don't have any proposals at all as to how we might go about reducing

the problems of alcoholism in British Columbia. I wish the

commissioners well.

But I do say this: I disagree with your approach on drugs. I know

that we're not going to reach any accommodation on this. I will

continue to voice my disagreement. I will continue to ask whether

people who favour another approach are producing results. I measure

results in only one way: what is the incidence of drug addiction; how

much associated crime is going on in the province?

We have models in other jurisdictions, specifically New York state

and Oregon state, which have taken diametrically opposite approaches to

a similar problem.

Mr. Minister, I hope that if your approach — that of your commission

— doesn't work, and you are still in office, you'll be man enough to

change your ways. If your approach does work, I'll be the first one to

compliment you for it.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I'll deal with the drug question first.

Last year when we tabled a paper, prior to the establishment of the

Alcohol and Drug Commission, we said at that time that we would want to

look at a number of ways in which to tackle the problem. It would not

be just heroin maintenance, not just isolated communities, not just

compulsory treatments, cold turkey, or even a small pilot project in

terms of heroin maintenance — but a range of possibilities.

The one that has become popular with what I referred to last night as the "hard-line group" is the Japanese system.

Last August I was in Geneva and I met with the International

Narcotic Control Commission. They gave me a copy of their February,

1972, report. I've made this available to the commission, and I'm quite

prepared to make it available to the House.

In 1972-73 they experienced an increase of almost 1,000 addicts in

terms of the heroin problem there. That relates to the different young

people that they have now. What we're dealing with there is a very

democratic — as the Member said — but also very authoritarian society.

Nevertheless, it has not been as successful as people would have us

believe.

You have in the report a range of options, both for alcoholism and for drugs.

Now last year there were discussions, as there's been today, about the LeDain commission. The

[ Page 2215 ]

LeDain commission was formed at the time when the

problem was getting near to its height, and they looked at it. I don't

accept what the Member says that in some way they contributed to the

exacerbation of the problem, because I don't think that's true.

But what is interesting to me is a recent document that was

presented to the federal Minister of Health and Welfare (Hon. Marc

Lalonde) by the Canadian Medical Association. It was presented on

February 21, 1974, and I'd just like to quote two or three items — one

in respect to decriminalization of certain drugs. They said: "The CMA,"

— the Canadian Medical Association, I presume — the parent body of the

organization that the Hon. Member presumably belongs to, as a medical

doctor, and the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

"would again urge that there be decriminalization of

the current offences of simple possession of cannabis and that there be

no extension of the offences for simple possession of controlled drugs."

This is in relation to that particular problem. Now they've taken

quite some time to come to this kind of decision — which they have put

in a brief. The brief was to respond to the final report of the LeDain

commission.

They also had some comments to make about heroin maintenance. On page 18 of the brief they said:

"The CMA is not convinced that the availability of heroin

as a transitional measure will attract opiate dependents from the illicit market.

The CMA believes that the availability of heroin as an alternative to methadone

will decrease the motivation for subjects entering methadone and other programmes.

While the CMA remains opposed to the use of heroin in...patients, it believes

that there may be a role for the use of this drug in selected patients under

experimental and controlled conditions."

Now this is exactly the statement that was made in this House a year ago by

myself in respect to the report that we tabled. But there was a great, hysterical

newspaper campaign from these people up here about how we were going to give

it away. Nobody is suggesting that we can go dashing into this kind of thing.

But here is the parent body of the medical association saying "in a very

careful, controlled way" — but nevertheless, looking at it very realistically.

We have two-thirds of the heroin problem of Canada right here in

this province, and we've always had two-thirds — always. Our history of

heroin and opium addiction goes back more than 70 years. The present

line that is being used in this province in dealing with addicts, I

would suggest to you, is the hard line, and it has been for the last 40

or 50 years.

They are hunted, they are chased, they're arrested, they're

convicted and they go to the penitentiary. Now that's not been

happening. Sure, three or four years ago there was a lessening of

offenders; that is, they could be fined. But nevertheless it has been

the hard line. They have been going to jail; our jails are full of

addicts. The penitentiary is full of addicts.

Addicts run the prison system, and let's not kid ourselves about

this. They run prison systems all over the world, because the whole

motivation when you are in there is to see whether you can get some

drugs in there. Even Millhaven, that super maximum security place down

in Ontario, has got a drug problem. In Matsqui the problem is so bad

they had to bring the RCMP in to finally charge four guys with

trafficking in drugs right inside the institution. So the hard line has

been tried, and it's still being tried.

In New York in eight years they spent $1 billion going every which

way. In 1971 Rockefeller announced that he was ready to agree with

Mayor Lindsay's proposal that there be a pilot project for heroin

maintenance — in 1971. But early in 1972, when the election was on for

the president, then came out the great story about the problem of the

Vietnam vets that were coming back addicted, and the whole thing turned

around. By December of 1972 we had a complete turnabout, a

reinforcement of the hard line.

Now if you want some information on what's going on down there:

sure, if you're trafficking and you get arrested in New York State, you

can go to jail for life with no option of parole. So where are they

doing all the trafficking from now? — in the State of New Jersey and

Pennsylvania. It's not a problem which can be tackled by one state or

by one province. It's something that has to be tackled in Canada in a

broad way.

We have yet to have the kind of discussions that encompass all of

the provinces. We haven't had them. What we've attempted to do is to

show some leadership in terms of public discussion about what we might

be able to do. The Hon. Member said that he doesn't have any solutions

for alcoholism. We don't really have any solutions for drug addiction,

but we're prepared to try a number of things.

You know, when the chairman of the commission says that the

possibility of attracting 10 per cent of the people to participate….

Perhaps we should not be so dismal. But you know, when you've worked in

the business a long time, you become quite realistic about it.

Nevertheless, what we have to do, and what we intend to do, is to

develop a range of possibilities for dealing with people. It's not

going to be done just by the commission; the main thrust of this work

is going to be done by the Department of Health, because they have a

lot of facilities that we need in the first instance. But the basic

day-to-day work after the

[ Page 2216 ]

detoxification

part is going to have to be done in the community.

We're not soft on drugs; that's completely erroneous. We have an

existing law which requires that they be charged if there's

information, arrested and tried and, if convicted, they go to jail.

That's the hard line. It's always been that way. It's not any easier,

whether it's so-called soft drugs or hard drugs.

Well, what have we got? In all the years I worked in the

correctional system I saw addicts going in and out, in and out, in and

out. When we had that meeting last November, we had a range of people

there — people who worked in the field, in the prisons, in the health

section, in the police. The police were represented both from Vancouver

and the RCMP. The Hon. Member was there and educators were there, and

they had a good discussion. Out of it came what I read off last night.

That's not the end of it all. There'll be some changes.

I think what we've done is we've picked up the ball which was just

being kicked around in this province, because the previous government

assumed absolutely no responsibility for the drug problem. You know,

they treated the drug problem like they used to treat the Indians:

"That's a federal problem; we shouldn't get involved in it." All right,

so we've picked it up.

We expect to take a lot of flack on this from the other side,

because it's a pretty dicey kind of a subject. But those people who

have been involved in the situation know that we must try other methods

or commit ourselves to the hard-line, costly incarceration process.

To go to Matsqui: under the old programme, when they operated for

almost four years, it was costing about $15,000 to keep an addict in

there in the beginning. It finally went down to $12,000 when they

filled it up. At that time we were paying old-age pensioners $1,200 a

year, and we were spending that kind of money in that kind of situation

to try and achieve something. It didn't achieve anything. They finally

discontinued it as a treatment centre.

We could have told them that. It's in the report. They tried

Lexington for 30 years. They tried the hard line in New York for eight

years and blew $1 billion — $1 billion just on trying to meet that kind

of problem.

So I don't accept the Member's suggestion that we're soft on drugs.

We're following the law, and the law is not soft on drugs; the law is

hard on drugs. What we're looking at is some alternatives.

Now with respect to X-Kalay. In November, 1972, I went to meet with

the board of directors of X-Kalay because at that time they were

discussing their financial situation. As I understood it, and I have a

report in front of me, they were in receipt of a grant of $5,000 from

the drug alcohol commission. They had $5,000 from the NMUD — the one in

Ottawa. We agreed to pick up the deficit funding on their operation,

which averaged about $2,000 a month.

At that time when I met with the board their trustees were there.

The previous government, when they gave them a grant of $40,000, asked

that there be three trustees. The three trustees were Jack Webster,

David Devine — who is an executive with McGavin's bread — and Mr. D.S.

Bruce. They were present at the meeting. Also present at the meeting

were several of their board of directors, including Alderman Geoff

Massey. Also present as well was Mr. Gardiner, who was then the

vice-president of the Royal Bank of Canada on the west coast, and he's

now in some more senior position down in Toronto.

Now when I met with them, and we talked about their financial

situation in 1972, they made a proposal to me and I made a proposal

back that what we would do would be to guarantee a certain number of

places on a per diem basis of $5 a day. We finally agreed afterwards,

because they were not going to be able to fill at that time 40 beds,

that we'd do it on a deficit basis. So we gave them during the period

1972-73 a sum varying from $2,500 to $4,000 a month.

I met with them again at the end of September at a board meeting at

which we discussed their future financing. By then their NMUD grant was

coming to an end. The grant under the Alcohol and Drug Commission was

coming to an end and we were still picking up the deficits.

I proposed to them that we would pick up the total budget, given

that we could agree on a budget. During that discussion, at which were

present the three trustees and all of the board members, we agreed on a

figure of $11,000 for 11 months, not for 12 because on the 12th month

they had gone into an operation of their own, a money-making operation

which is related to recycling, and that they would carry the 12th

month. I told them that before we would agree, they would have to be in

touch with the departmental comptroller's office of my department. Mr.

Walter Thompson, who is employed there, is directly in touch with them

in terms of the reports that they send in every month.

When you raised the question — which you did under the

Attorney-General's estimates — that they had not filed their report, I

frankly was surprised because I had a copy of the Price-Waterhouse

report and realized that it was not the definitive statement.

However, when I met with the board — and the board has a number of

very well known and responsible public figures — when we concluded the

role of the trustees, for the $40,000, it was agreed that they were in

good financial shape and were in a position to handle the $11,000 a

month that we were giving. But I did insist that they contact the

people in my department, and we do get monthly statements from them.

[ Page 2217 ]

I'm aware of the programme. They have two programmes, the one in

Vancouver and the one in Saltspring. You asked the question, I think,

under the estimates. They did have a building on West 7th, which they

sold and had some $23,000 in a building fund. That subsequently went

toward the purchasing of the operation on Saltspring. They have a

restaurant that they operate and the people who are part of that group

work there.

They were very useful to this department from January to June of

last year when they took three young women, whom we had in care, over

there and worked with them — three young heroin addicts, as a matter of

fact, and they worked with them for several months. So, we have used

them. They are useful to us in terms of serious emergencies because

they have a staff input and also a membership input which can be useful

for containing people in the drug field, people who need to kick the

habit. They have that kind of capability.

I personally spent some time, on two occasions, meeting with the

board last year and the year before. They had and still have very

responsible members of the board. While I appreciate the Member's

questions, I am satisfied, as of February when I last looked at the

situation in terms of the accounts that were filed with us, that the

operation is running well and that the money is being well spent.

MR. CHABOT: No answers.

HON. MR. LEVI: I'm sorry, did you want me to reply, Mr. Member?

I don't want to reply specifically. I don't think I want to deal

with the specific case in public, but I want to deal with some

principles of practice in relation to cases similar to this.

I can assure the Member that the decision that was made was not made

by the worker in the field. As a matter of fact, the ultimate decision

was made by Mrs. Preddy, the Deputy Superintendent of Child Welfare. We

did discuss this particular case, and in following it down…I will share

with the Member, they offered to let you see the files, so I'm informed

in the report that I've got on my desk.

I appreciate what you said, and I have the report. As a Minister, I

obviously can look behind any decision. You know, the book is not

closed. I will talk to the Member about this decision.

I think in fairness to the field that the very serious decisions

about apprehension of children, or taking children back into care, are

not made just by my workers. That's why we have supervisors; that's why

we have regional directors; that's why we have consultants. Even in the

partial file I have here, there has been considerable correspondence

and face to face contact with numerous staff members, also with other

departments of government about this particular case. So, these

decisions are not made in a peremptory fashion. Recommendations may

appear to be made in a peremptory fashion, but they are not followed

through in that way. There is a process by which there has to be

consultation and then an exchange of opinion. But I will undertake and,

I will say this publicly, that I will look behind the decision in

relation to this case which the Member has raised.

MR. CHABOT: I appreciate very much the Minister's words.

However, I'm sure that the coordinator of adoption in the child-care

service is greatly influenced by the report that is submitted to her by

the social worker in the field. There's no denying that because unless

there is a report submitted to her, there's no action that's liable to

be taken. I think some consideration should be given, even though I

know your policy is concern for the child and not for the parents. I

think some compassion should be shown there.

The doctor in the community has been willing to get involved. He has

suggested that the home being provided is a good home for this child.

The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) can

vouch for this particular doctor because he's his first cousin. He

thinks it would be a….

HON. MR. LEVI: I think you had better shut up, you are prejudicing my decision. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: However, it's a situation which I think should be

carefully reviewed again and some consideration given for this child.

It was quite an experience for the child to be torn away from her home,

quite an experience for the parents as well.

I've known the parents personally for 20 years and I have no

hesitation of vouching for these people. They've been very good to my

wife in the hospital, when she's gone to the hospital many times to

have children, when she was a practical nurse there. I think she's

providing a very good home and it's really unfortunate that your

department has not seen fit to allow this child to be adopted or to

continue to reside in the home after she'd been there for five years.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I feel, like the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), that this Minister is doing a fairly

good job and it's a pleasure to actually work with him. The only thing

I have against him is his political philosophy, with which I don't

agree at all. More importantly I consider him one of the heads of the

cabinet of the government because he's one of the six who signed the

Waffle Manifesto. So he's a very prominent Minister in the government

of the day.

However….

[ Page

2218 ]

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I'm coming to that. I'm just coming to that.

Mr. Chairman, I note a staff increase here, which has been noted

before. It's an increase of 671 people to, I think, a total of 1,400. I

only hope they're all doing their jobs and will continue to look after

the social problems and always come up, and keep them to a minimum.

I just want to read an

article from the Cariboo Observer ,

the paper published in Quesnel. I'd like to know the cost of this

organization; I didn't even know it existed. But apparently it's being

funded by the Department of Human Resources. I would like to read part

of the article, Mr. Chairman, dated March 20:

"Group for Disabled Started Here.

"A slow beginning was made in forming a group here to

help people who are hurt or made sick at work and are having problems

with government agencies. Six injured men attended a meeting at Helen

Dickson Elementary School to hear three officials of" — and this

apparently is the name of the organization — "the Society for

Protection of Disability Rights of B.C. explain the purpose of the

Victoria-based group. After some discussion they picked three local

temporary officers" — from that, Mr. Chairman, three local temporary

officers.

"Provincial vice-president Hank Shaw, and two staff

members, research bookkeeper Donna Mosson and research counsellor Helen

Jefferies, were on a tour of northern communities. Mr. Shaw received

three cracked ribs in an accident."

And it gives his background which I don't think is important.

But he is, as I said here, referred to as the first vice-president.

"He learned other people were having problems with

government agencies so the association began August 21, 1972. An office

was established in Victoria and the association was registered the

following October under the B.C. Societies Act. There are now about 650

members.

"Anyone can become a member even if they have never

had a claim for an injury or an illness. However, all provincial

officers must have submitted claims.

"The president is James MacKenzie, vice-president

Thomas MacAffry, secretary Mrs. Reddy. The association is supported by

both senior governments. Of the 18 employees, 13 are paid by the B.C.

Human Resources department, four by the federal Local Initiatives

Programme. The provincial government also provides office space."

Mr. Chairman, my question to the Minister is: how much did this organization

cost in 1973? It's obvious it had been established, as I said earlier, in 1972.

I'd like to know what this organization has cost in the way of

salaries and travelling expenses, as well as how much they're paying

for office space, because I had someone go to see if this office

actually existed in Victoria and it does. That's something that I would

like to find out from the Minister.

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister that I thank him,

I'm sure on behalf of all municipal residents of the province, for the

reduction of the net cost of welfare from 15 to 10 per cent, which is

going into effect for this fiscal year. I hope that he hasn't stopped

working on the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to further reduce

this burden on municipalities because really we're only back to where

we were in 1968, if I recall, when the percentage was increased from 10

to 15 per cent. So keep up the good work and keep knocking it down. I

think it should be zero; I don't think the municipalities should be

paying any part of this net cost of social allowances.

The Minister of this department of government now gets more money —

I'm not saying this, but I want to point it out — than probably my

favourite department, the Department of Highways. From the year 1971-72

with an expenditure of $148,500,000 in the Department of Human

Resources, we're looking at this budget this year of $284,820,000. I

don't deny any of this money but I only say to the Minister that I hope

that it is spent properly. As we all know, it's public funds, and that

is a lot of money to be spent on human resources. I say, I don't deny

it, but I only hope that we spend it properly and efficiently.

On that subject, I'd like to refer to page 10 of the Minister's

annual report for 1973 where they break down the dollars spent. I

appreciate that 96 cents of every dollar is paid out to different

services, and only 4 per cent for administrative costs, and I

congratulate you on that. It shows here for social allowances that 46

cents of every dollar goes to that.

The item that I'm concerned about is the item of 19 per cent for the

aged, and I assume that means Mincome. Not to take away from social

allowances, but I really think that the time has come…. I think Mincome

was a good programme and is a good programme brought in by this

government in December, 1972, at $200 a month, but the only increase in

that since December, 1972, has been from the federal government. I

might be out a dollar or two but it's my understanding that now it's

$213.85 for a single person or $427.50 for a couple. I would like the

Minister to give urgent consideration, if he's not already doing so, to

increasing Mincome. In the period from December, 1972, there's been a

terrific

[ Page 2219 ]

increase in the cost of living of practically

everything — fuel, accommodation, food and all the rest. I suppose it's

about 20 per cent at least. I think these people probably should be

getting $250 minimum, but in any case they should be getting beyond

$213.85.

We discussed the subject of Mincome to non-citizens, and that has

been of great concern to our citizens. I'm pleased to say to the

Minister that he has brought a stop to it. I just wonder how many funds

were paid out before the department caught up with these people. How

many did slide through and are on the programme at the present time? I

understand that some got through the different administrative red tape

and I don't imagine they can be knocked off. I don't know, but really

this is where the money can come from to increase to the British

Columbia citizens rather than spending it on non-citizens. I appreciate

what the Minister has done. Maybe if he got a little tougher on some of

these others he would be able to get the increase out of the saving

made there.

Another item, Mr. Chairman,

I haven't heard the Minister say anything about is the fact that the

senior citizens on the lower mainland and Vancouver Island get a Hydro

pass that the Human Resources department paid $5 for and it gives them

a pass for six months. I'm happy that they're getting that but I would

like to point out to the Minister that probably half the senior

citizens of the province can't avail themselves of a B.C. Hydro pass

for the simple reason B.C. Hydro doesn't exist. I was wondering if the

Minister would consider some other form, maybe give the other citizens

$1 a month, I don't know, in lieu of the fact that there's no B.C.

Hydro. Here we are making second-class citizens of some senior

citizens. I think all senior citizens would agree that some other

arrangement should be made.

In the Interior I don't think B.C. Hydro will ever be there. In a

lot of the smaller communities — I'm referring to 10,000 down to 5,000

— I don't think they're ever going to have community bus service even

if the government were paying for it, because the demand isn't there.

But the senior citizens in the Interior of the province, outside of the

greater Vancouver, greater Victoria area have transportation problems

as well. Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, I know what

they're doing in the Interior — they're hiring taxis to get around

because they have problems. I would like the Minister to make a note of

that and see if he is considering. I'd like to hear what his attitude

is on it.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is just a word or two about the

adoption of native children. As an MLA, I have citizens in my riding

who are trying to adopt native children. They've had them in their

custody and it's very frustrating to them, and I'm pleased to see that

this court case has cleared it up. I believe the Minister's latest

statement was that he will start processing these adoptions again on

June 1. I believe this is because of a legal problem. You want to wait

60 days beyond the latest court ruling, but maybe you could get the

department to get some of the red tape done on the basis that it is

going ahead and start them now. It's a real concern to the adopting

parents. They are living in a state of not knowing from day to day

whether they might lose the children.

What I'm really saying, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, is let's

start the administrative process here for these adopting parents and

then it's a case of just formalizing the administrative work and the

adoptions could be put through. I can see that if nothing is done on

them until June 1 it will probably be towards the end of the year

before the adoptions are legally finalized.

I might say I've had personal experience of this. My wife and I are

parents of adopted children. After you get through with all the lawyers

and the red tape and so on, it takes a long time. Anything you could

speed up for these parents who are waiting would be appreciated.

I want to say something on Indian land claims. I spoke earlier to

the Attorney-General but Indian land claims are a problem that has to

be faced up to. It seems to me the situation that exists now is the

fact that the federal government wants the provincial government to get

with them and the B.C. Indian chiefs to sit down and discuss this. So

far nobody from the province has done this at the elected level. I know

the Minister of Indian Affairs (Hon. Mr. Chretien) was out here

recently. He even had our MP with him from Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr.

Marchand), who is his executive assistant. They met the B.C. Indian

chiefs but the province only sent civil servants to this meeting. I was

quite disappointed about that.

I feel sometime during this year in the Interior of the province,

because of not getting down to the nitty-gritty, we're going to have

some serious stoppages of work that will affect not only the natives

but other citizens of this province. I refer to roadblocks where

they're arguing that they own the land and so on. I hope that it is the

intent of the government and this Minister that they will attend — I

believe another meeting is scheduled for May. I understand that this

has already been asked in this debate but it's my information it hasn't

been answered that you or somebody from the cabinet will attend. I'd

like to hear you say something about that.

Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, I think one of the

things that I believe was done by this Minister was to increase the

allowance that a person on social assistance could earn. It's presently

$100 a month that doesn't affect their social assistance. I would like

the Minister to look, in view of inflation and so on, to see if he

would consider increasing that

[ Page 2220 ]

allowance further, say to $150 or even $200 because I have known

people who are not really interested in the $100 but would be if they

could make up the $200.

What I'm really getting at here is that if we can get them up exempt

to $200 I think the next thing along the road is that they will drop

from the social assistance rolls entirely and of course that's what

we're trying to do. If the allowance were higher for the earnings they

could make without barring the social allowance…. I'm really saying I

think they'd really like it and the next thing is they're moving into

full employment and we have rehabilitated an individual and probably

have seen the last of him on the social assistance rolls.

Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. I would be interested if the Minister has any answers.

HON. MR. LEVI: On the association regarding compensation, we

only actually came in the funding process for January, February and

March of this year. It was previously under an LIP programme. When we

had the request, we discussed it with the Department of Labour because

I wanted to have the thing looked at. They gave it their wholehearted

approval and we have now agreed to fund it for a year but we will be

looking at it sometime in October, as to exactly what the function is.

It does have a very good function. There are a lot of cases in terms

of the Workmen's Compensation that are in limbo. This is an

organization that originated in Ontario and has done a great deal of

work, particularly in those cases that are back injury cases where

there have been some real problems. So after consultation with the

Department of Labour we did agree to fund it for a year starting April

1. We had no commitments in '73, our commitment started…in the fiscal

year — January, February and March. We get $900 a month.

In terms of the adoptions, I appreciate what the Member is saying

about the process. As a matter of fact, we have started the process

of the documentation on that and as soon as we're sure that 60 days

have passed there is no problem. We will move. We'll probably move, I

think, before June 1, but I've used June 1 simply as a date that we can

give to people.

I just want to say one thing about that. We had a question of trust

with the Indians about this. They came to us and were very exercised

about the problem. As it happened we had a legal hiatus so we agreed to

put the moratorium on. I tabled the report yesterday which gives you a

good idea of what the problem has been with Indian children and the

whole question of that in the province and that we are now working

towards putting in some real services with Indian people delivering the

services. So we've come that far in terms of this last few months.

On the rates, I did say yesterday that we are reviewing the welfare

and social assistance rates. We reviewed them last year. What we're

looking at is the formula for indexing so we can do it on a yearly

basis, maybe a quarterly basis. We haven't completely decided this. We

want to include in the rates the family allowance, because we have to

look at income and we want that to be reflected in there as well. We're

aware that there has to be an increase. What we're looking at is

getting some procedure whereby we can have an across-the-board increase

on a regular basis because last year we did eliminate the overage

system which was giving us a lot of trouble.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, well, you're also talking about the

earnings exemption in relation to welfare. I did say the other day that

that problem has to be discussed with Ottawa because we share that

programme — the social assistance programme — with Ottawa and earnings

exemptions are subject to mutual agreement. We've had some discussions

with them. To go up to $200 is frankly not in their "philosophical"

approach to it. They don't see that as being that kind of incentive. We

would hope that they might change but so far they haven't.

On the Mincome, Mincome has gone from $200 to — as of yesterday or

Monday — $218, which of course includes the 60 to 64. This is the 63.

The chunk you've got there related to what we did in that fiscal year.

The other thing, of course, in Mincome is that where we've been able to

make more disposable income available, we've got Pharmacare. Of course,

Pharmacare is saving the average person over 65 anywhere from $7 to $15

a month in drug bills. So that, in effect, has increased the Mincome.

Some people have much higher bills. Some people who are not even

covered by Mincome had bills of $20 or $30. We have delivered in that

way to senior citizens more disposable income, and that's really the

name of the game.

In terms of the transportation outside of the lower mainland area, I

spoke on it yesterday. There is a grant under the old regulations for

$10 per month. What we're going to look at is removing the ceiling and

looking at relating some realistic amount of money to the area where

people live. That is, where there is absolutely no transportation, not

even cab, we have to look at alternatives. At the moment the department

is funding $0.5 million worth of transportation programmes in Prince

George, Salmon Arm, Delta, Surrey, New Westminster, North Van, West

Van, a little bit in Kamloops, a couple on the Island here. We're

having a meeting of all of these people within the next two or three

weeks including the bunny bus people. We're asking the bureau of

transit to be present and see whether they can't

[ Page 2221 ]

rationalize this kind of thing.

The other question is that I want to, frankly, in the department,

not get into the transportation business. We have other departments. As

we develop more services for people, especially seniors, we do have an

obligation to try to make it possible for them to get there. That's

always been a problem. We spend enormous amounts of money on capital

funds for these buildings and people can't get there. I think it's more

proper for the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) to deal

with this. As I understand it, he will be having something to say about

it in his estimates.

On the Indian land claims thing, I said yesterday, as we had said to

the Nishga when we met with them in February, that this whole problem

was something that would need the undivided attention of the total

cabinet at some time when we could give sufficient time, and I'm not

talking about squeezing it in the agenda. That has not been possible.

We've been extremely busy in the session. The Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Macdonald) and myself made a report to cabinet and that will have

to be discussed. We have informed the Nishga of this, we have informed

the union of this, we were aware at the last minute of the meeting, of

course we were only wired a few days before the meeting, we sent an

observer, I had a stenographer there giving me a complete report on it

and we did meet with the Minister in the evening. I think that this is

a subject that must be dealt with by the whole cabinet. That's the

situation and I'm not in a position to comment any further on what

future meetings there may be.

MR. WALLACE: I have no wish to go into great debate on this

drug and alcohol problem but it certainly should be mentioned. I would

like to clarify some of the misunderstandings by the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) who made his impassioned comments and

then left the chamber, not to listen to the rest of the debate.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I'm being reasonable. He chooses to make very

inaccurate and incorrect comments and then when he knows that there

will be further debate he doesn't stay around to listen.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Well, you send him a note. Why don't you send a note and bring him back in the chamber?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WALLACE: The question of drug addiction and alcohol

addiction, as the Minister has pointed out, is no new phenomenon to the

human race. Anybody who thinks that there is just some simple magical

solution that you just simply become extremely firm with the law….

Some countries apply the death penalty — that's one approach. I think

that the very persistence of drug addiction and the very severe

penalties in countries like Turkey and Iran, which in recent months

have executed about 158 people and the addiction is still rampant, the

question of whether just taking this blunderbuss approach that if you

just get tough enough and put enough people in jail and probably hang a

few of them solves the problem. I just say that while the alternative

isn't to be completely complacent or soft, as the Member said, on the

other hand this rather bland and all-too-simple statement that we just

need firmer laws and more jails and more heavy penalties to me is not

the solution.

The only part that stiff penalty and incarceration should play is in

the trafficker and the person who himself or herself is trafficking and

is not an addict. I think we have two distinct persons. There is the

person who traffics to sustain his addiction and the other person who

certainly is not an addict and who is making a fortune out of the

misery of others. I couldn't care less if you shut that person up in

jail for the rest of his life, but in terms of dealing with the

established heroin addict, I think the answer must lie in diversity.

It's also another aspect of taking a very firm approach, Mr. Chairman,

perhaps done in some lack of direct contact with the suffering of the

families of addicts involved.

In the particular experience that I have had in the field with the

parents of addicts, the tremendous anxiety which they suffer is largely

based on the fact that even when they and the son or daughter want some

kind of assistance there's none available.

So often, as many Members have pointed out, many addicts have no

wish whatever to change their habit. I recognize that problem and

realize that this is a large part of the problem which is difficult to

tackle.

On the other hand, there do happen to be many addicts who do want

help and certainly their parents want some form of facility and advice

and rehabilitation available. Up until recently there was practically

nothing in this province to provide that kind of assistance, even to

the patient or the parents who were trying to obtain assistance.

Certainly the treatment of the acute addict through the vehicle of

detoxification centres is only a small part of the overall programme.

But I think the government should be given credit that in a short time

it has, at least, not only accepted the importance of detoxification

but has started to implement certain plans. I'd like to ask the

Minister a few questions about the situation in Victoria — but only to

[ Page 2222 ]

demonstrate that progress is being made, albeit in a small part of the total spectrum.

I understood that the commission was hoping to buy a large house

close to the Victoria General Hospital as a facility to provide some

follow-up in the detoxification phase, and that the matter was

presently being priced. I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether

this house has been purchased and at what price.

I understand also that arrangements were being made with the

Victoria General Hospital for such services as food service and

laundry. As I've often said in this House, the treatment of the

alcoholic has been under some confusion with regard to financing with

BCHIS. While this may strictly be a question for BCHIS, could I ask

whether the detoxification arrangements being developed near Victoria

General Hospital have been done through mutual arrangement with BCHIS?

I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether physicians and nurses

have been engaged and on what basis. I hope this is not some sort of —

for lack of a better word — a sideline for certain medical people. I

think it's becoming an area where a great degree of expertise is

required. And I wonder if the Minister could tell us to what degree

physicians and nurses have been employed.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

I understand that an administrator was hired, or that there were

plans to hire an administrator, but there was some difficulty about

public service classification. I'd be interested to know if this is an

administrative difficulty which has been circumvented.

I understand that a fair degree of contact has been made with

medical and community authorities and the police. I hope, above all,

Mr. Chairman, if we're on this track of detoxification, that we'll

remember the principle very clearly that the Minister outlined last

night as a result of a seminar that was held in Victoria. That is, that

a person addicted to hard drugs is a medical problem.

If they're picked up by the police once we have detoxification

centres, I certainly hope that we're not going to go on the old arrest,

jail, incarceration routine. I hope that it's clearly understood by the

police that we are making progress, and that when a person is picked up

obviously under the influence of drugs, he will in fact be taken to the

detoxification centre, and the question of what justice procedure might

be carried out is secondary to the medical aspect of treating the acute

intoxication.

I notice today in The Province newspaper that there's some real

difference of opinion about detoxification in Vancouver. I understand

the commission employed Mr. Curler as a consultant.

There seems to be a definite divergence of views, with the city

council wishing to have one central 75-bed detoxification centre with

mandatory admission of the patient...or whether or not there should

be four smaller units in different parts of the city.

I'd like to touch briefly in a moment on the alcoholism subject, and

it is also mentioned in the newspaper today. But I think the impression

that might have been created by the First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer) that the meeting which took place last November was a

group of people all with preconceived ideas and one particular

philosophy really is not a fair appraisal of that meeting.

For example, as I recall, was not Dr. Hogarth present at that

meeting? He has subsequently been appointed to the provincial police

commission. Dr. Matheson, of course, was there; and one could hardly

suggest that Dr. Matheson's approach has been a soft approach.

Certainly, if anybody has seen the futility of past efforts, it must be

people of the experience of Dr. Matheson.

Again, I would say in response to the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey that however inadequate present efforts may be

considered, I think we can reasonably look back on the past and say

that the picture was completely futile in the last 10 or more years

that I've been involved. So it sounds like very small progress, but

surely some of the plans that we're proposing offer some hope compared

to the futility of what's happened in the past.

Mr. Chairman, I would assume that since my bill was withdrawn last

night, there are no restrictions on my saying a little bit about what

was in that bill.

The whole purpose of the bill was to provide some of the care, the

attention and hope for the addict and for the addict's parents in those

cases — and I admit they're not the majority — where there is a real

desire by the patient to be helped and a real willingness by the whole

family unit to see the young adult treated in some compulsory facility.

My bill incorporated many of the ideas that Dr. Matheson had

mentioned. That bill tried to chart some kind of middle course between

the penal justice system of just incarcerating people who had committed

crimes while under drug influence and the so-called soft approach. It

seems to me that there's tremendous flexibility in the provisions of

that bill whereby people can go voluntarily.

On the other hand, there are cases where the decision can be taken

by the medical authorities, or after the committing of a crime, or for

the transferal of a person presently in jail to one of these facilities

in the hope that the management and the treatment they will receive

will put them back on the street with some hope of staying away from

the drug scene.

It's an enormous subject and we've all talked about it many times. I don't think too much more

[ Page 2223 ]

needs to be said except to emphasize that there has to be some

diversity of approach; that there certainly has to be the heaviest

penalty against the trafficker; and, thirdly, that some of the very

sound and basic measures that we can do involve detoxification, which

is strictly an acute medical challenge.

I think that with the development of these detoxification centres at

least we are making a serious and reasonable step in the direction of

positive assistance to the person who is ill. Hopefully, if this is

then followed up…. I don't know if the Minister would care to comment

on how far the commission has got in terms of the follow-up management

of the person when they leave the detoxification course of treatment.

Obviously simply to sober up someone who's drunk or to bring them down

from heroin is only the very first initial step in trying to give that

person complete treatment.

Of course, we often lose sight of the fact that alcohol — and the

leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has referred to this —

is a much more frequent problem than the heroin addiction. There are

some interesting statistics also in the newspaper today which point out

that while there are 30,000 alcoholics in metropolitan Vancouver,

24,000 of them are so-called middle-class persons who manage to sustain

a — I can hardly say normal — reasonably managed life. And they're not

the image so many people have of drunks on skid road.

On the other hand there are 5,300 chronic drunks who live on skid

road and are frequently arrested — and native Indians represent

one-quarter of that total.

Here again, Mr. Chairman, we're back to the sad recognition that the

native Indian people, above all others, in the field of Human Resources

require not only to be treated like any other Canadians, but be given

some extra special attention to help them catch up socially, and in

health terms and education terms, with the general population in Canada.

There's a very interesting report from the Ontario Addiction

Foundation, which was written by Dr. David Archibald — who heads the

Addiction Research Foundation in Ontario — in regard to alcohol.

There's a point I can't recall having heard before, that of all the

various factors that have been said to contribute to alcoholism, such

as more outlets and a lower drinking age and the style of drinking, and

so on, he came up with one very clear, definable factor which resulted

from the study of figures in various nations, not just in Canada. He

says that it shows quite clearly that the lower cost of alcohol in

terms of personal disposable income, the greater the consumption and

the higher the rate of disease and death.

From 1949 to 1969 per capita disposable income has increased 57 per

cent, while the average price of liquor and beer in relation to today's

income in dollar values has actually declined. So, in relative terms,

alcohol and beer is cheaper today than it was 20 years ago.

So many of us stand up and speak in this House, and we describe the

problems at great length; but we so seldom come up with positive

proposals as to what to do about it. I would suggest that of all the

world-wide research that has been done on alcoholism, it would seem

from the figures here that the only one definable statistic that is

really meaningful is that the cheaper it is the more it's consumed. I

would think that the more we increase the price, there would be some

chance that there would be less consumption.

But we are all politicians and the political involvement in putting

a higher price more progressively on liquor, I suppose, is something

which any government considers more than once. Maybe they don't just

take a second look; they take a third look and a fourth look. But if we

really are serious in trying to diminish the consumption of alcohol, I

think one of the most effective ways would be to make it exorbitantly

high in price.

If we look at the political difficulty in persuading voters that

this is justified, maybe we should try to provide the information about

ill health and disease, the costs of hospitalization, the demands on

medical personnel, the increase in motor vehicle accidents and all the

carnage and disability and expense that follows from that.

In passing, Mr. Chairman, now that the government has to pay for

fixing up all the motor vehicles, maybe the government might have a

more intimate sensitivity as to the amount of accidents that are caused

by alcohol-related causes.

Again, one could go in great detail into alcoholism, but I wonder if

any consideration or any study has been done in British Columbia in

comparing 1949, let us say, with 1969 as to whether or not liquor is

actually cheaper in this province than it was, relatively speaking, in

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I think they should shove the price up. I

think that I'm in favour of increasing the price of alcohol. I think

that it will not solve the problem, but it seems to be the one

statistical factor that has been demonstrated to discourage consumption.

I would like to say one thing to the Minister. The Minister

mentioned he has authorized a study on the battered child. This is a

very tragic situation in our society that really is not given enough

publicity. Regretfully, not even enough of us physicians remain

adequately aware of the number of children who suffer abuse which goes

undiagnosed. I think that the Minister mentioned Dr. Segal as the

doctor who had studied this. I'm looking forward to reading the report.

But I think, in a debate on Human Resources,

[ Page 2224 ]

we're all agreed that the children, in terms of their social

environment and their education, are the hope for the future of the

province.

I just wanted to quote very briefly, Mr. Chairman, from one of the

most recent studies that was done at the child-development clinic of

the Children's Hospital in Winnipeg. It showed, in the time period that

the study was done, that from 1957 to 1971 they saw 132 cases, and

these are only the cases that were actually detected. There were 132 at

this one hospital in a period of 14 years.

Of all these battered children, 78 per cent of them were under three

years old; in fact, 10 per cent of them were under six months. They

often present some medical evidence which actually obscures the

underlying trauma that's been inflicted in the first place. The

condition so often appears as multiple bruises — and often with

fractures — which unfortunately are often missed on diagnosis, or

there's bleeding under the skull as a result of head injury.

One of the interesting facts that has been discovered also is that

some of the cases of so-called crib death, where an infant or a child

is found dead in a crib for unexplained reasons, have been associated

with the child having been abused.

It's also interesting that out of 88 cases which were followed up,

eight of the children had actually died — which was again 10 per cent

of the group involved. It's a tremendous challenge to the medical

profession and to the social services in this province to become more

aware of the fact that these tragic incidents happen.

The other interesting factor when research is done, Mr. Chairman, is

that of the parents involved in these tragic family situations, many of

them have previously sought psychiatric help. The statistics show that

they've had a great deal of contact with various social agencies,

whether it's marriage counselling or social assistance or some other

social agency. So there is a tremendous challenge to the combined

forces of social services and the medical profession to be well aware

of the fact that these battered children occur with a frightening

frequency, and we must expend all the effort we can on the educational

area.

I wonder if the Minister can tell us what he anticipates.... . first

of all, whether the report is available from Dr. Segal, or is it still

to be completed. If it's completed, will it be tabled in the House? If

it is at that point, does the Minister have anything to tell us as to

the next step he proposes in an attempt to prevent or cut down on the

incidence of the battered child syndrome?

As I say, I don't want to go into a long dissertation on the

subject. I'm just trying to point out the basics. But the fact is that

the follow-up studies done on these 132 children in Winnipeg showed

that in later years there's a very marked incidence of mental

retardation, a general failure of the child to develop normally. Even

those who are not mentally retarded — a substantial percentage — show a

degree of difficulty in their mental development and normal emotional

maturing.

Of course, it's difficult to know whether the trauma causes that or

not; but certainly the statistics suggest that these emotional mental

problems and retarded mentality are higher than the average in the

population. So it's very highly suggestive that even those children who

suffer this kind of abuse and survive are certainly less than normal

individuals in later years.

The last point I'd just like to make in passing — and I think the

Minister had a letter from this gentleman — is referring briefly to

Mincome and the handicapped. I'm talking about the handicapped person

between the age of 19 and 60. I don't know that I fully understand the

eligibility factors for such a handicapped person between the age of 19

and 60.

But so that we can perhaps get it clarified and up to date, Mr.

Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could comment about the case of a

man who suffers from such a disease as MS, multiple sclerosis, or

muscular dystrophy or rheumatoid arthritis. He struggles along as best

he can for many years but, say, around the middle 40s he finally has no

way he can continue to support himself and go to work.

Under the circumstances, such a person has usually not been able to

afford to buy a home, and is renting. My understanding is that at this

point in time they cannot have assets which exceed $2,500. I wonder if

the Minister could clarify the eligibility of such a person for Mincome

and differentiate between this business of a means test or an income

assessed test, or whatever phrase it was you used. I am getting the

phrases mixed up. That's the first thing: I'd like to know to what

degree it is assets or income that is related to the help such a person

as this gentleman can get.

Secondly, to what degree is that determined in provincial government

policy by the federal attitude? Has the provincial government chosen to

follow this policy with regard to the handicapped, which I consider

strictly a means test, because of a federal attitude? Is it that the

provincial government chooses for other reasons to apply a means test

to a handicapped person between 19 and 60 when no such test is applied

over age 60? Thank you.

HON. MR. LEVI: On the handicapped pension. I think the Member

made some reference to a house. It's true there is a cash asset level

of $2,500. This does not include a house or any of the normal things

that go such as a car and anything else he might have. The criterion is

the employability. If he's not employable because of his health, then

he will go on.

[ Page 2225 ]

There is a struggle, and it is a struggle, we're having in

discussing with the federal people the means test versus the incomes

test. There is now a social security review going on and a working

party that will be dealing with this question of the formula for the

Canada Assistance Plan sharing. We have been pushing as a province for

the incomes test. As I said last night, we've been successful in

achieving that test in our day-care programme; I hope we will be

equally successful in the homemaker programme.

In the broader programmes for the handicapped — social allowance,

and the Mincome — while we have from our point of view in Mincome an

incomes test, the sharing is still based on the needs test. They only

share so far. For instance, in Mincome the federal people will only

share up to $200; they won't share beyond that. We are trying to

rationalize this and this will take some time. Whether we want to go it

alone is a very costly factor. It's a 50 per cent sharing and we

recognize that we get a great deal of help in all of these programmes

from the federal government.

I think the criterion for people on handicapped is if they are able

to work. Then we look at the cash assets. When we looked at the Mincome

programme, about 70 per cent of the people had no assets at all; they

were just living on what was coming in on a pension. So we decided to

go that route.

In terms of the cases you've explained, we are very reasonable about

that one; I don't think he would have any trouble getting the pension.

The fact that he has a house really doesn't make any difference. He's

entitled to that.

I appreciated the Member's remarks about alcohol because in this

House of late we tend to get in the exotic discussion about drugs and

heroin — and that is the real problem.

In respect to the Victoria area, the commission at present is

looking at six sites, trying to select a site from six possible ones

for the detox centre. There have been an enormous number of discussions

with all ranges of people in the community: the health; the police; the

BCHIS is involved (the commission sees them regularly); the hospitals

and whoever else has any interest in this. They've met with a large

number of people.

In terms of cost, there is in the report we tabled the budget for

the commission for next year. Under the item at the very back, the

Cordova detoxification centre, the staffing will be of that order. You

will have an administrative officer, $10,000; director of medical

services, $13,000; and then nurses, orderlies, in a range. That

operation over there costs $133,000 for operating. In Victoria it would

be around $100,000.

In Vancouver we are looking at four other detox centres. But the

important thing about those detox centres is that they will relate, if

you like, to the social-economic groupings. We will not be just putting

them in the skid road area. The skid road alcoholic represents about 3

per cent and he's the one who has always had the visibility and

consequently appears to get some of the attention. But we have to look

at the other 95 to 97 per cent of the problem. In Vancouver there will

be four of them. We will put them in areas where they relate very much

to where people are and not just skid road addicts.

I notice Alderman Rankin is still pushing his 80-bed edifice. We are

not going that route; that is not a route to go. Again, we have to do

these things in small, manageable units. We can't do them in these

great massive units because they become extremely expensive and you are

not able to give the kind of attention you want to give to the patient.

You have all sorts of other problems that go on there.

I was interested in your remarks about the cost of liquor. Other

studies have shown that if you make it more expensive, then alcoholics

and the heavy drinkers will still buy it. But then they really do

damage to themselves health-wise because they spend less money on food.

They opt for that kind of thing. So there are all sorts of ways you can

go on the sanction thing in respect to alcohol.

When I travel around, I usually find myself asking people all around

this province what they pay for a bottle of whisky. I'm amazed at the

amount of money some people will pay. I'm not talking about people who

are drunks; I'm talking about people who just drink socially. It seems

that the more decrepit the area, the higher the price people pay. We

have in this province aircrafts that are on a kind of a milk run,

bringing in booze all over the place.

Looking at the price thing, I don't know; you might have an answer,

you may not. In any case, that's a question for the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) and my colleague, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald). But I don't think it really would meet the urgent problem

we're trying to deal with.

I must say that there's been extremely good cooperation among the

commission, the Health department and BCHIS on discussion of all these

matters. That all goes well for the kind of facilities we can develop.

I have been one who says if you develop the facilities in the community

where it does not necessarily become part of the medical model but is

part of the community model, that's also the way to go. A lot of the

medical work is important but then there's the followup work.

In relation to this, I didn't mention that we have now engaged Dr.

Hearn who is one of the foremost specialists in the country and was

formerly employed at the Collingwood Acres in Alberta which has done a

great deal of work. His specialty is particularly in the area the

Member asked about: the 40-day followup. That's the thing he spent a

great deal of time studying and had experience in seeing what was going

on.

[ Page 2226 ]

Then, of course, underlying all of what we're doing will be the kind

of thrust coming from the development of the training centre we are

setting up in Vancouver. People from communities can go and will be

involved, whether they are volunteers or staff people, to be trained in

the work with the drug- or alcohol-abuse people. That's where the

training will take place; that's going to be the focus. That training

is important. There will be research going on; there will be some

service going on in there; there will be alcoholics and drug addicts

going on in there. That's probably the first time perhaps in Canada

that we have such a centre where we will train people. We are talking

about community-based services and we hope that thing will be on

stream. The plans are now being developed. I think the Member has the

copy of the paper. Do you have a copy of the paper, Mr. Member? A very

important focus of this is the training part.

The battered child. We started between myself and the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) the first phase of the programme to alert the

public to the fact that we have a problem. We had a very broad

publicity campaign. That was the first phase.

The second phase was to be the publishing of a paper by Dr. Segal.

We now have the drafts which we are looking at. I hope within the next

two or three weeks that will be finalized and then we'll make it

available. That's the second phase: to get that out to the public. It

will also be accompanied by a second stage of advertising.

The third stage will be, of course, dealing with the preventive and

remedial measures for all of this. That will be closely connected with

the programme that we've developed into our department with our Special

Services to Children. Also what happens in the Health department.

We wanted to first expose the problem. That, I think, we have done.

The next stage will be the paper; the third stage will be the

preventive and remedial treatment. That will be on stream certainly

this summer.

MR. WALLACE: Could I just follow up with one last question? I

kind of missed the point, I think, when we talked so much about the

diversity of approaches to the treatment of the drug addict. I wonder

if the Minister could give some idea as to the general acceptance or

otherwise of the mandatory treatment which might be created.

We ran into some difficulty during the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald'

s) estimates as to whether we should be discussing that under

his estimates or under the estimates of the Minister of Human

Resources. We really never resolved the problem but I know I am

speaking for many parents in this city when I say that they feel very

frustrated about the inadequacy of the facilities available to them. As

the Minister well knows, they spend a few hours on the emergency

department at one of the hospitals and then they get sent back out onto

the street.

I know it's a very important question of civil liberty as to whether

a person should be restricted and lose his or her freedom for treatment

in this kind of facility. It is part of the diversity of approach which

I think is well worth trying, but you can't do it by putting them in

Wilkinson Road Jail. That's for sure. I just wonder if we're close to

the point where even a pilot project might be attempted in metropolitan

Vancouver or in Victoria over a period of a year, let us say, to

measure its worth. I'm not asking for an absolute commitment but I

think it would be very encouraging to many parents in this city at

least to know that we're moving in that direction even on an

experimental basis.

HON. MR. LEVI: I'll just answer the Member. There have been

discussions with the Attorney-General's department about the use of

what I think you characterize as "compulsory facilities." They, after

all, have incarcerated a number of people. They have that kind of

control and that is being discussed in cooperation with the Alcohol and

Drug Commission.

MR. WALLACE: I don't just mean people who have committed a crime.

HON. MR. LEVI: No, that's the first stage. The focus at the

moment that we're developing is in the voluntary aspect. We are going

to get enough trained people who want to come forward. One of the

weaknesses of the compulsory treatment argument, to me, has always

been: "Where are you going to treat them, if you do it? Where are you

going to keep people for three months?" You're not going to keep them

in the jail because that's not pleasing. Then you have to look at staff

input and I'm suggesting that if you go that route in any broad way

you're going to be looking at per diem costs of $75 to $100 per day for

patients. I kid you not, that's the kind of money you're looking at if

you're going to do the kind of work you say you want to do with them

over the period of three months.

So the first thing is that we have response from the community. You

notice in the report there is a very long list of projects that are

going on all around the province, so we have the base. We have the

involvement with the training that we can really… We have enough to do

initially with the voluntary for those people who want to come forward

on their own. There is what the Attorney-General's people want to do in

terms of people they have in custody and they can in some way have, if

you like, a compulsory conditional thing relating to parole or

[ Page 2227 ]

even related to probation after prison.

We'll be looking at this, but I think in all frankness as far as

looking at the compulsory aspect of setting up the treatments,

arrangements in the community, we're probably a year away from that

because we have to develop first the other aspect.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I've been waiting

in this debate to say a few words about a couple of problems that I

think are very important. I understand that the Minister has a bill on

the community resource boards but perhaps he'd like to indicate to us —

I don't know whether the bill covers it, I'm looking in the index and

haven't found it yet — whether or not he's going to continue the

programme to have 50 per cent of those on the boards to be users,

consumers.

HON. MR. LEVI: There is no such programme.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, is it still your view that it should

happen that way? Perhaps he could give me his view on that because it's

something which I think people are concerned about. I'm concerned about

it because it indicates that there is some sort of professional user of

Human Resources department services and I dislike the idea. I think the

idea should be to get them off the rolls of the Human Resources

department as fast as possible. Representatives who might