1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1253 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General

estimates.

Amendment to vote 11.

Mr. Wallace — 1253

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 1254

Mr. Bennett — 1254

Mr. Curtis — 1254

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1255

Division on amendment — 1255

On vote 11.

Mr. Gardom — 1255

Mrs. Jordan — 1256

Mr. Smith — 1256

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1257

Mr. McGeer — 1257

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1257

Mr. McClelland — 1258

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1260

Mr. McGeer — 1261

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1261

Mr. Wallace — 1262

Mrs. Jordan — 1264

Mr. Lewis — 1265

On vote 12.

Mr. Smith — 1266

Mr. Wallace — 1266

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1266

On vote 14.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1266

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1266

On vote 15.

Mr. Wallace — 1267

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1267

On vote 16.

Mr. Smith — 1267

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1267

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1267

Mr. Wallace — 1267

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1268

Ms. Brown — 1268

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1268

On vote 17.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1268

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1268

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1268

Mr. Wallace — 1269

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1269

On vote 18.

Mr. Smith — 1269

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1270

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1270

On vote 19.

Mr. Smith — 1270

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1270

On vote 20.

Mr. Smith — 1270

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1270

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1270

Mr. Curtis — 1271

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1271

On vote 22.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1271

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1271

On vote 23.

Mr. Smith — 1271

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1272

Mr. Wallace — 1272

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1272

On vote 24.

Mr. Smith — 1272

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1272

Mr. Smith — 1272

On vote 26.

Mr. Bennett — 1272

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1273

On vote 27.

Mr. Smith — 1273

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1273

On vote 28.

Mr. Smith — 1273

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1273

On vote 29.

Mr. Smith — 1273

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1273

On vote 30.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1273

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1274

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1274

Mr. Wallace — 1274

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1274

Mr. Curtis — 1274

On vote 31.

Mr. Smith — 1274

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1274

On vote 32.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1275

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1275

On vote 34.

Mr. Smith — 1275

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1275

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1275

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1276

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1277

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1277

Mr. Wallace — 1278

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1278

On vote 35.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1278

On vote 36.

Mr. Chabot — 1278

Mr. Chabot — 1278

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1279

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1279

Mr. Chabot — 1279

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1280

Mr. Chabot — 1280

Division on motion that the Committee rise — 1280

On vote 36.

Mr. Smith — 1280

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1280

Mr. Smith — 1282

Mrs. Jordan — 1282

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1283

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1283

FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Speaking first to the amendment to reduce the

Attorney-General's salary by $1, I recognize the Member for Oak

Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'll try not to repeat what was

said just before the lunch break, but I was trying to tell the

House my conclusions and my stand on this very important

amendment.

I was making the point that some of the reasons which have

been given for this amendment to me are not as strong as other

reasons. I feel that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)

has certainly been very slow to get off the mark in dealing

with some of the very serious problems in our jails and in

providing reasonable facilities which, I know, had been asked

for under the previous administration.

Since the last debate I've made further inquiries and I feel

convinced that this is a reasonable criticism, and that the

Attorney-General's department has been well aware of the need

for these facilities to be improved. The inhuman conditions

under which prisoners are housed in Wilkinson Road are just

totally unacceptable.

I also feel very unhappy at the failure of the

Attorney-General to talk with conviction about the guidance

that he's had from Dr. Matheson on one very important method of

tackling the drug problem. I asked him specifically twice in

the debate yesterday, and I really didn't get a satisfactory

answer.

As to the third part of the reason for this amendment,

namely the whole question of what I consider nothing more than

a complete shambles in the way in which the Premier and the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and the

Attorney-General got themselves into a real mess

administratively. I thought as I left the chamber and went to

lunch today that to err is human, to forgive divine, but it

seems to me there is more error than forgiveness in politics,

and the people of British Columbia, when they listen to the

opinions of the legislators in this building, don't quite take

that philosophical view of the situation.

There must be a strong sense of concern and wonder as to what exactly did go

on, and why it would at least appear from the evidence presented by both sides

of the House that there was considerable bending of the rules and that certain

agreements were worked out, apparently oblivious to the fact that the Ministers

concerned were setting a very serious precedent. Today we heard of some of the

consequences of that precedent where another person has sought to be treated

in like manner under the government of this province.

I should say at this point, Mr. Chairman, that I have no

hesitation whatever in supporting completely the integrity of

the Attorney-General. I've already commented on the fact that I

in no way support or even condone the comments that were made

mentioning someone else's name who finally went to jail for a

criminal act while a cabinet Minister. I've no wish to be

associated with that kind of innuendo at all.

I have no personal doubt whatever about the integrity of the

Attorney-General, for whom I have a lot of respect.

However....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I was doing so well up to that point.

It is a serious matter, and I do consider that the

Attorney-General is at fault for having been knowledgeable

about the way in which steps were taken by members of the

cabinet which, if they are not illegal, come under question as

to their legality.

We've heard in debate that part of the problem and part of

the reason the Premier got involved was that there seemed to be

some doubt as to the legal standing of the marketing board in

its ability or capacity to take people to court. And the whole

structure of the marketing board system seemed to be somewhat

in danger if the matter did go to court, and it was found that

the board was trying to use powers that it did not, in effect,

have.

In other words it is obvious to me, and I think to most lay

people, who don't understand the technicalities of the law,

that there was one considerable mess and nobody really quite

knew how to handle it and just how far they should go in

exerting their good offices into the situation.

Probably the difficulty is that when one tries to listen to

both sides of the argument without a preconceived idea, it is

possible that you can only come to one conclusion. But the fact

is that the Attorney-General is a party to a degree of cabinet

interference and subsequent action which certainly undermines

the confidence of people and the confidence of the opposition

in the Minister himself and in his capacity to understand

exactly what his duties, as Attorney-General, are in the

province.

On that basis, for the other reasons that I've outlined, and

for his mishandling and failure to act in

[ Page 1254 ]

a more responsible way, and finally for his refusal to

consider some further inquiry, this party has to conclude that

we must support the amendment.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I thought it was about time

one of the backbenchers got into this debate. We have talked

this over, of course — some of us in the backbench — and I'd

like to report to you, Mr. Chairman, that we even talk about

some of these things in front of our leader. We find that we

don't have to exclude him when we want to talk about something

important, or almost anything important. We include him in the

conversations.

We have had what I consider, as a new Member to this House,

a very, very sad three weeks. It looks to me as though we have

a small group in the House, such as the Liberals, who, if they

can't run it, decide to wreck it. That's the way they appear to

me — the wreckers of the House. If the democratic procedure

doesn't happen to run exactly the way this fading little group

likes it, they decide the only thing to do is do their best to

wreck it.

The leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) is

causing me quite a problem. I've been living in horror for

three weeks that some of his remarks will be attributed to

myself, seeing as we bear the same name. So I'll probably have

to contact the Attorney-General at some later date to find out

what legal procedure there is to go about changing your name if

the same type of so-called debate, as it is called, continues

in this House as has been going on in the past three weeks.

It looks to me, the way the debate has been going for the

last three weeks — the tactics that have been used, the digging

up of mud, the scratching up of dirt — very easy to see why so

often when the Liberal Party in the various constituencies in

this province have nominating conventions, they go by

acclamation.

It is very hard, even as a government backbencher, to see

what was once a proud party in this province and this country,

but it's dropped as far down the scale as it had and has to

take

part in this kind of tactics that there's nothing for

democracy, nothing for politicians and certainly is bringing

people's opinion of politics to a lower scale than it was.

I know I speak for many of the backbench when I speak of

this disappointment that we find in coming into the House, and

it doesn't need a 10-year apprenticeship in the Legislative

Assembly to realize the kind of tactics that are being used and

why they're being used.

The one thing I can't understand totally is why they're being used, because

no one is making any Brownie points on this. There's no way that the Liberal

Party is gaining. They may be making a few points in Vancouver–Point Grey or

West Vancouver–Howe Sound, but if they get out to the country and talk to the

real people in this province, they'll certainly find that they're flogging a

dead horse.

MRS. P. J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): A dead chicken.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: It's called debate? I've seen some better

debates in some of the local union meetings with a membership

of only about 15. We had better arguments and better points put

forward at that time, than this tedious and repetitious type of

thing that has been going on in this House.

I certainly fully support the Attorney-General in his

office. If I was convinced on principle that he was not doing

the best job that possibly be done in this office, I would

certainly be one of the ones to stand and support this motion,

but I certainly don't intend to. It has no basis, in fact it's

merely a continuation of the continual dig-up-the mud, throw it

around, smear and scratch the dirt. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): During the

debate on the agricultural estimates and the Premier's

estimates we've heard much on this debate and further in the

estimates of the Attorney-General. Early on we suggested that

it was beyond the ability of this House to settle this matter

as it would just revolve around personalities and charges, and

this has been the case, and yet it's a very serious matter

that's been brought up and that we're discussing.

We have supported the position earlier for a public inquiry

and we felt that while the Premier as one of the principals in

the discussion may not have been able to call that inquiry, the

Attorney-General with his position may have caused an

investigation or inquiry into this fact.

I'd like to thank the Attorney-General, through you, Mr.

Chairman, for finally calling an investigation into Columbia

Cellulose after the request from the opposition on

circumstances surrounding this take-over last year. But in

regard to a public inquiry on the events that have dominated

this Legislature, the type of inquiry that would have removed

it from the political debate into the area of investigation

that should have been conducted, the Attorney-General has not

taken the type of position that we thought he should have. For

this reason we support the amendment.

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

have no hesitation in supporting the motion before us now, but

perhaps for some reasons other than those which have been

indicated by the mover. As I understand it, as a relatively new

Member of the House, this kind of action represents an

assessment of how a particular Minister is conducting

[ Page 1255 ]

his responsibilities in the portfolio assigned to him and I

have to go on record as saying that I think he has

failed...

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): It's a vote of

confidence so don't give us that stuff.

MR. CURTIS: ...in the conducting of some of those

responsibilities. I'm very disappointed in the lack of

co-operation shown by the Attorney-General through the several

days of this rather lengthy debate, his inability or refusal to

give us all the information which is available to him and to

senior members of his department.

He could have been much more helpful to the Members of this

House and therefore to the people of British Columbia, in

discussing matters which are clearly of concern to all of us.

He's had a casual and at times, I think I have to say,

disinterested attitude towards the estimates. He's been present

for much of them, present for much of the discussion of his

vote, but he has been rather casual and indifferent to some of

the questions put by Members of the opposition and points made

by them.

But quite apart from the actions of this week, and the

frustration which Members of the opposition feel with respect

to the Minster's lack of co-operation, I feel that the

Attorney-General is not conducting the affairs of his

department in the way that we expected on the basis of his

performance in opposition.

A number of matters known to us individually and severally

have been left on the table for far too long — a number of

problems unresolved, a number of questions demanding answers

and waiting for answers from the chief law enforcement officer

of the province, and that's not good enough. That's really not

what we expected from an individual who was lucid and insistent

and who persevered when he sat on the other side of the

House.

Something happens to Members of the opposition when they

move across the floor of the House, and I think that whatever

it may be, it is personified in the actions of the

Attorney-General, not only this week but during his time

holding this very important portfolio. We want a less-casual

approach to some of the problems which have been sitting on his

desk for a long time, and we want more direct answers and more

informative answers in order that we can have the kind of

meaningful debate and the kind of helpful and positive exchange

which, I think, government should be all about.

I'm disappointed in the Attorney-General, disappointed in

what he has done this week and what he has not done this week —

and what I think is more important — what he has not done this

week. But I do by no means restrict my criticism to this week

alone, and therefore have no problem whatever in supporting the

amendment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I want to say I appreciated what was

said by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). You know, in the

case of prison reform, which is very much at my heart, the more

you people on the opposition can push me — whether it's by way

of confidence votes or any way — that's fine, I appreciate

that. That's a specific thing with concrete objectives and I

want to be pushed.

In the case of the drugs, I've explained that the

alternative facilities are in another department, but

nevertheless it's a matter that is of real concern, and I would

think anguished concern, to all the Members of this House, and

certainly to the public and the parents.

On the third point raised by the Hon. Member, I respectfully

disagree, but that's the way the world goes. In terms of what

the Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) has just said, there was

nothing concrete in it whatsoever. It was just a message and

not quite as much appreciated because there was no argument,

just a little bit of "I don't like your demeanour." Everybody's

got a different demeanour. We're all human and we shouldn't

preach at one another too much. Thank you.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Chabot

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

Curtis

Williams, L.A.

NAYS — 30

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Strachan

Dailly

Stupich

Hartley

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Cocke

King

Dent

Lea

Radford

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Gorst

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Young

Lauk

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): In your report to the Speaker

would you report that a vote took place and ask leave that this

be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): There is a topic

that has not been discussed during this very interesting debate

in the Attorney-General's estimates, Mr. Chairman. The

questions of guns, revolvers, pistols, shotguns. Firearms. Is

the

[ Page 1256 ]

ownership of guns in B.C. today a right? I say yes, it is.

But should it be? I say no, it should not be. It should be a

privilege. Guns should certainly not be in the hands of

everyone. We've got to have more stringent controls on firearms — not just on hand guns but on all firearms.

We've got to bolster the enforcement of the law I am going

to suggest. We have to stiffen up penalties for breaches. I

would say it should certainly be recommended to the judiciary

that there be far higher periods of sentence for any use of

firearms in holdups.

I don't think we should continue just to sit back and wait

for tragedy. Surely the time has come, Mr. Chairman. It should

be a mark today of our maturity and proof of our moral

character that B.C. must decide that all guns other than those

available via the provisions of the law be forbidden and

prevented. To allow everybody to have a gun in the province

today is just purely and simply very dangerous.

I would very much wish in this short talk to put our gun

laws under fire. I would advocate a central registry of all

firearms. Any purchaser in a sale of any guns would have to

file an applicable transfer in the registry. Any gun that was

not so filed in the registry and transferred via a registry

would be an illegal method of dealing with a firearm.

All dealers of firearms must be licensed. There must be very

hefty fines for violators.

I suggest that it not be possible for any gun, rifles,

sidearm, revolver or shotgun to be sold to anyone under the age

of 18 years. People aged 18 to 21 be permitted only to purchase

shotguns and rifles, and certainly not small arms.

I believe the dealers should have to take statutory

declarations as to the ages of the purchasers. It should be

totally illegal to sell guns of any description to mental

defectives or people who have had past convictions.

In order to prevent fear and lessen crime and save lives,

this proposal I have made today is one way.

MRS. JORDAN: I would like to take a moment to continue on

the Hon. Member's suggestions because I think they are very

good. I would add one more suggestion: I think it should be

mandatory in British Columbia for anyone owning a

newly-registered firearm to have to take a training course in

the use of firearms.

I think there is an interesting undercurrent which the Hon.

Member (Mr. Gardom) didn't mention. There is a rising interest

in firearms in the Province of British Columbia. If my

information is correct, and I believe it is, I think you will

find that sales of firearms, in terms of shotguns, 22s and

pistols, have risen sharply in the last two years in British

Columbia.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: That's true, Mr. Member. I think beyond what

you have said and what I suggest in terms of a mandatory

training programme, we should be looking at the underlying

reason for this increase in firearms in British Columbia. I

would strongly suggest that this interest is not merely a

casual passing fancy. There is a deeper psychological reason.

The increase in the interest and the increase in the sale of

firearms seems to have a strong link with the talk of

liberalization of laws. I'm not thinking in terms that we

should be stringent in our laws for the sake of being

stringent; I think there is a general feeling of unrest and

personal fear arising across British Columbia.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) shakes his head and

says no. I wasn't implying that the people were going out to

shoot the government, although some might be tempted. I think

if the Minister of Labour will talk to doctors and some of the

psychologists and will just go out and talk to people, you will

find there are many people joining shotgun clubs, many through

the Fish and Wildlife Branch, many through fish and game clubs.

They will say, "I'm just interested in target practice." But if

you get them alone and start talking, you'll hear them very

strongly and without reservations say that they are concerned

about self-protection in their homes and the rising incidence

of physical attacks on women, the rising incidence of

robberies, and the rising incidence of physical abuse. I am

certainly not going into all the reasons but I am not being

facetious, Mr. Attorney-General. I don't consider myself a

psychiatrist.

I do suggest to you that this is something we should be

looking into along with the concrete suggestions the Hon.

Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) made and

also my suggestion for the training programme being mandatory.

We should really know why there is this increase in sales and

if, in fact, there is a strong underlying psychological reason

which could lead to some extremely unhappy circumstances and

which we might be able to stave off by education and perhaps a

second look at some of our legislation.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I would like to spend a

few minutes on this topic, since it's been raised in the House

this afternoon, and to perhaps bring to the attention o f the

Attorney-General a line of argument that has not been advanced

by either of the two previous speakers. I agree that firearms

generally in the Province of British Columbia can be bought

almost anywhere — all types of firearms, with the exception of

fully automatic machine guns, Sten guns and this sort of thing.

You can get any calibre of rifle, revolver or

[ Page 1257 ]

shotgun at almost any store in the province of British

Columbia without a permit or anything else.

But the fact that you can buy them, particularly sidearms,

does not mean that you can get a permit from the RCMP to carry

that weapon. As a matter of fact it is very, very difficult,

and becoming increasingly difficult, to get a permit to carry a

sidearm.

In most circumstances, I'd suggest that that is a good

thing. But there are three classifications of people today who

object to the fact that they have had their requests for permit

renewals refused or they have absolutely been refused outright

a permit to carry a sidearm. Those three classifications of

people are trappers, prospectors and big game guides. They,

because of the type of work they're involved in, quite often

desire to carry a sidearm rather than a rifle. It's not a

matter of massacring big game or anything else. It's a matter

of carrying a sidearm as a matter of personal protection when

they're in the wilds.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Grizzly is one of the problems, yes, that's

right, but any bear in a given situation will charge — other

types of animals, too. Even a moose, a cow moose with a young

calf, is a dangerous animal if you come on it unexpectedly in

the wild and if you have no means of protecting yourself. I

don't think you'll ever talk to a big game guide, a trapper or

a prospector who has not at one time in his life, if he has

been continually in the wilds, had to run up a tree and

scramble up there because of a moose — either in rut or a cow

moose with a calf — that you happen to stumble on in the wild

unexpectedly.

A cougar is not really that dangerous in the bush. But there

are other animals that are far more of a problem. So all I

would suggest to the Attorney-General is this: I realize that

there must be a directive out to the RCMP to be very

restrictive in the number of permits that they'll issue to

people for carrying sidearms; but for goodness' sake, take

another look, if you would, with the RCMP at those three

particular classifications of people. Some of them have had to

run for their lives and some of them have been fortunate enough

to escape, and others have not.

Most of the people in that profession that I talk to do not

wish to carry a rifle, because it's cumbersome when you're

working on a prospecting claim or when you're trapping in the

woods and you're travelling on snowshoes a lot of the time.

They do like to carry a sidearm. Unfortunately, in immediate

past years, it's been increasingly difficult for them to get a

permit to carry a revolver when they're out in the wilds. I

hope the Attorney-General in his wisdom would see fit to allow

these people to continue the practice of carrying sidearms when

they are in the wilds.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is a subject that I asked be put

upon the agenda of the last dominion-provincial meeting of

Attorneys-General and the Minister of Justice. I'm very

concerned about it because I think there's a danger that the

American experience, which is terrible, can seep across the

line.

I think the national controls have to be looked at very

seriously, and at the same time the legitimate sports

activities of hunters cannot be enmeshed in red tape. I think

that could be done. I think we could satisfy that need and at

the same time protect society so that we shall not become a

greater Detroit where, believe it or not, in the last year they

had 750 gun murders.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hand guns, though?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All kinds, you know — 750. In Northern

Ireland in one year in the civil war — and they fight in

Northern Ireland on almost any pretext — they had 250 dead. In

one big city there were 750 in one year. I think it's something

that we can't be blind to. I have made representations at

Ottawa and I intend to make more.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to raise

another subject with the Attorney-General, and this has to do

with telephones and the possibility of a single emergency

number existing in this province. The Attorney-General has

always expressed a wish that the government take over the

telephone company. Indeed, the government is a significant

enough shareholder now that it can begin to use board

influence, if not direct legislative power.

I think it's time we had in British Columbia one number that

is a simple number, perhaps a three-digit number, manned 24

hours-a-day that anybody could call at any time when there was

an emergency. Then the people on the other end of the line

would immediately transfer it to the appropriate agency — fire,

police, medical emergency, whatever it is — and action would

take place.

I would like to ask the Attorney-General if he's able to

give any thought to that idea and whether we might look forward

to something like this in the future.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it's a suggestion really

I'm hearing for the first time in any detail, and I appreciate

the suggestion. We'll consider it if it's in any way practical.

I take it to be apart from civil defence, which is under the

Provincial Secretary, and that it's really related to things in

my department. I think that's the intention. I think it's a

suggestion well worth considering. It may be possible to

implement that without taking over the phone company.

[ Page 1258 ]

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I wanted to bring up just a

couple of items about the Liquor Control Board before the

opportunity passed and also to make a couple of comments about

alcohol in general. I've spoken quite extensively about the

drug problem and I was happy to hear the Attorney-General at

least offer a little more encouragement to us in relation to

this concern with the drug-dependency problems today.

I didn't want it to get abroad that narcotic drugs are the

only concern because certainly there isn't any doubt in

anyone's mind — or at least in my mind — that alcohol abuse is

the greatest drug problem in North America. I think the

Attorney-General has a duty to the people of British Columbia

as well to make sure that some of the profits from the Liquor

Control Board go toward establishing some kind of treatment

programmes to help eradicate the problems contained in alcohol

abuse.

It's funny, you know, that we hear parents of young children

say too often in relation to drug use something like, "Thank

God, he or she hasn't taken any drugs or isn't smoking

marijuana — only having the odd beer or rye or Coke or

something." That's an attitude that is very prevalent in our

society. I recall recently a statement being made that 20 per

cent of high school students had tried marijuana, and there was

instant panic. Yet when we tell them that 80 per cent drink

alcohol, nobody even listens. There's something wrong with our

sense of values there. There's a bit of unbalance.

I'm not advocating that we go back and arm everybody with

axes and go back to the days of Carrie Nation, but to a large

degree, Mr. Chairman, the Dries in our society have been

discredited. We've come full circle from those days of Women's

Christian Temperance Union prominence and from those days of

prohibition. Now we don't listen to the Dries at all. If

someone advocates any kind of temperance, with relation to

alcohol, then he is immediately ridiculed and discredited as

attempting to put down some kind of an established social

problem. Yet the facts show, Mr. Chairman, that Canadians today

drink 30 per cent more alcohol than they did 25 years ago.

I suggest, and it's on pretty good authority, that the

reason we drink 30 per cent more alcohol than we did 25 years

ago is because alcohol is more available. It's as simple as

that. And it concerns me that the Premier, Mr. Chairman, makes

statements such as his statement about the continental style of

drinking in this country. He came back from that trip to France

or wherever it was that he was, and suggested that that's the

way we should go in British Columbia — because he liked what he

saw over in France and Germany. He liked that continental style

of drinking.

Yet I wonder what the consequences are of that kind of continental style of

drinking. It might be of interest to the House, Mr. Chairman, to know that deaths

in France from cirrhosis of the liver are the highest in the world — six times

higher than in Canada.

In France, 42 per cent of all health expenditures are spent

in treatment of alcohol-related diseases. That's the

consequence of that kind of continental style of drinking.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I don't have the figures for Italy at

hand, but I happen to have the figures for France, Mr.

Chairman. Fifty per cent of all of the hospital beds in France

are occupied by patients suffering from alcohol-related

diseases. Those are meaningful and important statistics that

all of us should be concerned with, Mr. Chairman. I don't think

that's exactly what we want in this country. When we're talking

about alcoholism and peripherally, through you, Mr. Chairman,

as it relates to health, we don't even recognize alcoholism as

a health problem in this country, in British Columbia anyway.

The Canadian Medical Association doesn't even recognize it as a

health problem. Yet the American Medical Association recognized

it years and years and years ago — that hide-bound old

conservative association. In 1935 they recognized it as a

treatable illness. We don't in this country.

Bringing the problem closer to home, Mr. Chairman, in

Ontario in a recent study there, I think done in 1969, it was

shown that 38 per cent of the deaths from cirrhosis of the

liver were directly related to alcoholism, 22 per cent of

peptic ulcer deaths, 18 per cent of suicides, 15 per cent of

pneumonia deaths, 16 per cent of cancer of the upper digestive

and respiratory tract, over 5 per cent of heart and artery

deaths — all directly related to alcoholism. In addition to

that, 45 per cent of all the poisoning deaths in that year in

Ontario, 43 per cent of the accidental fire deaths, 25 per cent

of falls and other related physical problems — all related

directly to alcoholism. It's been proved in that same survey

that was done in 1969 in Ontario that the alcoholic has twice

the chance of premature death than anyone else does.

In Canada, over 50 per cent of all the traffic deaths are

directly related to alcohol in one way or another. About a year

ago the Attorney-General said that we could expect immediately

easements in the liquor laws. I'm all in favour of

liberalization of the laws — there's no question about that —

but I just want us all to know that greater liberalization

means greater use.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Why do you say you're in favour of it?

[ Page

1259 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm in favour of changes to

the liquor law because I believe that the liquor laws as they

relate today are completely out of date, but I'm telling you

that liberalization of the liquor laws and moving into a

continental style of drinking means greater use of alcohol. You

have to accept that result if you accept the concept of

liberalization. Greater use means a greater prevalence of death

and disease as a consequence. If you continue to say that there

will be liberalization of the liquor laws, then you also have

to accept that consequence, because with greater liberalization

and greater use there isn't any country in the whole world

where that hasn't proved to be correct. When you make the

product more available, it will be used to a larger degree.

With respect to a couple of items specifically, one of them

is the neighbourhood pub. I don't know where we're going in

that respect, but once again, a year ago at least the

Attorney-General said that there would be changes made and that

we would be moving into a kind of a neighbourhood pub concept.

I hope that the Attorney-General will look at the situation as

it exists in England first of all, in connection with

neighbourhood pubs, because I suggest that while they call

England the most civilized drinking country in the world, that

isn't quite correct. People are moving away from cities in

England because of neighbourhood pubs and for other reasons.

There's a terrible problem. I was reading in an editorial about

a place called Wigan, which is a British industrial town in the

north where there is literally an average of two pubs to every

city block. The editorial says:

"Wigan at closing time on Saturday night sounds like a

revolution is in progress. Nobody attempts to sleep until the

last noisy reveler has made his unsteady way home. The

performance is repeated every Sunday evening."

These people who are greeting the provincial government's

move to introduce neighbourhood pubs with applause should take

time to think on these things. I also suggest that if you look

into the kind of appalling situation that's developed in the

United States in relation to taverns, it's just as bad. Most of

them, in my opinion, are atrocious. They're nothing more than

watering holes and they offer their participants very little in

the way of any kind of entertainment.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes. I hope that we don't go that same route

here, Mr. Chairman. It's a terrible situation.

It's too bad that the Attorney-General continues to put down any suggestions

for changes, either in alcohol-related problems or drug-related problems. I

don't know whose department he thinks that this is in, but I suggest that it's

in his. He's made some suggestions with which I don't agree.

A year ago, Mr. Chairman, I asked the Attorney-General

whether or not he would do a survey into the relation between

lowered drinking ages and alcohol-related automobile accidents,

and he promised me at that time that he would. That was a year

ago, Mr. Attorney-General.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll do it again and you may be able to get

started on it one of these days, but I asked you a year ago

whether or not you would consider doing — or getting — some

kind of survey which would show the relation between automobile

accidents and lower drinking ages. Now, a year ago you promised

that you would get that survey for me and I just wonder where

it is and how much longer it might take to get.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, that's not in your department either.

I'm really sorry about that. I'm striking out on every occasion

here. Nothing is in your department.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, but Mr. Attorney-General, I think that

you should address yourself to that problem.

I don't know whether it was a year ago or not, but it's

quite a while ago that we talked about hiring females in liquor

stores, and that's happening pretty slowly too. I understand

that there is one and I don't think you even knew about that

one, through you, Mr. Chairman. That was an accident that she

got hired.

But you made some promises, Mr. Attorney-General. There were

some changes in the Factories Act to do away with some

of the restrictions. The chairman of the Human Rights

Commission a week or so ago said that the lack of facilities

was no reason for not hiring women in liquor stores. So when

are we going to start? I know you have several applications.

I've even forwarded a couple to you myself. So when are you

going to start hiring women in liquor stores? It's as simple as

that. I would think that the proponents of women's rights on

your side of the building should be vitally interested in that,

too. I'd say that they should be telling you that you've been

much too slow in getting women hired in liquor stores.

I welcome your announcement in answer to the question from

the Second Member for

[ Page 1260 ]

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) that you are intending to

have a complete management survey of the operation of retail

stores. I think that's much overdue and should be done as

quickly as possible.

I have Hansard here but I've lost it somewhere, so I

may misquote you slightly, but I did ask about a year ago

again, Mr. Chairman, when you were going to act to bring live

music into our hotel beer parlours. You said: "That's a

priority." I asked you in March, 1973 — it's just one year ago

this month. I said: "Will you make this a priority?" In press

statements at about the same time, you also said that your

priority was more live entertainment in liquor outlets. Now,

this would seem to me to be only a logical method of at least

bringing some kind of civilization to the watering holes which

are the beer parlours of British Columbia right now.

Live music, if nothing else, would help to replace the

constant enforced guzzling that we have in today's beer

parlours. Mr. Chairman, if that's the priority, and you move

that slowly on priorities, I would hate to see what happens on

the other items which you don't consider to be priorities,

because we're going to wait a long, long time for action on

them.

You also said, through you, Mr. Chairman, that you were

going to make changes to permit expanding the bright lights of

the B.C. hinterland, including lonely logging and mining camps.

I wonder what you did on that. I wonder what happened there.

Perhaps the Attorney-General might like to comment on that

one.

Briefly, there are some things that I think we should

consider in relation to the proper operation of our retail

liquor outlets. First of all, I don't know who plans them, but

I expect it's a committee somewhere because they are very badly

planned. I would suggest that somebody well qualified in retail

management should be asked to plan these stores — a

merchandiser, because that's the business you're in. Probably

there should be pre-pricing of products before they come into

the store because they sit on the floor for two and three weeks

sometimes before they ever get to the shelves.

What are you going to do about refrigerated beer depots in

the major cities? That's long overdue I think. Keg beer — as is

available in some other provinces. Beer and wine stores

separate from the regular liquor stores where these products,

particularly wines, can be sold and properly displayed is

well-controlled stores. I think that's overdue.

Specialty stores might be a good idea, as they have in

Ontario and, I guess, maybe some other areas. What is the

government's official stand now? A lot of people are waiting to

find out about neighbourhood pubs, and in what direction are

you going.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we are having a much quieter debate this

afternoon and it's certainly appreciated, I'm sure.

However, there were some slight transgressions into the

Department of Health, and the areas on which the department

impinges. I'd like to say first off that it wasn't long after

we had been government that I checked into the hospital

situation in this province as to the treatment of alcohol and

its effects.

There's no question about it that our hospitals are not

glorified detox centres. There's no question about it that

there is a need for that particular service. However, people

who are being treated in this province for the effects of

alcohol are treated in our hospitals and are acknowledged to

have those types of effects.

However, we have to be very careful in suggesting

specifically...for example, if a person's in for cirrhosis of

the liver or in for perforated peptic ulcer or whatever, then

naturally that's the diagnosis. So on that basis we've given

strict orders to all hospitals to acknowledge the need for the

treatment of the alcohol problem. As a matter of fact we are

working very closely right now with this department and the

Stein commission on the whole question of how do we get people

from one stage to another. There is a tremendous....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. I would....

HON. MR. COCKE: Just a minute. We're talking about alcohol

from that side of the floor, Mr. Chairman, using very liberal

constraints, and I think I should be able to answer some of

these questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are considering the estimates of the

Attorney-General.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right, that's what I thought. But,

Mr. Chairman, in any event, there is a tremendous concern.

The Member was also talking about the liberal attitude

toward alcohol in France. He said that there is a tremendous

alcoholism problem in France with identically the same, or

virtually identically the same, attitude toward alcohol. Italy

is the exact reverse. There are so many things that we must

understand and learn about alcohol. I think the universality of

availability is here. Our problem isn't to try to build the

constraints that we once had in our society.

I remember particularly in my air force years, I was being

trained in Montreal, and not too long much later I went down to

the ANS (Air Navigation School) at Summerside, P.E.I. At that

time in Summerside there was no liquor available legally

-prohibition. I can remember walking down the streets of

Charlottetown on a Saturday night and comparing that to walking

down the streets of Montreal which

[ Page 1261 ]

was relatively wide open. The incidence of drunkenness in

Charlottetown was so much more that it wasn't even funny.

So those kinds of constraints that were laid on people in

prohibition times didn't help a bit. As a matter of fact it

made things worse.

Now the incidence of drunkenness with the beer parlours, as

opposed to the pubs, I suggest to you is probably a great deal

more because the pub gives the friendly kind of climate where

the beer parlour is a huge factory where the whole intention is

to provide as much beer in the time that a person has to drink

it — a stupor parlour, as some people call them.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Attorney-General in his

careful, methodical way is moving in the right direction in

this province. A direction, Mr. Chairman, which is a very

careful analysis of the problem before we get involved in

asinine solutions which nobody can defend.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I'd

like to make a very brief suggestion to the Attorney-General as

to how a little bit of progress might be made. Two Members have

been discussing the problem of alcoholism, and I think it's

generally recognized that prohibition is unlikely to succeed in

British Columbia. Therefore, our best opportunity is to try and

modify and ameliorate drinking habits.

One of the recognized ways is to discourage the use of hard

liquor in favour of alternatives of lesser proof. One of them

is beer, another is wine. I'd like to deal with just one of

these alternatives — wine.

I believe it unfortunate that you cannot buy good wine at a

reasonable price in British Columbia. We might as well say

publicly what everybody else says privately, namely, that B.C.

wine is lousy wine. It's lousy wine.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. McGEER: Shame, says the Member, but they're all going to

go and buy good imported wine. I don't think we should give any

financial advantage to a lousy winemaker, whether it's from

British Columbia or anywhere else. I believe that the

Attorney-General should be prepared to allow imported wines to

come into British Columbia and be sold at a comparable price to

a local wines. That's going to be a solution for two reasons:

One, if you allow good wines to come into British Columbia at a

reasonable price, people will stop drinking as much hard liquor

and they'll begin to drink a material of lesser proof.

Secondly, British Columbia wines might improve. I believe as

long as they are given protection by the Attorney-General — I'm

talking about financial protection — they will continue to be

lousy wines.

Excellent wines are made in California, in New York State, in many countries

of Europe, which, if allowed into British Columbia at the going market price,

would compete with local wines in price. You'd be able to buy a bottle of decent

wine to have with your dinner at a price within the means of the average person.

He wouldn't need to go out guzzling beer at a beer parlour on Saturday night.

He wouldn't need to go and buy himself a bottle of hard stuff.

Hard liquor that's sold in British Columbia is as good as

hard liquor that's sold elsewhere. Beer that's sold in British

Columbia is as good as beer that's sold elsewhere. But wine is

not. What we have to do is try to encourage people to go to

milder beverages.

I'd like to ask the Attorney-General why it is we can't have

good imported wines in British Columbia selling at the same

price as the wines of the Capozzi enterprises and the other

local winemakers, which in my view constitute lousy wines, and

I'm not afraid to say so.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in answer to a few

questions, and this sums up a number of questions. As I said

earlier in the week, the liquor regulations which will be

proclaimed under the new Act, as it was amended in the spring

of 1973, have been drafted. They have been before the three-man

B.C. liquor board and that board is taking its time considering

them. I expect they'll be returned for consideration by the

government very shortly. They will deal with such things as

when a general licence or a pub licence can be granted.

I want to assure the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland)

that we have no intention of piling them up a number to a block

or anything like that. They should be spaced out and very

clearly justified in terms of community need. We envisage the

smaller establishments as leading to moderation in drinking

habits, as opposed to the larger drinking establishments.

We think the question of live entertainment in beer

parlours, although there has been some change in fact in the

last year, again is something that will be provided for in

these regulations. Once again, we think it will lead to more

moderate drinking habits because there will be something more

to do than just drink. We hope it will also give employment to

people in our community who are inclined to talent in the field

of folk music or combo, and things of that kind. I'm not

thinking of Alexis at this time.

The logging camps will come in the same. We do intend to

disburse it where there is a need for entertainment and a

social centre in remote areas of the province. I think we have

to disperse our culture from out of the lower mainland to the

hinterland.

MR. SMITH: Do you put loggers on the same wave length?

[ Page 1262 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Women in beer parlours; women in the

liquor stores. There's quite an answer and I couldn't turn it

up right away. The answer in the Votes and Proceedings I

filed shows a lot in administration, quite a few in warehousing

-and that's the little lady up-Island. She was in the answer;

she's been there some little time. In the stores we do have the

problem, although we're moving on it as quickly as we can, that

we have a great many people on recall; they are casual people

who established a bit of a job-right in a liquor store. You

can't ride roughshod over them. Quite apart from the union

agreement, you've got a moral question there too. You can't

expect big progress there.

Separate facilities. The Factories Act , 1966 has been

changed in terms of the weight thing but not in terms of the

separate lavatory facilities. We're correcting that problem so

we'll be able to get a point of no discrimination.

As for the local wines, I can't agree that they're all that

bad, I say to the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. I think

there's some good Rieslings and some good dry reds that have

been produced.

In the Province of B.C. we shouldn't think of it only as an

economic thing. There are farmers growing grapes; there are

people working in wineries. That's important. But over and

above that, I think it's important that we gradually upgrade

the quality of our local wines. I think we should have some

price advantage for that reason. This listing policy has been

looked at. We do have dumping in British Columbia from some

countries that might be behind the Iron Curtain or Spain or

Portugal or somewhere like that. They can sell to us, to be

dumped on the consumer in B.C., a good table wine at less than

it is selling for in the country of origin. That's dumping, and

I think our local produces at least are entitled to protection

against that kind of thing.

In my opinion they should have a markup because I think in

time we can produce great wines in British Columbia. We have to

give the industry a chance and we have to monitor the thing. We

are reviewing our listing policy of those as I mentioned

earlier in the House.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to greatly lengthen

the debate on alcohol, but the impression has been created, I

think, by some Members that society and others are not really

fully aware of the dimension of the problem. Just because we've

talked a great deal about drugs, I don't think there should be

any doubt in anyone's mind that far and away alcohol is a

bigger problem than drugs in that it affects a much larger

number of people.

I'm not going to repeat the long speech we had from the Second Member for Victoria

(Mr. D.A. Anderson) last night. Was it last night? It seems like a long time

ago. He quoted at great lengths from the very excellent document put out by

the Women's Christian Temperance Union. It has all the statistics and I have

no intention whatever in going through all the various ways in which it affects

society.

It is a major problem unquestionably.

On the other hand, I think we should recognize a few facts

of life in our society also. I happened to fall asleep in my

chair last night — not here but when I got home. When I woke

up, I woke up to the sound of gunfire. This was the TV that had

been left on and it was the film called "The St. Valentine's

Day Massacre." I had been meaning to make a few comments in the

House on this question of alcohol. I'm saying, Mr. Chairman,

that that film brought home the fantastic inevitability of

alcohol as an ingredient in society. Again, we don't need to go

through all the details of prohibition, but the fact was that

this was the time in American history where legislators who

presumably had good intentions felt that it was worthwhile

attempting to remove the use of alcohol from society. It was a

disastrous age for society. This was very well depicted in the

widespread corruption and involvement of legislators being paid

off, rival gangs murdering each other by the dozens, and so

on.

It was a very hideous revelation of the fact that anyone who

feels society can in any way eliminate or perhaps even minimize

the use of alcohol is just dreaming. We've had a very horrible

experiment, a social experiment, in trying to prevent its use

completely and this was a total and abysmal failure. We should

make it plain in our debate that it is an inevitable factor in

our society.

Surely the answer is, as several Members of the opposition

have pointed out, one of education and example. Parents have a:

tremendous responsibility. If they do choose to drink in their

home, they should do so in moderation and try and set a

civilized example to their children.

Many points have been made by other Members, including the

Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland). Another impression I got

from listening to some of these comments was that the medical

profession didn't seem to be aware of the problem either.

That's just stretching things a bit far, Mr. Chairman. Any

physician who has been in general practice for more than five

minutes knows very well the number of problems which he has to

handle, not only in the patient who is the alcoholic or the

heavy drinker but in the beaten-up wife and the abused

children, the debt problems the family gets into, and all the

social consequences of heavy drinking or alcoholism. To leave

the impression that the medical profession isn't aware of the

problem is just not so.

Unfortunately, the medical profession has no better answers

than anybody else. I'm not suggesting that they have some

simple solutions to controlling the problem, but practising

physicians certainly spend

[ Page 1263 ]

a great deal of time struggling both with the disease itself

and the associated complications.

Just to finish, Mr. Chairman, again I have to be critical of

the Attorney-General. I'm just fed up with reading clippings

from the newspaper on statements by the Minister that there's

going to be changes in the regulations. This is somewhat akin

to the criticism, Mr. Attorney-General, that I had of you about

the jails.

Just let me be specific. You're upset that the Member for

Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) criticized you without

giving examples. One or two very quick examples. For example,

if you go to Hy's Steakhouse and you have a drink in the

library room, and then you go to your supper in the dining

room, you can't carry your glass in your hand from where you

drink to 50 feet along a corridor to sit down and eat your

supper. How long does it take to change a regulation like

that?

In fact, when you're in the library room, you don't get to

stand up and drink. I went to stand at the bar one night and

thought it was like being in the old country, and they wouldn't

let me stand up. They said, "Oh, you have to sit here."

I know it sounds like a little thing, but that's the whole

point I'm making. If it takes us goodness knows how long to

change a simple little regulation like that, how in heaven's

name are we ever going to get round to the more complicated

regulations that need to be changed?

This is another interesting little item which I'm sure the

Attorney-General will appreciate since he frequently uses the

Empress Hotel. He knows my daughter was serving as a waitress

in that hotel. She couldn't get the job she was entitled to

because she wasn't yet 19. She's not even allowed to carry the

drink from the counter to the table where the customer is. She

was substantially penalized in the income she could earn last

summer because they wanted to give her the job but she's not 19

so she can't even carry the liquor, never mind drink it.

I think these regulations in this day and age are just

ridiculous. Surely there should be some cognizance taken of the

fact, for example, that we have students who have to earn a

living during the summer, and they should not suffer this kind

of difficulty in not even being able to hold a glass of liquor

in their hand. This, I think, in terms of education is

counter-productive on our younger people because she comes home

to me and says, "No wonder society's crazy these days." Then

she gives me what I think is a very valid argument. And I

haven't got an answer.

One of the reasons I'm bringing it up, Mr. Attorney-General,

through you, Mr. Chairman: "Well," she said, "you're in

the House, you go down and do something about it." So I'm

trying.

Of course, the question of drinks in a hotel room: I've got a clipping here from the Province October

30, 1973. It starts off with that same word the

Attorney-General uses so frequently — "gradual". "'Gradual

changes in B.C. liquor regulations will be introduced by the

NDP government,' Attorney-General Macdonald said on

Monday."

Then he went on to mention the changes which will take

place, including the serving of liquor in hotel rooms and some

of these other points. He's even willing to look at the fact

that maybe we've got past the stage in society when you get

drunk on election day and somebody sells or buys votes.

These are all points that.... Yes it's good Conservative

thinking, but I might be quite frank and say that I put this

resolution at our annual convention and it was defeated.

(Laughter.) Nevertheless, I don't consider that I'm bound to

just repeat parrot-fashion what a party convention decides. I

happen to think, again, that this is an uncivilized approach to

the drinking, and the more we crimp it around with restrictions

and various unrealistic regulations which really don't hold

much water when you stop to analyse them in a rational way, the

more our young people see us treating the use of liquor with

these ridiculous regulations, they begin to wonder if we ever

make much sense. Then when we try to take a strong stand of

some regulation or other on the use of drugs....

The answer I get from the young people is: "Well, don't you

talk to me when we see what you adults are doing with liquor."

So it creates a very difficult situation for progress,

particularly when, as I say, the example we're setting doesn't

stand up to too careful scrutiny or to rational debate. It

seems to me that the Attorney-General would really make a

tremendous gain in dealing with alcohol in a civilized and sane

manner if very, very quickly he at least got these stupid,

simple little regulations — even if it was just the four or

five that I've mentioned — it would be showing you're well

aware that the regulations are not really apt or suitable in

today's society, and that you are, in fact, in a position to

get simple changes made quickly.

As I say, this was October, Mr. Attorney-General. We're now

into March, and this wasn't the first time, as I recall, that

you had publicly stated this.

It may be out of order for just a moment, but it's the same

in the health field. We get a great big blueprint to look away

ahead five years, when there are certain things right tomorrow

could be done without any great degree of deliberation or

investigation or further public debate. This has been mentioned

so many times in the House. We're talking about the fact that

we are spending long hours of debate on your estimates; I can

remember this being brought up under the Socred government. I

used to sit and listen to the same points being made five years

ago.

So, apart from anything else, Mr.

[ Page 1264 ]

Attorney-General, if you got these simple regulations

changed quickly, we wouldn't have to debate this time next

year. And I have the horrible feeling that maybe we will be,

myself included.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I didn't intend to enter this

debate, and I don't want to prolong it by going over a lot of

facts and figures. But, really, as I sit here and listen to it,

we sound like a lot of schizophrenics on the loose, including

the last Member who spoke. And when I listen to the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), I just about collapse on the spot.

Everybody knows that alcoholism is a serious problem. Look

at England — go and see your new pals in government over there.

I talked to one of the former lady Labour Ministers who was

instrumental in liberalizing the liquor laws in England, along

with the abortion laws.

They had lived with it for a time and she said, "Pat,

whatever you do, don't go about this in the manner that the

Attorney-General is displaying — an attitude of: 'let's keep it

civilized, you know. We don't want to have people to be

inconvenienced by having to go to the liquor store.' "

No one denies that liquor is a part of our life today and

that prohibition is not the answer. But we're supposed to be

mature, responsible adults and legislators who should be

prepared to stand up and be counted on some of these

issues.

The Minister of Health points out that he has to expand the

facilities for the treatment of alcoholics in the hospital.

Then the next moment he's advocating that we make these nice,

cosy little neighbourhood pubs. I believe he favours the sale

of wine and cheese and beer in the grocery stores. I say this

is a schizophrenic attitude.

Mr. Attorney-General, who are you trying to kid when you

stand up in this House — and I'm certainly not defending the

current beer parlours — but you say that we envision these cosy

little neighbourhood parlours with live entertainment and games — getting away from this forcing and pushing of the booze?

Mr. Attorney-General, how much does it cost to build that

establishment? How much does it cost in terms of servicing and

taxes on that establishment? Have you talked with the unions

about the cost of providing live entertainment — the minimum

wage law, the stand-by costs? Mr. Attorney-General — the cost in

terms of staff.

There is no way in British Columbia — I don't have my figures here, but I worked

it out and I have had other people work it out — that in the majority of areas

of the lower mainland and even in the Okanagan, or in I would suggest, Fort

St. John, Prince Rupert — any centralized area — can you possibly afford, on

an economically-balanced basis, to provide the 30-seat, quiet, little neighbourhood

pub with two glasses of beer an evening? You know, Mr. Attorney-General, as

well as I know, well as these Members know and certainly as the First Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) must know, that it is not economically

possible. Therefore, you're entwining it and enshrining it with all this glamour

and glitter when, in fact, they are going to be pushing beer and wine, and whatever

else they're licensed to sell, every bit as much as they are in the beer parlours

in British Columbia today.

All I ask, Mr. Attorney-General, is let's be factual in

this. I don't deny there are some changes needed. But let's not

stand up here and acknowledge some of these crucial problems

and then, because it sounds nicey-nicey and because, even as

the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said, a lot of the doctors

won't acknowledge the crucial situation in this area, let's

lead the way; let's fact the facts. If the facts are against

the best interests of society, then let's have the courage to

say no, that's not right.

I'd like to be around, Mr. Member, when you get the first

glass of beer down the back of your neck in one of these

friendly, little neighbourhood pubs — I'm sure you won't be as

docile as you were this afternoon. This is the reason that

you're not allowed to carry beer around in beer parlours —

people have two, or three or four drinks; they get a little

tipsy and wander around...or maybe they've only had one

drink, they're jostled and the beer goes down somebody's neck.

The next thing you know, they're on their feet and we have a

repeat performance of what almost happened out here in the

corridor yesterday.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): How do you know?

MRS. JORDAN: To use England as an example of the pubs — if

you talked to the authorities in the human resources area over

there, they will name neighbourhood pubs — these cosy,

friendly, little places — as one of the major problems in

marital disorganization over there. This is where Pa stops on

the way home, and the pretty little secretary is there on the

way home — they have a nice cosy, beer....

MR. WALLACE: Sex and booze.

MRS. JORDAN: That's simplifying it.

I say again, talk to your colleagues in England because

England has done a lot of studying on this. They feel that the

neighbourhood pub is a very disrupting factor in the strength

while they may have the finest soccer teams in the world, as a

people they're the most unexercised people perhaps in the

world.

Mr. Attorney-General, while there are some

[ Page 1265 ]

streamlinings needed in the liquor laws, I praise you for

moving more cautiously. I would urge you to be more realistic

than you were in this House this afternoon.

HON. MR. LEA: What's needed? Come on now, what's needed?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, you yourself said you talked

about the American way of life in terms of guns, and that this

was flopping over into Canada. I suggest to you that all these

things are underlying and intertwined factor in what doesn't

appeal to us as Canadians about the American way of life.

I've lived in the States — we've lived in the States as a

family. We lived in Texas, and we watched a man stand watering

a lawn all day for 25 cents. Where did he go and spend his 25

cents? Not on his seven children at home, but right around the

corner where the neighbourhood pub was.

Mr. Chairman, we want Canada to be Canada. People come to

British Columbia because we're unique. I suggest to you that

some of these what seem like particular laws, are in fact very

much part of a very leveling influence in our society. We don't

have the neon signs with the blaring pub signs. We don't have

the murders in the neighbourhood pubs that they have both in

England and in the United States. We don't have as much family

breakdown through friendly, cosy drinking areas as they do in

other countries. I'd just like to again say, Mr.

Attorney-General, that I think that you should look at these

changes with considerable caution. Let's be realistic and let's

not use all of the statistics to prove that making booze more

available is going to cure our ills because it isn't, Mr.

Attorney-General.

Just on the wine industry in the Okanagan, I suggest that

the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey not make his speech up

there. There are many grape growers in British Columbia who are

frozen to their land by this government, and I suggest that the

government has an obligation to try and promote their product,

hopefully not just through alcohol, but through other areas of

B.C. grape-oriented products, jams and jellies, rather than the

stiffer competition of import wines.

Let's face it, the quality of grapes that we can grow in

British Columbia in relation to the various quality grapes that

are needed for the very fine wines is extremely limited. If

you've got a grape industry I don't think you should promote it

through the sale of wines and getting into pop wines — I'd

oppose this — but at least I don't think we should put them out

of business unless we have no alternative.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Chairman, I'll be rather brief but I thought

I would like to rise in this debate. Being a little bit of an authority in regard

to the subject that's being discussed, being a person that enjoys his beer and

goes out occasionally and has one, I would just like to express my views.

MR. WALLACE: Did you ever spill it down anybody's back?

MR. LEWIS: No. You know, I've always drunk in moderation,

but after listening to the last Member, I don't know, I may

become an alcoholic.

MRS. JORDAN: I can drink you under the table anytime.

MR. LEWIS: In the riding that I represent, we have

communities that are 30 to 35 miles from a place where they can

get a glass of beer or a glass of wine. What happens on a

Friday or Saturday night? These people must get into their

cars. They must drive 25 or 30 miles to have an evening out in

the tavern, or to be with people to have a little conversation

and a drink. Then they get back in their car and drive home 25

or 30 miles. This is one of the reasons why we have so many

tragic accidents in some of these areas.

I would like to say that I think we are going in the right

direction by having these neighbourhood pubs in outlying areas

in particular. In communities such as Celista in my area, where

there's 500 people, on a Saturday night there's probably

anywhere from 70 to 100 cars that drive to Chase. A lot of

those people return home in a car when they shouldn't be

driving. The Member stands up and says that making booze

available causes a lot of alcoholics and causes a lot more

problems, but it has been proven false many, many times

over.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: I would suggest that the Member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) take a trip across the border into the

State of Washington.

MRS. JORDAN: I've lived there.

MR. LEWIS: The only people that you see down there that are

being disorderly and drinking too much are Canadians on a

Sunday. That's right. Because liquor isn't available in B.C. on

a Sunday they cross the border to where there are taverns, they

stay there, drink excessively and then drive back into B.C.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: It's too far from your riding.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for Shuswap continue,

please? Order, please! I still have

[ Page 1266 ]

hopes of catching my 7:25 plane to Vancouver.

MR. LEWIS: I'll be brief. I think everybody in this House

would have to agree that just because alcohol is available it's

not necessary that you drink it. I have alcohol in my home all

the time and there's weeks on end where I never have a drink

out of the bottle. So your stand on this is absolutely

false.

Vote 11 approved.

On vote 12: general administration, $1,141,484.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, earlier today we heard the Minister

of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) rise to the defence of

the Attorney-General when we were on an amendment to his

salary vote. The Minister of Consumer Services rose to his

defence and said, from the notes that I have down here, that

her department was a child of the office of the

Attorney-General and that she was eternally grateful to that

Minister and his department for the help.

Well, I wouldn't like to tell you this and sort of embarrass

the Attorney-General, but if in fact we do now have a Minister

of Consumer Services, would the Attorney-General tell me why in

his vote 12 there's a consumer affairs officer listed and the

salary is listed under the Attorney-General's Department? Are

we to assume by that that the Attorney-General has a little

concern over the ability of the newly-appointed Minister, and

therefore keeps her departmental personnel under his close

scrutiny?

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Watch dog!

MR. SMITH: Watch dog?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Since the preparation of the estimates

by order-in-council, the consumer affairs officer, who is Mike

Hansen, a very capable man, was transferred to the other

department.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, again it's no personal reflection on the

Deputy Minister, but that's a very substantial increase form $27,000 to $40,000.

As I say, I want to make it very plain that I'm not questioning the person concerned,

for whom I have a great deal of respect, but there seems to be a variety through

the estimates where the different Deputies are paid — let's get down to the

nuts and bolts — different salaries. Does it mean that the Deputy of this department

is worth $4,000 more than some of the others, or $3,000 more, or $2,000 more?

It's a very substantial increase of the order of 50 per cent in one year. As

I say, it doesn't seem to be consistent with other Deputies, and I thought that

a Deputy was a certain grade of seniority and that it shouldn't matter which

department you're in, whether it's Health or Education or A.G. I just would

like to know what the yardstick is that's used to decide the Deputy's salary.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, there's a grid established

by order-in-council which gives a range for Deputies that does

vary by department. In the larger — I don't say more important — departments, the range runs from $39,000 to $41,000, which

includes the Attorney-General's Department. Mr. Vickers came in

at $40,000 in the second step. In other departments that are

less onerous, the three-year steps are at a lower level. Then

below that you have Associate Deputy Ministers. So there is a

difference established, rightly or wrongly, by the Minister of

Finance and the Provincial Secretary in respect to different

departments. Rightly or wrongly, they're not treated equally in

terms of the payment of their Deputies.

MR. WALLACE: In other words, it is a cabinet decision on

advice of the Minister of Finance and the Provincial Secretary.

Will this be negotiable in the future? Do they not come under

the new provisions of the civil service government outline?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No. It's not in civil service

bargaining.

Vote 12 approved.

Vote 13: administration, incidentals and contingencies,

$6,500 — approved.

On vote 14: justice and courts, supreme and county courts —

$1,411,330.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to know why "temporary

assistance" has been doubled. It would strike me that supreme

and county courts should be receiving not temporary assistance

but full-time assistance. I don't understand why we've doubled

that to $200,000.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it's simply the load of

judicial work. It includes the provincial court as well as the

higher courts. I think, where we in the provincial courts after

a strike situation.... Of course, this is looking into the

future that we're talking about, isn't it? So I shouldn't

mention that, but that was a case where we hired a lot of extra

temporary people because we set up ad hoc courts to get

through. But it's simply the pressure of judicial business.

Your point is that they should be integrated into the system, I

take it, Mr. Member. I think that's something we should look

at,

[ Page 1267 ]

because we don't believe in temporary assistance as such or

casual employment. As we move toward reforming the justice

system I would think there would be less casual and more

permanent trained personnel.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I wonder whether the Attorney-General

would amplify his earlier statement about looking into the

future on a strike. I may not have heard it correctly but....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, this is for the next year. That's

what I meant.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Is it just simply anticipation of

troubles in the future?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I was just wondering, Mr.

Attorney-General, if this is the point where these sheriffs'

training will come in.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's in a later vote.

Vote 14 approved.

On vote 15: justice and courts, coroners' inquests and

inquiries, $250,000.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, there's a substantial increase

from $175,000 to $250,000. Does this mean that citizens serving

at coroners' inquests are to have additional remuneration? If

so, could you tell us approximately by how much?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we've increased the fees

for coroners' jurors up to $ 10, the same as in other courts,

and we have increased the fees of doctors. For the first time —

I should have corrected that — we've begun to pay by

legislation in this House for a fee to people who sit on a

coroner's jury. In addition, we've improved the remuneration of

coroners and we've improved the remuneration of doctors who

attend at inquests and do autopsies and give evidence.

Vote 15 approved.

On vote 16: justice and courts, administration of justice,

$5,653,000.

MR. SMITH: I notice that the amount of money appropriated here for legal

aid is increased by $1 million from $1.5 million to $2.5 million. I'm not suggesting

that that is not a reasonable figure, taking into consideration the fact that

we wish to provide more legal aid for people who find themselves in a position

where they need the services of the law profession and can't afford it, but

would the Attorney-General, just in broad terms, give the criteria that are

involved for the granting of legal aid or the withholding of it? What basis

do you work on in this respect? Is it just upon application from anyone, or

how do you operate it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It depends on means, and it's fixed by

the Legal Aid Society. These regulations change from time to

time, but a person applies to a district adviser. If they have

the means to conduct their own litigation, they do it

themselves. If they don't, they receive legal aid. Legal aid,

of course, has been extended in the last year into the civil

field, beginning with family matters and some other civil

matters. It's been extended in the sense that we've opened the

walk-in offices in a number of centres in the province,

including Victoria. I don't see the young lawyer who was here

last night who is the director of the legal aid office, Keith

Hamilton, in Victoria, but he's doing very good work.

This figure doesn't include the federal contribution, which

is based upon 50 cents per capita or up to 90 per cent of the

amount of our legal aid devoted to criminal work, whichever is

the smaller.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To add to that $2.5 million, what's the

difference in the federal contribution? If we've upped the

provincial contribution by $1 million, is there a substantial

difference in the federal? I imagine the formula may be the

same, but are there any changes other than according to

formula?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The federal contribution will go up

because we will be spending more as a province upon legitimate

criminal legal aid that is recognized under the agreement, I

think the federal contribution was about $1 million last

year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Do you expect it to be up $500,000?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would think it would be up to $1.2

million, or something of that sort, because of the additional

money we will be putting into that side of legal aid.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I think this is one of the really

progressive areas in the province where we're providing more

legal aid. I talked at some length with prisoners in the two

jails in this area and I gather that quite often they're never

really asked whether they need legal aid or told whether or not

it's available. One inmate told me that you're not even told or

made aware of the fact that you can have counsel. Other times,

if you do seek counsel and legal

[ Page 1268 ]

aid, the remand business goes on ad infinitum.

One prisoner told me that he had 14 remands before he

finally got his case heard. I couldn't understand why this was,

and he said that either the counsel wasn't available or it took

that length of time to get the counsels for the defence and the

Crown together at the same time. This case of his went on for

many weeks before finally, after 14 remands, he had his case

decided.

I don't profess to know all the angles to this, but it

seemed to me that two things come into it, namely the question

of whether they need counsel and are aware that they can have

counsel, and then after that comes a decision as to whether or

not they should have legal aid.

I wonder if the Attorney-General could tell us: are there

guidelines for judges to ensure that the prisoner is first of

all made aware of the fact that he is entitled to have counsel,

whether or not he has the money to pay for it, and if he does

ask for counsel, what are the guidelines in determining whether

or not he gets legal aid? It does seem to me a pretty important

aspect in the provision of fair play and justice to the

individual.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I agree that this is an

area that has been neglected and one where improvement is badly

needed. We must publicize the legal aid services that are

available to people in trouble to a much greater extent than we

have. One Member, the other day, made a suggestion about a

poster or leaflet in the prison itself. I think that's a good

suggestion. Sometimes a person does not see a judge for some

period of time. It can't be more than a certain period, I know,

but it takes a little time.

In addition, we think we would like to see duty counsel in

the courts in the major centres. Now, that's not always easy to

do, just because of the availability of personnel, but it's one

of the things we have in mind.

So we do need to publicize our activities and supply that

help on the road toward legal aid or other assistance that is

lacking at the present time.

I'm informed that we do have a duty counsel in the Victoria

police court at the present time.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Very briefly, Mr. Attorne

-General, about the Law Reform Commission, I'd just like to

suggest that we'd very much like to see the base of it

broadened to include some representatives from the community at

large. We've always contended that lawyers did not corner the

market on justice, and we feel that since the law applies to

all of us we should have some say, too, in ways in which we'd

like to see it changed. That's just a suggestion, Mr.

Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just in terms of technically drafting a statute

such as the expropriation Act, that happens to be at a certain point a technical,

legal job. But before you reach that stage there should be, wherever possible,

public hearings, public representations and community input. So I agree with

the suggestion.

I hope to have a full-time chairman of the Law Reform

Commission within the next three or four weeks.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. We may even file one in the

Legislature — not for passage at this session, I don't want to

commit myself on that, but so that people can look at it. First

reading?

Vote 16 approved.

On vote 17: justice and courts, justice planning and

research unit, $185,740.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, this one we definitely have

to question because it's never come up before. We have

virtually $200,000 under "justice planning and research," and perhaps the best thing we can do is have the

Attorney-General start off by telling us why we have a new

programme, whether any of these functions have been carried out

before elsewhere, and give us a few ideas of what the

programmes all about.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, this is really a

recommendation of the task force under Dr. Matheson with his

fellow commissioners. It's the provision for the planning unit

in the Attorney-General's department to integrate the system,

as I've said many times, from the police function at the

pick-up level or summons level to the corrections side.

Really for the first time we have a good research programme.

We have taken people from the Corrections Branch into this

planning unit who were really an adjunct simply to the present

system. They're now engaged in planning in the whole realm of

the administration of justice.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A query on Dr. Matheson's role: is he

still working on the drug programme? Has the abandonment of the

proposals of Dr. Matheson become formal? Has he switched to

other areas? I think that Dr. Matheson has much to contribute,

from what we've read about him so far. Not all of it is good,

but all of it is interesting. I would wonder whether or not

he's going to continue in the area of putting forth new ideas

on drugs, or whether or not he's going to be subordinated to

Peter Stein and the commission.

[ Page 1269 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Dr. Matheson, of course, as head of this

planning unit, is very fully engaged at the present time

because of our programme of assumption of the municipal courts

by the province. There's a tremendous amount of research into

how the system is working, its personnel, and so forth. He is

very fully engaged at the present time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's the point I'm trying to get at.

Actually the transfer of municipal responsibility to the

province comes under the next vote and I'll be questioning that

in due course. But it appears to me that Dr. Matheson is no

longer actively engaged in anything to do with drugs. The

Minister nods his head.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, he has no drug related study

underway at the present time. He happens to be engaged on other

things.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I appreciate the reply of the

Attorney-General because that's something that's worried us for

many days — the role of Dr. Matheson in the future of British

Columbia justice with relation to the drug problem. We

understand now that he's actually working on development of

judicial systems in the transfer to the province of the

municipal responsibility. Thank you.

MR. WALLACE: Briefly, I'd like to follow up with that last

question. Can we assume, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr.

Chairman, that Dr. Matheson will continue to have a role in the

developing of the kinds of programmes which he himself has

outlined as being considered advisable, and a very reasonable

pilot project that we talked about as varying degree of

compulsory detention of a drug addict in a non-jail kind of

facility, but without his freedom?

Since Dr. Matheson is widely knowledgeable about this, and

has put forward his programme based on his study of such

facilities elsewhere, in Baltimore and so on, surely we are not

going to lose the services of Dr. Matheson in the actual

implementing of that kind of programme at its most crucial

phase, right when we're, starting it off.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I just want to get clarification on the

point. From the answer to the Second Member for Victoria (Mr.

D.A. Anderson), the Attorney-General's answer reads as though

Dr. Matheson is to be quite apart from that particular aspect

of the Attorney-General's responsibilities. I would certainly

say that this is a very unfortunate decision on somebody's part

and I wonder if the Attorney-General could be more specific in his answer.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, of course Dr. Matheson and

the planning unit still have to look at the prison population,

the convictions, the addiction problem, the trafficking

problem, because that's part of the research into criminal

justice. But in terms of developing youth policies in that

field, this planning unit would not be the body because this

Legislature has established them under the Alcohol and Drug

Commission.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, there's no change in the

commission.

Vote 17 approved.

On vote 18: justice and courts, $15 million.

MR. SMITH: This is a new vote in the Attorney-General's

estimates and it anticipates the transfer of the responsibility

for the judicial systems in the province from the

municipalities to the Department of the Attorney-General. I

note that the expenditure indicated by the vote is $15

million.

In previous discussions that we have had concerning the

operation of the judicial system in the province, the

Attorney-General and others have indicated that the $15

million, as I understand it, is a gross figure for the

operation of the courts in the province. Offsetting against

that will be the revenue that comes in in the way of fines and

penalties, et cetera — I believe somewhere in the neighbourhood

of $9 million, as I recall.

So really the net expense to the province would not be $15

million; it would be the difference between the fines received

and the actual gross operating expenses of the courts.

At one time the Attorney-General suggested in the budget

debate that there was a provision for the revenue to come in

through the Department of the Minister of Finance.

I've looked at the breakdown of revenue as it's shown on

page N4 of our estimates books, and the only thing that I can

see, Mr. Attorney-General, is revenue from fines and penalties

which has increased from $2.4 million to $3 million, a net

difference of $600,000.

I would like to know from the Attorney-General: where do you

include the revenue, the increased revenue that you will

receive as a result of taking over the operations of all the

courts in the province from the municipal governments?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Consolidated revenue.

[ Page 1270 ]

MR. SMITH: But, Mr. Attorney-General, what I'm trying to

suggest to you is that in consolidated revenue, where it's

broken down by division as to where the revenue comes from,

there's no provision for that. Look on page N4; you can look at

the revenue. It's listed: property taxes, social services

taxes, et cetera, et cetera, and we finally get down to the

bottom of page N4 where we see fines and penalties, and the

only increase that's shown is $600,000. Something doesn't add

up.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To suggest to him why it doesn't add up,

may I suggest that we're into the area now, a very interesting

area, of returning the fines to the municipalities? The

municipalities in some cases broke even on their administration

of justice, and some made money.

Some fined their people a little more than the cost to

administer justice. So we're in a situation that by taking over

the legal system, by taking over the courts, the Attorney-General was, in fact, depriving municipalities of revenue, and

this was something they were concerned about.

Now I trust that the anomaly which the Hon. Member for Peace

River pointed out means that the fine revenue will in fact

actually go back to the municipalities concerned.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: General revenue and the estimate of fine

revenue based upon 1974 to 1975 is $6,846,257. In the

succeeding years I can't tell you whether that will grow or

not, but that's our estimate.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, can I ask the Attorney-General, as

this is an appropriate place under this vote 18, could he tell

us whether or not the municipalities are going to be getting

some compensating financial benefit or revenue from the

government to make up for the loss of fines?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, most municipalities

benefit. I've got them municipality by municipality. There are

some municipalities that lose because they were receiving more

in fine revenue than they were paying out in their justice

system.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Give us Victoria.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They question Victoria. Victoria is

here. In 1972, for example, their costs of justice were

$596,000 — I'll leave out the other figures — and their revenue

was $539,000. They are one of those municipalities that would

have an anticipated loss of about $80,000 per year. The

question as to whether anything should be done in a phasing-in

period in municipalities that lose somewhat is a matter for the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer).

Vote 18 approved.

On vote 19; justice and courts, judicial conferences,

$21,000.

MR. SMITH: I still feel that there is an unanswered question

here, Mr. Attorney-General, that somewhere in the calculation

of revenue which we have before us, as part of our estimates,

and the calculation of expenditures for your department which

now includes the cost of the administration of justice in the

province, somebody goofed. If it's $15 million in cost and

there's $6 million, $7 million or $8 million dollars if

revenue, then either your department should show just a net, or

on the other side in the revenue side of the budget you should

show the revenue; and we don't have the revenue in the

estimated revenue for this year.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: At the time the estimates are prepared,

which is during the fall, really...and then they go to

Treasury Board, some of the other things. Don't forget this is

almost a breakneck-speed thing; we're trying to do the whole

thing by April 1st. We did not have the compensating revenue

figure estimates in sufficient detail to put them in. That's

wrong in a sense, but we couldn't do anything about it because

of the time frame.

MR. SMITH: I accept your explanation.

Vote 19 approved.

On vote 20: justice and courts, Provincial Court Act ,

$2,820,200.

MR. SMITH: We canvassed this matter to some degree in the

Minister's salary vote, but I'd just like to go a little

further along the line. On this matter of the payment of judges

and comparing the scale of the salary on the provincial level

to the federal level, is it the intention of the

Attorney-General to try to equalize the provincial court judges

to a level comparable to the federal level of payment?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We are asking for a substantial

adjustment in the month of April of this year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We also have the problem of trying to

determine whether the votes are for actual expenses of salaries

at the present time, or whether there are allowances in them

for future salaries. Do we understand the Minister to say that

the increase there of $700,000 is for anticipated increases in

salaries, or is it actual at the present time?

[ Page 1271 ]

It's actual, is it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It does not include the additional funds

that we will need to upgrade those salaries.

MR. CURTIS: Would the Attorney-General just go through this

once again? Is this not a matter which has been before him for

quite some time and remains unresolved? He gives the impression

that an increase is imminent, but I'm not reassured.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, there was a substantial

increase, after I assumed the office of Attorney-General, in

the Provincial Court judge's salaries last year. After the

Legislature rose, I can't remember the exact time but I think

it was in April, my recollection is that the salary level

generally went from $22,000 to $26,000 with a comparable

increase in the case of district judges. So we've made real

progress in this field in terms of upgrading and I will be

going back to Treasury Board again this spring.

MR. CURTIS: But that was approximately one year ago, give or

take some weeks.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Right.

Vote 20 approved.

Vote 21: Justice and Court Sheriff's Office, $1,234,694 —

approved.

On vote 22: Justice and Courts, Official Reporters,

$1,087,962.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's puzzling to me, Mr. Chairman, why

travel has increased substantially in 21, but there's been

reduction in office expenses, and motor vehicles and other

things. Why the substantial increase in travel and reduction in

the others?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Are you on 21 or 22?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: 21.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We're on 22. 21 has passed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, can I ask the question anyway?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Hon. Attorney-General wish to

respond?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Motor vehicles, for example, Mr. Chairman, has dropped

from $142,000 down to $29,000. A very, very substantial drop. Then travel has

gone from $51,000 to $74,000. It's a curious thing. Did they buy a fleet last

year? Have we got a whole fleet of cars full of grilles on them, or things of

that nature that they don't need any more? What's the explanation for it? I

might say I congratulate someone who has managed to reduce. I think it's probably

one of the very first major expenditures which has been reduced but in vote

29 you have $142,500 last year and this year $29,000. It's a great improvement.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The province assumed six sheriff's

offices about a year ago. In previous estimates we purchased

new vehicles. We did not have to repeat that expenditure in the

next year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That question was on vote 21 which has already

passed.

On vote 22.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sundry reporters and transcripts has

virtually doubled and I wonder whether the Attorney-General

would give me a good reason.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it's simply an estimate of

the future calls upon this fund, the number of inquiries,

inquests, things of that kind and improvement in the

remuneration of court reporters.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can we assume then, Mr. Chairman, that

the budgeting last year was inadequate? The expenditure last

year — I wonder if I could have the figure of the expenditure

last year.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes we did. We underestimated our

expenses for the previous year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What were the expenditures last year

then?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Could you send me a note and I'll try

and get that for you.

Vote 22 approved.

On vote 23: Registration Land Registry Office,

$2,741,606.

MR. SMITH: I'd just like the Attorney-General to bring us up

to date on the position with regard to the registration and

changes of titles within the Land Registry Offices. Do we still

have a delay and a backlog of registrations and requests for

changes of title in the offices? If so, what is the

Attorney-General doing to precipitate some action in

[ Page 1272 ]

this regard?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: MR. Chairman, as you may know, in the

City of Victoria we're experimenting with instant registration

so there's no delay. In the City of New Westminster where the

worst backlog was, we have substantially improved that by

opening a new office. We're really catching up with the backlog

problem.

MR. SMITH: Are you reviewing computer programming within the

Land Registry Office?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer is yes.

MR. SMITH: Well then, Mr. Attorney-General, if you're moving

in that regard, do you not think that perhaps the policy of the

government to relieve people of private ownership of land in

British Columbia has some effect on the number of people that

you'll require in land registry offices in the future?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, we'll still have to register

complaints.

MR. WALLACE: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. On that same theme.

Is there any plan to open an office for the people in the

Okanagan who presently have to go to Kamloops to register

titles?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer is no. We haven't planned

that. There's such an advantage to large-scale operation in

land registry in a sense, that once you begin spotting them out

you've got to be a little careful about it.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, but Mr. Chairman, people have to travel

and take time from work to go to the office and it isn't always

done on one visit and I think that's just another simplistic

answer.

It may well be that it's like this whole change in the

administration of justice — the people are going to get into

the hands of the computer and technology and all the

super-duper magnificent technology. The Deputy's smiling. He

got an earful from the lawyers at Harrison Hot Springs. I don't

know if this is valid, but it appears as though the whole

system was going to go once again into super-duper buxom

equipment machinery, but the poor individual has to take a day

off work and lose a day's pay to travel from Penticton up to

Kamloops to get to a registry office. Again it's a question of

let's remember that we're dealing with people and individuals

and efficiency is one thing but it isn't the whole problem.

I think with respect, Mr. Attorney-General, through the Chair, that it may

be worthy of consideration that just not getting all the information and machines

and computers in one spot is necessarily in the best interests of the individual.

But I take it from your answer that you don't think there's any problem in having

to travel from the South Okanagan to....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, of course there's mail

service and the land registries, accept and receive

applications and return them by mail. But in addition, as we

modernize the system and computerize operations there can be

terminal points out in the smaller towns which will be fed

directly into the central land registry systems.

Vote 23 approved.

On vote 24: Companies office, $350,898.

MR. SMITH: On vote 24, Companies office, the

Attorney-General of course introduced a year ago a new

Companies Ac t. Does the Attorney-General have any

statistics yet on additional financial imposts and burdens that

he has imposed upon all businesses within the province who must

now abide by the provisions of the new Companies Act ,

particularly with respect to keeping the records of every

company office affected in the province, that does business in

the Province of British Columbia? Have you got any statistics

to indicate how much additional expense this has created for

businesses in the province?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think the Act is going well. It came

into force on October 1. Many of the businesses out in the

province for which I can't possibly pick up figures have

combined their operations, recording offices, so I don't think

the expense is large.

MR. SMITH: I can't agree with that, Mr. Attorney-General.

I've received reports from many businesses that their legal and

accounting costs have doubled with the impact of the new

Companies Act and in order to keep abreast of the

provisions of the Companies Act , that they feel that

their costs have doubled in the last year and that trend will

continue as long as those provisions are being met by every

company in the province. This is the report I get.

Vote 24 approved.

Vote 25: Public Trustees office, $685,216 — approved.

On vote 26: Insurance and Real Estate office, $246,548.

MR. BENNETT: I almost missed it, Mr. Chairman. I couldn't

hear it. With regard to the British Columbia

[ Page 1273 ]

Automobile Insurance Board, the Attorney-General has

regulation and inspection of insurance offices. I'm concerned

about the insurance service that might be paid for by people

and not received and I refer to ICBC possibly and the problem

with the north end of Vancouver Island being cut off from ICBC

fulfilling contracts which have been bought and paid for. That

is, these people can't get any repair service at all.

I wonder, nobody can get a car fixed and a contract is not

being honoured. Now a premium has been paid for this contract

and this service isn't being delivered. Now does the Attorney-General's Department check that the service that's being paid

for is not being delivered?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ICBC is a separate code and a separate

department. No, we do not check it.

MR. BENNETT: It doesn't come under the...?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's the Department of Transport and

Communications.

MR. BENNETT: Well what about the British Columbia Automobile

Insurance Board? That comes under the Attorney-General's

Department.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's phased out. Yes, it isn't even in

here now.

MR. BENNETT: And you take no authority over the insurance.

It doesn't come under your department at all?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's another Minister.

Vote 26 approved.

On vote 27, Securities Commission office, $449,236.

MR. SMITH: With respect to the operation of the Securities

Commission, does the Attorney-General contemplate new

securities legislation at all?

Is he looking into the idea of new securities legislation in

the province, and if so, will he take into consideration the

suggestions that I have made during the debate of his estimates

with regard to restricting the powers of government in the

operation of Crown corporations and businesses that they may

own equity either outright or an equity position?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Following the Companies Act , the

Securities Act is in process of being revised and

examined and so is the Societies Act , and your

suggestions will be considered.

Vote 27 approved.

On vote 28: Credit Unions office, $129,356.

MR. SMITH: I realize that the Attorney-General has some

strong opinions on the operations of credit unions in the

Province of British Columbia, and has from time to time

indicated that he would like to see them branch out, I believe,

into other business. Is it his intention to broaden the powers

presently allowed to credit unions in the province in order

that they might operate without any more restrictions than any

other banking institutions? What do you have in mind in that

respect?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We have improved their powers, for

example, to receive and to hold the funds and invest in

government funds and things of that kind. We've given them that

kind of help, but they cannot be banks because we do still have

a constitutional problem.

MR. SMITH: Well, is it the intent of the Attorney-General to

recommend to the Minister of Finance a major change in the

investment portfolio of the province so that credit unions are

used more than the conventional banks?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Minister of Finance has heard

you.

Vote 28 approved.

On vote 29: Fire Marshal's office, $441,392.

MR. SMITH: The Attorney-General knows that we've had a

number of discussions about the idea of combining gas

inspection services, electrical inspection services, and boiler

inspection services under one agency. There are many diverse

opinions on this particular matter but I would like to know if

the Attorney-General intends to proceed along that direction

and combine a of those services under one agency?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We've discussed this with the Minister

of Public Works, but there's been no definitive decision

reached.

Vote 29 approved.

On vote 30: film classification office, $ 64,734.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This is the dirty movie section, Mr.

Chairman. I'd like to know why we waste our time, each province

in turn spending $64,734, when every province has to do exactly

the same thing for exactly the same movies. It's a type of

thing

[ Page 1274 ]

where I think co-ordination between provinces would make an

immense amount of sense, and I wonder whether indeed we are

getting that now.

I fail to see why the tender eyes and the ears of little

children in Ontario are that much different from the tender

eyes and ears of little children in British Columbia, and it

seems to be utter lunacy for us to spend money as we are doing

to have projectionists and have four people to sit through

movie after movie after movie, and decide whether it's a dirty

movie or it isn't or it's an X-rated or a Black Panther rated,

or a general rated movie, or something of that nature. It just

seems nonsense for us to have an office of this nature when

every other province apparently has the same thing.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The suggestion will be considered, but

we're under the legislation of the Legislature, as you know,

and it was based upon a recommendation of a committee.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I ask what the Attorney-General is

doing, or considering? Has he got anybody studying this,

co-ordinating with his colleagues across the country? We're

told the that law co-ordination is one of the areas where the

provinces co-operate more effectively and it would surely be in

the area where we could save the taxpayer a few pennies, like

$64,734 to be exact, and at the same time get exactly the same

protection that is provided by this film censor that we

presently have.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, apart from the classification,

does it come under this section, the actual implementation of

the adherence to the classification? In other words, I have

complaints from parents that their children can easily gain

access to films which are classified as being restricted to

over 18 et cetera, and I'm wondering if the Attorney-General is

satisfied.

It's rather like the question from the Member for Saanich

and the Islands, (Mr. Curtis) about liquor being available to

underage children. Is this being implemented as efficiently as

the Minister considers is possible under the circumstances?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, under this vote there is

not an inspection service that visits theatres throughout the

province. That is a matter for the theatres throughout the

province. That is a matter for the theatre owners to live up to

the law and police. If there are complaints I'd be glad to

receive them.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I realize that the

Attorney-General is tiring. It's been a long day. Oh, he's

fine, okay. He doesn't look very well but he feels fine.

Could he take just a few moments to discuss with the

committee his views with respect to the classification of films

since this is the vote under discussion? I subscribe to the

point of view that too often we direct our attention towards

so-called pornographic movies, when I can think of nothing more

pornographic than some of the violence that is permitted to

slip through.

I think that violence is far more obscene than some of the

movies to which we direct a lot of our attention, than sex.

Yes, it's a great word and I really think that the sooner we

shake off our Victorian attitudes towards the word, the better.

How about the violence? The blood spilling, the brutality, all

the obscenity that falls into that category which is readily

available to kids, and has been for as long as the motion

picture has been an art, so-called.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Basically I agree, but basically this is

a classification vote that we're dealing with and we did have a

committee of the Legislature. But the point that you made is a

very valid one and I think that they look in terms of

classification, or possibly cutting. They look and they

certainly should look as much at violence as anything else.

I'll be glad to convey your opinions to Ray McDonald.

MR. CURTIS: I'd appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I would

commend to the Attorney-General in all seriousness, that it's

this area of films today to which a great deal of attention

should be directed, rather than just satisfying a few of the

people who are upset about the odd movie which is sexually

frank.

Vote 30 approved.

On vote 31: Racing Commission, $162,560.

MR. SMITH: I see that this vote contemplates two new

positions, a chief investigator and a security inspector, that

is not previously provided for under the vote of the Racing

Commission. Would the Attorney-General enlighten us as to why

these two positions became necessary — is it because of some

sort of problem experienced in the operation of the racing

commission, or the track itself? Just why do we have those two

positions when we didn't require them before?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's the recommendation of the Racing

Commission to tighten up their security and their ability to

carry out their regulations and their functions. They have

recommended it for some time. Finally they have received the

positions they have been seeking.

Vote 31 approved.

[ Page 1275 ]

On vote 32: Policing by Royal Canadian Mounted Police,

$14,651,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: $14.5 million, Mr. Chairman, is a fairly

big one. Now I wonder whether the Attorney-General could inform

us what happens after '76? Have they any commitments from the

federal government on continuation? Any indication of whether

or not the federal portion of the RCMP costs in the Province of

British Columbia will continue to be paid by the federal

government? Or are we simply carrying on blindly without any

indication and guidelines as to what will happen in the future?

And while he's answering that question, perhaps he'd give us an

estimate of the amount of federal funds which are needed to

supplement this $14,600,000 figure.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I can't give you

indications of the federal government's thinking or the posture

they will take in negotiations which will probably begin,

possibly even before the end of this year. I just don't think I

should begin to try and relate that.

In terms of what the federal contribution is, you'd have to

take the formula and work backwards really, because it's 51 per

cent in terms of the provincial contingent of the RCMP so you

double our expenditure on that item.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Do you reckon it's going to take

forever?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Generally speaking it's about 51 per

cent of what you see here, that they're spending.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: About 50 per cent.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Actually, this is 49 per cent this year

and theirs is 51.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So we can assume that in actual fact the

cost of policing by the RCMP in B.C. is about $30 million.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Attorney-General would

indicate what his views are because it would be most

unfortunate if the province lost the RCMP in the future.

I feel that we should do everything we can to continue to use the national

force, particularly in Western Canada where the RCMP developed, and also developed

the respect and esteem that it has around the world. I feel it's important in

Western Canada for us to keep the RCMP and I would like to know if he can give

us any indication at all whether the McMorran proposals that he gave us the

other day, whether the Sheriff's office changes which he talked about, whether

or not he's in favour of continuing with RCMP policing in the province or whether

he is thinking of something else.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the answer is: we're in

favour of continuation of these policing contracts and not only

the services we receive under them but also the financial

benefit we get from the existing formula.

Vote 32 approved.

Vote 33: police services and sundry incidental police

expenses, $300,000 — approved.

On vote 34: correction services, $19,937,429.

MR. SMITH: The Attorney-General has indicated in speeches

and in press releases that he's in favour of remand centres

within the correctional system in the Province of British

Columbia, and he's prepared to move in, that direction. I'm not

trying to put words in his mouth, but I think that generally

summarizes his position.

I'd like to ask the Attorney-General if he is going to

proceed with the proposed remand centre that was rumoured for

some time. As a matter of fact, a location was picked out in an

area in Coquitlam. I believe there was some opposition to the

location by the Member for Coquitlam (Hon. Mr. Barrett). But

I'm sure that the Attorney-General is concerned about this

matter and he'll press ahead irrespective of the opposition

that he might have received or might be receiving from the

Member for Coquitlam. If he's really interested in remand

centres then he should not be handicapped in the operation and

instigation of these centres by the attempts of one of the

Members of the House to have the remand centre located in some

other area of the province.

While I'm at it, I'd also like to know if he's going to do

anything about updating the remand centre and facilities in

Oakalla, or what the general picture is in that respect.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We think the proper place for a remand

centre to serve the lower mainland, the priority is in the City

of Vancouver — close to the courts, close to other services.

That's the place for it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of items

under this vote 34. We've heard a great deal about the need for

rehabilitation, yet apparently for the entire correctional

services, there is $7,000 for libraries; exactly the same as

last year. In other words, a reduction in the number of books

they're able to purchase because of inflation.

We see a very minor increase in terms of medical supplies.

I'd like to query the Minister on that.

[ Page 1276 ]

We see the figure in vote 12, earnings: from $219,000 to

$220,000. It's listed as an expense, which I just don't

understand. I thought that "earnings" might have well been a

credit. Perhaps he could tell me about that.

The other questions I have I'll go into, perhaps, after he

has commented on those particular ones.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the earnings, of course,

is an expenditure for what we pay inmates for the work they do.

In terms of the lack of increase in the library allowance....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I still don't understand that one.

Earnings are pay?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, inmates do work which should be

paid for.

In terms of the library: you must remember that in the

Justice Development Fund that has already been passed by the

House, there is room for not only research and innovative

things, but also expenditures throughout the justice system,

and we include the prison system in that. So there could be

increases, even though they're not here.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, but the trouble is that the

line-by-line is lost, Mr. Attorney-General, and our ability to

compare library, for example, makes no sense at all if you tell

us that library is in some vote that we didn't know about and

which we've already passed. This is the difficulty we face. I

would like to see a little better accounting next year,

please.

The items you have here — clothing and uniforms — my

question to you is whether or not this clothing and uniforms

are for prisoners or whether they're for guards. There's a fair

difference. Is this for the staff at the institutions, or is it

for the inmates themselves? That's 009 — is that for staff or

is it for inmates?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Staff.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's for staff. How about inmates? Where

does their clothing allowance come in?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In 011, laundry and dry goods.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So 011 is laundry and dry goods. That's ... well,

okay. That is the difficulty I have. You tell us a lot of things are in other

areas, and at the same time the logical as