1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3531 ]

CONTENTS

Statement Shareholdings of Mr. D.A. Scrivener.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3531

Routine proceedings

Medical Complaints Procedures Act, 1975 (Bill 141). Mr.

D.A. Anderson. Introduction and first reading — 3531

Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 140). Hon. Mr. Nicolson. Introduction

and first reading — 3531

Oral questions.

Regulations governing Crown corporations officers' dealings. Mr. Bennett —

New equipment for petroleum corporation for offshore oil. Mr. D.A. Anderson

— 3532

Use of trial time in provincial courts. Mr. Wallace — 3532

Complaints about Horizon Corp., El Paso, Texas. Hon. Ms. Young answers — 3533

Burrard Inlet ferries. Mr. Curtis — 3533

Unorganized areas not in receipt of provincial tax notices. Mrs. Jordan — 3533

Relaxation of housing standards. Mr. Phillips — 3533

New name for Dunhill Corp. Mr. Morrison — 3534

Reduction in housing starts. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3534

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 77).

Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 6. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3535

Amendment to

section 9. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3535

Amendment to

section 10. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3535

section 17. Mr. Morrison — 3535

Report stage — 3535

Coroners Act (Bill 87). Committee stage.

section 9. Mr. Wallace — 3535

section 17. Mr. Wallace — 3536

section 23. Mr. Morrison — 3537

Amendment to

section 30. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3538

section 30 as amended. Mr. Morrison — 3538

Amendment to

section 37. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3538

Report stage — 3538

Liquor Distribution Act (Bill 93). Committee stage.

section 6. Mr. McClelland — 3538

Amendment to

section 8. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3540

section 8 as amended. Mr. McClelland — 3540

Report stage Liquor Control and Licensing Act (Bill 99). Committee stage.

section 1. Mr. L.A. Williams — 3543

section 6. Mr. McClelland — 3544

section 9. Mr. McClelland — 3545

Amendment to

section 11. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3546

section 39. Mrs. Jordan — 3546

section 54. Mr. L.A. Williams — 3548

Amendment to

section 54. Eon. Mr. Macdonald — 3548

section 94. Mr. Chabot — 3548

Amendment to

section 1. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3548

Report stage — 3549

Legal Services Commission Act (Bill 96). Committee, report and third reading

— 3549

Provincial Court Act (Bill 100). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 10. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3549

Amendment to

section 45. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3549

Amendment to

section 50. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3549

Report stage — 3549

Small Claims Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 111). Committee, report and third reading

— 3549

British Columbia Railway Company Construction Loan Amendment

Act, 1975 (Bill 27). Committee stage.

section 1. Mr. Phillips — 3550

Appendix — 3569

MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications) : Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to make

a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, on May 28, the Hon. Member

for Langley (Mr. McClelland) asked me some questions relating

to a Mr. D.A. Scrivener and certain companies. On May 29, I

gave to this House the information that was supplied to me, and

I clearly stated that I was carrying to the House the

information with which I had been supplied.

Last Thursday the Member for Langley agreed that Mr.

Scrivener had disposed of his interests in Scrivener,

Countryman, Ltd., but raised the question of Mr. Scrivener's

share ownership in D.A. Scrivener Ltd. I ascertained that D.A.

Scrivener Ltd. is not operating in the adjusting business.

However, on the basis of the most searching questions which I

directed to Mr. Scrivener last Friday afternoon, and further

investigations I have done, I have determined that Mr.

Scrivener does have a proprietary interest in another company

not mentioned by the Member for Langley. Although Mr. Scrivener

claims no conflict of interest, I cannot accept that.

In my opinion, a continuing interest in an adjusting company

does not meet the standards required by ICBC as set out in a

memorandum sent to all the management staff on March 5, 1975.

Quoting from that memorandum:

"Outside business interests. No employee shall directly or

indirectly maintain any other outside business or financial

interest which conflicts with the interest of the corporation.

Some examples are: (1) owning personally, or through others, a

business related to insurance, motor vehicle repairs, towing or

salvage."

A further paragraph says:

"Ultimate responsibility falls on each employee to comply

with these guidelines in order to avoid a conflict of interest.... In the event there is doubt, any employee may discuss the

circumstances with the director of personnel services to ensure

that the intent of this policy is not contravened."

For that reason I have today given instructions that Mr.

Scrivener be terminated.

I want to thank the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) for drawing this matter

to my attention, and I apologize to him for any personal remarks I made about

him.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I just wish to

thank the Minister for his actions and his apology.

There is other information I have available which I would be

happy to make available to the Minister or to the House, if

requested, and it follows up on other things that have been

mentioned.

I thank the Minister for his apology particularly.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If you will send it over....

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, in

the gallery today there is a group of students from the

Centennial College in Scarborough, Ontario, with their teacher,

Mr. Steven Freed, and there are three other teachers, I

believe, with him also. I would like the House to join me in

welcoming them.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to introduce two people who are

friends of mine and friends, I think, of a number of Members of

this House. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) I know,

the Economic Development Minister (Hon. Mr. Lauk) and the

Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) all have enjoyed their

hospitality from time to time. I refer to Mr. and Mrs. Heinz

Barsnick of the Johann Strauss Restaurant in Vancouver. I would

like the House to bid them welcome.

Introduction of bills.

MEDICAL COMPLAINTS

PROCEDURES ACT, 1975

On a motion by Mr. D.A. Anderson, Bill 141, Medical

Complaints Procedures Act, 1975, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Strata Titles Amendment

Act, 1975.

Bill 140 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

[ Page

3532 ]

REGULATIONS GOVERNING CROWN

CORPORATIONS OFFICERS' DEALINGS

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to

the Hon. Attorney-General. Regarding Crown corporations, are

there any regulations governing either the officers or

directors of the Crown corporations that would prevent them

from doing business either corporately or individually with the

corporations that they serve?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, a Crown

corporation officer doing business with that corporation....

MR. BENNETT: Officers or directors.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In terms of rules of conduct, I would

think the provisions as laid out in the Companies Act should be

applied in that kind of a situation, but whether there is a

legal obligation — I would have to know the particular

circumstances.

MR. BENNETT: Well, just as a supplemental, if you could

provide the information, is there any regulation or rule that

would prevent them from dealing with the government as well as

dealing with their own or other Crown corporations?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look at

that. You know, it is hard to give an abstract opinion, but if

you have something that you could draw to my attention later

this afternoon, I'll try to give you a more specific

answer.

NEW EQUIPMENT FOR PETROLEUM

CORPORATION FOR OFFSHORE OIL

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Again to the Attorney-General,

Mr. Speaker. In light of the government and Premier's previous

position that in the interests of protecting British Columbia's

coast we should not be importing offshore oil for refining in

British Columbia, may I ask the Attorney-General why the

chairman of the petroleum corporation, Mr. Rhodes, has revealed

that the proposed government refinery at some expense will

equip itself with "special cracking units to allow it to use

offshore oil"?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, that is not government

policy. Government policy will be formulated if the refinery

proceeds.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the

Attorney-General, if this is not government policy, why you

were planning government expenditure in contravention of

government policy?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this was a proposal as to

the design of a refinery that may or may not be built. The

final design would be recommended to the government and we

would then approve this cracking operation or disapprove of it

at that time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, apart from the fact that Mr.

Rhodes indicated it will be equipped with such equipment, could

I ask the Attorney-General whether he could confirm that the

Premier and Minister of Finance will be meeting with the

principals of British Petroleum with the possibility of

securing offshore supplies of oil? BP, as you know, holds 28

per cent of the Alaskan reserves and a substantial portion of

the Alaska Pipeline Corporation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, to my personal knowledge, I

know of no such plan for such a meeting.

USE OF TRIAL TIME

IN PROVINCIAL COURTS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, the

Attorney-General is very popular today, and I'd like to ask him

a question.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Too popular. What's the matter with me?

(Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: With regard to statements made in Vancouver at

the weekend that delays in the courtrooms are caused by judges

being late in starting their trials and indulging in long

coffee breaks, I ask the Minister: is it correct that in the

Vancouver courts only 30 to 50 per cent of potential trial time

is actually being used?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there is, as the Hon.

Member may know, a new district judge in Vancouver, His Honour,

Judge Darrell Jones. He has only been in place for a short

period of time. In view of this newspaper story, I would expect

that he will be communicating with me, but probably through the

chief judge.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is there some

monitoring system carried on in the courtrooms so that this

kind of rather impressive charge, that these expensive

facilities and expensive personnel are only being used about 50

per cent of their capacity.... Is this news to the

Attorney-General, or has he been aware of this for some

time?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker,

[ Page

3533 ]

heretofore there's been no kind of a monitoring system, and

I don't know whether that's the right word to use, but we have

not known to what extent this courtroom has been utilized or

left vacant. We have not known how long this kind of a trial

takes, how many adjournments, and the reason for those

adjournments. We have not known to what extent this judge has

been tied up, or to what extent he has had adjournments forced

upon him. This kind of information will be available, but it's

fairly recently that we have begun to look at the factual

situation of what's prevailing in the provincial court. We will

then have some knowledge as to how we can best help the judges

and other people involved in the justice system to expedite the

business and clear up the backlog.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the

Attorney-General feel that the court administrator will have

sufficient authority to implement some of these changes to

improve efficient use of time and personnel?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think so. And I

think it will be done in cooperation with the judges.

COMPLAINTS ABOUT

HORIZON CORP., EL PASO, TEXAS

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr.

Speaker, some time ago the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland) asked me a question regarding whether our

department had received any complaints relative to the Horizon

Corp. of El Paso, Texas. Our department has not received any

complaints.

However, the superintendent of insurance had received two

complaints. He investigated them and found that the

complainants' right to rescission had expired in July, 1974,

but they had not submitted notices to the company until

September 16th of the same year. However, the company is in the

process of making refunds to the two parties involved and they

should have received their money by this time.

BURRARD INLET FERRIES

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

question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs with regard to

ferries to cross Burrard Inlet between Vancouver and the City

of North Vancouver. Has the Minister any information as to a

meeting which is going to be held, or which is planned, with

the council of the City of North Vancouver to ensure that city

council, and therefore the residents of the City of North

Vancouver, are fully aware of all details related to this new

service?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I have

met with the mayor of North Vancouver at different times with

reference to the total project. By agreement with the mayor, it

was suggested that we have joint planning of the backup land

because it is partly owned by the province and partly by the

city. There have been ongoing meetings between our planning

staff and the planning staff for the City of North Vancouver.

I can't give you anything more than that. I don't know of any

specific meeting coming up in the near future. So that's where

it is.

MR. CURTIS: On Saturday last, the mayor of North Vancouver

stated publicly that he was very concerned about the state of

planning for this service and the absence of information

reaching his council. Would the Minister indicate if he is

prepared to ensure that a meeting between the Bureau of Transit

and/or the Minister's department and the city council take

place at an early date?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I would only recommend that the mayor, if

he has concerns, share them with me rather than the newspaper,

and maybe we can get together on it. But I had no knowledge at

all, apart from your statement today, that the mayor has those

concerns. He certainly hasn't expressed them to me.

UNORGANIZED AREAS NOT IN RECEIPT

OF PROVINCIAL TAX NOTICES

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, my question

is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Is the Minister aware

that in the unorganized areas, a number of them have not yet

received their provincial tax notices?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'll speak to the Department of Finance

about this problem and advise you further.

RELAXATION OF HOUSING STANDARDS

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to

direct my question to the Hon. Minister of Housing (Mr.

Nicolson). With regard to statements the Minister made in Maple

Ridge recently, with regard to easing standards on housing

developments, would the Minister advise me what standards he

was referring to, what standards he is suggesting

municipalities drop?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I

am glad to have the opportunity to explain some of those

remarks as they were reported. I think if one reads the report,

he would see that some of the dollar figures quoted could not

possibly

[ Page 3534 ]

be correct and weren't correct.

What I was referring to, Mr. Member, was the requirement,

for instance in certain municipalities, that now townhouses

cannot be less than 1,200 square feet — not in cutting down in

terms of safety or structural standards or that type of thing,

but some of the things which are called "goldplating." In

response to the type of thing that is being said in the B.C.

Housing Industry Journal and various other concerns.

I wasn't really referring in terms of structural or other

types of standards. I might just say the allowance to build

perhaps a one-bedroom home which could be built to be expanded

to a three- and four-bedroom home as things might expand might

be encompassed in somewhat more tolerant standards.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am

glad to hear the Minister state that he is not going to drop

the safety standards for housing so we don't get into another

mess like we did in Meadowbrook...

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a mess.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...but I would also like to ask the Minister:

would you also be referring to services such as underground

wiring and paving before the houses can be built?

I know you have to have the water and sewer, but does the

Minister feel it is necessary to have the pavement all

completed before houses are built and also the underground

wiring? It has been referred to during this House in debate

before that maybe we shouldn't compel municipalities, or

municipalities shouldn't compel, that these "goldplated"

services to which the Minister refers be put into subdivisions

right off the bat.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mayor Betty Dube was present at that

meeting and we did get into that subject about whether we could

not get along to some extent within a certain neighbourhood

with gravel streets.

Certainly the street upon which I live has overhead wiring

and it is quite inoffensive and quite useful. It was felt that

there might be some areas set aside in a community where this

type of thing could happen and where people could be given an

opportunity to go ahead and build good starter homes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I

would like to ask the Minister: other than government housing

projects, did the Minister discuss with the municipalities the

possibility of the government assisting providing these

services through financial aid?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We didn't get into that, but I certainly

was speaking as much on behalf of the private sector in

encouraging this type of realistic approach as I was to

government housing projects. We have taken some measures to put

in some key services in, for instance, Surrey, with the hope of

opening up private sector lands. Hopefully those will be able

to be opened up at a somewhat lower cost.

NEW NAME FOR DUNHILL CORP.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My question is addressed to

the Minister of Housing. We understand that you plan to change

the name of the Dunhill Corp. Could you advise us what the new

name will be and when that will be done?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter which is

certainly be considered. A name hasn't been settled upon. There

have been a few good suggestions.

REDUCTION IN HOUSING STARTS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister. I welcome his statement that he is glad to have the

opportunity to explain, which he prefaced his earlier remarks

with. I would like him to explain why, while housing starts for

Canada as a whole are down 16 per cent for May, 1974, the

figure for British Columbia is down below 50 per cent. Perhaps

he would like to explain that.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I suppose it can be explained at maybe

475 units at a time. For instance, in Langley city the other

night, Daon Development assisted home ownership programme,

which was planned in conjunction with Central Mortgage and

Housing and in no way related to my department, went down by a

vote of 4-to-3.

I think that in looking at one month, that is a little bit

circumspect. I think we do have to look at trends. Certainly,

looking at quarters, I am alarmed at the figures for that

month, but I think it is just as bad in Ontario. for the same

month.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, Ontario is above that.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, they are certainly down over the

quarter.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, okay, at least the accumulated

starts in Ontario are down more so than they are in our

province, I believe.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's up 6,000.

[ Page 3535 ]

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Okay. I saw the actual raw statistics

when I was in Ottawa. This is the type of thing and this is why

I've been going out and speaking to community groups and

neighbourhood groups. We are convening this housing conference

to bring out not just the reasons I've mentioned here, but to

make the people aware of the reasons which are involved in

these housing starts being down.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A final supplementary then, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm afraid you missed the bell.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask

leave of the House to proceed with public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 77.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 77; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Chairman, I move

the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

section 9.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment standing under my

name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

section 10.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment standing under my name on the

order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Sections 11 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I notice this

section simply

adds one additional judge. I wondered why the need to have that

in when

section 9(

a) allows the rentalsman to literally appoint

as many people and pass his authority and power on down the

line to as many people as he wants. Why the need for

section

17? It seems kind of strange.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, this is the request of the

supreme court. There is a need for county court judges too, but

in the case of the supreme court we need provincial legislation

and Ottawa then acts. Until Ottawa acts there is no other

supreme court judge. I'm sure that answers your question.

Sections 17 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete as amended.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 77, Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 11975,

reported complete with amendments to. be considered at the next

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 87.

CORONERS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 87; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I suppose it's the way it's

worded — subsection (c), deaths to be

[ Page 3536 ]

reported. It says: "during pregnancy or following pregnancy

in circumstances that might reasonably be attributable to

pregnancy." It seems to me that that is a very wide-ranging

possibility and almost would apply to anybody who died during

pregnancy, or at least a very large number. There aren't that

many deaths during pregnancy, thank goodness, but I suppose it

is referring to automobile accidents and instances of this

kind. I am just wondering of the Minister could elaborate. We

hear so much these days about pregnancy being such a normal

situation and not interfering with functions and so on. I just

wonder if the Minister could explain why that particular

subsection is included.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, this is comparable to

other legislation where the common law has been codified. It's

merely notification. It is primarily directed against that case

of where a woman is involved in a motor-vehicle accident, say,

and is pregnant, and in effect there may very well be said to

be a double loss of life. I suppose it too could apply to the

abortion situation. In circumstances that entailed any

suspicion that should be reported.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the

Attorney-General if he would comment, and I think this is

probably the right section: what steps are to be taken, after

they've had inquests and the reports are done, to see that

these things won't happen again — to prevent reoccurrences like

it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, that's why we want a chief

coroner appointed in the earlier section. You know, coroners'

recommendations have come into my department, they've been

filed, the transcripts arrived two months later and then

they've been filed away. If somebody inquires about that

particular thing, we dredge it out, but there's been no

collation. Nobody's been in charge of it. So with a chief

coroner to ensure that proper procedure is followed, that

interested parties are heard and that the recommendations are

all in one place — and they could even be in the chief

coroner's report reported to the Legislature — we hope to bring

the thing together.

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

if the Attorney-General might indicate in what way it will be determined whether

or not the circumstances of the death may require investigation. If you look

at subsections (

e) and (f), subsection (

e) says that if a person died of a disease

when he was not treated by a medical practitioner, or from any cause other than

disease under circumstances that may require investigation.... Now who's to

judge whether the circumstances require investigation? What about the circumstance

when a person does die as a result of disease in which there was medical attendance?

It's all very well to have these permissive sections

requiring people to give certain notice to coroners or police

officers, but while codifying the common law in this respect,

the opportunity of the individual to seek some relief is no

longer in existence. I think that just to say the words isn't

good enough. You say you may require investigation; then

obviously it should be reported. Obviously it's so, but who

carries out the investigation and who determines whether or not

the investigation should be undertaken?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, this is merely the

reporting

section 1n

section 9(l). If somebody dies today from

disease or cause unknown without a doctor being present, that's

a most unusual thing in our society today. Usually there's a

doctor with a doctor's certificate as to the cause of death. We

think that's sufficiently unusual that there could be at least

a report to the coroner or a police officer of the

circumstances.

In the next subclause: "from any cause other than disease

under the circumstances that may require investigation." It's

very broad and general, but it's just saying in effect that if

any citizen has reason to believe that somebody has died from a

cause with which they're not satisfied — that citizen is not

satisfied that all proper precautions were taken, that there

was nothing sinister whatsoever about the death — then he

should report it. I know it's very broad, but then it's up to

the coroner to decide whether it goes further either to inquiry

or inquest.

Section 9 approved.

Sections 10 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to ask a question that really follows,

I think, on the comment of the Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). They're along the same line at

least. That is this question of the coroner's jurisdiction

and/or guidelines in deciding when to proceed further with the

investigation of a case which has been brought to his

attention. I'm particularly concerned about an example recently

in this city where a young man on parole from one of the jails

died under suspicious circumstances in a cafe downtown. I have

been approached by the parents, who were very unhappy about the

way in which that particular case has not been followed up in

detail.

Now this young man was a drug addict, a heroin addict — if

not at the time of his death, it was certainly the cause of his

being in jail to start with.

Without going into all the details, first of all the

[ Page 3537 ]

investigation, such as was carried out, provided public

information and details to the press, for example, which have

not been totally accurately reported, to the great distress of

the parents. The parents have tried very hard to find out what

the autopsy report on their son was, and have been given the

slimmest summation of the evidence. The incredible feature

seems to be that the death certificate records an overdose as

the cause of death, yet the actual autopsy report shows only

the merest trace of heroin in the body.

Now if my information is incorrect, I'll certainly stand to

be corrected, but the parents are having considerable trouble

finding out about the precise manner in which this young man

died. He was in good health and sitting in a cafe 10 minutes

before he died. For obvious reasons, they want to be assured

that there is nothing unexplained or no other criminal

activity, perhaps, more than appeared on the surface. My own

observations suggest that in a case such as this, somebody

rather quickly jumped to a conclusion. Yet there are other

factors surrounding it and, as I say, I won't go into all the

details.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Was there an inquiry in that case?

MR. WALLACE: There has only been an autopsy. As far as the

parents can find out, there is to be no further inquest — maybe

an inquiry, but not an inquest. I would think that with a young

man dying so dramatically and abruptly in a public place, the

very least that should be held is the most detailed kind of

inquest, particularly because of some of the peripheral matters

and the other aspects which the parents have drawn to my

attention.

There is this specific example, and I just wonder how often

one finds somebody with a history of being in prison or being a

drug addict, if suddenly found dead, well, one assumes in point

of fact if there is a third party who contributed to their

death, the lack of a detailed inquest might fail to reveal that

other involvement.

Now I'm not saying there was a third party. The point I want

to make is that the parents, first of all, have had some

considerable difficulty pinning down the details surrounding

the death of their son. Secondly, they have no assurance that a

detailed inquest is to be held when they are not at all

satisfied with many of the circumstances that have been at

least partially revealed.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, under the new legislation,

bringing a case like that to my attention, under

section 24, I

could order that there be an inquest. Under the old legislation

I would have to use persuasion or else, in a case where the

circumstances warranted, go to the Supreme Court of British Columbia to ask to have a second inquest.

In this bill we are getting a greater handle on the thing

because, first, there is the chief coroner in cases where there

is neglect to hold a proper inquiry or a proper inquest. Then

we back it up with

section 24 where I can step in and ask that

an inquest be held and name the coroner, even though he is not

from that district.

But in the case that you have described, if you would bring

it to my attention, while I don't think my powers to assist are

as great as they will be under this legislation, I will be glad

to look into the case that you mentioned.

Section 17 approved.

Sections 18 to 22 inclusive approved.

section 23.

MR. MORRISON: I think I am probably on the right section. I

would like to ask the Attorney-General if there is any area

where if for some reason or other you choose not to hold an

inquest, an individual could request one, or ensure that one

would be held if they felt it ought to be held.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I don't think anybody can

compel an inquest. If it is decided by the coroner locally, or

decided by the chief coroner, it will be done. If it is decided

by the Attorney-General's office, through special appeal under

that

section 24, it will be done if the circumstances warrant

it. But in answer to your question, I don't think somebody

could compel an inquest.

MR. MORRISON: But if there was someone who felt there should

have been, and if the case had been well recorded — the one I

am referring to, you know the one I mean — then there is no way

whereby they could require one, although they felt...?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, is that the...?

MR. MORRISON: Yes, Sanucci.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, yes. The case you are referring to

is one where there had been an inquest, then there was

additional doctor's evidence, and the question is whether there

should be a second inquest ordered by a supreme court

judge.

No, the party can't compel that. The old Act says that at

the instance of the Attorney-General they can apply to

court.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, this is the

[ Page 3538 ]

section which gives the Attorney-General the authority to

determine that there shall not be an inquest in particular

cases.

Do you have the power to determine there shall not be an

inquest, or indeed that there shall be, or if it started it

would be continued? We had a recent situation where some

question arose with regard to the conduct of an inquest

surrounding which there were criminal charges. I won't go into

that. I only would ask the Attorney-General if he considers

that the Act could not have been improved if in such a case the

provisions of

section 21 might apply, whereby as an alternative

to an inquest there be an inquiry. But it seems to me that just

to say there shall not be an inquest still leaves an area which

should be covered by an inquiry by the coroner without

the facilities of the jury.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I would be very loath

except in a case where by reason of a criminal charge that was

about to proceed evidence would be given that might affect that

trial, Unless I was sure that the evidence would fully come out

in that trial, I would be very reluctant to hold up an inquest,

and certainly not to hold up an inquiry.

Sections 23 to 29 inclusive approved.

section 30.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 30 as amended.

MR. MORRISON: We certainly support that jurors should be

used, but my issue at this point is: what steps are you taking

to make sure that citizens are not penalized when they are

serving on boards and to reimburse them for their services,

particularly where they drag on for long periods?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, this is a Treasury matter.

It depends on our budget and how generous the Legislature is

when my estimates come up. Coroners' jurymen should at least

receive the same as a witness who goes to the supreme court as

a public duty. We're looking at that.

MR. MORRISON: Will you bring that in then as a regulation to

this?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It depends again on the Legislature because there

is a fair amount of expense involved here, and sometimes the Legislature is

niggardly with my estimates — not always, but some of the votes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not this year.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not this year.

MR. MORRISON: I just want to reiterate to make sure that

whatever coroners' juries do recommend, the recommendations

are, again, recorded and carried through. Again, I think there

are problems there.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Good point. Thank you.

Section 30 as amended approved.

Sections 31 to 36 inclusive approved.

section 37.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 37 as amended approved.

Sections 38 to 64 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete as amended.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 87, Coroners Act, reported complete with amendments to

be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 93.

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 93; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr.

[ Page 3539 ]

Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could just advise whether

or not there will be any guidelines set down to ensure that

British Columbia products be given some kind of preference. I'm

not talking about wine now, but also distillery products.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer is yes. We're concerned that

liquor products of all kinds, including the wine industry —

including our grapes — should receive some additional

consideration in any listing policy. That has been outlined in

our listing policy.

MR. McCLELLAND: Briefly, to follow that up....

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Here comes the winist. Down, boy!

MR. McCLELLAND: Sit down, Pat.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Give him a glass of wine.

MR. McCLELLAND: I was really concerned more with distillery

products. We have one completely British Columbia–owned

distillery in this province, and it happens to be in my

constituency.

Mr. Chairman, there is another problem with regard to

listing, and that is listing of bottles which are outside the

normal straight-up-and-down bottle design. The distillery with

which I am concerned has manufactured some rather attractive

collectors' items for containers for some of their products.

They have no trouble listing those products in Manitoba,

Saskatchewan and Alberta, but in British Columbia they are not

allowed to list them. I am just wondering whether there would

be a change in policy with regard to that. It seems a fairly

innocuous thing, and it might even bring some colour to the

shelves of the liquor store.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we have asked that this

matter of container sizes and shapes and forms be liberalized.

It is going to be out of my hands totally, because it is advice

to the general manager, not even advice to me. This is the kind

of thing about which we have really been hidebound in the

past.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, as far as I could tell from our interviews

with the liquor administration branch when they have appeared before public

accounts committee, the decision to list liquors didn't rest with the general

manager at all, but rested with the government. I don't know whether this is

to be changed or whether guidelines are going to be developed for the purpose

of the listing committee, but I can tell you that I was absolutely shocked to

make some inquiries a year ago about wines. I know the Attorney-General doesn't

realize that I had an interest in this, but I discovered that there were five

B.C. wineries and 345 listings for them. To me, it is almost impossible to believe

that they could think up that many different shapes of bottles or names. It

is clear from some of the names that they have had to stretch their imagination.

One of the wineries that had 65 listings, I think it was, had 14 employees;

it had over four times as many listings on our shelves as it had employees.

Then that winery was taken over by another. In selling out, they dismissed the

14 employees for cash and goodwill, I expect, but also, 60-some-odd listings

on the shelves of the liquor administration branch. It was a very good buy on

the part of the one winery: they could eliminate the few jobs that were there,

but with friendly government policy they got another 60 listings on the shelves.

You go into these liquor stores in British Columbia looking for a decent bottle

of wine and you've just got to go up and down miles and miles of these shelves

with all these peculiar-shaped bottles.

So I am wondering if this listing committee is going to have

encouragement from the provincial government to clean up this

situation and bring some common sense and order to policies

that have lingered over the years. But as far as we could tell

from questioning the liquor administration branch, those

policies started right in the Attorney-General's office. I am

not suggesting this Attorney-General, but it has been a

traditional thing over some 50 years.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I can just say the points

are well taken. Where there is stock that doesn't move and is

merely listing space and listing numbers of a particular

company, there will be delistings in such a case. The delisting

is subject to appeal to the liquor board. The other matters, as

I say, are spelled out in

section 6. The advice that is put

forward from time to time by the listing committee goes to the

general manager.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, before we pass this section, I

suppose that the listing committee will have nothing to say

with regard to the prices at which the things they list will be

sold.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right.

MR. McGEER: That is another outfit that establishes the

price.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right.

[ Page 3540 ]

MR. McGEER: Could the Attorney-General explain how it is

that prices of some of these imported products are higher in

British Columbia by sometimes almost double the prices of the

same products in other provincial liquor stores across Canada?

Have we a policy to establish the highest prices in this

country?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we work on the laid-down

imported cost and then the order-in-council from the previous

government is still in effect, but I am quite prepared to tell

the House that we are looking at pricing generally at the

present time. I think the Hon. Member knows the percentage

figures and how they apply. That is where we are at the present

time. That is where we have been for the last year-and-a-half.

But now, under a new administration, a new manager at the

distribution end, we have asked for a report on prices. In that

report, as I said perhaps already for the House, I am little

concerned that we should look at it from an alcoholism problem

standpoint too, as well as the question of what is reasonable

equity to our own industry and what is the reasonable price for

imported products.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I don't think even a millionaire

could develop an alcoholic problem on the price of some of the

imported wines. So I think that's hardly an argument to persist

in policies which establish usurious — is that the word the

Premier brought into the House? — prices for decent wine which

are really the highest in Canada. Doesn't the Attorney-General

think that in the interests of moderation it might be wise to

take products with less alcohol content than hard liquor and

make the prices of that product at least competitive with the

other products in Canada — talking about the same product in

other liquor stores instead of the highest in Canada, which we

now are?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, as I say this is an open

subject, so we're listening at the present time. We're also

getting the same message from our candidate — the NDP candidate

for Point Grey is telling us the same thing. (Laughter.)

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

section 8 as amended.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether or not this is the

section

under which we will be able to have retail beer sales in corner

grocery stores? Is this subsection 5? Is that the enabling

legislation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Subsection 5.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes. Well, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the

Minister could at least reassure us that there will be a pretty

hard look given to this whole idea of retail sales in other

places like corner grocery stores, because it's going to be

very difficult for anyone, whether it's a listing committee or

an outlet committee or the general manager or the Minister — I

don't know who it is; it's the Minister in the Act who decides

where these outlets shall be — and I can see some serious

problems developing in deciding which corner store should have

it. Or should all corner stores? If the corner stores should

have it, how big do you have to be before you lose your status

as a corner store? How small is small? What are the regulations

going to be? Why shouldn't the supermarkets have the same

opportunity to get retail sales, because that's where the

people are after all? Most of the people prefer — and that's

been proven over the years — to shop in that kind of a

convenient manner rather than going from one store to another

to do their shopping.

I would just ask the Minister to really reassure this House

that there will be a lot of thought given in the regulations

before we ever get into this business of licensing other

outlets. I sympathize perfectly with the idea that we should,

in some remote areas where people don't have access to liquor

stores, have some kind of an outlet licensed, whether it be a

corner store or a meat market or the local post office — it

doesn't matter — just providing the service is there and it's

properly handled.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman — and I think this has

happened in other jurisdictions — this kind of legislation

could be open to serious abuse with people currying favour in

order to get that kind of an outlet in their store over

somebody else's store: I just point out to the Minister that

Canada Safeway Ltd. has been very successful in getting liquor

store outlets on their property because they offer cheap rents

and lots of parking spaces to the liquor administration branch.

What kind of offers would come to the board or the commission

of the Minister, or whatever committee is set up, to make sure

that the local corner grocery store on Main and Fourth in

Vancouver, or whatever, gets that outlet and some other

doesn't? I think it's a serious consideration, Mr. Chairman,

and I wish that the Minister would just outline his plans for

the future development of this new aspect of liquor

distribution.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm

[ Page 3541 ]

fully alive to the difficulties in working out something

that is non-discriminatory, where all people who fit within the

regulation can fairly apply, where there won't be political

interference, and so at the moment I'm listening. Then I take a

policy on this matter and I'm sure.... I don't expect it would

be implemented before the Legislature is meeting again. I'm

sure I'll be making a statement on it fully and answering

questions about it before the matter is implemented.

MR. McCLELLAND: Would the policy, Mr. Chairman, be debated

in this House before it was made policy, as part of

legislation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, I can't make a

commitment on that. I'd prefer to have it debated, but I

suppose it partly depends upon the timing. Certainly, I would

think it won't be before the fall. And, you know, if the

Legislature's sitting, I would like to publish the regulations

and have a debate upon them — or even the proposed

regulations.

MR. McGEER: First question: is that a commitment on the part

of the Attorney-General if the House is sitting at the time he

wishes to introduce the new regulations? My second is a

question with regard to

section 8. As I read it, this would

make possible the establishment of wine merchants. Mr.

Chairman, for your benefit, a wine merchant is someone who is

entitled to sell wines only in his store but may sell any wine

he wishes.

What he does is that he brings it in by the case load, as an

individual now is entitled to do, but then is able to retail

that wine by the bottle, so that he would be able to select

excellent wines. Then, by bringing in by the case, he would be

able to stock really good wines for people who wanted to escape

the rather mundane fare that is currently offered in our liquor

stores. I wonder if the Attorney-General would be prepared to

make a policy statement with regard to wine merchants.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, if we do anything it would

be something like Ontario, which has wine stores sponsored by

Ontario wineries — Brights and so forth. We certainly have no

thought that individuals could import from France and retail

themselves.

MR. McGEER: Why not?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, we don't want a lot of people in the private

liquor business as individuals in the Province of B.C. What we have opened up

is that we have said that somebody can import through the board now in a block

order for their own restaurant, so restaurants will have their own specialty

brands. In future they'll be able to get them — but not to go to the extent

to say that an individual.... He'd be a bootlegger. I suppose we could give

him a licence, but he'd still be a bootlegger.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I just don't think the

Attorney-General quite understands what the role of a wine

merchant is. It may be that the Attorney-General would want to

go for an evening at the Union Club or the University Club, or

something like that, and they might have nice wines on their

list because they bring them in by the case and then they

retail them to an individual customer like himself. I don't

think the University Club or the Union Club would qualify as a

bootlegger, but they do sell individual bottles of wine to a

customer for dinner. And that may be the only place they can

get a good bottle of wine.

On the other hand, if the Attorney-General had a bottle of

wine there that he liked, then if he wanted to be able to have

the same thing at a meal at his home, where he might be

entertaining the French Ambassador, or somebody like that, in

order to be able to serve that wine, he would have to order a

full case at an exorbitant cost. But the way around that and

what many people consider is a civilized approach to this whole

question is to have what are called wine merchants, licensed by

whatever licensing authority exists in the jurisdiction. Then

they do the same thing that the Union Club or the University

Club would do. They bring in the case lots of the specialty

wines and then they retail them by the bottle the same way they

would do to the Attorney-General where he could go in for

dinner. I can't see that that's bootlegging any more than it

would be bootlegging for the Union Club to do it. I think that

it's every bit as civilized, because it means that you can

enjoy a good bottle of wine in your own home, which is

something virtually impossible at the present time in British

Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, for your own home you can

again make a purchase through the board in quantity. We'll

consider what the Member has said. But at the moment we don't

contemplate a class of people who would be licensed just as

wine merchants.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, I'm sorry that the Attorney-General

doesn't contemplate that at the moment, because it seems to me

that this is rank discrimination against individuals who by

reason of their means perhaps can only afford to buy one bottle

of wine. They may only want one bottle of wine. They may be

practising moderation.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, what is going

[ Page 3542 ]

on today in the Province of British Columbia is that people

who like to have a wine different than what is available in the

government liquor stores can club together — you know, even the

55 Members of this Legislature could club together — meet with

people who sell wines from all the countries of the world and

make a selection of those we wanted to buy. Go to the Liquor

Control Board and place an order and they'll buy it for you.

They'll bring it into British Columbia and when it's here

they'll phone us up and say: "Fine, your wine's ready." Then we

can have the wine we want and not buy anything that's sold in

the liquor store, But that involves people with the ability to

buy in bulk quantities and it costs a lot of money.

I don't see why we should discriminate against the

individual who wants to go in and buy one bottle of a wine

which may be different from that which is on display in the

liquor store. To suggest that such a person would be a

bootlegger I'm sure the Attorney-General didn't mean it. When

one looks at what a bootlegger is and compares him to what the

liquor industry is today, the liquor industry throughout its

length and breadth and the wine industry are bootleggers with a

licence; that's all they are. The government is part of this

activity. The government is a bootlegger, only it's got a

licence.

I just think that the government should look seriously at

this possibility. You could have a trial run and just see, and

it would also give an opportunity for the government stores and

your listing committee and the wineries in British Columbia for

something against which they could measure their performance. I

think this is worthy of consideration as well.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we will consider it. Mind

you, there are difficulties in control when you have people who

can import for themselves, even through the board, and then

resell. We protect people in restaurants, as Mr. Barsnick would

appreciate — the markup in the restaurant can only be 100 per

cent, I think. (Laughter.) You couldn't protect people in the

other situations, so there would be some danger. But we will

think about what you have been saying.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Is that a commitment that you are going

to think about it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. (Laughter.)

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I just want to say one more thing about this section.

I think you have just raised a very important point — about the markup. I think

that if you had wine stores of this kind and if the operator of this store were

to be incautious in his purchases, he might find that he would have to drop

his price a little bit in order to move his stock out. Even the government liquor

store does this from time to time. I don't think that the price is a problem.

I think that the people would only pay what the proper rate is, and you can

regulate what the maximum amount of markup could be — just the same way you

did for your present licensees.

It only extends to the ordinary citizens walking the streets

of our towns and cities the same right that is available to

those today who happen to have a lot of money and belong to

private clubs, as the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) says, or can club together with other people with money

and make bulk purchases through Liquor Control Board. Think of

the people.

MR. McCLELLAND: Since I was elected to this House, I've been

conversing with the Attorney-General about the possibility of

more women employees in retail liquor outlets in British

Columbia. We managed to get the government to change the

outdated Factories Act, which then freed the way for women

employees in liquor stores. But since that time we don't see

very many. I know in Langley, I don't think there are any women

employed in liquor stores in our constituency, none that I've

seen. I know there is one in Victoria here. There sure don't

seem to very many more. What is happening? Why is the

government discriminating against women in liquor stores?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the only thing is the

waiting list. There is a union contract, there are people on

recall. I can't give the number of women who are employed at

the moment, outside of administration, but my guess is about 30

across the province. It's a gradual process because they have

to wait until there is a vacancy, and then they apply — no

discrimination. In fact, at one point I ordered preference. I

said: "Don't be fair about this thing. Give preferred

employment." The union didn't think too much of that. They had

people whose livelihood was working in the stores, and so they

said: "No, you can't give preference, just be fair about it."

But increasingly, that number will grow.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, under this Act, will it be

possible to sell apples in the liquor store? The Premier made

several speeches about how wonderful it would be to have apples

in the liquor store, and I thought when the government took

over maybe we would see a change. Would the Attorney-General

give us some advice?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer is yes — other products are in

this section.

We're also hoping to do a real thing in the stores for the

handicapped. I don't want to filibuster my bills, but one of

the things I am kind of keen about is that we have taken the

handicapped people who have

[ Page 3543 ]

been working in the sighted stores and given them the union

wage, which is about double what they were making before. When

I say we have done it, it is in the process of being done at

the present time. If they want to come into the union strength,

be on a union wage and have the union security, they will be

able to do that. Then as we develop new stores and we renovate

the old ones, we're going to increase that concessionaire

space, improve it and make it adaptable for handicapped

persons' employment. Not just those with a sight problem, but

perhaps others as time goes on.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Just one brief question to the

Attorney-General. I would like to draw his attention to

subsection 3(b). I want to know if there was any attempt on the

part of the government or the Minister to limit what scientific

purpose might be. There are some people who are engaged in

scientific research, and I wanted to know if their right to

acquire grain alcohol at special prices was to be controlled in

any way. I've subjected myself to a number of tests at the

hands of some research scientists recently, and I just wanted

to know whether this was going to continue.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, this

section would only

apply to very high-priced specialty French wines, and largely

at UBC. (Laughter.)

Section 8 as amended approved.

Sections 9 to 28 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 93, Liquor Distribution Act, reported complete with

amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman,

committee on Bill 99.

LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING ACT

The House in committee on Bill 99; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the

Attorney-General would direct his attention to the definition

of residence, in particular under residence, subsection 1(C).

It seems to me that the Minister of Recreation and Conservation

(Hon. Mr. Radford) should be most interested in the remarks I

am about to make. I think it is startling in this day and age

to find that a residence includes "a private summer dwelling or

as a private dwelling or living place used during vacation

periods or as a private hunting or shooting lodge." I don't

know who the draftsman was that produced this piece of

legislation, but I consider this to be an attack on fishermen

and other people who engage in healthy outdoor activity. To

restrict residence for leisure purposes to those which might

only be used for private hunting or shooting lodges seems to be

an unfortunate oversight. I wonder if the Hon. Attorney-General

could advise.

The previous words talk about private summer dwellings or

private dwellings or living places used during vacation

periods. Why restrict it to private hunting or shooting

lodges?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's not restricted. They become public

places. They become places where....

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. What's wrong with private

fishing lodges? Are they to be excluded from the

definition?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They're included by reason of this

definition.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: They're included — private fishing

lodges?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They're just the same as your own

home.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Why do you single out private hunting or

shooting lodges then?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: For the purpose of what is a public

place where people can break out a bottle of beer. We say that

you're in the same situation as if you were in your residence

at home if you fit into any of these

definitions. Am I not

right? If you're in a hunting lodge, you can behave as if you

were in your own home. You have to relate it to

section 47. A

public place under

section 47 doesn't include any of these

things.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: What's wrong with private fishing lodges?

Don't they qualify?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They do qualify.

[ Page 3544 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Where?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, fishing lodges.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, if there are any fishing lodges,

we'll have to take a look at that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We know these other things exist:

private hunting lodges, private shooting lodges. I don't know

of any private fish clubs. If there are such and they're being

discriminated against under this Act, no doubt they will

approach the Minister.

MR. McCLELLAND: I think it should be followed up a little

rather than wait until somebody comes along and complains after

they've been pinched by the gendarmes for opening a beer in a

lodge which is used for horseback riding or fishing or for

people who don't like either hunting or shooting and go out

into the woods with their camera on trips, which is becoming

much more prevalent. Why not put in an amendment there that

would outline recreational lodges of all kinds?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Wouldn't the words "in a club" in (

B) above.... . ?

MR. McCLELLAND: Why did you spell out hunting and

shooting?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 1 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just because these exist as separate,

known....

MR. McCLELLAND: So do dude ranches.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: If you mention a particular case, I'd be.... You mentioned a dude ranch. Surely that comes under (

B) of

the

definitions.

MR. McCLELLAND: Okay, why doesn't a hunting lodge come under

the (

B) then?

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Lazy B. Ranch.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In our definition of what places You can now treat

as home, I think we've been pretty broad in this Act. To those places, the municipality

can add by designating any area as one where drinking may take place, even though

it would be otherwise a public place. So I don't think there will be actual

grief suffered by any of these people.

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

this point, the Attorney-General is always very reassuring when

something is pointed out with respect to legislation, but

others may not be as generous in their

interpretation.

I would move an amendment, but I wonder if the Minister

would not simply at this point introduce an amendment which

would delete the words "hunting or shooting." "A private lodge"

would, I think, be subject to a much broader

interpretation. It

would cover a dude ranch, a skidoo ranch, a fishing lodge — any

kind of recreational facility that is not covered. I'm not a

lawyer, but I don't think that (

b) covers all the situations

which might be encountered quite legitimately.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: So the Member is suggesting if the words

"hunting or shooting" came out and if it read then "private

lodge," it would be broader. That is satisfactory. We

will just draft that up and perhaps we could return to this

section, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman,

section 6, as I understand

this section, will give community organizations more access to

special permits. Will there be regulations limiting a specific

charitable organization to a specific number of events which it

may hold in a year, or will that be broadened as well, so that

a charitable organization, on application, may be able to hold

more than one event of this type per year at which liquor is

sold?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Those regulations are still being

formulated.

MR. McCLELLAND: Do you expect, though, that that will be

broadened?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It will certainly be more than one. I

think it would be possible for more than one.

[ Page 3545 ]

Section 6 approved.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

section 9.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, do I read this correctly, that a bar could be set up in a hospital and liquor could be sold within a hospital?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer is yes. It is all subject to

medical supervision. Yes, there could be a bar in a hospital.

There could be a room where they serve beer and the hospital

could charge for it. It would have to be licensed, be subject

to appeal, but I would think that some medical advice would be

that that was for the best recuperation of the patients.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, but when the Minister first talked

about neighbourhood pubs, I wasn't sure that they were going to

be set up in our local hospitals. I wonder if the Health

Minister (Hon. Mr. Cocke) has been consulted on this. If a

doctor prescribes some alcoholic beverage, whether it is a beer

or a shot of brandy or something for a patient, that is

available right now — the patient may have the bottle in his

room or somewhere else in the hospital and that can be freely

available to him. But this is going a little further, it seems

to me, in that under these regulations there could be an actual

tavern set up within a hospital. There is nothing here that

says that it has to be for a patient's use. It could be freely

frequented by all of the patients in the hospital. Would they

have to have special passes in order to get in? Would the

people from outside the hospital, from the community at large,

be allowed in these taverns? Or would it just be on a specific

basis for a specific patient? If that is so, that already

exists, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, the terms would be spelled out in

the licence granted. I would assume it would be restricted to

patients and their families. I understand Lions Gate Hospital

in the North Shore has a "happy hour" room at the present time.

So a licence can be granted for that.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Has this

section been brought in

with consultation with the medical profession? I am sure the Attorney-General

realizes that while it is very pleasant for those patients who are able to indulge

in this, one of the problems one faces in hospitals is people who are on specific

diets — diabetes, for example, who find it extremely difficult to turn down

any extra food. To have a bar close by where they are going to be tempted is

going to make it very difficult for some of these patients and for people who

have infectious hepatitis or gall bladder problems. The other point is that

diet is a major problem. Often when patients are in the hospital, there is a

great effort to reduce their weight because it helps to keep them away from

the temptations that tempt them ordinarily and destroy their diet. What there

any consultation with the nursing profession and the medical association on

such a section?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I can't assure the Member

there was specifically, but I can assure the Member that if a

licence is applied for under

section 9, the wishes of the

hospital, and, I presume, also the wishes of the medical

profession would be consulted. Then there would be restrictions

on the licence to make it very clear, if the licence were

granted at all, that it was for a limited, special purpose.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I trust that the Minister will also

discuss this with the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan), because obviously the Insurance Corp. of

British Columbia will have to be concerned with things like

impaired drivers of wheelchairs. The ramifications of such a

move are limitless, and I hope we'll give it very careful

considerations.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't treat this as a

humorous section. I think it's very serious, particularly when

you refer perhaps.... I come back again to the fact that there

is a possibility within every hospital in British Columbia

right now for a doctor to prescribe a shot or a today or

whatever is necessary for the welfare of his patient or

patients. They may get together. They're pretty lenient in

hospitals these days in connection with this. Given the

worldwide problem of alcoholism and given the fact that our

hospitals are full right now of people from alcohol-related

incidents, it just seems the wrong place to expand the

availability of liquor and alcohol into a hospital. That should

be the one place where we're saying: "Look, alcohol is killing

thousands of people every day in one way or another." You know,

through crime, through automobile accidents we're killing off

our teenagers through automobile accidents because of abuses of

alcohol. Our own Alcohol and Drug Commission says that alcohol

is the most abused drug in the world. Yet here we are expanding

its use into the hospitals. Now it just doesn't make sense to

me.

Then, if you relate this

section to another

section 1n the

Act later on,

section 54 — and I won't refer to that

section

right now except that it does specifically detail liabilities

for damage — are we opening up our hospitals now to the

possibility of damage suits? It's bad enough already, where

doctors are being harassed by malpractice suits, where hospital

employees are

[ Page 3546 ]

afraid in many instances to take action for fear of being

sued by some patient's family. Are we opening this up once

more?

Suppose that a patient, unbeknownst to the hospital staff,

had had a few nips on his own or her own at an earlier time and

had the right through regulation to go in and purchase a couple

of drinks in the hospital tavern and those two drinks pushed

that patient over the brink of drunkenness, and that patient

then went back to his or her room and died. Then are we opening

up through

section 54 in this bill the possibility of that

hospital being sued by that patient's family — and maybe going

into bankruptcy? With health care costs out of sight now, that

would be a terrible development. And it could happen quite

easily, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Attorney-General.

I think we should look very carefully at this because I'd

hate to see us go into.... You know, it has ramifications

which are far beyond anything we've talked about today, I

think.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, under

section 9 — you

know, I talked for a minute about licensing. The possibility of

licensing is under the Act, but it is not under

section 9. This

is administering to a patient. It wouldn't allow, under this

section, for a bar or even, as I said, a happy hour or

something of that kind.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, it allows it without

licensing, You don't need to get licensing from the liquor

board because it says that any facility within the meaning of

the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act may administer

liquor to any patient or resident within the institution either

as a beverage or otherwise — either as a beverage or otherwise — and may charge for the liquor so administered.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But that's the person in charge of the

hospital. It's not a licence situation.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Langley has

expressed very eloquently some very serious concerns about this

section and the consequences of it. Other Members have spoken

and I myself have asked some questions. Quite obviously in the

debate the Attorney-General — and I say this will all due

respect — does not really seem to understand the apparent

implications in this section. They are extremely serious if

what has been suggested in debate today is applicable.

I would urge the Attorney-General to withdraw this section, study its true

meaning and implications and then discuss it with the medical profession, with

the hospital administrators and with the nursing profession. Then, if it's desired

by them, and the legal problems and some of the very serious social consequences

have been ironed out, reintroduce it at another time. But what happens if you

incorporate it, Mr. Minister, is that the impression is created that bars or

that liquor can be used more freely in hospitals. You're putting a tremendous

pressure on local boards, which they may not be capable of handling at this

time. I'd urge the Minister to err on the side of being cautious in these

circumstances. Withdraw it and then bring it back at another session when you're

sure and your staff is sure of what it means.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But this is the existing practice

surely. Somebody is a heart patient and the doctor, say, wants

a tot of brandy for that person before they go to sleep, say...?

MRS. JORDAN: That comes under the Health Act.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but so it isn't illegal, the person

in charge of the hospital can authorize that and the patient

can pay for the brandy. That's all it's saying.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, your first comments....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They were in error.

Section 9 approved.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment in my name on the

order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 to 38 inclusive approved.

section 39.

MRS. JORDAN: With some leniency from the Chair and some

consideration from the Attorney-General, I think I'm going to

transgress on sections 40, 41 and 42.

I'm concerned, and there's a good deal of concern in the

province, as these sections will relate to the sale of liquor

or beer in grocery stores. So many grocery stores, small stores

particularly, and family operations, rely on people of under

legal age to carry on their business, often on their own for

many hours.

[ Page 3547 ]

They are deeply concerned how this will affect the stores in

terms of their employment opportunities, and what will happen

when minors are in fact selling beer, for example, over the

counter.

The second matter is that they're concerned that, should the

regulations come into force as indicated, the person selling

the beverage bears a large degree of responsibility in terms of

selling to underage individuals. A 16-year old or a 17-year old

youth is not probably really in a position to assess the

validity of a statement of age by an individual. Also, you may

have 14-year olds in the same circumstances, Also, there could

be a fair amount of bullying on the part of someone who was

intent in receiving liquor, even though they were not of age,

and this could result in a court case which would be extremely

costly to either the young person employ ed in the grocery

store, or to the grocery store proprietor. They just simply do

not have funds to get involved in this type of situation.

The other point I wish to stress is that there is

considerable concern on the part of those working in beverage

outlets, including the liquor stores, as to the amount of

pressure that's being put on them by legislation and pending

regulations in selling to minors. Again, the legislation is

putting individuals in a position of adjudicating the validity

of statements made by those under age. They feel that as an

individual, even though they may be most sincerely carrying out

their jobs, they are being pressed to the wall by the Liquor

Control Board, and may find themselves involved in lawsuits

which they can't possibly afford to fight, really. They might

find themselves involved in public scuffles that are reported

in the media, that are damaging to their reputation, and they

have no way of counteracting that.

I would also like to bring another point in this area to the

attention of the Attorney-General. Perhaps he could supply me

with some answers. There's a growing feeling among employees in

government liquor stores throughout B.C. that the government,

to all intents and purposes, the commission, is not backing up

employees in these stores when they get into difficult

situations. For example, I'm advised that if they see someone

shoplifting, basically they have no authority to apprehend that

person in the store. They feel that if they get involved in

this, the commission is not going to back them.

They really don't want to identify the store because they

seem somewhat concerned as to what the reaction would be, but

there have been incidents where the employee could have saved

the government money by apprehending shoplifters in liquor

stores, but there was not the backing from the government in

this instance. Again, they are concerned that the commission is

not prosecuting when incidents do take place. If there has been

an infraction of the law by a member of the public, they are not being prosecuted,

therefore this is encouraging the public — a small sector,

granted, but there is that sector — to take advantage of the

leniency of attitude in the liquor stores. When the Minister

answers, perhaps he could advise me just how many prosecutions

or charges have been pressed over the last few years in

relation to offences in liquor stores.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the question of minors

perhaps selling in a small grocery store is something that's

giving us concern. My present thinking is that there should

really be a senior person in charge, even though the children

might be working in the store.

In regard to employees, we provide, in

section 39(4), that

if they take reasonable precautions in terms of identification,

they will be in the clear; they cannot be convicted. We really

haven't basically changed the law here, although probably we've

improved it from the point of view of the employee who is a

doubtful case. Here, if he looks at the identification in good

faith, and then even if he's fooled by that identification,

he's done his duty. But we want them to do their public duty to

that extent. Under the old Act it said that you had to go into

court and say that all the appearances indicated such and such,

and that was rather difficult. It wasn't a very suitable kind

of defence for employees.

In the case of shoplifting, we'd like to be like, say, any

department store or any other commercial business, and I'll

take your remarks very seriously. If it's happening on a wide

scale, at least we should have the same protections there as

they do in private industry, in private commercial outlets.

MRS. JORDAN: I just want to thank the Attorney-General for

his comments. I understand the problems. I would point out

again that one of the reasons the Attorney-General — and I was

critical of this reason before, and I still am — gave for

introducing the sale of beer in small grocery stores was to

help them meet their economic cash flow and balance their

books. If it is required that they have a person of legal age

on staff at all times this is going to put them in a very

difficult...well, they are simply not going to be able to

afford it, because presumably the amount of liquor sold is not

going to justify the wage bill that they will receive.

Also it is going to hit the family operation very badly

because it is the off hours where they tend to have young

people in charge of the store, and it is also a very good

experience for these young people. So I would urge the

Attorney-General to be very cautious in this area, recognizing

if you set up a permit system then also people are going to

want to have the same rights in neighbourhood pubs, if they are

under age.

[ Page 3548 ]

I am pleased to hear your response about backing up the

staff if there is shoplifting and abuses in the store. I think

the taxpayers would be glad to hear this.

There is just one other point I might mention, and I am sure

it doesn't really relate to this section, and that is the

matter of dress in the liquor stores. I don't want to offer a

serious complaint, but I do feel that for a long time we have

been very proud of our employees and their dress, and it seems

to be not a comfortable disintegration of appearance but a

haphazard disintegration. If the employees are going to be

required to wear specified shirts or trousers or jackets, I

would urge the Attorney-General to allow the employees to

select the colour and style. Let's have a little life in our

liquor stores. Right now you go in and that green has a name in

the nursing profession, which I won't repeat, but it is hardly

uplifting. I am sure it is somewhat demoralizing to the staff.

Give them a nice bright yellow for summer, and navy blazers for

winter, or something, but let them choose them, and let's put a

little life into the stores as well.

Section 39 approved.

Sections 40 to 53 inclusive approved.

section 54.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS:

Section 54, Mr. Chairman, seems to raise

some horrendous possibilities for everyone in British Columbia.

I am surprised that the Attorney-General would have brought in

this

section without some words which would modify the

implications that this has for licensees, for people who have

parties in their own homes with effect to the consequences when

they occur.

If I may just refer the Attorney-General to

section 50,

section 50 provides that no person shall sell or give liquor to

an intoxicated person or person apparently under the influence

of liquor. That's the

section which would proscribe an offence

under the legislation. But when we get to

section 54, the one

that would establish civil liability, there are no such

modifying words. It places upon licensees, waiters in

restaurants and, as I say, individuals who have guests in their

homes and serve liquor the obligation of determining when a

person is or is not in a state of intoxication. You can give a

person as much liquor as you wish up to the time when a person

is in a state of intoxication, but from that moment on you give

him more liquor at your risk. This seems to me to place a

terrible onus upon people who serve liquor. The consequences

which flow from that themselves are enormous.

Does this mean that the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, in such a case

when a claim for injury or loss of life...?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I discussed this also with

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

old

section of the Act was a bad one, and we have eliminated

that because that limited damages to $1,500 and it only applied

in the case of death resulting from serving somebody who was

already intoxicated. However, the common law I find is

satisfactory in this field without trying to codify it in a

short section. I would like to move that this

section 54 be

deleted and renumbered in view of what the Hon. Member has just

said. I so move.

Amendment approved.

MR. MORRISON: I just want to further comment on

section

MR. CHAIRMAN: We just deleted it.

MR. MORRISON: I realize that, but did the Minister define

the word "intoxification"?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It was not defined heretofore in the old

Act, and it is something the courts decide for themselves.

MR. MORRISON: That is all I wanted to know.

Section 54 as amended approved.

Sections 55 to 93 inclusive approved.

section 94.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): When does the government

intend to proclaim this legislation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: As soon as we complete drafting the

regulations so that the proclamation and the regulations can be

enunciated at the same time. We're working on the regulations

now.

MR. CHABOT: Well, how soon is that?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, I would think the end of July.

Section 94 approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, there's

section 1 that we

agreed to return to. I move the amendment to

section I to

delete the words "hunting and shooting."

[ Page 3549 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker, in the chair.

Bill 99, Liquor Control and Licensing Act, reported complete

with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Committee

on Bill 96, Mr. Speaker.

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 96; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 16 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 96, Legal Services Commission Act, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Committee on Bill 100, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL COURT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 100; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

Hon. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Sections 11 to 44 inclusive approved.

section 45.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 45 as amended approved.

Sections 46 to 49 inclusive approved.

section 50.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment standing under my

name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 50 as amended approved.

Section 51 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 100, Provincial Court Act, reported complete with

amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 111.

SMALL CLAIMS AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 111; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 26 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report

the bill complete

[ Page 3550 ]

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 111, Small Claims Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) adjourned the debate, according to my notes. Is there

any further debate?

MR. CHABOT: We were led to believe that after went through

the Attorney-General's bills....

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, the Hon. Member is speaking on a

point of order?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I should hope so or you would have lost your

place.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was led to

believe by the House leader.... You know, there is a lot of

jiggery-pokery with that government over there...

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, oh, oh.

MR.CHABOT: ...they move from pillar to post and we never

seem to know where they are going. I don't think they know

themselves. We were led to believe we would be moving on to

Bill 27 after we had gone through the Attorney-General's

legislation. So what has caused the deviation? What has caused

the turn? What has caused the confusion that is taking place

over there?

MR. SPEAKER: Really, I think that is hardly a point of

order. It sounded like a resounding speech for the

hustings.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Someone threw some sand in the gears, Mr.

Speaker, in reply to the point of order. Bill 27 will be here

in one minute, But I thought, seeing as it was one of my bills

coming up here, there would be no debate on it, so we would put

Bill 103 through in the meantime.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, who will be carrying Bill

27?

MR. SPEAKER: That, I think, will be determined when it

arises. Is there any further debate on this one now?

MR. CHABOT: Just one very brief point of order. The

confusion of this is that the Second Member for Victoria, who

was probably led to believe as well that Bill 27 would follow,

adjourned the debate. Unfortunately, he is not here and it

might deny him the opportunity of speaking on this bill. He is

probably getting prepared for Bill 27. Who knows?

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, I am acting as our whip in his

absence, and I have a note here from the House Leader, which

specifically give the order of bills, and Bill 27 is listed as

the bill following Bill 111. We had no discussion that we

would be on any other bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any note on 103?

MR. MORRISON: No, Sir. Bill 103 is not listed.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, we will proceed with

committee on Bill 27. I thought that we would get the other one

through until the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) was here

to proceed with that. He is here now, so we can proceed with

Bill 27.

MR. MORRISON: You ought to get organized.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, you were just stalling for time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Bill 27, Mr. Chairman.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY COMPANY

CONSTRUCTION LOAN AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 27; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I would

just like to ask the Minister, since he is carrying this

through the House.... I don't know how much information he

has, but....

AN HON. MEMBER: fie is an active director.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, he's not a director on the BCR at all. Who

is carrying the bill?

[ Page 3551 ]

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Minister of Labour, ex-director of the

BCR.

I would just like to ask the Minister: who actually asked

for the Price Waterhouse report that was tabled in August,

1973? Maybe the ex-director of the BCR can tell me: who

commissioned this report and what were the terms of reference?

This report is a review of financial reporting and control

practices of the British Columbia Railway, August, 1973. Was

this report commissioned after Mr. Minty made his statements or

before Mr. Minty made his statements?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I think

all the facts and the sequence of events pertaining to

investigations of the railway were put on the table in the

debate on second reading by the Premier and Minister of

Finance, president of the railway. But I can tell the House

that no reports were commissioned, or no investigations were

commissioned on the railway, without the approval of the board

of directors.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour says that

all of the facts were tabled during second reading. I wish to

disagree with him because there were some controversial facts

tabled during second reading, and they were made by the

Premier. As a matter of fact, on Friday morning there was a lot

more political rhetoric by the Premier with regard to financial

reports. I would like to know the sequence of events. I think

it is very important, due to the fact that the Premier has made

many statements about the previous auditors who were given

certain instructions about hiding facts on the BCR.

I think it's very important that we know the sequence of

events — very important indeed. So I'd like to have that

information. If this Minister is going to carry this bill

through the House he should have that information because I'm

getting sick and tired of statements that were made by the

Premier that the previous auditors were told to hide certain

facts. Now he made those accusations in this Legislature.

I'd like to know when this report was asked for by the

railway. I'm positive that if you have a group of auditors who

are doing the books and then all of a sudden on August 31,

1973, after the Premier signs the first financial statement,

the 1972 report...and he said he signed it in the early

spring of '73, and he said at that time he had no reason, Mr.

Chairman, to question the validity of that particular

statement.

And then approximately six months later we have a report from Price Waterhouse

& Co., addressed to Mr. G.S. Bryson, Deputy Minister of Finance, Province

of British Columbia. This report was a review of financial reporting and control

practices of the British Columbia Railway. Now, Mr. Chairman, you just don't

have one set of auditors doing the books on the railway, and then have a report

on the very same practices by another group of auditors. I'd like to know what

provoked this report and what the terms of reference were that were given to

Price Waterhouse. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if the Minister of Labour

cannot answer this question he should get the Deputy Minister of Finance in

the House — maybe he can answer. I'd like to know why Price Waterhouse were

commissioned to do this report, what the terms of reference were, and when they

were asked to do the report.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, most of

these matters were canvassed in second reading of the debate on

Bill 27. The Premier did indicate at that time that he had

asked for the internal audit by Mr. Minty in response to a

question from the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer), and then he subsequently outlined the sequence of

events that led to various other reports and investigations.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if the Member wishes to check any

of those answers and revelations put forward by the Premier,

they are in evidence in Hansard . I do not propose to recanvass

that whole area again.

We're dealing here with a pretty simply and pretty

restricted bill pertaining to the need to extend additional

financing to the railway to the extent of $650 million. I would

just point out that the opposition has indicated its support

for the railway and for this financing of the railway; and we

can recall that the Premier indicated there was a very real

need for immediate financing so that construction can continue

and so that payrolls can be met. I think it would be

regrettable now to attempt to canvass once again the entire

debate that took place in second reading, when the full

principle and the state of the health of the railway was

discussed, where reports were tabled, where the Premier did in

fact answer questions and make reports available upon which he

had based the statements that he made in the House. Perusal of

those reports that were filed will reveal that the alleged

accusations of the Premier were nothing more than quotations

from the reports that had been received.

So I think the official opposition, Mr. Chairman, is just as

interested as the government is in ensuring that the railway

proceeds with what is a project, in effect, that was inherited

by this government, commissioned by the former administration,

and I know that they would not want to be responsible for

delaying unnecessarily or holding up that essential financing

on the railway.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm really all choked up about

this great appeal by the Minister of

[ Page 3552 ]

Labour to get this passed in such a hurry, when the

government could have brought this bill in months ago. It's all

very well and good for the Premier to run off on a joy ride to

London at the taxpayers' expense and leave the Minister who

can't answer the questions in this Legislature, but this

subject was not covered during second debate. As a matter of

fact, this Price Waterhouse report has never been spoken about

by the Premier; nor has he answered any of the allegations that

I made with regard to this report when he closed second

reading. He specifically skated around the Price Waterhouse

report when he closed second reading.

So I'm not really all choked up by the Minister. It seems to

be in this House that this Minister can get up and make any

kind of allegation he wants to about certain things, but when

we want to find the details, want to explore it, he's not here,

or leaves somebody who can't answer the questions.

Now the Premier said on Friday morning....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! It is customary when we're

following through on a question and answer thing between a

Minister and an HON. Member, that it isn't necessary to

recognize him every single time. I've recognized de facto the

Member for South Peace River, so would the Hon. First Member's

remarks on the section...?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River

continue, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier said on Friday morning: "You will

recall, Mr. Member, that I filed two reports by Mr. Minty: one

on B.C. Hydro and one on B.C. Rail. Mr. Minty's report led us

to development concerns about the auditing and accounting

procedures of B.C. Rail."

Now evidently Mr. Minty's report was tabled in the spring of

1973. I want to know if it was that report of Mr. Minty that

led to the Price Waterhouse report. It's a very simple question

and when I get the answer to it, then I'll continues.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the answer is quite

simple. Again, I wouldn't want to argue about it, but I was

under the impression that this information was elicited in the

debate on second reading. The Members can recall that in

response to questioning by the First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer), an internal audit, an investigation by Mr.

Minty was conducted. That report was tabled in the House, and

it revealed certain practices which.... He submitted a report

which was critical in a variety of ways of the accounting

procedures of the railway and the financial controls on the

railway.

Subsequent to that, the railway board commissioned a further

report, presumably to come to grips with some of the criticisms

and some of the recommendations which Mr. Minty had made in his

report. That was commissioned by the board of directors of the

railway and was an internal investigation based on the Minty

report, with a view to correcting some of the problems which

Mr. Minty had identified. I'm sure the Members would applaud

that when any procedures are revealed which are not up to snuff

in terms of accounting practices. In terms of proper financial

control, I think it would be very reassuring to the House to

know that the board had acted to improve those procedures and

those controls that had been identified by Mr. Minty as being

deficient.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there's a very important principle

involved here, Mr. Chairman. If you wish to call another

Member, I'll come back to it, because I intend to get the

answer.

Now in this report from Price Waterhouse it says: "Our study

was carried out in accordance with your instructions to review

certain of the matters raised in a special report of the

comptroller-general dated March 29, 1973." So if the Minister

of Labour doesn't know, he hasn't read the report, and I would

suggest the government really doesn't want to read the report,

because the report basically gives the practices of auditing in

the British Columbia Railway a clean bill of health. That's why

I find it very difficult to understand when the Premier said on

Friday morning:

Now, Mr. Member, that is really the whole crux of this long

debate. Take away all the rhetoric from any Member, be it the

government or opposition, the matter of this case simply rests

with the fact that the audited statements submitted by Buttar

& Chiene were false in that they said the Canadian

Transport Commission auditing procedures had been followed, and

they were not followed.

Now I'd like to ask the Minister of Labour how he can

justify the statement in the Price Waterhouse report that the

auditing practices of the British Columbia Railway were in

accordance with the Board of Transport Commissioners. There

seems to be a conflict of statements here, and I'd like to know

how we justify that.

How can the Premier justify his statement that the firm of

Buttar & Chiene did not comply with the Board of Transport

Commissioners when, after Mr. Minty said that there should be a

report on the accounting practices of the railway, Price

Waterhouse in their statements say that they were not held back

by anybody in doing their report.

"Our terms of reference," they say, "excluded

requirement for us to examine the financing of the railway or

its physical

[ Page 3553 ]

operation, as it was understood that other consultants had

been retained to examine overall corporate planning and

organization and construction estimating, bidding and costing

procedures. In all other respects there were no restrictions

placed on our review and we were requested to exercise our own

judgment in determining its scope."

The report is headed up by saying:

"We are pleased to submit our report entitled A Review of

Financial Reporting and Control Practices of the British

Columbia Railway. Our study was carried out in accordance with

your instructions to review certain of the matters raised in

the special report of the comptroller-general."

It was the report of the comptroller-general which said that

the auditors at that time had not been conforming to the board

of transport commissioners. Yet Price Waterhouse, who carried

out the report, was asked to do the report, say that the

auditing practices of the British Columbia Railway were in

accordance with the board of transport commissioners. I'd just

like to ask the Minister of Labour who was right and who is

lying.

HON. MR. KING: It would appear, Mr. Chairman, that the

professional chartered accountants of this province certainly

gave credence to the Peat, Marwick report because they did, as

the Premier outlined, take certain action against the former

auditor involved with the B.C. Railway. I suppose the House

would be quite safe in construing that to be a censure of the

auditor. I don't think it's unusual to ensure that in serious

matters such as accounting auditing procedures more than one

investigation be undertaken to absolutely ascertain that

financial control, auditing practices and accounting practices

are up to date and in conformity with the system which had been

established on that railway, and which had been certified in

filing annual reports to this House. I would point out further,

Mr. Chairman, that I understood the Member to say that the

Price, Waterhouse report had not been filed with the House. Am

I correct in that understanding?

MR. PHILLIPS: I picked it up out of the Clerks' office, so I

guess it must have been filed in the House.

HON. MR. KING: That's right. But that wasn't the information

I understood from the Member when he first rose, Mr. Chairman.

It's my understanding that the report was indeed filed with the

House, and has been available for any Member of the House to

study.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the whole case on this railway seems to

rest on the fact that the previous auditor did not follow the recommendations

laid out by the Canadian Transport Commission. The Premier

went so far as to say that the audited statements submitted by

Buttar & Chiene were false. He said that on Friday morning,

and he said that in second reading. Yet this report.... Here's

another group of auditors. Are you condemning Price Waterhouse

by saying that they didn't do a good job or that their report

is falsified? Are you saying that, Mr. Minister? It states very

clearly on page 4 of the Price Waterhouse report: "The

accounting systems of the British Columbia Railway in the past

have been directed primarily. toward the traditional role or

reporting financial transactions in a manner consistent with

the requirements of the uniform classification of accounts of

the Board of Transport Commissioners of Canada."

The statement of the Premier saying that Buttar &

Chiene's financial statements were false, which I think is a

very, very broad and hard statement, saying that the financial

statements of the BCR were false.... He says it right here in

Hansard on Friday. He goes on to say: "...in that they said

the Canadian Transport Commission auditing procedures had been

followed, and they were not."

Yet after Mr. Minty brought in his report and said that we

should check into the auditing practices of the British

Columbia Railway, somebody — I'm not quite sure who; it must

have been Mr. Bryson — asked Price Waterhouse to take this

report. I'm not sure what Price Waterhouse were paid for this

report. The report was tabled with the Clerk on September 18,

1973. The report was sent to Mr. Bryson, the Deputy Minister of

Finance, on August 31, 1973, and it clearly states that the

British Columbia Railway had been conforming to the board of

transport commissioners' uniform classification of

accounts.

Mr. Chairman, I'm very interested in finding who I should

believe in this situation. There have been some very serious

charges made in this Legislature by the Premier about the

previous administration, about the previous auditors and about

the accounts of the British Columbia Railway. I'd like to know

who to believe; the public wants to know who to believe.

In this report that Price Waterhouse returned to the Deputy

Minister of Finance and which was tabled in this House on

September 18, 1973, with the Clerk, was not an honest and true

report of the accounting practices of the British Columbia

Railway, what procedure, what charges have been laid against

Price Waterhouse? Somebody is truly misleading the public in

this case, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to know who.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, in the first instance, I wish

the Member would be accurate in terms of accusing the Premier

of making charges. The Premier quoted from reports which were

tabled in the House — certainly it's a matter of record. We do

now have the benefit of a Hansard , and we are very

[ Page 3554 ]

fortunate in that regard because...

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes we are. That's what I'm reading from.

HON. MR. KING: ...of comments that have been made are on

the record for all to see. It should be remembered that the

Minty report was the basis upon which the Premier quoted that

undue restrictions had been placed upon certain individuals

involved in the audit. From that, of course, that's a very

serious allegation to make, and that was made in the Minty

report. From that flowed a number of other investigations.

The Member suggested that the Premier said the statements

from Buttar & Chiene were false to the extent that they did

not conform to the CTC regulations. The Chartered Accountants

Association of British Columbia came to that conclusion — the

association responsible for the professional conduct of their

peers. That was my understanding from the debate which took

place....

MR. PHILLIPS: You're all wet!

HON. MR. KING: Well, I have company, Mr. Chairman, if that's

the case.

The Minty report found that Mr. Gunderson, who was formerly

a board member, had placed unwarranted restrictions on the

auditors, and that has been revealed time and time again in the

House in debate on second reading in the reports that were

submitted, I find it rather futile to go into a complete

recapitulation of all of these facts that are already before

the House. They have been tabled, they have been well

canvassed, they have been well debated.

MR. PHILLIPS: This report hasn't been mentioned by the Premier or anyone

else in the House. Don't mislead the House yourself!

HON. MR. KING: The information I have is that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Minister

proceeds, I would ask the Hon. Member for South Peace River to

withdraw the suggestion that the Minister of Labour is

misleading the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw "mislead" but he is certainly

misinforming the House when he says that, because as I said

before, Mr. Chairman, that has never been mentioned.

HON. MR. KING: Well, I think perhaps, Mr. Chairman, what the Hon. Member

is looking for is the relationship of the Price Waterhouse report with both

the Minty report and the subsequent Peat, Marwick report. Again I can only stress

the Premier laid this out very clearly in the debate on second reading, but

the Minty report....

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if that Member would listen

very carefully I will try to give him the facts so he will

understand them.

The Minty report was commissioned after questions from the

First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). That was a

relatively superficial report on the accounting procedures and

the financial controls, cost controls on the railway.

Subsequent to that, Price Waterhouse was retained to engage in

a more substantial report, but it wasn't an audit. It was a

general investigation in more detail than the Minty report, but

it certainly wasn't an audit.

Peat, Marwick was then retained to conduct a complete audit,

and that Peat, Marwick report was, in large part, what the

Premier quoted from. So there is quite a distinction in terms

of the precise kind of professional investigation that took

place, and I think that is what the Member is looking for.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, on that same point....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We can't continue on like this

all afternoon, having one Member do all the talking. We have to

give other Members a chance to speak, but I will give the

Member one follow-up question.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it straight

that the Price Waterhouse report was into all the accounting

practices and deals at some length with depreciation. Now after

the management of the railway decided to change the

depreciation methods, then that would change the financial

statements. So far as the change in the financial statements,

it was strictly that the new financial statement is based

strictly, Mr. Chairman, on a different method of depreciating

the assets of the railway and really has nothing to do with any

other accounting procedures. Price Waterhouse mentions very

clearly in the report that accounting procedures and

depreciation are strictly a decision of management.

Mr. Chairman, what I want to point out is that the only

difference in the financial statements from Peat, Marwick

versus Buttar & Chiene is the fact that they use a

different method of depreciating the assets of the railway. But

I want to say, and again I make my point, that Price Waterhouse

did a complete study of the accounting practices, and nowhere

in that report does it condemn the accounting practices, but it

does mention depreciation.

[ Page 3555 ]

I don't want, Mr. Chairman, to have the Minister of Labour

mislead himself on this very important fact, and I do not like

the Premier making accusations when he says that the statements

submitted by Buttar & Chiene were false. That is a

falsehood in itself, because if you take the whole accounting

practice and depreciation into consideration, the statement the

Premier made would mislead the public of this province. This is

the point I am trying to make.

So I would like to know again, and I'll go back to my first

question: how much study was done on the Price Waterhouse

report and what provoked the change of auditors?

MR. McGEER: MR. Chairman, perhaps the Minister will have an

opportunity to consult with the chief executive officer of the

railroad. I am very pleased that he is over here today to

consult with the Minister on this important bill. I am one who

isn't committed to supporting the bill. I must say that I don't

feel this sense of urgency to rush through legislation to

support the railroad in what appears to be its hour of

desperation.

It has been difficult, as you know, Mr. Chairman, for some

of us to get recognized to ask a question or two during the

committee stage of this bill.

MR. WALLACE: It's much the same way for everybody.

MR. McGEER: Okay. I don't intend to wear the House down.

With respect to the Minty report which has been mentioned

frequently during this debate, I think the report makes it

pretty clear that Mr. Gunderson restricted the extent to which

external auditors could go in their auditing. That was

carefully couched in the opinion of the comptroller of the firm

rather than Mr. Minty offering his own personal opinion.

Nevertheless, one doesn't need to be a genius to realize that

the auditing that was done had to be pretty limited if the bill

were only $4,000 for the job. It seems to me that that is

something that the management of the railway or any of the

directors of the railway or the secretary of the railway, who

served through two administrations, or the president of the

railway could easily determine simply upon inspection. If you

are only being presented with a bill of that size for a major

auditing of a large Crown corporation, it's got to be once over

lightly. But I didn't see that as the most ominous aspect of

the Minty report.

The most ominous aspect, it seemed to me, dealt with the internal auditing

system. During all of this debate we have not heard any comment at all coming

from the government as to what corrections have been made in the internal auditing

systems of the railroad. It is all very well to bring in new external auditors

and have a more thorough evaluation of the overall status of the railroad. But

remember this: we have no auditor-general in British Columbia. The job that

Mr. Minty did upon the request of opposition Members in this House who were

appalled at the overruns on some of the BCR contracts was a job that would normally

be done by an auditor-general. It illustrates a tremendous weakness that we

have in government financial systems. It is particularly critical at a time

of proliferation of Crown corporations that we haven't got this auditor-general

protection.

Now we send a man in who is the comptroller-general of the

province to do the auditor-general's job and he quickly points

out the obvious with respect to the external audit of that

corporation. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, he points out

major deficiencies with the internal auditing system. He says,

for example, in

section 7 of his report: "Internal audits in

the past few years have been restricted to general revenue

accounting areas in Vancouver."

While the internal auditor considers the external audit

coverage to be minimal, it is very clear in the Minty report

that he considers the internal auditing systems to be grossly

deficient.

So as I see it, Mr. Chairman, there was a general management

problem here starting from the president of the railroad,

extending down through Ministers of the Crown, extending to

auditors appointed by those Ministers of the Crown, right down

to the general management of the railroad, including internal

audit and engineering practices.

We are asked to begin subsidizing the railroad in a very

substantial way with this loan. We are looking at a balance

sheet where the railroad has been thrust into a position of

major losses.

Whether one wants to argue about fast or slow depreciation,

which has taken up much of the time of this debate, is hardly

an important question when you're now into operating

expenditures which exceed by millions of dollars the operating

revenues of the railroad. As long as that situation continues

to exist, we have no choice but to continue putting massive

infusions of public money in the railroad just to keep the

engines operating every day. That's got nothing to do with the

extension of the railroad into pioneer country. It's got

nothing to do with repayment of capital loans. Meeting the

payroll — that's the major problem we have today. Clearly,

we've got to develop much more acute internal auditing systems;

we've got to develop better engineering systems. And if I may

say so to the Minister of Labour, we've got to develop more

sensible wage policies.

I can't see any justification for the B.C. Railway, in a

year when it's experiencing record losses, paying shopcraft

unions the highest wages in the world. We want to see our men

paid well, there's no question

[ Page 3556 ]

about that. But we cannot be world wage leaders when our

railroad simply is not earning.

I think it's a different question if we've got some railroad

running into resource country that's producing enormous

revenues, and can pay off the cost of capital construction, pay

off the operating expenses, retire the debts and still make a

profit. That kind of a railroad can afford to pay the top wages

in the world, but not when we've gone into a position where we

not only cannot pay for the debt of the railroad or the capital

expenditures of extending it into the north, but we can't even

pay for the day-to-day operations. That's what's so condemning

about the financial position of this railroad.

Wage leaders in the world — in certain categories, not in

every category — we're in no position to pay those kinds of

wages. The people have to understand it; government has to

understand it; the railroad has to understand it; and the

employees of that railroad have to understand it. The

alternative is to take money out of the common pool that's

needed for other works of government.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we've got a major problem with this

railroad. The bill isn't solving the problem. Most of the

questions that have been asked haven't been relevant to the

problem that we face today. But I hope the government is going

to come up and make some statements as to how they're going to

bring things under control, first of all, in the day-to-day

management of that railroad so that revenue is going to exceed

day-to-day expenses. That's the first thing we ought to know

before we vote a dollar in this House.

Before we lay another mile of track the next thing we ought

to know is: is there a plan to bring in revenue that will

justify extending this railroad one more mile? If there isn't,

then in order to protect the public treasury, we'd better start

thinking about closing down the unprofitable lines.

Somewhere along the line there has to be some commonsense

management coming from somebody. But what we've got is complete

and utter irresponsibility, and a request before this House

that we produce a massive loan to the railroad because they

can't meet their payroll under emergency conditions. Mr.

Chairman, I have no hesitation in voting against this bill

under these circumstances. But I would like to have some

questions answered by the Minister. He's got the officials of

the railroad to consult with — for heaven's sake let's find out

whether we're goi