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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 3365 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Tabling of Keenleyside report on firefighting.

Mr. Curtis — 3365

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3365

Mr. Speaker — 3365

Routine proceedings

An Act to Establish a Medical Data Bank (Bill 137).

Mr. D.A. Anderson

Introduction and first reading — 3365

An Act to Provide for Payment of Local Taxes by the

B.C. Railway (Bill 138). Mr. Gibson.

Introduction and first reading — 3365

National Cablevision Limited Transfer of Jurisdiction

Act (Bill 133). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 3365

Speaker's ruling

Possible breach of privilege by Mr. Gibson. Mr. Speaker

— 3366

Mr. Gibson — 3366

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3367

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3367

Mr. Gibson — 3367

Mr. Speaker — 3367

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

ICBC strike effect on licensing teenage drivers. Mr.

Bennett — 3367

Sales of babies — 3368

Bus fare passes. Mr. Wallace — 3369

Homes left unsold in Meadowbrook subdivision. Mr.

Phillips — 3369

Defects in Meadowbrook homes. Mr. Phillips — 3369

Mount Benson housing project. Mr. Curtis — 3370

Status of Joyce Nash. Hon. Mr. Hall answers — 3370

Increase in stumpage rates. Mr. Fraser — 3370

Liquor Distribution Act (Bill 93). Second reading.

Mr. Wallace — 3371

Mr. Smith — 3375

Mr. Gardom — 3377

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3378

Liquor Control and Licensing Act (Bill 99). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3379

Mr. Smith — 3379

Mr. Gardom — 3380

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3380

Legal Services Commission Act (Bill 96). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3381

Mr. Smith — 3381

Mr. Gardom — 3382

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3383

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3383

British Columbia Railway Company Construction Loan

Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 27). Second reading.

Mr. Phillips — 3384

Hon. Mr. King — 3390

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3392

Mr. Gibson — 3394

Mr. McGeer — 3396

Resort Municipality of Whistler Act (Bill 130). Hon.

Mr. Lorimer.

Introduction and first reading — 3399

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 10). Hon. Mr.

Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 3399

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Today in the gallery are 55

students from the Poplar Glade School in Williams Lake.

Williams Lake is in the great riding of Cariboo and Williams

Lake is the bull-throwing capital of the world. I would like

the House to join with me in welcoming these students here

today.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I have

the honour to present on the floor of the Legislature today

three gentlemen. The first is Robert Sauvé of the Province of

Quebec, attending the national legal aid conference. He's a

former secretary-general of the CNTU from which position Jean

Marchand rose to great heights. And I have Roland Penner, QC,

also a joint chairman from Manitoba and chairman of their legal

aid services there. Finally, from the Province of British

Columbia, Mr. Don Jabour of Kelowna, who, if this Legislature

in its wisdom finally passes my Legal Services Bill, will be

the chairman of our legal aid services committee in the

Province of British Columbia.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery

today are members of B.C.'s tourist industry, Lydia Linns, Dave

Williamson, George Dover and Duncan Myers. I'd like the House

to welcome them.

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

rise on a point of privilege. Apparently yesterday a number of

copies of the report which could be referred to as the

Keenleyside report on firefighting in the province were made

available to members of the press, and you, Mr. Speaker, will

be aware of press reports last evening and again this morning

dealing with this report. I understand also that Dr.

Keenleyside has reportedly held a press conference. It may be

an oversight on the part of the Hon. Attorney-General, but it

may also be an affront to the Legislature to the effect that

the report has not yet been presented to this Legislature, has

not been tabled. I sought a copy this morning from the

Attorney-General and, while he was very polite and helpful, he

was unable to provide me with a copy of the report.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, and I don't

say for the first time in this session, has a very valid point. I

received the report and I opened it to the public. I should have

deposited one in the Legislature. It's being printed at the Queen's

Printer, so all Members will have a copy, but that's 10 days and I

didn't think it should be held up that long. I would like to ask leave

at a later stage today to file a copy in the Legislature itself. It was

not appointed by the Public Inquiries Act or by a statute or something.

It was kind of informal, which perhaps is the way a committee of

investigation should act sometimes to get the best results, and I

treated it rather informally. To that extent, I'm wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member will know that a report

that is a statutory report should first be tabled in the House. In this

case, it perhaps doesn't qualify in that fashion. Nonetheless, I think

the Hon. Attorney-General has made amends in any event.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH

A MEDICAL DATA BANK

On a motion by Mr. D.A. Anderson, Bill 137,

An Act to

Establish a Medical Data Bank, 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.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR

PAYMENT OF LOCAL TAXES

BY THE BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill 138,

An Act to Provide for

Payment of Local Taxes by the B.C. Railway, 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.

NATIONAL CABLEVISION LIMITED

TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled National Cablevision Ltd.

Transfer of Jurisdiction Act.

Bill 133 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano

(Mr. Gibson) reminded me of the point of privilege that he

raised on Monday, and I'd like to briefly say that his point of…. I

shouldn't say he raised it; he asked for a decision. The

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) claimed a breach of

privilege with respect to the question that had been asked by

the Hon. Member for North

[ Page 3366 ]

Vancouver–Capilano on June 9, which the Hon.

Attorney-General complained was misleading the House.

The question raised by the Hon. Member related to whether or

not the Hon. Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) and the Hon.

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

Williams), being shareholders of a private company, B.C.

Steamships, 1975, Ltd., had made a declaration of trust in

favour of the Government of British Columbia on the shares they

hold. He went on to ask:

I would ask the Member (meaning for Mayor for

Esquimalt) if he was aware of

section 88 of the Canada Corporations Act

which says that to exercise the powers of a director one must own the

shares absolutely in their own right.

He goes on in his

statement:

There are only certain exclusions for those holding

shares in trust, which I wouldn't believe would apply to the Hon.

Member. Therefore, how can a board of directors function with zero

legal members? That is my question.

I'm quoting from the Hon. Member as shown in Hansard .

Now I looked at

section 88(

l) of the Canada Corporations Act

which states, subsection 1:

"Subject to subsection (2) no person shall be elected

as a

director of a company or appointed as a director to fill any

vacancy unless he or any other company of which he is an

officer or a director is a shareholder and, if the bylaws of

the company so provide, owning shares of the company absolutely

in his own right, or in the right of such other company to an

amount required by the bylaws of the company, and not in

arrears in respect of any calls thereon."

I checked the public

filings the other day — on Thursday — with regard to this

company, at the request of the same Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano. The bylaws do not provide, as I have

confirmed, for a director being required to hold his shares

"absolutely in his own right." As I said Monday, the signators

of the incorporating documents declared themselves as holding

the founding shares in trust, and the bylaws do not prevent

that. Thus

section 88 is not at issue, and the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano misunderstood

section 88.

In looking at the wording used by the Hon. Member in his

questions, he stated:

I would ask the Member if he was aware of

section 88,

which

says that to exercise the powers of a director, one must own

the shares absolutely in their own right.

That is not the meaning of

section 88. He added:

There are only certain exclusions for those holding

shares

in trust, which I wouldn't believe would apply to the Hon.

Member. Therefore, how can a board of directors function with zero

legal members?

As anyone can analyse,

section 88 allows shares to be held

in trust, providing the bylaws of a company do not state that

the directors must hold shares absolutely in his own right. The

bylaws, as I said, do not provide that the directors must own

the shares absolutely in their own right.

Now the Hon. Member was not aware of the bylaws. I can see

that from his question. Therefore I point out to the Hon.

Member that the statements made in question period by him,

serious as they may be on occasion, in this matter appear to

arise from misreading the

section and belief that

section 88

does not provide for the legal appointment of the Hon. Member

for Esquimalt, the director referred to in the question.

Had the Hon. Member studied the bylaws, he would not have

proceeded on the basis of belief in his allegation. He probably

would have thought better of it. I'm sure he would have.

In the circumstances, his own words do not show a deliberate

act to mislead because part of the facts were patently not

known to him. The matter could still be taken up by notice on

the order paper, however, should the complaining Member choose.

But it does not, in my respectful view, consist of a prima

facie case justifying priority over orders of the day. The

allegations complained of do not require immediate intervention

since they cannot be said to affect the capacity of the Hon.

Members, who are complaining, to carry on their legislative

duties. Consequently, I don't see that as a prima facie case. I

point out that the Hon. Member was in error, and I presume it

was a sincere and mistaken error.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): He didn't provide that

information: He didn't give that information to anyone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

thank you for your ruling, but there's no breach of privilege

here. There is one thing you said in your statement which I

would like to have cleared up. You say: "…the

mis-statements of the Hon. Member during question period,

serious as they may be on occasion…." I take it you didn't

mean to imply that I make serious mis-statements during

question period. I hope I don't, Mr. Minister.

Of course, the bylaws of the company were not available to

me as the Canada Companies Act provides.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: They were not available to him!

[ Page 3367 ]

MR. GIBSON: No, they weren't. They weren't available to me

at the time I asked that question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: They wouldn't make them available.

Covered government.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, there's one other thing that I

would like to have set right in the record. The

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), in a thoroughly waspish

mood when he raised this so-called question of privilege, made

the statement that what I said was either recklessly wrong or

deliberately false — deliberately falsely made. Later on he

said "recklessly wrong, or deliberately misled the House." Mr.

Speaker, that is not a fact, and I would like the

Attorney-General to withdraw those words.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right! Apologize. Shameful behaviour.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I'm

glad to accept the explanation of the Hon. Member, and I

withdraw any suggestion that he deliberately misled the House.

I am entitled, however, as a Member of this Legislature, to say

that in my opinion the Member was recklessly wrong.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Where were the bylaws? Can you provide

them?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, while

nobody wants to exercise a kind of overkill operation in this

regard, I think that somebody should remind the Hon. Member,

who is new….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Is this a point of order?

HON. MR. HALL: It's a point of order. It's on the same point

of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, this session the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has already accused the Provincial

Secretary of being in contempt of the House over the alleged releasing

of government wage settlements. His charge was shown to be without

foundation. Mr. Speaker, your ruling now indicates that he claimed

contempt of the House over operations of the Princess Marguerite and

the rent commission, both of which have got statutory provisions under

way. Yesterday, headlines again scream "illegal acts" based on that

question by the Member, and which again has been shown to be groundless.

Mr. Speaker, in any game I know about, whether it's politics

or business or anything else, three times at bat, three strikes

and you're out. I think he may have done a lot in the terms of

getting headlines outside, but he's done little in terms of his

reputation inside here.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, if the Provincial Secretary wants

to pursue this, I trust I'll be entitled to a short reply.

Point (1): his department did release information to the

Employers Council of British Columbia which he did not make

available to this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was available.

MR. GIBSON: Not in the form it was released.

Point (2): there have been, and I say unquestionably and no

person in the government has denied that, illegal expenditures

not authorized by this Legislature. I challenge the Provincial

Secretary to deny this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We've been over these arguments

before.

MR. GIBSON: He raised them again.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out that my decision on this question

is that there's no prima facie matter that should set aside the

orders of the day. What any Member does about it now, they

would have to do by motion on the order paper. I leave the

matter at that, and I hope it will end there. I hope we'll all

be wiser for it.

Oral questions.

ICBC STRIKE EFFECT ON

LICENSING TEENAGE DRIVERS

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister of Transport and Communications: in his duties

relating to Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, can the

Minister assure the House that contingency plans have been made

to assure that teenage drivers can obtain an interim licence in

view of the fact that many are losing student summer employment

opportunities from lack of a licence being issued after they

pass the exam?

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

Communications) : I can't give that assurance right now. There

is a strike on, as you know. I'm not on strike.

[ Page 3368 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Go to work, then.

MR. BENNETT: Just a supplemental. Does the Minister not

consider that a procedure for the issuance of an interim driver

certificate could be worked out by the use of government agents

throughout the province? These students have been encouraged to

work and many have…. I have cases that have been phoned to

me — that they've passed their driver's examination, they have

a summer job lined up that is contingent upon them being able

to drive, and they can't be issued a licence because of a

strike that is no fault of their own. These young students all

want to work. Couldn't the Minister consider a procedure as

I've suggested?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to remind the Hon. Leader of the

Opposition that less than a week ago I was violently attacked

by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) for

strikebreaking, for doing much less than what you're now asking

me to do. A violent attack by that Member, accusing me of

strikebreaking! Something I've never done and do not intend to

do.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): You are a conspiracy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: What was that? I didn't quite hear that, but it

sounded like something like…

MR. BENNETT: I'm still waiting for an answer to my

question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He said I was part of a conspiracy, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): No, he didn't say

that at all. He said you were a conspiracy.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Would you rather he

called you a disaster?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the expressions are unparliamentary. I

would ask the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) if he

would like to clear up that it is not meant to be an insult. It

is not intended to be an insult, I hope.

MR. CHABOT: Of course not.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, you might stand and say so. It might help

a bit if you stood up.

MR. CHABOT: Of course not.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: For the information of the Member, it is

my understanding that there is a joint application that has

been made under the laws of this province by the Public Service

Commission and the government employees' union to determine

what relationship there is in the allied field between such

action and the present strike.

MR. BENNETT: A further supplementary. Does that mean that

the Minister, until such report has come, could initiate no

action to ensure that these students can achieve the summer

employment that is contingent upon a driver's licence after

they have passed the examination, and they are presently denied

a licence in British Columbia after passing the examination and

thusly are being denied summer employment?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Unless you are specifically requesting me

to indulge in what could be

an act of strike-breaking, we will

have to wait until the legal procedure under such an

application is fulfilled.

MR. BENNETT: What you are saying is no.

MR. CHABOT: Supplementary to the Minister of Transport and

Communications. The OTEU, the employees' representative of

ICBC, has accused ICBC of strike-breaking tactics. Has the

Minister investigated this serious charge?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Certainly I investigated that serious

charge. I found that what the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia has agreed to do is to use people not involved in the

strike to provide in hardship cases as I was requested to do by

a Member, so that the widow of someone who was killed in an

accident can get her insurance money or some old-age pensioner

whose home has been burned down can get his compensation as

soon as possible. We are taking such steps as we can to meet

hardship cases. That was in the memo.

SALES OF BABIES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. In

the light of the statement by one Joseph Reid, the executive

director of the Child

[ Page 3369 ]

Welfare League of America, that organized crime is

thought

to be entering the business of selling babies to adoptive

parents, and his statement, "I have no doubt some people in

Canada are involved, too," may I ask the

Attorney-General whether CLEU or his department is aware of any

British Columbia babies being sold across the line in this way,

or whether they have undertaken any investigation of any links

between crime and adoptive services in British Columbia?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge. I

checked with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi).

That doesn't mean that a thing of that kind should not be

further investigated.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, if the Attorney-General believes a

thing of this kind should be further investigated, may I ask

the Attorney-General whether he will give an undertaking to the

House that his belief will be followed by action and we will

see some sort of investigation, either by his department or

that of the Minister of Human Resources, so that we can be

assured that this practice is not in actual fact taking place

in British Columbia?

BUS FARE PASSES

MR. G.S. WALLACE

(Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

follow up on the question I asked the Minister of Municipal

Affairs yesterday with regard to the bus line service to Sooke.

I have here the public passenger tariff which was filed under

the Motor Carrier Act on November 23, 1973. On page 5 it

clearly documents that a pass rate at $34 per month is part of

the rate structure. In light of the fact that the B.C. Hydro

buses are now providing this service but not the pass, is not

the department in breach of the legislation contained in the

Motor Carrier Act?

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

Speaker, I don't believe we are in contravention of the Motor

Carrier Act in that regard, due to the fact that we are not

operating under that particular licence. That is the licence

that the previous operators were operating under. However, I am

personally in a little embarrassing position because I didn't

realize there was that pass system, and I did publicly say that

we would give the service at the same rates that were granted

before. As I mentioned yesterday, we have some difficulty in

this, due to the fact that if we treat Sooke in that manner,

then I think we would have to look at the rest of the province

and do exactly the same thing for them. It is a bit of a

problem and we are still looking into it.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In that regard then,

since it is government policy to encourage

people out of their cars and into the buses, and since the pass

is just such an incentive, can the Minister tell us if he has

some time in mind by which time he will decide on the pass

issue generally? Perhaps could I just quickly ask if he has had

a chance to check out the other question I asked about federal

employees travelling free on the buses and to what degree the

federal government compensates the provincial government for

this cost?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I would certainly say that we have studied

the pass system, but we don't feel that 100 per cent discount

on a pass is reasonable. We feel that that is quite a

substantial reduction. We are looking more to a 15 per cent

reduction for the past system.

Now I haven't got the answer yet for the question you asked

yesterday.

HOMES LEFT UNSOLD IN

MEADOWBROOK SUBDIVISION

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my

question to the Minister of Housing. I would like to ask the

Minister if he is aware that not all of the homes that were

offered for sale by Dunhill in the Meadowbrook subdivision in

Coquitlam have been sold at the present time.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, that's

not what I understand. I'll look into it.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The information

I have is that not all the homes are sold due to the fact that

some of the homes still have defects in them. I have brought

this up in this Legislature several times before, and the

Minister heaped scorn on me for being concerned about the

safety….

MR. SPEAKER: Order! What is the question.

DEFECTS IN MEADOWBROOK HOMES

MR. PHILLIPS: The question is, what does the Minister intend

to do with regard to the continuing defects which he assured me

were being cleared up? Last night on a CTV programme Mr. Dick

Reaveley said he found in his basement two building inspector

rejection slips for the foundations of the Meadowbrook home. He

found the foundation concrete half-buried in his back yard. He

found other examples of bad workmanship such as staples instead

of nails, sloppy finishing work. He believes that if these

defects are repaired, the house might be a good deal.

[ Page 3370 ]

He is forming a group of citizens in this subdivision, Mr.

Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a time for giving

information, but for asking a question, which you have already

asked. Would the Hon. Member be seated so that we can get the

answer?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'd like to ask the Minister if….

MR. SPEAKER: You have already asked the Minister a question.

One question at a time.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: One question at a time. You've already asked

the question.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if you'd quit pushing me, Mr. Speaker,

I'd like to ask my question.

MR. SPEAKER: Question time isn't that long, you know.

MR. PHILLIPS: I've seen other Members give information

before they lead up to their question. I'd like to ask the

Minister what he is going to do to clear up this situation.

MR. SPEAKER: You have already asked that. Would the Hon.

Minister answer?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the Minister hasn't answered.

MR. SPEAKER: He hasn't had a chance.

Interjections.

MOUNT BENSON HOUSING PROJECT

MR. CURTIS: A question to the Minister of Housing with

respect to what is known as the Royal Canadian Legion Mount

Benson housing project in Nanaimo. The most recent stage is in

a position of advanced planning and I understand a grant of

approximately $5,000 was indicated to be forthcoming from the

provincial government for this particular project. Would the

Minister indicate if this money has been delayed, or if it has

in fact been withdrawn? What is the present circumstance

regarding provincial participation in the latest stage of this

housing project for senior citizens?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, moneys are allocated by

order-in-council. No order-in-council has been passed; therefore no

money has been withdrawn.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary. Does the Minister, Mr. Speaker,

foresee any delay or problem associated with this particular

housing project with the Royal Canadian Legion having been

given an indication at least in advance that there would be

provincial participation?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the Member well

knows, this government has increased the allocation under the

Elderly Citizens Housing Aid Act over 600 per cent, Mr. Member,

and we are, of course, reviewing all applications. We've taken

a lot of the disincentives away from the municipalities. We

have a tremendous response in this programme. We are having to

look at the ways and means by which we can participate and

assist all of the people that are making application to us.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is this project in

jeopardy in terms of provincial participation? Yes or no, Mr.

Speaker?

Interjection.

STATUS OF JOYCE NASH

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, a short time ago the Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) asked me a question regarding a

person he named in the House, and he described the person's

political affiliations. This person is Mrs. Joyce Nash. The

Member for Columbia River asked me if we had appointed her or

if she was working or receiving anything from the government. I

asked the Member if he would assist me in this inquiry and he

did speak to me after about it and said he thought he had

observed something about Mrs. Nash.

I checked the records and Mrs. Nash is in receipt of no

appointment by order-in-council or anything from the Public

Service Commission or the government. At one time, some time

ago, which ceased quite some time ago, she was acting as a

constituency secretary for the Member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) — as we all have, as the Members know,

people working for us.

So my answer to this question is a simple no.

MR. FRASER: I've got my exercise today.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, if you leave your microphone up, I'll try

to recognize you.

INCREASE IN STUMPAGE RATES

MR. FRASER: It's been up all the time.

A question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and

[ Page 3371 ]

Water Resources. With reference to his announcement

that

stumpage rates will increase from the minimum of $1.10 per 100

cubic feet effective July 1, the increase to be tied in to the

price of lumber, does the Minister realize that this action by

the Forest Service of increasing the stumpage will cause

massive layoffs in the forest industry? Will he reconsider this

decision and delay the increase in stumpage rates?

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

Resources): Mr. Speaker, the announcement was very clear. The

implementation of normal stumpage practices will relate to market; it

will relate to the previous three-month market pattern. The previous

three-month market pattern, in many instances, will be exactly the same

as minimum stumpage. In some instances, with selected species such as

white pine or some others, there have been a few operators getting

considerable benefits at the expense of the public purse, basically.

That's really been inequitable in relation to other operators in the

industry. So if the market remains low, they'll be on minimum stumpage,

despite the change, simply because the market is low.

In addition, the decision was also very clear with respect

to the benefit of chip prices in relation to the stumpage paid.

The chip price valuation in relation to stumpage will remain at

the old low level, which was around $11,

whereas the operators

are in fact receiving the $35 level for chips sold to the pulp

mills. So considerable benefits prevail for all of the

operators in the province.

Orders of the day.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, by leave

of the House we could proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on Bill 93.

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION ACT

(continued)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, Bill 93, entitled

Liquor Distribution Act, is designed, according to the

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

s) comments, to civilize

and make less barbaric — I think that was one of the words used — our present….

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Debarbarize.

MR. WALLACE: Debarbarize, if that's the word — if there is such a word.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: At any rate, another phrase that has frequently

been used is "make our drinking habits more civilized."

Distribution, obviously, is a key aspect of that topic.

I think, above all, the first unequivocal point that should

be made in this debate, and on the other related bill, is that

of all the drug problems, alcohol is unquestionably the worst,

the most serious, the most pervasive and perhaps as tough as

any other drug problem to tackle. The LeDain commission, which

spent exhaustive hours and many, many meetings in all parts of

the country, has put that on record, and that cannot be

debated.

I might say in passing, Mr. Speaker, that that surely should

make it plain to all of us that the problems we're having with

alcohol should in no way encourage anybody to suggest that it

would be appropriate to legalize marijuana. Because we have one

evil in society that we can't control or get rid of, it seems

to me absolutely insane to suggest that we should legalize

another one, regardless of its relative dangers or lack of

dangers in relation to alcohol.

The real principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is

think the question we have to answer in determining whether to

vote for or against this bill is the degree to which access

leads to increased consumption. I just want to say that I'm not

the least bit impressed by the frequent comments we've heard

about the European habit of so-called civilized drinking. I

want to refer in a few moments to why I find that an

unfortunate opinion, and one that is expressed many times.

On many occasions we've heard in this House of the social

cost of making alcohol readily available; I'll try not to be

repetitive. We've heard about the traffic accidents, the

associated crimes, the mental and physical illness; we have

broken homes, we have the welfare costs, and last but not least

by any means, we have a large number of alcoholics. I would

just quickly refer again to the Minister of Highways' (Hon. Mr.

Lea'

s) excellent report for 1974. I just want to read this into

the record: "Last year there were 518 fatal accidents in

British Columbia — 44 per cent of them involved alcohol. Of 218 fatal accidents where alcohol was involved, 32 per cent had

a blood alcohol over 0.08." In other words, of all the fatal

accidents, 14 per cent of the people involved were

impaired.

This is not the kind of debate where we should go

[ Page 3372 ]

into a whole list of statistics. I think if you just take

that particular item on its own, it brings home the importance

of determining whether we should make alcohol more readily

available to the individual.

Some of the research that's been done, Mr. Speaker, and

which relates essentially to the principle of this bill shows

that social costs are very closely tied to average consumption

and not to the number of alcoholics, and I think this is

extremely pertinent to this bill. Too often we zero in on

admittedly the serious problem of alcoholism and alcoholics,

perhaps because each of us who does a bit of drinking, myself

included, likes to try and evade the fact that there are large

problems arising from social drinking short of the level at

which the person becomes an alcoholic.

I spoke in the House on April 4, 1974, and quoted the same

researcher of world renown that I'd like to quote today, Dr.

David Archibald of the Ontario Addiction Research Foundation.

He is quoted in a recent

article in The Observer as stating:

"At present, Canadians drink 30 per cent more alcohol. Each

average individual drinks 30 per cent more than 25 years ago.

The proportion of Canadians drinking alcohol has gone from 60

per cent to 80 per cent." Some of the other facts that he

brings out is a higher than average death rate from heart

disease, ulcers, malnutrition, some cancers and pneumonia. And

65 per cent of all deaths due to sclerosis are due to the abuse

of alcohol. His research shows also, at a time when we're

talking about law and order and capital punishment and all the

emotionalism that surrounds that very hot issue, that 64 per

cent of murders in Canada are associated with alcoholism or the

consumption of alcohol to a degree which determines the

person's behaviour. A study done in Winnipeg showed that 75 per

cent of referrals by court for sex offences, theft and forgery,

and 39 per cent of rapes were related to alcohol

consumption.

So I think it would be quite inappropriate to discuss the

principle of this bill solely in the rather superficial sense

of convenience of access by the individual citizen to alcohol

outlets.

This same researcher I think makes a very interesting point,

Mr. Speaker, and this is why I want to refer to the so-called

French civilized drinking. He says:

"To a tourist, the French always seem to be sipping at

wine, and hardly anyone ever appears to be drunk. It seems civilized,

sophisticated and harmless, but the facts are brutally different. The

research shows that the average Frenchman drinks three times what the

average Canadian drinks. He drinks 25 litres of alcohol — that's the

combined alcohol, liquor, beer and wine — compared to just under nine

litres according to the study done in Ontario. Sclerosis deaths in

France are six times those in Canada."

I'm sorry the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) is out of

the chamber just at the moment, Mr. Speaker, because this same

research shows that 42 per cent of total health expenditure in

France is in alcohol-related disease. Forty-two per cent of the

total health expenditure in France is on alcohol-related

disease and 50 per cent of all hospital beds are occupied by

patients who in some way have a problem related to alcohol.

Wine in France is half the price of fruit juice, and one-third

of the French people are tied directly or indirectly to the

booze industry. They're either growing wine, distributing it,

or selling it in cafes and restaurants.

I just have to say again, Mr. Speaker, that the social costs

of alcohol are closely related to society's overall

consumption. The social problems just can't simply be blamed on

alcoholics, who are very much in the minority of all people who

use alcohol. I think that the vital principle in this bill is

to discuss overall consumption. It's quite clear from research

that's been done in many parts of the world that consumption

relates very clearly to two simple features: one is

France, Spain, Italy and Portugal wine is cheaper than a cup of

coffee. The same applies to beer in Germany. It's interesting

that these five countries lead the world in alcohol

consumption.

Some other researchers have done some studies in Finland. I

think this really should interest the Minister, since he's got

a

section of this bill we're debating which suggests the

possibility — granted it's only the possibility — of government

beer stores and government wine stores and government liquor

stores. There seems to be the implication that we might see

mushrooming of different outlets for beer and different outlets

for wine and different outlets for liquor. I've already tried

to make the point very clearly and well documented that the

problems of alcohol and the social cost are clearly related to

overall consumption. I'm saying to this House that what

price.

In Finland, a study was carried out by two researchers by

the name of Jan de Linto and Wolfgang Schmidt. They state as

follows:

"In Finland, the government introduced stores for beer

and wine in some selected communities. This

led to a marked increase in the consumption of all legally sold

beverages. More recently, the government allowed beer to be

sold in a wide variety of stores and eating places. Within one

year, alcohol consumption increased 50 per cent."

That is a

study done in Finland. The interesting thing in Finland, Mr.

Speaker, is that the Finnish government has taken these steps I

the same time they have just hammered down in a most

[ Page 3373 ]

punitive way on the penalties that are applied to offenders

convicted of drinking while driving, or driving while drinking — it adds up to the same disaster, usually.

One of my medical colleagues just returned from Finland a

few months ago and we had quite a chat about this. He quoted

the instance of where one of the Ministers of the government

finished up doing hard labour, making the runway in Helsinki or

somewhere because he had been found guilty of impaired driving.

The punitive nature of the sentence involves work camps and

hard labour and, as I say, one of the Ministers of the Crown

finished up breaking stones for a runway at one of their

airports.

It seems to me that we should learn from these other

countries. It makes no sense to try to be liberalized or

civilized or sophisticated by making booze more readily

available and then screaming for higher penalties to penalize

the drinking driver. It seems to me that there is a real danger

in this bill and in other government efforts that we are

running in opposite directions at the same time.

I would certainly support this government in ever-heavier

penalties against the impaired driver. We have the example of a

teenager killed on a sidewalk the other day by what appears to

have been a driver impaired in some way. A completely innocent

16-year-old life was snuffed out just like that. Nobody need

overlook the disasters and the sorrow and the tragedy which

come from these events. But then we have to look at the start

of the problem or one of the predisposing factors in making the

problem worse. Surely that has to be availability and price of

alcohol.

It has been established by the same researcher that I quoted

a moment ago, Dr. Archibald, that the price of liquor has been

dropping in relation to other costs and disposable income.

Between 1949 and 1969, the average Canadian disposable income

increased by 57 per cent, measured in constant dollar values.

Wine went up 28 per cent, which was half as fast. Food costs,

about which we hear a great deal and great public concern and

we have a large federal establishment under Mrs. Plumptre going

all over the country, quite rightly showing concern and

investigating food prices, can be statistically shown to have

risen 16 per cent during one recent period while booze went up

by 2.5 per cent. Twenty years ago a dozen beer cost seven per

cent of the Canadian per capita weekly income. Today, a case

costs about three per cent. Not only are we making liquor and

its other relatives more readily available by this kind of

bill, but we have to recognize that in relative terms the cost

of liquor, wine and beer is less today than it was years

ago.

When you combine these two factors, I think the passage of this kind

of bill has to inevitably lead to a greater consumption of alcohol

because the bill in a variety of ways will make access to liquor, wine

and beer easier for the individual. This seems to me very undesirable

in the light of the solid, well-established, documented statistics and

trends which I think the sources I have quoted demonstrate.

I will read into the record another piece of evidence which

the Attorney-General received from the Salvation Army. I

suppose many people, ill-informed and ignorant, will sort of

scoff and laugh and say: "Oh, well, we know the Salvation Army

is against booze." If they should say that, that is a hollow

and shocking statement to make, because part of the social

evils, the problems and social factors that arise from the use

of alcohol get dumped in the lap of the Salvation Army because

governments fall short in providing the kind of medical, mental

health, treatment and rehabilitation facilities which the sale

of the booze caused in the first place. So I hope we don't have

any scoffers at the kind of statement I want to read, and which

the Attorney-General received from the Salvation Army. This

letter is dated June 3.

"In British Columbia alone the Salvation Army is

operating

four institutions for men and women, specifically designed to

cope with alcoholic problems. The administrators of these

institutions are finding that the number of people to be

treated is increasing and the age of addicts to alcohol is

becoming increasingly lower.

"We particularly object to the fact that alcohol is

being

made available in public parks and places where people gather

for recreation. We deplore the fact that through legislation a

number of outlets will increase and alcohol will be much more

readily available.

"It is the opinion of the Salvation Army that

increasing the

outlets for the acquisition of alcohol will not in any sense

lessen its use, but rather that the reverse is true. If this

government seriously wishes to do something tangible about the

problem of alcohol, it should pass legislation to restrict the

number of outlets at which it can be obtained.

"We do not agree with the argument that the greater

the

sales, the greater the income, and thus more money available

for the treatment of alcoholism. We subscribe to the view that

if alcohol is less available, its use will be reduced and money

will not be required to the same extent for treatment of its

victims."

It goes on to make other points, but I think the main thrust

of the letter is in the comments I have made. It certainly adds

to the general contention I've tried to outline, that

availability and price clearly affect general consumption. It

is 'general consumption, not the number of alcoholics which

leads to the tremendous social cost that's been

[ Page 3374 ]

outlined.

Mind you, Mr. Speaker, it's also quite clear from research

that as the per capita consumption increases, there is a

proportionately higher number of alcoholics. I'm not pretending

that doesn't happen. When we have 80 per cent of the population

using alcohol, and with the kind of social costs that I have

outlined, we have to take a very serious look at whether or not

legislation to make it more available makes much sense.

Mr. Speaker, I've heard the opinion expressed — well, why

bother, if persons are very keen to drink alcohol, they'll get

it somewhere, somehow at any price. That really doesn't stand

up to rational inspection either: if that was the case and

price had no effect, why would the skid row alcoholic be

drinking vanilla essence? It seems to me that's the cheapest

and sometimes the only available source — and I'm talking in

relative degrees. Why do they drink wine instead of hard

liquor? Because the wine is cheaper. For anyone to suggest that

availability and price really don't matter and that we're all

just fighting a futile battle when we try to improve society's

problems in relation to alcohol — I think that's a false

argument.

Relating back to Dr. Archibald, he pointed out that in

studies carried out comparing different countries, one of the

most pertinent factors in diminishing or restricting the

consumption of alcohol is price. The more expensive it is, the

less it is consumed. So I'm interested….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister has interjected. "We're looking at

that right now," he says. It seems to me that that

certainly has to be a factor which should be considered, along

with this question of changing the distribution system and

increasing the number of outlets.

Just to finish off, Mr. Speaker, I think it's rather sad

that this bill is being discussed to some degree in isolation

from the social costs. To me, there is an unfortunate air of

resignation by many people in society that alcoholism like

poverty will always be with us. This is a government that has

dedicated itself to alleviating the needs and problems of the

poorer sections of society. One of the goals of the socialist

movement to equalize wealth and to help the poorer individual,

so the old motto that poverty will always be with us is

something which this government doesn't accept, and rightly so.

But it seems as though they're accepting the theme that

alcoholism will always be with us.

As I said at the outset, I think that alcohol in society will always

be with us; it would be ridiculous to consider that it could be

outlawed, for example. History shows that that is absolutely impossible

to achieve and undesirable.

That's again, as I say, another reason why we should not

legalize marijuana: two blacks never made a white, and two

wrongs never made any right. I think that the important….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I know Mr. Wong introduced the word

"debarbarized," but he's not here to take credit for it

on the floor of the House. I think his well-intended use of the

word debarbarized is perhaps less than appropriate to this

bill. I don't think that society needs to civilize drinking. I

think society needs to educate the total community as far as is

possible to the rational use of alcohol. But whether or not

that kind of goal is to be achieved by making alcohol in all

its forms — beer, wine and liquor — more readily available in a

greater number of outlets over a greater number of hours, I

have to question very sincerely.

The other factor which has already contributed to an

increased consumption is the lowering of the drinking age in

various provinces and countries. That, in turn, inevitably

leads to increased consumption. In the lower age groups we only

have to look again at some of the statistics that the Minister

of Highways' (Hon. Mr. Lea'

s) report showed — and I don't think

this can be overemphasized. The 1974 annual report on

fatalities on the British Columbia highways showed that in the

age group 16 to 25, these people in that age group were

involved in 40 per cent of the fatalities.

So I recognize the Minister's well-intended motive in this

bill to listen to the requests of many groups in society and

perhaps to try and bring a more practical and what he believes

to be a more rational approach to the way in which liquor is

distributed and sold and made available in this province. I

personally think it is a move in the wrong direction. I feel

for the basic reasons I've outlined — and I don't do this in

any kind of preaching approach, because I'm the first person to

admit that I myself consume alcohol…. But I don't think

there should be any problem in the present society that if I

want a drink of liquor or wine or beer…that there's any

kind of reasonable obstacle to me obtaining that through the

present distribution system.

There may be minor ways in which some sanity can prevail. I

have always complained, for example, about the stupidity of

being in one building and not being able to take you glass with

you from the lounge to the restaurant. This kind of absolutely

idiotic regulation I agree needs to be changed. In passing, I

might say the other fact about debates on liquor laws comes

from the absolutely ridiculous way in which we debate

principles in the bill when the real way in which the

legislation is administered lies in the

[ Page 3375 ]

regulations. Apparently the regulations are subject to very

varying

interpretations in varying situations at different

times. I made the point the other day about the whole basic way

in which a democracy functions where we all come in here as

elected representatives to debate legislation which appears to

mean certain things, but which may mean very different things

once the regulations are written after we all leave the

session.

I feel that, looking at the total context of this bill and

what it is intended to achieve, and what in fact it will

achieve — namely, increased consumption, increased social

problems, an increased number of alcoholics — I just have to

say that in my view there is no real obstacle in our present

distribution system that prevents a person from indulging to

the degree he or she wishes in the consumption of liquor, beer

or wine. So I certainly oppose second reading of this bill.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): In rising to speak on

this bill, I believe that the Attorney-General, in introducing

Bill 93 to this House, had in the back of his mind the desire

and the hope to provide a more enlightened approach, and a

little better method of distribution of liquor through

government outlets and its agents in the Province of British

Columbia. I think that we could perhaps agree with him on that

particular basis, that from time to time we have to review our

statutes in the legislation that we have on the books in light

of the present day circumstances and in light of not only the

acceptance of liquor as something that one has a right to

purchase beyond a certain age, but also in the light of

convenience to these people.

So I believe that in some respects the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald), in introducing this bill to the House,

has tried to provide us with an enlightened approach to the

consumption of liquor and its disposal in the Province of

British Columbia.

But, Mr. Attorney-General, the bill does contemplate a

number of situations which I would like to listen to the

Attorney-General explain when he closes second reading on the

debate of this bill. I think it would be interesting to know

some of the philosophy behind some of the provisions within the

bill, and what really was the reason for some of the sections

and suggestions within the bill.

For instance, Mr. Attorney-General, why was it necessary to name the

general manager, the officers and every employee of the branch as a

person designated under the public employees Act as a public employee,

and therefore putting them in a position where they must disclose to

the Minister, if you like, under the Public Officials and Employees

Act? What was the reason for that? Does that contemplate provision that

we're not aware of in the bill itself?

Has there been some specific instance brought to your

attention where you feel that the people who are involved in

one specific branch of government, including the lowest

employees, are the ones who are least responsible for anything

but the dispensing of liquor, and must put themselves in the

position of disclosing to the Minister before they can become

an employee? Is that the intent of it? Is the government

considering a one select part of the business of government, as

opposed to many others where we don't require that at the

present time? That's in

section 17, Mr. Minister. Employees who

have great responsibility with respect to decisions they make

and the type of finance they have available to them once that

decision is made, we don't require them to disclose under the

Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act. If we did, I

doubt that we'd require them to disclose to the Minister — it

would probably be some other agent of the Crown. So why have we

included that in this specific Act for people who will be

employees? I can't see any real requirement or reason for

that.

It deals with a listing committee — one of the new features

of the bill. I'd like to know if the Attorney-General has a

specific idea as to who will be employed as that listing

committee.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Okay. They will be a listing committee

responsible to the general manager, and through him, to the

Minister of the Crown. Is that correct? Well, I would hope that

they don't let personal philosophy or personal biases or

preferences enter into the decisions they will make as a

listing committee. I would hope they'll consider allowing the

people of British Columbia to buy a Yukon mickey, for instance,

in the Province of British Columbia in the future. Perhaps they

should reconsider the sale of South African red in the Province

of British Columbia — a wine that is much appreciated by many

people. As a matter of fact many South African wines are much

appreciated by people of the province who have no particular

bias against that country.

I would hope that, above all, the listing committee, when it

is functional, will be certainly set aside from the politicians

of the province. I hope that there will be no interference by

the politicians or the Minister or anyone else in the

performance of their duties. After all, Mr. Attorney-General,

this is too important a matter to leave in the hands of

politicians. I think you've got to set up an unbiased and very

fair-minded board that will not show their personal biases or

preferences in this particular matter. It is something on which

we want enlightened legislation in the province, but we don't

want it

[ Page 3376 ]

overly reactive to either one particular cause or the

other.

I notice that it's at the general manager's sole discretion

as to what products will be listed and what will be

unacceptable. And if it's unacceptable, there is no appeal

against his decision.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That is de-listing.

MR. SMITH: I think that's something…. Delisting? Well,

even he can, first of all, declare it unacceptable. So why

should that be at his sole discretion? It seems a little queer

to me. If the bill contemplates the opening of new liquor

outlets in the Province of British Columbia, and allows the

general manager to place large advertisements in newspapers

circulating in the area concerning such public places, I wonder

if the Minister is contemplating something he has not yet told

us about.

Is this to be used as a means of advertising, perhaps at a

time immediately before an election in the Province of British

Columbia? Are we going to replace the blacktop highways in the

province now with booze-cruises and perhaps advertisements of a

nature other than just in newspapers? Is this the intent of the

Act?

There is another thing that I was very curious about in this

particular Act, and that is that the Act, as it is written,

contemplates the sale of liquor from time to time. In other

words, it can be offered at a reduced price. Tell me, Mr.

Attorney-General, are we going to have $1.49 day in the liquor

outlets in the Province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We sometimes have them now.

MR. SMITH: Bargain basement days? Bargain-basement booze the

day before an election? A $1.49 day throughout the Province of

British Columbia, 24 hours or two days or a week ahead of an

election?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I can assure the Hon. Member that I am

making notes of his suggestions.

MR. SMITH: Is this the intent of that

section of the bill,

to have bargain basement booze in the Province of British

Columbia, $1.49 day — limit, two bottles to a customer, or one

bottle to a customer, whatever it might be?

It also contemplates the sale of liquor on a credit system with

satisfactory terms of credit being arranged between the Liquor

Distribution Act people and your department. Is this the first step to

Chargex in the Province of British Columbia? I realize that the bill as

it is written deals with those people who will purchase liquor from the

commission and then resell it, but does this contemplate a situation

where the next step will be the introduction of Chargex cards in the

province, or will the Liquor Control Board issue its own type of a

charge card — an LCB credit card? If so, what interest are you going to

charge on overdue accounts?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What

section is that?

MR. SMITH: Well, haven't you read the bill, Mr.

Attorney-General?

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me for interrupting, but I think the

Hon. Member could well save any of the particulars of the

nitty-gritty — whatever that is — for the committee stage and

deal with the great, high principles of the bill.

MR. SMITH: I'm well aware of the rules of the House, Mr.

Speaker, and I'm trying to keep well within the confines of

what should be discussed, and that is the principle of the

bill. But, after all, when a bill contains a number of new

principles which have not previously been discussed in the

House, I hope you won't deal too harshly with me when I refer

to them.

I think the Attorney-General needs a bit of enlightening

with respect to this bill. He doesn't seem to know what it's

all about. So I'm sure he won't feel badly if I bring a few of

these things to his attention so that he can check into them

before the committee stage and perhaps introduce amendments

which would be to the benefit of all of the consuming public

and to those who do not imbibe in the Province of British

Columbia.

With respect to the bill, as I said in my opening remarks, I

believe it's an attempt by the Attorney-General and the people

who advise him to bring in legislation which reflects to some

extent the practices of the general public today and

accommodates the situation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No credit cards.

MR. SMITH: All I ask the Attorney-General is: does he

contemplate that further step, the introduction now of credit

to those people purchasing liquor from the control board and,

at a future date, credit cards or Chargex?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just licensees.

MR. SMITH: You are not intending to extend the…? Oh,

then you are going to set up two classes of citizens in the

Province of British Columbia: those who can buy liquor on

credit and those who can't. Is that not a contravention of the

human rights legislation of this province? I think the Minister

[ Page 3377 ]

Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) should look into the

provisions of this bill. I think there is discrimination there,

discrimination against the individual people in the Province of

British Columbia as compared to the large liquor outlets that

could well afford to purchase and pay in advance, cash on the

barrelhead.

I think you should explain what you have in mind in that

particular respect. I think you should also explain the concept

of discounts on booze and the bargain-basement concept that I

suggested could be practised on specified occasions in this

Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It is today.

MR. SMITH: Yes, I've walked into a liquor store and noticed — more than once — a few brands of liquor on sale. Frankly,

they are generally the brands that no one has ever really had

any desire for, or seem not to be very prompt in accepting the

reduced price. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect that the

prices on other more favourable brands of liquor might be

reduced at a time convenient to the Attorney-General or to the

general manager on the advice of the Attorney-General.

I do think the Minister should cover some of these items in

closing second debate on this bill. It is a departure from some

of the traditional and accepted practices of today.

When you break new ground, particularly in this area of the

distribution of liquor, you always involve yourself in a

problem. Some people would like to see prohibition. Others

would like to see it wide open. Somewhere there is a middle

path. I believe that responsible government must try to seek

out that middle path. I would be interested, therefore, in

hearing the Attorney-General's remarks when he closes second

reading on this bill.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Just a few short

remarks, Mr. Speaker. I share the concern that the Member for

Oak Bay expressed, as I think everybody in this House does.

There is no question of a doubt about that. I think the

liberalizing of liquor laws is something that is a long overdue

in this province and I commend the Attorney-General for his

proposal. I do think he has come up with a proposal which could

perhaps be described as moderate. I think it will be publicly

acceptable.

I would like to make a couple of observations here. The first is as

to whether or not the ma-and-pa grocery concept for increased methods

of distribution is the correct line. It appears to be the line that is

taken by the government. I really have to question as to whether that

is entirely wise. There is no question that a number of people in this

House since I have been here have advocated a more realistic approach

to the laws involving the distribution and consumption of alcohol and

the elimination of the behind-the-barn attitude to drinking that has so

long and so unnecessarily prevailed in the province.

I don't really feel that the proposed form of limited

increase in access to beer and wine in the grocery stores is

really going to do the job. The government has expressed the

position that it doesn't wish to deal with food distribution

chains, but when is a chain is a chain is a chain, with all

apologies to Gertrude Stein? The IGA, Mini-Marts, Stong's,

Max's convenience stores, 7-Eleven — if someone has got one

store, it is not a chain? If somebody has two stores, does that

constitute a chain?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There is no Safeway.

MR. GARDOM: Pardon?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There is no Safeway.

MR. GARDOM: Well, you are only going to rule out the

Safeway, then. Are you going to rule out Super-Valu? You are

just going to have to define that a little more clearly. We

don't want any possibility of politics coming into play as to

whether a chain is one or is not. Those kinds of proposals

could well create political decisions. That is perhaps the very

atmosphere we don't wish to have here.

I think it would have been much better if you had taken the

California approach and let customer convenience be the

principle test. Let spirits be properly merchandised and let

violators be very swiftly and sternly dealt with.

I would say, Mr. Attorney-General, that the best thing to do

is to free the minimum prices and let the public be entitled to

make their choice. If the vendors of Guzzlers' Gin want to give

the purchaser a deal, well, fine; just let them go ahead and

have a fire sale or what-have-you, a discount for bulk or

seasonal discounts, loss leaders. I think if the vendor wishes

to give the purchaser a bargain, so be it. Let the purchaser be

entitled to that break and let the public have the right and

the freedom to tell the vendor when his services or his prices

are out of line by letting the public go somewhere else. If you

took that approach, Mr. Attorney-General, and more emphasized

that approach, we would find there would be better variety,

there would be better choice and certainly, in the long run,

better service.

Retain indeed any laws that we may have affecting the

quality of the products. Certainly hold on to that type of

thing. But let service be the main decision here and, for

goodness sakes, if a person wishes to have refrigeration, let

that be provided.

I go along with the remarks enunciated by the Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) a few days ago

when he was talking. I think

[ Page 3378 ]

he said something to the effect that the mandate should be

public requirements, public convenience, and completely shift

from the mystique and the paternalism that have so long plagued

this product and its method of distribution. I think all of

that has really produced little but bad drinking habits, poor

selection, limited variety and wretched service.

While we are at it, Mr. Attorney-General, while we are

considering your two bills, why don't you bring in some

companion legislation making it mandatory that the drinking and

driving impairment levels and the penalties for breach be

posted at every liquor outlet, in every store, beer parlour,

cocktail bar, tacked onto every gasoline pump in the province.

Constantly bring it to the attention of the general public, let

them know that if their number of drinks exceed those which

prevent them from taking to the road, let them be fully aware

of what that level is. Let them be fully aware of the fines,

the suspensions and the jail sentences that either he or she

may possible face.

For that matter, Mr. Attorney-General, I would again

advocate: take the more fair route and take into account some

form of custody for all offences — perhaps some type of

social-agency custody where a person spends some time in the

hospital, or in a morgue, or riding shotgun with the police, or

working old peoples' homes, dealing with civic cleanup — because

the fine system is not a fair yardstick, nor is suspension. A

fine for people in the lower- or middle-income groups is

backbreaking, but it's somewhat insignificant from those in the

higher income groups. Suspensions — they're far, far more

costly than a fine, say, for a truck driver or a salesman, but

no great problem at all to a teacher or an accountant.

So we need, in my view, Mr. Attorney-General, a penalty that

is far more consistent, more universal, less related to

economics, but leaving, once again, discretion to the courts

for penalty assessment because the facts differ in each case

and the circumstances differ. When considering a penalty, the

courts have got to consider the detriment effect, the

possibility of reformation of the accused, the protection of

society and the gravity of the offence. I say: don't shackle

the courts for one moment, but please expand the concepts.

I'd like to deal with one point before sitting down — one

section in the Act — and just mention this: I still see that it

contains a provision that liquor outlets are going to be closed

on election day. I think that this is an ignorant anachronism

in that it's a very demeaning connotation that the public would

abuse their powers of judgment more particularly on election

day than any other day — notwithstanding that there's an

opportunity for a few political puns and observations

there.

But on the whole, Mr. Attorney-General, I'm delighted to see that

the government has come to grips with a problem, and has come to grips

appreciating the fact that we can now bring British Columbia into the

century in which it belongs, dealing with the distribution of alcohol.

But with those few caveats, I intend to support the bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I've enjoyed the debate. I

have listened because this kind of policy and concern is something that

will not pass away with the passing of these two Acts by the

Legislature.

In regard to some of the points made, while they might be

best dealt with in committee, I notice the Hon. Member for

North Peace River (Mr. Smith) brought up the question of lines

of credit not Chargex, not credit cards. But after all, if the

liquor distribution branch is dealing with a supplier, or if

the liquor branch is dealing with a licensee like a major

hotel, really, to trundle the cash over does not seem to be in

keeping with the modern world. At the same time, the notion of

credit card purchases by consumers has been rejected because we

think that that may have something to do with encouraging

alcoholism. I hope we're wrong, but that's the situation and

we've rejected that suggestion.

In regard to the whole problem of moderation — that is the

objective. I know we have another agency of government, the

Alcohol and Drug Commission, which is actively concerned, and I

hope will be increasingly concern with this problem. I hope

they will move not only to their present activities, which

include some driving retraining programmes and so forth, but

also move very actively into the realm of detox centres in some

of the smaller communities in the Province of British Columbia,

as they are moving in the City of Vancouver.

I'm concerned about the cost of liquor products to the

consumer because I see that the price of a cup of coffee

escalates in value, and in relation to that, the price of a

glass of beer has been shrinking — and probably shrinking, as

the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), said in terms of

disposable income of people at the present time. So, frankly,

we're looking at that because we are concerned with

alcoholism.

We hope that the route we're taking, though, will help to

promote moderation. Because if you have smaller units, and you

break down the big establishments, you provide that there

should be dancing space or recreation space and entertainment,

or the opportunity for conversation, then, hopefully, these

establishments will not be simply drinking holes. We think that

the direction of this bill is in that way.

Let me say that the Hon. Member for North Peace River, and

some of the other Members, mentioned things like the listing

committee, and said that the Minister should not interfere with

the listing committee. I agree. I think that the shadowy

history

[ Page 3379 ]

of the liquor interests in the Province of British Columbia

has been visited with sunshine under this bill. I would hope

that under this bill the kind of appeal procedures we have set

up, with the kind of written open decisions that will be given

by the general manager, with the kind of listing committee that

would be available to advise made up of members of the

community, the bagman's occupation will be gone and the sign

will be up: "Politicians trespassing will be prosecuted." If we

could achieve that much in this area in this province, we have

achieved a lot.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 93, Liquor Distribution Act, read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat — the

sections will be before the House in committee — what I said

earlier when I touched briefly upon the provisions of both

Acts, even though I was slightly out of order. I will be again

listening if there are further comments in spite of the

interesting debate we've already had, which, I think, has gone

over both Acts, and I think it necessarily had to.

I move second reading.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, this again is

an Act which I think

the Attorney-General in good faith has introduced to this House

to try to bring about some reforms and yet retain control

within the field of liquor control and licensing.

It does include, though, a number of interesting things that

I would hope the Attorney-General would look at, at least,

before the bill comes back to us in committee stage. I would

think that he could look at a few things.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, don't make me work too hard.

MR. SMITH: As a matter of fact, Mr. Attorney-General, in a

number of sections of the bill the word "intoxication" is used — that occurs in sections 48, 50 and 54. But nowhere in the

interpretation

section of the bill is intoxication defined. So

that's a bit of an unusual provision, I would suggest. You have

some pretty stiff penalties that a person could be involved in

for being intoxicated, but you don't define the term "intoxication." That seems to me to be incompatible

with the

intent of the bill and certainly would be an embarrassment, I'm

sure, to the Attorney-General in trying to bring about an

enforcement or prosecution under this particular Act. I would

hope that he would look at that and tell us all before we move

beyond this stage of the bill what the government really means

by the term "intoxication."

I would also suggest to the Attorney-General that he should

look very closely at and perhaps rewrite

section 54, because it

not only includes the term "intoxication" but it provides a

very untenable position for a person involved in the dispensing

of liquor, where they can be held responsible through no

careless act of their own — through no act that could be

defined as breaking the law. Those people are put in the

position of being involved in a lawsuit. Not only that, but

they might even go to jail under that provision of the Act for

an indiscretion that they were not really responsible for but

for which the Act holds them responsible. That is something, I

think, that is bad, bad, legislation. I think it should be

altered or perhaps removed from the Act altogether. So those

are a couple of points that I think the Attorney-General could

well look into.

My final remarks concerning this bill have to do, Mr.

Speaker, with

interpretation. I'd like to draw to the

Minister's attention the

interpretation of a "sports stadium."

Sports stadium means "an establishment comprising stepped rows

of seats designed and used for the presentation of a sporting

or athletic event or spectacle, and includes an amphitheatre or

arena." That seems to me to be a very, very loose

interpretation of a sports stadium. That could almost be

extended to include a Volkswagen but with a number of seats in

the back end of it. It could include the floor of this

assembly. It might even include the back steps of somebody's

house — their personal property. I think that definitely needs

consideration before we move on beyond second reading in this

bill.

There again, that's an example of sloppy legislation drafted

without the consideration it should be given; picked up hit and

miss from other statutes, perhaps, or just pulled right out of

the air — I'm not sure. If there is any

section of legislation

that we need clear definition it's in the dispensing of liquor

and the provisions under which it will be sold, dispensed and

controlled. Many offences occur that people are ignorant of,

and they have become involved in a charge before the law, and

many times a sharp lawyer finds a way around the law, Mr.

Attorney-General, provided you have the wherewithal to pay for

that particular lawyer's services.

So I would ask the Attorney-General to be more specific,

more definitive in the wording that he uses for legislation of

this type, because certainly when you step into these areas

precise

definitions are

[ Page 3380 ]

required so that people will know what is intended. Don't

leave it up to the discretionary power of some poor policeman

on the beat to decide what the law means or what was intended

by this particular Act. A number of provisions within this Act

show a tendency to sloppy draftsmanship, improper definition

and bad generalities. Other than that, Mr. Attorney-General,

it's not a bad Act.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Other than that!

MR. GARDOM: I'd also commend the Attorney-General. Since we

seem to be dealing with a specific

section here, I'm going to — if I

may, Mr. Speaker — transgress rules as did the former

speaker, and I'm going to specifically draw to the attention of

the Attorney-General this

section 54 so he can give serious

thought to it prior to its coming to committee. You're granting

statutory power here into an area that has heretofore been one

of the common law, and essentially the common law of

negligence. That, as you well know, Mr. Attorney-General, has

taken centuries to evolve. Stating it very shortly, one must

take care to avoid acts or omissions which would injure one's

neighbour. Then to determine who is one's neighbour, that would

be the individual whom one would have in reasonable

contemplation as being affected by such act or omission.

It's quite possible, Mr. Attorney-General, that that which

you have codified or attempted to codify under

section 54 could

well be interpreted and could well be applied today under the

common law of negligence. All of the circumstances would have

to be considered. As I said, the evolution of this principle

has been time tested, and it's been tested in literally

hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of cases. The provision

that you have suggested here is a very, very heady provision

indeed, and it's capable of the widest

interpretation and the

most far-reaching consequences.

As the former Member stated, we don't find any definition of

the term "intoxication"; we don't find any definition of the

term "drinking liquor to excess" according to the terminology

in this subsection. If you just take a look at it there could

be liability, financial responsibility, even though the

accident, the death, the injury, was totally caused by the

intervention of, say, a third party.

I do suggest to you as sincerely as I can that this

section has got

to be reviewed. It's totally unpalatable in its present form. The

reason I'm mentioning this is because it will give you an opportunity

to have it looked at prior to its coming into committee. I think the

best thing for you to do is to take it right smack out of the Act. It's

not necessary because the common law can provide a substitute. We find,

for example, in situations of claims by passengers in vehicles against

the driver that if the passenger is saddled with knowledge of the

impairment of the driver and chooses to run the risk and there's an

accident, the passenger is not in a position of recovery. This might

prevent that totally. You're really tampering with the common law in

this one.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, we are tampering with the common

law. There have been cases where an innkeeper has served liquor

to somebody who was already intoxicated and that person has

been involved in an accident and the third party has sued the

innkeeper and won — and rightly so.

MR. GARDOM: Why codify it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, why codify it? Because that way it

comes to the attention of the general public. We put a

statutory duty upon people serving to beware of serving

intoxicated people. It does happen.

MR. GARDOM: Is knowledge a factor? Is knowledge a

factor?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, of course.

MR. GARDOM: Well, put it in the Act.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, we'll look at…. Mind you, this

kind of thing would have to be worked out in the course of

court precedents.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, don't throw it out that way then.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: These are the ground principles, that

those who serve liquor have now got a duty that is spelled out

in legislation, not just the common law, to be careful how they

serve that liquor. It's got to be something that is brought

forcibly to the attention of those in the industry and the

people generally.

You say there is no definition of intoxication. There was no

definition of intoxication in the last Act and I think the

courts can handle that problem as they have in the past.

The definition of sports stadium, Mr. Member, is rather

wide, but it merely sets up a kind of facility by which the

licensing authority, which would be the general manager, may or

may not issue a licence, subject to appeal to the liquor board.

So it is a wide area. The licence granted is what counts.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 99, Liquor Control and Licensing Act, read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole

[ Page 3381 ]

House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Second reading of Bill 96.

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, it is rather significant

that on the day the bill is introduced we have in the City of

Victoria national legal aid directors from, I think, every

province in Canada. These are the technicians and leaders in

the rather difficult task of delivering in a multitude of

various ways legal services to people who otherwise would be

bereft of those services. By our people sitting down with these

people, sometimes with wider experience from other parts of

Canada, we gain a great deal. That conference will be

continuing for today and tomorrow. I regret that the Minister

of Justice of the federal government is unable to come,

although he was billed to speak tomorrow night.

In this bill, we establish our own Legal Services

Commission. It is an independent commission and I want it to be

independent. I don't want what could become the politics of

legal aid to come into the Attorney-General's office. I think

we should give these five people who will be on the Legal

Services Commission that degree of independence. We, the

Legislature, of course must vote the funds, and the department

may set out the broad guidelines, by all means. But in the

furnishing of those services, whether, say, in the case of the

town of Williams Lake there should be services by a legal aid

office storefront or whether it should be a contract with a

local society, as we have done in the Abbotsford area already

to furnish those services, or whether it should be done

directly through the legal aid society that now exists on a

fee-for-service basis arranged through the local bar is a

question which, area by area, I would hope would be decided by

the commission and not by the Attorney-General's office as

such.

In my estimates, which the Legislature graciously approved along

with my salary some months ago, we have voted some $4.2 million toward

the provision of legal aid in this province, which I say will take

various forms. In this bill we have the important concept of a

partnership between government — because we appoint some members — the

legal profession and the community. Lay people from the community will

be represented on the legal services commission. My estimate is that

two of them will not be lawyers out of the five. That is the present

proposal, although the full membership of the commission has not been

chosen. I have nevertheless announced my intention as to whom the

chairman should be in the person of Don Jabour.

Under the federal-provincial agreement, we receive about $1 million.

That is 50 cents per capita from the federal government to assist us

with criminal legal aid. I would hope that next December, or before

that time, we will sit down with the Hon. Otto Lang, the Minister of

Justice, and renegotiate that agreement, because I think there are ways

in which it restricts us in the provision of legal aid. The amount of

money that is contributed by the federal government could, in my

opinion, be substantially improved, particularly in view of the fact

that the burden upon our legal aid services comes about by reason of

the enforcement primarily of the Criminal Code.

We are, as we proceed with our programme, in this government

hoping to reduce the load of litigation and make it easier for

people to get advice. Therefore we have in addition sort of

supplementary services which help to take the load off, such as

the rentalsman, the officers of the Consumer Services

department and things of that kind. And in the small claims

court we hope to provide somebody who will be on the doorsteps

of the court. We're going to do a student experimental plan

this summer in respect to that with people who can give people

a bit of an outline as to where they stand and perhaps settle

between the parties cases that otherwise would go to the judge

for needless litigation.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a new day for legal aid in

the Province of British Columbia. I think the objective is and

remains to establish some degree of equality before the law for

rich and poor alike. And insofar as this bill moves in that

direction, I hope it will receive the support of the House. I

move second reading.

MR. SMITH: In rising in my place to support the concepts of

this bill, I think the one question we have to raise at this

time is the position of the Legal Aid Society in respect to the

appointment of a Legal Services Commission, and what the future

of the Legal Aid Society will be in the Province of British

Columbia.

I don't think anyone will disagree with the suggestion that

the Legal Services Commission, when it is operative, should be

an autonomous body separate from political interference of any

sort whatsoever. I believe that that is the recommendation of

the law society and almost everyone else that I have either

talked to or had correspondence with concerning legal aid in

the Province of British Columbia.

But there must be a feeling at least of uneasiness in the

ranks of those engaged in legal aid at the present time through

the Legal Aid Society, and they must question their future in

light of the introduction of this Act. I would hope the

Attorney-General will indicate the policy of his department

with respect to the Legal Aid Society and its future in the

Province of British Columbia.

[ Page 3382 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, it carries on.

MR. SMITH: Well, yes, and it is dependent to a great extent

upon funding from the provincial government through the

Attorney-General's department. Can the Legal Aid Society be

assured of continual funding for the continuation of their

work, or will they eventually be involved to the extent that

their particular society will be phased out in the Province of

British Columbia and be replaced by the Legal Services

Commission?

I think this is a reasonable question and one that is on the

minds of many people, particularly those closely associated

with legal aid in the Province of British Columbia.

One of the other questions I must ask the Attorney-General,

and I'd like his comment on it in closing this debate, is the

relationship between this new commission provided for in this

bill and the Justice Development Commission which is already in

existence. Will the Justice Development Commission be phased

out, or will it disappear in the course of time, replaced, as

it were, by the Legal Services Commission Act? I think that

there's good reason to wonder what the Attorney-General has in

mind for the Justice Development Commission. After all, the

funds appropriated, some $15 million worth, have been spent, I

believe, to a great extent in providing new ranges of research

and information on which many of the new laws and the new

statutes have been developed.

So is it the intent of the Attorney-General as this new

commission becomes active to phase out the Justice Development

Commission? Or, on the other hand, if it remains, will it be a

competitor?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

MR. SMITH: Will it be a competitor? The Attorney-General

says "No." It will not be a competitor. Does that mean, then,

that we will be providing funds for both the Justice

Development Commission in the future, and the Legal Services

Commission? If so, will there be some attempt to define the

areas of responsibility for each so that we do not have a

duplication of services and wind up with almost identical

proposals at taxpayers' expense; one from the Legal Services

Commission and another from the Justice Development Commission?

I think these are valid points that should be covered by the

Attorney-General.

There's one other matter that I want to raise very briefly

and that is that the bill contemplates educational services to

people in the province.

The Attorney-General, speaking not long ago in the City of

Vancouver, referred to a night law school class to be conducted in

Vancouver for persons interested in law. I don't think he specified his

full intent at that time as to who would be enrolled — whether it would

be students presently studying for their law degree, or just what he

had in mind. Is it contemplated setting this up through the Legal

Services Commission? If so, will it in any way detract from or reduce

the effectiveness of the new law faculty at the University of Victoria?

Will they in any way compete with each other? I think the new law

faculty needs every assistance that can be provided, not something that

will detract from the work they do. I'm not suggesting that it will,

but I think there should be a clearly defined definition between the

work that will be done by setting up night classes in Vancouver and the

objectives of a new faculty for law study at the University of

Victoria. I hope the Attorney-General will comment on those points when

he closes second reading.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this is something that I've argued

and pleaded and cajoled and advocated way back since 1966. 1

can tell you, for me it's a banner day to see that we've

brought this bill in this province because there's one

characteristic of the law that's been a burden from the outset,

economically underprivileged. The gap has been closing over the

past year, with, I suppose, great thanks to the time and effort

to a number of individuals and private organizations, and a

mildly sympathetic ear of government. But the time has now

arrived in B.C. when legal aid is going to be looked upon not

as just a social measure, but as a democratic right.

I can recall that way back in 1838, Charles Dickens, through

the mouth of the Beadle in "Oliver Twist", said: "The law is a

ass." I would surely think it's seen the height of asininity

in this day and age not to create a means of access to the law

that is equal to all.

On the whole, there's not too much quarrel with justice

being done within the walls of the law courts, but that has

been little apparent conform to those people who have not been

able to get through the doors. I think for anyone to say that

there has been equal access to the courts in British Columbia

heretofore would be rank hypocrisy. I think this is not any

criticism of the courts or the lawyers — they've tried — but the

poor have just not been able to afford the due process of

law.

There's a very stark statement by the Canada Economic

Council which said: "Poverty in Canada is real. It is more than

simple income deficiency. It carries with it a sense of

entrapment and hopelessness. The poor tend to be collectively

inarticulate." These are the people, Mr. Speaker, who have

viewed legal redress as a luxury. I compliment the

Attorney-General and his government in reaching the conclusion

that it is everyone's right. We are

[ Page 3383 ]

looking for equal justice for all, and certainly not

relegated to the charities of some.

His bill is a flexible bill. In his opening remarks, I

gather that this is a statute that is going to be somewhat

territorially interpreted and utilized. Perhaps that's a good

thing because to a great extent we're still a frontier

province. But I assume that a person will be able to apply for

legal aid, providing he's got furnished proof of inability to

pay or inability to owe. I assume, Mr. Attorney-General, that

there is a means test concept here. I'd like to have your views

on that.

Upon the requirement of need being established, I would

assume that a certificate of aid would be issued pretty well

every kind of a legal case — contract cases, torts, accidents

or domestic relations cases. It would cover also, say, appeals

and advice concerning land matters, preparation of will and

other documents.

It's been, from this quarter, a long fight. I am happy to

see it has been a successful one. I intend to support the

measure.

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

very briefly I rise to support this legislation as well. I

associate myself with the remarks of the Second Member for

Point Grey (Mr. Gardom).

It has been my experience that the people who require legal

advice and require it most, are often those who are least able

to afford the cost. Not only are they unable to afford the

cost, but there seems to be an inability to overcome the

barriers of access to legal advice. Why this continues to be

the case in 1975, quite frankly, is a mystery to me. There is,

I suppose, a natural reluctance on the part of some people to

seek the services of a lawyer because of a fear of the cost,

and perhaps because of some of the mystery which has been

allowed to surround the profession of law and its association

with the courts.

In viewing the matter generally, Mr. Speaker, I think that

access to the courts itself is not the real problem. I am

convinced that much of the burden that falls upon the courts

today could be removed if there could be early and competent

advice made available to many of our citizens. I know that the

Hon. Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) has in her

department a very grave problem with regard to providing early

advice to people who fall within the area of consumer

transactions and require assistance before they get themselves

into the difficulties from which perhaps, they can only

extricate themselves by access to the courts.

It's easy to say that people should seek advice in advance of

involving themselves in consumer transactions, but because of this

difficulty, by reason of regional representation, because of population

differences in obtaining advice, this is not always possible. I would

think that if this commission can discharge its responsibility and make

available — readily available — competent legal advice to people

throughout the length and depth of the province, the difficulties in

the courts, the difficulties with consumer transactions will lessen as

a direct consequence, and this can be done with much less cost to the

individual and much less cost to the state than has heretofore been the

case.

Nothing is more true than that an ounce of prevention is

worth a pound of cure, and this applies in the legal field as

well. I would hope that this commission can make sure that that

ounce of prevention is available in all the areas of the

province.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what's been

said about the bill. Criteria, I would say to the Second Member

for Vancouver Point-Grey (Mr. Gardom), I've heard his speeches

over the years in support of this kind of legislation. I would

say in answer to his specific inquiry that the criteria of what

you might call means tests, and the range of subjects that

could be covered by legal aid, such as criminal, what kind of

criminal, family, divorce, will be decided now by the Legal

Services Commission.

I would say to the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith)….

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They will determine what kind of need

must be shown and they'll work out the forms for application

and so forth. It might vary from kind of case to kind of

case.

I'd say to the Member for North Peace River that this bill

was developed in close consultation with the Law Society of

British Columbia and with the B.C. branch of the Canadian bar.

I would hope, and I rather expect that we will have as two

further members of the Legal Services Commission — perhaps I

shouldn't say this because it isn't firmed up — Peter Millward,

who is now secretary to the Law Society, and Peter Manson, who

I think is one of the benchers, for the legal component of the

Legal Services Commission.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think these gentlemen are giving

serious consideration to serving. It's not in any way a

competition with the law schools, it's nothing to do with the

JDC; that has its own budget and the estimates for the legal

services are voted under a different

section of my department,

so there's no inter-relation.

If we have a night school for the teaching of law in the

City of Vancouver, which I can't announce because it's just

something that were formulating and

[ Page 3384 ]

I've asked for feasibility reports on it. I would think it

would be badly needed because I don't think the UVic law school

is going to take up the slack and provide us with the young

people to perform all of the necessary legal services in this

province. I think we ought to open wider the doors of

opportunity for young people to enter the professions, so I

would hope that in an inexpensive way we might have a night

school or a law school in downtown Vancouver, perhaps as a

satellite of either UBC or possibly Simon Fraser University.

But I would like to see the successful opening and the first

class started in the UVic law school in September before we

give breathless consideration to another faculty.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I think it's important. I move second reading.

MR. SMITH: What about the Legal Aid Society?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Legal Aid Society will carry on and

this Legal Services Commission will not really deliver

services, although it may. It will largely act through the

Legal Aid Society, or through a community office, or through a

contract with a local body such as even a civil liberties

society, or the group that is now conducting things in Matsqui,

Abbotsford, Sumas, where we've already signed the agreement — I

think it's for $16,000 for them to provide legal services over

a period of time. So they'll really act not directly, but

through these various bodies. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 96, Legal Services Commission Act, read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on Bill 27, Mr.

Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY COMPANY

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour adjourned the

debate, but he could still speak at a later time, according to

the rules. Does anyone else wish to speak on Bill 27?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I was caught a little

unaware here, Mr. Speaker. Just give me a moment to collect my

thoughts before you turn the clock on.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to enter this debate this afternoon

and talk about the British Columbia Railway. It has taken the consolidated efforts of the

socialist demagogues to connive with certain people to blow up

a storm of what they call deception over the past operation of

the British Columbia Railway. I say it is nothing short of

card-sharping because under false colours they have made their

case on the grey areas of accounting known as depreciation.

In accounting practices, capital cost allowance or

depreciation, depending on whether you are dealing with federal

income tax or whether you are dealing with a private business

is basically the decision of management as long as you stay

within the terms of the federal income tax laws. In this case,

the federal income tax laws are not applicable because it is a

Crown corporation. So it is the decision, basically, of

management as to what shall be depreciated and what shall not

be depreciated. That is the sum and substance of the so-called

scandal — the decision of the management of the British

Columbia Railway as to how they will depreciate their

lines.

Mr. Speaker, shortly after the present government took over,

they commissioned three reports. One report, done by Price

Waterhouse, deals specifically with accounting procedures on

the British Columbia Railway. I have gone through the report, I

find nothing very derogatory in the report and I will refer to

it later.

Another report was a commission by Swan Wooster Engineering

Co. Ltd. on the engineering methods and contract administration

on the railway. I read through the report and I saw nothing

scandalous about it — there are some recommendations. I will

refer to it later.

The third report was on the status of management controls

and the organization of the B.C. Railway, done by a very

capable man, Mr. Cliff Sawyer.

All three of these reports were tabled with the government

in mid-1973. These three reports were asked for, presumably, by

the president of the British Columbia Railway and given back to

the railway — two of them in August, 1973, and one on July 17,

1973. Out of the three reports there is not one single word

that talks about fraud, that talks about the books not being

kept open. There is nothing about facts being hidden; nothing

about facts being hidden from the public; nothing about a

scandal; not one single thing about the misuse of funds; no

mention of fraud; no mention of the railway cheating. There is

nothing in there that is even remotely connected to some of the

charges that have been made in this House, by both the

government and others of the opposition party, about

deliberately trying to deceive the public of this province.

These reports are available: they are available to the public;

they are available to the government Members; they are

available to the opposition Members.

As I say, I have studied all three reports and I would like

to refer to them. But, as I say, Mr.

[ Page 3385 ]

Speaker, not one really derogatory word appears in these

three reports which cover all the areas of accounting,

engineering and management of the railway, and which in any way

could amount to what the Premier is trying to bring up as a

scandal on the management of the railway. So I charge the

Premier with being guilty of political knavery.

First of all, I would like to refer to the review of

financial reporting and control practices of the British

Columbia Railway, a report commissioned by Price Waterhouse

which is a well-known accounting firm in British Columbia. They

did this report for the Premier of this province. I would just

like to read a few excerpts from this report and from the

letter accompanying the report which goes to Mr. G.S. Bryson,

Deputy Minister of Finance, Province of British Columbia.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bryson has been secretary of

the railway in British Columbia since 1954 — a man who was

respected by the previous administration and a man who I am

sure is very well respected by the present government and by

the present Minister of Finance, a man who I am sure would have

nothing to do with all of the alleged accusations that have

been leveled by the government.

Mr. Speaker, in summing up their letter, which is a preface

to the report itself, they say: "We also note that while the

report of the comptroller-general raised a number of valid

concerns about the effectiveness of the railway's financial

system and controls" — which the Premier has mentioned in this

House, with the report of Mr. Minty — "in other instances far

more detailed studies placed a different perspective on the

comments and criticisms that were made by Mr. Minty."

This is a direct quote from the letter accompanying the

report from Price Waterhouse. They place a different

perspective on the comments and criticisms that were made.

I am in no way attacking Mr. Minty, but the point I am going

to bring out, Mr. Speaker, is that among accountants, and in

the accounting procedure, if you go to four different

accountants you can get four different views on accounting

procedure, particularly when it comes to depreciation. If you

go to four different lawyers you get four different views on a

political problem. So this is a known fact with anybody who has

been in the business world that different accountants have

different views on accounting procedures. I want to say that at

the outset.

In their

summary of recommendations they talk about

practices. They say the practices in many instances have not

kept pace with the growth and the change of the railway, which

is a valid concern because the railway is growing and there is

now a need for important improvements to be made, particularly in the area of financial planning and control

systems, which is a valid recommendation and a valid

observation because the railway is growing.

"The report is focused upon areas of weakness and

opportunities for improvement," the report continues.

"It makes no attempt to describe the many administrative and

operating factors of the railway," which are covered in

another report which I have already mentioned, "which we found

to be well conceived and effective." Price Waterhouse found the

management of the railway to be well conceived and

effective.

They also say: "Our recommendations are directed toward

constructive action that we believe should be taken to ensure

that the management control practices are in keeping with the

present and anticipated future needs of the railway." I'd

like to refer to their management accounting, which is a

section of this report, Mr. Speaker. This is the head of

section 11 on page 4: "Management Accounting. The accounting

systems in the British Columbia Railway in the past have been

directed primarily towards the traditional role of reporting

financial transactions in a manner consistent" — and I want you

to take particular note, Mr. Speaker — "in a manner consistent

with the requirements of the uniform classification of accounts

of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada."

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and Minister of Finance would lead

us to believe that the British Columbia Railway was deviating

from these procedures which are laid out by the Board of

Transport Commissioners, and yet a report which was given to

him in August, 1973, by Price Waterhouse clearly states that

the railway has been directed toward the traditional role of

reporting financial transactions in a manner consistent with

the requirements of the uniform classification of accounts of

the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada.

Now where, Mr. Speaker, in heaven's name, is your scandal

there? The government is trying to mislead the people of the

province by trying to say that the railway, in its accounting

practices, does not conform to the Board of Transport

Commissioners. They go on to say: "While existing accounting

and reporting practices may have been adequate to meet the

requirements of railway management in the past, with the

anticipated growth and diversification of the company, there is

now a clear need for change." I don 't disagree with that

because the railway is growing.

Where is all this scandal and hiding and cooking of the

books that the Premier has been referring to? Let's look at

capital expenditures. They say: "Our principal conclusion" — and again

I am quoting from the Price Waterhouse report — "our

principal conclusion, stated briefly, is that the financial

control and reporting of capital expenditures in the

British

[ Page 3386 ]

Columbia Railway is inadequate and should be improved as

soon as possible."

But they go on to say, Mr. Speaker: "This is not meant to

imply there has been an improper use of railway funds in the

past. Rather it means that from a management control standpoint

practice, present practices are lacking in effectiveness."

Now that's a perfectly good observation. I bet that you

could go into practically any business in this province and

upgrade the accounting practices in one method or another. And

if you brought in another accountant certainly he's going to

recommend upgrading because….

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right, because he's got to do something

for his money. Now, with accounting practices, let's look at

that — with depreciation, which the Premier seems to have hung

his hat on: the railway was not depreciating properly and was

therefore trying to cook the books and show a profit which

wasn't there. What do they say about depreciation?

Mr. Speaker, it says that on January 1, 1956, the British

Columbia Railway adopted the uniform classification of accounts

prescribed by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada

and commenced depreciation capital accounting for capital

assets with the provision of $492,000 in that year. So the

railway started using the uniform classification of accounts

and commenced depreciation, which the Premier would lead you to

believe they had not done. They started this practice in 1956.

Why, this is a report from Price Waterhouse commissioned by the

Premier.

Recommendations for accounting practices. They recommend

that the company determine and define the objectives that it

wishes to achieve through depreciation practices following

which comprehensive accounting policies should be developed

which would include

definitions of what assets should be

capitalized and the value to be placed on them and the practice

to be followed in their depreciation and eventual retirement.

As I said in the beginning, the decision with regard to

depreciation, as long as it's within the accepted practices…and in this case the accepted practices of the Board of

Transport Commissioners had been followed through by the

railway.

Now as I stated previously, Mr. Speaker, you. can always have a

difference of opinion. You have Price Waterhouse, you had the previous

accountants, and now we have Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. but merely

to point out that there can be a difference of opinion among

accountants. Here is an accountant who has a high reputation. He's

being sued, in the United States, for the way he prepared the financial

statement. Now he may very well win his lawsuit and not show them

anything was done wrong. I hope he does, Mr. Speaker. But the point is,

as I'm telling you, there can be differences of opinion with regard to

accounting practices. You get three different accountants, you're going

to get three different opinions.

With regard to the engineering methods, a report was

prepared by Swan Wooster Engineering Co. There is nothing

derogatory in this report. They did say, Mr. Speaker, and I

agree, that maybe more engineering study should have been done

so that the contracts could have been more detailed. But I also

want to point out that in this same report it says that in the

construction of the railway the final cost of $340,000 per

mile, including ballast and track, taking terrain and railway

design standards into account, compares favourably with other

North American experience.

So where is all the talk of fraud on contracts we heard

yesterday afternoon in this chamber? I want to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that some of the methods being used to construct that

railway north to Fort St. John are probably saving the

taxpayers of this province and the railway hundreds of

thousands of dollars because of the methods being used and

because of the fact that it can be done in winter construction.

It's one of the first winter construction jobs ever carried on

in a railway in the history of North America, and it's because

of new methods being used. It eliminates the expense of having

to move your equipment in or close it down for the winter. One

of the prime contractors who has a majority of the contract on

that particular line is using new and innovative methods. I

think, Mr. Speaker, if you take the time to check with other

contracts which have been awarded anywhere in Canada for the

cost of moving a yard of dirt, whether it be gravel, clay or

rock, you will find that dirt is being moved on that contract

cheaper than anywhere in Canada. Again, as I go through the

report, there is nothing derogatory about the engineering that

had been previously carried on on the railway.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the management of the railway — this is

the third of the reports which the Premier had

commissioned, and this is the one that was done by Cliff Sawyer

of the 16 points of comparison — the British Columbia Railway

is judged as above average in six categories, below average in

only two categories, with the remaining eight rated as average.

He makes some recommendations for staff changes, but there is

certainly nothing in this report that would even come close to

fraud, deception, gross mismanagement or negligence on the part

of the railway.

But, Mr. Speaker, I've had an argument in this legislature with the

Premier over standards of the railway in previous debate. In November

of 1973, when the Premier wanted to pass through a bill in this House

to advance $25,000 to the railway, we had a

[ Page 3387 ]

lengthy discussion on standards.

The Premier has based the fact that he must upgrade the

railway to mainline standards on the recommendation of Mr.

Swanson who did work for the department of commercial transport

as the chief engineer and who supervised, or at least had to

check the standard of the railway, for quite some time. But we

find that the Premier used selective tabling when he tabled his

reports. I have a letter dated November 3, 1973, marked

"Personal and Confidential," to the Hon. David Barrett,

Premier of the Province of British Columbia, Parliament

Buildings, from J.S. Broadbent, vice-president, research and

development.

Mr. Broadbent says, and I quote from the letter:

"I recently read a Vancouver Province

article

which referred

to your quoting from a three-page letter you had received from

Mr. Robert E. Swanson in which he reportedly made statements

which I believe to be misleading, incorrect, and damaging to

the railway and its staff."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: It would appear that the Premier has made most

of his decisions to upgrade the railway based on this letter

and this report from Mr. Swanson. Mr. Swanson was in the employ

of the previous government, and then he was hired as a director

of the British Columbia Railway by the present government. I

just have to read some of the statements that Mr. Swanson made

when he was responsible for checking the safety of the railway

under the previous government. I'd like to quote a little

further from Mr. Broadbent's letter:

"Although I have not been afforded the opportunity of

seeing

Mr. Swanson's letter, I feel it is necessary in my position as

director and officer, and former operating officer of the

railway, to bring to your attention information that may be of

value to you as president of the company and Premier of the

Province of British Columbia.

"Following a tour of the British Columbia Railway line

1970 — then the Pacific Great Eastern Railway — Mr. Swanson, in

his year-end chief engineer's report to the Minister of

Transport, the Hon. F.X. Richter, made the following

statements: 'In summarizing the mainline between Fort St. John

and North Vancouver, it can be stated that much has been

accomplished during 1970 and the latter years of the 1960s in

bringing the entire track structure up to mainline standards.

Traffic has steadily increased, which has justified bigger

power and longer trains which, in turn, demand track and

substructures to accommodate the bigger power and heavier

trains and equipment.

"Management must, therefore, be given credit….'"

Now this is Mr. Swanson speaking, the man who later told the

Premier that safety standards and the engineering standards on

the railway were both below par. This is this man's report in

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't understand it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I don't understand it either.

"'Management must, therefore, be given credit for its

farsightedness in planning ahead of time to provide the heavier

rail, creosoted ties, crushed rock ballast, curve alignment and

upgraded bridges. These things cannot be accomplished overnight

and therefore good judgment is in evidence on the part of those

who have made the railway possible.'"

He goes on — and I'm not going to read all of the letters

from Mr. Swanson, but I do want to read one other portion. It

says, and now I'm quoting again Mr. Swanson in 1970:

"'It can be reported that the Pacific Great Eastern

Railway

is being properly maintained and properly operated,

commensurate with serving the public in a safe…'" — and I

want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, the word "safe" — "'…in a

safe and proper manner. It can also be reported that the

extensions of the railway are being located and constructed in

a proper and efficient manner.'"

Now this is a man who, two years later, wrote the Premier a

report — and the report has never been tabled in this House or

tabled with the Clerk. I tried to obtain a copy of it this

morning. The Premier did read selected parts of this letter in

Hansard on November 6, 1973, when the Premier and I had our

argument about whether it should be mainline or whether it

should be a resource railroad.

So here is an engineer, and Mr. Broadbent in concluding his

letter says:

"On reading the Swanson reports in detail it will be

noted

that when criticisms were leveled, corrective actions were

taken. In general, he finds the railway in excellent

condition."

Mr. Broadbent concludes his letter by saying:

"In conclusion, I feel that Mr. Swanson, in submitting

misleading statements to you, has violated his trust as a

professional engineer."

This is….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Last night your leader was praising Mr.

Swanson.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is the man whom the Premier of the

province hangs his hat on.

But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, what has happened to

the railway. We've talked about

[ Page 3388 ]

management of the railway, about the top management of the

railway. It is a well-known fact that there has been tremendous

political interference in the operation of the railway since

the present Premier took over as president of the railway. The

Premier says, "No, there hasn't been any political

interference," and I'm not accusing the Premier of

political interference, but I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker,

let's run down the management of the railway. Where is Mr.

Broadbent today, who was one of those men who served that

railway faithfully and built it up to what it was in 1972?

Where is Mr. Broadbent? He's gone.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Where is Mr. Esterbrook, another of the men

who helped to build and knit that railway together to one of

the finest groups of men anywhere in Canada co-operating to

make that railway a success? Where is Mr. Ester