1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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)

FRIDAY, APRIL 30, 1976

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1277 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act (Bill 38) Mr.

Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 1277

Prospectors Assistance Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 21) Hon. Mr. Waterland.

Introduction and first reading — 1277

Statement

Details of western Premiers' conference. Hon. Mr. Bennett —

Mr. King — 1277

Mr. Gibson — 1278

Mr. Wallace — 1279

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates.

On vote 10.

Mr. King — 1279

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1280

Mr. King — 1280

Mr. Wallace — 1281

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1285

Mr. Rogers — 1287

Mrs. Wallace — 1289

Mr. Hewitt — 1291

Mr. Cocke — 1293

Mr. Rogers — 1295

Mr. Macdonald — 1295

Mr. Barber — 1295

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1296

Mr. Macdonald — 1297

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1297

Ms. Brown — 1298

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 1301

FRIDAY, APRIL 30, 1976

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this

morning is a Mr. Rick Palmer. Mr. Palmer is principal of Project 15 in

my constituency, and he has with him two students. I would like the

House to make them welcome please.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I, too,

would like to ask the House to acknowledge the presence of a number of

old friends of mine, colleagues I might say, who are here on behalf of

the B.C. Recreation Association to attend a conference entitled

"Outlook on Leisure." Their coming at this particular time to the

Legislature is of particular interest, and I understand that the hon.

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) helped them to open their

event yesterday.

I would just like to mention a few of the people who I believe are

in the gallery, I hope: my ex-assistant, Mrs. Coleen Roberts. Also I

hope that Mr. Marshall Smith is here and O'Margarette Shegehiro and

Bill Cook. I also understand that Ethel Oliver is in the galleries and

on and on. There are many of them. I think the Empress Hotel is

certainly being blessed with the presence of these fine recreationists,

and I hope that they will have a very good stay in Victoria and will be

joining us again soon for further observations as we carry on the

people's business.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, seated in the

galleries today is a group of students from Lake Trail Junior Secondary

School in Courtenay. They are accompanied by their teacher Terry

Jarvis, and I would ask the House to make them welcome this morning.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to bid welcome to a very old friend and associate of mine, Mr. Bruce Lepetich.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS

AND EMPLOYEES DISCLOSURE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Macdonald, Bill 38,

An Act to Amend the Public

Officials and Employees Disclosure Act, 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.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): It's too late, Alex.

PROSPECTORS ASSISTANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Waterland, Bill 21, Prospectors Assistance

Amendment Act, 1976, 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.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a short statement and table documents.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to know

that in tabling these five documents today...that, as a new Premier

meeting for the first time with my counterparts in Western Canada, the

experience of developing a western regional approach to some of our

Canadian problems was an indication to me of people coming together for

a positive purpose that could be extended to the national scene with

great benefit to all Canadians.

While all different parts of our country will continue to have

different points of view and while in some areas of public policy we

can be expected to hold differences and in some things even be

competitive, the search for things which unite us is the most important

thing of all. I would particularly like to emphasize to members of this

House that at no time in our history have issues on the national scene

been of such consequence to Canadians.

Our constitution is again up for review. All of the financial

arrangements which bind the federal government to the provinces are up

for review in this current year. Never before have so many of these

financial arrangements been on the negotiating table at the same time.

I'd just point out that the results of these negotiations will affect

the provinces for at least five years, and for between five to 10 years

the results of these negotiations may extend to future governments.

That's why they are of such importance at this time. Therefore when you

review these five documents I am sure you will be pleased to know that

the four western Premiers on this important question of financial

distribution in our country came away from the conference with a

unanimous position. I think it's fair to say that at no time has the

western region been able to display such a common concern about the

financial arrangements which exist between the federal government and

the provinces.

As you know, in a preliminary way I will be meeting in Ottawa on May 6 and June 14 to discuss

[ Page 1278 ]

the important questions covered by these

communiques. I'm sure that the House will appreciate the significance

of the paper on fiscal arrangements, setting out as it does a point of

view expressed by the governments of the four Canadian provinces.

I'm pleased to report as well that the conference accepted the

British Columbia position that on the economic front the four western

provinces have more to gain by working together than they do in going

separate ways, while still allowing some competition.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We've accepted a common position on the

matter of tariffs. We accepted the need for a common approach to

transportation so our west coast ports can play their

part in

developing an expanded Canadian trade position on the Pacific Rim.

In addition, the western Premiers agreed to establish educational

and research facilities on a cooperative basis, without competition in

this regard. It should be possible to establish in western Canada

facilities of excellence which by common consent can be located in a

single part of the region. These would relate to the development in

some of our resource and secondary industries.

These are but a few of the positive areas of cooperation which were

developed out of the paper presented by British Columbia to this

conference.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, the western premiers, over the period of

two days, established a working arrangement for solving regional

problems. I look forward to extending this kind of dialogue that we had

in Medicine Hat onto the national scene. I firmly believe that the

future of this country will be better served if elected governments

seek to give emphasis to those things which unite us, rather than

search for those things in which we can divide.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I want to thank the Premier for his statement and just make a few observations.

I'm pleased to learn that the new Social Credit administration is

continuing the cooperation that was developed between the four western

provinces by the NDP government over the last three years. Indeed, the

cooperation that the Premier has outlined should involve itself and

should exist not only with respect to first ministers, but with respect

to all departments of government. I would point out that that certainly

was the case under our administration.

We had, on a departmental basis in various departments, developed

common education and research facilities funded through the cooperation

of the western provinces, and, in some cases, on a national basis, so

it is possible. I certainly encourage the spirit of cooperation in

terms of finding those things of mutual interest and concern to all

Canadian citizens, and trying to develop problem-solving approaches on

a non-partisan basis rather than drifting apart on issues for the sake

of politics.

I note that the Premier did not mention federal funds for subsidy to

the British Columbia ferry system. I certainly hope that is one of the

things which he will push for in his continuing dialogue with the

federal government. I hope the Premier will, in the spirit of

cooperation which he apparently has with the four western provinces,

elicit their support for a common western approach to the federal

government for assistance with our ferry systems in British Columbia,

which are an extension of highways, and which is recognized in the

Atlantic provinces and should also be recognized in the province of

British Columbia. I hope that's something he will take into

consideration and push aggressively for in months to come.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

thank the Premier for his statement. I was delighted to see his

emphasis on those things that unite us, and if legislation this session

could be limited to those things, we could get out of here very quickly.

I would congratulate him on maintaining the general western common

cause that has been brought together. Just looking very quickly at the

communiques, the search for a means of having public ownership of

railroad beds, I think, is an excellent initiative. The general

insistence on maintaining provincial jurisdiction against recent

federal incursions is a thing that always must be advanced by this

House and other provincial governments.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Oh, they're very quiet about that.

MR. GIBSON: In the paper on economic strategy there are a

number of good thoughts. I would mention in particular the insistence

of the provinces — which I support — in having input into the GATT

negotiations, and I hope generally pushing towards a freer trade in

this province. We would support as well any quest for the best fiscal

arrangements that the western provinces can get, because they aren't

entirely satisfactory at the moment.

Neither the communiques nor the Premier's statement, as far as I

could see, mentioned any results of the meeting with the Premier of

Alberta (Hon. Mr. Lougheed) on the subject of Pacific Western Airlines.

It may be that we shall hear further on that. I hope and trust that the

Premier pressed British Columbia's case vigorously on that. We should

make it clear we

[ Page 1279 ]

would regard any attempt to move that head office

as an unfriendly act, in my opinion, and take counter-measures. It

would be analogous to our purchasing Alberta Gas Trunk and moving the

head office to Vancouver. I would suggest in particular that British

Columbia should make it clear that there be absolutely no move until

the supreme court hears the case in the fall. I trust that the Premier

was vigorous in his representation to the Premier of Alberta on this

point.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'll try not to make this sound

like the end-of-the-week motherhood speech. First of all, Mr. Speaker,

I certainly would congratulate the positive, constructive approach

which the Premier obviously has taken, not only in regard to the issues

but in regard to the fact that if Confederation means anything, then

provinces should certainly be able to build strength from the issues on

which they agree, and try to find solutions on the issues where there

are differences. On that theme I couldn't be more supportive or more

convinced that that's the right way to go.

However, some of the issues are certainly not mentioned in the

report. Frequently in debates in this House we hear that transportation

and tariffs are the two outstanding reasons that British Columbia has

difficulty in diversifying its economy.

While I don't for a moment suggest that the Premier could come out

of his first meeting with something definite and concise in this

regard, in the few years I've been in politics I'm really quite sick

and tired of reading the same old guff coming out of these meetings all

the time — that, of course, we've got a breakthrough because our four

western provinces are working together. So while I support, in the

strongest terms, the Premier's basic concept and conviction that we

should work in strong cooperation among the four western provinces, I

have to be frank and say that I'll be very much happier when I see

action rather than words.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 10: minister's office, $88,952 — continued.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): On vote 10, Mr.

Chairman, there are a number of things I wanted to put to the

Attorney-General. I have had some communication with the

Attorney-General previously regarding the problem of citizens who, in a

variety of circumstances, are moved to give evidence and lay charges

which are in general support of the legal system.

There was one notorious one that happened one or two years ago where

a group of hunters were harassed by a big-game guide. I think to some

extent the illegal use of weapons was involved in the harassment to try

to discourage British Columbia citizens, hunters as it were, from

exercising their full rights of access to the area designated to a

big-game hunting guide. In this case the harassment was severe, extreme

and certainly illegal.

The hunters in question — although the misdemeanor or whatever you

would categorize it as happened in a very remote area of the province

in the far north — did the right thing as citizens of the province and

filed a complaint and were, of course, required to appear at court

proceedings to testify. Due to appeals and due to the variety, I

believe, of charges involved, they were required to travel from

interior points of the province to far northern areas on a variety of

occasions to testify — all, of course, without any recompense

whatsoever.

The point is: in certain circumstances such as those, the cost to

the citizen in seeing that justice is done becomes very, very high

indeed. The personal cost becomes very high because there's no

recompense for time lost from their employment. I understand there is

no travel expense. Perhaps there is some accommodation expense, I'm not

sure of that.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Yes there is, and they take care of the expense of bringing them up and back, too.

MR. KING: The travel expenses are covered, okay. But in any

event, certainly the loss of employment time is not covered, and in

many situations that can be quite significant.

Now I appreciate the difficulty of the system of justice in any way

providing recompense to a witness who's appearing in a case. It could

be viewed as perhaps some kind of an inducement to act at the Crown's

behest, but it seems to me there are possible alternatives to the

victims of violent crimes, and perhaps such an agency as that could

find some compensation, could be funded by the government to offer

compensation where a citizen does his legal duty and reports crimes,

lays charges and is subsequently required to appear on a variety of

occasions to, in effect, support the legal system of the land and make

sure that justice is done.

Now it's in everyone's interest that citizens do this. In the case I

cited earlier, were people able to get away with the kind of conduct

the big-game guide people indulged in, that poses a threat to the

rights of

[ Page 1280 ]

all citizens of this province. I think when the

citizens react by seeking legal recourse and being prepared to testify

and offer evidence as to what occurred, then it seems to me that they

shouldn't be subjected to undue personal hardship and undue personal

cost.

I understand it's somewhat delicate for the Attorney-General's

department per se to provide compensation, but I wonder whether the

Attorney-General has considered and discussed with cabinet, perhaps,

the possibility of providing some kind of fund like the concept that's

held in the victim of violent crimes fund, something of that nature,

perhaps with a committee...

HON. MR. GARDOM: Discretionary?

MR. KING: Perhaps discretionary.

...perhaps with some committee to make judgments in terms of the

validity and the equity as regards dispensation of those funds. This is

something that, I think, could be done without great cost, really.

Perhaps the demand is not all that frequent, but when it is there it is

terribly important. I think it should be recognized, and I think our

people should be protected.

Certainly one constituent of mine was subjected to really extreme

personal hardship. He was a small business operator who operated

machinery and equipment. When he was required to travel to a far

northern point and spend some time there, it was not only a matter of

losing his personal labour; it was also a matter of equipment lying

idle and the cost of seeing that justice was done, which he should be

commended for. It was an extremely high personal expense to him. In

those kinds of situations, I think with some ingenuity and some

willingness to recognize that kind of problem, the government can come

to grips with it. I'd like to hear the Attorney-General's reaction.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to thank the member, not only for

his remarks today but for bringing the case in question to my

attention. It was one that occurred during the former administration

and, as you clearly indicated to the House, it is a difficult problem.

You have also very clearly indicated to the House that it is the duty

and responsibility of citizenship to give evidence. I have always felt

that we could do better than we have done in society to see that these

people are not put into hardship which, in many cases, they are.

Independent organizations, as you are aware, are now taking up a great

deal of the slack. In some of the union agreements there is provision

for people who give evidence to receive the equivalent of their day's

pay.

I'll take the matter under consideration and I wish to thank the

member for the points he has raised. The interesting one is, perhaps,

whether or not there could be a discretionary fund to take care of the

severe situations. But I don't think we can really say, as a society in

the field of administration of justice, that one will be indemnified

for all costs as a result of giving evidence in a trial under subpoena.

This is one of the bulwarks of democracy. It is one of the

responsibilities. It's one of the prices that we have to pay for living

in a democratic society.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Attorney-General's

remarks and I certainly agree that it is a duty as a citizen to ensure

that the law is enforced. However, I think everyone in the House knows

very well that citizens at times are dissuaded from doing the kinds of

things they should do in terms of unholding the law. I think everyone

is familiar with stories that have spread across the North American

continent in recent years about citizens standing back in the face of

crimes being conducted before their very eyes simply because they did

not want to become involved, whether it were beatings, muggings, rapes

and so on. The cost and the fear of getting involved dissuaded a number

of people, and that is a dangerous trend in society. It's one that I am

sure we would not want to encourage in this province. It's somewhat

different in terms of what I am talking about.

I think the Attorney-General will recognize that when an individual

meets the kind of personal penalty, one might say, that my constituent

did, and where he is in a small village — in fact, a number of people

were involved, one from Nakusp, and one from Trail — then that story

becomes pretty well known around that territory. The consequence may

well be that when fellow citizens see the very high cost that their

neighbours were subjected to for doing the right thing and fulfilling

their obligations as citizens, they themselves might be a good deal

more reticent in terms of following suit and doing the proper thing

also in the future.

I think we have a duty not only to expect that citizens will do the

right thing, but also to try to provide guidelines to give assistance

which will ensure they are not subjected to unusually difficult

circumstances in terms of living up to those obligations. I wouldn't

say cruel and unusual punishment have been concepts developed on the

basis of that very phrase of late. It just indicates that concepts of

law, the needs of society, are constantly changing. I think, in today's

society, the case which I have outlined is one that should be

recognized by the Crown, and some provision, as I say, with ingenuity

and a bit of willingness to recognize the problem, could really not

only assuage hardship to individuals but guarantee that in the future

the price for seeing that justice is done will not be beyond any

citizen of the province.

[ Page 1281 ]

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to touch

on a few of the more important general issues that come under the

Attorney-General's department, and yet try not to be repetitious of

many of the points that have already been made.

I do believe that if there is one department that has more

opportunity to correct some of the injustices that are suffered by the

women in our society, it would have to be the Attorney-General's

department. I know there are many other issues in the Departments of

Health and of Human Resources, where changes are overdue, but I think

in any modern society the leadership has to come from the

Attorney-General's department in the form of legislation of various

kinds which shows a sense of conviction by that department and that

government that there are many changes required in the law relating to

women.

Again, I would refer to the report of the Attorney-General's

department, which makes it very plain that the Attorney-General is a

somewhat unique member of cabinet. Because he is the upholder of

justice and dedicated to providing equality before the law for all

citizens, he has a higher challenge than any other cabinet minister to

rise above political commitments, even although, as a member elected

under a party label, he, like the rest of us, has a loyalty and

obligation to the party he represents.

The point is well made, I think, in the report of the

Attorney-General's department, that there has to be a pre-eminent

commitment to justice for all the people of the province, regardless of

which particular party the Attorney-General happens to be representing.

I know the Attorney-General is well aware of this, and I think many of

his responses already in this debate have made that very clear.

So the few comments I want to make relate to that first basic

premise, that we're not here, as the minister said last night, to score

political points; we're here to try as 55 supposedly enlightened

individuals — I almost used the word "intelligent" for a moment there —

to put forward constructive ideas and try to build a better system of

justice for everyone.

I think women and members of the Indian race are two groups that are

highly discriminated against, and I hope that this government, in the

next three or four years of its regime, will bring about some of the

enterprising and innovative legislation to deal with some of these

problems.

The first matter that really concerns me is, as yet, a lack of

defined policy as to how the minister will deal with the financial

restrictions of legal aid. Because I have discussed this with some of

my colleagues in the legal profession and they tell me that as soon as

this kind of system is cut back the first people to suffer are the

underprivileged.

Since many cases involve matrimonial and family problems, divorce

problems, wife-beating, et cetera, it is the opinion of several of the

lawyers I've talked with that the first group in society that is going

to suffer from restricted legal aid is women. Quite often the husband,

because he is earning, is able to employ a lawyer. But so often the

wife, or the woman concerned in the case, is unrepresented. In the

minds of the practising legal men, there is no doubt that in these

cases the women are often discriminated against and receive less than

fair decisions from the legal proceedings.

It also, of course, often involves the custody of children and,

under these circumstances, poor decisions in the court are just as

likely to result, perhaps, in the woman being on welfare or further

family disputes, and often wrong decisions, I understand, lead to

considerable trouble in regaining custody of children.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, if the whole concept of legal aid

means anything at all, it means that it should be available to those

persons who, for financial reasons, would otherwise not be represented

by legal counsel.

The Liberal leader yesterday raised the question of how the

Attorney-General felt the financial restrictions should be viewed in

relation to those cases that will still receive legal aid. I know that

there was a conference of lawyers at Harrison Hot Springs not so long

ago, and Judge Bewley, I believe, made some very scathing and negative

comments about the abuse of legal aid. Apparently the British Columbia

journal — I believe it's called The Advocate ,

that is printed by the Law Society of British Columbia — doesn't seem

quite to agree with the fact that, although there may be, as indeed

there are, certain abuses, legal aid as such is a much desired and very

basic requirement in British Columbia.

I'd like to quote just one sentence from The Advocate ,

which states: "We must not overreact to all these mournful

bombinations". I'm not sure what that word means, actually.

"Bombinations" — that must be a legal word, or does it mean abomination?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It must have been a Victoria lawyer who wrote that. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, the key sentence is this:

"In all this adverse publicity it is vital to remember

what is the purpose of legal aid. It is to provide the opportunity of a

defence to poor people who cannot afford lawyers, so that a defence

will be available to rich and poor alike, thus attempting to assure

that everybody is equal before the law. It is the least a civilized

community can do in justice to its citizenry."

That would seem to me to be the guiding principle, and yet from the

minister's comments and from other comments I've read in the press by

others

[ Page 1282 ]

involved in the legal aid issue, there seems to be

a feeling that the money that is available will be provided to those

who are facing the most serious charges. I think that is completely

wrong.

Now I may not be accurate in stating that this is what will happen,

because I gather the nature of the situation is fluid at the moment,

and until different regions of the province become clearer as to what

money will be available, these hard decisions have not yet been made.

But I detect a trend in comments I have read, and from the kind of

concern of the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) yesterday, that there will

be a tendency not to relate, as was the original intent, the help to

those most in financial need, but to those who, if found guilty, would

face a more severe sentence.

The reason I make the early point about the discrimination against

women is that in many of the cases where legal aid — or where, rather,

representation of the woman in the case — has tremendous ramifications

in relation to the family and the marriage and the children, the

sentence or the decision on the face of the issue might not be severe,

but the social and family impact can be very severe. I don't personally

feel, if decisions are to be made in relation to the seriousness of the

charge, that that completely denies the basic purpose of legal aid.

Of course, the critical comments that I refer to are based on the

fact that even certain lawyers are abusing legal aid, and in many cases

where a more appropriate plea would be "guilty" the lawyer advises the

client to plead "not guilty" so that the case can go to trial. The

implication, if not the accusation, is that it is done for the

financial gain of the lawyer.

On the other hand, I read that the legal aid is $100 a day — and the

deputy minister looks a little puzzled. I may have the wrong figure,

but this is what I am reading from. The other side of the argument is

that a lawyer will not really flourish very well in the present time of

inflation and high overhead costs at $100 a day as a legal aid lawyer.

So like any progressive system that is being developed to try and

solve the very difficult problem of justice for all, there are bound to

be problems. You can't satisfy everybody, and I suppose, as the

minister said the other day, there never will be enough money to

provide all the legal aid that might justifiably be necessary.

I don't know how often I've said in this House there will never be

all the money to do all the things for health care in this province

that we would like to see, so what really is so important is that we

try to discriminate — and I use that word in, I hope, the best sense —

use a discriminating sense of the real purpose of legal aid when we

have to provide it to some and not to others.

I just finish on this note by saying that I hope it will not be

decided on the severity of the offence or the likely severity of the

sentence, but on justifying the circumstances financially in regard to

the person seeking legal aid.

I also read back in January that Chief Justice Nemetz had made the

statement that there was need for more of the court reporters, clerks

and people in the court system. At that time the report was that there

were 46 administrative vacancies in the Vancouver court system — I'm

quoting from a report of January 30.

Chief Justice Nemetz also mentioned at that time the need for more

judges dealing with drug-trafficking offences, and on that point I

think it is again fair to congratulate the efforts of the Co-ordinated

Law Enforcement Unit. I would like to say how very revealing and

educational it is to read-'-the second annual report of the.... At

least, it's not the annual report; I guess it is the second report of

the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit.

I am a little disturbed, Mr. Chairman, that one of the consequences

of their success seems to be that quite naturally more individuals are

appearing in court on drug charges. In some of these cases where the

individuals are fairly high in the hierarchy of the drug scene we have

unavoidably long trials. Now people are getting all upset in society

because of the cost of these trials and the cost of defence and the use

of legal aid lawyers to defend drug traffickers. I just have to say,

Mr. Chairman, that really society can't have it both ways.

For years, quite justifiably, the people of British Columbia have

been demanding more effective action against drug traffickers. The

Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit was set up to try and increase the

incidence of convictions of these very people, but the actual legal

process involved in doing it has created an increase in trials and an

increase, perhaps, in the length of these trials. But as far as I can

see, you just can't have your cake and eat it as well. If you want to

try and find these offenders and give them the same access to justice

in the courts, then it is going to involve cost and time.

I would like to ask the Attorney-General a specific question on that point. I hope he's not preoccupied with other....

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry. I didn't hear your last point.

MR. WALLACE: I was making the point that I don't see how

society can have it both ways, that if they want to catch more drug

offenders the drug offenders are entitled to their day in court like

anyone else. If it happens to take longer than other offences, so be

it. The specific question is — it's not my question, it's from nobody

less than the chief justice of the province who stated that there

should be more judges appointed to deal with the increasing

[ Page 1283 ]

number of drug-trafficking offences. When the minister responds I would be interested to know if, in fact, he has that in mind.

That leads into the whole question of wiretapping. I understand that

one of the court cases that is still pending involved 1,000 hours of

taped telephone conversation. I really don't imagine it would make too

much difference if it was 1,000 or 2,000 but once again it makes the

point that it is only wiretapping evidence that has made some of these

arrests possible, as I understand it from press reports.

So once again, society wants a more sophisticated police approach —

an investigative approach to the very serious drug problems and

trafficking in drugs. If you want to find the offender and you want to

put him behind bars and one of the sophisticated devices happens to be

wiretapping, then the consequences of a longer court trial is just

something that we have to face as society.

I hear, Mr. Chairman, the other day that we also have a problem in

regard to wiretapping evidence. I'd like the minister's answer on this

one. I gather that technically the case has been put that unless an

attorney of the federal Department of Justice makes the initial

application to wiretap, the validity of the wiretapping evidence can be

questioned in court.

I realize that this is technically very much a technical legal

point, but I think it would be very important that if the investigative

units and the police spend days and weeks and months finally bringing

an accused person to trial based on wiretapping evidence and then the

evidence is thrown out of court because the application was not made in

a proper manner — application for permission to wiretap — then this

would be a tremendous waste of public money. I understand that there

has been at least one case — I'm not sure if it has been resolved. I

think Justice...was the judge involved where he was asked to reject the

wiretapping evidence....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Is this in front of the court now?

MR. WALLACE: No, I think he made the decision that, in fact,

the application to wiretap had not been properly done in accordance

with the law.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry, Mr. Member. I didn't wish to

interrupt you but if it's a matter in front of the court I would prefer

you not to refer to it. If it's a matter that's been decided, fine and

dandy.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I'm not

certain of its precise state at the moment so I will talk in general

terms, the general terms being that permission, as the minister has

pointed out in his recent report the other day, to wiretap comes under

the federal legislation. But I understand that provincial attorneys

have applied for permission to wiretap, have been given that permission

and have subsequently wanted to use evidence. There is some question

about the technical validity of the evidence since, on the suggestion

that any application should involve an attorney of the federal

Department of Justice, and possibly both a federal and a provincial

attorney.

The only point I'm trying to make is that if we go through all this

business of weeks and months of investigation and you finally nail one

of these offenders and you get him into court, then on a technical

point the evidence is not good, we've spent hundreds of thousands of

taxpayers' dollars to no avail.

I listened with great interest last night to the debate on the

importance of rape as an increasingly frequent crime in our society and

I just want to, in a very brief way, say that I sympathize with the

comments that were made and I want to state my appreciation of the

Attorney-General's commitment to find more money for the rape-relief

centres.

I think one or two points were missed in the debate last night which

might put it a little more in balance. I detected a very negative note

as though we really were still living in the dark ages. I'm just as

convinced as everybody else in this House that we have a long way to

go. I'm the last person to be contented with the current performance of

the federal Liberal government.

To be fair, I think we should make in this debate about rape and

rape relief and the role of law enforcement.... The federal government

as recently as last week passed amendments to the...at least they

passed what was called the Criminal Law Amendment Act. This has

substantially changed and corrected some of the very serious defects of

the pre-existing law and is much.... For example, you cannot publish

the identity of the rape victim after this legislation was passed. In

the trial the defending lawyer no longer has the right to cross-examine

the victim about her past conduct and general character. Beyond even

that, the old-fashioned approach to rape that there had to be

corroborating evidence by another witness, has also been abandoned and

the kind of evidence that is produced is to be regarded in the same

light as any other trial. In other words, there has to be proof beyond

a reasonable doubt.

So it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that in light of some of the very

reasonable concerns that were expressed last night about the unfair

treatment of the rape victim, at last we are making some, albeit

overdue and perhaps slow, progress in the legal field. But I would have

to give the federal Liberals that much credit at least. They've

responded to some of these points that have quite legitimately been

raised in this House and elsewhere and the attitude to....

[ Page 1284 ]

Perhaps for many years, as the Attorney-General says.

One of the points that I think might have been overlooked last

night too in trying to determine how dollars might be spent through the

use of rape-relief centres is the fact that if the problem is dealt

with more adequately at the time it occurs there are many costs that

are avoided further down the road. I'm thinking particularly of the

follow-up medical management of rape victims. As it was pointed out in

the debate last night, many of these victims suffer a very substantial

degree of emotional trauma which persists for some considerable time,

which very often involves a substantial demand on the services of the

family physician and psychiatrists and others.

Of course that is something, Mr. Chairman, that doesn't show up

clearly as a dollar cost. But not too long ago in the budget speech we

were told about the dramatic increase in the costs of medicare, and so

many of the victims of rape, as I mentioned, subsequently require a

fair amount of family physician and psychiatric attention, the costs of

which are all just included in the total bill for medicare.

Whereas if

sympathetic kind of support is available to the victim at the time of

the offence and immediately thereafter, it seems to me that this is a

preventive kind of service which shouldn't just be measured in terms of

the budget, the absolute number of dollars made available to

rape-relief centres. It should be viewed as a measure which prevents

further cost to the health services of the province by providing help

and support and sympathy at a time when it is most needed.

Many of these other points I think are very important, and from the

medical point of view I certainly appreciate the suggestions put

forward by the Status of Women that hospitals should try to have at

least one private room or some separate room available for a person

awaiting investigation and examination at a hospital emergency

department. I can't think of anything more negative in its effects on a

woman than sitting in a large waiting room in a large general hospital,

with people coming out and in with cuts and wounds, broken limbs and

heart attacks. Quite often there is inevitably a wait since one can't

always find a physician right away. I think some measure of privacy is

something that hospitals might consider, and it would be an initiative

showing that this whole question of rape isn't just a question of law;

it involves all arms of community services — the physician, the Human

Resources department, involves education and a vast array of other arms

of community services.

In that regard there's also another point where I appreciate the

minister's response last night — that perhaps the sharing of costs

would be very appropriate if it involved Health, Human Resources and

Education, because a great deal of the hardship that rape victims have

suffered in the past could perhaps have been reduced or minimized if we

had all taken more of a leadership role and educated the public and our

young people, as they grow up, about some of the facts rather than the

myths that we've heard a great deal about.

The concept of having female physicians available, either on

contract to police departments or on a fee-for-service basis, surely

has to be one of the most obvious and reasonable proposals that anyone

could put forward.

I was just wanting to touch briefly on the other discriminated

groups that I feel the Attorney-General should be saying something

about, and that's the high incidence of Indians in our jails. I've seen

various figures published, but it seems to average around 70 per cent

of all the people in our jails are members of the Indian race.

I, again, don't suggest that any particular government can solve

that overnight, because, as the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)

pointed out so eloquently last night, we spend a lot of our time at the

back end of the problem, dealing with the consequences of pre-existing

conditions. If unemployment is high among any group in society, and

poverty is high, then one can almost predict with certainty that their

involvement with the law will be higher than other groups who are

living in a greater degree of affluence. So I realize that the

pre-existing social conditions have a great deal to do with the end

result. Nevertheless, the Attorney-General's report does show some

optimism. I think it's on page 40 that it talks about native programmes

and the attempt to involve, on a wider basis, court workers and others

who themselves are native Indians, and advising and assisting those

that come in conflict with the law.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have 2 minutes, Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you. I want to finish on one note, at the

moment, as to the minister's, I think, unfortunate attitude toward

hockey violence. I think the minister's statement that it should be

settled by the officials in the hockey leagues is just great — if it

worked. But it's not working when we have to see this kind of headline:

"They're Going to Have to Kill Someone," meaning that until somebody

gets killed on the ice there will be no real substantial measure taken

to control hockey violence.

Now I love watching hockey, as much as any converted Scotsman could,

but sometimes to watch the kind of fight that erupts on the arena...and

not just a moment of passion, Mr. Chairman. I've seen, as we've all

seen, one individual first pulling another person's jersey over his

head. Then long after the initial moment of real anger has passed, he's

still pounding away at that other person's head. This, Mr.

[ Page 1285 ]

Chairman, goes far beyond any justification at all.

To say that we'd better leave the hockey officials to settle their

own difficulties.... It isn't even enough to eject somebody from the

game. As the Attorney-General said, that is not enough. If I'm

misquoting the Attorney-General, I'm sure he'll correct me.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, you're not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, just one concluding statement; your time has expired.

MR. WALLACE: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it's such an important issue that I'll deal with it at a later time.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I'd like to thank the member for his very valuable contribution this morning.

Concerning legal aid, I would again draw to the attention of the

hon. member the remarks that I did make in a fairly extensive answer to

a question during question period back on April 1. But I think it's

useful for the members of the House to realize where the province of

British Columbia, under three administrations, has gone vis-à-vis legal

aid: in 1970, $221,000 was spent; the next year, $594,000; in 1972,

$858,000; 1973, $1,161,000; 1974, $1,850,000; then in 1975, a

considerable increase to $3.737 million. So you see, from 1970 we have

moved, as a province, from $220,000 to $3.7 million. Now the Legal

Services Commission — which I really would think could be discussed

under that vote, but it's raised and I'll be happy to refer to it —

under the Legal Services Commission there is this year a vote of $7

million.

Essentially that money is for legal aid — the whole amount of money,

however you look at it. The bulk of it — about $5.1 million — is for

the Legal Aid Society. Native court workers, which is the legal-aid

programme: $450,000. Native programmes: $268,000. Information,

education and training, which is preventative medicine in the sense of

legal aid: $255,000. Community law offices: $725,300. Commissioners and

administration: $201,700. Apart from that, the Law Foundation,

hopefully, will be putting in a figure of approximately half a million

dollars. So you can have comfort in this, Mr. Member, that we have

moved as a province from $220,000 to about $7.5 million in the space of

six years. I think that's progress. I really do.

I'd also like to mention something about the federal contribution.

According to the figures I've been given, $54 million-odd was spent in

legal aid in Canada last year. The federal contribution was $10

million. The per capita contribution of the federal government to

British Columbia, under the proposed agreement — which I've informed

the members is not finished.... I cannot see that figure changing.

That's been pretty clearly emphasized. I tend to think that figure's

not negotiable save and except I hope that they will be advancing some

assistance to administration. That has been indicated, and we're

working on that, trying to get a better deal for people in B.C. The 75

cents per capita is what the federal government is contributing, and

yet our cost in B.C. is roughly $3 per capita. So unless my arithmetic

is pretty bad the federal government is paying 25 per cent legal aid,

and the province is paying 75 per cent.

Mr. Member, I'm going to have to reiterate a

point that I've made before, and it's not going to be palatable to

everybody: we cannot, under the priorities that we have today, have

completely open-ended legal aid. I've stressed that, and that's a fact

of life. We're just going to have to live with it. It's not only

British Columbia; it's the federal government and other provinces that

are also looking at what specific offences have to be defended

vis-a-vis the legal aid process, according to the federal agreement,

and a new look has been taken at that.

I mentioned last night — I think I've said this two or three times

and I don't wish to take the time of the House repeating it — that

there are different schools of thought. It may take a couple of years

or three or four years to get this thing properly ironed out, but

should we definitely go ahead and give legal aid for repeaters? There

are some people in society, as we all know, who have never ever had any

conflict with the law. There are other people who have repetitious

conflicts with the law, and the people who've been in front of the

court six or seven or eight times. Maybe he should learn his lesson.

And I don't think that's bad logic. I don't think that's illogical.

Also, should we be giving legal aid in every kind of a case? Should

legal aid be given in the case of impaired driving? We talked about

drinking-driving last night and it was unanimous agreement within the

House that the thing is still off the rails, We've only been in here

for three months — this hasn't happened overnight, you know. Would it

be a fair caveat to tell the public in B.C.: "If you are caught

drinking in the road, my friend, don't come to the public purse for

legal aid."? I see there's some support for that. Maybe that's a good

point.

Now dealing with the hirings, I'm very happy to inform the members

the court services — clerks, court reporters, sheriffs, and so on.... I

don't want to miss anybody who goes through the litany of the people

involved, but requisitions are out for 68 people more. We've done that

in February and I think that's an accomplishment. I think the

government should be commended for that.

Concerning the wiretapping point you raised, the officials of our

department in the field of criminal jurisprudence, and those in the

federal government and in all of the departments of the Attorney-General

[ Page 1286 ]

across the province, are aware of the problems you have raised. It's

a very valid one and it is one that's going to be looked at and,

hopefully, a resolution will be coming downstream before too very long.

We're not unaware of the point, but I do thank the member very much for

again bringing it to my attention, and I'm most hopeful that this will

be one of the items that will be on the agenda when the provincial

Attorneys-General and the Minister of Justice meet in British Columbia

later on in June.

Hockey? The instructions of the Department of the Attorney-General

have not altered under the new government. They're the same as they

were under the former government, and the instructions are that the law

is to be enforced. If there are transgressions of the law on the rink,

the law will be enforced.

I really and truly would like to say a couple of things about this

because it's distressed me considerably. I would welcome, again, all

members to take a look at the very fine report that was prepared by Mr.

McMurtry, who is the brother of the Attorney-General of Ontario. It is

a first-class report. It's good reading. It really is. He had a very

interesting commission, saw a number of witnesses, and he certainly

came out with the hard points. It's been ignored, and I continue to

feel it's a sad thing in a contemporary society when you have to call

upon police and prosecutors to monitor a sport. I think that's rotten.

I think that's just a criticism of our society. Those people should be

able to clean their own house, but, if they're not going to clean their

own house, society has to respond. It's appalling, in my view, for that

sport to put the governments of this country into this kind of position.

Now I again feel, from some knowledge of athletics, although I

didn't play too much hockey as a kid — I did a little — I still feel

that had they brought in the one rule that if you fight you are out of

the game, period, that would be a great improvement. If we then start

building up the fines, we are not going to have to have police and

prosecutors at games. We're going to have to do that.

God damn it, we're sick, if you'll pardon my bad language. I withdraw. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: As a society, we are, Mr. Chairman. It's just not

proper. I read Bobby Hull's remark a couple of days ago and I

thoroughly agree with what he said. I read Mr. Campbell's remarks a few

days ago and I thoroughly disagree with what he said.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. I want to clarify

the comments I made about legal aid. I never talked for a moment about repeaters,

and I don't want to leave any impression at all that I favour the idea of

people....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: No, I know you didn't say that, but I just want

to get it on the record, very clearly, that what I am talking about is

the fact that it has been made plain.... I agree with the minister that

money doesn't grow on trees, but it's been made plain that everybody

who should qualify for legal aid will not be able to get it. That's the

point. The point I'm making, very clearly, is that there have been

suggestions.... There was one statement in the press that the

Attorney-General had been informed by the legal-aid people that the

primary option would be to shut off the legal aid in family matters.

Now I just want the Attorney-General to tell me, and tell the House:

is that fact or is the report I am reading from inaccurate? I think

that if there isn't enough money to cover all the needs of legal aid,

then I think it would be very wrong if the first particular

section of

society to be penalized were families, or women in particular, for the

reasons I outlined in my comments. The husband is earning a wage; the

woman can't afford a lawyer. If there isn't legal aid available, not

only is it an injustice to the woman concerned but, as I say, it leads

to all kinds of other problems down the road affecting property,

custody of children and a lot of other things. I am referring to advice

and comments I have had from practising members of the legal profession

who tell me this will be one of the very direct and early consequences

if legal aid, basically, is removed or drastically cut back in relation

to cases in court involving the family. Far be it from me to suggest

that Jack Wasserman is any kind of prophet or legal expert but,

nevertheless, I would like a comment, with respect, and then I'll shut

up for the rest of the day if necessary.

But, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, I would like

to know whether or not the Attorney-General has received any report

from persons in the legal-aid system suggesting that the first option

should be to shut off the legal aid or reduce legal aid in dealing with

family matters and close down the legal aid head office. The statement

is made in the Wasserman column of April 21 that if the legal-aid

service is continued on its present scale, it will be completely broke

by October 30. Now that's a specific assertion. Granted, we don't know

the final financial arrangement with the federal government, but

supposing the minister is correct that they are not going to increase

their share, could he tell us the answers to these two questions: has

there been any suggestion that the first area of restriction should be

in family law, family court cases, and, secondly, is it true that the

fund would be gone by October 30 if all the present applicants

continued to receive legal aid regardless of the nature of the offences?

[ Page 1287 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's a suggestion that has been made and

that's the reason we are attempting to scrounge for some more dollars,

but maybe not necessarily through the government.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, under the

Attorney-General's department comes the liquor administration branch,

and, on behalf of the consumers of this province, I would like to bring

up a few points that I think are worthwhile noting, specifically to do

with the consumption of wine in this province.

We all appreciate that once having consumed wine, one shouldn't

drive an automobile. But are we in fact consuming wine? I would refer

to Alexis Lichine's Encyclopedia of Wines and Spirits , which is the

world-wide renowned authority on wines, and, just very briefly, it does

have a definition in here. I think if we went to this definition we

could all probably be better informed.

"Wine comes from the fermentation of grapes.

Dandelions, parsnips and elderberries can be made to yield a homemade

wine, but properly wine comes from grapes and nothing else."

On that basis, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General, I

would put that there is no wine produced in this province, as defined

by the world encyclopedia. (Laughter.) That is to say, Mr. Chairman,

that what in fact we have is a product that has some grape content, but

is not of grape content only.

We know that there are several pressure groups in this province that

represent the wine industry. As a matter of fact, there are a total of

171 persons employed in the wine industry in the province — that is to

say, in the wine-processing industry. The wine-processing industry is

owned in fact by several multinational corporations, the names of which

are.... I guess it's sort of interesting. I'd like to bring them up.

Standard Brands — you know, they make Dr. Ballards and they also make

another famous food product that I guess we're well aware of. Rothmans

and Labatts are other people involved in the wine-making industry in

this province. They don't have a big political lobby but the grape

producers do, because the grape producers are their spokesmen. They're

the little people. I suggest to you, Mr. Attorney-General, through the

Chairman, that the consumer of this province is the one who suffers

greatly at the hands of your department.

Specifically, you know, the mention is of the $3 price of a bottle

of wine. Anything above $3 is a chateau wine and therefore we expect

that that can't be produced in this province. Anything below $3, well,

is just the regular standard bingo and we can compete with that. That's

really not the case. You know, in other jurisdictions they use a

different base level. I think British Columbia has set the $3 wine

limit at the price the wineries can make a profit. However, several of

the members of this House have constituencies bordering on our

neighbouring province, where there is a considerably different price

structure. The members for Kootenay and Columbia River, North Peace and

South Peace, and I presume also, Fort George, must find a great number

of their constituents travelling to Alberta to procure, not only good

wines, but wines....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): It's illegal. It's illegal.

MR. ROGERS: I appreciate it's illegal, Mr. Member. I would

not want to encourage anyone to break the law, but I'm led to believe

that it has happened in the past.

MR. WALLACE: Well, you buy your suits in Calgary.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The first member for Vancouver South has the floor. Please continue.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, one need only take a tour of one of

the liquor administration branch's outlets in the province of British

Columbia to see that, in fact, the locally produced wines represent a

collection of zoological garden samples rather than genuine wines. The

names of some of the wines alone are enough to give one a terribly

splitting headache, let alone consuming the product inside.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): That's because you drink too much. You're supposed to sip it.

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS: There goes leatherlungs; working on his favourite project again.

Mr. Chairman, through you, of course, to the Attorney-General, the

really popular wines of the world, the Zinfandel and the

Cabernet-Savignon and the Bordeaux and the Beaujolais — and I guess I

should mention the Chablis and the Burgundies as well — are not

available to the average consumer in this province. Why should we

pay...?

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS: No, I missed that. Why should we pay the same

price for a decent bottle of wine as we pay for a good bottle of Scotch

whisky? It is

[ Page 1288 ]

absolutely patently absurd. It is merely because of this pressure

group, and I find it most difficult to justify to my constituents that

a small group of people who are, in fact, head-officed in foreign

countries, or in Quebec — which in fact may be the same thing — should

control the palates of the people of this province. Now many people

will tell you that, in fact, the product produced here is a great

product. It's certainly not a grape product.

When one considers that in the heart of the grape-growing area in

Port Moody, which, as you know, is right in the area where you expect

all the finest wines to be grown, there exists a very large winery....

While that winery has 40 per cent of the British Columbia market, it

only buys 15 per cent of the grapes. So there's no correlation at all

between the purchase of grapes and the volume of wine. They're not a

winery; they're a chemical reproducer. They're a chemical reproducer

with a locked-in market. You know, you said something about automobile

dealers. If we had an automobile marketing board here, these guys could

really be happy.

We have a complete and utter nonsense situation that's been

perpetrated on the public over the years, and as I sit in my corner

here, Mr. Chairman, I see this door and I see this lovely carving on

the door. The carving reminds me of Bacchus as he has tested a B.C.

wine. When I ask all of you sometimes to come out through the back door

and observe, that is about the right sort of image that one would

portray from someone having consumed British Columbia wine.

There has been some....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order! Order!

MR. ROGERS: Yes, I wish you would order some B.C. wines. (Laughter.)

There has been some suggestion made in the past that wines coming in

from outside of the province of British Columbia are, in effect, dumped

into the province of B.C. As you know, none of the wines produced in

B.C. could be marketed in any other country in the world. It will be

said by others who may follow me in this debate — and I trust that

someone will — that in fact, the content of the grape in the province

of British Columbia isn't suitable for making wine. Therefore, they

have to add various artificial agents. But in fact 70 to 80 per cent of

every grape is water. There are several other products down there —

between 12 and 27 per cent of every grape is sugar. If you were to add

one grape to the barrel and therefore add enough water and sugar and

throw in a little yeast, you can say yes, in fact, we have wine. I

would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that is, in fact, what happens.

Interjections.

MR. ROGERS: Yes, I hope so. Yes.

Interjections.

MR. ROGERS: I haven't.... Mr. Chairman, this wonderful

encyclopaedia also has a

chapter on Canada. It won't take me long to

read it, I can assure you. It says: "The vineyards of Canada are mainly

in the Niagara peninsula of southern Ontario and in the Okanagan Valley

of British Columbia, but the first of these regions is by far the most

popular.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Order! Order! Equal time! Equal time! (Laughter.)

MR. ROGERS: That is the last reference that the world's No. 1

authority has to make about the Okanagan Valley, and I should hope so.

(Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS: You'll have your chance, Mr. Member from the Bingo Belt. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, my final reference from this manual would be the

world's production of wines. This is for the last year that all the

countries of the world got together and agreed on this. In imperial

gallons, Italy comes first with 1.454 billion et cetera, et cetera, et

cetera. Down here below such eminently famous wine-growing countries as

Morocco, Japan, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland — yes, I thought

they were a watch outfit. Anyway, below all of those, way down here,

number 27 on the list, is Canada with 8 million gallons of wine. So we

really aren't in the business.

When you look at the listings of the liquor administration branch

and you find that there are 270-odd chemically treated things with the

label "wine".... In France, by the way, Mr. Attorney-General, you would

be in the slammer for having marketed those things (laughter) because,

as you know, it is against the law to even market in Europe denatured

alcohol and call it wine. So I would suggest, through you, Mr.

Chairman, to the Attorney-General.... I know he looks favourably on

this subject anyway so.... (Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw! (Laughter.)

MR. ROGERS: I would suggest that we look at this.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): You'd better take him into cabinet to protect yourself. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

[ Page 1289 ]

The first member for Vancouver South.

MR. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During the

administration of tourism.... When we discuss tourism one of the things

we will discuss is to try to secure convention business for the

province of British Columbia. We have the lovely mountains and the sea

and we have fine restaurants. Imagine asking people to come to British

Columbia and go out and dine in one of our fine restaurants and then

subjecting them to the local product.

If we really want to be competitive in the convention business, we

have to obviously take a very serious look at greatly extending our

variety and choice of wines. When one looks at the proliferation of

Greek restaurants in this province, they are expanding exponentially —

that's a $5-word, Mr. Member — one will find that we, in fact, only

have, I think, two Greek wines available. When one considers the number

of Greek restaurants, that is nothing short of absolutely disgraceful.

One Greek brandy and only two ouzos.

Democracy started in Greece; I think we ought to give them credit

for something. I think perhaps we should at least increase the listings

of Greek wines by a factor of 10.

One recognizes the fact that we were visited by a group from the

wine-producing area — timing which is just absolutely excellent. I

would suggest that if the consumers of wine in this province could

somehow tell, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General, what

they think of British Columbia products, you would see a deluge of mail

like the leg-hold trap never had. (Laughter.) I wish they would do that.

On that Mr. Chairman, I know that the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) wants to get up and tell me about the fine

paint remover or whatever it is they make up there. I will be delighted

to sit and take my place and listen. Thank you.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the member for Boundary-Similkameen, but I did manage to beat him on his feet.

I was very interested in the discourse on the grape production in

British Columbia as related to the Liquor Control Board. It is

interesting to note that the grape producers of British Columbia have

been introducing some new brands into B.C. in the past few years. They

are now growing some brands of grapes that I would like to say to the

member are going to, I'm sure, improve the quality of British Columbia

wines very much. The sugar content produced....

MR. WALLACE: You're going to get into trouble if you've got him on your standard. (Laughter.)

Yes, that really bothers me. I'll have to retract that remark, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to point out that last year the

native Indian co-op in the Okanagan produced a tremendous amount of

grapes with a very high sugar content.

I enjoyed his speech very much, but the one thing that the member

for Vancouver South did not mention.... He mentioned things that go

into wine; he mentioned grapes and dandelions and so on, but the one

thing he didn't mention was sugar, and that surprised me.

I didn't really intend to speak about the Liquor Control Commission,

Mr. Chairman, and I don't pretend to be an authority on the Department

of the Attorney-General, or to be particularly knowledgeable about it

or to have a particularly tremendous grasp of the estimates for the

Attorney-General's department. But I feel that as a member of the

female species I could not stay in my seat while the Attorney-General's

estimates were up because I do feel that as a woman I must speak out on

behalf of some of the problems of women, many of which fall within the

field of the Department of the Attorney-General.

I think the one point that has come home to me on many occasions is

women's position in the eyes of the law, relative to property and

property settlements. There is just no equality in the eyes of the law.

I'm sure that the hon. Attorney-General is far more familiar with the

Berger report than I am, but I would certainly recommend to him the

implementation of the points raised in the Berger commission relative

to family and children's law.

I would also like to commend to him another recommendation of the

Berger report regarding the change-of-name legislation. This may seem

to be a small thing, but it is very important to a great many of the

women in our society. I think that the Attorney-General would do well

to consider Justice Berger's recommendation in regard to the change of

name.

Another point that I would like to raise is the position of illegitimate children within society....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right, the Children's Act.

The position of illegitimate children in society is putting a black

mark against many members of our society, through no fault of theirs. I

would certainly urge the Attorney-General to take action on the status

of illegitimate children.

Another point I would like to raise, relative to women, is the

position of women in prison. This is a distressful situation. We have a

lot of distressful situations in prison; prison is not a glamorous

place to

[ Page 1290 ]

be — that of course, is a natural thing. I would ask the minister to

consider some of the problems that are facing women in prison. There

are special, particular problems related to women who are incarcerated.

I would urge the Attorney-General to investigate and to recommend

corrections, to introduce corrections to the situation that women find

themselves in in prison.

I have read with great interest the report that came out from the

Attorney-General's department on a future for women. I only want to

refer to one particular

section of it, and it's the

section that

interests me very greatly because it's a

section with which I have been

involved during the years in the business world — that is, the

advancement of women and the training of women.

On page 28 of this report there is a table which shows the training

opportunities that have been made available to women in the field of

executive development in both the government as a whole and in the

Department of the Attorney-General over the past three years.

In executive development in 1973 there were absolutely no females

trained for advancement in government, while 32 males received that

kind of training. In the Department of the Attorney-General there were

only two males, but we'll just deal with the government department here

because it's the total figures.

In 1974 two females received executive development training, while

29 males received that kind of training. In 1975 only four females

participated in executive development training courses, as compared to

26 males.

I suggest that this does point to discrimination, because that means

that one woman and seven men attended executive development training

programmes in the Attorney-General's office, and 38.6 per cent of the

department is female, so the proportion is just not correct. It

suggests a lack of training of clerical women to equip themselves for a

transfer into a more advanced career job. I would urge the

Attorney-General, within his own department, to move to train more

women to accept executive positions.

I would also like to speak to this minister about the native people.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) dealt with it, but the native

person has a particular problem in the eyes of the law, or in his own

eyes, really. I have heard native people say that when an Indian is

charged under the white man's law he doesn't understand, and he takes

the attitude that because he is charged he is guilty, so therefore he

raises no defence.

You know, this is one of the places where we really need native

people working in the field. Now I know, I recognize, there have been

some advancements made in that direction, but I would urge the

Attorney-General to move as quickly as he can to provide the kind of

assistance that the native people require to give them equality before

the courts of this province. That kind of assistance is going to come

and, in my opinion, the most important way it can be advanced is by

training natives to act on behalf of other natives in trouble with the

law.

I would just like to speak briefly about — and it has been mentioned

in relation to the hockey situation — the attitude that society has

developed towards the law. Very unfortunately we seem to have come to a

point where we feel that the crime is not in the commission, but the

crime is in the getting caught. This is an unfortunate situation and it

makes it all the more difficult for the Department of the

Attorney-General to function.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sometimes it happens even in this House. (Laughter.)

MRS. WALLACE: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

I could think of an example — you know, probably we all cheat on our income tax....

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: It's not the cheating, it's only if we get

caught that we consider it wrong. This is something that is becoming

more and more ingrained in society today.

When we drive and we go down the highway, we see a speed limit —

it's not the fact that we drive 60 instead of 55 that is wrong in our

minds. The crime is if an RCMP car happens to buzz up behind us, or if

there's a ghost car out there. This is a very unfortunate attitude that

has developed in society. It is, as I say, one of the things that makes

it even more difficult for the Attorney-General's department.

This is one of the reasons why education is so important as a part

of the whole legal concept. You can't isolate education from the

correction or the enforcement of law, and it must start with the

juvenile

section of society.

I'm concerned, and I have a particular concern because there is a

local instance, Mr. Attorney-General, where we have in the Cowichan

Valley an alternate school in operation. This school is providing a

very valuable service within the Cowichan Valley because it is

providing an alternate system of education where we are training young

people who have dropped out of the school system. I understand that it

is one of two schools within the province that was formerly funded in

part by your department. I understand that this funding is being

withdrawn.

I would urge you, Mr. Attorney-General, to check into this because I

would suggest that it is an old saying, but very true: an ounce of

prevention is worth a pound of cure. And prevention is the cheapest kind

[ Page 1291 ]

of legal aid we can give. We must prevent. We must help train these

young people to become full and worthwhile citizens, not just wait

until they are afoul of the law and then, because we are so caught up

in the high costs of administering that law, push them into an extended

life of being a problem to society and turning into offenders against

society. I would urge the minister to look into that one specific case,

if no other, and to reinstate the funding to that school so it can

continue to operate to keep those young people busy and to keep them a

part and train them to become a part of society, train them to learn

jobs, to be able to go out and get back into the job market.

I cannot stress too much the importance of having this kind of

facility available. I would urge not only that he consider the one that

I speak of, that I know of, but extending this kind of service as part

of the legal thing. We can't isolate the legal from education, any more

than we can isolate it from health. They are all part and parcel of

society, and the funding must be made available for these things

through whatever department. So, again, I would urge that this be

carried out.

This whole process of alternate school has been proving very, very

valuable throughout the province in taking your people who would

otherwise be on the streets and putting them back into the educational

system in a less structured sort of training. It's proving a worthwhile

factor within our society and it must be continued and expanded.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would ask and urge and hope that the

thrust of the Attorney-General's department — and I'm having some

problems justifying that thrust as I try to find my way around through

the figures in the various estimates — be aimed at prevention rather

than cure. This is really the important thing about crime in the

province or in the country or anywhere. Education and prevention should

be the thrust, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Chairman, and I

would hope that that is what these estimates are all about.

MR. HEWITT: I'm going to spend a little time talking about

the Attorney-General's estimates, and one of the items in his

department, of course, that comes under his control is that of the

liquor administration. It has been dealt with and the subject of wines

has been dealt with today and I was most interested in my colleague's

comments about the wine industry and the grape-growing industry in the

province of British Columbia, and I only thought it fair that I get up

on my feet and make a few comments. We were fortunate enough yesterday

in caucus to meet with the grape growers association, a number of

representatives there. It was unfortunate that the member for Vancouver

South was not able to attend because I hope we may have cut him off at

the pass at that time.

I have passed to me a note from my hon. colleague from Coquitlam

(Mr. Kerster) who tells me that Andres Wines in Port Moody, in that

constituency of Coquitlam, has won a number of awards, silver medals of

international recognition, for the quality of the wines they produce

with predominantly B.C. grapes. I must add that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, on a serious matter — I believe it is, because we did

have a delegation. If the member for Vancouver South, who is my hon.

colleague, feels it is a lobby group or a pressure group, maybe so, but

it is a well-meant effort on the part of two industries in this

province, one being the grape-growing industry and the other the wine

industry. The problem is that these two industries have been promoted

by the B.C. government to get into the business and they're in their

infancy. They're very young when you compare them to the vineyards and

the wineries of Europe, but they've come a long way in a very short

period of time, and I'm sure they're going to go farther. What is the

aggravation that is facing this industry today? It is simply the matter

of foreign wine charisma, charisma of foreign wines in the low-priced

bracket.

Interjections.

MR. HEWITT: Somebody mentioned pseudo wine snobs. I don't

think I'd use that term. Nevertheless, if you are a wine connoisseur,

the value of a wine or the quality of a wine in the price range of $3

and under, or $4 and under, I don't think that's going to make all that

much difference. What I am saying really is that our wines have come a

long way and our wines are good, but they don't have that foreign wine

charisma.

MR. LEA: Give them a choice.

MR. HEWITT: There is a choice in the liquor stores, but the

aggravation right now as I see it is not the wines and not the quality,

but is the problem of the fact that we have empty bins on the shelves

in the wine stores. I made a little tour with my colleague from

Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) over to the liquor store in Nootka

Court the other day — 47 empty wine bins in the imported wine field, 47

empty bins. It wasn't because we'd consumed it; it was because they

were not there.

Now, Mr. Chairman, to the Attorney-General, so his department will

understand somewhat the problem, at the present time as I understand it

from the information I have, there are 20 labels of foreign wines under

$3, 13 white wines, seven reds. Between the range of $3 to $4, there

are 21 reds and 21 whites, a total of 62 labels of imported wine under

$4. Why have more labels when we can't even fill the bins? As I

mentioned, there were 47 empty bins in

[ Page 1292 ]

the Nootka Court liquor store. So I don't feel the problem is

additional labels, Mr. Chairman. I think the problem really is the

liquor distribution branch. Their problem is to get those bins filled

that are there now.

Mr. Chairman, this caucus has also met with the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture. We were pleased to meet with that group, and their one

main thrust....

Interjection.

MR. HEWITT: The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) was with the Premier on a very important mission. They were

unfortunately missing, but we were ably represented at that meeting.

But their one main thrust was the protection of the agriculture

industry in B.C. and I admire them for that thrust. I think this

assembly has to deal with that problem to make sure our agriculture

industry is protected.

What effect will more foreign labels have? I've told you about the foreign

wine charisma, and I think mainly in that price bracket that I mentioned — $3

to $4 — it is a charisma, but the impact on the B.C. wines, although at this

point unknown, could be substantial. It could be substantial because I feel,

in my mind, that those wines that come in — foreign wines that come in under

$3 — are "dumped" on the wine market in this province. I just cannot

comprehend how those wines come in at the prices they do. One particular one

from Bulgaria, I believe, comes in at $2.20 on our shelves, and that, I don't

believe, is the actual cost of production for that bottle of wine.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): What have you got against Bulgaria?

MR. HEWITT: I have nothing against Bulgaria, Hon. Member.

Interjections.

MR. HEWITT: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the

Attorney-General, regarding this part of this department, I have some

facts on a fact sheet considering the province of Ontario and I would

like to quote them: in February 1972, the Canadian portion of the wine

sales — the gallon sales in Ontario — was 66 per cent. The imported

wine portion of the market was 34 per cent. In February 1976, the

latest figures I have, the Canadian portion of those sales was 49 per

cent; the imported wines were 51 per cent. I understand that out of

last year's crop, Mr. Chairman, the government had to pick up and

subsidize part of the grape-growers' crop because the wineries just

were not going to use it; they didn't have the market. They'd lost

their share of the market.

At the present time in 1975, from a report — and I have it here —

that was given to Mr. Warrens, the general manager, I guess, of the

liquor distribution branch, 31.4 per cent is the present figure for

sales of imported wines in B.C.; 68.6 per cent are Canadian wines. All

that I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is let's keep it that way. Why are we

going to jeopardize our markets? Why are we going to jeopardize our

products?

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to comment in regard to what we are comparing,

and I did some calculations. If you take away the bubblies — I won't refer

to them the way the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) did — but when

you take away the bubblies from the list of wines on the shelves, you have in

the still wines under $3, 153 Canadian labels and 33 imported labels. If my calculation

is right, that's 20 per cent of the market borne by imported wines, or the

imported wines hold 20 per cent of the shelf space in the liquor stores on the

under-$3 wine. Now that's a pretty good percentage when you're talking

imported as opposed to domestic. I think there is a fair representation

there, and I don't want to see the market for our grape growers and our

wineries jeopardized by more foreign wines or the foreign-wine charisma.

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) .

MR. HEWITT: Well, I'll have to talk to the Minister of Education I guess, too. I'll keep fighting.

Interjections.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. Attorney-General: the

statistics I have tell me that of foreign wine sales, 37 per cent of

the purchase price after tax is taken off in the liquor branch markup.

Thirty-seven per cent of the purchase price that the consumer pays

leaves B.C. — leaves Canada. It goes back, of course, to the producer

and to the country in which it was produced.

Domestic sales: you can say 100 per cent of that purchase price

stays in Canada. Not only that, but if you take the progression of an

end consumer product, you take the supporting industry; you take the

income tax the industry pays; you take the income tax the employee

pays; you take the fringe benefits; you take all the supporting

services and industries behind the wine-making industry — you could

multiply that many, many times. I don't want to see, as a citizen of

B.C., as a member of this Legislature, those two industries that were

promoted by the Province of British Columbia, that are working hard,

working together.... I want to see them grow, prosper and become one of

the best recognized wines in the world. I think they will, and I'm sure

they will.

[ Page 1293 ]

Mr. Chairman, really in winding up, I've had a number of letters, of

course, in my riding. We have the Indian band I think that was referred

to by the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) — the Indian band

in Osoyoos has a tremendous vineyard. I'd say in the Okanagan Valley we

have close to 50 per cent of the grape production within my riding, and

I imagine there's almost that in the Premier's riding as well. Although

I don't want him to get up and defend the issue, I think I have to do

that. But, Mr. Chairman, I have a tremendous number of letters and

telegrams from the village of Oliver and the village of Osoyoos

expressing concern on this very fact.

Yes, it might as well be a lobby, and maybe I am the chairman of

that lobby, but I feel it is my responsibility, as a representative of

Boundary-Similkameen, to speak out in this House on those two

industries. They are B.C. industries; they employ B.C. people and I

feel they produce a good product.

Interjection.

MR. HEWITT: And, Mr. Chairman, the other thing is that the

Grape Marketing Board, the grape-growers, are not involved in subsidy.

They have not come under the Farm Income Assurance Plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWITT: I imagine that if things got tough, they would

make the application. But they're proud of the fact that they are

standing on their own two feet as one industry supporting the other.

MR. LAUK: On their own two blue feet.

MR. HEWITT: Hon. Member, I would like maybe to invite you to

Penticton to tour the Casabello winery. I can tell you that it is one

of the cleanest, finest wineries in the world.

Interjection.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, these people are not subsidized but

I think this assembly owes some protection to their market and I think

20 per cent representation of still wines under $3 by imported wines is

a good representation and it gives our consumer the opportunity to

please their palate with foreign wines under $3. Mr. Chairman, I am not

going to say any more. The wines in B.C. are coming of age, and all I

am saying is.... (Laughter.) I am sure, Mr. Chairman, if you take that

remark in the way it was meant it would be on the basis.... I am sure

they can speak out for themselves here today but I have had the

opportunity to rise on the occasion of replying to my colleague for

Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) who is an excellent gentleman and I am sure an excellent

wine connoisseur. I make no reflection on his knowledge of the problem.

I thought his presentation was just excellent. My case rests on behalf

of the grape growers and the wineries of B.C. Thank you.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I think one

thing this committee cannot accuse me of is having a vested interest in

this particular situation. In New Westminster we grow no grapes of any

significance. Those grapes that we do grow, I assure you, you don't

make wine from those grapes. So, Mr. Chairman, I think, however....

MR. LEA: Vodka!

AN HON. MEMBER: Moonshine! (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: I think, however, Mr. Chairman, that we have a lot

of expertise in New Westminster, having a population in our area that

has tremendous expertise in making wine on a home basis. We have a

large Italian community in Queensborough and they are noted for their

own wine industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you get all their grapes?

MR. COCKE: Incidentally, they don't buy many of their grapes

from the interior of B.C. I suggest that day will come, I hope. But,

Mr. Chairman, I believe, as I have said before in this Legislature,

that we must in some way assure that a region as potentially great as

the Rhine in Germany and some of the other regions in France be

afforded an opportunity to improve their product.

Now the member for Boundary-Similkameen will indicate to you that

they have been doing a great job. I suggest that they have a lot of

doing to do before they are doing a great job. But we certainly have to

afford them every opportunity to get together with both government and

the wine industry and develop a philosophy that's consistent throughout

the whole industry. There hasn't really been a consistent philosophy.

We've been waffling around.

We've had members in this House stand up and attack the B.C. wine

industry. The now minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), formerly the

leader of — oh, all sorts of different positions he has held in this

House, but, anyway, not to go through that list because it would take

too much time — stood up in this House and he put forward an

experimental programme. We found out afterwards that he provided all

the wine and, I suspect, had had a sample of each first. Well, that was

what was in....

Interjections.

[ Page 1294 ]

MR. COCKE: In any event, Mr. Chairman, the experiment or the demonstration wasn't to my satisfaction in any way.

Now I have, as probably many of you know, a hobby around this particular area for a number of years.

AN HON. MEMBER: A hockey game.

MR. COCKE: I buy grapes in large quantities every year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where from?

MR. COCKE: And, as a matter of fact, for the last couple of

years I have had good quality grapes. I haven't been forced to blend in

any way. I have had good quality grapes from the interior of British

Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you in competition with the Liquor Control Board?

MR. COCKE: Well, if I ever go to competition, you're in deep trouble, Mr. A.G.

For instance, I can recall a couple of years ago securing a Michelle

noir, which is a B.C. hybrid, and it was over 25 per cent sugar. People

say it's impossible in this province, but it was, and its acid was just

about bang-on at .67. So, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we have the

capacity to do this, but our problem is that haven't been doing it well

enough, because we have a bunch of junk up there.

One of the problems I have had all over the years is trying to

convince people that somehow or another we're going to have to put this

industry together. I recall one day having a discussion with an Italian

friend of mine and I said: "How come you're not experimenting with B.C.

grapes?" He said: "Well, you don't make good wine out of them." I said:

"Well, how do you verify that?" He said: "I want you to look at some of

those wineries up there."

And I'm certainly excluding Casabello from this because I know that

winery quite well and I think they do a very fine job up there, and the

lack of chemicals is significant. They do a proper aging process, and

they do a fine job. I've been through their winery on more than one

occasion, and I happen to know that that kind of group.... As I say, no

vested interest whatsoever because they're not even in New Westminster,

but there are some wines that have not contributed to the industry in

B.C.

We have suffered from the addition of far too much grain alcohol.

We've suffered from a past, a history, where it was called "goof" at

the best, and t "screech" at the worst. Therefore we've built a

reputation that we must somehow unbuild. We've got to unbuild that

reputation. I

While B.C. Is noted for not having sufficient sun-hours.... We don't

have as many sun-hours in the Okanagan, despite the fact that it's

hotter, as we have in the Niagara peninsula. The Niagara peninsula,

incidentally, is about equal in latitude to San Francisco or

thereabouts — it dips way down into the continent. But that doesn't

mean....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Teacher, you go back to your geography and you'll find that.... Wait a minute — northern California, at any event.

But, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the Okanagan Valley is capable,

in my view, of producing excellent grapes. They are now, in small

areas, producing better and better grapes. There's always the danger of

the winter kill, so therefore they've had to work harder on the hybrid

variety where they transplant a vinifera onto a kind of native-type

grape.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Labrosca is fine. Only half-way through.

Mr. Chairman, the things that I'd like to bring to your attention

are these: the one way that you're going to produce the kinds of grapes

up there, which are not going to be ripping off our whole wine system,

would be a total commitment to putting together the kind of project

where everyone involved takes part. Now that includes the

Attorney-General's department, that includes the Department of

Agriculture, and that includes the wine industry.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Why didn't you guys do it?

MR. COCKE: As a matter of fact, we did very well in that; we

did the same protectionist thing that everybody has traditionally done.

But I say now do a little bit more.

AN HON. MEMBER: How?

MR. COCKE: Just do exactly what I'm saying: put all the groups together and get some kind of a commitment.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You've been through it, eh?

MR. COCKE: You're not going to get a commitment by allowing a great

sugar-manufacturing organization, producing very, very low quality wine, to

get away with that type of thing. That's really what I'm saying: if

they're all together, working together, that renders those kinds of brands

less and less desirable in the public's mind. That's the

[ Page 1295 ]

situation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you want to dictate standards?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, one thing that the member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) said was that the domestic wineries

spend at least 100 per cent of their money in Canada. No, they don't,

because they import a fair quantity of grapes from California to blend

— particularly zinfandel and others. I suggest to you that we do have

the capacity here — if we really harness it and really cooperate with

one another — to develop an industry in this province. Once you've done

that, then you can open up the borders, open up the liquor stores to

the other brands. But I still say that there has to be some protection.

I don't care who takes the taste tests — whether it's the Minister

of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) or whoever — the fact is that if we

don't protect our own industry, just like the food industry, eventually

that industry will dry up. We all saw the whole tomato thing go down

the drain, half a generation and a generation ago, just because we

allowed importation to the extent that our own industry went down the

tube. So, Mr. Chairman, let's see what we can do for a better

understanding of our own product developed in this province.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, just in reply to the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), who made certain implications but is

no longer here, it is my contention that wine should be made of grapes

and nothing else. That is the international and world standard, and I

would hope that's a standard we hope to achieve in British Columbia. I

would suggest that if the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)

would like to table the evidence of his own product, I would help him

be the judge of it.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I am on the side of the

member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt), within limits, but when

the member says that our local wines are not subsidized, that's not

true. They are subsidized in terms of low markup through the LCB, they

are subsidized in terms of generous shelf space and they are subsidized

in terms of having far too many listings. The de-listing process should

be expedited, because one company — Labatt's or Standard or whatever it

is — having all kinds of sizes and brands for the same wine and choking

up our shelf space is quite unnecessary.

I agree with you that B.C. should become a real wine-producing

centre like the Mozelle or the Rhone and the Rhine that can stand on

its own feet. I know that in California it took them 20 or 30 years,

after they had a disaster with their grapes, to develop the kind of

good wines they have now, which can compete and export. I say British

Columbia can do it. We have had excellent conferences up in the

Okanagan between the Department of Agriculture, experts in this field,

the wineries and the grape growers. They should be continued.

We started off in the Okanagan probably growing the worst kind of

grape: the old Calona grape. You know — have a big grape, produce the

wine, get it on the shelf, sell it, make a profit, cut it, get out. We

can improve the quality of the grapes; we can do all of these things.

I think the clear message in this Legislature should be that our

wine industry in British Columbia is on trial. They've got so long to

produce a wine that will stand on its own feet in competition with

foreign wines, even California wines. That should be a message that

goes out to what are now big companies that control these wineries:

that you've got so long and the pressure's going to be on you and there

will be some de-listings and better price breaks to the consumer for

imported wines. Within that time-frame they've got to make it work or

they go under. So let's keep the pressure on and then we can have in

this province a really good wine industry if they meet that challenge.

If they don't, let them go under.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that once again the coalition government shows signs of falling apart.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. BARBER: The split in the ranks has not gone unnoticed by this Legislature. I wish, if I may, Mr. Chairman, briefly...

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 10.

MR. BARBER: ...speaking to the issue of the Liquor Control

Board, to remind the people of this Legislature that several citizens

in my riding work at the Growers Winery out on Quadra Street, just down

from my own home, as a matter of fact. I think this is a shocking

attack made by the now-absent member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers).

There is a brand of loganberry wine produced of a most unusual sort.

(Laughter.) It's really a remarkable product!

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Uncle Clem.

MR. BARBER: I think that my Uncle Clem deserves some

recognition for his heroic efforts over the years out there in Saanich

on Oldfield Road to contribute to the growth, so to speak, of the wine

industry in British Columbia.

I think it should also not go unnoticed that the

[ Page 1296 ]

member for Vancouver South is a co-owner of Fort Victoria

Properties, which recently opened Market Square, wherein we find

Kosta's Restaurant, the only Greek restaurant in Victoria. I trust that

his reference to the lack of Greek wines was in no way based on his

enjoyment of Kosta's Restaurant. But I am sure he is correct; there

probably aren't very many Greek wines to speak of either.

What I want to speak about, though, if I may, Mr. Chairman, is the

subject of the ombudsman. As I mentioned in my response to the throne

speech, I support the ombudsman. I mentioned then and I repeat it now

that I wish our guys had done it; I wish your guys had done it before;

I'm glad you're doing it now. The ombudsman is not provided for

anywhere else in the minister's estimates. It seems to me that vote 10

is the only way that we can raise this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would suggest to the member that if he wishes

to have a discussion of the ombudsman it is out of order at this time

in committee because it is anticipating legislation which was announced

in the throne speech debate.

MR. BARBER: Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, I understood, having

conferred earlier, that it was permissible to do this because there is

no bill before us and there is nothing to anticipate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member just be seated for a moment,

and I'll try and cite some authority. The book that I have before me

here now happens to be the 16th edition of May . At page 739(

m) it

says: "The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but

the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation, cannot

be discussed in Committee of Supply." As a result of that I would rule

that it's fine to mention the ombudsman, but to have to debate on the

ombudsman is out of order at this time.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, agreeing

with what's in the book, nevertheless I think the member should be able

to say something about what can be done now, procedurally, in terms of

preparing for the proper kind of bill, and I think that's his

intention. What can be done administratively by this Legislature in

preparation for this bill, and how it should be handled, I think, is

what he intends to address himself to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think I mentioned that perhaps it would be

fine to refer to the need for an ombudsman, but to have a debate on the

ombudsman at this time would be out of order. Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: Do we have the assurance from the Attorney-General that the bill will be introduced this session?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Definitely.

MR. BARBER: Then, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to reserve my remarks until the bill is introduced.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd just like to put the cork in the little

wine debate, if I could. The remarks of all the members have been very

seriously considered by myself, and are being considered by not only

myself but by the government. It's certainly not the intention at all

of the government to do anything that would hinder or harm the grape

growers in the Okanagan Valley. I think we're all delighted to see that

it has become a thriving business and vocation, and we certainly wish

them Godspeed in that.

I am, though, tempted to agree with the remarks of the member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) that, to an extent, the industry is

still on trial, and I think that they are proving themselves. I cannot,

though, completely reconcile those attitudes and facts with the one

that there should be freedom of choice in society.

I don't really know that we should take the position that the

consumer in British Columbia should have his taste dictated on the

shelf. If there is a need for support to the industry, which has not

been requested, conceivably that would be one that perhaps should come

from other sources. But it's a question of degree. I can't honestly

say, in my view, that the consuming public have had the opportunity to

receive the kind of choice that I think they should be entitled to.

We find the consuming public in other parts of Canada enjoying a far

better selection. I would like to read from an extract that was given

to me from the liquor administration branch referring to the Canadian

and foreign listings. I refer to the year 1974, which is the closest

year that is available to me at the present time. Unfortunately I can't

refer to all of the provinces because the photocopy didn't come through

too well, but the ones that I can name I shall.

The first figures show the Canadian listings in a province, and the

second figures that I refer to in each case show the foreign imports:

Province No. 1, which I guess would be a Maritime province: 74 Canadian to 118 coming in.

Prince Edward Island: 56 Canadian, 79 foreign.

Next province: 93 Canadian, 257 foreign.

Next one: 146 Canadian, 199 foreign.

Next one: 85 Canadian, 710 foreign.

The next province is the province of Ontario, and thought should be

given to it because it is a province that produces grapes: 275

Canadian, 616 foreign — I think that's an imbalance.

Next province: 113 Canadian, 348 foreign.

Next one: 120 Canadian, 142 foreign.

[ Page 1297 ]

Next one: 152 Canadian, 270 foreign.

Now British Columbia: 243 Canadian wine products on the shelf, and 182 foreign.

B.C. is the only province in Canada that has the balance of domestic

product over the foreign. It has been mentioned that the Canadian wines

under this $3 list that are on the shelves in B.C. are 216 at the

present time, as opposed to 37 imported.

This is not government policy — just suggestions — and this is

something that I mentioned last night and yesterday. I think that a

great deal of the purpose of debate in this House is not to expect an

absolute firm commitment every time the minister stands up to respond

to the opposition or to a member of the government, but here are some

views that have been expressed.

Here's one way that might provide additional assistance to the B.C.

grape-growing industry to permit them to perhaps sell some of their

surplus, which I understand they have, by allowing the purchasers by

licencees of bulk wines to buy in containers, for example, larger than

the one gallon presently used, such as stainless steel tanks or small

casks up to 5- or 10-gallon capacity.

Give the British Columbia product a preferential market there

whereby maybe the stores could have a B.C. vin du pays and they would

be able to buy a cask of wine, as opposed to receiving it in bottled

form, and then it could be, perhaps, sold under the name of the

licencee — Dennis's Rosé, Alex's Flat, Emery's Bubbly. See? (Laughter.)

That might be one suggestion.

Also, I gather Ontario's had a pretty useful experiment over the

last short while. It opened a Wines of Ontario store, and it had a

terrific success. The only wines that were sold in that liquor outlet

were the domestic wines of Ontario. That might be an approach to take.

As the members of the opposition, and, I think, the government, all

know, we as a new government are looking very carefully at the liquor

act that came in through the former administration, and which has not

been proclaimed — am I right in that?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, the regulations have not been processed. But

we've requested an overview of the Act and an overview of the

regulations. I can't say that you'll get a statement during this

session, but within the next few months there's certainly going to be

an affirmative position taken by the government once we've had an

opportunity to digest both the Act and the regulations.

I think some better selection to the general public, to the

consuming public, would be in their better interests, and hopefully —

well, I'll not say hopefully — I can't see how this is really going to

be the death knell to the provincial wine industry, nor should it. If

that was going to be the case, we'd have to look at it from an entirely

different light. It's a question of balance; it's a question of degree.

We're going to look at it from those points of view.

MR. MACDONALD: While we're on the same subject, I'd like to

ask the Attorney-General when he is going to allow the sale of beer,

and perhaps wine, in the small stores. I'm not thinking of the

Safeways; I'm thinking of the Mom and Pop stores. You know, we delayed

the thing while we heard the public response. The response I got — and

I'd be interested in what other MLAs got — was overwhelmingly

favourable to making it more convenient to the public, to giving a

better chance for livelihood for the small, independent grocer and his

family who work long hours for low remuneration, and giving a choice of

location to the public that they haven't got at the present time.

It didn't seem to me, although I studied the representations very

carefully, that this was in any sense promotion of alcoholism. In fact,

you know, making it more readily available in an open way, rather than

a clandestine way with licencees and all of this, is to make it a more

natural thing and to militate against excessive drinking.

I ask the Attorney-General: in view of this, will he now proceed

with the regulation? Because if the legislation has been passed, the

sections can be proclaimed. You can proclaim the sections and then you

can pass the regulation to make this possible.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I just told you two minutes ago.

MR. MACDONALD: Did you announce on the cornerstore?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. MACDONALD: No, no! I don't want to let you off the hook

quite that well; I want to know whether the government will proceed

now, as it should proceed now, with allowing the small corner store to

sell beer and possibly wines as well. What's the answer to that?

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. member was sitting no more than

about 20 feet away from me when I made a statement no more than about

two minutes ago. I said that the government is reviewing the Act and is

reviewing the regulations, and until such time that is attended to

there's not going to be any change.

[ Page 1298 ]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, last night I raised a couple of

questions about the family court. I guess it must have slipped the

minister's memory because in replying to other parts of my question you

failed to respond to the statements I made about the decision to freeze

hiring and to cut back on services of the family court despite the fact

that that decision was working such a hardship on the delivery of

justice to a specific segment of our society. I am wondering whether in

answering the other questions I'm going to raise today you would also

deal with the question of the family court.

I didn't bring my family court file in with me today, but if you're having any difficulties I'll go and get it.

I just wanted to put my two-bits in to the wine debate — just to

say, on a completely different topic, that I was very sad at the

government's decision to return South African wines to the shelf. I

just think I should go on record as saying that I don't really

anticipate that you will reverse your decision on that behalf. But

certainly it would have served to kill a number of birds with one stone

— part of the idea of protecting the local grape growers and the wine

industry, and at the same time taking some kind of moral stand on the

whole case of South Africa.

However, it seems we won't have to worry about the situation in

South Africa for many number of years because it seems that the people

of Africa themselves have decided to solve that little one, and the

rest of us will be able to get off the hook in terms of our moral

commitment to that country.

What I want to talk about specifically today, Mr. Minister, is your

responsibility for the landlord and tenant legislation. A large number

of the residents of the Burrard constituency are tenants. As you know,

under the previous administration it became increasingly clear, as a

result of the petition made to us at that time as government, that the

tenants were beginning to feel they were not being sufficiently

protected by the free market system. They asked that legislation be

introduced to give them some kind of protection — not to reverse

things, but to make the situation more equitable.

At that time your predecessor, the former Attorney-General (Mr.

Macdonald), introduced the Landlord and Tenant Act, and that is now

under your jurisdiction. A rentalsman was appointed, and I want to

speak specifically about a couple of the problems that my constituents

find they are having with the whole idea of how the rentalsman's office

is operating, how the rentalsman himself is dealing with legislation

which wasn't perfect — it wasn't perfect when it was introduced — and

to express a hope that you will close the gap in that piece of

legislation.

The major problem seems to be that the rentalsman's office has

judicial power, but they have no rules of evidence. I want to preface

my statements by saying that, as you know, I am not a legal person, and

I'm not even quite sure what all of these things mean. But I know that

what my constituents tell me is that the outcome of cases which go

before the rentalsman, as a result of his having no rules of evidence,

are largely decided by the officers who handle the case. What we have

is disparity.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That is what your government wished to do to....

MS. BROWN: I know. What I am saying to you, Mr.

Attorney-General, as chief law-enforcement officer in the province,

responsible for this particular piece of legislation, is that I accept

that the bill was not perfect. You are now in a position to make it

perfect. One of the major loopholes in it, which you could plug, has to

do with the business of rules of evidence.

The other problem we are having is the hours that the rentalsman's

office is open. The rentalsman's office, as you know, operates five

days a week from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. What this means is that the ordinary

working stiff really has no recourse to the rentalsman's office because

there are no night openings, no weekend openings — not even one evening

a week — you know, the way that Safeway, drugstores and other

service-oriented establishments operate. I would like to ask whether

your department has looked into the business of opening the

rentalsman's office even one evening a week, or, failing that, on

weekends, so that people who work from 9 to 5 have an opportunity to

use the rentalsman's office too.

The other complaint I have received has to do with the reluctance on

the part of the police to enforce the legislation. This is something I

think you probably could repair very quickly just by simply issuing a

directive to the police in terms of their rights under the Act and the

whole business — encourage them to get on with the business of

enforcing it.

The second reason has to do with eviction as it is used by

landlords, and the two chief ones being used. The first one the

landlord uses is that he needs the premises for his own use. Now that

is a loophole that we recognized, and I think we had real problems in

dealing with that. But now that you are new, and bringing a fresh

perspective to bear on this very old problem, I am anticipating, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that maybe you can help deal with

this problem of the rights of the tenants when the landlord says,

honestly or otherwise, that he needs the premises for his own use.

The third one, and one which is of major concern in the particular

riding of Vancouver-Burrard, has to do with demolition — the landlord

evicting on the grounds that he is planning on demolishing the

building. Then we find years and years later that the

[ Page 1299 ]

building is still standing there and that, in fact, the apartment

has been re-rented to someone else. As soon as the tenant has been

evicted and has packed up and left, it has been re-rented.

Unfortunately, this is usually accompanied by an increase which is

above the ceiling which is set by your department.

I want to give you a couple of specific cases about the rentalsman's

office having to deal with the same landlord over and over again for

the same crime. It's not a crime — whatever it is — for the same

infraction. There doesn't seem to be any way that a decision can be

handed down to prevent this.

I want to deal specifically again with my own riding, a landlord by

the name of Mr. Jesse Alvarez. Now he owns six conversions in the

riding and he is assembling more property. Four of his buildings are in

the 2100 block West 3rd and the rentalsman knows him really well now

because his tenants turn up at regular intervals with one complaint

after another.

Let me tell you one of the interesting things he did. He gave

permission to his tenants to renovate and redecorate their apartments.

He said: "That's fine. Go ahead." He wouldn't supply the materials.

They could supply their own materials. They could paint, fix up and do

what had to be done. As soon as it was finished, he raised the rent on

the grounds that the apartments had been redecorated, despite the fact

that the tenants did the redecorating themselves and used their own

materials to do it. When the tenants refused to pay the increased rent,

he evicted them. He evicted them on the grounds that they refused to

pay the increased rent! The eviction had nothing to do with the

original.... He said: "You are evicted because you will not pay the

rent."

Okay. The tenants got together and they went down as a body to see

the rentalsman and the case was investigated and — give credit where

credit is due — when Pat Musters investigated right at the very

beginning and found the complete story of the case, the eviction was

squashed. The tenants were allowed to return to their apartments, which

they had decorated, at the rent which they were formerly paying.

Not long after, another group of tenants from Mr. Alvarez' building

turned up again. He had decided that he was going to demolish for

renovations. Now I am not quite sure how you demolish for renovations,

but Mr. Alvarez was going to demolish for renovations. This time he got

away with it. The tenants were evicted and when they appealed.... The

tenants trotted down to the rentalsman's office again but this time the

decision of the rentalsman's office was that there was nothing they

could do. If he says he is going to demolish in order to renovate,

maybe he has a new and innovative way of renovating by demolishing

first, and therefore the evictions went through.

Now what does one do? I am only citing two of the instances of this

particular landlord. It is a regular occurrence. He continually tests

the limits of the legislation. Of course he wins some and he losses

some. What is your department going to do, or is there anything really

that you can do when you find a landlord, the same landlord,

continually and repeatedly breaking the same law over and over again?

Okay, again I am still dealing with the rentalsman. What about this

business, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, of landlords

refusing to rent accommodation to families with children? I recognize

that when a senior citizens' home is built and designated as a senior

citizens' home that the last thing you want in that apartment block is

young children of any age, even babies who cry or children who run up

and down in the corridors or whatever. But unless a building is

designated as being specifically for one course, why does the law

permit this as grounds for refusal to rent? It's not covered under the

human rights legislation and it's not covered under the landlord and

tenant legislation. It's not covered anywher